9 Properties Object To City's Proposed Historic Designation - Mayor Lee Kyriacou Proceeding Anyway - Read Their Letters/Reasoning Here
/
After the construction of 344 Main Street a few years ago, several development issues came to light that the people of Beacon objected to. This project triggered a massive undertaking of refining the City’s zoning codes to simplify or tighten regulation. During that time, then Mayor Randy Casale and then Councilmember Lee Kyriacou would walk around the city identifying commercial buildings and residential houses that they felt should be deemed historic, thereby being given these properties protection, design requirements, and overarching regulation on neighboring non-historic buildings, should the owner of a non-historic building want to build something that would have - in the eyes of City Council or Zoning/Planning Board Members - negative impact on the neighboring historic property.
In the chess game that is City Planning, historic buildings can be used to block proposed building projects, like this one here at 475 Main Street next door to the Howland Cultural Center years ago. Now that Mayor Lee Kyriacou has become mayor, defeating Randy in the last election, Mayor Lee moved forward with proposing building designations for 35 buildings and houses, and first presented them in March 2020. Several homeowners and commercial building owners came to a public meeting to object, and the topic was put on pause. Then the pandemic hit.
The subject was raised again in 2021, this time with a reduced number of 18 commercial buildings, which were brought to the public for a formal and required Public Hearing. Building owners could speak their objection and write letters of opposition. Despite receiving 9 objections from building owners - half of the first round of building owners - Mayor Lee Kyriacou wants to move forward with the vote to ignore their objection. In order to do that, he needs a “supermajority” vote from the City Council, to override the building owner’s objection.
If that happens, and if the building owner decides to challenge the city legally, Mayor Kyriacou at the last City Council meeting agreed with City Administrator Chris White that the City of Beacon needs to be sure it has “iron clad” reasons for how it is proceeding with forcing a building to have historic designation despite an owner’s objection, should a building owner take legal action to challenge.
Said City Administrator Chris White: “In light of the opposition of the 9 owners, Drew (one of the City’s attorneys from Keane and Beane) and I talked about that we laid out a compelling case, because if one of them were to challenge, then we want to make sure.” Chris continued to say that he asked Beacon’s City Planner to “take a second look” at the compelling reasons.
Said Mayor Kyriacou after City Council members gave their feedback to the presented reasons for historic designation for each building: “I'm very appreciative of everyone's comments” He voiced concern for preserving Beacon’s history. “I like the comment, Chris, about being iron clad about how we are doing this.”
The letters of opposition from the building owners has been published below.
Correspondence from 8 (of the 9) Owners of Properties Nominated for Designation in the Historic District Landmark Overlay Zone
On May 14, 2021 the City of Beacon sent 18 certified letters to the owners of properties nominated for historic designation in the Main Street corridor. The letters informed property owners of the proposed nomination, invited them to speak at a Public Hearing on June 7, 2021, and welcomed them to reach out to the City with any comments and questions beforehand. A sample letter to property owners can be found on page 2 of the City’s document.
Nine property owners responded with their objections to the City. The building owners of Max’s On Main, at 246 Main Street, despite their letter not being included below. Owner Richie Kaplan called in during the 6/7/2021 meeting to verbalize his opposition and state that he sent in a letter of opposition. In response, City Administrator Chris White noted the letter and said it was part of public record.
All letters of opposition (except 246 Main Street, Max’s On Main) can be found starting on page 5 of this document. For the ease of reading, they have been republished below with pictures of the building for quick reference.
