The Suwannee County Board of County Commissioners on Sept. 2 denied Special Permit SP-25-09-01, a request to authorize metal fabrication and related operations on property zoned A-1 (Agricultural 1). The application, filed by Rogers Towers, P.A. on behalf of SEMC Properties LLC and Margaret F. Caparelli, sought permission under two provisions of the county land-development regulations: subsection 4.4.0.5(b)(9) ("explosives manufacturing and storage") and subsection 4.4.0.5(b)(14) ("other similar uses compatible with the character of the district"). After a staff presentation, testimony from neighbors and company representatives, and legal argument, the board voted 5–0 to deny the permit based on staff’s finding that the use is not compatible with the A-1 district and that the application had not satisfied the special-permit criteria.

Staff presentation and findings: Development Services Director Ron Meeks reviewed the application and recommended denial. Meeks told the board the facility operates as a metal fabrication and manufacturing plant producing beams, columns, stairs and railings; staff reviewed the land-development code and concluded the operation does not fall within subsection (b)(9) because that clause permits explosives manufacturing or storage, not unrelated metal manufacturing. Meeks also explained the "other similar uses" clause (b)(14) must be read in light of the agricultural purpose of A-1 and the comprehensive-plan policies; on that basis staff found the facility incompatible with the character of the agricultural district. Meeks cited the LDR special-permit findings (14.6.1.1) and walked through the 11 compatibility factors the board must consider — including screening and buffering, off-street parking, impacts on living conditions, drainage, light and noise, and lack of evidence on scale-of-need or stormwater permitting — and concluded that staff could not find the use compatible.

Public testimony and applicant response: The hearing drew many speakers on both sides. Raymond and Diane Howard, neighbors immediately adjacent to the property, testified about noise, late-night operations, and paint overspray that they said affected health and property. Diane Howard said the operation has disturbed sleep and created odorous paint clouds that she could taste; the Howards entered a video and sworn testimony into the record documenting those complaints. The applicant’s counsel and company representatives — whose attorney argued the operation predates the county zoning and cited other A-1 special permits for heavy uses (sawmills, paper/pulp, Class 3 landfills) — said the facility provides local jobs (staff and owner representatives referenced roughly 90–100 employees), had invested in equipment, and was prepared to mitigate impacts with a berm, fencing and other measures. Counsel also offered to accept conditions or time-limited relief if the board wished.

Legal positions: Attorneys debated interpretation of the code. Staff and opposing counsel said the LDR language does not permit general manufacturing under the explosives-storage clause and pointed to a separate welding-shop special exception in the code that limits small welding operations to 2,500 square feet. The applicant argued the county has allowed intense non-agricultural uses by special permit in A-1 historically and asked the board to find the use similar and compatible with the district character. County counsel and staff warned that granting a broad interpretation could create inconsistent precedent.

Board action and rationale: After extended questioning and deliberation, Commissioner White moved to deny the special permit application based on the staff report; Commissioner Mobley seconded. The motion passed 5–0. The record shows the denial cited staff findings that the metal fabrication use is not compatible with the A-1 agricultural district and that the applicant had not met the LDR’s special-permit findings.

Why it matters: The decision permits the county to enforce its land-development regulations and underscores the boundary between industrial manufacturing uses and agricultural zoning. The denial means the existing operation must either come into compliance with applicable permits and code requirements or pursue alternate sites or zoning amendments. Board members and counsel discussed the practical impact on employees and the local economy while emphasizing legal limits on land-use decisions.

Next steps: The board directed staff to enter an order of denial into the record. County staff and applicants may pursue further administrative steps, code enforcement processes, or an application to change land use/zoning (a legislative action) if the applicant seeks a long-term solution; appeals of quasi-judicial denials are governed by state law and the county’s procedures.