Appearance of P’ville’s Depew St. Building Faces Torrent of Criticism

The ongoing dispute over the exterior appearance of 52 Depew St. in Pleasantville escalated last week as the village’s Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board public hearing grappled with how to solve the dilemma.

For two years the board has been wrangling with the building’s developer, Lighthouse Living LLC, over the issue that the completed building, also known as The Atwood, didn’t reflect the quaint townhouses of the original renderings submitted in the 2019 plan. Commission members and those living in the neighborhood have argued that what was built instead resembles an industrial warehouse.

The Sept. 27 hearing sought community feedback about the latest changes to the exterior. Changes included covering the exposed concrete facing the Saw Mill River Parkway, installing plastic ivy screening, new clapboard siding, newly-planted evergreen trees and a rooftop parapet.

Despite an expectation to vote, the commission postponed making a decision. If accepted, the 71-unit building could be issued a permanent Certificate of Occupancy. Currently, the building is operating under a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) pending final Planning Commission approval.

Neighborhood residents speaking out at last Wednesday’s hearing expressed disdain for the developer and for 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 doesn’t look anything like what was promised and it’s a constant reminder from my backyard every single day,” said Tim Mattison, a Grant Street resident whose home is behind 52 Depew St. “It feels to me like (the developer) is getting away with doing whatever he wants.”

Mattison also scrutinized and questioned the village building permit process.

“Was nobody watching the building being built? How could all that work get done and now we are arguing that we’d like to see it fixed,” he said. “They shouldn’t get away with it. It’s the ugliest building in Pleasantville, perhaps in the whole county.”

The fear that Pleasantville has become a testing ground for developers was also raised.

“Developers will bait and switch, use cheap construction and when they get final approvals, they will build whatever they want,” Mattison said. “The message I keep getting is if you are a developer here, you’re going to get your way.”

An unexpected issue arose concerning illegal parking and more traffic resulting from the influx of renters to the neighborhood. Resident Julie Edwards said renters at The Atwood who don’t want to pay the additional monthly parking charge for spots in the building’s garage are parking illegally on the street. Frequently cars are parked in spaces reserved for emergency responders, in neighbor’s yards and down the block on Vanderbilt Avenue, Edwards said.

“Last week they parked in a spot that blocked an ambulance who was trying to get a tenant out of the building,” she said. “It’s not fair to business owners, and Amazon trucks or delivery trucks. I’m most concerned about this and if you approve this (building), the village is setting a precedent that our town is a pushover, that we will take whatever we can get. “

Planning Commission member James MacDonald said he knew of a tenant at The Atwood who was paying $200 a month for a parking spot.

“That goes against the requirement that if you’re renting an apartment the parking comes with it,” MacDonald noted. “If renters need two spots, they are opting to park on the street so people are parking elsewhere. They’ve opened up a separate parking garage business basically.”

The parking issue and obstruction of driveways on Depew Street has generated multiple calls to the police, according to MacDonald.

“Even the building manager was notified but it hasn’t rectified the situation. This is a much bigger issue,” he said.

Currently there is nothing in the village code that requires developers to provide free parking to renters, said Village 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 is standard to charge for parking in an apartment building,” Coletti said. “We have no way to control people who park 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 ongoing 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’m sympathetic with the (neighborhood) residents.”

Henry Leyva, another commission member, added that the parking problems and its impacts were disconcerting.

“I will have a hard time voting until we explore the ramifications of this issue,” he said.

MacDonald claimed the board has been dealing with the same issues for the last 15 months.

“It sets a horrible precedent and is not consistent with our initial SEQRA (state Environmental Quality Review Act) finding,” MacDonald said. “This is a fight worth fighting in my opinion and we’ve gotten very little cooperation from the developer.”

Commission Chair Russell Klein said the 52 Depew St. application was the most difficult that he has encountered on 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 better than that now. It’s not what we approved and I don’t like this building but the added details and improvements we fought for in the last 18 months has helped.”

Klein said should the village revoke the TCO, which can be granted for up to one year, and deny a formal Certificate of Occupancy, the outcome could be dire. Without either, the building cannot be legally occupied and the residents could be displaced.

“Should the CO be denied, we will probably be left with a vacant building for some time to come,” he said. “Temporary Certificates of Occupancy don’t go on forever. We are trying to resolve an untenable situation.”

Gray suggested the board offer Lighthouse Living an opportunity 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 await the developer’s responses. Another hearing can be convened if it is deemed necessary.