A G E N D A. Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals. October 16, 2018

Transcription

1 TO: FROM: RE: Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals Melody Kearse, Zoning Coordinator Meeting Agenda DATE: October 11, 2018 The Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 16, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. in Council s Chambers at City Hall, 155 Johnston Street, to consider the following appeals. Please feel free to contact me regarding any item on the agenda. Thank you. 1. Call to Order A G E N D A Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals October 16, Approval of minutes from the September 18, 2018, meeting. 3. Approval of Orders from the September 18, 2018, meeting. 4. Appeal Z : Request by Tony Pannell of Tony s Towing for a modification to an existing special exception to expand an automobile wrecker service use and a variance from the required side and rear yard buffers. at E Black Street, which is zoned Industry General (IG). Tax map numbers & Appeal Z : Request by Habitat for Humanity for a special exception to establish single-family detached residential uses at 423 and 454 Mint Street and a variance from the lot dimensional standards, which are zoned General Commercial (GC). Tax map number & Appeal Z : Request by Alfred & Tammala Boyd for a special exception to establish a single-family detached residential uses at 435, 439 and 443 Mint Street, which is zoned General Commercial (GC). Tax map number , -141 & Appeal Z : Request by William Burgin for a variance from side yard setback for an accessory dwelling use at 509 Forest Lane, which is zoned Single-Family Residential-5 (SF-5). Tax map numbers Appeal Z : Request by Piedmont Land Development, Inc. for a special exception to establish a restaurant without alcohol sales use at 1055 S. Anderson Road, which is zoned Industry General (IG). Tax map number Planning & Development Department, P.O. Box 11706, 155 Johnston St., Rock Hill, SC Ph. (803) Fax (803)

2 9. Other Business a. Continuing education opportunities remaining for the year. b. Discuss 2019 calendar. 10. Adjourn. Planning & Development Department, P.O. Box 11706, 155 Johnston St., Rock Hill, SC Ph. (803) Fax (803)

3 CONTINUING EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES 2018 Returning Boards and Commission members and staff members need 3 continuing education credit hours per year under State law. The City of Rock Hill will provide the following opportunities in 2018 for you to obtain the required credit hours. Date & time Nov. 9 2 p.m. Topic Location Facilitators Credit hours Topics TBD (videos) Note: this is the last session of the year. It should be used as make-up for anyone who still needs hours. City Hall Room 303 Janice Miller 3 hours Alternatively, if you attend conferences as part of your career, the vendors listed on the back are approved for credits. The sessions must be in-person with a coordinator present at all times, and the subject matter should be related to planning. After completion of the program, give Janice a copy of the agenda, fill out a form, and you re done! General organizations International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Municipal Association of South Carolina (MASC) National Association of Counties (NACo) South Carolina Association of Counties (SCAC) Urban Land Institute (ULI) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Architecture organizations American Institute of Architects (AIA) South Carolina Chapter of the American Institute of Architects) (SCAIA) Planning organizations American Planning Association (APA) South Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association (SCAPA) American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Clemson University and other planning-accredited schools Landscape Architecture organizations American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) South Carolina American Society of Landscape Architects (SCASLA) Historic organizations National Trust for Historic Preservation South Carolina Department of Archives and History Organizations in specific geographic areas Planning & Development Department, P.O. Box 11706, 155 Johnston St., Rock Hill, SC Ph. (803) Fax (803)

4 ACE Basin NERR Coastal Training Program Coastal Waccamaw Stormwater Education Consortium College of Charleston North Campus North Inlet Winyah Bay NERR Coastal Training Program Waccamaw Regional Council of Governments Planning & Development Department, P.O. Box 11706, 155 Johnston St., Rock Hill, SC Ph. (803) Fax (803)

5 Heckle Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Items City of Rock Hill, SC October 16, 2018 Zoning Board of Appeals Mt Gallant Sutton Hwy 21 Old York India Hook Celanese York Cherry I-77 Main 7 Dave Lyle Anderson McConnells Heckle 5 4 Albright 6 8 Anderson Ogden I-77 Mt. Holly Legend Map Saluda City Limits River Agenda Item Not Drawn To Scale DR 5/11/15 #

6 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Rock Hill, South Carolina September 18, 2018 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, at 6 p.m. in Council Chambers at City Hall, 155 Johnston Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Matt Crawford, Keith Sutton, John Antrim and Michael Smith. Rodney Cullum arrived at 6:12 p.m. Stacy Reeves, Randy Sturgis Melody Kearse, Dennis Fields, Shana Marshburn, Leah Youngblood, Janice Miller Legal notice of the public hearing was published in The Herald, Saturday, September 1, Notice was posted on all property considered. Adjacent property owners and residents were notified in writing. 1. Call to Order Chair Matt Crawford called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the August 21, 2018, meeting. Mr. Antrim made a motion to approve the minutes as distributed. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by a vote of 4-0 (Reeves, Sturgis, and Cullum absent). 3. Approval of Orders from August 21, 2018, meeting. Mr. Antrim made a motion to approve the Orders as distributed. Mr. Smith seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0 (Reeves, Sturgis, and Cullum absent). 4. Appeal Z : Request by Jake Kujawa and Angel Vazquez of Southeastern Recycling Solutions for a special exception to establish a commercial recycling facility use at 2475, 2550, & 2561 Vernsdale Rd., which are zoned Industry Heavy (IH). Tax map numbers & Staff member Melody Kearse presented the staff report. She noted that while the staff report map showed the properties as being split-zoned IH and PUD because that is what the City s GIS maps currently show, actually the property is all zoned IH, and planning staff would ask the GIS staff to correct this in the City s mapping database going forward. Mr. Sutton asked for information on traffic counts that would be generated by the applicant. Ms. Kearse provided information regarding the traffic counts provided by the applicant. Mr. Sutton asked whether Vernsdale Road was a County or State road. Ms. Kearse stated that it was City-owned and maintained. Mr. Sutton asked whether the City had any plans to pave Vernsdale in the future. Ms. Kearse stated that she was not aware of any plans to pave it. Mr. Crawford asked whether the 230-foot distance calculated was from property line to property line. Ms. Kearse stated that it was. She added that there was no access to the adjacent residential property from Vernsdale Road. Mr. Cullum arrived at 6:12 p.m. 1 P age

7 Mr. Jake Kujawa, 4606 Brewington Pkwy., and Mr. Angel Vazquez, 1834 Timberlake Dr., applicants, stated that they were planning on developing the site further with their recycling business, which would generate employment opportunities in the area. Mr. Antrim asked whether they had noticed a downturn in the recycling business. Mr. Kujawa stated that markets were down generally but that because their business model focused on industry, they had not noticed lower recycling numbers. Mr. Crawford asked for an explanation of the business. Mr. Kujawa stated that the company was a brokerage. It would purchase material from different accounts, bring the material for separation onto the site, and the process it for end users. Mr. Crawford asked whether any chemical or mechanical processes are involved. Mr. Kujawa stated that the business does not process chemicals, and that as part of the agreement to purchase the land, they also would not do any mechanical processing. There were no further questions or comments. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion. Mr. Crawford presented the motion to approve the special exception for the use as presented. Mr. Smith seconded and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0 (Reeves and Sturgis absent). Mr. Crawford presented the findings, noting specifically that the separation was adequate and included soybean fields, that the site was isolated, that the use meets the minimum lot size, that the screening would be redone, that processing would occur indoors, that the roads were adequate to serve the site, and that this use was better than the historical use as a chemical plant. 5. Appeal Z : Request by Debra Harris for a variance from the side yard setback for the addition of an attached carport at 1204 Ogden Rd., which is zoned Single-Family Residential-3 (SF-3). Tax map number Staff member Shana Marshburn presented the staff report. Mr. Sutton asked whether the applicant had been made aware of the additional cost of changing the carport design to essentially a garage. Ms. Marshburn stated that staff had made the applicant aware of the additional requirements. Mr. Antrim noted his concern about the location of the structure close to the property line and asked whether the neighbor was a church. Ms. Marshburn stated that it was. Mr. Antrim noted that the garage would not be visible to the church. Ms. Marshburn stated that this was correct. Mr. Antrim stated that he had concerns about the effect of the structure so close to the property line if the church decided to sell its property in the future and it was redeveloped. Mr. Crawford asked whether granting the variance would mean that the adjacent property would have a larger setback if developed. Ms. Marshburn stated that it would not, that future structures built on that parcel would be required to meet the setback standards of the Single-Family 3 zoning district for the use that was being developed. Ms. Debra Harris, 1204 Ogden Rd., applicant, was available to answer questions. Mr. James Reddrick, 1333 Rising Oak Dr., contractor, stated that the design for the garage was originally 2 P age

8 presented to staff in April 2016, but at the time he was told that he would need to construct a carport rather than a garage. He explained the process that had brought them to request the variance in order to build. Mr. Antrim asked whether the driveway could be extended to have the garage built behind the house. Ms. Harris stated that this would increase the cost for construction and that she preferred to have something beside the house in order to cover the side-entry door. Mr. Antrim asked whether there was a door on the back of the house. Ms. Harris stated that there was not. Mr. Crawford asked whether she had approached the church to purchase a strip of the property. Ms. Harris stated that she had not. Mr. Cullum asked whether she was the only property without a garage or carport in the neighborhood. Ms. Harris stated that she was not. Mr. Charles Smalls, 785 East Laney Terr., representing Church of Mount Olive, stated that the church supported the request, adding that if the church met the minimum lot size requirements for its use, it would consider selling a portion of the property to Ms. Harris. There were no further questions or comments. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion, which centered around the difficulties of constructing a garage that would be different from existing ones in the neighborhood and the lack of a back door on the house. Mr. Smith presented the motion to approve the variance as presented. Mr. Cullum seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0 (Reeves and Sturgis absent). Mr. Smith presented the findings, specifically noting that the church was in support of the request and therefore that the garage would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties, and that the strict application of the ordinance would affect the property owner because the house did not have a rear door and therefore, placing the garage in the rear would not fully connect it to the residence. 6. Appeal Z : Request by Rick Miller of Sound on Wheels for a special exception to establish a commercial truck rental at 515 S. Anderson Road, which is zoned General Commercial (GC). Tax map number Staff member Dennis Fields presented the staff report. Mr. Sutton asked whether the City had provided the applicant with the landscaping requirements. Mr. Fields stated that it had, that 3 feet of a landscaping screen was required along the front. He added that the applicant could provide a design and indicated that the applicant did not have an issue with providing this additional screening. Mr. Sutton asked several questions regarding the Zoning Ordinance requirements on the number of commercial vehicles allowed on a site in determining whether the use was a primary or accessory use. Mr. Fields stated that 10 or fewer vehicles would be considered an accessory use and more would make it a primary use. Mr. Sutton asked for clarification as to why a special exception was required. Mr. Fields stated that that because there were more than 10 vehicles requested, a special exception was required. 3 P age

