Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge board to reject or closely scrutinize proposed self‑storage concept at 161 Main

Sleepy Hollow Village Board · April 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A public commenter told trustees that a new large self‑storage concept at 161 Main appears incompatible with zoning (Section 814B), lacks adequate fire access and parking, and expands building square footage significantly compared with earlier plans.

During public comment at the Sleepy Hollow Village Board meeting, a resident raised zoning and safety concerns about a proposed self‑storage concept for 161 Main that the commenter said is not permitted under current code.

Pete Vernon told trustees the current code (cited in the comment as "Section 814B") prohibits uses not expressly permitted, and he argued the new self‑storage concept — which he said shows a total of about 138,522 square feet compared with a prior submission of 57,510 square feet — is not similar to permitted B2 uses. "Section 814B says plainly all uses not expressly permitted under this title are prohibited," Vernon said. He also raised fire access and parking concerns, saying the concept shows three‑story elements where the code permits only one story for the relevant district and that the concept appears to lack fire‑apparatus access around buildings.

Vernon urged the board to require the petitioner to follow the code and noted that the absence of a building official at earlier review sessions limited the board’s ability to flag problems before the applicant advanced the concept. Trustees acknowledged the comment and said the item would proceed through the planning and zoning process; staff and trustees noted that petitions may be considered by the board only after P&Z review and administrative checks.

The board did not take formal action on the petition during the meeting; trustees and residents asked for more thorough review by planning staff and legal counsel before any zoning determination or board action.