Applicant asks to adjourn storage‑conversion case at 896 South Columbus Avenue; board agrees to be lead agency

The Planning Board on April 2 accepted the applicant’s request to adjourn the public hearing on a site‑plan application to convert a two‑story, roughly 28,000‑square‑foot former manufacturing building at 896 South Columbus Avenue into a storage facility serving a moving company. The applicant will return at the board’s May meeting to continue the hearing and supply additional materials requested by board members and neighbors.

Emmanuel D’Amour of D’Amour Studio described the proposal as an owner‑operated storage facility for a moving company (brand name identified in the presentation), not a self‑storage business with customer walk‑in access. He said the building would be temperature‑controlled, windows would be blocked and the exterior would receive an EIFS wrap for insulation and security. “It’s not a self storage facility,” he told the board; “the only people in the facility would just be the employees.”

Board members pressed for more detail. The architect said the facility currently has 18 parking spaces, expected on‑site staff of two to three employees, and anticipated two to three truck deliveries per day; loading would use a curb cut on South Columbus Avenue with vehicles backing into the loading door. The applicant did not provide a final layout of cubicles/units, an exterior lighting and security camera plan, retention/ stormwater system details, or a precise hours-of‑operation schedule; the board asked for those items for the next hearing.

Neighbors and community representatives spoke at length. Kevin Bunch, president of the Kingsbridge Garden Association, and several other residents said most neighbors did not receive mailed notice of the hearing and asked the board to verify the certified mail list; the board staff said it would check and asked the applicant to provide evidence of mailed notices. Multiple speakers raised environmental concerns because the building predates 1970 and might contain asbestos; the board said building‑department rules on demolition and abatement would apply and that proof of compliance would be required before approvals could proceed.

The board voted to be the lead agency for environmental review for the application; the motion passed by voice vote. The board scheduled the continued hearing for May 7 and asked the applicant to submit requested materials — detailed unit layout, truck size and routing, security and lighting plans with minimum video retention, an updated parking and operation plan, stormwater retention details, and evidence of neighborhood notice.

Ending: The public hearing was adjourned to the May 7 meeting. The board’s lead‑agency designation begins the coordinated review process; no approvals were issued on April 2.