Self-storage review turns to heavy-equipment safety; hearing request waits

Cortlandt’s Planning Board sent a proposed self-storage expansion back to staff on September 1 after questioning how members of the public would be separated from heavy equipment in contractor yards. The board scheduled a September 24 site visit at 5:45 p.m. and declared its intent to be lead agency. The application remained under review. [p. 38] [p. 44] [p. 45]

This account is based on the Town-posted, certified transcript of the September 1, 2026 Planning Board meeting. It reports that evening’s discussion and actions; it does not establish what happened at later meetings. [p. 1] [p. 47]

Cronin Engineering’s application on behalf of Cortlandt Self Storage sought an amended site development plan for one additional 8,000-square-foot storage building and an outdoor contractor’s yard. During the presentation, Jim Annicchiarico described two outdoor contractor-yard areas and equipment including excavators, backhoes, dump trucks and storage containers. He said the proposed building had been moved farther from the conservation easement line. [p. 26] [p. 29] [p. 30] [p. 31]

Assistant Civil Engineer Catherine Brosnan asked whether the contractor areas would be fenced and raised the possibility of storage customers walking near moving equipment. Annicchiarico said the equipment would be taken to jobs and brought back to its place. Planner Heather LaVarnway responded that machinery had been observed moving between areas on the site. She asked the applicant to find a way to prevent a conflict between customers accessing their units and heavy equipment. [p. 2] [p. 35] [p. 36] [p. 38]

The transcript records LaVarnway saying, “if there isn’t interest in fencing, we would ask that you think about some other way” to address that conflict. Chairman Steven Kessler suggested fencing three-quarters of the area while leaving a large opening. Annicchiarico said the issue could be considered during the site walk; the exchange did not establish a final fencing condition. [p. 38] [p. 39]

Wetland boundaries also remained part of the review. The discussion distinguished Town and state wetland areas, and Annicchiarico said both would be delineated. The transcript records continuing coordination over who would flag the wetlands and how the Town’s consultant would confirm that work. [p. 27] [p. 28] [p. 42] [p. 43] [p. 44]

The final motion contained two corrections that matter to the record. Thomas Bianchi initially said the board would declare itself lead agency, then corrected the language to an intent to be lead agency after LaVarnway intervened. He also initially said October 24 for the site visit; members corrected the month to September before the vote. Nora Hildinger seconded, and the transcript records collective assent without recorded opposition. [p. 44] [p. 45]

After the vote, the applicant’s representative requested a public hearing for the October meeting. Kessler said the site visit should happen first and that issues still needed to be settled before inviting the public in. The transcript quotes him: “I think we’re going to have to wait one more month on that.” No hearing date was set in that exchange. [p. 45] [p. 46]