9 Mr. Sutton asked whether a large truck sales use would be allowed if the special exception were granted. Mr. Fields stated that it could. Mr. Antrim noted the different uses on the site and asked whether the landscaping would be required for the entire site or just the location where the commercial truck rental would be located. Mr. Fields stated that it would only be required in the area containing the commercial truck rentals. There was general discussion regarding the need for landscaping on other areas of the property. Ms. Youngbood added that staff could work with the applicant to spread the required number of shrubs around the site where they would provide the best overall appearance rather than group them all right in front of where the trucks being offered for rent were located. Mr. Crawford asked whether there was an overhead utility in the area where landscaping was required. Mr. Fields stated that there was, and that the applicant would need to work with City staff to determine the appropriate plantings for that area. Mr. Crawford asked whether the landscaping would be in the grass area. Mr. Fields stated that it would. Mr. Richard Miller, 515 S. Anderson Rd., applicant, was available to answer questions. He noted the amount of empty space on the site and said that he believed the commercial truck rental would be beneficial to his business. Mr. Crawford asked whether he had any issues with the landscaping requirements. Mr. Miller stated that he did not. There were no further questions or comments. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion. Mr. Sutton presented the motion to approve the special exception as presented by staff. Mr. Cullum seconded. Mr. Crawford presented a motion to replace the motion on the floor to approve the special exception as presented with the condition that landscaping be added as suggested in the staff report. Mr. Sutton seconded, and the motion to replace the motion on the floor was approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0 (Reeves and Sturgis absent). Mr. Crawford then presented the motion to approve the special exception as presented with the condition that landscaping be added as suggested in the staff report. Mr. Sutton seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0 (Reeves and Sturgis absent). Mr. Crawford presented the findings, specifically noting that the applicant agreed to meet the standards required, that there would be no test drives on adjacent neighborhood streets, that there was adequate parking provided for the use, that the site was already compatible with automotive uses, that the use was compatible with surrounding uses, that there would be no adverse impacts caused by the use, and that the road could handle the traffic that would be generated by the use. Mr. Smith presented a motion for a five-minute recess. Mr. Sutton seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0 (Reeves and Sturgis absent). The meeting resumed at 7 p.m. 4 P age

10 7. Appeal Z : Request by David Poore for a special exception to establish a single-family detached residential use and a variance from the lot dimension standards at 1183 E Main Street, which is zoned Industry General (IG). Tax map number Ms. Kearse presented the staff report for the special exception, noting that she would present the staff report for the variance if the special exception was approved. Mr. Antrim asked whether 10 related people could live at the location. Ms. Kearse stated that they would be able to do so, provided that the building met the building code regulations for that many people. Mr. Antrim asked whether boarders could also live on the property. Ms. Kearse stated that tenants were considered unrelated to the primary occupant and that any tenants would count towards the requirement that no more than five unrelated people live at a single residence. Mr. Crawford asked for clarification about how a residential use on this property may increase the buffers on his adjacent property. Ms. Kearse stated that the required size of the buffers would depend on the use of the adjacent property and whether a screen fence was included as part of that buffer. Mr. Crawford asked whether the impact could be as much as 40 feet. Ms. Kearse stated that it could be. Mr. Crawford stated that his understanding of the situation meant that the separation requirements from residential uses may make the adjacent properties unavailable for development. Ms. Kearse stated that this was correct. Mr. David Poore, 1183 E. Main St., applicant, was available to answer questions. He stated that he had moved into the building in order to keep people from breaking in. Mr. Sutton asked whether he was currently out of business. Mr. Poore stated that he had closed the business in order to take care of his father but that he planned to re-open soon. Mr. Sutton asked how long he had been out of business. Mr. Poore stated that he had been out of business for about a year. Mr. Antrim asked whether he would be reopening the business at this location. Mr. Poore stated that he would. Mr. Antrim asked whether the site would be refit for bedrooms if the special exception for the residential use were approved. Mr. Poore stated that this was the only place he had to live. Mr. Antrim asked about how many people lived in the structure. Mr. Poore stated that in addition to himself, two of his sisters and his grandson live on site. Mr. Crawford asked how he would address the building code violations. Mr. Poore stated that he was working with City to repair the building. Mr. Crawford asked whether he was willing to do the work necessary to meet the building code. Mr. Poore stated that he was. Mr. Crawford stated that that in addition to making sure all the laws would be met, the Board had to take into consideration whether allowing a residential use would impact the neighbors. 5 P age

11 Mr. Sutton asked whether the dog lot next door had been moved. Mr. Poore stated that he had not had the time to move it, but added that he was keeping the lot clean. Mr. Baxter Simpson, 1324 E. Black St., spoke in opposition to the request, stating that while he felt sympathy for Mr. Poore, he made the effort to make sure his properties met the City s laws and regulations. He added that Mr. Poore was using a driveway that was located on his property. Mr. Chad Simpson, 1324 E. Black St., spoke in opposition to the request, stating that he did not want to injure Mr. Poore, but that the use should not negatively impact the neighbors. He added that the granting of a special exception for residential use would impact his ability to develop the surrounding properties due to separation requirements. Mr. Poore was given the opportunity to rebut the comments. Mr. Poore stated that he did own the driveway accessing his property. Mr. Sutton asked whether Mr. Poore and his family would be evicted if the special exception were not granted. Ms. Kearse stated that they would. Mr. Crawford asked about the time period for this eviction to take place. Ms. Kearse stated that she did not know, but that family would have the opportunity to vacate the property voluntarily before the City had to request a court order for eviction. Ms. Youngblood stated that City records did not indicate exactly when the business was closed, but that it appeared to have been closed for many years. Mr. Cullum asked whether it was possible that the family had lived there since Ms. Youngblood stated that it was possible. Mr. Cullum asked why City staff had not previously enforced the City s standards on the residential use on this property. Ms. Kearse stated that other staff members no longer in the Planning & Development Department had interpreted the use as having been grandfathered as a caretaker s quarters, which is allowed as accessory to a business use. However, the use was never formally approved. Staff felt compelled to address the safety concerns of the nonapproved used when the fire occurred after realizing that the structure was dangerous for human habitation. Mr. Crawford asked whether the special exception could be approved in such a manner that it would not affect the ability to use adjacent properties for non-residential uses. Ms. Youngblood stated that this was not possible. Mr. Sutton asked the timeline for repairs. Ms. Kearse stated that staff would work with Mr. Poore on a timeline for repairs but that if he did not meet the timeline, the City would still need to request a court order for eviction. Mr. Antrim asked whether the family currently lived elsewhere. Ms. Kearse stated that the family still occupied the building although it had been posted as unfit for human habitation since the fire had occurred. Mr. Cullum asked whether the current situation involved batteries and no indoor plumbing. Ms. Kearse stated that the structure has indoor plumbing but that electrical power was being supplied by a gas-powered generator located in the parking lot behind the building. 6 P age

12 Mr. Baxter Simpson stated that he would be willing to withdraw his opposition to the use if the special exception could be approved in a manner that did not affect their nearby properties. Mr. Crawford stated that the Board could not make that a condition of approval. Mr. Poore asked whether he would be able to live in the building if he reopened his business there. Ms. Kearse stated that making the building livable from a building code standpoint was costly and that live/work dwellings were not allowed in the Industry General (IG) zoning district, only in the Mixed Use (MX) and Downtown (DTWN) districts. Mr. Cullum asked whether the City could offer assistance to make the building habitable. Ms. Kearse stated that Housing & Neighborhood Services may have some programs available but that she did not know whether those programs would apply in this case. There were no further questions or discussion. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion, which centered on the accumulation of the violations, the financial burden on the owner in bringing the building to meet the building code, the issue of a residential use taking place in a building not designed to be a residence, and the negative impact on adjacent properties in regards to separation requirements. Mr. Smith presented the motion to not approve the special exception as presented. Mr. Cullum seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0 (Reeves and Sturgis absent). Mr. Smith noted the difficulty in making findings to support the request, specifically noting the adverse impacts to the surrounding properties. 8. Other Business There was no other business to discuss. 9. Adjourn. There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m. 7 P age

13 Order on Application for a Special Exception Zoning Board of Appeals Date Application Filed: June 27, 2018 Appeal No. Z The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, to consider a request by Jake Kujawa and Angel Vazquez of Southeastern Recycling Solutions for a special exception to establish a commercial recycling facility use at 2475, 2550, & 2561 Vernsdale Rd., which are zoned Industry Heavy (IH). Tax map numbers & Board members in attendance included Matt Crawford, John Antrim, Michael Smith, Rodney Cullum, and Keith Sutton. Stacy Reeves and Randy Sturgis were absent. After consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the Board voted to grant the request based on the following findings of fact: 1. The site may be identified as 2550 Vernsdale Road. 2. The property owner is Rock Hill Industries LLC 3. This property is zoned Industry Heavy (IH). 4. The request was for a special exception to establish a commercial recycling facility use. 5. The request was advertised to the public according to state law and the City of Rock Hill Zoning Ordinance. The following public notification actions were taken: August 31: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. August 31: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property. September 1: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in The Herald. Information about the application was posted on the City s website. 6. Staff did not receive any public feedback. 7. During the public hearing, the following comments were heard by the Board: Staff member Melody Kearse presented the staff report. She noted that while the staff report map showed the properties as being split-zoned IH and PUD because that is what the City s GIS maps currently show, actually the property is all zoned IH, and planning staff would ask the GIS staff to correct this in the City s mapping database going forward. Appeal No. Z Jake Kujawa and Angel Vasquez Southeastern Recycling Solutions 2550 Vernsdale Road Page 1

14 Mr. Sutton asked for information on traffic counts that would be generated by the applicant. Ms. Kearse provided information regarding the traffic counts provided by the applicant. Mr. Sutton asked whether Vernsdale Road was a County or State road. Ms. Kearse stated that it was City-owned and maintained. Mr. Sutton asked whether the City had any plans to pave Vernsdale in the future. Ms. Kearse stated that she was not aware of any plans to pave it. Mr. Crawford asked whether the 230-foot distance calculated was from property line to property line. Ms. Kearse stated that it was. She added that there was no access to the adjacent residential property from Vernsdale Road. Mr. Cullum arrived at 6:12 p.m. Mr. Jake Kujawa, 4606 Brewington Pkwy., and Mr. Angel Vazquez, 1834 Timberlake Dr., applicants, stated that they were planning on developing the site further with their recycling business, which would generate employment opportunities in the area. Mr. Antrim asked whether they had noticed a downturn in the recycling business. Mr. Kujawa stated that markets were down generally but that because their business model focused on industry, they had not noticed lower recycling numbers. Mr. Crawford asked for an explanation of the business. Mr. Kujawa stated that the company was a brokerage. It would purchase material from different accounts, bring the material for separation onto the site, and the process it for end users. Mr. Crawford asked whether any chemical or mechanical processes are involved. Mr. Kujawa stated that the business does not process chemicals, and that as part of the agreement to purchase the land, they also would not do any mechanical processing. There were no further questions or comments. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion. Mr. Crawford presented the motion to approve the special exception for the use as presented. Mr. Smith seconded and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0 (Reeves and Sturgis absent). Mr. Crawford presented the findings, noting specifically that the separation was adequate and included soybean fields, that the site was isolated, that the use meets the minimum lot size, that the screening would be redone, that processing would occur indoors, that the roads were adequate to serve the site, and that this use was better than the historical use as a chemical plant. THE BOARD, THEREFORE, ORDERS That the request by Jake Kujawa and Angel Vazquez of Southeastern Recycling Solutions for a special exception to establish a commercial recycling facility use at 2475, 2550, & 2561 Vernsdale Rd., is APPROVED. Appeal No. Z Jake Kujawa and Angel Vasquez Southeastern Recycling Solutions 2550 Vernsdale Road Page 2

15 Section (D)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance states: A person having a substantial interest affected by a decision of the ZBA on a Special Exception Permit may appeal from the decision of the ZBA to the Circuit Court in and for York County by filing with the Clerk of the Court a petition setting for plainly, fully, and distinctly why the decision is contrary to law. The appeal shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the decision of the ZBA is mailed. For the purposes of this subsection, person includes persons jointly or severally aggrieved by the decision of the ZBA. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Date Issued Matt Crawford, Chairman Date Mailed Appeal No. Z Jake Kujawa and Angel Vasquez Southeastern Recycling Solutions 2550 Vernsdale Road Page 3

