Douglas County Joint Planning and Zoning Meeting Summary – June 6th, 2023

During the joint Planning and Zoning meeting, various applications for special use permits were discussed. The board approved the untabling of an application for a short-term rental and granted a special use permit to an automotive repair shop. The board also discussed a special use permit for a building facade that did not meet overlay district requirements and tabled the decision until August 2023. A commissioner expressed criticism towards the government’s lengthy and bureaucratic process and how it was affecting a citizen’s investment in their property. The board also discussed a grant for the livable centers initiative and how it might result in changes to the overlay district with potential costs. In all the cases, staff recommended approval, and there were no complaints or opposition from residents or the public.

A short-term rental receives unanimous recommendation for approval while a contractor’s office with fleet vehicles receives approval despite staff’s recommendation for denial, while the request for metal siding on Accessory buildings is denied. The Planning and Zoning Board discusses standards for different zoning districts, including the need for both residential and commercial housing. Several proposals for a building project are discussed, including measures to ensure proper buffers, using vegetation as a natural buffer, and the potential removal of trees in a detention pond. The Board ultimately approves a proposal requiring a brick facade and monument, while the Elite engineering request is tabled until the August meeting. Finally, the Board approves a special use permit for a salon suite.

The Board of Commissioners discusses several requests for special use permits and rezoning requests during a Planning and Zoning meeting. One request is for a dog kennel, which attracts significant opposition from residents, citing concerns about noise, environmental impact, and property values. The applicant assures the board that they will adhere to regulations, including picking up dog waste and not housing aggressive breeds, and that they have operated a similar business without issues in the past. Other requests, including a salon suite and a residential development, are approved with little opposition. Overall, the meeting highlights the importance of considering potential impacts on the community when making land-use decisions.

The Joint Planning and Zoning Meeting discussed multiple special use permit applications, including a dog kennel and a proposed three-story storage facility located in a residential zone. The Board ultimately recommended denying both applications, citing concerns over their impact on the neighborhood and lack of consistency with the development code. The developers of the storage facility suggested compromising and constructing a two-story building instead, which was discussed among the speakers. The meeting also covered topics like traffic, facility design, security measures, and waste disposal. Overall, the Board of Commissioners agreed with the Joint Planning & Zoning Meeting’s recommendation to deny both applications.

• 00:00:00 In this section, the Planning and Zoning chair introduces the Board of Commissioners meeting on June 6, 2023, confirming that announcements were posted, notices were sent, and all relevant parties were invited to participate. The Board Chairman then apologizes for delays due to parliamentary procedures, explaining that there were not enough voting members present at the meeting.
• 00:05:00 In this section, the Board of Commissioners and Planning and Zoning Board confirmed their presence and established a quorum for the meeting. The Planning and Zoning staff and county officials present at the meeting were introduced, and the procedures for the public hearing were outlined. The Board also approved the minutes of the previous meeting and lifted a tabled item from last month. The reversionary clause that applies to each rezoning was also mentioned, which grants the applicant, agent, or property owner 24 months to vest the zoning change after the Board of Commissioners has granted approval.
• 00:10:00 In this section, the planning and zoning committee presented a recommendation for a special use permit that was previously tabled in May for a building’s architectural facade that didn’t meet the overlay district requirements. The applicant proposed to retain the white painted areas but change the gray to a more neutral tone with additional brick or stone added to the front facade. Planning staff requested a little more time to finalize details and tabled the permit recommendation to August 1st, 2023. The applicant’s representative requested approval for the facade as is but is open to discussing other options and appreciated the committee’s work in helping to solve the problem.
• 00:15:00 the staff an enhanced landscaping plan. In this section of the meeting, the property owner’s willingness to work with the planning and zoning board on a compromise for the building’s exterior was discussed. The public hearing on the matter had been closed, but the owner agreed to table the topic until the August meeting to allow more time to work with the staff. The board also discussed the upcoming evaluation of the Fairburn Road overlay and how it will affect the building’s exterior and the overall corridor’s development. The staff emphasized the need for community engagement and the applicant’s willingness to be a stakeholder in crafting the future of the corridor.
• 00:20:00 In this section, it was discussed that the Board of Commissioners is considering accepting a federal grant for the livable centers initiative; the county has already competed for and been awarded the grant. If accepted, the grant will require a competitive bid for consultant services to update the overlay corridor, which may result in changes to the overlay. The ongoing construction close to the applicant’s property is adhering to existing overlay requirements, and tabling the decision was not recommended by staff, as it could lead to confusion and potential violations on the corridor. There may be costs required to adhere to any changes made to the overlay district.
