Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose SELU Holdings storage plan; commission tables site plan until owner attends
Summary
A site-plan review for SELU Holdings' five-building storage complex drew heavy neighborhood opposition over traffic, safety and visual concerns; commissioners voted 3–2 to table the application until the property owner can appear to answer outstanding questions.
The City of Green Planning and Zoning Commission on Dec. 17 heard a contested site-plan review for SELU Holdings — a proposed two-phase development on a roughly 7-acre B1-zoned parcel. Phase 1 would build five storage buildings totaling just under 57,000 square feet with about 232 units; Phase 2 would reserve frontage on Main Street for future retail or office space.
Architect Jim Persuto (4 Points Architectural Services) described the site layout, grading, underground stormwater storage, masonry facades and a 6-foot steel perimeter fence with landscape screening along the residential edge. Nick George, who said he will operate the facility, said the site would be staffed during operating hours and be open 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., with keypad access, cameras and a Knox box for fire access: "We'll make sure to stay operational between 8AM and 8PM. We'll have on-site staff there the whole time during operating hours," he said.
Planning staff explained storage units are conditionally permitted in the B1 district, noted internal loading to reduce activity adjacent to the residential zone, and recommended conditional approval subject to the applicant obtaining variances (a vehicular use setback encroachment and other site adjustments) and final engineering review. The Design Review Board had submitted a favorable recommendation contingent on variance verification.
Public comment was lengthy and predominantly opposed. Residents raised repeated concerns: there are already multiple storage facilities nearby; the property owner has historically not maintained the site; traffic on Magua Drive would increase and funnel to neighborhood streets; stormwater and grading could affect backyards; lighting and noise from boat/RV loading were flagged; and many said they doubted Phase 2 retail would ever be built. Resident Des Wertheimer said, "This storage unit's facility has no business being built there, period." Other speakers described past incidents at a different storage facility and urged more screening or a different use for the site.
Several commissioners and staff pressed the applicants on specifics (lighting controls, grading impacts, exact unit counts, and whether Phase 2 is contractually or legally binding). Staff confirmed there is no legal obligation requiring the developer to construct Phase 2 commercial frontage after Phase 1.
Because many neighbors and several commissioners had outstanding questions best answered by the property owner, a commissioner moved to table the matter until the owner could attend the next meeting. The commission voted 3–2 to table the application. The item will be placed on the Jan. 21 meeting agenda and staff will notify those who signed in for updates.
Next steps: the applicant may return with the owner present and with final engineering, variance applications, and any refined landscape or screening plans.