16 Order on Application for a Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals Date Application Filed: August 17, 2018 Appeal No. Z The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, to consider a request by Deborah Harris for a variance from the side yard setback for the addition of an attached carport in the Single Family (SF-3) zoning district. Tax map number Board members in attendance included Matt Crawford, Keith Sutton, John Antrim, Michael Smith, Rodney Cullum (arrived at 6:12 p.m.) After consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the Board voted to grant the request based on the following findings of fact: 1. The site may be identified as 1204 Ogden Road. 2. The property owner is Deborah Harris. 3. This property is zoned Single Family-3 (SF-3). 4. The request was for a variance from the side yard setback for the addition of an attached carport in the Single Family-3 (SF-3) zoning district. 5. The request was advertised to the public according to state law and the City of Rock Hill Zoning Ordinance. The following public notification actions were taken: August 31 Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. August 31: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property. September 1: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in The Herald. Information about the application was posted on the City s website. 6. Staff did not receive any public feedback. 7. During the public hearing, the following comments were heard by the Board: Staff member Shana Marshburn presented the staff report. Appeal No. Z Deborah Harris 1204 Ogden Road Page 1

17 Mr. Sutton asked whether the applicant had been made aware of the additional cost of changing the carport design to essentially a garage. Ms. Marshburn stated that staff had made the applicant aware of the additional requirements. Mr. Antrim noted his concern about the location of the structure close to the property line and asked whether the neighbor was a church. Ms. Marshburn stated that it was. Mr. Antrim noted that the garage would not be visible to the church. Ms. Marshburn stated that this was correct. Mr. Antrim stated that he had concerns about the effect of the structure so close to the property line if the church decided to sell its property in the future and it was redeveloped. Mr. Crawford asked whether granting the variance would mean that the adjacent property would have a larger setback if developed. Ms. Marshburn stated that it would not, that future structures built on that parcel would be required to meet the setback standards of the Single-Family 3 zoning district for the use that was being developed. Ms. Debra Harris, 1204 Ogden Rd., applicant, was available to answer questions. Mr. James Reddrick, 1333 Rising Oak Dr., contractor, stated that the design for the garage was originally presented to staff in April 2016, but at the time he was told that he would need to construct a carport rather than a garage. He explained the process that had brought them to request the variance in order to build. Mr. Antrim asked whether the driveway could be extended to have the garage built behind the house. Ms. Harris stated that this would increase the cost for construction and that she preferred to have something beside the house in order to cover the side-entry door. Mr. Antrim asked whether there was a door on the back of the house. Ms. Harris stated that there was not. Mr. Crawford asked whether she had approached the church to purchase a strip of the property. Ms. Harris stated that she had not. Mr. Cullum asked whether she was the only property without a garage or carport in the neighborhood. Ms. Harris stated that she was not. Mr. Charles Smalls, 785 East Laney Terr., representing Church of Mount Olive, stated that the church supported the request, adding that if the church met the minimum lot size requirements for its use, it would consider selling a portion of the property to Ms. Harris. There were no further questions or comments. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion, which centered around the difficulties of constructing a garage that would be different from existing ones in the neighborhood and the lack of a back door on the house. Mr. Smith presented the motion to approve the variance as presented. Mr. Cullum seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0 (Reeves and Sturgis absent). Appeal No. Z Deborah Harris 1204 Ogden Road Page 2

18 Mr. Smith presented the findings, specifically noting that the church was in support of the request and therefore that the garage would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties, and that the strict application of the ordinance would affect the property owner because the house did not have a rear door and therefore, placing the garage in the rear would not fully connect it to the residence. THE BOARD, THEREFORE, ORDERS: That the request by Deborah Harris for a variance from the side yard setback for the addition of an attached carport in the Single Family-3 (SF-3) zoning district, is APPROVED. Section (E)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance states: A person having a substantial interest affected by a decision of the ZBA on a Variance Permit may appeal from the decision of the ZBA to the Circuit Court in and for York County by filing with the Clerk of the Court a petition setting for plainly, fully, and distinctly why the decision is contrary to law. The appeal shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the decision of the ZBA is mailed. For the purposes of this subsection, person includes persons jointly or severally aggrieved by the decision of the ZBA. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Date Issued Matt Crawford, Chairman Date Mailed Appeal No. Z Deborah Harris 1204 Ogden Road Page 3

19 Order on Application for a Special Exception Zoning Board of Appeals Date Application Filed: August 15, 2018 Appeal No. Z The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, to consider a request by Rick Miller of Sound on Wheels for a special exception to establish a commercial truck rental use at 515 S. Anderson Rd., which is zoned General Commercial (GC). Tax map number Board members in attendance included Matt Crawford, John Antrim, Michael Smith, Rodney Cullum, and Keith Sutton. Stacy Reeves and Randy Sturgis were absent. After consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the Board voted to grant the request based on the following findings of fact: 1. The site may be identified as 515 S Anderson Rd. 2. The property owner is John H Worden, III. 3. This property is zoned General Commercial (GC). 4. The request was for a special exception to establish a commercial truck or equipment rental or sales use. 5. The request was advertised to the public according to state law and the City of Rock Hill Zoning Ordinance. The following public notification actions were taken: August 31: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. August 31: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property. September 1: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in The Herald. Information about the application was posted on the City s website. 6. Staff did not receive any feedback from neighboring property owners. 7. During the public hearing, the following comments were heard by the Board: Staff member Dennis Fields presented the staff report. Mr. Sutton asked whether the City had provided the applicant with the landscaping requirements. Mr. Fields stated that it had, that 3 feet of a landscaping screen was required Appeal No. Z Sound on Wheels 515 S Anderson Rd Page 1

20 along the front. He added that the applicant could provide a design and indicated that the applicant did not have an issue with providing this additional screening. Mr. Sutton asked several questions regarding the Zoning Ordinance requirements on the number of commercial vehicles allowed on a site in determining whether the use was a primary or accessory use. Mr. Fields stated that 10 or fewer vehicles would be considered an accessory use and more would make it a primary use. Mr. Sutton asked for clarification as to why a special exception was required. Mr. Fields stated that that because there were more than 10 vehicles requested, a special exception was required. Mr. Sutton asked whether a large truck sales use would be allowed if the special exception were granted. Mr. Fields stated that it could. Mr. Antrim noted the different uses on the site and asked whether the landscaping would be required for the entire site or just the location where the commercial truck rental would be located. Mr. Fields stated that it would only be required in the area containing the commercial truck rentals. There was general discussion regarding the need for landscaping on other areas of the property. Ms. Youngbood added that staff could work with the applicant to spread the required number of shrubs around the site where they would provide the best overall appearance rather than group them all right in front of where the trucks being offered for rent were located. Mr. Crawford asked whether there was an overhead utility in the area where landscaping was required. Mr. Fields stated that there was, and that the applicant would need to work with City staff to determine the appropriate plantings for that area. Mr. Crawford asked whether the landscaping would be in the grass area. Mr. Fields stated that it would. Mr. Richard Miller, 515 S. Anderson Rd., applicant, was available to answer questions. He noted the amount of empty space on the site and said that he believed the commercial truck rental would be beneficial to his business. Mr. Crawford asked whether he had any issues with the landscaping requirements. Mr. Miller stated that he did not. There were no further questions or comments. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion. Mr. Sutton presented the motion to approve the special exception as presented by staff. Mr. Cullum seconded. Mr. Crawford presented a motion to replace the motion on the floor to approve the special exception as presented with the condition that landscaping be added as suggested in the staff report. Mr. Sutton seconded, and the motion to replace the motion on the floor was approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0 (Reeves and Sturgis absent). Appeal No. Z Sound on Wheels 515 S Anderson Rd Page 2

21 Mr. Crawford then presented the motion to approve the special exception as presented with the condition that landscaping be added as suggested in the staff report. Mr. Sutton seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0 (Reeves and Sturgis absent). Mr. Crawford presented the findings, specifically noting that the applicant agreed to meet the standards required, that there would be no test drives on adjacent neighborhood streets, that there was adequate parking provided for the use, that the site was already compatible with automotive uses, that the use was compatible with surrounding uses, that there would be no adverse impacts caused by the use, and that the road could handle the traffic that would be generated by the use. THE BOARD, THEREFORE, ORDERS that the request by Rick Miller of Sound on Wheels for a special exception to establish a commercial truck rental use at 515 S. Anderson Rd. is APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. The condition of approval is that the applicant work with City staff to add landscaping to the site for the use. Section (D)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance states: A person having a substantial interest affected by a decision of the ZBA on a Special Exception Permit may appeal from the decision of the ZBA to the Circuit Court in and for York County by filing with the Clerk of the Court a petition setting for plainly, fully, and distinctly why the decision is contrary to law. The appeal shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the decision of the ZBA is mailed. For the purposes of this subsection, person includes persons jointly or severally aggrieved by the decision of the ZBA. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Date Issued Matt Crawford, Chairman Date Mailed Appeal No. Z Sound on Wheels 515 S Anderson Rd Page 3

22 Order on Application for a Special Exception Zoning Board of Appeals Date Application Filed: August 27, 2018 Appeal No. Z The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, to consider a request by David Poore for a special exception to establish a single-family detached residential use at 1183 E. Main St., which is zoned Industry General (IG). Tax map number Board members in attendance included Matt Crawford, John Antrim, Michael Smith, Rodney Cullum, and Keith Sutton. Stacy Reeves and Randy Sturgis were absent. After consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the Board voted to grant the request based on the following findings of fact: 1. The site may be identified as 1183 East Main Street. 2. The property owner is David Poore. 3. This property is zoned Industry General (IG). 4. The request was for a special exception to establish a single-family detached residential use. 5. The request was advertised to the public according to state law and the City of Rock Hill Zoning Ordinance. The following public notification actions were taken: August 31: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. August 31: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property. September 1: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in The Herald. Information about the application was posted on the City s website. 6. Staff did receive feedback from a neighboring property owner who was not in support of the request. This was made part of the Board s packet. 7. During the public hearing, the following comments were heard by the Board: Ms. Kearse presented the staff report for the special exception, noting that she would present the staff report for the variance if the special exception was approved. Appeal No. Z David Poore 1183 East Main Street Page 1

23 Mr. Antrim asked whether 10 related people could live at the location. Ms. Kearse stated that they would be able to do so, provided that the building met the building code regulations for that many people. Mr. Antrim asked whether boarders could also live on the property. Ms. Kearse stated that tenants were considered unrelated to the primary occupant and that any tenants would count towards the requirement that no more than five unrelated people live at a single residence. Mr. Crawford asked for clarification about how a residential use on this property may increase the buffers on his adjacent property. Ms. Kearse stated that the required size of the buffers would depend on the use of the adjacent property and whether a screen fence was included as part of that buffer. Mr. Crawford asked whether the impact could be as much as 40 feet. Ms. Kearse stated that it could be. Mr. Crawford stated that his understanding of the situation meant that the separation requirements from residential uses may make the adjacent properties unavailable for development. Ms. Kearse stated that this was correct. Mr. David Poore, 1183 E. Main St., applicant, was available to answer questions. He stated that he had moved into the building in order to keep people from breaking in. Mr. Sutton asked whether he was currently out of business. Mr. Poore stated that he had closed the business in order to take care of his father but that he planned to re-open soon. Mr. Sutton asked how long he had been out of business. Mr. Poore stated that he had been out of business for about a year. Mr. Antrim asked whether he would be reopening the business at this location. Mr. Poore stated that he would. Mr. Antrim asked whether the site would be refit for bedrooms if the special exception for the residential use were approved. Mr. Poore stated that this was the only place he had to live. Mr. Antrim asked about how many people lived in the structure. Mr. Poore stated that in addition to himself, two of his sisters and his grandson live on site. Mr. Crawford asked how he would address the building code violations. Mr. Poore stated that he was working with City to repair the building. Mr. Crawford asked whether he was willing to do the work necessary to meet the building code. Mr. Poore stated that he was. Mr. Crawford stated that that in addition to making sure all the laws would be met, the Board had to take into consideration whether allowing a residential use would impact the neighbors. Appeal No. Z David Poore 1183 East Main Street Page 2

