Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves Coventry self‑storage project with multiple variances
Summary
The Coventry Planning Commission approved a preliminary plan for a three‑story, 75,000‑square‑foot self‑storage building and granted five zoning variances and several waivers, after discussing screening, trees and parking.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Coventry Planning Commission on Wednesday approved a preliminary plan for a three‑story, 75,000‑square‑foot commercial self‑storage building on Assessor’s Plat 10, Lot 31, and granted five zoning variances and several site waivers.
The project, proposed by Newstek Hill Coventry LLC, would sit at 1920 Newstach Hill Road in the town’s General Business zone and the Special Planning Overlay. Commissioners voted to approve variances and the preliminary plan after hearing from the applicant and staff and after a public hearing with no speakers for or against the project.
The commission read and approved five variances as a block: allowance of one loading space where eight are required; permission for a flat roof where flat roofs are normally disallowed; allowance of building facades longer than 60 feet without windows; no customer entrance on the street‑facing facade where one is normally required; and relief from planting new evergreen trees on the rear side of the proposed building where the code would require them. Planning staff recommended a single set of findings to support the five variances, and the commission adopted that recommendation in a single vote.
Applicant representatives said the perimeter of the site will be fenced and screened. Steven Fusco, project designer, said, “The perimeter will be fenced with a chain link fence up until it reaches the face of the building facade. And then from there, it will transition to a, like, an aluminum picket decorative fence.” He also described proposed plantings and renderings intended to show the screening effect “a few years out and then at full maturity.”
Staff told the commission the proposal included a set of waivers: the applicant requested to omit sidewalks and curbing where none exist to connect to, and to omit street lighting on the property; staff noted street lights exist on the opposite side of Newseneck. The applicant also requested that the commission reduce the number of required parking spaces. The planning report notes that applying the town’s standard parking metric to a self‑storage use would yield an estimate of about 250 spaces; the applicant proposes four on‑site parking spaces inclusive of one accessible (handicap) space. A planning staff member explained that the parking standard is driven by gross floor area and that “self storage facilities are not known for that [parking] demand,” recommending the waiver.
The commission voted to approve the variances and then voted to approve the preliminary plan with the waivers and to allow final administrative sign‑off on details. The votes carried with a unanimous voice vote following a roll call showing a quorum.
What happens next: the approved preliminary plan and waivers move into the town’s administrative review for final approval and recording steps required by the town. Any required permits or inspections will proceed through the usual administrative channels.
Details from the record: the board opened a public hearing on the application, received an emailed objection for the record from a named abutter, and then closed the hearing before taking the variance and plan votes. Commissioners discussed tree retention and screening, the visual effect of mature pines over time, and whether to hide rooftop mechanical units behind parapets or building facades.
Commission discussion also noted that the loading requirement for the proposed use (eight loading spaces under the code) contrasts with operational experience for self‑storage facilities; staff and the applicant described shared loading and limited day‑to‑day parking demand as the basis for the requested relief.
The commission’s action was limited to the land‑use approvals and variances recorded in the minutes; no new tax or financing actions were taken at the meeting.

