The board heard an extended public hearing on Nov. 3 for a request by Marcus and Kimberly Reyes to rezone a 3-acre portion of a 13.07-acre parcel (213 Duncan Swindle Road) from A1 to B to allow commercial truck parking and related commercial uses.

Planning & Zoning voted 4–0 to recommend denial, saying the request did not fit the county’s comprehensive plan and there were no businesses nearby to justify a rezoning to B. The applicant family told the board they had clientele and intended to provide a regulated, affordable truck-parking area with engineered site work and security; they said they were already working with an engineer on site mapping and retention plans.

Planning staff and commissioners raised technical and regulatory concerns. Staff noted the property has an open nonresidential building permit on file that building officials have not closed, and cautioned that rezoning a parcel to B could produce conditions that the applicant might later be unable to meet if state or EPD-level constraints apply. Commissioners raised specific engineering issues: an impervious-surface threshold (paving or gravel over 5,000 square feet) triggers stormwater-retention requirements and possibly EPD review, and commercial meter sizing/line sizes affect classification for utility protection programs.

At the meeting, a motion to deny the rezoning was made by Commissioner Belcher and seconded by Commissioner Abbs; the transcript records “The motion does not carry.” The transcript does not record a subsequent final approval of the rezoning, and no recorded vote approving the rezone appears in the meeting record.

Why it matters: Rezoning to business would change allowed uses and could require substantial engineered stormwater controls. Planning & Zoning flagged the request as inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and building/permit complications on the property mean the applicant will need to resolve permits and supply engineered plans before the county is likely to approve such a change.

Applicant quote (from hearing): “We already have a picture with details of what we're going to do. It's going to be a process, but it's definitely something we can work on just to make sure it's regulated and properly built.” — Applicant (Marcus/Family)

Board/Staff clarifications included: P&Z’s denial was based on comprehensive-plan inconsistency; staff recommended the applicant provide full engineered site plans, retention details, and close or resolve the open building permit before the board takes final action.