24 Mr. Sutton asked whether the dog lot next door had been moved. Mr. Poore stated that he had not had the time to move it, but added that he was keeping the lot clean. Mr. Baxter Simpson, 1324 E. Black St., spoke in opposition to the request, stating that while he felt sympathy for Mr. Poore, he made the effort to make sure his properties met the City s laws and regulations. He added that Mr. Poore was using a driveway that was located on his property. Mr. Chad Simpson, 1324 E. Black St., spoke in opposition to the request, stating that he did not want to injure Mr. Poore, but that the use should not negatively impact the neighbors. He added that the granting of a special exception for residential use would impact his ability to develop the surrounding properties due to separation requirements. Mr. Poore was given the opportunity to rebut the comments. Mr. Poore stated that he did own the driveway accessing his property. Mr. Sutton asked whether Mr. Poore and his family would be evicted if the special exception were not granted. Ms. Kearse stated that they would. Mr. Crawford asked about the time period for this eviction to take place. Ms. Kearse stated that she did not know, but that family would have the opportunity to vacate the property voluntarily before the City had to request a court order for eviction. Ms. Youngblood stated that City records did not indicate exactly when the business was closed, but that it appeared to have been closed for many years. Mr. Cullum asked whether it was possible that the family had lived there since Ms. Youngblood stated that it was possible. Mr. Cullum asked why City staff had not previously enforced the City s standards on the residential use on this property. Ms. Kearse stated that other staff members no longer in the Planning & Development Department had interpreted the use as having been grandfathered as a caretaker s quarters, which is allowed as accessory to a business use. However, the use was never formally approved. Staff felt compelled to address the safety concerns of the non-approved used when the fire occurred after realizing that the structure was dangerous for human habitation. Mr. Crawford asked whether the special exception could be approved in such a manner that it would not affect the ability to use adjacent properties for non-residential uses. Ms. Youngblood stated that this was not possible. Mr. Sutton asked the timeline for repairs. Ms. Kearse stated that staff would work with Mr. Poore on a timeline for repairs but that if he did not meet the timeline, the City would still need to request a court order for eviction. Mr. Antrim asked whether the family currently lived elsewhere. Ms. Kearse stated that the family still occupied the building although it had been posted as unfit for human habitation since the fire had occurred. Appeal No. Z David Poore 1183 East Main Street Page 3

25 Mr. Cullum asked whether the current situation involved batteries and no indoor plumbing. Ms. Kearse stated that the structure has indoor plumbing but that electrical power was being supplied by a gas-powered generator located in the parking lot behind the building. Mr. Baxter Simpson stated that he would be willing to withdraw his opposition to the use if the special exception could be approved in a manner that did not affect their nearby properties. Mr. Crawford stated that the Board could not make that a condition of approval. Mr. Poore asked whether he would be able to live in the building if he reopened his business there. Ms. Kearse stated that making the building livable from a building code standpoint was costly and that live/work dwellings were not allowed in the Industry General (IG) zoning district, only in the Mixed Use (MX) and Downtown (DTWN) districts. Mr. Cullum asked whether the City could offer assistance to make the building habitable. Ms. Kearse stated that Housing & Neighborhood Services may have some programs available but that she did not know whether those programs would apply in this case. There were no further questions or discussion. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion, which centered on the accumulation of the violations, the financial burden on the owner in bringing the building to meet the building code, the issue of a residential use taking place in a building not designed to be a residence, and the negative impact on adjacent properties in regards to separation requirements. Mr. Smith presented the motion to not approve the special exception as presented. Mr. Cullum seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0 (Reeves and Sturgis absent). Mr. Smith noted the difficulty in making findings to support the request, specifically noting the adverse impacts to the surrounding properties. THE BOARD, THEREFORE, ORDERS that the request by David Poore for a special exception to establish a single-family detached residential use at 1183 E Main Street is DENIED. Section (D)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance states: A person having a substantial interest affected by a decision of the ZBA on a Special Exception Permit may appeal from the decision of the ZBA to the Circuit Court in and for York County by filing with the Clerk of the Court a petition setting for plainly, fully, and distinctly why the decision is contrary to law. The appeal shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the decision of the ZBA is mailed. For the purposes of this subsection, person includes persons jointly or severally aggrieved by the decision of the ZBA. Appeal No. Z David Poore 1183 East Main Street Page 4

26 AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Date Issued Matt Crawford, Chairman Date Mailed Appeal No. Z David Poore 1183 East Main Street Page 5

27 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Meeting Date: October 16, 2018 Request by Tony Pannell of Tony s Towing for a modification to an existing special exception to expand an automobile wrecker service use and a variance from the required side and rear yard buffers at E Black Street, which are zoned Industry General (IG). Tax map numbers & SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION

28 Case No. Z Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Date: October 16, 2018 Location: Requests: 1205 and 1209 E. Black St. Modification of an existing special exception for an automotive wrecker service use in the Industry General (IG) zoning district. Variance from the perimeter buffer requirements. Tax Map Numbers: & -085 Zoning District: Owner/Applicant: Industry General (IG) Tony s Garage, LLC Tony Pannell 5963 Mt Gallant Rd Rock Hill, SC, Background / Request In January 2018, Tony Pannell received approval for a special exception and variances to operate an automotive wrecker service business at 1205 and 1209 E. Black St. During this meeting, the Board approved the request, along with a site plan that showed that the property at 1209 E. Black St. would not be used for vehicle storage. It was made clear during this meeting that any expansion into areas of the site that were not shown for outdoor storage use would require the applicant to request a modification of the approved special exception. In August 2018, during construction of the required site improvements, staff noticed that Mr. Pannell had laid gravel down on the entire site, which was not in compliance with the approved site plan. Staff issued a stop work order as a result, and the applicant is now requesting a modification of the existing special exception to expand the vehicle storage area to include the property at 1209 E. Black St. This application involves two requests for the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider. Special exception for the use The Industry General (IG) allows automotive wrecker services only by special exception. Because Mr. Pannell would now like to use the entire property for his automotive wrecker services use, the original special exception, which precluded that, needs to be modified in order for him to do so. Variance from required buffer yards Mr. Pannell is also requesting a variance from the required buffer yard between the automotive wrecker service use and the adjacent uses. To the north are two industrial buildings with multiple tenants, and to the east is an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) station. The Zoning Ordinance would normally require a 7-foot

29 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 2 landscape area between the proposed and existing uses to the north and east. Mr. Pannell is requesting a variance from the buffer requirement to zero feet to the north and east. He plans to install some additional landscaping closer to the EMS parking areas and Black Street. Site Description The subject property has an existing office building and outdoor storage yard for the wrecker service, which is currently under construction. It is located on the southeast corner of Wood Street and Black Street. Surrounding uses include a single-family residence and various industrial uses to the north, an emergency management services (EMS) station to the east, another wrecker service to the west across Wood Street, and vacant property to the south across Black Street. Relation to Zoning Ordinance USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS: PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL USES (C) Automotive Wrecker Service 1. Separation: Automobile wrecker service uses must be located at least 250 feet from all existing residential uses, all undeveloped residential zoning districts, and all undeveloped portions of a Master Planned (MP) zoning district designated for residential use. 2. Outdoor Storage Area: Automobile wrecker service uses must meet the outdoor storage area requirement for automobile repair uses. (Copied here for reference.) Automobile repair uses must provide a temporary vehicle storage area where any vehicle kept overnight must be stored. This area can be any size, provided that it is not located within required setback or land-use buffer areas. A screen fence at least 6 feet tall along with perimeter landscaping is required around all sides visible from public view according to the fencing standards of Chapter 5: Accessory and Temporary Uses and the landscape screening standards of Chapter 8:

30 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 3 Development Standards. The height of stored materials and equipment must not exceed the height of the screening fence or wall such that they would be visible from public areas of the subject property or adjacent sites, or the public road. 3. Time Limitation: Automobile wrecker service uses cannot store or park any vehicle for more than 30 consecutive days. However, in cases where a vehicle has been abandoned by its lawful owner prior to or during the repair process, the vehicle may remain on site for more than 30 days, provided the owner or operator of the establishment can demonstrate steps have been taken to obtain legal title to the vehicle, and that the vehicle is removed from the site no later than three days after the legal process is complete. Existing Zoning District Summary Industry General (IG): The IG District is established and intended to provide lands for light and general industrial uses that can be operated in a relatively clean and quiet manner and that will not be obnoxious to adjacent residential or business districts. Some commercial uses are allowed, but are considered incidental to the predominately light industrial nature of the district. Analysis of Request for Special Exception A Special Exception Permit shall be approved only upon a finding the applicant demonstrates that the applicable standards are met. The Board may find that not all of these standards will be applicable in every case. (a) Complies with Use-Specific Regulations The proposed special exception complies with all standards in Section , Use Specific Standards. The proposed use complies with the use-specific standards in the following manner: Separation: The automobile wrecker service received a reduction in the separation requirement in January from 250 feet to 0 feet. This is the only single-family home remaining in the immediate area, and that property is zoned General Commercial (GC). Outdoor Storage Area: The automobile wrecker service is planning to construct a privacy fence that is at least 6 feet tall along the perimeter of the storage area. Time Limitation: The automobile wrecker service agrees to comply with the ordinance s time limitations for vehicles on site.

31 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 4 (b) Compatibility The proposed special exception is appropriate for its location and compatible with the character of surrounding lands and the uses permitted in the zone district(s) of surrounding lands. With the exception of the one single-family home to the north, the proposed use would be considered compatible with the surrounding uses. This section of Black Street and Main Street is surrounded primarily by other industrial-related uses. (c) Design Minimizes Adverse Impact The design of the proposed special exception minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed special exception avoids significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and does not create a nuisance. The applicant would install a full privacy fence at least 6 feet tall, and would install landscaping along the road frontages and the adjacent parking areas for the EMS use. The proposed site improvements would mitigate the visual impact of the use on the surrounding properties. (d) Design Minimizes Environmental Impact The proposed special exception minimizes environmental impacts and does not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. The site is already developed. No foreseeable environmental impacts are expected from the use. The minor increase in impervious surface, along with additional landscaping, should not create a negative impact for adjacent sites. (e) Roads There is adequate road capacity available to serve the proposed special exception, and the proposed special exception use is designed to ensure safe ingress and egress onto the site and safe road conditions around the site. There are no foreseeable negative impacts to roads, traffic and pedestrian safety. The existing road network in the area is sufficient to handle any additional traffic from the automotive wrecker service use. Ingress and egress is well-equipped for the traffic that the use would generate. No road improvements are necessary. (f) Not Injure Neighboring Land or Property Values The proposed special exception will not substantially and permanently injure the use

32 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 5 of neighboring land for those uses that are permitted in the zone district, or reduce property values. The proposed use is anticipated to have minimal negative effects on neighboring land and property values in the area. While noise and light from headlights are to be considered as probable impacts for automotive wrecker uses, especially when residential uses are nearby, the proposed use is surrounded by other industrialrelated uses, including another automotive wrecker service right across the street, and staff has not heard from either the property owner or the tenant of the residence with concerns about the expansion of the use. (g) Site Plan A site plan has been prepared that demonstrates how the proposed special exception use complies with the other standards of this subsection. A revised site plan has been submitted. (h) Complies with All Other Relevant Laws and Ordinances The proposed special exception use complies with all other relevant City laws and ordinances, state and federal laws, and regulations. This use would be required to comply with all other relevant laws and ordinances. Analysis of Request for Variance (E) (4) Variance Standards (a) Findings A Variance Permit shall be approved only upon a finding, made in writing, that the applicant demonstrates that all of the following standards are met: 1. Extraordinary and Exceptional Conditions There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of land. The previous use was a construction laydown/storage yard. There is currently no buffer yard between that storage area and the adjacent uses to the north, and directly adjacent to the EMS building. A variance was approved by the Board in January to reduce the buffer yard to zero along the northern property line, and this request is to continue the same distance, including a full privacy fence along the entire northern property line and adjacent to the EMS building.

