Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves Sean Hoover storage project at 2351 Keith Parkway with gate and storage restrictions
Summary
The Findlay City Planning Commission approved site plan SP‑08‑2026 and conditional use CU‑11‑2026 for four self‑storage buildings at 2351 Keith Parkway, requiring fully shielded lighting, a prohibition on outdoor storage, required permits and a locked swing gate to prevent cross‑access with adjacent parcels.
The Findlay City Planning Commission on June 11 approved a site plan and conditional use application filed by Sean Hoover to build four self‑storage buildings totaling 38,880 square feet at 2351 Keith Parkway. The approval included conditions that all site lighting be fully shielded and directed away from adjacent properties, that no outdoor storage be permitted, that the applicant obtain all required permits and a fire inspection, and that a locked swing gate be installed to prevent cross‑traffic between this parcel and the neighboring property.
City planning staff described the parcel as recently rezoned to I‑1 (light industrial) and recommended approval after the applicant reduced a northwest building footprint to avoid a variance. Staff also reiterated a concern common to self‑storage sites about the potential for outdoor storage and recommended a condition expressly prohibiting it to maintain site appearance and functionality.
An applicant representative — a co‑owner filling in for Sean Hoover — told the commission the company operates about 15 locations in northwest Ohio and typically does not use full perimeter fencing at its sites. The representative said, “we don't see any issues … at any other facilities,” and acknowledged the company would install cameras and could add a locked swing gate at the entrance; he said they could entertain a gate on the back side if necessary.
Commission members requested a way to prevent customers from moving freely between the two adjacent properties. One commissioner offered to provide specific gate/fencing specifications if the applicant preferred to propose a solution; the applicant said they could accommodate a locked swing gate at the entrance to restrict cross access while allowing necessary worker access.
Chair moved to approve the applications with the conditions listed; a commissioner seconded the motion and the commission approved the site plan by voice vote.
The approval requires the applicant to secure all applicable permits and pass any required inspections before construction proceeds. The commission did not identify additional variances for this site as part of the approval.
