Developer Sues NY Town For Rejecting Self-Storage Project

A developer seeking to build a 51,500-square-foot self-storage facility has filed suit against the Town of Fishkill, New York and its Planning Board, accusing officials of unlawfully blocking the project after more than three years of review.

The proposed facility, which can be scene in the rendering photo above, would have offered 333 units at 1292 Route 9D, between Van Ness Road and I-84. It was denied on Oct. 2. Because the site sits in Fishkill’s restricted business zone, the project required a special-use permit. Board members ruled the application failed to meet any of the criteria needed to show the facility was substantially similar to the commercial uses already allowed in the district.

On Nov. 5, real estate firm 1292 Realty LLC filed a lawsuit asking state Judge Michael Hayes to overturn what it calls an “irrational, arbitrary and capricious” decision. The suit seeks site-plan approval, a special-use permit, and reimbursement of more than $110,000 in allegedly excessive municipal review fees.

The project was introduced in June 2022 by Nidal Hassen, then a broker with JonCar Realty in Beacon. The suit is signed by Saleh Hassen. Fishkill officials have not yet responded in court, but Town Supervisor Ozzy Albra said he believes the Planning Board acted appropriately.

According to the lawsuit, a self-storage facility would have been less impactful than several uses permitted in the zoning district, including private schools, hospitals, multi-use developments, and office complexes. The developer argues that storage is quiet, generates minimal traffic, and fits the intent of a limited-business zone adjoining residential areas.

Attorneys for the applicant also said the project would have improved the site’s appearance and made nearby Route 9D sidewalks ADA-compliant.

The suit claims Fishkill disregarded the opinion of Building Inspector Joel Petrus, who reportedly found that several permitted uses would create heavier traffic and greater impacts than a storage facility. Instead, the filing says, the town planner’s environmental review relied on subjective preference and public opposition rather than technical evidence submitted in a draft environmental impact statement.

In 2023, the Planning Board ruled the project might create significant environmental impacts and required a full EIS. After the applicant submitted a draft, the final version was prepared by Liz Axelson, the town’s planning consultant.

During the Oct. 2 vote, Planning Board attorney Dominic Cordisco said the application failed all four tests needed to qualify as a similar use under town code: alignment with the comprehensive plan, compatibility with the zone’s intent, no health and safety concerns, and no greater traffic, noise, or intensity than permitted uses. He said the applicant argued storage was “low intensity,” but that the standard is similarity, not just a lighter footprint.

The lawsuit also challenges Fishkill’s fees, saying the town charged more than $123,000 for environmental review — over 11 times the amount allowed under state law. After the project’s denial, town officials also refused to refund $30,820 in application fees.