33 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 6 2. Unique Conditions These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The conditions are unique in that this property has existed for many years with no buffer yard area. The property already has an exterior storage area for a business, and has been surrounded by other commercial- and industrialrelated uses for many years. 3. Strict Application Deprives Use Because of the conditions, the application of this Ordinance to the land would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the land. If the variance is not granted, the areas that he could use on the 1209 E. Black St. property owner would be limited. Given the narrow smaller lot, if the variance is not granted, the use would be prohibited on roughly a quarter of the property. Given the Zoning Board of Appeals previous variance approval, and the existing site conditions, this would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the land. 4. Not Detrimental The authorization of the Variance Permit will not result in substantial detriment to adjacent land, or to the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. The proposed expansion of the use is anticipated to have minimal negative effects. While noise and light from headlights at night are to be considered as probable impacts for automotive wrecker uses, a special exception to allow the use has already been approved. The expanded area is surrounded by other industrial-related uses, including another automotive wrecker service right across the street, and staff has not heard from either the property owner or the tenant of the residence with concerns about the proposed expansion. Additionally, the solid fence and landscaping would improve the aesthetics of the property over its current conditions. (b) Not Grounds for Variance The following do not constitute grounds for a Variance Permit: 1. Property Could Be Utilized More Profitably The fact that land may be utilized more profitably should a Variance permit be granted. The granting of the variance likely would not cause the property to be used more profitably, as the existing business at the location already uses the property for outdoor storage.

34 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 7 (c) Prohibitions No Variance Permit shall be granted to: 1. Allow a use not permitted by right, Conditional Use Permit, or by Special Exception Permit in the district in which the land subject to the Variance Permit is located. The prospective use of the property is an automotive wrecker service, which is allowed by special exception in the Industry General (IG) zoning district. 2. Extend physically a nonconforming use of land. The prospective use of the property is an automotive wrecker service, which is allowed by special exception and therefore is not a nonconforming use of the land. 3. Change the zone district boundaries on the Official Zone District Map. The zoning of the parcel would remain Industry General (IG) regardless of whether the variance is granted. Public Involvement The following public notification actions have been taken: September 28: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. September 28: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property. September 29: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in The Herald. Information about the application was posted on the City s website. Public Feedback Staff has not received any public feedback at this time. Staff Recommendation Special Exception Staff recommends approval of the special exception request in order for the business to use the full property. This is an industrial area, and another automotive wrecker services use already exists across the street. While noise and lights from headlights could be a concern, staff has not heard from the adjacent property owners with any concerns. Aesthetic concerns would be managed through the installation of a 6-foot-tall privacy fence, behind which all wrecked vehicles would be kept.

35 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 8 Variance Staff recommends approval of the variance request to reduce the buffer yard. The proposed expansion area is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses. Staff believes that most of the impacts of the wrecker service could be mitigated through fencing and additional landscaping, especially given that staff has not heard any concerns from the property owners. Attachments Application Site Plan Zoning Map Staff Contact: Dennis Fields, Planner II dennis.fields@cityofrockhill.com

36

37

38

39

40

41 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Meeting Date: October 16, 2018 Request by Habitat for Humanity for a special exception to establish single-family detached residential uses at 423 and 454 Mint Street and a variance from the lot dimensional standards for both lots, which are zoned General Commercial (GC). Tax map number & SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION

42 Case No. Z Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Date: October 16, 2018 Location: Requests: 423 & 454 Mint St. Special exception to establish a single-family residential detached use within the GC (General Commercial) zoning district Variance to the minimum required lot width to establish a single-family residence in a commercial zoning district Tax Map Numbers: & Zoning District: Owner: General Commercial (GC) Habitat for Humanity of York County P.O. Box 4255 Rock Hill SC, Background Special exception request The applicant, Habitat for Humanity of York County, owns two lots on Mint Street and would like to build a single-family detached dwelling on each of them. The property is zoned General Commercial (GC), which requires a special exception for a single-family residential use. The reason for this is because residential uses are not compatible with many of the uses that are permitted by right in the General Commercial zoning district. Note: Because the only use on most of Mint Street is residential, staff typically would have suggested that the property owners there request a rezoning to a residential zoning district as a group instead of using this special exception process one at a time. However, because one individual owns most of the parcels, and that person s whereabouts are unknown, that is not a practical option at this time. Variance request The minimum required lot width is 60 feet for a single-family dwelling in a commercial zoning district. 423 and 454 Mint Street each have only 50 feet in width. Therefore, Habitat for Humanity is requesting a 10-foot variance on the lot width for both of the parcels. Site Description The site is located on Mint Street south of Albright Road, within the Castle Heights subdivision. Many of the lots within the subdivision are vacant; however, some have single-family dwellings. Additionally, a flea market exists at the intersection of Mint

43 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 2 Street and Albright Road. Rock Hill School District s Flexible Learning Center directly abuts the subdivision to the east and is zoned Office and Institutional. The other surrounding properties are zoned General Commercial. Relation to Zoning Ordinance Table 4.3.2: Table of Primary Uses Appendix 4-A Descriptions of Primary Uses Single-family detached: A dwelling unit that is not attached to any other dwelling unit, that is occupied by only one family, and that is located on an individual lot that is owned in fee. May be built entirely on site or may be modular. (Modular dwellings are those that are composed of components manufactured and substantially assembled in a separate location and transported to the building site for final assembly on a permanent foundation; they meet all state and local building code requirements) USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS: RESIDENTIAL USES Household Living A. Single-Family Detached 1. Single-family detached dwellings and lots have numerous conditions related to site design and architecture, which are found in Chapter 9: Site and Building Design Standards and Chapter 6: Community Design Standards. 2. Additionally, in the business zoning districts, the dimensional standards for single-family detached dwellings are as follows:

44 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 3 Existing Zoning District Summary General Commercial (GC): Although originally established to apply to lands being used commercially that did not fit into one of the other commercial districts, it is now the intent of this ordinance that the GC district be phased out over time by not allowing new rezonings to the district. Analysis of Request for Special Exception Use A Special Exception Permit shall be approved only upon a finding the applicant demonstrates that the applicable standards are met. The Board may find that not all of these standards will be applicable in every case. (a) Complies with Use-Specific Regulations The proposed special exception complies with all standards in Section 4.3.3, Use- Specific Standards. The use-specific standards for single-family detached residential uses reference the design standards of chapters 9 and 6 of the recently updated Zoning Ordinance. If the use of this property for a single-family residence is approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, staff will review the plans for compliance with the City s design standards. The lot does not meet the dimensional standards for a residential use, which is why the applicant has requested a variance from the lot width standard. (b) Compatibility The proposed special exception is appropriate for its location and compatible with the character of surrounding lands and the uses permitted in the zone district(s) of surrounding lands.

45 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 4 Single-family residential uses are generally not compatible with the uses permitted within the GC zoning district. However, commercial uses in this area are more likely to develop along Albright Road, with its high visibility, rather than within what appears to be a single-family subdivision along a narrow, local road that dead ends. Allowing single-family residential dwellings along this section of Mint Street should not deter the development of commercial uses along Albright Road. (c) Design Minimizes Adverse Impact The design of the proposed special exception minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed special exception avoids significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and does not create a nuisance. The design of the single-family detached dwellings would be reviewed by staff for compliance with all applicable zoning and building regulations to minimize any impacts to neighboring properties. (d) Design Minimizes Environmental Impact The proposed special exception minimizes environmental impacts and does not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. The design would also be reviewed and inspections performed by staff for compliance with all environmental regulations to minimize any impacts to neighboring properties, stream, creeks and stormwater systems. (e) Roads There is adequate road capacity available to serve the proposed special exception, and the proposed special exception use is designed to ensure safe ingress and egress onto the site and safe road conditions around the site. Because many of the lots within the subdivision are vacant, adding an additional residential unit to Mint Street would have very little impact on roads. In addition, Albright Road is able to accommodate the traffic that would be generated from residential uses along Mint Street. (f) Not Injure Neighboring Land or Property Values The proposed special exception will not substantially and permanently injure the use of neighboring land for those uses that are permitted in the zone district, or reduce property values.

46 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 5 The proposed use is similar to what would likely to be developed on surrounding properties, and therefore, it should not injure neighboring property values. (g) Site Plan A site plan has been prepared that demonstrates how the proposed special exception use complies with the other standards of this subsection. Although a site plan has not yet been developed, the applicant has provided staff with the proposed layouts for the residences. These plans show that the dwellings should be able to meet all applicable setbacks. If they do not, additional variance requests would be necessary. (h) Complies with All Other Relevant Laws and Ordinances The proposed special exception use complies with all other relevant City laws and ordinances, state and federal laws, and regulations. The applicant agrees to comply. Analysis of Request for Variance (E) (4) Variance Standards (a) Findings A Variance Permit shall be approved only upon a finding, made in writing, that the applicant demonstrates that all of the following standards are met: 1. Extraordinary and Exceptional Conditions There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of land. At the time that this subdivision was first platted, the lot dimension standards were different than those of today. It was common for lots to be subdivided into long, narrow lots such as the ones located along this section of Mint Street, which may be considered an extraordinary and exceptional condition. 2. Unique Conditions These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. It is difficult to say that the exceptional and extraordinary conditions are unique to this property because they are shared by all of the lots along this section of Mint Street within the Castle Heights subdivision. All of the lots are 50 feet in lot width; therefore, they would all require a variance to the minimum lot width standard or would need to be combined with adjacent lots in common ownership in order to develop them residentially today.

47 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 6 However, given that these lots have limited utility for commercial use and given that most of the lots in this neighborhood were subdivided at 50 feet, it seems appropriate that each lot that is under separate ownership from the adjacent lots should be allowed to develop with a single-family residence if the Board is able to make this finding. It should be noted that the Zoning Ordinance has a provision to allow residential uses to develop on non-conforming lots of record, but this provision does not apply to commercially-zoned lots. This is because the commercially-zoned lots already have a special exception process that is required for the residential use, so it makes sense for them also to have a related variance process if the lots in question are smaller than would be allowed today. 3. Strict Application Deprives Use Because of the conditions, the application of this Ordinance to the land would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the land. If the Zoning Board of Appeals does not grant this variance, these parcels could not be used for a single-family residential use, and as explained previously, the small size of these parcels and their location on a small neighborhood street mean that they are unlikely to support a viable commercial use. 4. Not Detrimental The authorization of the Variance Permit will not result in substantial detriment to adjacent land, or to the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. If the variance were granted, Habitat for Humanity would be able to build a single-family residence on each of these properties. This proposed use would be compatible with the existing single-family residential uses located on this street. Additionally, the lots are not well suited for commercial use, given their location along a narrow, dead-end local street with low visibility. Therefore, the placement of residences here should not pose a concern for commercial uses in the future. Finally, if the Zoning Board of Appeals determines that granting the special exception request for the residential use is appropriate, it follows that the granting of this additional variance would not be detrimental to adjacent land, or the public good, and that the character of the district would not be harmed if it were granted.