• 00:25:00 In this section of the video, a commissioner expresses concern about the lengthy and bureaucratic process the citizen is going through and criticizes the government’s approach to the situation. He argues that the citizen is being held hostage by the government’s process, which is causing unnecessary delays. He also suggests that the government needs to be more flexible and considerate of the citizen’s investment in the asset, which has been below the landscape and has faced numerous challenges. The commissioner believes that the citizen has already taken a hit on behalf of the greater good and that the government’s behavior is penalizing her for no reason. He states that the comprehensive plan of the government has nothing to do with the citizen’s enterprise and that it is ridiculous to consider it.
• 00:30:00 In this section of the joint planning and zoning meeting, the commissioners were discussing the approval of application s2023-25 for the Fairburn Times Plaza. One commissioner made a motion to approve it as-is with a second motion to table until August 2023, which passed unanimously. Another application, s2023-28, which was tabled at the previous meeting, was untabled with a motion made by Rob Thomas.
• 00:35:00 In this section of the video, the Board of Commissioners discusses the untabling of S2023-28, an application for a special use permit to allow short-term rental at 3202 Beaver Drive, Beaver Estates subdivision in Douglasville. After analyzing the criteria for the special use permit, staff recommends approval, stating that it will not modify the land use plan or adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. During the public hearing, the applicant speaks in favor of the application, stating that they are a licensed attorney and will be using the property as normal, while also sharing it with short-term renters. No one approaches the podium to speak in opposition, and the board asks the applicant how they vet their renters, to which they respond that Airbnb handles the vetting process.
• 00:40:00 In this section of the video, a resident expresses concern about the safety of children at a corner where school buses pick up and drop off children, in relation to a property where the owners plan to rent it out as a short-term rental. The property owner assures the board that there are cameras all over the property and that nobody is allowed to park there except for school buses and parents, who are allowed to park on the property. The Planning and Zoning Board approves the request for a special use permit, and the Board of Commissioners also approves the request, with the understanding that there are no restrictions from other citizens.
• 00:45:00 In this section, Mr. Johnson presents the case for a special use permit to allow an automotive repair shop in a light industrial area. The zoning map and aerial image of the subject parcel show that it’s surrounded by residential properties. However, based on special use criteria, staff recommends approval of the permit with specific findings, conditions, and directives to staff. The applicant’s representative introduces themselves and explains that they’re requesting the permit to resume the operation of a former repair shop. The Planning and Zoning Board has some questions for staff regarding the purpose of the permit, to which they explain the article 3 section 317 that requires a special use permit for any maintenance usage near residential zoning.
• 00:50:00 In this section of the meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board discusses the request for a special use permit to allow for an automotive repair shop in a light industrial zone located at 2771 Winston Industrial Parkway. This request is due to the property being next to residential areas, and the only reason it needs approval is that it is adjacent to a vacant residential property. The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommends approval of the special use permit, and the Board of Commissioners also approves the request unanimously. The meeting then moves on to discussing another request for a special use permit for an automotive repair shop in Lithia Springs.
• 00:55:00 In this section, the Planning and Zoning Board is presented with a case for a special use permit for a blue light industrial parcel surrounded by a residential area. The staff recommends the approval of the permit as it meets the use permit criteria and won’t affect the public health, safety, or welfare. The board opens the public hearing, but no one speaks in favor or opposition to the application. There are no code enforcement issues, and no complaints have been received from residents about the property being a repair shop. The board notes that having light industrial next to residential areas can be a challenge, and proper buffers to mitigate noise and other concerns should be put in place. However, since no one is complaining, the two can coexist.
• 01:00:00 In this section of the transcript, the discussion centers around a request for a special use permit to allow for an automotive repair shop in a light industrial area, which was originally zoned back in August of 1981. The applicant is in agreement with the two conditions set forth by the board, which ultimately results in a unanimous recommendation for approval by both the Planning and Zoning Board and the Board of Commissioners. The conversation then moves to the next agenda item, which is a special use permit for a short-term rental in a residential area, and staff recommends approval based on their findings. The public hearing is opened for this matter.
• 01:05:00 In this section, the applicant John Quinoa seeks a permit to operate a short-term rental property in 1711 Douglasville. He assures he has taken safety measures such as having cameras and vetting the individuals who rent his property through Airbnb. He also confirms he will be staying at the property, which has a driveway and two carports. The board and commissioners have no further questions and vote unanimously to approve the special use permit.
• 01:10:00 In this section, the BOC Joint Planning and Zoning Meeting 06/06/23 discusses a special use permit request for a contractor’s office with fleet vehicles and light industrial located at 10908 Veteran Memorials Highway in Lithia Springs. The staff finds that the permit meets the criteria and recommends approval with specific findings and conditions. The applicant is in agreement with the condition to submit to the Development Review Committee for a review to address the developmental standards under the highway Corridor overlay in accordance with the UDC section 4.23 and the requirements expressed in the specific agency impact statements reviewed in the staff report dated June 6, 2020. The Planning and Zoning Board also asks questions about the applicant’s intended use and confirms that there will be no other changes to the property.
• 01:15:00 In this section, the Planning and Zoning Board discusses a special use permit request for a contractor’s office with fleet vehicles. The applicant wants to park vehicles inside a building on the property, but no space is provided for parking outside. The Board approves the request with a unanimous vote while the staff recommends denial. The Board also discusses a request for a metal siding on Accessory buildings, which the staff recommends denying. However, the code allows for the applicant to make a case before the Board, which the applicant will do in the next item.
• 01:20:00 In this section of the transcript, the speaker presents the plan for a contractor office development and shares the vision of the project. The office building will be built on a two-acre lot and will consist of metal-sided buildings. The proposed use of the property requires a special use permit. However, staff’s review of the criteria found that several of the criteria are not met, and they are recommending denial of the permit. The property owner presents his case in favor of the permit, stating that the development of contractor offices will cater to small business owners, and the back part of the lot is not visible from the road. The civil engineer adds that the existing trees will be utilized to maintain privacy and meet development requirements.
• 01:25:00 In this section, a representative of an applicant explains that they intend to use high-end thick gauge metal for a proposed building which would give off a cool modern look and be more cost-effective compared to brick siding. The material used is from a reputable manufacturer and they are putting additional funds into the building to ensure durability, giving a 50-year warranty on both paint and structure. The applicant believes that the cost savings could be passed on to the rent to lower the rent, which would be beneficial to future tenants. The Planning and Zoning Board also discusses the possibility of using an approved material, such as masonry brick, which would not require the applicant to go through a special use process.
• 01:30:00 In this section of the planning and zoning meeting, Mr. Schaefer clarifies that the proposed metal structure would not be allowed under the architectural requirement in the current zoning district which is an office institutional district. However, it would be allowed in a light industrial district. The commissioner asks questions related to the number of existing metal buildings in the corridor and exceptions made for them in the county. He also suggests that the proposed structure could potentially coexist with buffer trees and site visibility. The board discusses the different standards between the various zoning districts and the need for housing, both residential and commercial.
• 01:35:00 In this section of the transcript, members of the planning and zoning commission are discussing how to ensure proper buffer measures for a proposed building project. The applicant’s initial plan was not to touch the perimeter of vegetation but was willing to add additional buffers in the front if necessary to meet requirements. However, the commissioner was concerned about the time it would take for the shrubs and trees to grow and recommended a fence or raised buffer instead. The applicant suggested a brick entry and waterfall design for aesthetics, but the commissioner was still not satisfied and asked for a compromise. The applicant promised that the existing trees next to the detention pond would cover the side of the building, and if they needed to, they would add a brick facade to the street-facing side and additional plantings to obscure the building’s entirety.
• 01:40:00 In this section, a discussion takes place about the trees and vegetation surrounding the property and how they will act as a natural buffer between the property and anyone passing by. The detention pond on the property is discussed, including potentially removing the trees in it, but a SAT plan developer warns against relying on trees in a detention pond and that trees may need to be removed to serve the additional engineered water capacity. The possibility of adding a brick facade to the front of the building and a brick entrance monument is brought up as a way to improve the property’s appearance and create special appeal. The applicant is willing to work with the county to come up with a solution that suits both parties.
• 01:45:00 In this section, the Planning and Zoning Board are discussing and approving a motion for a proposal that requires a brick facade for a building in a specific location. The condition of the building’s facade visible from the right-of-way to be clad in brick, substantially similar to the existing building, with a brick monument of similar material installed at the front of the building, was agreed with the applicant. The Board recommended and approved the proposal with the agreed condition, and the Board of Commissioners also approved it with the stated condition.
• 01:50:00 In this section of the meeting, Elite engineering requested z2023-40 and S 2023-41 to be tabled until the August meeting, due to various issues that needed to be worked out by staff. Although staff was ready to move forward if the Commissioners wished to, the applicant requested it to be tabled, and the recommendation was denial. There was a motion and a second to table this matter, which was unanimously agreed upon by the Board of Commissioners. The next agenda item was the request for a Special Use permit for Pearl Salon Suites LLC to operate a salon business in office suites.
• 01:55:00 In this section, the planning and zoning board reviews an application for a special use permit for a salon suite, which would consist of individual contractors leasing their own private space within a shared office building. The board finds no planning concerns and approves the permit under certain conditions, including approval from the county building department for any necessary remodeling and a review from the development review committee for any modifications to the building exterior or parking areas. The salon suite would be accessible through a call box and would have security measures in place. The applicant confirms adherence to the conditions and explains that the bowls would be inside each individual Suite.
• 02:00:00 In this section, the Board of Commissioners discusses a request for a special use permit to allow Salon Suites. The applicant is proposing to add walls to make the space smaller and there are not too many walls as it is an open space. The applicant is also familiar with the process, having opened four other locations and franchising last year. After some clarification about microblading, which falls under the governance of tattooing, the Planning and Zoning Board approves the request for a special use permit with unanimous recommendation for approval. The Board then moves on to discuss a rezoning request for a property on Simon Road, which is a remnant of a larger piece of property that was rezoned for a subdivision across the street. The staff has reviewed the zoning criteria and recommends approval to rezone from PUD to RLD, as it meets all of the criteria and is consistent with the comprehensive future land use plan.
• 02:05:00 In this section, a public hearing is held on a request to rezone a property from PUD to RLD for residential purposes. The owner of the property requested the rezoning to be able to sell the property for a better price. No one speaks in opposition to the application, and the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommends approval. The Board of Commissioners also approves the request with a unanimous decision. The next agenda item is a request for a special use permit to allow a dog kennel on Pool Mill Road. The applicant has already installed a fence around the barn and intends to redevelop it into a dog kennel. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit as it meets the criteria.
• 02:10:00 In this section, the Planning and Zoning Meeting discusses the conditions for the granular specialist program. The applicant must keep dogs indoors from 5 PM to 8 AM and pick up dog waste immediately. Additionally, fencing must be installed with an eight-foot fence and two rows of evergreen screening trees. The applicant must obtain a state kennel operation license and renew it annually, and may not build within the 200 undisturbed stream buffer. One resident speaks in favor of the application and agrees to abide by the conditions.
• 02:15:00 In this section, two individuals speak in favor of Kyle Welker’s proposed dog care facility, highlighting his compassion for animals, respect for the land, and commitment to running the business himself. They also note that similar permits have been issued for dog care facilities in Douglas County in the past, and that the planning and zoning staff have done a great job in working up the request. On the other hand, one individual opposing the proposal states that it is not agricultural or rural in nature and that an absentee owner is requesting to leave an unattended business for profit. Neighbors in opposition also stand and present a packet explaining their stance on the matter.
• 02:20:00 In this section of the video, a planning and zoning meeting discusses the possible impact of a new business on its neighbors. Previous approvals for similar businesses have been a nuisance for neighbors, and enforcement of conditions placed on them is difficult. The record of letters of opposition is shared with the applicant for transparency but is not yet submitted to the board. One resident argues that the proposed business will adversely affect the community and result in a lower tax basis, which will decrease property values for nearby owners. He concludes by urging the board not to approve the special use permit.
• 02:25:00 In this section of the transcript, several individuals speak in opposition to the location of a proposed dog kennel citing concerns with noise, disruption to the surrounding area, and potential impact on the nearby drinking water source. They argue that the location of the kennel is not consistent with the overall character of the area and that the impacts of the kennel would not be minimal as suggested by the recommendation. They also state that the existing kennel operations and evidence from neighboring residents contradict the recommendation’s conclusion that the hours and manner of operation would not adversely affect surrounding properties. They urge the board to consider the potential negative impacts of the kennel and to deny the special use permit.
• 02:30:00 In this section, speakers express their opposition towards a proposed commercial dog kennel on residential property due to the negative impact of dog feces on the environment and the precedent it sets for allowing non-conforming commercial use in residential areas. They argue that even with proposed conditions, the project will transform the neighborhood and depress property values. One speaker cites his research, which shows that dog feces have a higher concentration of disease-causing agents than horse manure and can have a significant impact on local watersheds. Overall, the speakers argue that the kennel is not suitable for the area and goes against the character of the neighborhood.
