Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate opens over allowing RV and boat storage in Lake Asbury rural community
Summary
County planning staff and applicants asked the board to allow RV/boat-storage as a conditional use in parts of Lake Asbury; public commenters and commissioners raised concerns about parcel sizes, lighting, screening and traffic, while proponents said the area needs storage options.
The board opened a first public hearing on LDC 2022‑12, a proposed text amendment to allow boat and RV storage as a conditional use in the Lake Asbury Rural Community (LARC) on parcels that meet specified locational and design conditions.
Planning staff explained the draft conditions that would apply countywide where the use is allowed: parcels must be a minimum of 3 acres (countywide baseline), have direct access to a major collector roadway (e.g., Russell Road or CR‑218), provide a 30‑foot landscape buffer with evergreen plantings every 30 feet, use walls/fences to screen the lower 4–6 feet, keep at least 20% of the site as open space and pave all drive aisles.
The Lake Asbury Citizens Advisory Committee recommended a higher minimum (10 acres) with a 50% maximum site coverage; the planning commission later recommended approval of staff language. At the hearing citizens who live in the Lake Asbury area said many existing parcels are smaller than 10 acres and that restricting sites to 10 acres would make local storage impracticable. Critics warned about the adequacy of a 6‑foot screen for tall RVs and boats and about potential traffic and access issues at certain intersections; planning staff said lighting shields, design standards, and DRC engineering review would be used to mitigate impacts.
Applicant Joe Wiggins said his 13‑acre nursery property could host a modest storage area at the rear of the site and argued smaller, locally sited facilities are preferable to a single ‘‘mega‑center’’ far from residents. The board did not take a final vote at the first hearing and directed the item to return for the second hearing after additional review of conditions and community concerns.