48 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 7 (b) Not Grounds for Variance The following does not constitute grounds for a Variance Permit: 1. Property Could Be Utilized More Profitably The fact that land may be utilized more profitably should a Variance permit be granted. If the variance is not granted, a single-family residence could not be located on these parcels, and the property owner would need to consider selling the land for commercial use, which is theoretically more valuable than a residential use, although as aforementioned, is not a very realistic use for this land. (c) Prohibitions No Variance Permit shall be granted to: 1. Allow a use not permitted by right, Conditional Use Permit, or by Special Exception Permit in the district in which the land subject to the Variance Permit is located. The proposed use as a single-family detached residence is allowed by special exception. 2. Extend physically a nonconforming use of land. If the special exception for the single-family detached residential use is granted, the use of the property would be considered conforming. The granting of the associated variance would therefore not physically extend a nonconforming use of land. 3. Change the zone district boundaries on the Official Zone District Map. If granted, the variance would not change the zoning district boundaries. The property would retain its current zoning district. Public Involvement The following public notification actions have been taken: September 28: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. September 28: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property. September 29: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in The Herald. Information about the application was posted on the City s website.

49 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 8 Public Feedback Staff has not received any public feedback about this request. Staff Recommendation Special Exception Staff recommends approval of the special exception request. The proposed singlefamily residential use is compatible with the other single-family uses located along this section of Mint Street. Additionally, Mint Street is more suited to single-family residential uses than commercial uses, and therefore, staff is not concerned about the presence of these residences, if constructed, impeding any future commercial development of this area. Variance Staff had trouble making the finding regarding these parcels having unique conditions that are not shared by other parcels nearby since most of the lots along Mint Street are the same width. However, given that this lot does not qualify as a non-conforming lot of record because it is zoned General Commercial, but that the appropriate use of these lots is residential, if the Zoning Board of Appeals can make this finding, staff does not have concerns with the granting of this variance. Attachments Application and supporting documents General Commercial (GC) use list Zoning Map Staff Contact: Shana Marshburn, Planner I shana.marshburn@cityofrockhill.com

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57 N O WORKMAN ST S F - 5 ALBRIGHT RD Legend Z Single-Family-5 (SF-5) Office and Institutional (OI) CATHERINE ST Neighborhood Office (NO) General Commercial (GC) Subject Properties G C MINT ST O I Zoning Data Current Zoning GC µ S F - 5 Feet Planning & Development Department City of Rock Hill 10/16/18

58

59 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Meeting Date: October 16, 2018 Request by Alfred & Tammala Boyd for a special exception to establish single-family detached residential uses at 435, 439 and 443 Mint Street, which is zoned General Commercial (GC). Tax map numbers , -141 & SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION

60 Case No. Z Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Date: October 16, 2018 Location: Requests: 435, 439, & 443 Mint Street Special exception to establish a single-family residential detached use within the GC (General Commercial) zoning district Tax Map Numbers: , , & Zoning District: Owner: General Commercial (GC) Alfred & Tammala Boyd 1831 Paces River Ave., Apt. 203 Rock Hill SC, Background The applicants, Alfred and Tammala Boyd, purchased three contiguous lots in August of this year and would like to recombine them in order build one singlefamily detached dwelling on the property. The property is zoned General Commercial (GC), which requires a special exception for a single-family residential use. The reason for this is because residential uses are not compatible with many of the uses that are permitted by right in the General Commercial zoning district. Note: Because the only use on most of Mint Street is residential, staff typically would have suggested that the property owners there request a rezoning to a residential zoning district as a group instead of using this special exception process one at a time. However, because one individual owns most of the parcels, and that person s whereabouts are unknown, that is not a practical option at this time. Also note: While these lots do not meet the minimum required lot width for a singlefamily dwelling within a commercial zoning district, the applicants are planning to combine the lots, and after combination, they would exceed this requirement. Therefore, this application does not have an associated variance request on minimum lot size. Site Description The site is located on Mint Street south of Albright Road, within the Castle Heights subdivision. Many of the lots within the subdivision are vacant; however, some have single-family dwellings. Additionally, a flea market exists at the intersection of Mint Street and Albright Road. Rock Hill School District s Flexible Learning Center directly abuts the subdivision to the east and is zoned Office and Institutional. The other surrounding properties are zoned General Commercial.

61 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 2 Relation to Zoning Ordinance Table 4.3.2: Table of Primary Uses Appendix 4-A Descriptions of Primary Uses Single-family detached: A dwelling unit that is not attached to any other dwelling unit, that is occupied by only one family, and that is located on an individual lot that is owned in fee. May be built entirely on site or may be modular. (Modular dwellings are those that are composed of components manufactured and substantially assembled in a separate location and transported to the building site for final assembly on a permanent foundation; they meet all state and local building code requirements) USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS: RESIDENTIAL USES Household Living A. Single-Family Detached 1. Single-family detached dwellings and lots have numerous conditions related to site design and architecture, which are found in Chapter 9: Site and Building Design Standards and Chapter 6: Community Design Standards. 2. Additionally, in the business zoning districts, the dimensional standards for single-family detached dwellings are as follows:

62 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 3 Existing Zoning District Summary General Commercial (GC): Although originally established to apply to lands being used commercially that did not fit into one of the other commercial districts, it is now the intent of this ordinance that the GC district be phased out over time by not allowing new rezonings to the district. Analysis of Request for Special Exception Use A Special Exception Permit shall be approved only upon a finding the applicant demonstrates that the applicable standards are met. The Board may find that not all of these standards will be applicable in every case. (a) Complies with Use-Specific Regulations The proposed special exception complies with all standards in Section 4.3.3, Use- Specific Standards. The use-specific standards for single-family detached residential uses reference the design standards of chapters 9 and 6 of the recently updated Zoning Ordinance. If the use of this property for a single-family residence is approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, staff will review the plans for compliance with the City s design standards. (b) Compatibility The proposed special exception is appropriate for its location and compatible with the character of surrounding lands and the uses permitted in the zone district(s) of surrounding lands. Single-family residential uses are generally not compatible with the uses permitted within the GC zoning district. However, commercial uses in this area are more likely to develop along Albright Road, with its high visibility, rather than within what appears to be a single-family subdivision along a narrow, local road that dead ends. Allowing single-family residential dwellings along this section of Mint Street should not deter the development of commercial uses along Albright Road. (c) Design Minimizes Adverse Impact The design of the proposed special exception minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed special exception avoids significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and does not create a nuisance.

63 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 4 The design of the single-family detached dwelling would be reviewed by staff for compliance with all applicable zoning and building regulations to minimize any impacts to neighboring properties. (d) Design Minimizes Environmental Impact The proposed special exception minimizes environmental impacts and does not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. The design would also be reviewed and inspections performed by staff for compliance with all environmental regulations to minimize any impacts to neighboring properties, stream, creeks and stormwater systems. (e) Roads There is adequate road capacity available to serve the proposed special exception, and the proposed special exception use is designed to ensure safe ingress and egress onto the site and safe road conditions around the site. Because many of the lots within the subdivision are vacant, adding an additional residential unit to Mint Street would have very little impact on roads. In addition, Albright Road is able to accommodate the traffic that would be generated from residential uses along Mint Street. (f) Not Injure Neighboring Land or Property Values The proposed special exception will not substantially and permanently injure the use of neighboring land for those uses that are permitted in the zone district, or reduce property values. The proposed use is similar to what would likely to be developed on surrounding properties, and therefore, it should not injure neighboring property values. (g) Site Plan A site plan has been prepared that demonstrates how the proposed special exception use complies with the other standards of this subsection. Although a site plan has not yet been developed, because the applicants plan to combine the lots, they should have sufficient land area in order to develop and meet the City s dimensional standards. (h) Complies with All Other Relevant Laws and Ordinances The proposed special exception use complies with all other relevant City laws and ordinances, state and federal laws, and regulations.

64 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 5 The applicant agrees to comply. Public Involvement The following public notification actions have been taken: September 28: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. September 28: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property. September 29: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in The Herald. Information about the application was posted on the City s website. Public Feedback Staff has not received any public feedback about this request. Staff Recommendation Special Exception Staff recommends approval of the special exception request. The proposed singlefamily residential use is compatible with the other single-family uses located along this section of Mint Street. Additionally, Mint Street is more suited to single-family residential uses than commercial uses, and therefore, staff is not concerned about the presence of these residences, if constructed, impeding any future commercial development of this area. Attachments Application and supporting documents General Commercial (GC) use list Zoning Map Staff Contact: Shana Marshburn, Planner I shana.marshburn@cityofrockhill.com

65

66

67

68 N O WORKMAN ST S F - 5 ALBRIGHT RD Legend Z Single-Family-5 (SF-5) Office and Institutional (OI) CATHERINE ST Neighborhood Office (NO) General Commercial (GC) Subject Properties G C MINT ST O I Zoning Data Current Zoning GC µ S F - 5 Feet Planning & Development Department City of Rock Hill 10/16/18

69 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Meeting Date: October 16, 2018 Request by William Burgin for a variance from side yard setback for an accessory dwelling use at 509 Forest Lane, which is zoned Single-Family Residential-5 (SF-5). Tax map number SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION

70 Case No. Z Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Date: October 16, 2018 Location: Request: 509 Forest Ln. Variance from the side yard setback requirements for an accessory dwelling use. Tax Map Number: Zoning District: Applicant/Owner: Owner s Representative: Single-Family Residential-5 (SF-5) William M. Burgin 509 Forest Ln. Rock Hill, SC Larry Burgin 2224 Duck Cove Ln. York, SC Background William Burgin purchased the property at 509 Forest Ln. in April of William Burgin s father, Larry Burgin, remodeled the existing accessory structure sometime in the early spring of The City s Housing and Neighborhood Services Department (HNS) responded to a complaint about the property in April of 2017 from an adjacent property owner about two dwellings being located on the lot. Upon inspection, staff determined that work had been done on the accessory structure without permits and that this work was completely finished. At that time, it was observed by the inspector that the property owner, William Burgin, was living in the space. Mr. Larry Burgin claimed responsibility for the work and subsequently came to speak with staff at the Planning and Development Department about permitting the work after the fact. The plans that were submitted for review indicated that the space previously had a kitchen and bath, and that Mr. Burgin had merely reconfigured the space. Notably, Mr. Burgin s application called out the structure as having previously existed as an accessory dwelling. Having no way to disprove this since the work had already been completed, and having no record of the original construction of the structure, staff reviewed the plans as though the accessory dwelling was existing based on the information provided by Mr. Burgin.

