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