Sample Letter Sent To Targeted Building Owners
May 13, 2021
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
[Property Owner's Mailing Address]
Re: Notice of Public Hearing
Property Proposed for Historic Landmark Designation- City of Beacon
Dear [Property Owner]:
The City of Beacon is considering designating multiple properties along Main Street in Beacon as historical landmarks to be included in the City’s Historic District and Landmark Overlay Zone (“HDLO”) and has proposed including your property located at 246 Main Street. A copy of the historic resource inventory form describing your property is attached. A remote public hearing to discuss the proposed designations is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on June 7, 2021, which you can participate in through the following link: https://bit.ly/2Qc4Yhd
You are invited to attend to present any comments or information you would like considered by the City Council or submit them prior to the public hearing to publichearing@beaconny.gov or by mail to HDLO Public Hearing, City of Beacon, 1 Municipal Plaza, Beacon, NY 12508. Any objection to the proposed designation must be submitted in writing prior to the public hearing.
Designation of Historic Landmarks
On June 7, 2021, the City Council will hold a public hearing to receive comments on its proposal to designate your property as a historic landmark pursuant to Section 134-4 of the Code of the City of Beacon (the “City Code”). The City Council, property owners and any interested parties may present comments or documentation at the public hearing which will become part of a record regarding the historic, architectural, or cultural importance of the proposed landmark.
In determining whether to designate a new historic landmark, the City Council shall consider any comments or information presented prior to and during the public hearing to determine whether the proposed landmark meets one or more of the following criteria:
Has distinguishing architectural characteristics of a period, style, method of construction, indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
Has special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the community;
Is eligible for inclusion on the State or National Registers of Historic Places.
The City Council is required to make a decision within 60 days of the conclusion of the hearing. A super majority vote of five (5) Council members is necessary to designate a new historic landmark if the property owner objects to such designation.
Benefits of Historic Designation
Landmark designation results in an honorary status for a historic building, imposes certain measures of protection on the building to prevent incompatible development, and offers other benefits for the property. For example, additional uses are permitted by special permit from the Planning Board in the HDLO pursuant to Section 223-24.7 of the City Code (primarily beneficial in residential districts). Such uses include (a) specialized business uses of low traffic volume, normally associated with history, the arts or cultural uses, appropriate to the structure and compatible with the neighborhood, and (b) residential, hotel or professional uses, provided they are appropriate to the structure, compatible with the neighborhood and are located on a street that can accommodate increased traffic as determined by the City Council.
In accordance with New York State Real Property Tax Law Section 444-a and Section 199-10 of the City Code, if you alter your property to restore or rehabilitate a historical feature, and the project results in an increase in assessed property value, you may be entitled to a phased tax exemption from the portion of your property taxes attributed to the increased assessment.
In certain instances, you may also be eligible for historic preservation grants, such as the Johanna Favrot Fund for Historic Preservation, the Cynthia Woods Mitchell Fund for Historic Interiors, or the New York State Environmental Protection Fund.
Certificate of Appropriateness
If your property is a designated historic landmark, applications for a building permit involving alteration, construction, or demolition of an exterior identified historical feature that is visible from a public street, public sidewalk or public park on a designated historic landmark or property shall require certificate of appropriateness approval from the Planning Board. In reviewing an HDLO application and plans, the Planning Board shall consider the factors outlined in Section 134-6.C of the City Code. The certificate of appropriateness required under Chapter 134 of the City Code is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any building permit. Additionally, any sign application involving an HDLO parcel requires review by the Planning Board, not the Building Inspector.
An applicant whose certificate of appropriateness has been denied may apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) for a certificate of economic hardship to obtain relief from the requirements of Chapter 134 of the City Code. In order to obtain a certificate of economic hardship, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of economic hardship by establishing:
The property is incapable of earning a reasonable return, regardless of whether that return represents the most profitable return possible; and
The property cannot be adapted for any other use, whether by the current owner or by a purchaser, which would result in a reasonable return; and
Efforts to find a purchaser to acquire and preserve the property have failed.
The ZBA will take into consideration the economic feasibility of alternatives to removal, alteration or demolition of a landmark or portion thereof, and balance the public interest in preserving the historic landmark, or portion thereof, and the interest of the owner in removing, altering or demolishing the landmark or portion thereof. An applicant will not be charged an application fee, professional review fees, or fees to prepare and publish any public notice incurred in connection with the certificate of appropriateness or economic hardship application, except for any fees associated with another land use application concerning the historic property.
