Council rejects conditional rezoning for proposed self‑storage on Telegraph Road

Taylor City Council rejected a second‑reading ordinance Tuesday to conditionally rezone a roughly 2.07‑acre parcel on the east side of Telegraph Road from B3 General Business to I1 Light Industrial, a move proponents said would clear the way for a self‑storage facility and opponents said would add an unwanted use to the neighborhood.

The motion to approve the zoning change (case no. 24‑32 ZC) was made by Councilwoman Witten and supported by Councilman Johnson. After public comment and questions of planning staff and the project architect, the council voted 2 yes, 4 no and the motion failed.

The applicant’s consultant, Hunter Galbraith of Design House Architecture, told the council the petitioner supplied two recent market studies. “The first one is from Storage 101 that shows that there's roughly a 46,000‑square‑foot unmet demand at a 2‑mile radius,” Galbraith said. “The second one from BDO shows that within a 3‑mile radius there's roughly 221,000 square feet of unmet demand.” He offered the studies to the council and attendees.

Planning staff said the petitioner had offered additional conditions and buffering and that the planning commission had unanimously approved the rezoning. Planning staff also said the development agreement would allow the city to place conditions on uses inside the facility and prohibit outside storage and running other businesses from storage units.

Several nearby residents urged the council to reject the rezoning. Lynn Montroy of Crowley Street asked, “Is there a real need for this?” and expressed concern about locating another storage use in an area some neighbors had opposed in the past. One resident noted prior council action had denied an extension for a proposed storage project on Telegraph, and asked why this application was being considered.

Council discussion touched on vacancy and blight at the parcel, public safety and visibility from the road, drainage and lighting concerns raised by neighbors, and the balance between encouraging redevelopment and limiting specific uses. One council member said the subject parcel is set back from the road and that the proposal included extra buffering and landscaping compared with prior applications for similar uses.

In roll call the votes were recorded as follows: Miss Daniels — No; Mr. Johnson — Yes; Miss Winton — Yes; Missus Bridal — No; Miss Rose — No; Mr. Geiss — No. The motion failed, 2 yes, 4 no.

The council and staff noted the project will return to the planning commission for final site‑plan review if the applicant pursues other entitlements; however, the rezoning requested in this ordinance will not proceed.

Votes and motions in the record: Motion to approve second reading of case no. 24‑32 ZC (rezoning B3 to I1 for parcel on Telegraph Road) — motion by Councilwoman Witten; second by Councilman Johnson; vote 2‑4; motion failed.

Why it matters: Rezoning decisions change what uses are legally allowed on a property. Council members weighed neighborhood preference, the condition of a long‑vacant property, market‑study evidence from the applicant, and the planning commission’s recommendation.

Next steps: Because the rezoning motion failed, the property remains B3 General Business. Planning staff said the applicant may pursue additional planning commission approvals if the petitioner revises the proposal or seeks a different entitlement.