Kitty Hawk Town Council Denies Self-Storage Facility Proposal

News Summary

The Kitty Hawk Town Council voted 4-1 to reject a proposal for a 105,000-square-foot self-storage facility at 0 The Woods Road. Concerns regarding insufficient project details, environmental impacts, and alignment with the town’s land use plan led to the denial. Although some council members supported the need for storage solutions, the absence of a complete commercial site plan raised red flags, indicating a division among council members on the project’s viability.

Kitty Hawk Town Council Shuts Down Self-Storage Facility Proposal

In a recent meeting, the Kitty Hawk Town Council made headlines by voting 4-1 to deny a special use permit for a proposed self-storage facility on May 5, 2025. Located at 0 The Woods Road, the proposed project was designed to be a massive 105,000-square-foot structure, which certainly captured the council’s attention.

The application came from Eddie Goodrich, with legal representation by attorney Hood Ellis. The facility was planned to consist of a three-story, climate-controlled mini-warehouse with a 35,000-square-foot building footprint. The site’s designation as parcel #010399003 places it in a BC-2 zoning district, which includes a Planned Commercial Development (PCD) overlay, but it remains undeveloped at present.

Lack of Project Details Raises Red Flags

During the public hearing, Robert Testerman, the director of planning and inspections, presented an overview of the project. While mini-warehouse facilities are generally allowed by special use in this district, Testerman pointed out that the proposal lacked a concurrent commercial site plan. Goodrich’s application sought to separate the reviews, citing an estimated cost of $300,000 for the necessary architectural and engineering plans. However, this separation limited Testerman’s ability to confirm compliance with important ordinances related to wastewater, stormwater management, fire access, and environmental preservation.

The sketch plan submitted with the proposal was described as merely conceptual and was missing key components such as bicycle parking and public restrooms. These details could have been addressed in a later site plan submission if the proposal had been approved. Concerns were raised among council members regarding the lack of comprehensive project details, particularly surrounding land disturbance and potential wetland impacts.

Mixed Reactions from Council Members

Councilman Dylan Tillett delved deeper into the matter, questioning whether the project aligned with the town’s land use plan and its environmental protection goals due to the absence of essential details. Meanwhile, Town Attorney Casey Varnell cited a Board of Adjustment ruling clarifying that the 40,000-square-foot restriction applies only to the building’s footprint. This ruling potentially opened the door for the proposed three-story structure under the existing code.

Goodrich argued that there is a growing need for storage solutions in Dare County, fueled by demographic changes and an aging population that is downsizing from larger homes. The project also included plans for 10,000 square feet of retail or office space near U.S. Highway 158, with the storage facility located towards the rear of the parcel, partially screened by existing wooded areas.

Appraisal and Concerns About Property Values

Gregory Lee Bourne, a commercial real estate appraiser engaged by the applicant, testified that the facility would not negatively impact surrounding property values. However, Bourne’s assessment focused solely on property values, lacking expertise in land use planning or environmental engineering. This reliance on property value metrics raised eyebrows among council members.

Emphasizing the necessity for a complete commercial site plan, Tillett noted that it was crucial to evaluate potential flood implications, wetland impacts, and infrastructure compatibility. Councilman Jeff Pruitt echoed similar concerns, expressing that more information was needed regarding potential flood risks before making a decision on the facility.

Support vs. Opposition

Despite the dissenting voices, Councilman David Hines showcased his support for the project, highlighting the local need and Goodrich’s willingness to invest in the community. However, when Hines motioned to approve the special use permit, it failed to receive a second. Consequently, Tillett motioned to deny the special use permit due to the absence of a complete site plan that complied with the zoning ordinance and comprehensive land use plan.

As the council voted, the denial passed with a score of 4-1, demonstrating a clear division among council members on the necessity and viability of the storage facility in Kitty Hawk.

This decision has left many in the community pondering the future of land development in Kitty Hawk, as well as the balance between local needs and environmental concerns. Only time will tell how this decision will shape the area’s growth and needs.