Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves special exception for boat and RV storage on parcel zoned for self storage
Summary
Berkeley County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a special exception allowing outdoor boat and RV storage in place of an otherwise planned self-storage facility at a 4.12-acre parcel, with conditions on screening and setbacks.
The Berkeley County Board of Zoning Appeals on an October meeting approved a special exception to allow boat and RV storage as the primary outdoor-storage use at a 4.12-acre parcel identified as TMS222-00-00-065.
The applicant, who presented herself as Holly McElhaney, said the parcel is already zoned for a self-storage facility and that the request would allow fixed buildings and outdoor spaces to be used for boat and RV storage “in lieu of self storage.” Board member Smith moved to grant the special exception; the motion was seconded by board member Sauer and was approved by the board.
The application materials and the applicant stated the site plan includes a 20-foot front buffer, 20-foot rear setbacks and 10-foot side setbacks. The applicant said the parcel has retention ponds on both sides and wetlands at the rear; she did not provide a precise measure for the distance between the outdoor storage area and nearby residences. A board member asked whether the farthest point of outdoor storage would be about 500 feet from residential property; the applicant said she did not have that distance available and later estimated one area at roughly 123 feet but did not confirm a final figure.
County staff reminded the board that in a prior variance request the applicant had sought use of understory trees instead of required canopy trees because of a power-line easement along the front of the property; staff asked the board to keep that prior variance and the easement in mind while considering screening. The applicant said the perimeter screening would be opaque and that, where required by the special exception, screening would meet the minimum referenced in the application materials — a minimum of 8 feet and not to exceed 12 feet of opaque screening for portions of the perimeter.
The board recorded the motion to grant the special exception; after the vote the chair told the applicant, “Ma'am, you have your special exception.” The record shows that two board members (Mills and Joy) were absent for the meeting; the board did not read a roll-call tally into the public record when announcing the outcome.
The board did not attach additional conditions in the public comments recorded at the meeting. The applicant thanked the board and left with approval to proceed under the special-exception allowance.
