Sleepy Hollow trustees table proposal to remove self‑storage from B‑2 zoning after resident concerns

The Sleepy Hollow village board on Sept. 8 considered a Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation to amend the village code by removing self‑service storage units from the list of special uses in the B‑2 Village Business District. After extended discussion and public comment, trustees voted to table the item to the Oct. 6 meeting for further review and attorney guidance.

Why it mattered: The proposed text amendment would delete references to self‑service storage in the B‑2 special‑use list and remove the definition of self‑service storage from the code. Supporters said the change adds an extra procedural barrier that reflects resident sentiment; critics worried the amendment was unnecessary, could be costly to finalize and might remove a future development option without clear benefit.

Public comment and trustee concerns Resident Mr. Herman (speaker S7) urged the board to clarify whether deleting the special‑use language would change resident costs or effectively prohibit future storage proposals. He asked where the costs of plan review and code‑enforcement would fall and whether the village would be forced to contract separate services for zoning enforcement. President (speaker S6) and Director Detmer (speaker S9) explained that simply deleting the item would remove it from the list of allowable special uses, meaning an applicant could not pursue a special‑use approval for self‑storage unless the code were later amended again.

Legal and practical questions Trustees debated whether deleting the language added meaningful protection for neighbors or whether existing code provisions and special‑use conditions already allowed the board to limit or deny applications. Several trustees raised concerns about spending money to revise code language when the issue might be handled through permit conditions or the PCC process. Board members asked for attorney Schuster to attend the next meeting to answer precise legal effect questions.

Vote and next steps Trustee Thomas moved to table the amendment to the Oct. 6 meeting to allow additional legal review and staff memo responses; the motion passed on a 4–1 roll call. The board asked staff to prepare clarifying materials and to have attorney Schuster present at the next meeting.