Board approves three variances for proposed 4.25-acre self‑storage site, including buffer reduction and asphalt millings

The Board of Zoning Appeals voted to approve three variances for a proposed self-storage development on approximately 4.25 acres, granting relief from the required landscape buffer, setting parking at one space per unit, and allowing a dustless parking surface made from asphalt millings.

Mr. Farley, the applicant, told the board the parcel “is 4.25 acres. I purchased from Seth and Zach Blankenship,” and described mature vegetation along the east, west and south property lines, including “30 40 foot trees.” He said the operation will install an 8-foot chain-link fence around the property at project completion and return “and put some hedge rows in just to create that buffer.”

Planning consultant Amanda Harrington reviewed the ordinance’s six variance criteria and staff findings. She said two criteria were not applicable and that, based on the applicant’s presentation and the existing vegetation, staff believed the applicant had satisfied the burden for one criterion while noting that the immediate area otherwise shows “robust landscape screening.” Amanda also referenced prior approvals where existing mature trees were accepted in lieu of newly planted buffers.

On the buffer issue, a board member raised stormwater concerns in nearby residential areas and observed that mature trees can reduce runoff; Mr. Farley confirmed the site’s elevation and agreed that the existing vegetation “would help prevent storm water runoff.” After discussion, Mark Presley moved to approve the buffer adjustment; Eric Langford seconded, and the motion carried by voice vote.

On parking, staff presented several options, including the International Code Council’s recommendation (one space per 500 square feet) and alternatives up to one space per 2,000 square feet. The applicant noted the phased buildout would yield about 351 storage units across all phases and estimated roughly 300 informal parking stalls by counting one space in front of each unit. The board debated practicality and concluded to adopt a simple standard: one unmarked parking space adjacent to each unit. Eric Langford moved that each unit have its own parking spot; Kendra seconded and the motion passed by voice vote.

Mr. Farley also requested permission to use crushed stone and asphalt millings as a dustless parking surface. Amanda cited section 4.013E of the zoning regulations (requiring commercial parking lots to be paved or surfaced with a dustless material) and said the material Mr. Farley described would qualify and would help mitigate stormwater. Mark moved to approve the dustless-surface relief conditional on using asphalt millings; Kendra seconded and the motion carried.

Votes at a glance: - Landscape buffer variance (adjustment to required buffer strip): approved (motion by Mark Presley; second Eric Langford; voice vote). - Parking allocation (one unmarked space per unit): approved (motion by Eric Langford; second Kendra; voice vote). - Parking‑surface relief (use of asphalt millings/crushed stone as a dustless surface): approved conditionally on using asphalt millings (motion by Mark Presley; second Kendra; voice vote).

The board did not record individual roll‑call tallies; minutes note voice votes and the chair’s announcements that each motion carried. The planning consultant noted the site is not in a mapped 100‑year flood hazard area, and staff said prior local approvals had accepted mature vegetation as meeting buffer depth requirements where appropriate.

After the votes the building official introduced Joanne Hampton as the new office manager for permitting and zoning, and reminded members that a proposed sign (if later submitted) would require a separate variance because the sign ordinance is strict. The meeting adjourned shortly thereafter.

The board’s approvals allow the applicant to proceed subject to the conditions discussed (installation of an 8‑foot fence at operation, use of asphalt millings for parking areas, and the buffer adjustments tied to existing vegetation). Any future sign or deviations from the approved plans will require separate review by the board.