Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Two‑parcel contractor office PD near US‑301 cleared of major objections after neighbors secure fence material commitment
Summary
A self‑initiated rezoning of two parcels on North US‑301 to memorialize a contractor’s office use drew a conditional objection from adjacent landowners that was addressed when the applicant agreed to specify fence materials and make the fencing condition part of the zoning approval.
A June 16 hearing considered a PD rezoning (PD20‑5270) to bring an existing contractor’s office use on two parcels at 14338 and 14350 North US‑301 into zoning conformance and to permit future orderly expansion without open storage. The site includes a historically operated contractor’s office, an existing cell tower, and natural wetlands along portions of the west and south property lines.
Neighbors present objected to a lack of specificity about proposed screening and fence materials. Two adjacent property owners told the hearing master their prior experience with noise, truck activity and cell‑tower‑related operations justified detailed, enforceable fencing and screening commitments. One neighbor said that the applicant had previously promised a high level of screening and asked why that promise should not be memorialized in the zoning conditions.
Applicant response and condition offer: The applicant (McNeil Engineering presenting) agreed to incorporate detailed fence materials — pressure‑treated pine, board‑on‑board pickets and specific back rails — and agreed that the condition could be added to the zoning order; the applicant stated there would be an 8‑foot solid wood fence with 100% opacity along the northern boundary and that existing wetlands and vegetation would be allowed to satisfy buffer requirements along the west and south where wetland buffers exceed the code minimums.
Staff and planning commission: Development Services and Planning Commission staff recommended approval subject to conditions; staff found the requested variations acceptable because of extensive wetlands and dense existing vegetation serving as natural buffers in those areas.
Outcome: The applicant agreed to make the fence material specification a condition of zoning during the hearing, and both the applicant and the adjacent landowner indicated the conditional objection would be withdrawn if the language appeared in the order. The hearing master closed the item; the formal written recommendation will include the record of that agreement for the Board of County Commissioners to review.
Ending: The hearing master will file a written recommendation; the key implementation step will be converting the on‑record fence and buffer commitments into enforceable zoning conditions during final action.