• 02:35:00 In this section of the video, residents express their opposition to a proposed dog kennel in their area during a public hearing. Many of the residents are concerned with the potential contamination of the environment and the vet’s recommendations that a kennel of this type is unhealthy for the community. Other homeowners worry that the kennel would be too close to their properties and would negatively impact their quality of life. Despite questions from the planning and zoning board about regulations, there seem to be no clear guidelines for the kennel operation, either for or against it.
• 02:40:00 In this section, the discussion revolves around regulations relating to the structure of a kennel for dogs, particularly with regards to living quarters for staff and the management of dog waste. Staff clarifies that the kennel will not be treated as a residence in a barn and that a set of regulations will be put in place for the disposal of dog poop. The applicant, who currently runs a kennel in a different location, notes that he plans to bring the dogs he cares for to Douglas County, but there was no information given on the kennel’s capacity.
• 02:45:00 In this section of the Joint Planning & Zoning Meeting, the applicant for the kennel answered questions regarding their services, the capacity of their facility, and their intent in purchasing the property. They mentioned that they would provide obedience training and bath services, with a capacity of 30-35 dogs at any given time. While the applicant did not anticipate the opposition they faced, they assured the committee that they would uphold their end of the bargain and be out of sight and mind for the neighbors. Additionally, they have operated their current kennel without noise complaints and have been friendly with the neighbors. The committee requested to see the presented views to better understand the community’s opinions on the kennel.
• 02:50:00 In this section, the board discusses whether to allow new information to be included in the record for the meeting, and points out that the information would need to be submitted in advance to become officially part of the record. They go on to clarify that the information in question is already available online, and that while they can put it in the record, they do not have enough copies to share with everyone present. The board also notes that the kennel allows dogs with up-to-date vaccine records, including the leptospirosis vaccine, which is designed to prevent infectious disease among animals.
• 02:55:00 In this section, the applicant presents his plan to build a dog boarding facility that will have a maximum of 25 dogs in their care, but with the potential to expand to 30 or 35 dogs during peak seasons. They clarify that this would not be a dog training facility, but obedience training may be provided. The dogs would be fenced in and staffed from 5am to 8pm, with overnight staff to be hired in the future. The staff will individually take out the dogs for bathroom breaks. The applicant also notes that they will not accept any aggressive breeds such as pit bulls or German Shepherds. The facility does not have a residence on the property, but there is an office inside the barn where the staff could stay overnight.
• 03:00:00 In this section, a member of the board thanks the public for their respectful conduct during the meeting and asks staff if roosters are allowed in the residential area. Staff clarifies that roosters are not allowed by right, but could be allowed with a special use permit. Another member expresses concerns about the impact of a proposed dog kennel on the neighborhood and questions whether the applicant has considered the neighbors’ expectations and if they can coexist. Ultimately, the board votes to deny the request for a special use permit for the dog kennel.
• 03:05:00 In this section, the Planning and Zoning Board recommends to deny a special use permit for a dog kennel on Poole Mill Road in Winston, Georgia. The Board of Commissioners makes a motion to deny the permit, which is unanimously approved. The meeting then moves on to discussing a request for a special use permit to increase the height of a building for a mini storage warehouse. The parcel is located on the south side of Beaumar and partially developed with a satellite receiving station and telecommunications facilities. The proposed facility would be a three-story self-storage facility with no outdoor storage of RV or boats. As the property is within the limits of the quality growth overlay districts, they will be required to follow certain rules.
• 03:10:00 In this section, the speaker presents a site plan and elevation drawings for a proposed three-story storage facility located in a residential zone in BOC and notes that neighboring residents will have their view obstructed. They point out that the building’s height would be an overwhelming edifice looking up from the subdivision, and it does not meet the intent of the code. Moreover, under Factor two, granting this special use could create a significant architectural deviation from the neighborhood and provide substantial spot benefit to this property not granted to other surrounding developed sites. The speaker makes it clear that the storage facility proposed would represent a tremendous spot zoning problem as it is surrounded by residential areas, and it would never be allowed to pass in its current form.
• 03:15:00 In this section of the meeting, staff members recommend that the special use permit for a three-story building be denied due to inconsistency with the desirable pattern of development and potential adverse effects on public health, safety, and welfare. However, they suggest a compromise solution of a two-story building with one accessible floor per street-facing and rear-facing facade to honor the intent of the development code for a single-story storage facility. The applicant’s representative clarifies that the request is not for a 50-foot building but for an increase from 12 to roughly 25 feet on the front side and 35 feet on the back side.
