The ongoing dispute over the exterior appearance of 52 Depew St. in Pleasantville intensified last week when the village's Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board public hearing debated how to resolve the dilemma.
For two years, the board has been arguing with the building's developer, Lighthouse Living LLC, over the issue that the finished building, also known as The Atwood, did not reflect the quaint townhouses in the original renderings presented in the 2019 plan. Commission members and those who live in the neighborhood have argued that what was built looks more like an industrial warehouse.
The Sept. 27 hearing sought community feedback on the latest changes to the exterior. Changes included covering exposed concrete fronting Saw Mill River Parkway, installing plastic ivy netting, new clapboard siding, newly planted evergreens and a rooftop parapet.
Despite the expectation of voting, the commission postponed making a decision. If accepted, the 71-unit building could be issued a permanent Certificate of Occupancy. The building is currently operating under a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) pending final Planning Commission approval.
Neighborhood residents who spoke at last Wednesday's hearing expressed their disdain for the developer and the Planning Commission, which had approved the plans in 2020.
"I was all for this building when I first saw the plans, but now the building looks nothing like what was promised and is a constant reminder from my backyard every day," said Tim Mattison, a Grant resident. Street whose house is behind 52 Depew St. “It seems to me that (the developer) gets away with it and does what he wants.”
Mattison also examined and questioned the village's building permit process.
“Did no one see how the building was built? How could all that work be done and now we argue that we would like it to be fixed?,” he said. “They shouldn't get away with it. It's the ugliest building in Pleasantville, maybe in the entire county.
Fears also emerged that Pleasantville has become a testing ground for developers.
“Developers will use cheap construction and when they get final approvals, they will build whatever they want,” Mattison said. "The message I keep getting is that if you're a developer here, you'll get your way."
An unexpected problem arose related to illegal parking and increased traffic resulting from the influx of renters into the neighborhood. Resident Julie Edwards said tenants at The Atwood who don't want to pay the additional monthly charge for spaces in the building's garage are parking illegally on the street. Cars are often parked in spaces reserved for first responders, in neighbors' yards and on the block of Vanderbilt Avenue, Ella Edwards said.
“Last week they parked in a spot that blocked an ambulance that was trying to get a tenant out of the building,” he said. “It's not fair to business owners, nor to Amazon trucks or delivery trucks. What worries me most is this and if they approve this (building), the people are setting a precedent that our people are easy to convince, that we will accept everything we can get. “
Planning Commission member James MacDonald said he knew a tenant at The Atwood who paid $200 a month for a parking spot.
"That goes against the requirement that if you rent an apartment, parking is included," MacDonald said. “If tenants need two spots, they choose to park on the street so people can park somewhere else. “They’ve basically opened an independent parking business.”
The parking problem and obstruction of access roads on Depew Street has generated multiple calls to police, according to MacDonald.
“The building manager was even notified, but he did not rectify the situation. “This is a much bigger problem,” he stated.
There is currently nothing in town code that requires developers to provide free parking to tenants, said town attorney Jennifer Gray.
Michelle Coletti, director of development for Lighthouse Living who attended the public hearing via Zoom, said she was not aware of the parking issue.
"It's normal to charge for parking in an apartment building," Coletti said. "We have no way to control people parking on the street if street parking is allowed."
One resident suggested the village revoke the TCO to send a message to Lighthouse Living and other developers. The TCO was issued in March.
Commission member Phil Myrick said the current controversy has been unfair to the community.
“The developer has fought us tooth and nail,” Myrick said. "And while I give them credit for the improvements that have been made, I sympathize with the (neighborhood) residents."
Henry Leyva, another member of the commission, added that the parking problems and their impacts were disconcerting.
"I'm going to have a hard time voting until we explore the ramifications of this issue," he said.
MacDonald said the board has been dealing with the same issues for the past 15 months.
"It sets a horrible precedent and is not consistent with our initial SEQRA (state Environmental Quality Review Act) finding," MacDonald said. "In my opinion, this is a fight worth fighting and we have received very little cooperation from the developer."
Commission Chairman Russell Klein said the 52 Depew St. application was the most difficult he encountered at the board. Klein has chaired the commission for more than a decade.
"We've all struggled with this and it's a balancing act," Klein said. “What was the original Amazon-looking warehouse is a building that is now better than that. “It's not what we approved and I don't like this building, but the added details and improvements we fought for over the last 18 months have helped.”
Klein said if the village were to revoke the TCO, which can be granted for up to a year, and deny a formal Certificate of Occupancy, the result could be dire. Without either, the building cannot be legally occupied and residents could be displaced.
"If approval is denied, we will probably be left with an empty building for some time," he said. “Temporary certificates of occupancy do not last forever. “We are trying to resolve an unsustainable situation.”
Gray suggested the board offer Lighthouse Living a chance to respond to last week's comments before a vote is taken on final approval. The commission and Lighthouse Living agreed.
While the hearing was closed last week, the commission will now wait for the developer's responses. Another hearing may be called if deemed necessary.
