East Lyme zoning hearing on allowing self-storage in commercial districts draws residents'concerns about wetlands, traffic and neighborhood fit

East Lyme

The East Lyme Zoning Commission heard public testimony on June 4 about a proposed zoning-text amendment to allow self-storage facilities in CA commercial districts under a special-permit process, but residents and the planning commission urged caution and the board agreed to continue the matter for further review.

Darren Owen, a land-use consultant for applicant James Quill, told the commission the amendment would add a new subsection, 8.2.18, to permit storage facilities in CA zones subject to five controls: a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, a required 20% conservation easement, direct access from an arterial road, wetland-planting requirements on sites containing wetlands, and design standards consistent with section 34 of the zoning regulations. "Our storage facility is any real property designed and used for the renting or leasing of individual self-contained units of storage space to occupants who are to have access to such units for storing and removing personal property only, other than motor vehicles, trailers or vessels and not for residential purposes," Owen said during his presentation.

Why now and where

Commissioners pressed the applicant about why CA commercial zones were necessary for the use when self-storage is already permitted in the town's light-industrial (LI) zones. A commissioner asked, "Why is that insufficient? What problem is this amendment solving for the town, and not just for one applicant?" Owen said the proposal aims to allow only the less offensive, indoor type of self-storage in CA zones while prohibiting outdoor vehicle or trailer storage, and that architectural controls would prevent the typical windowless warehouse look.

Numbers and constraints

Owen said a building footprint on the required lot could be roughly 10,000 to 15,000 square feet and emphasized the text amendment is intentionally a zone-wide rule rather than a site-specific approval. William Mahal, the zoning official who read the staff memo into the record, reminded the commission that the matter is a text amendment and that any future project would need a site-specific special-permit and site-plan review.

Residents voice environmental and safety worries

Several residents testified against the amendment. Teresa Kegley said she was concerned about unit counts, hours of operation, lighting, noise, blasting that could affect private wells, and the possibility that vehicles would be stored inside units despite the prohibition. "I'm concerned about blasting taking place which would then compromise the integrity of the residential home wells," Kegley said.

Adjacent property owner Edward Gilbert said he opposed the amendment and wanted to see the developer in person to understand potential impacts and property-value effects. Lisa Row argued that a commercial storage facility is "inconsistent with the character" of downtown Niantic and Flanders neighborhoods and that increased traffic from moving trucks, delivery vehicles and non-local drivers would compromise pedestrian safety and emergency access. Other residents raised wetlands and drainage concerns, narrow local roads and the impact on wildlife.

Planning and agency reviews

The record included a May 12 letter from the East Lyme Planning Commission that found the amendment inconsistent with the town's 2020 Plan of Conservation and Development. A COG (intermunicipal) memo read into the record concluded the change was "not likely to have a negative intermunicipal impact," and the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection issued a consistency determination limited to coastal-management considerations.

Market and capacity questions

An emailed comment from Michael Dunn, president of East Lyme Rental Space Inc., said his facility's occupancy is in the 70% range, well below the industry norm of over 90%, and argued the town did not presently need additional self-storage capacity. Jason Archer, who spoke as neutral, said he was concerned the proposal might reduce pricing and that administrative costs and permit fees should be clearer in the record.

Next steps

Commissioners discussed taking time for site visits to key CA commercial areas (Boston Post Road, Flanders Road and West Main Street) before acting. The board voted to close the public hearing and carry the item to the next regular meeting agenda so members could "drive by" and review the CA zone locations before deliberating further. No zoning text change or special permit was approved at the June 4 meeting.

Votes at a glance

The commission approved one site-plan modification at the meeting: a 12-by-22-foot stone patio for William Hennessy at a unit in the Spreer elderly-housing complex (14 Spreer Drive). The commission's motion to approve was seconded and passed; specific roll-call tallies were not read into the record.

What to watch for

If the commission ultimately votes to amend the zoning text, any subsequent storage-facility application would return to the commission as a site-specific special-permit and site-plan review. That future review would address the items repeatedly raised at the hearing: wetland impacts, impervious coverage, lighting and hours of operation, building design consistent with section 34, traffic and access, and potential effects on private wells and property values.

For now, the commission has left the proposed amendment open for further fact-gathering and public comment.