Central Main Street Design Standards
All currently nominated properties are located in the Central Main Street (“CMS”) District, which already requires site plan review by the Planning Board for significant exterior building changes. When considering any application in the CMS District, a site development plan application, or special permit, pertaining to a designated historic property, the City Council or Planning Board shall also consider the standards set forth in Section 134-7 of the City Code. Such standards are similar to the general design standards in the CMS District and include:
The design, character, and appropriateness to the property of the proposed alteration or new construction.
The scale and height of the proposed alteration or new construction in relation to the property itself, surrounding properties, and the neighborhood.
Architectural and site elements and their relation to similar features of other properties in the HDLO.
The design standards in the CMS and Historic Preservation articles are intended to protect designated historic buildings from incompatible development on adjacent parcels. For proposed buildings on CMS parcels in the HDLO, abutting an HDLO parcel, or having a property line frontage directly across the street from an HDLO parcel, any fourth-story or corner tower shall require a special permit from the City Council, not the Planning Board. Furthermore, the Planning Board may, at its discretion, reduce certain on-site parking requirements for projects located in the CMS district that involve a designated historic property (see City Code § 223-41.18 G(3)). The Planning Board may also waive setback requirements for certain designated historic properties in the CMS district (see City Code § 223-41.18 J(15)).
We hope you will join us for the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 7, 2021 and/or submit any comments you might have prior to the hearing. If you have any questions regarding this process, please do not hesitate to contact me at publichearing@beaconny.gov.
Sincerely,
Christopher White
City Administrator
Encl.
PROPERTY OWNERS OF 246 MAIN STREET
The property owners of 246 Main Street, the Kaplan brothers, submitted a letter of objection explaining why they did not want the designation, but it was not included on the City’s website.
During his first call to the Councilmembers on 2/3/2020, Richie Kaplan stated: “We have been here since 2006. In 2017 we had the opportuinty to purchase the building. And we did. Thought that would be advantagious to the value of our business. We've done it and we are happy that we did do it. At that time, we did not know anything about Histroic Overlay or District. Or that our building would be included in it. Since we've been here, we think we have been good citizens. Been active in the community if we could. We want to continue.” He stated that he could comply with whatever the process was, but he ultimately filed an objection.
Richie told A Little Beacon Blog: “After the pandemic and the burden it has been, it will be more difficult for us. We didn't realize what the historic nature was that the piece of wood on the top of the building carried. I don't think it's fair that a handful of people can decide what a private person can do. We'll do the best we can. It's hard to have your hands tied more than they already are.”
LETTER OF OBJECTION FROM PROPERTY OWNER OF PROPERTY NOMINATED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION 1154 NORTH AVENUE
Mr. White,
As the owners of 1154 North Avenue, we object to the proposed designation of the property as an individual landmark or as a contributing element in the Main Street Landmark District.
We are fond of the building and are delighted the public can once again fully enjoy it (with art galleries on both floors). Converted for auto-related uses prior to WWI, it was open to commercial customers through much of the 20th C, then closed for 40 years and used for the storage of private cars. We intend to maintain the building in its current form, keep it open to the public, and construct a new building on the adjacent parcel (replacing the former site of the Eagle Hotel, demolished long ago). We hope this project can help restore a proper sense of arrival at the west end of Main Street. Landmark status for 1154 would substantially complicate matters and further delay or derail that effort, without achieving a corresponding public purpose.
In our view, the proposed designation is neither justified, nor necessary to maintain the integrity of the existing historic district covering the west portion of Main Street ... a goal which we cherish.
The three listed criteria of ‘distinguishing architectural characteristics’, ‘special .... value as part of the community ... ‘, and ‘eligible for inclusion on State or National Registers ...’ are loosely interpreted in the designation letter. 1154 North Avenue is a handsome 19th Century structure, but one much changed over the decades. The current ‘garage’ door is the latest in a series of door replacements, though that opening does date from the original 19th C construction. The ‘covered-over corner storefront’ reflectstwo major changes made in the 20th C: the first in mid-century when a large section of masonry was removed and new steel framing introduced to accommodate showroom windows when the commercial use changed from garage to car sales; and the second when those windows were blocked up and a passage door opened to allow secure storage of private cars for the building owner.
We respectfully request that 1154 North Avenue NOT be included as a landmark or contributing building in any expansion of the HDLO.
With thanks,
Jinny St. Goar Joe Donovan
......
Hudson Todd LLC 4 Cross Street Beacon, NY 12508
LETTER OF OBJECTION FROM PROPERTY OWNER OF PROPERTY NOMINATED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION 4 CROSS STREET WHICH SITS WITHIN THE PARCEL AT 172 MAIN STREET
Mr. White,
As the owners of the buildings at 172 Main Street and 4 Cross Street, we object to the proposed designation of the 4 Cross Street building as an individual landmark and/or to its designation as a contributing element in the Main Street Landmark District.
The building at 172 Main Street (commercial, facing Main) is already included in the HDLO, as is the undeveloped section of land between 172 Main and 4 Cross. We have no concerns about that designation.
We are deeply concerned about the proposed designation of the 4 Cross Street building (residential, facing Cross, on the same tax parcel as 172), as our long-term plans for this area are still evolving, and such a designation could place major constraints on our ability to create a unified, functional and attractive structure at the corner of Cross and Main.
In our view, the proposed designation is neither justified, nor necessary to maintain the integrity of the existing historic district covering the west portion of Main Street ... a goal which we cherish. The three listed criteria of ‘distinguishing architectural characteristics’, ‘special .... value as part of the community ... ‘, and ‘eligible for inclusion on State or National Registers ...’ are loosely interpreted in the designation letter. 4 Cross Street is a utilitarian 20th Century structure, one example among hundreds of nearly identical structures located throughout Beacon and the mid-Hudson area.
If the same standards employed in evaluating 4 Cross were applied equitably, every building constructed before 1972 could be proposed for landmark status in Beacon. Singling this structure out for landmark status appears arbitrary and creates an undue hardship for us as owners.
We respectfully request that the 4 Cross Street building NOT be included as a landmark or contributing building in any expansion of the HDLO.
With thanks,
Jinny St. Goar Joe Donovan
......
Hudson Todd LLC 4 Cross Street Beacon, NY 12508
LETTER OF OBJECTION FROM PROPERTY OWNER OF PROPERTY NOMINATED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION 250 MAIN STREET
To whom it may concern,
We do not wish for 250 Main Street, Beacon, NY 12508 to be designated for Historic Landmark.
Thank You, Fa Tuan Ni
LETTER OF OBJECTION FROM PROPERTY OWNER OF PROPERTY NOMINATED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION 257-267 MAIN STREET
Mr. Christopher White City Administrator
Dear Sir,
I received your letter regarding our building located at 257-267 Main Street, Beacon and the City’s interest in re-designating our property as a ‘historic-property.’ I’d like to give a brief background if I may. Our company “26 East Main Street, LLC” purchased the property sometime around last August/September of 2020. We had been in contract to purchase for more than a year dating back to the summer of 2019! Once Covid hit, our closing was put off numerous times due to constant rescheduling of engineers, attorneys, banks, title companies, etc, all due to the pandemic. Then when we finally closed, almost 2/3 of the units were either with expired leases, unpaid rents, and/or vacancies as well as many other neglected items left unaddressed in/around the property for more than a year as a result of absentee-management. I am happy to report, that after an incredibly difficult, painful, costly, and challenging year, we are finally just starting to see some light at the end of this very long and dark tunnel, hoping for a better 2022.
