Board of Zoning Appeals upholds denial of Extra Space Storage’s request for 170 sq ft wall sign

The Lancaster County Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously to uphold the zoning administrator’s decision denying Extra Space Storage’s request to classify its Indian Land facility as large-scale retail and to install a 170.41-square-foot wall sign, rather than the 75-square-foot limit applicable to its current classification.

The board’s action followed a staff presentation that the site plan and building permits had been approved with the principal use identified as indoor self-storage and that the later sign application exceeded the 75-square-foot wall-sign cap for the GB zoning district. “The site plan was approved as self-storage,” the Director said during the staff presentation, noting the denial report in the board packet and the UDO definitions adopted in June 2023.

Applicant representatives Jamie Rollitz and Laura Temple told the board the building should be treated as a large-scale retail use under UDO 10.3 because it is a single, 120,000-square-foot structure operated by one operator, features a walk-in public office and on-site sales of moving supplies and related goods, and will hold a retail business license. “We’re a single building over 100,000 square feet. We’re not a strip center. We’re not multi-tenant. One operator, continuous use,” Rollitz said, arguing the size and public-facing retail component justify larger wall signage and would aid wayfinding from Charlotte Highway.

Board members and staff questioned whether the building’s modest customer volume and the fact the approved site plan lists the principal use as self-storage change the permit status. Staff told the board that reclassifying the principal use after site-plan approval would nullify the approved site plan, require a new review, and trigger different building-permit and impact-fee calculations. Staff also said a variance is an available option after the applicant receives the board’s written finding, but cautioned that a variance requires a showing of hardship and may not be appropriate in this case.

During deliberations board members discussed precedent for allowing larger wall signs on buildings set far back from the road, citing examples such as Lowe’s, Target and Costco, but ultimately the board concluded that the administrator’s interpretation of the UDO should be upheld. A motion “to affirm and support the zoning administrator’s decision” carried on a roll-call vote of 5–0 (Mark Boland, Aaron Fender, James Fenberry, Joshua Pangle and Charles [name variant recorded in transcript] voting in favor).

The board instructed staff to prepare a written finding. Staff said the applicants may seek a variance after receiving that written letter; staff will verify the timeline for a variance application with legal. The board also approved the May 5 meeting minutes before adjourning.

What happens next: applicants will receive the board’s written finding and may pursue a variance or reapply with a new site plan if they seek reclassification; staff advised applicants to coordinate with legal and building-permit staff on the timing and requirements.