Currituck County commissioners reviewed a proposed text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance to create a new use type, “warehouse storage and distribution, limited access,” intended for light and heavy industrial districts and planned developments. The amendment would permit smaller-scale warehousing that limits truck size, daily truck trips and building scale to reduce impacts on nearby residential areas.

The measure was introduced by planning staff, who said the request was sponsored by James Eaton of Just for the Beach and arose because the applicant’s property lies within 500 feet of a residential district, where the current ordinance requires a 500-foot separation for standard warehouses. Staff and the planning board drafted standards intended to allow low‑impact storage and distribution while limiting noise and truck traffic.

Under the proposed standards described to the board, deliveries and pickups would be limited to straight trucks (no tractor‑trailers or semis), daily through‑truck trips would be capped at 20, the total floor area of buildings for the use would be limited to 10,000 square feet, hazardous material storage and on‑site manufacturing would be prohibited, and the use would be limited to a maximum height of 35 feet in heavy industrial zones. The planning board recommended an added setback of 100 feet from a residential dwelling located in a residential district; staff added clarifying language after discussion with the applicant about an adjacent dwelling that is in an industrial zone.

Staff also said parking requirements would be determined on an applicant‑specific basis and that the new use would require a zoning permit and site plan review rather than a special‑use permit. Planning staff told commissioners the amendment is consistent with both the county’s Unified Development Ordinance and the Imagine Currituck 2040 Vision Plan policies cited in the staff report.

A commissioner moved to approve the text amendment as presented with the planning‑board and applicant edits. The motion was seconded and discussion followed. The provided transcript shows the motion and second but does not contain a recorded roll‑call or final vote result for this agenda item.

The board did not engage in public comment on the item at the meeting; staff and the planning board recommended approval with the conditions summarized above. Absent a recorded vote in the supplied transcript, the formal outcome is not specified here.