Board approves self‑storage project and associated variances after lengthy debate; vote 5–1

The Planning & Zoning Board approved application PCB2025-0086, a bundled request for a self‑storage facility, a parking‑reduction variance and permission to remove a small number of significant trees within Conservation Overlay Zone 3, after an extended hearing that included technical testimony, competing market analyses and a late applicant submission that limited staff’s ability to produce an updated recommendation.

Attorney James Whitehouse, representing the applicant, told the board the development would be a roughly 100,000‑square‑foot multistory facility and presented a market trade study and an ITE parking analysis indicating approximately 10 spaces were typical for similar facilities. He also emphasized proposed tree‑savings: after revisions the applicant said they would retain nine of 12 significant trees identified in the original submission.

Several board members said they were uncomfortable approving the project without a full staff review of the updated materials; others said the applicant’s concessions — the loading zone, tree retention and minimum parking for the storage component — mitigated impacts. Board member Charles Pappas and others cited regional data showing substantial storage construction in the pipeline and warned of potential oversupply; another member noted material differences between older, single‑story drive‑up facilities and modern multi‑story facilities that rely on loading zones rather than per‑unit parking.

Legal and procedural questions about whether the applicant met the "competent substantial evidence" standard for a use‑by‑exception featured prominently. City staff said the updated materials arrived too late for a complete new staff analysis, although the original staff opinion had indicated the use‑by‑exception criteria could be met under Section 28‑2. City attorney and staff advisors explained that the board could rely on the totality of evidence on the record, including applicant‑provided expert analysis and staff testimony.

The board’s motion bundled three approvals — the use‑by‑exception for self‑storage in CM2, the parking variance, and limited removal of significant trees — with the amendments described during the hearing. The motion specified that the storage facility must provide a minimum of 12 parking spaces (the board and applicant discussed additional parking if feasible) and that the tree plan presented at the hearing would be used for civil plan review. The motion passed on a roll call vote: five in favor, one opposed (Susan Johns).

Board member Susan Johns said she could not find sufficient evidence that the self‑storage use "promotes the convenience, comfort, appearance, prosperity, or general welfare of our community" under the use‑by‑exception standard and recorded a no vote. The applicant and several members stressed the loading zone and tree retention as mitigating public impacts.

What happens next: The applicant must reflect the tree retention plan and minimum storage parking in subsequent civil and permitting submissions; staff noted additional permitting (land‑development and grading permits) and state buffer requirements (St. Johns River Water Management District) still apply.