Storage Building Expansion in Eastham Facing Push Back

EASTHAM – A proposal to build six additional storage buildings on Route 6 in Eastham has come under fire from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Stow Away LLC owner Barbara Niggel applied for a special permit that would allow an increase in the existing nonconforming storage use on the property.

Niggel is also the owner of Willy’s World Wellness & Conference Center which is located on the same property as the proposed storage buildings and was ordered closed by the Eastham building commissioner last month for safety concerns.

Zoning board member Stephen Wasby made a motion that the board invoke the “clean hands doctrine,” as he felt the application was not in full compliance with all town rules and regulations.

“When somebody comes before a board of this town asking for something from the town, whether it be special permit or a variance, we expect that that person will be in compliance with town rules,” said Wasby.

“That is presently not the case.”

Wasby’s motion generated debate among the zoning board members who agreed that the current Stow Away buildings are in bad shape and have piles of trash around the buildings.

Niggel said that the trash problem is due to a fire event that happened in November that required her to move belongings outside the property and that tenants were responsible for other trash piles.

Members of the public spoke against the expansion proposal referencing historical issues with trash build up.

Residents also noted that the expansion was not favorable for the neighborhood or the Eastham Corridor Special District and that unsafe materials may potentially be stored in units above the town’s groundwater protection zone.

Eastham resident Davis Hobbs added that the piles of junk “weren’t put there yesterday” while claiming that the trash has been there for months or even decades.

Hobbs pleaded with the zoning board to get a surety bond if they approve the application so that they property will be kept clean.

The board heard a presentation from Niggel’s attorney, Benjamin Zehnder, on the proposal.

They provided a list of things they would like to see from Niggel before making a final decision, including identifying the abutters on the site plan and documenting the status of each storage unit.

“Before the applicant became Mr. Zehnder’s client, we did exactly what I am proposing we do today and that is and we not listen to this case until the applicant is in full and complete compliance of all of the rules of the town,” continued Wasby.

Wasby also said he would like the applicant to be upfront and honest with the board and claimed that Niggel said 99 percent of the storage units were in use, which he said is false.

The planning board requested also requested Niggel send them information, including a revised site plan showing where utilities and trash receptacles will be located, proposed landscaping, and screening for the east, north, and south sides of the property.

The zoning board voted 4-1 to continue the hearing on the proposal to Thursday, February 6th.

The board must make a decision within 90 days of when it opened its review of the proposal, which was December 5th.

If the board does not complete its review in that time frame, the project may be approved by default.