Cannon Bridge Road Storage Plan Stalls After Failed County Motion

A proposal to build a self-storage facility with boat and RV storage on Cannon Bridge Road reached the Habersham County Board of Commissioners on May 18, when staff described an approximately 300-unit project with 51 boat and RV spaces on about eight acres. The meeting minutes say a motion on conditional-use application CU-26-02 failed, but they do not identify the motion or record a final disposition of William Gary’s request.

The unanswered outcome matters because the proposed use is not documented as an established right for the Cannon Bridge Road property. Gary is seeking conditional-use permission to operate self-storage and boat/RV storage on Map 043 Parcel 055A, an eight-acre tract in the county’s Low Intensity district. Until the county records an action, it remains unclear whether that use was authorized, rejected, deferred again or altered by conditions.

The application arrived before commissioners after a wetlands concern slowed its earlier review. On April 7, the Planning Commission unanimously brought CU-26-02 back from a prior tabling, then unanimously tabled it for another month at the applicant’s request after staff received information about possible wetlands on the site. The Board of Commissioners agenda then placed the conditional-use request on its May 18 public-hearing schedule, moving the proposal into the county’s next review stage.

Gary is the applicant seeking permission for the storage operation, while county staff presented the project at the commissioners’ hearing. The Planning Commission’s April action reflected the applicant’s request for more time after possible wetlands information emerged. The Board’s May record confirms that commissioners considered the proposal in public, but it does not preserve a vote tally, the wording of the failed motion or the positions individual commissioners took.

The storage facility is still a proposal rather than a documented approved development. The May 18 minutes establish that a motion failed during the public hearing, but that fact alone does not establish a denial or approval: the excerpt does not say whether the motion sought approval, denial, postponement or another action. Nor do the cited proceedings establish any project conditions, a wetlands resolution, a revised plan or a construction schedule.

The next public sign of a resolution would be a later Board of Commissioners minute entry, resolution or other county action addressing CU-26-02. That record would need to clarify whether the Cannon Bridge Road storage use was approved, denied, postponed or changed through conditions. For now, residents can see that the hearing occurred and a motion failed, but not the project’s final county status.