A proposed self-storage facility at 7 Paffendorf Drive has drawn strong opposition from local residents, who voiced concerns during a Feb. 6 public hearing held by the town planning board.

Engineer John Queenan of Lanc & Tully, P.C., presented the project details, which include four self-storage buildings on a 9.2-acre parcel. The facility, owned by CBPS III, LLC, would feature approximately 56,700 square feet of storage space, including one indoor storage building and three outdoor storage buildings. Plans also include a 1,200-square-foot caretaker unit and office, an upgraded two-way entrance, a new well and sewage disposal system, as well as lighting and landscaping improvements.

Queenan noted that the property is zoned for interchangeable business use, making the project a permitted development. He also explained that while some wetland disturbance is expected, a new wetland area would be created to compensate for the impact. The single-story buildings would be beige with blue garage doors.

Residents of Paffendorf Drive expressed frustration, citing concerns about traffic, environmental impact, and the character of their neighborhood. Nancy Bleadow, who lives adjacent to the site, criticized the proposal, citing increased truck traffic and changes to the land’s integrity under current ownership.

“In my opinion, the storage unit proposal is too big for the No. 7 property,” Bleadow said. “The street is not designed for industrial use, and this site is not appropriate for a storage unit complex.”

Craig Lawrence, a resident of 12 years, echoed her concerns.

“I feel like this would cause a big disruption in our very quiet neighborhood,” he said. “It would be an eyesore and a major disturbance to our block.”

Benjamin Goldfarb, another resident, urged the board to reject the project.

“Our community deserves better than yet another storage facility,” Goldfarb said. “If we’re going to develop this land, we should prioritize something that genuinely benefits our residents.”

Additional public comments focused on traffic safety and whether the facility was necessary for the neighborhood. Planning board members thanked residents for their input and noted that accessibility concerns were being reviewed by a traffic consultant.

According to an MHE Engineering memo, the applicant must address concerns regarding outdoor storage, access easements, and fire suppression system permits. The developer must also execute a Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement with the town and comply with previous Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan requirements.