1 25 13 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/33947b0e1c030ef764487729af6c7538.pdf ebdb5c410dc169d2898ed0e0448566b0 PDF Text Text ����� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-02-19_131 Beekman Avenue Approved Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/78e67585243fc209743f1d365cc81e77.pdf 870f1adadfe6842a2fa82567c8937cb7 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 15, 2025 Acting Chair Thomas Chang called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Chairman Chang stated that 131 Beekman LLC requested an adjournment. Present: Thomas Chang, Acting Chairman Gorete Crowe Thomas Chang Dennis Xenos Also Present: Sean E. McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Timothy Church, Chairman Sandra Tripp Craig Lis Agenda: 1) 131 Beekman LLC, 131 Beekman Avenue, Proposed basement apartment- Continued public hearing, Requested adjournment 2) SDC Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 1,3,5 Legend Drive, Proposed medical office building with attached parking structure- Public hearing- requested adjournment 3) Approval of minutes, November 20, 2024, December 18, 2024 1. 131 Beekman LLC, 131 Beekman Avenue, Proposed basement apartment- Public hearing The applicant requested an adjournment to the February 19, 2025 meeting. 2. SDC Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 1, 3, 5 Legend Drive, Proposed medical office building with attached parking structureContinued public hearing Mark Weingarten stated that he is a partner with the law firm DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, representing the applicant to request two area variances for the proposed three-story medical office building and related parking structure on Block A of the Edge-on-Hudson project. Mr. Weingarten stated that the Board requested additional information at the November 20, 2024 meeting. Materials submitted on January 9, 2025, included a letter and exhibits providing information regarding the parking supply, similar medical office buildings owned or developed by the applicant, and a memo from DTS Provident Design Engineering, 1 (ZBA 1/15/2025) �LLP that incorporated usage data supplied by our prospective tenant. Mr. Weingarten stated that he is now allowed to say publicly that Northwell Health will be the tenant. Northwell Health’s usage data for expected uses within the building was incorporated into the traffic study and the shared parking analysis originally provided to the Planning Board, and now provided as supplemental information. The support letter from John DeCicco states that the original proposed 378 parking spaces was an adequate supply for the supermarket to share with the medical office building. Mr. Weingarten described the reasoning for the creation of the 300 foot reduced height and why it should be eliminated. He provided examples of similar height variances granted by the Zoning Board within the restricted height zone. Mr. Weingarten stated that the benefits to the applicant outweigh any detrimental impact to the community in granting the requested height variance. The Board is required by law to take a balancing test in determining whether or not to issue a variance. Mr. Weingarten stated that the top of the parking structure is proposed at the same height of the medical office building, would sit well below Beekman Avenue, and preserve the viewshed. Commerical development was a critical component of the Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development master plan. The parking analysis prepared by DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLP provided expert evidence that the original 378 parking spaces and now proposed 426 were sufficient to satisfy the peak hour parking demands. Mr. Weingarten stated that the Simone Development letter provided examples of six medical office facilities that provide less parking per square foot and less on-street parking is available to the public. The letter details that the requested variances are necessary for the project to provide enough square footage and be economically feasible for the developer and the prospective tenant to proceed. Acting Chairman Chang moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Chang Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Chairman Chang solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Mr. Weingarten solicited comments from the Board. Dennis Xenos asked for the floor-to-floor heights, details regarding circulation, and handicapped-accessible parking in the parking structure. Gorette Crowe asked how many handicapped spots are provided in the garage. Brooks Slocum is the project architect from G3 Architecture Interiors Planning. Mr. Slocum stated that one lane would be provided each way for entering and exiting the parking structure. Handicapped accessible parking spaces are proposed on the surface lot and parking structure, but is unsure of the count. Thomas Chang asked if the garage parking spaces will have time limits. 2 (ZBA 1/15/2025) �Mr. Weingarten stated that time limitations are not proposed in the garage structure. They are discussing with DeCiccos about limiting the time on the surface lot to ensure that the spaces are utilized by the supermarket and not by employees staying longer in the medical facility. Ms. Crowe asked how the medical office building site will accommodate ambulette vehicles and what treatment services will be offered. Umberto Annunziata is the Development Manager for Simone Development Companies. Mr. Annunziata stated that the medical office building will offer primary care, orthopedics, neurosciences, and muscular and skeletal outpatient surgery. Mr. Slocum stated the intention is to have ambulette vehicles utilize the drop-off area, where five vehicles could park. There will also be space in the loading area. The ground floor of the parking garage could accommodate vans if needed. Ms. Crowe asked if an urgent care service would be offered in the building and if the garage structure would have a sprinkler system. Mr. Annunziata stated that urgent care services will not be offered in the medical office building, and the parking structure will not have ventilation or sprinkler systems. Mr. Weingarten stated that the medical office building would be utilized for scheduled procedures, not urgent care. Sean McCarthy stated that the parking structure will require a sprinkler system. Mr. Xenos asked the applicant to explain the circulation plan for DeCicco’s loading dock. Mark Gratz is the engineer from DTS Provident Design Engineering. Mr. Gratz explained how the delivery trucks would access the loading docks for DeCicco’s supermarket. The Board requested that the applicant submit section plans for the garage structure. Chairman Chang moved to adjourn the public hearing to the February 19, 2025, meeting. Moved: Chang Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 3. Approval of minutes, November 20, 2024, December 18, 2024 Chairman Chang moved to approve the November 20, 2024 minutes Moved: Chang Seconded: Crowe 3 Vote 4-0 (ZBA 1/15/2025) �Chairman Chang moved to approve the December 18, 2024 minutes. Moved: Chang Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 4 (ZBA 1/15/2025) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-01-15 Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/1c3d18c5bf2251e64a66405f2fe99f67.pdf 0878628c88bc29e797af64cbfaf3f410 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted February 19, 2025 Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Medical office building with attached parking structure LOCATION: 1 Legend Drive, 3 Legend Drive, and 5 Legend Drive DESIGNATION: Section 115.10, Block 1, Lots 1.6/1, 1.6/2, 1.6/3 ZONING DISTRICT: RF WHEREAS, on October 9, 2024, the Planning Board received a Planning Board application requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review approval to construct a 42,674 square foot three (3) story medical office building and attached five (5) story parking structure; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2024, the Planning Board referred the applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals to request variances for the proposed height of the building and the proposed number of required parking spaces in lieu of requesting approval from the Board of Trustees for approval of a shared parking agreement associated with the proposed Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval; and WHEREAS, on October 18, 2024, Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC (the “Owner”) authorized the submission of an application by DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP ( the “Agent”) on behalf of SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty LLC, Simone Development Companies (the “Applicant”) to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the “ZBA”) requesting area variances to construct a (3) story 42,674 square foot medical office with an attached (5) five-story parking structure (the “Application”) pursuant to the Article XII Procedure of Appeals, of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting a variance from Article VI, Section 450-20.B(5) of the Zoning Code, Riverfront Development District, height and setback restrictions, where the maximum permitted building height is 42.00 feet and the proposed building height is 52.00 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting a variance from Article VII, Section 450-41.E of the Zoning Code, Supplementary Regulations, off-street parking and loading space, where 513 parking spaces are required and 425 parking spaces are proposed; and WHEREAS, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 2024 to hear and consider the application in which all members of the public were invited to attend and comment on the Application; and Page 1 of 6 �WHEREAS, the ZBA reviewed the following documents: 1. Submission summary letter by Janet J. Giris, Partner of DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, as the Agent, dated 10/18/24 2. Zoning Board Application signed by Anne E. Kline, Esq. of DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP as the Agent, dated 10/24/24 3. Statement of Principle Points 4. Proxy statement by Peter Chavkin, Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, dated 10/17/24 5. Disclosure statement by Joseph Simone, Manager of SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty, LLC, dated 10/17/24 6. Zoning Board of Appeals Escrow Agreement signed by Anne E. Kline, Esq. of DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, as the Agent, dated 10/18/24 7. Zoning Compliance Form prepared by Mark Gratz, P.E., DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLP, dated 10/17/24 8. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1-Project information, dated 10/18/24 9. Block A- Shared Parking Analysis Memorandum by DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLP, dated 2/7/24 10. Figure No. 1, RF District –Building Height Zones, Figure No. 1, dated 10/9/24 11. SP-1.0- Block A Site Layout Plan prepared by Gerhard Martin Schwalbe, last revised 10/3/24 12. Westchester County Recording Page and deed dated 1/11/16 13. Design update illustrations for Medical Office Building prepared by G3 Architecture Interiors Planning, dated 10/17/24 as follows: a) View 1- view from DeCicco’ s Parking lot b) View 2- view from DeCicco’s Parking lot c) View 3- view from Beekman Avenue d) View 4- view from Legend Drive e) View 5- view from corner of Maxwell & Legend Drive f) View 6- view from southeast g) View 7- view from northeast h) View 8- campus vernacular & adjacent buildings i) Height Analysis- Barnhart Park Overlook- existing and proposed view from Barnhart Park j) Height Analysis-Zoning Height, Building Elevation and Building Section k) Height Analysis-Contextual Analysis, Site Section and Rendered View Legend Drive l) Site Plan-Proposed Site Plan m) Site Plan/Circulation Studies- Proposed Site Plan 14. Submission letter by Anne E. Kline of DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, dated 11/1/24 15. Westchester County Recording & Endorsement Page for Declaration dated 6/23/22 and Declaration for Establishing a Plan Condominium Ownership for Tax lots, dated 5/11/22 WHEREAS, the ZBA considered testimony from the Applicants’ Agents, the Board, and the public comments received in person and in writing regarding the proposed Application; and WHEREAS, on 11/14/24, the Building Department determined that public notices were defective; and Page 2 of 6 �WHEREAS, at the 11/21/24 meeting, the ZBA adjourned the public hearing to the December 18, 2024 meeting and requested the Agent re notice the public hearing for the December 18, 2024 meeting; , WHEREAS, on December 13, 2024, the Agent submitted completed proof of mailings for the December, 18, 2024 meeting; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, an adjournment request was received from the Applicant’s attorney to adjourn the public hearing to the January 15, 2025 meeting; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2024, the ZBA adjourned the public hearing to the January 15, 2025 meeting; and WHEREAS, the ZBA held a continued public hearing on January 15, 2025, to hear and consider the application in which all members of the public were invited to attend and comment on the Application; and WHEREAS, the ZBA reviewed the following supplemental documents: 1. Submission summary letter by Mark P. Weingarten, Partner, DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, dated 1/9/25 2. Letter by Joseph Simone, President, Simone Development Companies, dated 1/8/25 3. Memorandum by DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLP, dated 1/6/25 4. Letter by John DeCicco, CEO, DeCicco & Sons, dated 6/6/24 5. Correspondence by Henry Dong, dated 12/9/24 6. Correspondence by Joseph and Mary Louise Grotzinger 7. Correspondence by Christopher Peuler 8. Correspondence by Kenneth Chan 9. Correspondence by Xin Dai WHEREAS, the ZBA considered testimony from the Applicant, the project attorney, architect, and engineer, Village Architect, the ZBA, and public comments received in-person and in writing regarding the proposed Application; and WHEREAS, on January 15, 2025, the ZBA adjourned the public hearing to the February 19, 2025 meeting; and WHEREAS, the ZBA held a continued public hearing on February 19, 2025, to hear and consider the application in which all members of the public were invited to attend and comment on the Application; and WHEREAS, the ZBA reviewed the following supplemental documents: 1. Submission summary letter Megan Guy, Senior Vice President of Development, Simone Development Companies, dated 1/28/25. 2. Plans by Unistress dated 8/30/24 as follows: a. F2.2 - level-2 Plan Page 3 of 6 �b. c. d. e. f. PK2.1- Level-1 Parking Plan PK2.2- Level-2 Parking Plan PK2.3-Level-3 Parking Plan PK2.4-Level-4 Parking Plan PK2.5-Level-5 Parking Plan WHEREAS, the ZBA considered testimony from the Applicants, project attorney, architect, engineers, the ZBA, and public comments received in-person and in writing, regarding the proposed Application; and WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the applicant should be granted the area variances, the ZBA considered the following factors: 1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in the State Environment Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) 6 NYCRR Part 617, and of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, and the documents submitted to the ZBA, and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and RESOLVED, after due consideration, the ZBA makes the following determination for the requested variances: 1. Granting the variance for the parking structure's 52-foot height will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood's character nor a detrimental effect on the neighboring properties as the structure will be 4 feet higher than adjacent residential buildings, which were granted variances for 48 feet within the 42-foot reduced height zone. 2. Granting the variance for the parking structure’s 52-foot height is the feasible method to achieve the benefit sought to add 48 parking spaces on a site that is physically constrained from creating additional on-grade parking. 3. The requested variance for the parking structure’s 52-foot height is unsubstantial compared to the 65-foot height of the DeCicco’s supermarket building tower and North Light Building. 4. The parking structure will not adversely affect the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. Page 4 of 6 �5. The DeCicco & Sons supermarket and the proposed medical facility tenant have endorsed the requested parking variance, proposing 425 shared parking spaces where 513 are required, as adequate for the projected number of staff and patrons during the site's maximum peak demands. 6. The plan satisfies the required number of accessible parking spaces and provides for managing loading areas. 7. Although the requested variances are self-created hardships, it is not the only factor the Board considers when approving area variances. Page 5 of 6 �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-02-19 _5 Legend Drive Approved Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/62e93f017098c6c1e8f026cbd6fbbcb5.pdf 8e1b4ecc66a0013938433774d0801933 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting February 19, 2025 Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Gorete Crowe Sandra Tripp Dennis Xenos Craig Lis Also Present: Sean E. McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Thomas Chang Carol Lyden Agenda: 1) 131 Beekman LLC, 131 Beekman Avenue, Proposed basement apartment- Continued public hearing, Requested adjournment 2) SDC Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 1,3,5 Legend Drive, Proposed medical office building with attached parking structure- Public hearing- requested adjournment 3) Approval of minutes, January 15, 2025 1. 131 Beekman LLC, 131 Beekman Avenue, Proposed basement apartment- Continued Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the Board is continuing a public hearing from December and described the additional information received on February 18, 2025. Maximillian Mahalek stated that he is an attorney from Cuddy + Feder LLP, who is representing the applicant. Mr. Mahalek stated that the application proposes to add the lower level studio dwelling unit to an existing two-family residence where (5) parking spaces are required and (2) standard spaces and (1) compact parking space are proposed. The compact space was increased to be 8 feet wide by 17 feet long and shifted to the east to provide 2 feet of egress in front of the parking space. The maneuvering diagram shows that vehicles can access the garage and the parking area of 129 Beekman Avenue while a car is parked in the compact parking space. Mr. Mahalek presented a survey from 1919 and described the history of the easement and the shared driveway. Mr. Mahalek presented the photograph of the two-car garage to confirm that it is used for tenant parking. Mr. Mahalek said that November submission requested interpretation requests 1 (ZBA 2/19/2025) �and in the alternative variance requests. Based on the Board’s determination at the December meeting, the Applicant is requesting the atternative variance requests. Chairman Church stated that the number of parking spaces is consistent with the neighboring buildings. The applicant is seeking to add a studio dwelling unit where it is unlikely the tenant would need more than one parking space, and a bedroom could be added to the two-family dwelling without additional parking space requirements. The demarcation of the compact parking space would provide more safety on site. The proposed third dwelling unit will not impact the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. An approval would include a condition for the applicant to designate (1) off-street parking space for each unit without charging an additional rental fee and restrict the owner and tenants from renting parking spaces for other purposes. The applicant may return to the Board if they object to the condition related to the parking without a public hearing. Mr. Mahalek stated that he would review the condition with the Applicant. Chairman Church moved to approve the application with the conditions. Moved: Chang Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Gorete Crowe- yes Craig Lis- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Dennis Xenos- yes Vote 5-0 2. SDC Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 1, 3, 5 Legend Drive, Proposed medical office building with attached parking structureContinued public hearing Chairman Church stated that this is a continuation of the public hearing. The Board received supplemental submissions for the January meeting and tonight's meeting. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the updates. Mark Weingarten stated that he is a partner with the law firm DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, representing the applicant to request two area variances for the proposed medical office building and related parking structure on Block A of the Edge-onHudson project. Mr. Weingarten stated thathe board requested additional information at the November 20, 2024 meeting. A letter was submitted on January 9, 2024, and a presentation was made at the January 15, 2025, meeting to respond to the Board’s requests and comments. The public hearing was adjourned so they could address the Board’s additional comments and requests. Simone Development submitted a letter and plans to address concerns about accessible parking spaces, garage floor-to-floor ceiling heights, and the sprinkler and ventilation system. 2 (ZBA 2/19/2025) �Chairman Church stated that public comments were received requesting the applicant to confirm the proposed height of the building. Brooks Slocum, the project architect from G3 Architecture Interiors Planning, stated that the proposed building height is 52 feet from the top of the parking deck to the highest portion of the inside part of the garage. There was a discussion about the heights of the building, bulkheads, parapet, and where the highest point is 58 feet. Dennis Xenos asked if the garage is attached to the medical office building. Mr. Slocum stated the garage is attached to the medical office building but will not provide accessibility to the building from inside the parking structure. Chairman Church asked what the height would be if the garage's top level were eliminated. Mr. Slocum stated that the highest point of the garage building would be 47.6 feet. Mr. Weingarten stated that the extra garage level was added at the request of the Planning Board due to public concerns. The shared parking analysis showed adequate parking without the extra garage level. The request to add more parking activated the need for the requested variances. Mr. Weingarten stated that Northwell Health and John DeCicco submitted letters stating that there would be adequate parking for their facilities. There was a discussion regarding the height comparisons of neighboring buildings in the development, previously granted variances and prospective views from other Village areas. There was a discussion regarding the site circulation for the typical medical office building visitor and pedestrian. Mr. Weingarten stated that the applicant is working with John DeCicco on limitations for convenience parking spaces. Northwell Health would encourage its staff to park on the top garage levels. As part of the approval, a Parking Management Plan will be worked out with the Planning Board to ensure spaces are available for those who should be using them. Signage for parking space limitations will also be part of the Planning Board's approval. Gorete Crowe asked how parking limitations would be enforced without parking meters. Mr. Weingarten stated that, as part of the Planning Board's signage approval, they could tow vehicles that violate private property. Megan Guy is Simone's Senior Vice President of Development. Ms. Guy stated that they would have someone mark the tires with chalk. Surface parking is a common element that the Condominium Board, including Simone and DeCiccos, would manage. 3 (ZBA 2/19/2025) �Chairman Church asked if Northwell Health provided projected estimates for the medical office building's parking needs and occupancy. Umberto Annuniziata is Simone's development manager. Mr. Annuniziata said Northwell projects serving 418 patients per day or 42 patients per hour, and project to have 135 staff members per day, which includes 23 doctors and 112 non-doctor staff. There was a discussion on how the required parking spaces for the shared site are calculated based on square footage and the proposed use of the spaces. Mr. Weingarten stated that the parking ratio requirements for medical office use in Sleepy Hollow are higher than those in neighboring Westchester County communities, and off-street parking spaces provided throughout the development are not counted. Based on the proposed medical office building's square footage, 285 parking spaces are required. Brian Dempsey is an engineer with DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLC, representing the applicant. Mr. Dempsey described the shared parking analysis. Ms. Crowe asked if there are plans to rent the parking spaces at night. Mr. Weingarten stated that the private parking is strictly for commercial use. Mr. Weingarten said the applicant is before the Board because they are adding parking. If the Zoning Board doesn’t grant the variances, the applicant's only choice is to go back to the Planning Board and tell them they must approve the application with the original 378 parking spaces. Northwell will not build the smaller building, so the applicant requires the size and the parking. Chairman Church Tim asked Mr. Weingarten to provide supporting details that Northwell would not rent a smaller building. Mr. Weingarten stated that Simone Development provided a letter stating Northwell would not consider a smaller building. Simone Development will not construct the building without a financially feasible return and could walk away from the current owner of the condominium site. Mr. Annunziatta stated that they would have to reduce the medical office building to 22,500 square feet so as not to require variances. Ms. Guy stated that a smaller building would not be a financially feasible investment for Simone Development. Chairman Church asked Ms. Guy if there was a feasible alternative to the structure's height. Mark Gratz is an engineer from DTS Provident Design Engineering LLP. Mr. Gratz presented the site plan and described why the building layout couldn’t be spread out on grade. 4 (ZBA 2/19/2025) �There was a discussion relating to the proposed height of the building and views from different locations. Chairman Church moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Chairman Church moved to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church stated that DeCiccos has endorsed the proposed number of parking spaces. The parking appears adequate for the projected number of employees and patients expected to be on site. However, he has concerns about requiring the employees to park on the top level of the parking structure. Mr. Weingarten said that they had discussed employee parking with Northwell, who agreed to have their employees park on the top level of the garage and that there would be signage that limited the amount of time they could spend on the surface lot. John DeCicco will work out the employee parking requirements with their staff. Church suggested that a condition should include working with the Building Department to manage parking. Mr. Weingarten stated that the Parking Management Plan will be a part of the Site Plan approval. Chairman Church stated that the application satisfies the required number of accessible parking spaces and has a plan for managing patient drop-offs. Removing the fifth parking garage level would eliminate the proposed 48 additional parking spaces. Mr. Xenos stated that the parking area is a private location serving the three tenants. It will not be accessible to or serve the Village. The Board is reviewing the parking requirements to determine if the site would be detrimental to the Village. Mr. Weingarten stated that the property owner and the developer are more concerned about creating a parking issue because they still need to build and construct expensive residential and commercial spaces. Discussions related to the proposed building mass, what was approved in the master plan, and concerns about setting precedents when granting variances for building height were held. Chairman Church stated that the Board has granted variances for residential building heights from 42 feet to 48 feet. The height of the parking platform in the center of the building drives an 5 (ZBA 2/19/2025) �additional 4 feet. It will not be visible from standing next to the building and conforms with the view from Beekman Avenue as it slopes down. The requested building height would not produce a substantial or undesirable change in the neighborhood's character nor have a detrimental effect on the neighboring properties. There is no other feasible method to reduce the height of the building and come close to the zoning parking requirements. It is a minimum variance to achieve the benefits sought by the application to meet the physical parking needs of DeCicco’s and the medical facility. The parking structure will not have an environmental impact on the neighborhood. A commercial space was planned in this location so it would not impact the neighborhood's character. Although it is a self-created hardship, it is not the only factor the Board considers. A condition of the approval will require the Planning Board to review the site parking management plan and signage plan as part of the site plan approval. Chairman Church moved to approve the application with the conditions. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Gorete Crowe- yes Craig Lis- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Dennis Xenos- yes Vote 5-0 3. Approval of minutes, January 15, 2025 Chairman Church tabled the minutes of the March 19, 2025, meeting. Chairman Chang moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:38 PM. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 6 (ZBA 2/19/2025) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-02-19 Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d03cdc88753df4b3db30a1cb8464ff1c.pdf e1fb283626d899e835f862430151ac0b PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting April 16, 2024 Acting Chairman Craig Lis called the meeting to order at 7:15 pm and read the agenda. Present: Craig Lis, Acting Chairman Gorete Crowe Sandra Tripp Dennis Xenos Also Present: Sean E. McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Timothy Church, Chairman Thomas Chang Carol Lyden Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda: 1) 50 on Hudson St. LLC, 50 Hudson St. LLC, Proposed three-family residence- Public hearing 2) Approval of minutes, January 15, 2025, February 19, 2025 1. 50 on Hudson St. LLC, Proposed three-family residence- Public hearing Chairman Lis read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and confirmed with Sean McCarthy that the Building Department received proof of the mailing receipts. Brian Hopkins stated that he is the owner, architect, and developer. Mr. Hopkins stated that Hudson Street contains single, two, and three-family residences. Mr. Hopkins presented the parking availability diagram and stated that there are houses on Hudson Street that do not have parking spaces. The application proposes to add three parking spaces where a single parking space exists. An easement agreement was established with Toby White, the owner of 48 Hudson Street, to add a parking spot in the rear of her property and to create a shared driveway to access the parking spaces for both properties. Mr. Hopkins presented the neighborhood site photos and stated that the application proposes to keep the house close to the street to preserve the character of Hudson Street. Hudson Street is adjacent to the Edge-on-Hudson development, with four and five-story buildings with similar architectural features. Mr. Hopkins stated that 46 Hudson Street is a three-family residence under construction and should be considered a precedent for the 50 Hudson Street Application. 1 (ZBA 4/16/2025) �Mr. Hopkins stated that the easement between 48 and 50 Hudson Street would result in an increased combined lot area and reduced lot coverage. The narrow lot width restricts the design of the floor plans to fit the building on the site. Dennis Xenos stated that the application requests approval for one parking space in the rear of 48 Hudson Street. Mr. Xenos asked Sean McCarthy if 48 Hudson Street requires a certain number of parking spots. Sean McCarthy stated that the current application is before the Planning Board for site plan approval. The 48 Hudson Street property has required parking, but it is an existing nonconforming building. Mr. Hopkins stated that the proposed building complies with the height requirements. Setting back the fourth story by eight feet makes the building appear at the scale of a three-story structure from the street view. Mr. Hopkins described the architectural details and stated that the third dwelling unit is proposed as a duplex on the third and fourth floors. Mr. Hopkins stated that the changes to the Site Plan include moving the trash area to the front of the property, adding a bicycle rack in the rear yard, and changes to the colors of the façade. The parking area was reoriented by thirty degrees, now providing two full-size parking spaces, one compact space, and the ability to plant an additional tree. Mr. Hopkins reviewed his responses to the five criteria factors for granting area variances. Chairman Lis asked Mr. McCarthy to describe the difference between the requested parking variances. Mr. McCarthy stated that the first variance applies to the overall number of required parking spaces for the proposed building. The applicant proposes three spaces, while seven are required based on the unit and bedroom counts. Compact parking spaces are permitted when the applicant has sixty percent of the required full-size spaces. Although the revised application requests a variance for one compact space, technically, compact spaces are not permitted. Gorete Crowe asked Mr. Hopkins if the house could be set back to add a parking space in the front yard or if an extra parking space could be created in lieu of the bicycle rack. Mr. Hopkins stated that the Planning Board would not allow parking in front of the house, and the required turning radius could not be achieved where the bike rack is proposed. Mr. Xenos asked Mr. Hopkins for the total square footage of the units. Mr. Hopkins stated that the proposed square footage is 4,620. The Board discussed the proposed architectural design and materials. Chairman Lis stated that the architectural design is not within the Zoning Board’s purview. 2 (ZBA 4/16/2025) �Chairman Lis moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Chairman Lis solicited comments from the public. William White stated that he is the son of one of the owners of 48 Hudson Street and lives in California. Mr. White stated that the proposed structure is out of place in the community. He and several of his neighbors objected to the application approved at 46 Hudson Street. He described complaints regarding the developer, the construction of 46 Hudson Street, and the effects on 48 Hudson Street. Mr. White said the application should be returned to the Planning Board for redesign. Chairman Lis stated that the Zoning Board is reviewing the requested variances. The proposed building design for 50 Hudson Street, or the complaints regarding the 46 Hudson developer, are not part of the application. Mr. Hopkins stated that he was not the developer for 46 Hudson Street. He has worked with Toby White, the owner of 48 Hudson Street, to propose the parking space she requested. Toby White is the owner of 48 Hudson Street. She is very pleased with her communications with Mr. Hopkins and wishes to have a dedicated parking spot. She supports the proposed application. Chairman Lis moved to adjourn the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Chairman Lis explained to Mr. Hopkins that when only four Board members are present, the vote must be unanimous to grant requested variances. The Applicant may defer the vote to the next meeting when more Board members are present. Mr. Xenos asked Mr. McCarthy to explain the requested variances related to the lot area and width. Mr. McCarthy explained the lot area and width requirements for a three-family residence on a non-conforming lot. As of right, a single-family residence is permitted on a non-conforming lot. A portion of the existing house is over the property line. Proposing a two-family residence would require reduced parking variances and may reduce the coverage. The Board and the applicant discussed the changes in the Zoning Code, which have allowed for increased density and three-family dwellings in certain areas of the Village, including Hudson Street. The Board discussed whether the proposed application would affect a future request to add more parking at 48 Hudson Street and the possible benefits of future connections with other properties that could reduce the need for street parking. 3 (ZBA 4/16/2025) �Chairman Lis asked Mr. Hopkins if he would like to defer the vote to the May 21, 2025 meeting. Mr. Hopkins agreed to defer the Board’s vote on the application to the May 21, 2025 meeting. Chairman Lis moved to adjourn the application to the May 21, 2025 meeting. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Vote 4-0 2. Approval of minutes, January 15, 2025, February 19, 2025 Chairman Lis moved to approve the minutes from the January 15, 2025 and the February 19, 2025 meetings. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Craig Lis, Acting Chairman- yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Dennis Xenos- yes Vote 4-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 4 (ZBA 4/16/2025) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-04-16 Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/6a7b6d448724b2c42626892d51269727.pdf 0cf81f96dd318f65ce0b0f8823f6d123 PDF Text Text ������ Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-05-21_50 Hudson Street Approved ZBA resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/a8f173ad1fa6fb602409ae90b2bfe453.pdf 20ae15edecdea70dc683a8b971e7c6e0 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting May 21, 2025 Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Chairman Church stated that the 50 on Hudson Street LLC application is a continued public hearing from April 16, 2025. Since that meeting, the Board has received two public comment letters and revised plans from the applicant. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Craig Lis Sandra Tripp Dennis Xenos Carol Lyden Also Present: Sean E. McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Thomas Chang Gorete Crowe Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda: 1) 50 on Hudson St. LLC, 50 Hudson St. LLC, Proposed three-family residence- Public hearing 2) Approval of minutes, April 16, 2025 1. 50 on Hudson St. LLC, Proposed three-family residence- Public hearing Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the changes made to the application. Brian Hopkins is the owner and the architect. He summarized the architectural changes per the Planning Board's comments and stated that the changes do not affect the requested zoning variances. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins to compare the proposed building's size with that of the existing non-conforming structure and describe what is driving the increase in the proposed building's coverage. Mr. Hopkins presented the Zoning Analysis and stated that the new building structure proposes to increase the coverage by 132 square feet. The current building is existing non-conforming as it relates to building coverage and setback lines on the north and west sides of the property lines. The shape of the lot and the desire to have two bedrooms on each floor plate drive the requested 1 (ZBA 5/21/2025) �increase in building coverage. Mr. Hopkins described how the proposed building would conform more to the required setbacks. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. Hopkins if the existing structure is a single-family home. Mr. Hopkins confirmed that the existing structure is a single-family home. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins to compare the sizes of full and compact parking spaces. Mr. Hopkins stated that the revised application proposed one compact and two full-size parking spaces. The two full-size parking spaces are 9 and 1/2 feet wide, and the compact space is 8 and 1/2 feet wide. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins if the plan could be adjusted to include 3 full-size parking spaces. Mr. Hopkins said the compact space could be widened to a full size while still providing the required turning radius. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins to confirm the proposed number of bedrooms and to explain why the requested variance for compact parking spaces changed. Mr. Hopkins stated that the Planning Board recommended the reorientation of the parking area to increase the width. Sean McCarthy stated that reorienting the parking area eliminates the variance for compact parking spaces. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins to compare the neighborhoods’ lot coverage on Hudson Street. Mr. Hopkins presented Zoning Metrics and stated there is precedent for building structure size at 34 and 46 Hudson Street. Chairman Church stated that the proposed building on 50 Hudson Street would cover 36 percent of the lot, whereas 46 Hudson Street covers 24 percent of the lot, with a different footprint. Mr. Hopkins stated that the shared driveway easement agreement with 48 Hudson Street increases the functional lot size of 50 Hudson Street to 4,299 square feet. He presented bulk, style, and layout comparisons. He stated that similar variances were approved for 46 Hudson Street for a three-family building with the same unit configuration proposed for 50 Hudson Street. 2 (ZBA 5/21/2025) �Sandra Tripp asked if the coverage area proportions were calculated with or without the easement. Mr. Hopkins stated that the coverage area calculations do not include the easement area. Craig Lis stated the lot area coverage for 46 Hudson Street is not much different from the proposed coverage at 50 Hudson Street, other than the cars parking in the driveway at 46 Hudson Street. Ms. Tripp stated that the demolition of the existing structure, proposed development, and the shared driveway easement agreement allow a fourth car to get off the street by providing a parking space for 48 Hudson Street. Chairman Church moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Clara Teagle stated that she lives at 38 Hudson Street and has submitted a comment letter to the Board (See attached Exhibit #2). Mr. Teagle summarized her opposition to the modern building style, required lot area for a three-family residence, parking requirements and accessibility, and the effect on the 48 Hudson Street property. Chairman Church stated that the applicant agreed to plan revisions for the three full-size parking spaces to eliminate the variance for the compact parking space. The building department will confirm the required access to the parking spaces at 50 Hudson Street and 48 Hudson Street. William White is a resident of 48 Hudson Street. Mr. White stated that he is not opposed to a new structure but is concerned that the proposed project and easement will impede the options for future construction of a unit on 48 Hudson Street. The Board received correspondence from Mr. White on 5/9/25 (See attached Exhibit #1) Chairman Church moved to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Church suggested that the Board approve the revised application that eliminates that variance for a compact space by providing (3) full size parking spaces and include the condition for the applicant to designate (1) off-street parking space for each unit without charging an additional rental fee and restrict the owner and tenants from renting parking spaces for other purposes. The new structure will improve the front yard and combined side yard setbacks. The proposed site plan and driveway easement with 48 Hudson Street will create (1) parking space at 48 Hudson Street and (3) parking spaces at 50 Hudson Street where no parking spaces are currently available. Approval of the application will not restrict the owner of 48 Hudson Street from submitting an application to increase the number of units and the easement will provide a 3 (ZBA 5/21/2025) �better opportunity for future development. The proposed application would provide a benefit to the neighborhood. The benefit sought by owner to demolish the existing structure and to construct a building that increases the off-street parking availability by four parking spots is a feasible method. The proposed building footprint coverage is not out of character with other houses on the street and is not overly substantial. Approval of the application will not impact the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The construction of a house that is within the property lines will provide a benefit to the physical conditions of the neighborhood. Although it is a self-created hardship the applicant is proposing a more conforming building in terms of the setbacks, and it is not the only factor the Board considers when granting approval. Chairman Church moved to approve the revised including the amended conditions. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Craig Lis- yes Carol Lyden- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Dennis Xenos- yes Vote 5-0 2. Approval of minutes, April 16, 2025 Chairman Lis moved to approve the minutes from the January 15, 2025 and the February 19, 2025 meetings. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Chairman Church, Chairman- yes Craig Lis- yes Carol Lyden- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Dennis Xenos- yes Vote 4-0 Chairman Church moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:47 PM. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 4 (ZBA 5/21/2025) �Exhibit #1 From: To: Subject: Date: William White Sean McCarthy Opposition to 50 Hudson St. redevelopment Thursday, May 8, 2025 9:48:34 PM Dear Chairpersons Krakauer and Church, I am writing as a concerned resident of 48 Hudson Street Sleepy Hollow, to express my opposition to the proposed redevelopment of 50 Hudson Street into a three-family residence, as currently presented. Architectural Incompatibility The proposed design features a flat roof and modern façade materials that starkly contrast with the traditional architectural styles prevalent on Hudson Street. The neighborhood is characterized by historic homes with gable roofs and classic detailing, contributing to the village's unique charm. Introducing a modern structure with a flat roof disrupts this architectural harmony and sets a concerning precedent for future developments. Zoning Variances and Overdevelopment The proposal requires multiple significant variances from the Village Code, including: Lot Area and Width: The existing lot area is 3,479 sq.ft., below the minimum required 5,000 sq.ft. The lot width is 37 ft., under the required 50 ft. Setbacks: The proposed front yard setback is 9.4 ft. (minimum required is 20 ft.), and the side yard setback is 3 ft. (minimum required is 5 ft.), with combined side yards at 7.3 ft. (minimum required is 15 ft.). Building Coverage: The proposal exceeds the maximum allowed building coverage of 30% by proposing 36%. �current proposal for 50 Hudson Street and request a redesign that aligns more closely with the traditional architectural elements of Hudson Street, including the incorporation of a gable roof and adherence to zoning regulations. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, William C. White 48 Hudson Street �Parking: Only three parking spaces are proposed, whereas seven are required by code. All proposed spaces are compact, which may not accommodate standard vehicles effectively. Concerns Regarding Prior Variance at 46 Hudson Street I would also like to bring to your attention the negative impacts resulting from the variance previously granted to 46 Hudson Street. The decision to allow the developer to move the structure closer to 48 Hudson Street has led to unintended consequences, including: Loss of Sunlight: The reduced distance between the buildings has significantly diminished natural light for the adjacent property, affecting the quality of life we enjoyed for decades. Wind Tunnel Effect: The narrowed space between the structures has created a wind tunnel, leading to increased wind noise and vibrations. These outcomes highlight the importance of thoroughly evaluating the potential impacts of granting variances on neighboring properties and the overall community. Granting these variances would not only strain the existing infrastructure but also encourage overdevelopment in a neighborhoods that thrives on its historical scale and character. Community Impact The proposed design scale and modern aesthetic are inconsistent with the existing streetscape. The insufficient parking provision could exacerbate existing parking challenges, leading to increased congestion and safety concerns. Conclusion While I understand the need for development and modernization, it is crucial that new constructions respect and reflect the historical and architectural context of their surroundings. I urge the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to reconsider the �Exhibit #2 From: To: Subject: Date: Clara Teagle Sean McCarthy; Martin Rutyna Opposition to 50 Hudson St. Redevelopment Proposal Wednesday, May 21, 2025 12:17:10 PM ****[CAUTION: This email originated from an external source. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.]**** To: Chairperson Lindsay Krakauer, Chairperson Timothy Church I am a concerned resident of 38 Hudson Street, Sleepy Hollow, NY. This letter is to express my opposition to the proposal for the redevelopment of 50 Hudson Street into a three-family residence. Design The proposed design is a totally modern building that is inconsistent with properties on Hudson Street. Zoning Variances The proposal requires many significant variances from the Sleepy Hollow Village zoning code in addition to an easement to accommodate building a structure on a lot size that is too small. Lot Area and Width Ft. Minimum Required Lot Area           5,000 Sq.          Proposed Lot Area Sq. Ft. 5,000          Existing Lot Area Sq. Ft. 3,479 Variance 1,521 �Sq. Ft.          Minimum Required Lot Width                          50.0 Ft.          Proposed Lot Width                                           50.0 Ft.          Existing Lot Width                                              37.0 Ft Ft. Variance                                                              13.0 Setbacks          Minimum Required Side Yard                           5.0 Ft.          Proposed Side Yard                                            3.0 Ft.          Existing Side Yard                                               2.8 Ft          Variance                                                              0.2 Ft.          Minimum Required Combined Side Yard        15.0 Ft.          Proposed Combined Side Yard                         7.3 Ft.          Existing Combined Side Yard                            2.8 Ft.          Variance                                                              7.7 Ft. �Building Coverage          Maximum required Building Coverage            30%          Proposed Building Coverage                             36%          Existing Building Coverage                                32% Parking According to Article VII, 450-41.E of the zoning code, seven (7) spaces are required for a three-family home. The proposal is for three (3). According to Article VII, 450-41.A.(4) of the zoning code Permitted compact parking spaces is zero (0). The proposal is for three (3). In the application, Page 3 of 6, Item f., the applicant/developer referred to arriving at the architectural solution by using the same approach to Setbacks and Parking that was used for 46 Hudson Street. The setback variance approved for that house compromised the property of 48 Hudson Street. As configured, the parking at 46 Hudson Street will not accommodate three (3) cars parked perpendicular or at an angle – not standard size cars and unlikely compact cars. The property at 50 Hudson Street is much smaller so there will be insufficient parking, which will further exacerbate the parking problem. I urge both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board to clearly recognize and acknowledge that the design in the current proposal for 50 Hudson Street should be redesigned to align more closely with the other �properties on Hudson Street and that there is compliance with the zoning regulations. Thank you. Clara Teagle 38 Hudson Street � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-05-21 Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/cb0ec81a167625797a0823b362e0ae87.pdf 02c59ef8c08b5a550d80f165068d90ab PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 17, 2025 Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Sandra Tripp Dennis Xenos Carol Lyden Thomas Chang Also Present: Sean E. McCarthy, Village Architect Absent Craig Lis Gorete Crowe Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda: 1) Joseph and Devin Bandelli, 274 Kelbourne Avenue, Proposed pool, fence, wall, gatePublic hearing 2) KWD Realty Inc., 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed 4-story self-storage buildingPublic hearing 3) Approval of minutes, July 16, 2025 1. Joseph and Devin Bandelli, 274 Kelbourne Avenue, Proposed pool, fence, wall, gatePublic hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and confirmed with Sean McCarthy that the Building Department received proof of the mailing receipts. Daniel Sherman stated that he is the architect representing the applicants. He summarized the application and requested that the street front, with the driveway and the front door, be designated as the principal front yard. He presented design inspirations and stated that the pool is intended to resemble a fountain, and the wall would appear as a terrace. Mr. Sherman presented the rendered views of the wall and stated that it is intended to look like a terrace from the street. The brick wall materials will match the house. The pool filter would be located in the basement, eliminating the need for rock removal or cutting of tree roots. He presented a section illustration to demonstrate that the pool will not be visible from the street. He described why the four-foot high iron fencing is proposed, despite the permitted maximum fence height being three feet. Devin Bandelli stated that the four-foot high fencing would match the fence height of the neighboring properties' rear yard. 1 (ZBA 9/17/2025) �Chairman Church stated that the sidewalk is commonly used by pedestrians walking to and from the train station. He asked Mr. Sherman to show rendered views from the sidewalk. Mr. Sherman presented photographs of views from the street and described the proposed landscape screening. Chairman Church stated that he visited the site. The adjacent properties to the south and east are at higher elevations, so the proposed five-foot high wall or the four-foot high iron fence would not affect the viewsheds. The use of reclaimed brick materials would make it hard to differentiate the wall from the main house. The installation of a four-foot high gate would not affect the views compared to the 6-foot-high stone wall. The proposed application would not affect the character of the neighborhood. Dennis Xenos asked Ms. Bandelli to describe the proposed gate. Ms. Bandelli stated that they propose to install a wrought iron gate for safety that will swing inward and not affect pedestrians walking by. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to clarify the proposed pool setback. Sean McCarthy stated that the wall enclosure is considered part of the pool structure. Although the distance to the pool is 20 feet, the setback is actually 12 feet from the terrace wall. Mr. Xenos inquired whether the proposed pool terrace wall is similar to a retaining wall and asked if the existing stone wall would remain. Mr. McCarthy stated that the proposed wall would serve as a privacy screening wall, appearing as a terrace. Ms. Bandelli stated that they plan on rebuilding the stone wall to ensure it is structurally sound. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Planning Board has requested that the applicant have an engineer evaluate the condition of the stonewall as part of the review of the site plan application. Mr. Xenos asked if the proposed pool is saltwater and how many gallons of water would be needed. Mr. Sherman stated that a salt converter will be part of the pool equipment. If the application is approved, the applicant will select a pool contractor who will submit the technical details to the Building Department for review. He was not aware of how many gallons of water the pool would require. Mr. Sherman described that the landscape plan was designed to screen the pool structure. 2 (ZBA 9/17/2025) �Chairman Church stated the fence material should be aesthetically pleasing. If the application is approved for the installation of wrought iron fencing, the Board often includes a condition that requires the applicant to maintain the approved material and style. Since granted variances are subject to the land and remain in effect, unless amended, a change in the fencing material would be considered a violation of the approval and subject to enforcement. Mr. McCarthy stated that a small portion of the proposed fence is within the fifteen-foot setback. Fencing beyond the fifteen-foot setback is permitted to be five feet high. Sandra Tripp stated the requested variance for the four-foot high fence is driven by the New York State requirements for pool surrounds. Mr. Sherman stated that the four-foot fence height complies with New York State Code. Other municipalities have higher height requirements. Chairman Church moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Bob Welch stated that he is the owner of 260 Kelbourne Avenue, which is the property east of the Bandellis. Mr. Welch stated that the work completed to date maintains the design of the house and the culture of the neighborhood. He agreed that safety protection is required due to the risks of the commuter traffic coming around the blind corner up to the applicant's house. He agreed that the pool and wall would not be visible from the near side of the sidewalk, and the proposed landscaping would screen the view of the pool wall from the far side of the road. He agreed that the pool would not be visible from his house and that the design would not affect the viewpoints of the neighboring properties. Mr. Welch requested that Mr. Sherman correct the property survey to reflect the location of the air conditioning units and to revise the drawings to indicate that the pool mechanics will be located inside the house. He asked if the five-foot tall iron fencing at the top left of his property line would match the existing railings. Chairman Church stated that the fencing at the northwest property line is not subject to a variance. Chairman Church moved to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Church recommended that the Board approve the application with the conditions that if the black wrought iron fence design is changed, the Building Inspector has the right to reconsider the approval, and that the proposed plantings are installed and maintained in perpetuity with the landscape plan. The locations of the proposed pool, wall, and landscaping minimize the interruption of views from neighboring properties to the east and south, and they would not be visible from the street. The use of reclaimed brick for the walls would match the existing house, and the wrought iron fencing would be aesthetically pleasing. The benefit sought 3 (ZBA 9/17/2025) �by the applicant for the pool may be feasible on the west side of the property, but it is undesirable. The requested variances are not substantial for the wall, fence, and gate heights, as the existing perimeter stonewall is six-feet high and the applicant plans to rebuild and maintain the structure. There is a similar retaining wall on the adjacent property to the south. Approval of the application will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Approval of the application will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood. Although the proposed application is a self-created difficulty, it is not the only factor the Board considers when granting area variances. The neighboring property owner is not opposed to the application. Chairman Church moved to approve the application with the conditions. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Carol Lyden- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Thomas Chang- yes Dennis Xenos- yes Vote 5-0 2. KWD Realty Inc., 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed 4-story self-storage buildingPublic hearing Chairman Church read the requested variances, as documented in the public notice from the July 16, 2025, public hearing. On August 15, 2025, the Board received nine photographs taken from the top of the existing building. On September 10, 2025, the Board received a memorandum in response to the Board's questions. All of the public comments have been reviewed by the Board and added to the Village website. Mark Constantine stated that he is the attorney representing the property owner, Karl Dibble, and KWD Realty, Inc. Mr. Constantine stated that he had emailed a supplemental memorandum to Pam Kroll to further address the Board's questions and understood that it may have been too late for the memorandum to be forwarded to the Board. He submitted hard copies to Mr. McCarthy and the Board members. Chairman Church requested that Mr. Bruno Pietrosanti present the application. Bruno Pietrosanti stated that he is the architect representing the property owner, Karl Dibble and KWD Realty Inc.. He said that the 53.5 feet is a reference point used by surveyors to explain the dimensions at different points of the property above sea level. He presented the property survey and stated that the referenced number represents the average grade of the property above sea level, just as the roof levels are noted at 79 feet, 89 feet, and 105 feet. The parcel features a large frontage along a steep slope, with a 30-foot variation from one end of the property to the other. He presented the elevation drawings and stated that the project was designed to appear at or less 4 (ZBA 9/17/2025) �than 35 feet in height, depending on the slope. The tower element is decorative with an average height of 48.5 feet. Sean McCarthy stated that the public notice is correct. Drawing ST-107A indicates that the midpoint of the average grade from the lower and upper lines of the top of the building is 53 feet, 6 inches. Mr. Pietrosanti agreed that the public notice is correct and that the proposed building height coincides with the surveyor's reference point. Chairman Church stated that the Board is concerned that the building façade will dominate the pedestrian views from the sidewalk. Chairman Church asked Mr. Pietrosanti to describe the purpose of the penthouse and what the requested variance would be if the applicant were to eliminate it. Mr. Pietrosanti stated that the penthouse is intended as a specialty level for a single user to have a secure location to store records. If the penthouse level were eliminated, the variance request would be reduced to 43 feet, 6 inches. Karl Dibble stated that the proposed penthouse would border a commercial property and would not be visible from Broadway. The penthouse suite is proposed to achieve 103 square feet of usable space, making the project viable. He described the adjacent commercial uses and what would be visible from the Beekman Avenue parking lot. Mr. Pietrosanti presented and described the rendered views from North Broadway and Beekman Avenue, as well as the building elevation drawings. Mr. Dibble described the elevations of the neighboring properties and stated that although they are proposing five stories, it will appear as three stories. Chairman Church requested that Mr. Pietrosanti present the engineering plans. He asked if the front façades are an average of 35 feet high from ground level and inquired whether the decorative tower element is permitted at the proposed height without a variance. Sandra Tripp stated the plans include a series of vertical building façade dimensions in which all but two exceed 35 feet at the street edge. Mr. Pietrosanti described the elevation reference points and how dimensions were calculated at the average curb height level, stating that stair or elevator bulkheads are exempt from the maximum height requirements. Mr. McCarthy stated that flat roof heights are calculated from the average curb to the roof deck. Architectural elements that do not include usable square footage are exempt from height 5 (ZBA 9/17/2025) �requirements. Dimensional impact is accurate when measured from the average grade across the entire property to the highest portion in the back of the property. Mr. Pietrosanti stated that higher ceiling heights are required for vehicular garage storage and loading areas. Mr. Dibble described the building layout and the areas below the property lot's grade. Mr. Pietrosanti presented rendered views that included the possible expansion of an adjacent building. Based on the Planning Board’s comments, they designed the building closer to the street front. There was a discussion regarding the existing buildings on Beekman Avenue and Lawrence Avenue. Mr. McCarthy stated that the rendered view from Beekman Avenue is located in the C-2 zoning district, which has a maximum permitted height of 45 feet. Mr. Dibbles' property is located in the C-1 Zoning district. Chairman Church asked for the setback from the building to the backyards on Lawrence Avenue. Mr. Dibble stated that the back of the building is beyond the legal setback to the residential homes in the R-5 zoning district. Mr. Pietrosanti stated that the proposed setback along Lawrence Avenue is 10 feet, where the required setback is 5 feet. There was a discussion regarding the zoning district boundaries and the photographs submitted, which showed views from the roof of the existing building. Chairman Church recommended that the Board have an opportunity to review the new materials and proposed to postpone the vote until next month. He asked the applicant if they had additional information to present. Mr. Constantine stated that although the Planning Board is separate, they have been participating in the review process and have been before them with several iterations. Changes made to the plans necessitated some variance requests. The variance requests for the setback and lot coverage are not substantial. The requested variance for building height will have a net effect from any perspective due to the topography, location, shape, and elevation of the property lot, and it is required for the economic viability of the project. Chairman Church stated that, as part of the criteria review, the Board needs to consider whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible method other than the requested area variances. He suggested that the applicant provide documentation to demonstrate why the 6 (ZBA 9/17/2025) �penthouse suite and additional lot coverage are necessary, as well as the increased cost of façade materials, and comparisons of the building sizes of other self-storage facilities. Mr. Constantine stated that economic viability does not have to be established for area variances. Mr. Dibble stated that the companies he spoke to will not get involved in the project unless the proposed square footage is guaranteed. He requested approval and stated that it is necessary to catch up with Edge-on-Hudson Development to achieve success. Mr. Pietrosanti stated that typical storage facilities are constructed from metal and cost an average of $75.00 per square foot to build. The proposed building would cost $175.00 per square foot to construct, incorporating various building elements and advanced façade designs. There was a discussion regarding construction methods and the designs of other storage facilities. Chairman Church moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Chairman Church moved to continue the public hearing to the October 15, 2025 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Mr. Constantine stated that the public hearing was closed at the July meeting. Chairman Church stated that the Board needs to review the new information submitted at the meeting. The intent is to reopen the public hearing, allow public comments, and vote on the application in October. Mr. Contantine objected to reopening the public hearing. Mr. McCarthy asked Mr. Constantine if the applicant would consent to extending the decision period if the public hearing were closed. Mr. Constantine requested time to consult with Mr. Dibble. The Board paused the meeting at 8:31 PM. The Board resumed the meeting at 8:43 PM. Mr. Constantine asked Chairman Church to confirm what information the Board needs to approve if they agree to close the public hearing and extend the decision to the October meeting. 7 (ZBA 9/17/2025) �Chairman Church stated that he was concerned with the pedestrian views heading north to south on Route 9 and up Lawrence Avenue. He requested that the applicant consider the economic viability of the project without the penthouse and the portion of the building around Lawrence Avenue to reduce the impact of the requested variances for lot coverage and building height. He gave him the option of the Board making a decision or providing more information. Mr. Constantine stated that he would like to address the Board's questions to meet the criteria and would agree to an extension of the decision to October. Chairman Church stated that he could limit the public comments to new information. Mr. Constantine requested time to consult with Mr. Dibble. The Board paused the meeting at 8:48 PM. The Board resumed the meeting at 8:51 PM. Mr. Constantine stated that he agrees to the extension of the decision. He opposes keeping the public hearing open. Chairman Church moved to postpone the decision until October 15, 2025, and allow the Board to decide on reopening the public hearing based on new submissions. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Carol Lyden- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Thomas Chang- yes Dennis Xenos- yes Vote 5-0 Chairman Church tabled the approval of the July 16, 2025 minutes. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Church moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 PM. Moved: Church Seconded: Lyden Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 8 (ZBA 9/17/2025) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-09-17 Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9fac8b2ff2d5f142b2d05a8687fd0de0.pdf 44cf7ea5d24b5c91837996126afcfcc9 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 16, 2025 Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Crai Lis Sandra Tripp Dennis Xenos Carol Lyden Thomas Change Gorete Crowe Also Present: Sean E. McCarthy, Village Architect Absent Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda: 1) KWD Realty Inc., 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed 4-story self-storage buildingPublic hearing 2) Approval of minutes, May 21, 2025 1. KWD Realty Inc., 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed 4-story self-storage buildingPublic hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and confirmed with Sean McCarthy that the Building Department received proof of the mailing receipts. The Chairman stated that the Board had received several written public comments before the meeting. (See attached Exhibits) Mark Constantine stated that he is the attorney representing the property owner, Karl Dibble, and KWD Realty, Inc. The design has undergone several changes based on comments received from the Planning Board, which created the need for some of the variances. Mr. Constantine stated that Bruno Pietrosanti of Lawless + Mangione Architects & Engineers, LLP, prepared the plans for the application and was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. Mr. Constantine stated that the project would complement and support the extensive high-density transit-oriented riverfront developments by providing self-storage for residents. The project is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Karl Dibble stated that he has been a resident of the village for 25 years. The current business received Planning Board approval as a landscaping materials supply yard for contractors, a recycling center, and residential use. Another contracting company could utilize the property on a larger scale, which would require more employees and generate additional traffic. The self1 (ZBA 7/16/2025) �storage building would not be financially successful for him without the approval of the proposed square footage. Chairman Church stated that the application proposes a 70% building coverage, which exceeds the permitted 60%. He asked Mr. Dibble to explain why it would not be economical to have a smaller building. Mr. Constantine stated that the applicant is not required to submit proof of dollar and cents for the requested area variances. The requested building coverage and height were driven by the Planning Board’s requests to bring the building closer to the sidewalk on the east side, include parking underneath the first floor, and push the building away from the residential properties. The increased construction costs for the requested aesthetically pleasing finishes, setbacks, and structural elements make a 100,000 square foot building financially unfeasible for the applicant to obtain the necessary funds. Chairman Church stated that it would be helpful to understand if there would be a difficulty obtaining lender financing without the requested building coverage. Sandra Tripp stated that although it is not required for the application, a review of return on investment calculations would help provide insight for reviewing the variance requests. Mr. Constantine stated that lenders do not dictate square footage calculations. The property's topography and the Planning Board's requests drive higher construction costs. He will provide return-on-investment calculations. Mr. Constantine stated that the proposed use versus the current business use would have a minimal impact on the municipal services related to schools, sanitation, and the police. The objections received for the application are not supported by evidence. Chairman Church stated that the Board is reviewing whether the three variances related to the setback, lot coverage, and building height would have a detrimental effect on the character of the neighborhood. The Board is not reviewing parking or the business use. Mr. Constantine stated that New Broadway contains a variety of different business uses, and the proposed building would not negatively impact the neighborhood's character. Chairman Church asked Mr. Constantine to describe the discrepancies between the requested height variance in the application and the public notice, and asked Sean McCarthy if the proposed height in the notice is correct. Mr. Constantine stated that the maximum proposed height is 43 ½ feet, exceeding the permitted 35 feet, due to the property's slopes and the building’s orientation. Mr. McCarthy stated that the proposed 53 ½ feet building height is correct and is calculated from the highest point of the roof, regardless of the property's topography. 2 (ZBA 7/16/2025) �The Board discussed the elevation drawings and renderings for the proposed building, located on the Beekman Avenue parking lot, as well as on North and South Broadway. Mr. Constantine stated that the Board's obligation is to determine the visual impacts based on how the elevations and different perspectives would relate to neighboring properties. Chairman Church asked Mr. Dibble to describe the clock tower's use and asked if he could reduce the height. Mr. Dibble stated that the clock tower is designed as an aesthetic feature to provide balance with the Open Doors' similar architectural features. Mr. Constantine deferred addressing this question to Mr. Pietrosanti. Mr. Dibble stated that originally, he proposed the required 20-foot front yard setback. The Planning Board requested that he bring the building closer to the sidewalk. The proposed 10-foot setback will allow him to add a landscape buffer and provide screening from North Broadway. Chairman Church asked what parts of the application were a concern to the Planning Board, which they were not prepared to recommend to the Zoning Board. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Planning Board had concerns with the building coverage and height. Mr. Dibble stated that maintaining the required rear yard setback and increasing the minimum side yard setbacks to 15 feet along Lawrence Avenue would provide residents with more space and better emergency access. Chairman Church asked if the walls and the planters along Route 9 were part of the variance request. Mr. Dibble stated that the existing walls are not part of the variance requests. The sidewalks will remain, and smaller brick walls are proposed, accompanied by a landscape buffer in front of the building. Chairman Church requested that the applicant determine how the tower would appear without the need for a height variance and to confirm the varying height lines of the building. Mr. Constantine deferred the request for Mr. Pietrosanti to evaluate the matter. Mr. Dibble stated that the tower element is an aesthetic feature that does not require a variance request. 3 (ZBA 7/16/2025) �Mr. McCarthy stated that the tower feature's use determines if it can be considered as an ornamental feature that is allowed to extend beyond the permitted roofline height. Gorete Crowe asked the applicant why the back of the building is necessary. Mr. Constantine stated that reducing the setback and adding parking underneath the building requires additional building height to achieve the proposed square footage. There was a discussion on the depiction of the suite area in the elevation drawing. Craig Lis asked how many storage units are proposed in the building. Mr. Dibble stated that the number and percentage of different unit sizes have not yet been determined. However, 103,000 square feet is proposed; hallways and egress areas affect calculations of usable storage space. Dennis Xenos requested the calculation of the loss percentage for hallways and egress. Mr. Constantine stated that he defers to Mr. Pietrosanti to determine the square footage loss calculations. Mr. Dibble stated that the proposed building is four stories at the north end of the property along Route 9, three stories at the south end, and five stories set down into the property on the back end. Chairman Church asked if the applicant could achieve the desired square footage with an 80% building coverage and reduce the height of the suite. Mr. Constantine stated that he would consult with Mr. Pietrosanti to determine if they could achieve the same square footage with a reduced building height by increasing the building coverage or adding more space under the building. The design is based on the adoption of several suggestions from the Planning Board. Mr. Xenos asked Mr. Dibble if the storage would be used on a commercial level. Mr. Dibble stated that he proposes units for residential and retail use, and plans to include seven or eight garages for residents to store their vehicles. The two entrances will serve both types of storage units. Chairman Church moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 7-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Tommy Capossela, the owner of 5 Tappan Avenue, stated that he is in favor of the project. 4 (ZBA 7/16/2025) �Several residential apartment and condo-style developments have been constructed or are proposed, creating a need for a storage facility. It would not be a high-traffic use, and residents who are downsizing will benefit from having a place to store belongings. Jeff Weiskopf, the owner of 7 Mahoney Place, stated that his backyard would provide front-row seats to the project, creating a visual impact for the properties to the east of North Broadway and Webber Park. His property is already blocked on one side by the height of the Open Door building. The requested height for the rear of the building would change the character of the neighborhood. Frank Occhipinti stated he lives on Horseman Blvd and that he is in favor of the project. A storage facility is needed and will be beneficial to the neighborhood. He agrees with Mr. Dibble that the adjacent properties will develop their buildings in the future. A resident who lives on Katrina Avenue stated that the height of the building would impact her street. Joe Block stated he is the owner of 19 Hemlock Drive. Although the design changes were made in response to the Planning Board's suggestions, the Board should not issue variances to accommodate a building that is essentially a storage building disguised as a residential building. Chairman Church moved to close the public hearing and postpone the vote on the hearing until the next meeting, allowing the applicant’s engineer to answer the Board’s questions. Chairman Church requested that the applicant’s engineer submit renderings of the views from the elevated sections of Webber Park and Katrina Avenue. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 7-0 2. Approval of minutes, May 21, 2025 Chairman Church moved to approve the minutes from the May 21, 2025, meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Chairman Church, Chairman- yes Craig Lis- yes Carol Lyden- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Dennis Xenos- yes Thomas Change- yes Gorete Crowe -yes Vote 7-0 Chairman Church moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:11 PM. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis 5 Vote 7-0 (ZBA 7/16/2025) �Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 6 (ZBA 7/16/2025) �Exhibit #1 From: Angie Alexander Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:35 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Proposal for Self Storage Facility in Sleepy Hollow Hello, I’m writing regarding the proposal for a self storage facility on Broadway. I don’t believe that type of business fits that space and am concerned about the additional traffic and congestion it will bring to that area. The nearby intersection is already very busy and that type of facility will make it worse. I also don’t think that type of business adds to the character and charm of our town. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Angie Alexander �Exhibit #2 From: Adriana Alonso Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:43 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Proposed Storage Facility on Broadway Good afternoon, I am surprised and dismayed that the village is considering a Storage Facility in the location of River Rock on Broadway. What we need, in my opinion, are attractive, locally owned business that will encourage customers to stroll from the cemetery through our village and further down to Tarrytown. Instead, currently they have to walk through a series of gas stations and car repair shops. A storage facility will do nothing to enhance the charm of our village and I urge you to reconsider the use of this land. Sincerely, Adriana Murphy 347-203-6333 �Exhibit #3 From: Thomas Andruss Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 11:40 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Cc: Anthony Giaccio <agiaccio@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Oppose self-storage use at 309-315 N. Broadway Sean and ZBA - as a resident of Sleepy Hollow, I oppose the property at 309-315 N. Broadway being approved or used for a self-storage facility. In my opinion, this kind of use is not in keeping with the character of our village, nor is it consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Mainly, I am concerned for traffic and pedestrian safety. A self storage facility would have trucks turning left from Rt 9 as they cross traffic to enter the facility. The road is graded down there and this will lead to traffic problems and possibly accidents. Vehicles that squeeze by turning trucks will pose a threat to pedestrians crossing at the bottom of Lawrence. We should not approve this use. Tom Andruss 49 Pierson Ave �Exhibit # 4 From: David Arons Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:50 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Self-storage facility proposal Hi Mr. Mccarthy, I have just recently heard of a proposal to develop a self-storage facility on route 9 in downtown Sleepy Hollow. As a resident on Beekman Ave in Sleepy Hollow, I'd like to join my fellow residents and voice my opposition to the ZBA's possibility of granting a zoning variance in a proposal for a self-storage facility at 309-315 North Broadway. It is imperative that development reflect the character of our village as well as necessary improvements to our community. A block of self- storage units is the exact opposite of what should be considered in development within the village. Please share my comments with the board and do not allow this development to continue. Thank you, Dave Arons 145 Beekman Ave Sleepy Hollow �Exhibit #5 From: Robyn Beavers Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 6:49 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Concern About Proposed Self-Storage Facility on North Broadway Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to share my concern about the proposed self-storage facility on Rt 9 (North Broadway) in Sleepy Hollow. As a resident and member of the community, I believe this project would negatively impact the character and walkability of our historic village. A large self-storage building with no ground-floor retail does not align with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, and I worry it could set a precedent for future development that doesn’t serve local families or small businesses. I respectfully urge the Village to explore alternatives that would better enhance and support our vibrant, walkable community. It also seems like a poor time to make such a decision on the eve of a significant mayoral election in sleepy hollow. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Robyn Beavers 314 Horseman Blvd �Exhibit #6 From: Jaron Benjamin Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 12:23 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Cc: Jaron Benjamin Subject: Opposed to proposed storage facility on Broadway across Weber Park Hi Sean Just wanted to send a quick note registering opposition to the proposed storage facility. It’ll be massive and car-dependent in a dense and walkable area. It will increase car traffic and make an already dangerous intersection worse for pedestrians without adding anything to the community. There are so many better possible uses of that site. Thanks! -Jaron Benjamin �Exhibit #7 From: Sarah Bills Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:04 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Zoning Application Concern Dear Mr. McCarthy and Ms. McCarthy, As a resident of Sleepy Hollow, I’m reaching out to express my concern about the proposed variance for developing the property known as “Dibble’s Lot” on Route 9 into a 10,000square-foot self-storage facility. I respectfully ask the Village to deny this request. This location serves as a key entry point into our downtown area, and I believe a large storage facility would detract from the welcoming, walkable, and vibrant atmosphere that many in our community are working hard to build. A project of this nature could have a lasting negative impact on the character of our village. I hope you will consider the long-term vision for Sleepy Hollow and prioritize development that supports our local economy and enhances the unique charm of our town. Thank you for your time and dedication to our community. Thank you! Sarah Bills Sleepy Hollow Resident �Exhibit #8 From: Meredith Bloch Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 11:59 From: Meredith Bloch Date: Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 11:56 AM Subject: Opposition to storage facility variance application To: <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Cc: <mrutyna@sleepyhollowny.org>, <Jrodriguez@sleepyhollowny.org>, <lconnell@sleepyhollowny.org> Good morning, I am writing as a Webber Park homeowner and Sleepy Hollow resident to oppose the pending variance application for a self storage facility on Route 9. It is my understanding that Dibble is requesting a zoning variance to construct a building that is 10 feet from the street and 35 feet tall, in excess of the law. I ask that the planning board not allow the variance. A self-storage facility would run counter to all efforts to calm traffic on Rte 9 and to make this historic neighborhood more walkable, more livable, and also more appealing to tourists. This kind of building would be more appropriate in an industrial zone and not in the middle of our charming village. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns. Best regards, Meredith Bloch 9 Anderson Ave, Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 �Exhibit #9 From: Joe Block Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:58 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Variance for N Broadway Sean I am writing again after going and speaking at the meeting last night as I would like to amend my statement to include the following: I was disappointed that the owner of the property asking for a variance couched his request in terms of the alternative being he more extensively use the property for recycling and that this could be done at all hours of the night loudly and that this would disrupt traffic on rt 9. Variances in my mind should be granted for two reasons. One that the variance has no effect on the surrounding interests of the direct neighbors and community or the variance is necessary in the interest of a greater community good. In this case, the variance does effect detrimentally the neighborhood and community. As far a community good, the community good seems to be focused on providing storage relief for the edge and other apartments. This seems to be a solution without a cause.   If you go on line, you can easily see there is space available for self-storage in Tarrytown.   I don’t think a variance should be granted that only serves the interest of the owner of the property to the detriment of other community members. Sincerely yours, Joseph Block Block Marketing 917-209-0968 �Exhibit #10 From: Joe Block Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 1:35 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Variance on River Rock Property Sean I have been informed that in lieu of attending the public hearing tonight at town hall regarding the variances requested for the construction of a self-storage facility at that location comments can be sent to you to add to the public record. I am not in favor of a variance for this proposal be given for any of the requests. Thank you for receiving this comment. Joseph Block 19 Hemlock Drive Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 917-209-0968 �Exhibit #11 From: Cecelia Block Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 3:54 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: safety concerns about proposed storage facility Dear Sean, I have seen the plans for the proposed facility for the River Rock lots. Besides this being an unattractive , and in my opinion , disappointing use of the space, I have serious safety concerns involving existing traffic volume, location of facility on Route 9 and wide load / trucks enterig and exiting the facility. The traffic congestion at that point of the hill is often difficult when clients are coming into and exiting River Rock. Not to mention with wide loads of trucks and storage that will be entering and exiting this space in a precarious location. Especially when headed northbound and trying to make turns into this facility. I am also worried about the volume of traffic it will add to an already overused stretch of Route 9. Thank you for your review of this email. Best, Cecelia Block �Exhibit #12 On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 7:09 PM Susan Brennan wrote: Hi Sean and Martin and Jared, I strongly urge you to vote against the self-storage facility on Broadway. Thank you!! Susan Brennan 53 Fremont Road Sent from my iPhone �Exhibit #13 From: Chuck Burton Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:24 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Storage Facility Hello, I am writing to voice my concern about the proposed storage facility on Broadway. These types of business spaces are antithetical to downtown business development- their massive footprints are an eyesore, decrease foot traffic, and produce little tax revenue. This would actively deter future businesses from entering the primary foot path connecting downtown sleepy hollow to its historic tourist destinations. Elmsford should not be the business development model for our village. Chuck Burton 45 Hemlock Drive, Sleepy Hollow �Exhibit #14 From: gina carey Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 6:25 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Concerns about proposed zoning variance Hello, I am a resident of Webber Park, and I'm writing to express concern about the proposed zoning variance from KWD Realty, I've crossed route 9 in a crosswalk every school weekday for the last four years to walk my children to Morse. Even as my kids get older, I am hesitant to allow them to cross at any point on route 9 along Webber Park by themselves due to the speed of cars, traffic, and many different directions cars turn from above Dibble landscaping down to the cemetery. I don't see how allowing this proposal will make our streets and sidewalks safer for residents, or why we'd allow this break from established rules. Thank you, Gina Carey Sleepy Hollow �Exhibit #15 From: Marco Cimatti Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:17 PM To: Sean McCarthy Subject: 315 N. Broadway - proposed self-storage Dear ZBA members, I am a resident of Sleepy Hollow for the past 10 years in the Weber Park neighborhood, and I am strongly opposed to the proposed self-storage facility on Broadway. Please do not allow a variance to this project. Storage facilities do not belong in walkable villages as Sleepy Hollow is, with an urban character. Storage facilities belong in larger spaced suburban areas with buildings of a similar large scale, in areas suited only to vehicular traffic. The planned large building uses valuable street frontage for nothing of value to the community on a daily basis. It is a 'dead' building to the community - taking up valuable space, in close proximity to walkable residential streets - that could be used to drive commercial activity and supply much needed affordable housing. Attractive and usable street frontage is essential for encouraging walkability and reducing local vehicular traffic. The proposed project moves the village in the opposite direction. many thanks, Marco Cimatti �Exhibit #16 From: Lauren Connell Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 8:48 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Opposition to 309 - 315 N Broadway Proposal Hello Sean, As a resident, I want to submit comments to the Planning Board and ZBA on the 309-315 N Broadway. It is extremely large and out of proportion to the character of Broadway. It is extremely large compared to surrounding buildings. I believe it would be detrimental to the current and future use of Broadway. The number of driveways proposed will increase risk to pedestrians on a highly traveled sidewalk, including where students walk to and from school. It is out of character and detrimental to the historic character of the neighborhood. I do not believe it is appropriate to accommodate the requested variance and urge the ZBA to deny it, and the Planning Board to consider the above listed concerns in their review of the proposal. Thank you for my consideration of my comments. Kind regards, Lauren �Exhibit #17 From: Jenny Cox Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 3:11 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Opposition to the proposed self-storage building at 309 N Broadway Sean and Paula, I'm writing to register my opposition to the proposed self-storage unit at 309 N Broadway. I encourage the village to enforce the code as written and not approve a variance for this proposal. This proposal does nothing to encourage downtown revitalization or any of the other goals set forth in the Village's Comprehensive Plan. Hope you are both well! Thank you! �Exhibit #18 From: Casey Cummins Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 3:44 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Lot Code Variance Sean and Paula, As a resident of Sleepy Hollow, I am writing to ask that you please enforce the code as written for the lot on Route 9 (with landscaping business) - we do not want something exceeding existing height limits. Please do not approve the requested variance. Thank you, Casey Cummins Sleepy Hollow Resident �Exhibit #19 From: Nicole Cusick Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:49 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Cc: Jay Kiecolt-Wahl Subject: Opposition to Proposed Storage Facility on Broadway Dear Mr. McCarthy, I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed self-storage facility on Broadway, across from Webber Park, at the current site of the landscaping supply business. Placing a large, car-dependent storage structure in the heart of our historic and walkable downtown is a deeply misguided idea. The current proposal includes neither ground-floor retail nor community-facing features. Architecturally, the proposed building seems to resemble a 1990s suburban mall—out of step with the charm and character of our village— and it offers no contribution to the vibrancy or economic life of the area. Moreover, adding additional vehicle access points adjacent to an already unsafe traffic light will only worsen a dangerous intersection. Broadway is already WAY TOO BUSY with car/truck traffic; why on earth would we want more congestion on this street? This space deserves a more thoughtful and community-oriented use—one that aligns with our village’s values and enhances, rather than diminishes, the pedestrian experience. We could envision mixed-use development, local business incubation, or even green space — all of which would contribute more to the community than an inward-facing storage facility. We urge you and the Village Board to reject this proposal and to consider alternative plans that better reflect the needs, safety, and character of our downtown. Sincerely, Nicole Cusick and Jay Kiecolt-Wahl Sleepy Hollow Residents -Nicole Cusick nicole.cusick@gmail.com 917.579.1757 �Exhibit #20 From: Kathleen Deuel Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 1:43 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: proposed zoning request Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to express my view that a self storage facility adjacent to Route 9 in Sleepy Hollow would be a big mistake. The area is already a very highly trafficked spot, and we don’t need additional vehicles trying to access the space. Community groups have worked with the village to beautify the spaces along Route 9, and this will not do anything to increase the appeal of our village to residents or to visitors. I hope you will communicate my opposition to the planning board. Respectfully, Kathleen Deuel 474 Bellwood Ave Sleepy Hollow Sent from my iPad �Exhibit #21 From: Lori DiLonardo Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 6:38 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Dibble proposed storage facility Hi Sean, hope all is well with you and your family. Bryan and I just wanted to express our concern and disagreement with approving a storage facility on the Dibble property. Not only will it look unsightly, but will potentially cause more traffic in an already busy intersection. I understand this is on the meeting agenda this evening and wanted to weigh in, thank you. Lori and Bryan Seiler �Exhibit #22 From: Adam Edelman Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 12:22 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Jessie Lanoil Subject: Storage facility on Rte 9 Hi Sean. This is Adam Edelman. I live on Katrina Avenue in Sleepy Hollow. My wife Jessie Lanoil is CC'd. We are very against the zoning variance requested by Dibble landscaping to transform their lot into a self-storage facility. Their requests to build a structure that is 10 feet from the street and 35 feet tall is in clear excess of the law -- and I feel strongly that its construction will only further exacerbate the town's already harrowing traffic issues on Rte 9. We strongly urge you and your colleagues to deny this variance. Sincerely, Adam Edelman and Jessie Lanoil -- Adam B. Edelman | NBC News Digital 917-355-9198 | @abedelman �Exhibit #23 From: Adar Eisenbruch Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 3:29 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; pmccarthy@sleepyhollowmy.org Subject: No self-storage facility on Broadway Dear Sean and Paula, I hope you are well. As a resident of Sleepy Hollow, I am writing to oppose a zoning variance that would permit a self-storage facility to be built at 309-315 North Broadway. Please extend my comments to the Zoning Board of Appeals for their consideration: 1. The need for a variance was self-created by the applicant. 2. The height, bulk and lot coverage proposed is beyond the zoning regulations of the Village. 3. The proposed facility is out of scale and character with this neighborhood. In particular, it overshadows the homes on Lawrence Avenue significantly. 4. With its lack of retail and anti-pedestrian friendly ground floor, the building would be counterproductive to walkability, tourism, historic preservation, character, and sustainability (key goals in the Village's Comprehensive Plan). 5. Self-storage is an extractive, blight-promoting industry that does not provide economic returns to its host neighborhood. 6. Self storage is not environmentally friendly because it continually discards abandoned products to landfill. 7. The site of this proposed storage facility currently is occupied by several naturally occurring affordable housing units and could otherwise support additional housing development. We cannot afford to displace existing residents and desperately need affordable housing. 8. The proposed building diminishes the integrity of nearby national historic sites like the Old Dutch Church of Sleepy Hollow and Philipsburg Manor. These sites are of national significance, and provide for the foundation of the American story. They must not be impacted by misguided adjacent development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Adar Eisenbruch Resident, Sleepy Hollow, NY �Exhibit #24 From: Ange Friar Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 2:06 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Concern About Proposed Self-Storage Facility on North Broadway Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to share my concern about the proposed self-storage facility on Rt 9 (North Broadway) in Sleepy Hollow. As a resident and member of the community, I believe this project would negatively impact the character and walkability of our historic village. A large self-storage building with no ground-floor retail does not align with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, and I worry it could set a precedent for future development that doesn’t serve local families or small businesses. I respectfully urge the Village to explore alternatives that would better enhance and support our vibrant, walkable community. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Angela Friar 339 Palisades Blvd [Optional: Your Address or Neighbp �Exhibit #25 From: Di Tang Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 9:25 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Concerns about the proposed storage on the Dibble property Hello Sean, Hope this email finds you well. Jim and I are writing to express our concern about the proposed storage facility on the Dibble property. We believe it will affect the village in many negative ways. Thank you for your consideration. Jim and Tang Di Garvey 20 Hemlock Drive, Sleepy Hollow Sent from my iPhone �Exhibit #26 From: Francesca Genco Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:06 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Proposal for self-storage facility on Rte. 9 Dear Sean ~ Please ask the planning board not to allow the variance for the self-storage facility proposed to be built on Dibble Landscaping's lot. A self-storage facility would run counter to all efforts to calm traffic on Rte 9 and to make this historic neighborhood more walkable, more livable, and also more appealing to tourists. Thank you! Francesca Genco Webber Park resident -Francesca Genco www.lilacmusic.com www.songofthebody.com �Exhibit #27 From: Bianca Gersten Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 3:49 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; pmccarthy@sleepyhollony.gov Subject: Lot on Route 9 / Requested Variance Hello - hope all is well. I'm writing to ask that the zoning board of appeals deny the requested variance for the village's height limit in connection with the desired construction of a selfstorage unit on the lot currently occupied by the landscaping business on Route 9. Not only would a 10,000 square foot building dramatically change the appearance/landscape of the road, the construction of such a large building would be a massive traffic headache. Further, there is absolutely no commercial demand for such a business. A large, brand new self-storage business just opened in Tarrytown off of Benedict, and there's another one in Elmsford. The village would be much better placed to facilitate the development and occupation of all the currently vacant businesses along Broadway. Many thanks, Bianca -Bianca Sarah Gersten Yale University, SY '07 Georgetown University Law '11 (609) 472-0115 �Exhibit #28 From: Christy Glynn Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:38 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: proposed storage facility Dear Mr. McCarthy, I would like to express my opposition to tonight's motion for approval of a new storage facility in town. Sleepy Hollow is a burgeoning tourist destination where people from all over come to see our quaint village and spend money with our local businesses. As a resident, I brag to others about our lovely town full of new restaurants, vibrant streets, and welcoming business owners. Not only would a storage facility be an eyesore in that location, it does not contribute to our local economy or sense of community. Driving 10 minutes to Elmsford or Tarrytown will be fine for anyone desperate for storage. Please register my opposition. Christy Glynn 37 Hemlock Drive �Exhibit #29 From: Kersten Harries Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:30 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Pamela Kroll <pkroll@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: ZBA comments for 315 North Broadway Dear Zoning Board Members, I am writing in regards to the public hearing for the application submitted by Karl Dibble on behalf of KWD Realty, LLC, requesting approval to construct a four-story self-storage facility, requiring three variances. I am a resident of Webber Park and drive and walk by this site frequently. I am strongly against the proposed project as it is out of scale for the site (too tall and large), provides no retail frontage on a major commercial artery, and does not enhance the pedestrian experience or safety. I believe the requested variances should not be granted, as the proposed height is significantly above that which is allowed by the code and would tower significantly above and too close to neighboring buildings. Sincerely, Kersten Harries --Kersten Harries +1 845 857 8976 �Exhibit #30 From: Kirsten Hase-McLaughlin Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 10:56 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Zone variance for self storage Hi Sean, I hope you are doing well I understand that the River Rock property on Broadway is going to request a zoning variance to renovate the property and put up a self storage site. As a resident of Sleepy Hollow and Webber park nearby to the site I am adamantly opposed to this. Please let me know how many signatures / emails opposing the variance that you would need. Also, when we had to request a variance from the architecture board we had to mail certified letters and put ip a sign in advance of the meeting. Does this follow the same process? Thank you & regards, Kirsten McLaughlin �Exhibit #31 From: Heather Hewett Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 10:27 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: proposed storage facility To Whom It May Concern: I'm writing to voice my concern about the proposed storage facility on Broadway. The location is the primary foot path connecting downtown Sleepy Hollow to its historic tourist destinations, bringing a different kind of building into the area. It would interrupt this pathway aesthetically and practically, at a time when we are working to build connections between the village of Sleepy Hollow and the tourist and residence communities that are north of it. It is furthermore not the kind of business that residents or visitors might drop into while walking by, and it would likely deter future businesses that would bolster the area's attractions and identity. For all these reasons, combined with questions I have about the actual tax revenue it would produce, I urge you to reconsider. Thank you, Heather Hewett 10 Hemlock Drive, Sleepy Hollow, NY — Heather Hewett, PhD (she/her) writer/professor heatherhewett.com Please excuse typos. Sent from my iPhone. �Exhibit #32 From: Alison Hillhouse Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 3:30 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: enforce code as written for landscaping lot hello, Please enforce the code as written for the lot on Route 9 - we do not want something exceeding existing height limits. thanks, Alison -Alison Hillhouse 917-848-9259 �Exhibit #33 From: Sara Hodgdon Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:23 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Comment re proposed storage facility Hello, I am writing to express concern regarding the proposal to bring a storage facility to Broadway, and the requested variances for height and set back. A facility of this type will bring little benefit to the village and will certainly detract from the area’s charm. I hope these proposals will be denied. Thank you, Sara Hodgdon 11 Evergreen Way Sara �Exhibit #34 From: Jim Husselbee Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 8:58 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: 309-315 N. Broadway As a resident, I object to the proposed construction of a self storage building at the above property because it is not consistent with the objectives and recommendations contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Regards, Jim �Exhibit #35 From: Katharine Ives Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 12:27 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Self Storage Proposal Mr. McCarthy and Members of the Board, I understand there is a proposal for a self storage facility to be built on Rte. 9. I am writing as a resident of Sleepy Hollow in opposition to this proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Katharine Ives Webber Park resident �Exhibit #36 From: Katherine Klui Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 2:13 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: I’m Concerned About Proposed Self-Storage Facility on North Broadway Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to share my concern about the proposed self-storage facility on Rt 9 (North Broadway) in Sleepy Hollow. As a resident and member of the community, and someone who pays a disproportionate amount of municipal taxes… I have a very keen interest to see our community improved, and I believe this project would negatively impact the character and walkability of our historic village. A large self-storage building with no ground-floor retail does not align with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, and I worry it could set a precedent for future development that doesn’t serve local families or small businesses. I respectfully urge the Village to explore alternatives that would better enhance and support our vibrant, walkable community. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Katherine Klui Edge on Hudson community �Exhibit #37 From: Calle Knight Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 1:52 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Concern About Proposed Self-Storage Facility on North Broadway Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to share my concern about the proposed self-storage facility on Rt 9 (North Broadway) in Sleepy Hollow. As a resident and member of the community, I believe this project would negatively impact the character and walkability of our historic village. A large self-storage building with no ground-floor retail does not align with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, and I worry it could set a precedent for future development that doesn’t serve local families or small businesses. I respectfully urge the Village to explore alternatives that would better enhance and support our vibrant, walkable community. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Calle Knight 336 Horseman Blvd �Exhibit #38 From: William Knowles Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:56 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Cc: amknowles3@gmail.com Subject: Concern Regarding 309–315 N. Broadway Storage Facility Proposal Dear Members of the Planning Board, I am writing in opposition to the proposed self-storage development at 309–315 North Broadway, as outlined in the submission dated May 15, 2025 [link: https://www.sleepyhollowny.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3743/309-315-North-BroadwayZBA-submission-5-15-25]. This type of project does not reflect the vision of a thriving, walkable, and communityoriented downtown Sleepy Hollow. Storage facilities contribute little to no foot traffic, offer minimal economic or job development, and occupy valuable land that could otherwise support vibrant businesses or community-serving spaces. The proposed structure’s scale and use risk creating a dead zone along one of our most important commercial and pedestrian corridors. Broadway should be the spine of our village—connecting residents and tourists to our riverfront, historic sites, and growing downtown—not interrupted by industrial-style buildings that do not serve the broader community. Please reject this proposal and prioritize development that aligns with Sleepy Hollow’s longterm goals and unique character. Sincerely, Bill & Amy Knowles �Exhibit #39 From: Cory Krall Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:06 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Opposed to Variance Application for 309-315 North Broadway Dear Mr. McCarthy, I’m writing as a resident of Sleepy Hollow to express my concern about the variance request that would allow for a taller structure than currently permitted by our zoning code, with the intent of attracting a self-storage facility to 309-315 North Broadway. I strongly urge the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny this request and uphold the existing zoning regulations. Our zoning code reflects thoughtful, community-driven planning that is meant to protect the character, aesthetics, and livability of our village. Allowing a variance for greater height to accommodate a self-storage facility—especially in a highly visible or residential-adjacent area —sets a concerning precedent and risks negatively impacting our town’s scale, walkability, and long-term development vision. I hope the board will prioritize the intent of our existing zoning code and the long-term interests of the Sleepy Hollow community, rather than approve an exception that may benefit one property owner but undermine the character of our village. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your service to our community. With gratitude, Cory Krall 44 Harwood Avenue �Exhibit #40 -------- Original message -------From: Elah Lanis Date: 7/16/25 5:41 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Town Hall meeting - storage facility proposal Hi, I learned about tonight's meeting from my Sleepy Hollow Manor neighbors, many of who are similarly minded - I am writing to oppose a variance for the planned storage facility on Broadway. It seems like the opposite of what we should be trying to go for - restaurants, shops, and local businesses that appeal to our community and/or tourists. A storage facility seems like it would make the main route connecting downtown Sleepy Hollow to its historical tourist attractions feel even more like a non-pedestrian industrial backwater rather than right next to a vibrant downtown and residential area. If people need storage, they can drive to other nearby areas that are more industrial. That whole area has such massive potential - this would reduce it in a way that would be difficult to undo. In the same vein, I know you have less control over this, but I continue to hope the gas stations right next to this area turn into something else - those locations are so highly visible and right next to the tourist attractions, they provide so much opportunity, though I know conversion costs will be real. Please pass on my comments. Thanks, Elah �Exhibit #41 On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 8:18 PM Kristen Lankester wrote: I agree with points put forward by my neighbors. Also It is not in keeping with the aesthetic of our village Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse brevity and typos. �Exhibit #42 From: Brigid Lynch Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:12 PM To: Martin Rutyna <mrutyna@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Re: RE: 309-315 North Broadway Self Storage Facility  Good afternoon Mayor Rutyna & Mr. Sean McCarthy, Hope you are both well & enjoying the summer. I am again writing in to express my NO vote against the size & scope of the 309-315 North Broadway Self Storage Facility. 1. The sheer size of the building and its disruption to the neighborhood should cause it not to b allowed. When the foundation of my small home is cracked and damaged who will pay for that? 2. The dirt & fumes, from deconstruction & then reconstruction will cause a significant issue. Who will worry about the air quality from tearing down 4,5 buildings? 3. The traffic issues that this will create are enormous to the quality of life. As it is we cannot park on Lawrence Avenue. The business in the area have employees park off site. Also the speed of cars & trucks coming off 9 onto Lawrence is an issue now! Explain to me please, where are the trucks & cars going to park when the self storage facility is up and running.  The amount of cars, trucks, buses, bicycles & pedestrians alone already in the area is out of control. ADD Rte 9 has a curve and upgrade/downgrade at this exact point. It already a speedway! There are car accidents quite often at this corner. 4. Why should setbacks, building coverage & height requirement be allowed to change so dramatically?  MY yard is already hemmed in. He would not allow me to change the fence, paint the fence, so I installed a fence. I will have NO light if the proposed building height of 53.5 ft is allowed! That’s 2 and 1/2 stories above the requirements now. 5. I already have issues with massive trucks lined up towards my yard, a BLOCK construction box that blocks light & area . I cannot open my windows because of the smell & fumes. I could go on but the bottom line is this deconstruction of the property & reconstruction will be a long and messy project. The noise alone will be unbearable for the residents. It is not right for the neighborhood or its owners & renters.  Please add my 2 letters to the file. I do want to be counted as a NO. Would love to have been at the 2 meeting but was unable to attend as I have been out of town. If more discussion & meetings are going to happen please let me know. Regards, Brigid Lynch 42 Lawrence Avenue �914-772-6507 Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS On Friday, January 31, 2025, 6:21 PM, Brigid Lynch <bml59@aol.com> wrote: January 31, 2025 Good afternoon, Mayor Rutyna & Mr. Sean McCathy, My issues with the Proposed Self Storage Facility on North Broadway. I would like this will go into the NO column as the variance should be denied. Some points below will clarify my opinion on this building being allowed NOT to go forward.         1. Traffic on this section of North Broadway is already to much on a daily basis, add a large loading dock and it will be beyond a problem. 2. The cars, trucks, bicycles, 6 intersections of lights, keeping students & people of the community safe is already a concern and issue. 3. This is a NY State owned and managed road, we as a community already having problems receiving the correct crosswalks, signage and lights for safe crossings of students &             community members.       4. The amount of cars that already park on our streets daily, weekly & sometimes longer are an issue. So, by adding this Self Storage Facility where will people park when they are             unloading their trucks & cars ??   5. So this is being proposed for where the road curves, has an up & down grade. Sidewalks are narrow. Its not appropriate for our community or my     neighborhood. 6. I pay taxes, which have gone up 15%, we have a massive structure/development at the end of Beekman Avenue, where is the money from that development ?   7. I already cannot find a parking space on my street. Why do we not have homeowner/resident parking stickers? The overcrowding & congestion is at a unacceptable level.             Lawrence Avenue is a cut thru off North Avenue, I can only imagine the issues we will have once this Self Storage Facility is built. What were the results of the Police                         Speed checks??       8. I live at 42 Lawrence Avenue, my backyard backs up to this �property! I am already hemmed in by the wall/box of concrete he constructed and then piled more concrete into it. 9. I lived thru the building of his concrete box, the noise, smell and dirt from running trucks. Not able to go out into the yard or open windows from the smell and gas. My little house does not need to be overshadowed and blocked out.       10.I cannot imagine living thru this massive building project, from clearing out the yard, taking down all the structures that now exist, etc... to the whole new building.   I have very little chance for sunlight once this MASSIVE Structure is allowed to be built. Please call me & come stand in my backyard. The variance should be denied as 20 extra feet over the allowable height is just to much & the building lot covering almost the whole lot is just to much! Don't understand the need for this structure to be built on this piece of property. I would like to be informed as to when the Zoning Review Board is going to hold open discussions and comment on this Proposed Self Storage Facility. Sincerely, Brigid Lynch 42 Lawrence Avenue 914-772-6507 �Exhibit #43 From: Carol Lynch Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 8:49 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Storage Unit Dear Sean, I am very concerned and opposed to giving a variance for the proposed storage facility on Broadway in Sleepy Hollow. Thank you for your consideration. Carol M Lynch �Exhibit #44 From: Shelley Markowitz Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:03 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Zoning variance As longtime Sleepy Hollow resident and someone who drives this section of route 9 every day , I am opposed to the village granting either proposed variance requested by Mr. Dibble. A self storage space this large would negatively impact traffic flow and is not in character with nearby structures. Thank you for your consideration. Shelley Markowitz Sent from my iPhone �Exhibit #45 From: Marcella Marucci Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 5:55 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Concerns over proposed storage facility on Broadway Good evening, I am a resident of 50 Hemlock Dr, Sleepy Hollow, NY and am writing to voice my concerns over the proposed storage facility on Broadway. Our community is beautiful and rich in history-- the quaintness of our village must be preserved while balancing the needs of small business owners. We cannot allow downtown business development to become both an eyesore while also alienating parts of our historic village from downtown. We should strive to create a walkable community that respects our village's history, ensuring it is a place that both visitors and residents can enjoy. These interests must of course be balanced with revenue streams and economic interests but not at the expense of something so special that if lost, would be gone forever. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Marcella B. Marucci �Exhibit #46 From: Lauren McGuire Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:57 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Opposition to Variance Request for 309–315 North Broadway by KWD Realty, Inc. To: Sean McCarthy, Building Inspector & Architect Paula McCarthy, Village Clerk Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Re: Opposition to Variance Request for 309–315 North Broadway by KWD Realty, Inc. Dear Sean and Paula, Hello! My name is Lauren, and you may have seen my face at a few of the recent Village meetings on vacant storefronts. Like others, I have been looking for a commercial space in Sleepy Hollow and am invested in the downtown revitalization goals. I am also a resident of Sleepy Hollow Manor. I am writing to express my opposition to the variance request submitted by KWD Realty, Inc., for the construction of a four-story self-storage facility at 309–315 North Broadway. This proposed development poses a significant concern for the future character and appeal of one of Sleepy Hollow’s most visible and important corridors. North Broadway serves as a vital link between our most iconic and historic sites—Philipse Manor and the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery—and the heart of our downtown. Rather than becoming home to a massive and utilitarian structure, this corridor should be celebrated, beautified, and leveraged as a key component in our broader vision for downtown revitalization to drive pedestrian traffic. As we work together to enhance our streetscapes, improve accessibility, and enrich the pedestrian experience, development along North Broadway should contribute to these goals. A four-story self-storage facility does not serve that purpose. It neither invites foot traffic nor supports the vibrancy of our commercial core. On the contrary, its size and utilitarian function threaten to detract from the historic and scenic charm that makes Sleepy Hollow such a unique destination. Thank you for your time and consideration. I urge you to deny this variance. Sincerely, Lauren McGuire-Perlman �Owner, Devoured 16 Pokahoe Dr, Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 �Exhibit #47 From: Jenny McMahon Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 3:28 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Zoning Board of Appeals | Rte 9 Lot Variance Opposition Hi Sean and Pam, I recently learned that the landscaping business on Rt 9 has applied for a variance to attract or build a 10,000 square foot self-storage facility in their location. As we endeavor to revitalize our precious village, I cannot think of a greater mismatch than a self-storage facility on this thoroughfare that abuts Beekman Avenue, Webber Park, and Lawrence Avenue. Storage facilities certainly have a place in the economy, but this stretch of road where visibility and traffic can already be a challenge, is not appropriate. The owner needs to find a more suitable commercial area for this business. Furthermore there are about 5 self-storage facilities within 5 miles of the proposed location, so I have no confidence that the facility would be quickly and continuously occupied. Vacant commercial properties are already an issue in the community, and we don't have to look far for an example: the Ganso restaurant building has been effectively vacant for at least 5 years. The Village should enforce the code as written and not approve the variance for this project, which would neither enhance our community nor provide an unavailable service to the area. Thanks, Jenny McMahon Sleepy Hollow Resident �Exhibit #48 From: Emily Metzner Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 12:49 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Comment re Proposed Zoning Variance Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am a resident and homeowner of Webber Park in Sleepy Hollow. I'm writing to express my strong opposition to the zoning variance requested by Dibble landscaping to build a self-storage facility on their lot. Their request to build a structure that is 10 feet from the street and 35 feet tall is in clear excess of the law -- and it would exacerbate the traffic issues on that already congested stretch of Rte 9, put pedestrians at risk, and it would simply be a terrible eyesore, compromising the charm and the draw of historic Sleepy Hollow. Throughout the autumn months, many tourists walk that stretch from the train station to the Old Dutch Church. To erect an enormous out-ofcontext, out-of-scale, self-storage facility on that tour could have a serious impact on the town's revenues and on residential real estate values in the surrounding neighborhoods, including Webber Park. Please deny this variance-- in the interest of what is best for the residents and the town of Sleepy Hollow. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Emily Metzner �Exhibit #49 From: Jennifer Miles Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:00 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Cc: Dickerson Miles Subject: Tonight’s variance meeting Hi Sean I just heard about tonight’s meeting to review the variance application to put in a multi story self storage facility on route 9. I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting but wanted to express my concerns regarding what this will do to the general appearance of route 9. This part of route 9 will start to look more like route 9A. The pumpkins and Christmas trees that river rock sells during the holidays will be replaced by a large structure and parking. Is there a need for more self storage? If it is to service edge on Hudson’s residents it should be in their backyard not in the backyard they don’t have to see. I have concerns about this proposal and hope that you will keep the community’s comments in mind at tonight’s meeting. Thanks, Jen Miles 3 Terrace Close, SH �Exhibit #50 From: Lynn Moffat Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:27 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: River Rock Rt. 9 Hello Sean, I am adding my voice to the concerns regarding the rezoning of the River Rock property on Rt. 9. I hope that you can share my letter with the Zoning Board at this evening's meeting. Clearly, whoever came up with this concept has no sense of what is in Sleepy Hollow's masterplan. A dead storage space does nothing to generate vibrancy for our downtown. It does not enhance the Route 9 corridor, now receiving significant attention from NYS for its historical and aesthetic value as well as its connectivity significance for the lower Hudson Valley. A self storage facility, especially on this scale, belongs in an industrial park. As a village, we have worked hard to move past assembly plants and small polluting industries. Look how long it took to put GM in the rearview mirror! We can't go back. Thank You. Lynn Moffat 1 Riverside Dr #14 Sleepy Hollow NY �Exhibit #51 From: Patrick Munroe Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 3:21 PM To: Martin Rutyna <mrutyna@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Jared Rodriguez <jrodriguez@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; RSokolowski12@gmail.com; kirsten.hasemclaughlin@gmail.co; Matthew Arone <marone@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Kevin Smith <ksmith@sleepyhollowny.gov>; barbarajcarr@verizon.net; barbara_carr@itav10591.org; c1arina@aol.com; Carol Vinzant <carolvinzant@gmail.com>; tucker.ej@gmail.co; fay.serafica@gmail.co; gbarlocher@gmail.co; Heiditorpey@yahoo.com; dkgirl0804@gmail.co; kdeuel123@aol.co; lrjeili@gmail.com; mandysgoff@gmail.co; kdeuel.123@aol.com; pond48@verizon.net; eng_nora@hotmail.co; smclean0215@gmail.com; AstarMILLER@gmail.com Subject: Reject 4-story bldg proposal ****[CAUTION: This email originated from an external source. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.]**** Please reject the proposal for a 4-story building on Route 9 up the hill from Lawrence Avenue. It would be more of the Edge-on-Hudson ugliness that has decimated the character of our historic rivertown. Munroe Muroe Broadway Hollow NY 10591 2983 Sonya Patrick 63 New Sleepy 914-631- �Exhibit #52 From: Jennifer Ostfield Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:18 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Zoning board mtg 7/16 Hi SeanPlease note my dismay in the proposed redevelopment of 308-315 Broadway. The creation of a storage facility on that site would be a huge and ugly stain to the fabric of Sleepy Hollow. Such an enormous building does not belong on Broadway or on that lot. It will dwarf the houses on Lawrence Street, it would cause untold traffic issues on Route 9 and is frankly misplaced in the Village.Its consideration at one of the worst intersections in Sleepy Hollow is mind boggling. Please note my disapproval of this project at the meeting tonight. Thank you very much. Jennifer Ostfield 32 Hemlock Drive Sleepy Hollow 10591 ajbhostfield@gmail.com �Exhibit #53 From: Ashley Perkins Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:16 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject Opposition to Variance Application for 309-315 North Broadway Dear Sean and Paula, I hope you are both well. I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the variance request that would allow for a structure taller than currently permitted by our zoning code, with the stated intention of facilitating the development of a self-storage facility at 309–315 North Broadway. I respectfully urge the Board to deny this request and uphold the zoning regulations already in place. As a Sleepy Hollow resident and community member, I hope the board will prioritize our community and maintain the integrity of our existing zoning framework, rather than approve an exception that may serve a single property owner at the expense of the community’s vision and values. This feels like a disruption to the town of Sleepy Hollow and it will be placed in a very undesirable location if approved. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I appreciate all that you both do for the town! Sincerely, Ashley Perkins 107 Farrington Ave, Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 �Exhibit #54 From: Alan Perlman Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:23 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: 309-315 North Broadway Proposal Hello Mr. McCarthy: I am writing to express my concern with the application on the table to build a self storage facility where the current River Rock company sits. That type of business would be an extremely sore sight for that part of the main stretch through our downtown, and I would strongly encourage different proposals be asked for/considered before awarding this kind of a business, which belongs more in office parks or land not as prime to the revival of our downtown area. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Alan Perlman 16 Pokahoe Dr, Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 617.312.9756 �Exhibit #55 From: Meghan Raderstrong Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 1:40 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Self storage facility Hi Sean, This is Meghan Raderstrong, your neighbor on Spruce St in Sleepy Hollow. I am a volunteer with the ambulance corps and a parent to two young kids who walk and bike in and out of Webber park daily. I am very against the zoning variance requested by Dibble landscaping to transform their lot into a self-storage facility. Their requests to build a structure that is 10 feet from the street and 35 feet tall is in clear excess of the law -- and I feel strongly that its construction will only further exacerbate the town's already harrowing traffic issues on Rte 9. I strongly urge you and your colleagues to deny this variance. Sincerely, Meghan Raderstrong �Exhibit #56 From: Jared Rodriguez Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 11:01 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: ZBA Hearing Comments 309-315 N Broadway Hi Sean and Paula, I hope you are well. As a resident of Sleepy Hollow's Downtown, I'd like to join my fellow residents and voice my opposition to the ZBA's possibility of granting a zoning variance, requested as a result of self-created hardships by the applicant proposing a self-storage facility at 309-315 North Broadway. Please extend my comments to the ZBA for their consideration and please enter these comments into the record: 1. The height, bulk and lot coverage proposed is well beyond the zoning regulations of the Village and represents a disregard for the intent of those regulations. 2. As such, the proposed facility is very much out of scale and character with this neighborhood, in particular, it overshadows the homes on Lawrence Avenue quite significantly. 3. With it's lack of retail and opaque and non-active, anti-pedestrian ground floor, the building would create a dampening effect on several key goals articulated in the Village's Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to walkability, tourism, historic preservation, character and sustainability. 4. While I understand the site use is not in question, self-storage is an extractive industry quite literally "sucking" wealth out of a community without returning generative economic impacts to its host neighborhood. 5. Self storage exacerbates the global environmental crisis by creating additional demand for consumer products and burdening solid waste facilities when these stored produces are eventually discarded to landfill. 6. The Village, region and State faces an acute affordable housing crisis, which necessitates the production of additional housing units, particularly within walkable and transit accessible neighborhoods like Sleepy Hollow. The site of this proposed storage facility currently is occupied by several affordable housing units and could otherwise support additional housing development. We cannot afford to displace existing residents. 7. The proposed building is significantly deleterious to and diminishing of the integrity of nearby national historic sites like the Old Dutch Church of Sleepy Hollow and Philipsburg Manor. Best Regards, Jared Rodriguez Resident, Kendall Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, NY Jared Rodriguez �Exhibit #57 From: Alex Saltzman Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 11:28 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: 309 N Broadway Hi Sean, I'm writing to register my opposition to the proposed self storage building at 309 N Broadway. This is not an appropriate use within the Village and it goes against the Village's Comprehensive Plan. This use is not contextual within the Village and should not be allowed by the ZBA. Sincerely, Alex Saltzman 212 Legend Drive Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 �Exhibit #58 From: Nils Sanderson Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 12:23 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: 309-315 North Broadway Dr. Mr McCarthy, I have reviewed the ZBA application submitted by Karl Dibble, KWD Realty for 309-315 North Broadway, and could not be more opposed to this proposal. As a Sleepy Hollow resident, I strongly urge the Zoning Board of Appeals to reject the application. The setback, height, and lot coverage variances being sought are not at all in keeping with the quality and character of that properties' context. This property occupies an important high visibility location along North Broadway in establishing the visual identity of the Village. The proposed elevations are a poor attempt to mask the hulking monolithic program that adds nothing to actual pedestrian activation of this historic corridor. Pedestrian safety is highly compromised at the intersection of Rt 9 and 448. By allowing the setback variance, the ZBA would be decreasing the visibility of southbound traffic, and contributing to the public safety problem. Alos, after reviewing the site plan, it appears the extra parking and vehicular traffic will place an added burden at a sensitive intersection that is already under review by the State DOT. I would also question whether the proposed massing provides adequate access and clearance around the building for fire truck access. Sincerely, Nils Sanderson, AIA �Exhibit #59 From: Liz Santillanes Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 3:36 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Cc: Paula Mccarthy pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Opposition to Proposed Variance for “Dibble’s Lot” on Route 9 Dear Mr. McCarthy and Ms. McCarthy, I’m writing as a concerned resident of Sleepy Hollow regarding the request for a variance to develop “Dibble’s Lot” on Route 9 into a 10,000-squarefoot self-storage facility. I strongly urge the Village to deny this request. This site sits at a key gateway to our commercial downtown. Approving a variance for a storage facility—especially of this scale—would not only diminish the character of this highly visible location but also work against ongoing efforts to foster a walkable, welcoming, and economically thriving village center. Please keep the long-term vision and best interests of our community in mind as you review this request. Our village deserves thoughtful development that enhances our charm and supports local vitality—not one that turns away opportunity in favor of low-engagement, industrial-style use. Thank you for your consideration and continued service to our community. Sincerely, Liz Santillanes Sleepy Hollow Resident �Exhibit #60 From: JAMES SANTO Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 6:38 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: storage unit proposal Sean, We oppose this plan. I am sure there other projects the village can consider for this space. Sounds like recipe for disaster. Route 9 is a highly traveled road and the spot considered is on an incline. I hope the village moves to disallow this project and anything similar. Sincerely, James and Lisa Santo 29 Hemlock Drive Sleepy Hollow, NY Sent from my iPhone �Exhibit #61 From: Denise Scaglione Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 9:17 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Opposition to 309-315 N. Broadway Proposal Dear Sean, I would like to submit comments to the Planning Board and ZBA on the 309-315 N Broadway. As a resident, I am opposed to the proposed development currently in front of the ZBA and Planning Board. It is extremely large and out of proportion to the character of Broadway. It is also extremely large compared to surrounding buildings in the area. I believe it would be detrimental to the current and future use of Broadway. The number of driveways proposed will increase risk to pedestrians on a highly traveled sidewalk, including where students walk to and from school. It is out of character and detrimental to the historic character of the neighborhood. The requested variance is not befitting of the neighborhood and I urge the ZBA to deny it, and the Planning Board to consider the above listed concerns in their review of the proposal. Thanks, Denise Scaglione �Exhibit #62 From: Rebecca Scarpati Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 6:31 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Variance for approval for a storage facility Dear Sean, Just wanted to state that Anthony and I are vehemently opposed to giving a variance for the proposed storage facility on Broadway in Sleepy Hollow. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rebecca and Anthony Scarpati 31 Hemlock Dr Sleepy Hollow �Exhibit #63 From: Eliza Schafler Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 2:58 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: No Self-Storage Facility on Broadway Dear Sean and Paula, I hope you are well. As a resident of Sleepy Hollow's Downtown, I am writing to oppose a zoning variance that would permit a self-storage facility to be built at 309315 North Broadway. Please extend my comments to the Zoning Board of Appeals for their consideration: 1. The need for a variance was self-created by the applicant. 