71 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 2 At the time of permitting, several zoning standards were in place for accessory dwelling units. They are attached to the end of this staff report, but two standards are particularly important at this point: 1. The property owner must occupy the primary structure on the property as a permanent residence. 2. The accessory dwelling unit must comply with all applicable development standards for principal dwelling units in the zoning district in which the accessory dwelling unit is located. Regarding the first of these, at the time of permitting, staff instructed Mr. Larry Burgin that his son, William, could not live in the accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Larry Burgin stated that he understood and that the space would be his son s art studio. Regarding the second, because staff understood the property to already have been in use as an accessory dwelling unit, we considered the existing setbacks as grandfathered. Approximately one year later, new complaints were made by a different adjacent property owner about William Burgin living in the accessory dwelling unit and leasing out the primary structure. Further investigation by staff showed: According to the previous property owner of 509 Forest Ln., the accessory structure had not been used as an accessory dwelling unit previously, and it did not contain a full kitchen and bathroom in order to be used in that way. The previous owner had used it as a garage, and for storage and a workshop. Tax records showed that the County first recognized the structure as an accessory dwelling unit in This was after the City issued the building permits for the work, which were only issued after Mr. Burgin had completed the work. This accessory structure was built several decades ago. According to property records, it has existed since at least Accounts from an adjacent property owner, who has lived close to the property since childhood, are that the old garage portion of the building was built in 1956, the same time as the house, and that the structure was added onto over subsequent years, but the structure was never used as an accessory dwelling unit. For these reasons, staff now understands this structure to not have been used as an accessory dwelling unit previously. Therefore, none of the grandfathering status that staff had understood this structure to benefit from actually existed at the time of permitting. Therefore, the structure does not meet the required setbacks, and the applicant is requesting a variance from that standard at this time. The Single-Family Residential-5 (SF-5) zoning district requires a side setback of 6 feet, a rear setback of 15 feet, and a front setback of 20 feet. The existing accessory

72 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 3 structure is located as close as approximately 1.5 feet from the side property line, approximately 98.5 feet from the front property line, and approximately 21.5 feet from the rear property line. The applicant is requesting a variance of approximately three feet from the side property line, although the actual variance needed may be up to 4.5 feet. The required setbacks for the other property lines are met. Note: It is important to note that even if the variance on the setback issue is granted, current building code standards would apply to this structure. The structure must be properly fire rated in order to protect adjacent property (whether or not a structure currently exists nearby). Staff has advised the applicant that the structure does not meet the required building code standards, and that relief from those standards is not under the Zoning Board of Appeals purview. Site Description The site is located in the Seventeen Acres Subdivision on Forest Lane and Mary Knoll Ct. The property is surrounded by other residential uses in the Single-Family Residential-5 (SF-5) zoning district. Relation to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 6, Section 6.6: Tables of Dimensional Standards USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY USES (current) A. Accessory Dwelling Unit

73 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 4 1. Owner Must Reside In Principal Structure: The property owner must live on the property. For the first five years that the accessory structure is created, the owner must live in the primary structure; after that, the owner may live in the accessory dwelling unit if preferred. 2. Prohibited forms: Mobile homes, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, and travel trailers must not be used as accessory dwelling units. 3. Limit on number: There must be no more than one accessory dwelling unit on a lot in addition to the principal single-family detached dwelling. 4. Off-street parking: At least one off-street parking space must be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. 5. Density: Accessory dwelling units will not count toward any applicable maximum residential density requirements. 6. Resale: Accessory dwelling units must not be sold apart from the principal dwelling unit upon the same lot where it is located. 7. Rental: Accessory dwelling units must not be leased or rented for tenancies of less than 30 days, nor leased to more than 11 different individuals in any calendar year. 8. Home-based businesses: Offices for home-based businesses are allowed within an accessory dwelling unit. No other types or components of home-based businesses are allowed to take place within an accessory dwelling unit. 9. Size: Accessory dwelling units must be at least 480 square feet. 10. Other standards: An accessory dwelling unit must comply with all other applicable standards for principal dwelling units in the zone district in which the accessory dwelling is located. Existing Zoning District Summary SF-5, Single-Family Residential-5 Single-Family Residential-2 (SF-2), Single-Family Residential-3 (SF-3), Single- Family Residential-4 (SF-4), and Single-Family Residential-5 (SF-5): These residential districts are established to primarily provide for single-family detached residential development. A few complementary uses customarily found in residential zoning districts, such as religious institutions, may also be allowed. The primary difference between these districts is the minimum lot size for development and other dimensional standards that are listed in full in Chapter 6: Community Design Standards. The following chart summarizes the differences in lot sizes for single-family residential development.

74 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 5 Analysis of Request for Variance (E) (4) Variance Standards (a) Findings A Variance Permit shall be approved only upon a finding, made in writing, that the applicant demonstrates that all of the following standards are met: 1. Extraordinary and Exceptional Conditions There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of land. One may argue that because the accessory structure is several decades old, and was built closer to the property line than would be allowed today, extraordinary and exceptional conditions apply to this use. However, it is important to note that the zoning standards in place at the time the accessory structure began to be used as an accessory dwelling unit required staff to evaluate whether it met current setbacks. If it did not meet those standards, part of the application process to convert the use from an accessory garage/shop use to an accessory dwelling unit would have been this variance request. Because staff was misled about the previous use of the property at the time of permitting, the variance request did not take place when the structure actually began being used as an accessory dwelling unit. It is in violation of that standard now unless the Board grants the variance request at this time. 2. Unique Conditions These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. Other properties nearby have accessory structures, such as garages and storage sheds, that are close to the property line and likely do not meet all of the setbacks for an accessory structure. For example, 512 and 506 Forest Lane, and 862 Mary Knoll Court, have accessory structures that are very close to property lines. The garage located at 512 Forest Ln. appears to be closer than the required 5 feet off the side property line, and the storage shed

75 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 6 at 506 Forest Ln. appears to be less than the required 5 feet off the rear property line. Additionally, the garage located at 862 Mary Knoll is closer than the required 5 feet off the side property line for an accessory structure. If the owner of any of these structures wanted to convert them into an accessory dwelling unit, a variance request would be required. 3. Strict Application Deprives Use Because of the conditions, the application of this Ordinance to the land would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the land. If a variance is not granted, this structure would be allowed to be used in ways other than an accessory dwelling unit. For example, it could be used as a man-cave/she-shed or as a workshop and garage (with some associated changes required by zoning and building code regulations). Therefore, strict application of the ordinance to the land would not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the land. 4. Not Detrimental The authorization of the Variance Permit will not result in substantial detriment to adjacent land, or to the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. Based on the complaints received by two immediately adjacent property owners, it appears that the granting of the variance in order to allow this structure to be properly approved as an accessory dwelling unit would be detrimental to the adjacent land and the public good. Attached are letters from two of the adjacent property owners. Some of their concerns are that the accessory dwelling unit was permitted under false pretenses, and that it is being used by the owner as his main dwelling so he can rent out the primary structure like a boarding house. Also, there is a concern that the addition of this accessory dwelling unit could ultimately negatively impact property values, and that this has changed the character of the neighborhood. (b) Not Grounds for Variance The following does not constitute grounds for a Variance Permit: 1. Property Could Be Utilized More Profitably The fact that land may be utilized more profitably should a Variance permit be granted. The granting of the variance does allow the land to be used more profitably because it allows for an additional living space to be leased.

76 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 7 (c) Prohibitions No Variance Permit shall be granted to: 1. Allow a use not permitted by right, Conditional Use Permit, or by Special Exception Permit in the district in which the land subject to the Variance Permit is located. An accessory dwelling unit is allowed in the zoning district, provided that it can meet all the associated conditions. In this case, the setback requirement cannot be met. 2. Extend physically a nonconforming use of land. This accessory dwelling unit is not considered a legal, nonconforming use; instead, unless the variance is granted, it is considered an illegal use of the land because it was permitted without the benefit of this public hearing process. 3. Change the zone district boundaries on the Official Zone District Map. If granted, the variance would not change the zoning district boundaries. The property would retain its current zoning district. Public Involvement The following public notification actions have been taken: September 28: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. September 28: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property. September 29: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in The Herald. Public Feedback Staff has received feedback from both adjacent property owners. Both owners are strongly opposed to the granting of the variance in order to allow the use of the structure as an accessory dwelling unit. Again, attached are letters from the adjacent neighbors that specifically state that the addition of this use has caused harm to the neighborhood because the owner is living in the space and operating the primary structure as a boarding house, in addition to pulling permits after the fact and under false pretenses. A real concern being that not only is the character of the neighborhood changed by the addition, but their property values could be negatively impacted.

77 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 8 Staff Recommendation The accessory dwelling unit was permitted after the work to add the full kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom was completed, which made it difficult for staff to understand how the accessory structure was originally used. Therefore, staff had to rely on information provided by the applicant at the time of permitting. This information misled staff to believe that the structure had grandfathered status as an accessory dwelling unit. For that reason, this variance request is before this Board tonight instead of when the use began. Staff cannot make any of the four findings for the requested variance at this time: The fact that the structure has existed for a long time does not matter since the structure was merely a garage and workshop originally, not an accessory dwelling unit. The accessory dwelling unit s ability to meet setbacks should have been reviewed prior to any work being done on the structure to convert the use, which means that the fact that the garage/shop structure was preexisting does not constitute extraordinary and exceptional conditions. There are other properties in the area that have accessory structures that were built long ago and therefore likely do not meet the setbacks that are required today, so unique conditions do not exist on this structure that do not exist in the general vicinity; The property owner would still have use of his property and even of this structure in a more limited form if this variance is not granted; and The two most immediately affected neighbors have spoken up with strong concerns about the granting of any variance that would allow the accessory dwelling use on this property. Attachments Application and supporting documents from applicant Zoning Map Letters from adjacent property owners in opposition to the request Staff Contact: Melody Kearse, Zoning Coordinator melody.kearse@cityofrockhill.com

78 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 9 Standards in place at the time of permitting 4-400(D)(1) Accessory Dwelling Unit An accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the following standards: (a) Districts Allowed Accessory dwelling units shall be allowed as accessory uses to single-family detached residential dwelling units in accordance with Table 4-400(B), Table of Permitted Accessory Uses. (b) Prohibited Forms Mobile homes, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, and travel trailers shall not be used as accessory dwelling units. (c) Owner Must Occupy Primary Structure The property owner must occupy the primary structure on the property as a permanent residence. (d) Where Permitted on Lot A permitted accessory dwelling unit shall comply with Section 4-400(B)(5), Location of Accessory Buildings, Structures, or Vehicles, and all applicable development standards for principal dwelling units in the zone district in which the accessory dwelling unit will be located. (e) Size of Accessory Unit Accessory dwelling units shall comply with the size standards in Section 4-400(B)(5)(c), Size. An accessory dwelling unit may contain private sanitary facilities with hot and cold running water, and cooking and food storage facilities. (f) Limit on Number There shall be no more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit on a lot in addition to the principal single-family detached dwelling. (g) Off-Street Parking At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. (h) Density Accessory dwelling units shall not count toward any applicable maximum residential density requirements. (i) Resale Accessory dwelling units shall not be sold apart from the principal dwelling unit upon the same lot where it is located. (j) Rental

79 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 10 Accessory dwelling units shall not be leased or rented for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days or leased to more than eleven (11) different individuals in any calendar year. (k) Home Occupations Home occupations shall be prohibited within an accessory dwelling unit. (l) Other Standards 1. Comply with All Other Applicable Standards An accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all other applicable standards for principal dwelling units in the zone district in which the accessory dwelling is located. 2. Case of Conflict In the case of any conflict between the accessory dwelling unit standards of this section and any other requirement of this Ordinance, the standards of this section shall control.