We have been in property management and development for approximately 20 years. We purchased this property for (2) reasons; one- to manage as existing for a period, two- for the possibility to develop. There are (3) properties immediately neighboring us to the West on both street corners that have been completely built new, and a third currently under construction across the street and a few doors from the gas station. After removing former buildings, all of these brand new buildings are beautiful and greatly enhance and add value to Main Street. These owners rightfully enjoyed the freedom from restriction to develop their properties as we hoped and expected someday to have same, and feel otherwise would be greatly unjust.
We spent a significant amount of money investing in Beacon and this property. The justification for the large investment was solely based on the possibility to rebuild on our property as the aforementioned neighbors have. By adding this designation to our property, that opportunity seems greatly diminished, if at all.
After consulting with our attorneys, we have arrived at the conclusion that we are strongly against this proposal and do NOT want this designation/restriction/limitation placed on our property and further feel it will greatly devalue our investment, and doing so against our will (especially in light of all we just sent through the last (2) years) would just add further salt in our wound.
Please strongly consider NOT placing this unwanted designation on OUR property against our will, further causing financial damage and hardship to our already struggling investment.
Thank you for your time and consideration during these challenging times. Sincerely,
Vincent Satriano
26 East Main St, LLC
LETTER OF OBJECTION FROM PROPERTY OWNER OF PROPERTY NOMINATED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION 274 MAIN STREET
RECEIVED BY CITY HALL ON JUNE 9, 2021
Good day,
We are property owners at 274 Main Street, Beacon, New York We would like to thank you for all efforts put forth to preserve the integrity of Beacon.
After much thought and participating in the public hearing on Monday, June 7, we would like to kindly decline the designation of our building.
As many changes have been made to our building over the years, it does not completely fit the criteria to designate it a Historic Landmark. Not to mention it would be extremely detrimental from a financial standpoint as well.
We hope you will not consider us as this time.
Thank you for your time.
Kindly,
Michael and Tina Pomarico 274 Main Street
Beacon, New York
LETTER OF OBJECTION FROM OWNER OF PROPERTY NOMINATED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION 291 MAIN STREET
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to object the proposed landmark designations at 291 Main St, Beacon NY.
Sincerely,
Telephone Building Beacon LLC
LETTER OF OBJECTION FROM ATTORNEY OF PROPERTY NOMINATED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION 372 MAIN STREET (SALVATION ARMY)
June 7, 2021
Mayor Lee Kyriacou
And Members of the City Council City of Beacon
1 Municipal Plaza
Beacon, New York 12508
Rebecca A. Valk, Esq.
rvalk@cuddyfeder.com
Re: Proposed Nomination – Salvation Army Property at 372 Main Street. Historic Properties Overlay Zone
Dear Mayor Kyriacou and Members of the City Council:
I am writing this letter on behalf of our client, The Salvation Army, owner of property at 372 Main Street, known as tax parcel number 6054-29-018818 (the “Property”). This letter shall serve as Salvation Army’s objection to the nomination of the Property for landmark status under the City’s Historic Preservation Law.
The nomination of this Property is inappropriate as the Property fails to meet either of the criteria relied upon in the Historic Resource Inventory Form dated April 2021 (the “Inventory Form”).
The Inventory Form sets forth the rationale for the City Council’s nomination of this Property for
landmark status. A property nominated must meet one or more of the following criteria:
134-4 Designation of landmarks and historic districts.
B. The City Council shall determine whether a proposed district or landmark meets one or more of the following criteria:
(1) Has distinguishing architectural characteristics of a period, style, method of construction, indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
(2) Has special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of the cultural, political, economic or social history of the community;
(3) Is eligible for inclusion on the State or National Registers of Historic Places.
The Inventory Form for this Property relies upon portions of two of these criteria, alleging that the Property: (1) possesses distinguishing architectural characteristics of a period and style (subsection 1); and (2) has special historic and aesthetic value as part of the cultural history of the
City (subsection 2).
