Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Sawmill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press board to reject rezoning for permanent sawmill, citing safety and road concerns
Summary
Board debated a rezoning request to convert a temporary portable sawmill into a permanent sawmill; neighbors raised safety and road-capacity concerns and urged denial; staff outlined options (rezoning to M-2 or special-use process), and a motion to deny was made.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Sawmill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A rezoning request to allow a permanent sawmill drew sharp questions from neighbors at the Lee County Board of Supervisors meeting on Aug. 20.
County staff explained the operator seeks to convert a temporary portable sawmill into a permanent facility. Under current zoning the sawmill is not allowed as a permanent use except in an M-2 industrial district; staff said pursuing a special-use route in A-1 zoning would require a zoning-text amendment and at least a four-month process involving the planning commission and repeated hearings.
Nearby residents told the board the operation has been active for years and that regular truck traffic, log hauling and large equipment pose safety hazards on narrow gravel roads. "Safety is an issue when we get on this road," one resident said, describing school buses and other vehicles that must pass heavy trucks on a tight gravel road. Another resident said the sawmill had been operating for five years and alleged the business had hauled timber off other properties.
Staff and planning commissioners noted enforcement challenges and questioned the practicality of some proposed limitations. The board discussed options: approve rezoning to M-2, refer the matter back to planning for a special-use route (which would extend the timeline), or deny the rezoning outright. Several supervisors and residents said the road and safety concerns weigh heavily against approval.
A motion to deny the rezoning was made and seconded in the meeting record. The transcript records the motion and a second; the outcome recorded in the minutes was to proceed with denial (voice vote). Board members asked staff to continue assessing road impacts and enforcement options should the applicant pursue alternate avenues.
The board did not adopt an amended zoning text at the meeting. The matter remained subject to statutory notice periods and potential future applications or appeals.
