Can there be room for yet more self-storage units in Wainscott?
If a preliminary application heard by the East Hampton Town Planning Board on Jan. 10 gains any traction, Wainscott — known for Georgica Pond, farm fields, and its oceanfront — could soon add storage facilities to its list of attractions.
Liz Vail, an attorney for the limited liability company 54 Industrial Road Owner, showed the board plans for a 39,000-square-foot storage building, to be located adjacent to the East Hampton Town Airport.
“When did Wainscott become the epicenter of self-storage?” asked Michael Hansen, a board member and nearby resident.
Three such facilities already exist in the hamlet: PODS Moving and Storage at 86 Industrial Road, Twin Forks Moving and Storage at 77 Industrial Road, and GoodFriend Self-Storage at 17 Goodfriend Drive.
“I’ve talked to the PODS guy, and they’re full,” said Sharon McCobb, a board member who is now its vice chair, replacing Ian Calder-Piedmonte, who was appointed to the town board. “So is Twin Forks Storage.”
Another proposed facility, at the Home Sweet Home Moving and Storage warehouse on Montauk Highway, has been before the board for the last couple of years. That application has not been well received, largely because of the size of the building and traffic circulation concerns.
“This is the eighth mini-storage unit application we’ve reviewed,” observed Samuel Kramer, planning board chairman. “The metaphor I always use is, we’re building an airplane in midflight, because we don’t have legislation in this town that governs mini-storage.”
“If it’s not listed in the code, that doesn’t mean it’s not permitted,” said Tina Vavilis LaGarenne, East Hampton’s assistant planning director. “It’s considered non-nuisance industry.”
The site plan showed 105 parking spots, but Ms. Vail said that was inaccurate and would be decreased. Nonetheless, Mr. Kramer noted there was only one way to get from the site to Montauk Highway, from Northwest Road down Daniel’s Hole Road.
“There are arguments in favor of a traffic study regardless of how many traffic spaces are proposed,” he said. “It’s a big building you’re proposing, in terms of square feet certainly, and we need a lot more in the application telling us what it’s going to look like, and how it’s going to be used. A.D.A. access is certainly important.”
“The other thing that is of great concern to me,” he added, “is existing violations on the property. There’s a pile of what I presume to be dirt that’s got to be 20 feet high.”
“They cut down a lot of trees,” said Mr. Hansen.
Kevin Cooper, the town’s director of code enforcement, said the owners of 54 Industrial Road had been issued two tickets recently. One, on Sept. 22, was for lacking a site plan and a building permit. “I don’t know what their motivation was, but we know there was clearing,” he said. “We gave them another in October, because it seemed like they did more work. The piles were bigger. They’re still in court for both of them. Looks like they’re heading in the right direction now.”
“What is happening there now colors my opinion of what we need to do,” said Louis Cortese, a board member, noting that the parcel sits in a groundwater protection district. He worried about the size of the building and how it might translate to an increase in sanitary flow.
“I don’t understand why we can’t say, ‘I’m sorry, you can’t build a 39,000-square-foot building with this use if you’re going to generate three times the allowable flow, especially in a groundwater protection area,’ “ he said.
Ms. Vail assured the board that the applicant would be taking care of the violations in Justice Court, and submitting a site plan “with as much conformance as possible.”