June 7, 2021 Page 2
As to the first criterion, the Inventory Form states “The building retains its original character. This religious structure is one of the more intact examples of its type, scale and period in the City.” This conclusory statement does not establish a legitimate basis for the designation of either the church building, which was concededly rebuilt in 1911, or of the building behind the church, which was admittedly constructed in 1961.
It is true that the church building has characteristics consistent with the period of its construction. However, that alone is insufficient to qualify for designation under the City’s code. To qualify the building must have “distinguishing architectural characteristics,” i.e., noteworthy, remarkable, odd, or unusual.1 The Inventory Form does not identify such features; rather, it lists features consistent with the period of construction and concedes that the church building is one intact example of this type of construction. The lack of noteworthy or remarkable features was cited in the 1979 Building Structure and Inventory Form for the Property (enclosed): “The church has a long history in Beacon, but architecturally, it is outclassed by other church buildings of its scale and period.” (emphasis added).
As to the second criterion relied upon, the Inventory Form makes a conclusory statement that the Property possesses “special historic and aesthetic value as part of the cultural history of the City.” Again, the Inventory Form lacks any discussion to support this conclusion. The inclusion of the Church in the HDLO based on the present documentation is unwarranted.
Additionally, there is no need to include the Church’s property in the HDLO at the present time. The Church plans to continue its mission work in the City of Beacon for the foreseeable future. If matters materially change at some point in the future, and the building were to ever cease to operate as a Church, the City always retains authority to reconsider a designation at that, more appropriate, time.
In conclusion, the Salvation Army objects to the nomination. The buildings at the Property are not appropriate for landmark designation. We note that a super-majority vote of five (5) Council members is now required to designate 372 Main Street a historic property because of this objection (Section 134-4G). We thank the Council for its consideration of these comments.
Very truly yours,
Rebecca A. Valk Enclosure
cc. Graeme Hepburn
William Null, Esq.
LETTER FROM OWNERS OF PROPERTY NOMINATED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION 378 – 382 MAIN STREET
We are Ed Benavente and Betsy Swanson, the owners of 378-382 Main St. also known as the Carriage Works Building. Those that have witnessed the evolution of this building over the years may be familiar with the various uses and changes since it’s construction in the mid 1800’s as a carriage and sleigh manufacturer to the present day office building with a cafe and market. In the process of renovating this property we took extra care and expense to recognize the history represented by the structure. This was a challenging project given the generations of alterations already in place. This was done without guidelines or compliance regulations other than standard building and safety codes. We specifically chose a property without historical designation status to avoid that extra layer of bureaucracy that can hamper the efforts of micro-developers and individuals without deep pockets like ourselves. While we appreciate the city’s efforts to preserve the character and regulating growth and uncontrolled development, it should be noted that adding more layers to the process serves to discourage thoughtful, grass- roots development and leaves the door open for larger development companies that have legal teams to run roughshod over any regulations in place.
Since moving to Beacon in 2006, we have supported many causes and organizations in town, including the Beacon Historical Society. We believe that history is an integral part of any community’s identity. We also believe that history needs to support the present and pave the way for the future. After many discussions with City Council members and the Building Department - we have yet to hear of any definitive benefit to this designation beyond a possible, ‘maybe’, when it comes to tax relief or preservation grants. In our experience, such designations can have an adverse effect on resale or catastrophic replacement. No doubt, today’s council has the best of intentions but we are more concerned with the unintended consequences of piling on more laws, regulations and exceptions to those same laws and regulations that might be manipulated in the future and have the reverse effect if the original intention.
We respectfully decline to participate in the historical designation at this time and hope that the City Council will expedite the conclusion of this subject so that more time and attention can be applied to ongoing taxation and infrastructure needs.
Thank you,
Ed Benavente Betsy Swanson