2. The height, bulk and lot coverage proposed is beyond the zoning regulations of the Village. 3. The proposed facility is out of scale and character with this neighborhood. In particular, it overshadows the homes on Lawrence Avenue significantly. 4. With its lack of retail and anti-pedestrian friendly ground floor, the building would be counterproductive to walkability, tourism, historic preservation, character, and sustainability (key goals in the Village's Comprehensive Plan). 5. Self-storage is an extractive, blight-promoting industry that removes wealth from a community without returning generative economic impacts to its host neighborhood. 6. Self storage is not environmentally friendly because it continually discards abandoned products to landfill. 7. The site of this proposed storage facility currently is occupied by several naturally occurring affordable housing units and could otherwise support additional housing development. We cannot afford to displace existing residents and desperately need affordable housing. 8. The proposed building is significantly deleterious to and diminishing of the integrity of nearby national historic sites like the Old Dutch Church of Sleepy Hollow and Philipsburg Manor. These sites are of national significance, and provide for the foundation of the American story. They must not be impacted by misguided adjacent development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Eliza Schalfer Resident, Sleepy Hollow, NY �Exhibit #64 From: Erica Schmidt Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:06 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Concern About Proposed Self-Storage Facility on North Broadway Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to share my concern about the proposed self-storage facility on Rt 9 (North Broadway) in Sleepy Hollow. As a resident and member of the community, I believe this project would negatively impact the character and walkability of our historic village. A large self-storage building with no ground-floor retail does not align with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, and I worry it could set a precedent for future development that doesn’t serve local families or small businesses. I respectfully urge the Village to explore alternatives that would better enhance and support our vibrant, walkable community. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Erica Schmidt 326 Horseman Blvd erica g. schmidt ericagschmidt@gmail.com �Exhibit #65 From: Maggie Schnog Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 2:10 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Concern About Proposed Self-Storage Facility on North Broadway Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to share my concern about the proposed self-storage facility on Rt 9 (North Broadway) in Sleepy Hollow. As a resident and member of the community, I believe this project would negatively impact the character and walkability of our historic village. A large self-storage building with no ground-floor retail does not align with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, and I worry it could set a precedent for future development that doesn’t serve local families or small businesses. I respectfully urge the Village to explore alternatives that would better enhance and support our vibrant, walkable community. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Maggie Schnog 2 Maxwell Dr. �Exhibit #66 From: Jeremy Siegel Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:04 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Cc: Margot Stamas Subject: Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Dear Sean and Paula, Jeremy Siegel & Margot Stamas of 60 Hemlock Dr here. Wanted to drop you a note voicing our opposition to KWD's application, particularly the variances requested. We are deeply concerned on a few levels: - The new facility being right on top of the road and taller than current zoning law allows will be an absolute eyesore. Its proximity to Beekman Ave, the Restoration, and the Cemetary make this especially problematic considering the village's increasing popularity as a tourist destination. - Construction of the new facility will cause major traffic issues during construction and ongoing in an already crowded corridor of Rt 9 - Further, the variances don't actually serve the village and its needs. For certain, self-storage is useful especially for residents downtown, but there is a TON of space for facilities like this in nearby industrial areas (e.g. Elmsford). If KWD owns the land they should be allowed to do what they want with it, but within zoning law. I sincerely hope these concerns will be taken into consideration. I appreciate your attention and service! All the best, Jeremy �Exhibit #67 From: Benjie Sirota Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 1:36 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Re: 309-315 North Broadway comments I also just noticed that the applicant is asking for a variety of variances which I believe should not be granted on this large of a building. Why would we be granting a storage facility additional lot coverage or an additional story? It doesn't make any sense and impedes pedestrians and neighbors in the village. It's clearly out of context and scale for the village. Benjamin Sirota Beonjie@gmail.com �Exhibit #68 From: Benjie Sirota Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 9:45 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: 309-315 North Broadway comments Hi SeanThis zoning application for a ground up storage facility is a bit shocking to see on this site. First off, I don't understand how this grand attempt to "fit in" to the local context will make financial sense. The topography and site restraints clearly show that this site is not adequate for this typology. The project also doesn't include any ground floor commercial rental space even though it's in the village commercial district. Is there a high demand for self storage in the commercial district? I know there is a high demand for ground floor commercial space. This project will also create new traffic safety issues with the two access points on a hill at an existing traffic light that already has safety issues. In regards to the architectural style, it's a hot mess of 90s mall architecture and a suburban strip mall design that doesn't add any value to our historic village. Are the windows fake? The cornices are fiberglass and bricks are panels. How could this building ever be able to be reused when the financial plan doesn't work out? Benjamin Sirota Beonjie@gmail.com �Exhibit #69 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Pamela Kroll Pamela Kroll 309-315 North Broadway Sirota2 7-16-25 Wednesday, July 16, 2025 1:50:13 PM image001.png From: Benjie Sirota Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 1:36 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Re: 309-315 North Broadway comments I also just noticed that the applicant is asking for a variety of variances which I believe should not be granted on this large of a building. Why would we be granting a storage facility additional lot coverage or an additional story? It doesn't make any sense and impedes pedestrians and neighbors in the village. It's clearly out of context and scale for the village. Benjamin Sirota Beonjie@gmail.com �Exhibit #70 From: Ben Sklar Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:52 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Proposed Self Storage Facility on River Rock property Hello, I'm writing to note concern regarding the proposed self storage facility on the site of the River Rock business on Broadway. The publicly available proposal notes, accurately and at length, the ad hoc and unattractive aesthetic of that part of Broadway. The implication is that another unattractive, ad hoc building in the area wouldn't make a meaningful difference. As a resident of Sleepy Hollow, this feels like a short-sighted step in the wrong direction. While I agree with their description of the area, the solution isn't to keep building ugly structures, but to - slowly, intentionally - change the character of the area by being more selective in the kinds of development permitted. Self storage warehouses do not add to the appeal of our village, and structurally it would be a truly unappealing site as one drives on Broadway towards the heart of Sleepy Hollow. Moreover, by further aggravating the unappealing nature of the area, it would suppress any future interest in high-value development along that corridor. I also question their assertion that residents of The Edge require additional storage. Both Daymark and Northlight advertise on-site storage for residents, while the townhomes tend to be generously sized. None of this suggests a need for a 100k sqft self storage warehouse. While I won't be able to attend tonight's meeting in person, I hope these concerns are considered as part of the discussion. Best, Ben Sklar 30 Fremont Road Sleepy Hollow �Exhibit #71 From: Jennifer Toffoloni Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:43 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Proposed self storage facility on Broadway Hello, My name is Jennifer Toffoloni, a resident on Lawrence Ave in Sleepy Hollow. I am deeply concerned about the proposed storage facility. As a resident of the inner village, I believe a self-storage facility would run counter to any efforts to calm traffic on Rte 9 and to make this historic village more walkable, more livable, and also more appealing to tourists. I am writing this afternoon asking the planning board not to allow this variance. Thank you, Jennifer Toffoloni �Exhibit #72 From: Elizabeth Tucker Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 11:58 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: variance request by Dibble Dear Sean, I am writing to urge the planning board not to allow the variance requested by Karl Dibble for his property on Rte. 9. I am a resident of Webber Park and a member of the Safe Streets for All steering committee. In Webber Park we successfully campaigned to get a crosswalk installed at Gordon Ave. and Lawrence St. to enable parents to walk safely to and from Morse School with their children. Further improvements will be provided by DOT's Route 9 Complete Streets redesign project, which in June presented its plans to narrow the roadway in this location. I am also part of the team of volunteers who care for the beautiful and pioneering garden at Statue Island, designed by Margie Ruddick and installed by the village for the express purpose of making our famous tourist site more attractive. We have been striving to make our historic neighborhood more beautiful and sustainable, and safer for the families who live here. A self-storage facility runs counter to all those efforts. Thank you, Elizabeth Tucker 135 Gordon Ave. Sleepy Hollow �Exhibit #73 From: Daphne Uviller Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 3:47 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: please reject the variance being considered tonight Dear Mr. McCarthy and planning board / zoning board, Please reject the appeal for a variance that would allow a self-storage building to be erected on the location where River Rock now exists on Route 9. I used to live in Poughkeepsie and I watched as Route 9 up there lost any sunlight, green or space to the behemoths that now line the mini-highway. We can learn from those devastating zoning errors. I realize that the seller of River Rock will not make a rejection easy, but this is a critical inflection point in the evolution of the look and feel of our small village, which is struggling to attract more business. This proposed storage unit would be a huge blow to the efforts to continually increase the charm of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. Whether this monstrosity is four stories or (obviously) six, I urge you to deny this variance. Thank you for considering my input. Sincerely, Daphne Uviller 3 Manor Close ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Daphne Uviller co-director, Community Wardrobe �Exhibit #74 From: Michael Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 12:39 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Fw: Urgent - comments on SH ZBA tonight Sean, as I receive these emails, quite frequently, I could not help to comment on this one. Rte 9 is a State Rd, it is not the downtown for Sleepy Hollow. There really isn't any residential to speak of on the section of Rte 9. And, storage facilities do not produce traffic as some are suggesting. Oh, and currently the site is a business. People have to come and pickup whatever it is they are purchasing from them. I have lived in the Tarrytowns my entire life (70yrs). Everyone moved here for for a reason. Why does everyone want to change here? Sorry to add to the onslaught. Just trying to give a little balance. . �Exhibit #75 From: Carol Vinzant Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:34 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Dibble Hi Mr. McCarthyPlease reject the zoning variance request from Karl Dibble for the proposed large storage facility on Route 9. Storage facilities are great for property owners to maximize their resale value. But it would not add anything positive to our community. Over the last few years, Sleepy Hollow has managed to attract and nurture so many interesting, independent businesses (Beekman Ale, Sleepy Hollow Books, Sleepy Coffee, etc.) that serve our community and make it a town that's fun to visit. This proposal would help Dibble, but not the community. Thanks, Carol Vinzant 212-979-5327 41 New Broadway Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 �Exhibit #76 From: Anne White Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 6:07 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Strongly opposed to storage facility on Broadway Sean, I just became aware that this proposal was coming before the Zoning Board this evening. I don't have time to write at length, but I think such a use is absolutely not what we need at this location as Broadway transitions from Historic Hudson and the Old Dutch Church to the Beekman Avenue entrance to downtown Sleepy Hollow, as pedestrians, bicyclists and cars arrive from the north. Dead storage does not add anything to our Village plans for enlivening the downtown. Thanks, Sean. Anne White 3301 Kendal Way 612-396-3111 �Exhibit #77 From: Alberta M. Williams-Jarane Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:57 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Proposed Development To whom it may concern, I am writing to voice my concern about the proposed storage facility on Broadway. These types of business spaces are antithetical to downtown business development – their massive footprints are an eyesore, decrease foot traffic, and produce little tax revenue. This would actively deter future businesses from entering the primary foot path connecting downtown Sleepy Hollow to its historic tourist destinations. Further, I question the assertion that residents of The Edge require additional storage. Both Daymark and Northlight advertise on-site storage for residents, while the townhomes tend to be generously sized. None of this suggests a need for a 100K sq ft self storage warehouse. Elmsford should not be the business development model for our village. Cordially, Alberta Williams-Jarane Sent from my iPhone �Exhibit #78 From: Joey Ziarko Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 6:46 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Building Height Variance for landscaping lot - NO!! Hi Sean and Paula My name is Joey Ziarko and I live in Sleepy Hollow with my wife and family and I own a local small business. I heard the news that the owner of the landscaping lot across from Open Door on Route 9 is requesting a variance on the height limit for his buildable area. The village SHOULD NOT approve this variance!! We need to enforce the building code as written. Sleepy Hollow has so much potential to attract unique, local businesses that reflect the authentic character of our historic community. It would be such a shame to see that space be used for an oversized building that does ZERO for the Sleepy Hollow community. Please do not approve this variance. Thanks so much. - Joey � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-07-16 Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/0d0ffbe04bb7a1311004df621526cc1f.pdf 5ba1df92918a125014840f6c39cb691e PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting October 15, 2025 Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Sandra Tripp Gorete Crowe Craig Lis Thomas Chang Also Present: Sean E. McCarthy, Village Architect Absent Dennis Xenos Carol Lyden Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda: 1) KWD Realty Inc., 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed 4-story self-storage buildingPublic hearing 2) Approval of minutes, July 16, 2025, September 17, 2025 1. KWD Realty Inc., 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed 4-story self-storage buildingPublic hearing Chairman Timothy Church stated that the Board received a revised submission on October 8, 2025, requesting to reduce the requested variance for the proposed building height from 53.5 feet to 43.5 feet, where the maximum permitted building height is 35 feet. Karl Dibble stated that the revised plans propose eliminating the penthouse level and reducing the building's appearance to three stories at the lower-level garage entrance. Mr. Dibble described the proposed setbacks to the residential properties relative to the adjacent buildings. Chairman Church stated that the front-yard setback and the size of the proposed building are intimidating and out of character with the residential properties on Lawrence Avenue and along Route 9 heading south. The proposed building exceeds the permitted lot coverage by 10%. He suggested that the applicant retain the penthouse square footage by bringing the building closer to the sidewalk, reducing the front-yard setback to be in keeping with the other commercial buildings, and gradually increasing the building height from the front to the rear. There was a discussion between the Board, Mr. Dibble and Bruno Pietrosanti regarding the requested variances, revisions made to the application during Planning Board reviews, and the proposed self-storage use. 1 (ZBA 10/15/2025) �Chairman Church stated that the proposed self-storage use is not before the Zoning Board to review and has no impact on their decision. The Board is required to evaluate the criteria for the requested variances for lot coverage, building height, and setbacks, and to determine how to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood. Sean McCarthy summarized the Board’s requests to revise the plans to bring the building closer to the street by reducing the front-yard setback to 5 feet, replacing the penthouse square footage, and increasing the building setbacks farther from the residential properties on Lawrence Avenue. Mr. Pietrosanti said that the requested design changes would not increase the variances for the 70% building coverage and the 53.5-foot building height. Mr. Dibble asked the Board to confirm that making the suggested changes will not require reopening the public hearing. Chairman Church expressed his preference to delay the vote and not reopen the public hearing. He asked the applicant to revise the plans before the November meeting. The public comments in opposition to the self-storage use do not concern the Board since it is a permitted use. Chairman Church moved to adjourn the application to the November 19, 2025 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church moved to approve the July 16, 2025, and September 17, 2025 minutes. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Sandra Tripp- yes Gorete Crowe- yes Thomas Chang- yes Craig Lis- yes Vote 5-0 Chairman Church moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 PM. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 2 (ZBA 10/15/2025) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-10-15 Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/99992aaf41591b9dbb96dafea6270a46.pdf f14ed180788b87244a6a30078214eac4 PDF Text Text ������ Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-11-19_309-315 North Broadway approved ZBA resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/743a764f961606121a49007448329003.pdf ecca02217314b9090e8b91d0eaf1c1fd PDF Text Text ��� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-11-19_41 Amos Street approved resolution 11-19-25 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/91ead24e6166dea8f42e302e6ed9f4eb.pdf 086157b1412deb86b703ae8435e2d10f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2025-11-19_ Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text