Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents oppose Newburgh Elite Storage at Paffendorf Drive amid wetlands and traffic concerns
Summary
At a lengthy public hearing, residents objected to a proposed 56,700 sq ft self-storage complex on Paffendorf Drive, citing wetlands, wildlife impacts, increased truck traffic and neighborhood character; applicant said wetlands were delineated and mitigation plans submitted to DEC and Army Corps.
John Queenan of Lanc & Tully presented the Newburgh Elite Storage plan on Feb. 6, 2025, describing a proposed self-storage facility on a 9.2-acre parcel at 7 Paffendorf Drive with roughly 56,700 square feet of storage housed in multiple buildings and a small office/caretaker unit.
Neighbors and environmental speakers challenged the project at length. Nancy Bleadow, who lives next to the proposed entrance, said the development would fundamentally alter a quiet residential street and harm adjacent wetlands and wildlife: "I am unwaveringly opposed to the storage unit project that is being proposed," she said, describing concerns about heavy trucks on a narrow, unlit road, loss of habitat for frogs, salamanders and other species and inadequate screening between the sites.
Multiple residents urged that the proposal would add truck traffic and harm the character of Paffendorf Drive. Benjamin Goldfarb, who said he works for the New York Power Authority, urged the Board to "reject the proposed Newburgh Elite Storage facility," arguing that recent approvals of warehousing and storage projects have eroded community open space and habitat.
Applicant counsel John Queenan replied that storage is an allowable use in the IB (Interchange Business) zoning district and that the applicant has completed wetland delineations and submitted mitigation proposals to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. "The wetlands have been delineated by a biologist," Queenan said, and the team is prepared to respond to agency comments and modify landscaping and the driveway to address neighborhood concerns.
Board consultants and members asked the applicant to refine access and buffering. Pat Hines (MH&E) and Karen Arent (Town landscape architect) flagged needed detail on tree preservation, stormwater, septic/well placement and entrance geometry, and recommended the applicant supply additional information about potential alternate access via Jeanne Drive, the proposed landscaping/screening, and the Army Corps/DEC review status. The applicant said it would provide revised plans and work with consultants; the Board agreed to close the public hearing but asked the applicant to waive default approval timeframes while staff reviews follow-up materials.
What happens next: The Board closed the public hearing but required the applicant to file revised plans responding to engineering, wetlands and landscape comments. The applicant also agreed to waive statutory timeframes so the Board's consultants can review incoming materials and prepare possible conditions for a future decision.
