Westy Self-Storage is crying foul over a ruling by the Port Chester Zoning Board of Appeals that it may not oppose development of a Cube Smart self-storage facility across the street.
Westy sued the village, the zoning board and planning director Curt LaValla Nov. 18 in Westchester Supreme Court, arguing that they ignored a new zoning law that restricts new self-storage businesses near Westy.
In their “inexplicable zeal” to avoid concluding that LaValla had failed to apply the new law, the petition states, the zoning board “overreached in its improper determination that (Westy) lacked standing.”
Village Attorney Anthony Cerreto declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Arredondo & Co. of Stamford created the Westy chain ”” named for the West Highland white terrier and meant to embody the idea of a high-end facility ”” and operates 15 self-storage facilities in the tristate region. The original is at 351 North Main St., Port Chester.
In 2019, Storage Deluxe, of Manhattan, applied for approvals to demolish the Steilmann Ladies European Fashions store at 354 North Main St. and to build a four-story, 107,500-square-foot Cube Smart self-storage facility, next to the village police department and across the street from Westy.
Cube Smart is not named as a defendant in the case.
In 2020, while the Cube Smart proposal was pending, the village adopted a new zoning law that restricted where self-storage facilities may be built.
Westy argues that the law does not allow for new self-storage on North Main Street, not even with a special exception use permit, essentially making the Cube Smart project illegal.
Westy asked for a formal interpretation of the new zoning law. Cube Smart claimed that Westy had no legal standing to do so.
The zoning board directed the village attorney on July 15 to provide an opinion on legal standing and to share the opinion with both companies.
Westy claims that it was never given a copy of the opinion.
On Sept. 16, the zoning board directed the village attorney to draft a determination that Westy lacked legal standing to oppose Cube Smart. On Oct. 21, the board adopted that conclusion.
“Mere proximity does not automatically confer standing as a matter of law,” the zoning board found; Westy “does not appear that they will sustain any special damage;” and “the motivation for (Westy’s) opposition to the Cube Smart facility is a fear of increased business competition.”
Westy argues that the zoning board disregarded legal opinions in similar cases, “ignored the plain meaning” of the new zoning law and improperly accepted Cube Smart’s position.
The zoning board ignored testimony by Edward Arredondo, for example, that the company was not motivated by fear of competition and that Westy had not opposed two nearby self-storage facilities.
When village officials won’t enforce the new zoning law, Westy argues, it’s up to the neighbors to protect the integrity of the law and protect their property from being devalued. The fact that Westy is also in the self-storage business does not deprive it of legal standing.
Westy’s attorney, Steven D. Feinstein, is asking the court to annul the zoning board’s decision.