• 03:20:00 In this section, a speaker representing the applicant argues for the consistency of their proposed use of the property with the zoning district and the lack of negative impact on surrounding development. They claim that the use is allowed by right and that there is already a 50-foot buffer surrounding the development along with the required architectural requirements being met. The location is also argued to be consistent since it was chosen based on the zoning district chosen by the county, and the rear of the building would be roughly 400 feet away from residences. Another speaker representing the applicant emphasizes the hardship with the topography on the hill and asserts that a three-story building would look more like an office building than garages and better serve the community, which is under-supplied for self-storage units. In opposition, a nearby resident expresses her concern about the property’s former use as a meth location that was shut down by the city and the potential negative impact on the surrounding residential district.
• 03:25:00 In this section, multiple residents of the area speak in opposition to the proposed storage facility. Concerns are raised over the potential increase in traffic, the impact on the neighborhood’s aesthetic, and the lack of security measures. The Planning and Zoning Board discusses the fact that, while the facility could be built due to the property already being zoned for industrial use, the issue at hand is the proposed increase in height. The Board notes that multiple options are available for use on the property without the need for a special use permit.
• 03:30:00 In this section of the Joint Planning & Zoning Meeting, the commissioners discuss the height of the proposed facility and the importance of following the code to obtain permission for exceeding the height limits. The applicant assures that there won’t be any U-Haul or long-term parking trucks on the property and that Self Storage generates low traffic. The applicant also mentions that they had a neighborhood meeting and received positive feedback from the locals after clearing up some misconceptions. The meeting also addresses the square footage, entrances, and traffic of the proposed facility.
• 03:35:00 In this section, the discussion centers around the height of the building and its design. The developers mention that reducing the height of the building as suggested by Phil would mean spreading it out horizontally, which would take up more land and require them to remove more trees. The Planning and Zoning Board expresses concerns about allowing a three-story building and recommends sticking to the one-story building requirement in the building code. The developers mention that they would prefer a compromise and a two-story building, which could still accommodate the 750 units they plan to build in the space. Additionally, they point out that there are many other permitted uses for the land, including a livestock auction and car, truck, and trailer RV leasing permitted with zero restrictions.
• 03:40:00 In this section of the transcript, the speakers discuss how they handle customers who do not pay, waste and trash disposal, access to the storage units, and the facility’s operating hours. Customers who do not pay receive several notices before their unit is taken over and auctioned off online. There will be a dumpster enclosure on the property, and customers can access their unit between 6 am and 10 pm using a unique access code. The building is climate-controlled, and the units are accessed from inside the building. The facility’s operating hours are Monday to Saturday from 9.30 am to 6 pm, and customers can access their units seven days a week from 6 am to 10 pm. The Planning and Zoning Board recommends denying application s2023-45, and the Board of Commissioners does the same.

Key Points

1. A proposed metal structure for a new building. The applicant suggested this could lower rent for future tenants. However, the board clarified that such a structure would not be allowed in the current zoning district but would be in a light industrial district.
2. The board discussed proper buffer measures for a proposed building project. The applicant was willing to add additional buffers if necessary, but the commissioner suggested a fence or raised buffer instead.
3. The board approved a motion for a proposal that requires a brick facade for a building in a specific location. The condition was agreed with the applicant.
4. Elite engineering requested to table z2023-40 and S 2023-41 until the August meeting due to various issues. The board unanimously agreed to this.
5. The board reviewed an application for a special use permit for a salon suite, which was approved under certain conditions.
6. A public hearing was held on a request to rezone a property from PUD to RLD for residential purposes. The board unanimously recommended approval.
7. The board discussed the conditions for a proposed dog kennel. The applicant agreed to abide by the conditions.
8. The board discussed the potential impact of a new dog kennel on its neighbors. The board ultimately voted to deny the request for a special use permit for the dog kennel.
9. The board recommended to deny a special use permit for a three-story building due to inconsistency with the desirable pattern of development and potential adverse effects on public health, safety, and welfare.
10. The board discussed the height of the proposed facility and the importance of following the code to obtain permission for exceeding the height limits. The board recommended sticking to the one-story building requirement in the building code.
11. The board discussed how they handle customers who do not pay, waste and trash disposal, access to the storage units, and the facility’s operating hours. The board recommended denying application s2023-45, and the Board of Commissioners did the same.