The Suwannee County Board of County Commissioners denied a special-permit request by Rogers Towers, P.A., on behalf of SEMC Properties LLC and Margaret Caparelli, for operations used by Suwannee Iron Works. The hearing on Sept. 2 examined whether metal fabrication and related on-site operations are allowable in the county’s A‑1 agricultural zoning district under two provisions of the land-development regulations: subsection 4.4.0.5(b)(9) (explosives manufacturing or storage) and subsection 4.4.0.5(b)(14) (other similar uses compatible with the district).

Ronald R. "Ron" Meeks, Suwannee County’s development services director, presented the staff report and recommended denial. Meeks told the board staff’s analysis concluded the site’s current industrial-scale metal fabrication does not fit subsection (b)(9)’s focus on explosives manufacturing/storage and is not the sort of agricultural-compatible use intended by the A‑1 special-permit list. Meeks cited the comprehensive-plan agricultural intent and said the present use is better classified as industrial. He also identified unresolved operational issues: noise complaints, paint overspray reported by neighbors, absence of completed screening and buffering, outstanding stormwater/permitting questions with the water management district, and lack of evidence demonstrating the “scale of need” for the neighborhood or county.

Neighbors Raymond and Diane Howard — who sought party-intervener status and were granted it — described daily impacts. Raymond Howard testified to loud noises, metal beams striking one another and repeated disturbance; Diane Howard described persistent paint misting that she said reached her property and affected her health and vehicles. The Howards submitted an affidavit, a property-appraiser map showing proximity, and a short video the board accepted into the record. Attorney Byron Flagg represented the Howards.

Applicant counsel Emily Pierce and witnesses including co-owner Steven Douglas said the company has been fabricating metal at the location for decades, employs roughly 90–100 people and contributes to the local economy. The applicant presented a plan for mitigation, including a minimum six‑foot earthen berm and fencing along the shared boundary, and argued the use is similar and compatible with other special-permit uses listed in the A‑1 district (e.g., sawmills, paper/pulp operations, solid-waste transfer stations) that operate at industrial scale.

There was conflicting testimony on building size and expansion history: Meeks’ staff report referenced a facility and premises described as approximately 100,000 square feet; during testimony applicant counsel and witnesses said the original structure predated the current scale (12,000 square feet originally) and subsequent expansions put the building footprint in the range of roughly 28,000–40,000 square feet (applicant statements varied). The transcript records those size figures and characterizes them as differing accounts.

County staff and several commissioners emphasized legal consistency in interpreting the land‑development regulations: if the board were to grant a special permit it must find that the operation fits the specific regulatory text, is compatible with the agricultural district and meets criteria listed in LDR section 14.6.1.1 (ingress/egress, parking/loading, utilities, buffering, impact on living conditions, drainage, etc.). Meeks recommended the findings required by 14.6.1.1 were not met.

After extended public comment and board discussion, Commissioner White moved to deny the special-permit applications; Commissioner Mobley seconded. The board voted 5–0 to deny. County counsel directed entry of an order of denial referencing the staff report and the record.

The denial preserves the status quo at the site and directs the applicant to pursue other lawful avenues if they wish to continue operations at that location (for example, rezoning or a different legislative process) or to bring additional evidence that would address the staff’s findings in a future application.

Because code-enforcement steps were already underway, staff and the applicant discussed permitting steps and whether the facility could legally continue operations while applying for post-decision permits; county counsel and staff advised that uninterrupted operation would not be permitted absent compliance with the building and occupancy requirements and other necessary permits.