The prominent item of discussion was Thomas Engineering Group LLC’s submission for a major final site plan, representing Live Oak Capital Partners. The proposed facility would occupy approximately four acres, with a building footprint of about 30,000 square feet. However, the current zoning does not permit residential storage facilities, triggering the need for both a land use map amendment and a zoning change, scheduled for consideration on February 11, 2025.

A procedural anomaly became apparent during the meeting, as one board member highlighted that it was unusual to review a final site plan before the necessary land use and zoning changes had been finalized. The Deputy County Attorney clarified that the order of approvals was due to the timing of the applications, with the future land use map amendment being prioritized first.

Community outreach by the applicant was a notable aspect, as attorney Bob Reigns emphasized the applicant’s proactive engagement with local stakeholders, including meetings with representatives from nearby residential communities and a church. This outreach was met with varied reactions, with some community members expressing skepticism about the project’s necessity and potential impacts.

Concerns over flooding, traffic, and broader safety were prominent. Although engineering assessments suggested a minimal increase in local traffic and confirmed the site does not lie in a special flood hazard area, residents voiced apprehension about the potential for increased flooding, particularly related to drainage issues. The applicant assured that the facility’s design incorporated security measures and aimed to preserve significant wetland areas.

A resident voiced disbelief over the need for another storage facility, pointing out the underutilization of existing ones in the area. They questioned the rationale behind rezoning the land from residential to commercial, fearing that if the storage facility failed, the property could be repurposed for other commercial uses without further public involvement.

The Planning Agency acknowledged these concerns, noting that market demand typically dictates the need for additional facilities. Nonetheless, the debate underscored the need for clearer communication from planning staff regarding the procedural requirements and implications of the zoning changes.

In the midst of these discussions, the agency debated the legality of approving a site plan without the necessary amendments to land use and zoning classifications. The growth management director emphasized that the hearing was also about ensuring compliance with the comprehensive plan and land development code.

The meeting concluded with a motion to recommend the staff’s position, despite lingering concerns about flooding and storage facility adequacy. The agency stressed the importance of clear procedural communication in future applications.