A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Neighbors object to expanded Whiteststone boat and RV storage; board tables decision

May 28, 2026 | Lancaster County, Virginia


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Neighbors object to expanded Whiteststone boat and RV storage; board tables decision
The Lancaster County Board of Supervisors on May 28 heard more than an hour of public comment opposing a property owner’s request to expand a long-standing nonconforming commercial site into a 40-space open-air boat and recreational vehicle storage yard at 20499 Mary Ball Road.

Olivia (county planning staff) presented the application for Whiteststone Property LLC, explaining the property’s history as a nonconforming commercial use and staff’s recommendation to await input from the Town of Whitestone before taking action. She said the owner supplied a narrative and a proposed site plan and that the request would require a special exception under Article 12 of the county land development code.

Multiple nearby residents told the board the expansion would change the character of the R-1 residential area and raised specific concerns about noise, nighttime activity, waste disposal, traffic safety and potential impacts to groundwater. Terresa Haney, who said she lives at 20521 Mary Ball Road, said the expansion would “ruin the look of the neighborhood” and lower property values. She and other neighbors described loud, late-night activity and concerns that users might repair boats or RVs on site.

Charlie Costello flagged apparent inconsistencies between the GIS parcel lines shown on county maps and the boundaries visible on aerial imagery, asking staff to clarify the legal parcel lines and tax-map numbers. Cliff Potter and other neighbors asked for specific, enforceable conditions if the board considered approval — for example, limits on hours of operation, a prohibition on on-site repairs, buffers/landscaping, lighting controls and a required number limit in line with the owner’s proposed 40 spaces.

Applicant JC Rogers, who identified himself as a family member of the property owners, addressed the board and said the family does not want to upset neighbors and is willing to accept conditions including hours of operation and landscape buffers. Rogers said some people have stored boats on parts of the parcel for years and that the owners are looking for ways to make the property financially sustainable while complying with county requirements.

After public comment and staff discussion, a supervisor moved to table the application pending the town council’s input and further staff follow-up. The motion passed. The board asked staff to return with clarified parcel boundaries, potential conditions (buffering, lighting and operating hours), and any town council recommendations before the board resumes consideration.

What happens next: The application remains pending. Staff will collect the town’s input and prepare recommended conditions and clarifications on parcel boundaries and enforcement mechanisms for the board to review at a future meeting.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee