Planning board recesses hearing on proposed Sleepy Hollow self-storage complex after residents raise concerns

The Sleepy Hollow Planning & Zoning Board recessed a public hearing on Feb. 10, 2025 on an application by Timothy James to build a self-storage complex at 16001 West Main Street, advancing the matter to a March 10 continuance so the applicant can revise plans and address residents’ concerns. The application asks for a special-use permit for an indoor self-storage facility and three variances: an increase in the maximum floor-area ratio (FAR) from 0.23 to about 0.27–0.28, permission for a three-story (up to 35-foot) climate-controlled building with an elevator, and authorization for multiple buildings on a single lot instead of the ordinance’s one-building-per-lot rule.

Chairman Eric Waters, identifying himself as chairman of the Planning & Zoning Board, opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to present. Proponent Timothy James, accompanied by his wife Kristen, described the proposal as a seven-building site plan with six drive-up buildings and one three-story climate-controlled building. James said a large retention pond required by Kane County stormwater rules consumes roughly one-third of the parcel and that the variances are necessary to achieve rentable square footage that would make the project financially viable. James said the applicant operates a small, locally owned self-storage business and emphasized security measures, LED lighting with cutoffs, and a landscape plan the team says exceeds the village’s requirements.

The presentation included drawings of building footprints, a proposed monument sign by the entrance, and the operational plan (staffed office, online rentals, proposed access hours of 6 a.m.–10 p.m.). On the FAR calculation, James said he used each building’s footprint (including hallways and elevator shafts) to compute the proposed ratio; he estimated the site footprint would yield roughly 55,000 rentable square feet on the ground plane, with final unit counts to be set by a feasibility study.

Several residents and professionals urged the board to deny the special use and variances. Peter Vernon, an engineer and code consultant, said petition organizers had collected "over 300 verified signatures" opposing the project and questioned the FAR math and emergency vehicle access around perimeter buildings. "The requested variation of .23 to 0.28 … the documents indicate a mix of single-story buildings varying in height to 20 ft [and] a single three-story indoor storage building," Vernon said, adding that a worst-case FAR could be substantially higher if the three-story footprint is included. Resident Deborah Vernon told the board the proposal "does not conform with the Sleepy Hollow comprehensive plan," said she expected little sales-tax benefit from a remotely managed storage use, and reported the petition had grown to "over 320 signatures." Another longtime resident, Ed Reese, said the parcel had been rezoned in the past but left undeveloped and urged the village to seek higher-revenue uses more consistent with neighboring brick commercial properties.

Residents emphasized visual impact and buffering. Multiple neighbors and commissioners pushed back on the applicant’s proposed insulated metal panels for exterior walls and asked for brick or stone veneer along the sides that face homes. Commissioners asked whether removing or relocating a south-side building would provide a larger berm and screen the nearest homes; James said reengineering could be possible but would affect project economics. James also said the fire district requires sprinklers in multi-story buildings and that perimeter drive aisles and turning radii had been considered in the engineering submittal.

After extended questioning about unit sizes, camera monitoring, lighting photometrics, fence type (several residents preferred decorative aluminum in place of chain-link around the pond), and the size of the retention pond, a motion was made to recess the public hearing and reconvene on March 10 at 5:30 p.m. The motion carried, with one commissioner voting "no." The applicant agreed to try to file revised materials for public review before the next hearing date.

What happens next: The board left the public hearing open (recessed) to allow the applicant time to work with engineers and neighbors and to submit revised site drawings and supporting documents for the March 10 meeting. The next hearing will be an opportunity for additional public comment and for commissioners to review any reconfigured layout, facade changes and buffering measures the applicant provides.