Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Exception Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends special-exception permit for Maury River Road self-storage
Summary
The Rockbridge County Planning Commission unanimously recommended the Board of Supervisors grant a special-exception permit to Renovating Rockbridge LLC for a 21,000-square-foot self-storage facility at 195 Walker Street; staff said the Tourism Corridor Overlay and site-plan review will address aesthetics and lighting, and no members of the public spoke at the hearing.
Get email alerts on the Special Exception Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Rockbridge County Planning Commission on April 8 recommended that the Board of Supervisors grant a special-exception permit to Renovating Rockbridge LLC to build a 21,000-square-foot self-storage facility at 195 Walker Street in Lexington.
The commission’s vote followed staff presentation of the application and a discussion about site constraints and conditions. Neil (staff) summarized the request, identifying the subject parcel as about 1.42 acres (tax map 61-a-2-a-6) and noting an adjacent parcel of about 1.72 acres. The use — wholesale business, storage or warehouse — is allowed by special exception in the county’s B-1 zoning district and staff recommended approval contingent on “substantial compliance” with the schematic plan prepared by Perkins and Lisonbee dated March 24, 2026, and on further review by the county building department, the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Tourism Corridor Overlay (TCO) board.
Michael Stearns, the landowner representing Renovating Rockbridge LLC, described the site as a long-undeveloped fill area with unusually wide rights of way along Routes 11 and 39 and an electric transmission-line easement that limits tall structures and tree plantings. “It’s an odd lot,” Stearns said, arguing a single-story slab-on-grade storage building is one of the few productive uses for the parcel. He added that the finished-floor elevation would remain close to the current pad and that the project does not plan to bring in material to raise the site.
Commissioners questioned whether outdoor storage or trailer parking could be added later. Stearns said uses not shown on the approved site plan — including outdoor storage — would require the applicant to return to the commission or seek another special exception. Neil confirmed that compliance with the submitted site plan would be included as a condition of any favorable recommendation.
Staff and project representatives also discussed aesthetics and lighting. Chris (staff) clarified that the county’s lighting ordinance applies in commercial and business districts and that the TCO and site-plan review would consider building colors, materials, fencing and the lighting plan. “Because this project is in a business district, per the ordinance the lighting rules would apply,” Chris said.
Engineer Russ Orison described the building design as one large single-story structure with portions climate-controlled and portions non-climate-controlled, interior ceiling heights around nine feet and a single-sloped roof. The schematic plan in the packet shows a 140-by-150-foot footprint totaling approximately 21,000 square feet.
Chair (S2) opened the public hearing; staff reported no one was signed up to speak in person or online and there were no hands raised, so the public hearing closed with no public testimony.
Commissioner Tony Sabrizzi moved to recommend approval of the special-exception permit with the staff-recommended conditions; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adam Sandridge and carried by unanimous voice vote. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final action.
The commission also discussed a work program of upcoming zoning text amendments; staff said draft ordinance language is not yet ready to advertise and further drafts will be circulated in the near term.
Next step: the Board of Supervisors will consider the commission’s recommendation at a future meeting; the date and packet materials were not specified at the planning commission meeting.