80 TO: Members of the Zoning Board DATE: October 8, 2018 RE: Variance Application by Property Owner of 509 Forest Avenue I appreciate the opportunity to have a voice in this process. As a neighbor sharing a property line and as a resident of 17 Acers for more than fifty years, as I have lived in my family home at 819 Mary Knoll Court, which was built in I have lived the history of 17 Acers and I have seen firsthand the negative effect of Mr. Larry Burgin s actions. Not only has his action negatively affected my backdoor neighbor and I by his unwillingness to abide by the rules of an accessory dwelling, which Mr. Larry Burgin fraudulently created when he misrepresented the truth for his own financial gain. I was left with a false sense of security that my interest as a resident in a single family neighborhood was even a concern of the City. There has been a revolving door of tenants occupying 509 Forest while Mr. William Burgin resided in the backyard shed so close to my home my den lit up from the headlights of his truck and I could hear the door close when he entered the dwelling. This entire process has been draining and become a second job from research of zoning ordinances to appeal processes, writing the Neighbor and Planning Department on regular bases and as watch dog to report the breach of rules by Mr. William Burgin to the city. Mr. Larry Burgin pursued his intrusive and obstructive assault on the city by not being truthful and offering excuses such as I didn t know as a defense of his actions. When he paid me a visit and offered such comments to explain his actions, it was an insult to my intelligence. However, this entire situation is bigger and goes beyond me personally. Mr. Larry Burgin attempted to change the very culture of our neighborhood not only by building living space for his son in the back yard, but he also created a multi-family living arrangement in the main house renting out the house by the room no less! The master bedroom and bath at a higher price than the second bedroom and then the living room was turned into a third bedroom and rented with all tenants having kitchen privileges. Mr. Burgin s idea of adding value to 17 Acers is to operate a boarding house and put a loved one in the back yard to live in a once dirt floor garage and shed. This clearly is Mr. Burgin s attempt to change our neighborhood s culture for his own financial gain. I am sure he would love to buy as many of the starter homes as he could and leave his son in the shed to manage the homestead for him. I learned the city s way of monitoring the conditional permits extended to individuals was through the neighbors. As one of the original neighbors still living in 17 Acers, not on my watch and I hope not on this Zoning Board s watch. Our neighborhood, commonly referred to as 17 Acers, is a well-known and sought after single family neighborhood. The neighborhood s reputation is recognized as a single family oriented place where children that were raised here, often return for the annual Johnsonville Fourth of July Parade with their children. It s the place where as children you first are in a parade either as a bicycle rider or pushed in a stroller or as a walker holding a banner. It s a neighborhood where once you become an empty nester you return to live. The culture of our neighborhood is very important to me. I choose to live in a single family neighborhood. Had I wanted to live in a multifamily neighborhood, I would be in a condo or apartment. What gives Mr. Larry Burgin the right to dictate that I have no right to a single family neighborhood? Why should I have to wonder who sleeps next door from day to day or week to week and sometimes month to month as his tenants come and go from 509 Forest?

81 I hope the Zoning Board will be clear and firm with Mr. Burgin. He is not exempt of the laws and offering a plea of ignorance is not acceptable and going to gain him a pass. The rules from gaining permits, being honest when making an application on government documents and abiding by the rules set in place do apply to him. The very idea that Mr. Larry Burgin has the right to even file a variance seem way beyond what he should be extended. He should be made to return the structure back to its original state which is before he added plumbing and electricity. He did the work and covered it up before the city could inspect the work. He did the work himself and tried to pass it off as already being there. I actively pursued from the city explanation in search of how someone would be allowed to occupy as living space what was a tool shed. Then, it became my mission to understand how something like this could happen. Only after requesting every and anything provided by the owner to gain the permit did I gain a full understanding; Mr. Burgin was dishonest when producing drawings on graph paper of what he said was already there when he purchased the home. Yes, home because that s what he purchased. Yet, Mr. Burgin had no intentions of maintaining and becoming a part of our sought after 17 Acres Neighborhood. This sense of entitlement and blatant disregard of everyone else s right s is what fueled me to make sure the neighborhood in which I grew up was not changed by the actions of an individual that had no appreciation for the culture of our 17 Acres. Respectfully, Helen G. Taylor

82 To: Members of the Zoning Board Date: 10/10/2018 Variance Case: 509 Forest Avenue First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to read this letter. My wife and I moved from Pennsylvania to 17 Acres solely based off the reputation this single-family neighborhood has. To such an extent waited for a house specifically in the 17 acres division to come on the market. We purchased 503 Forest Lane sight unseen from Pennsylvania simply because of location and neighborhood characteristics. We purchased this property under the impression the neighboring structure was simply a garage, never did we imagine this was an additional home on the lot. Having multiple homes on single lots does change the dynamic of neighborhood. I believe it is merely opinion whether having single homes on single plots or multiple homes on single plots is a negative or a positive but a fact that it will change the dynamic. Again, what is fact is that if you are going to construct a home you need to follow the correct procedures to code, zoning, and permitting. This is not the case for the structure. If the mentioned structure was approved for a variance the city has communicated that certain building characteristics would need to be changed (firewall, no windows, etc.) it would make me feel uneasy that these items were going to be done properly and through the correct channels. This uneasiness derives from learning about the fraudulent activity that has occurred leading up to this variance being filed. It is our understanding that the previous owner (prior to Burgin ownership) was contacted and confirmed the point that the existing building did not in fact have any of the current accommodations Mr. Burgin specified in the permit application. The shifting of items that he notes in the variance is in fact not true. To our understanding the permits were filed after the work was completed which seems to be deceptive to the process. I would like to state for the record in no way is this about Will or Larry Burgin as we do not know them. We have only lived here for roughly two months and sadly this has consumed more of our time than getting to root in such a wonderful area. Sarah (my wife) and I could have done more research about the structure that at some points are only 1.6 ft away from the property line but we just assumed that it was a single-family division. In the future we will be more diligent but it does not change the facts of the case that it was built without proper permissions. Lastly, I rarely base anything on opinion but it could be argued that if I were to sell my property it may be less in value in comparison to other homes in the 17 acres division not faced with this dilemma. Potential buyers knowing that my property has a home in the backyard which is not congruent with current neighborhood setup traditionally is not a strong selling feature. It as well could be argued that this potentially limits the supply of potential buyers. With a lower supply of potential buyers, I would have to shift my competitive market price down bringing the equilibrium of price and the good being demanded (my home) in order to execute a sale. Richard C Antonini Jr.

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93 WAVERLY AV S F - 4 HAWTHORNE LN FOREST LN Z Legend Single-Family-3 (SF-3) Single-Family-5 (SF-5) S F - 3 S F - 5 BEVERLY DR Multi-Family-15 (MF-15) Subject Properties MEADOWBROOK LN MARY KNOLL CT Zoning Data Current Zoning SF-5 M F µ PIEDMONT ST Feet LUCAS ST Planning & Development Department City of Rock Hill 10/16/18

94

95 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Meeting Date: October 16, 2018 Piedmont Land Development, Inc., is requesting a special exception to establish a restaurant without alcohol sales use at 1055 South Anderson Road, which is zoned Industry General (IG). Tax map number SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION

96 Case No. Z Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Date: October 16, 2018 Location: Request: 1055 S. Anderson Rd. Tax Map Number: Zoning District: Property owner: Applicant: Background Special Exception to establish a restaurant without alcohol sales use in the IG (Industry General) zoning district Industry General (IG) Wilkerson Fuel Co., Inc. 534 Pendleton Street Rock Hill, SC Piedmont Land Development, Inc. 568 Jetton Street, Suite 200 Davidson, NC The applicant, Piedmont Land Development, Inc., would like to redevelop the property at 1055 South Anderson Road for a restaurant without alcohol sales. The property is zoned Industry General (IG), which allows restaurants of this type only through special exception approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Site Description The property is located at the corner of Anderson Road and Interstate 77. The property currently has a vacant gas station on it; that building, along with the accessory car wash, would be demolished as part of this project. The property is located in an area that has a mix of GC (General Commercial) and IG (Industry General) zoning. The properties directly across Anderson Road from this parcel are located in York County s jurisdiction, and they are zoned for industrial and commercial uses. Existing uses in the area include a restaurant, a truck stop, retail uses, and single-family residential uses.

97 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 2 Relation to Zoning Ordinance Table (B): Table of Allowed Uses Definition of Restaurant (without alcohol sales): An establishment where food and beverages other than alcohol are served to customers for consumption on the premises USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS: PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL USES (B) Restaurants (without alcohol sales) 1. In Industrial Districts: Restaurants in Industry Business (IB) or Industrial General (IG) zoning districts must: Be located along arterial or collector roads, or in designated or clustered retail service areas at entrances to or locations central to major employment areas; and Be designed and located such that customer traffic, cooking smells, or other impacts do not adversely affect nearby businesses, or otherwise change the business and industrial character of the district. 2. With Drive-Through Facilities: Restaurants having drive-through facilities must: Design and locate the drive-up window or outdoor area so as not to obstruct the movement of pedestrians along sidewalks or through areas intended for public use. Have the order box and/or pickup window located no closer than 100 feet from all existing residential uses, all undeveloped residential zoning districts, and all undeveloped portions of a Master Planned (MP) zoning district designated for residential use. If a drive-through order box or window is oriented towards any existing residential use, any undeveloped residential zoning district, or any undeveloped portions of a Master Planned (MP) zoning district designated for residential use, the land-use intensity differential for that side of the

98 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 3 property is increased by one. (See the land-use buffer standards of Chapter 8: Development Standards.) This standard does not apply when the use or district that necessitates the landuse buffer is located in the Downtown (DTWN) or Mixed Use (MX) zoning district, or a Master Plan (MP) where the Terms and Conditions contemplate a mix of uses. 3. With Outdoor Areas: Restaurants having outdoor areas for seating, music/live entertainment, or outdoor games must comply with the following standards: The outdoor area must be designed and located so as not to obstruct the movement of pedestrians along sidewalks or through areas intended for public use. The outdoor area must be located at least 100 feet from all existing residential uses, all undeveloped residential zoning districts, and all undeveloped portions of a Master Planned (MP) zoning district designated for residential use. This standard does not apply when the use that necessitates the separation is located in the Downtown (DTWN) or Mixed Use (MX) zoning district, or a Master Plan (MP) where the Terms and Conditions contemplate a mix of uses. Outdoor areas located within 200 feet of any of the following must not operate the outdoor portions of the use after 10 p.m.: any existing residential uses, any undeveloped residential zoning districts, and any undeveloped portions of a Master Planned (MP) zoning district designated for residential use. This standard does not apply when the use that necessitates the separation is located in the Downtown (DTWN) or Mixed Use (MX) zoning district, or a Master Plan (MP) where the Terms and Conditions contemplate a mix of uses. The outdoor area must provide parking using the restaurant measure. (See the parking standards of Chapter 8: Development Standards.) Existing Zoning District Summary Industry General (IG): The IG District is established and intended to provide lands for light and general industrial uses that can be operated in a relatively clean and quiet manner and that will not be obnoxious to adjacent residential or business districts. Some commercial uses are allowed, but are considered incidental to the predominantly light industrial nature of the district.

99 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 4 Analysis of Request for Special Exceptions A Special Exception Permit shall be approved only upon a finding the applicant demonstrates that the applicable standards are met. The Board may find that not all of these standards will be applicable in every case. (a) Complies with Use-Specific Regulations The proposed special exception complies with all relevant standards in Section 4.3.3, Use Specific Standards. The proposed use complies with the use-specific standards in the following manner: 1. In Industrial Districts: The property is located along a principal arterial road (Anderson Road) at an interstate interchange. The proposed site plan would be designed such that that customer traffic, cooking smells, or other impacts should not adversely affect nearby businesses. Other restaurants are located nearby, including the Waffle House directly adjacent to the west. A restaurant with a drive-through would not change the general character of the district, which is primarily a mix of industrial and commercial uses. 2. With Drive-Through Facilities: The location of the drive-up window and outdoor area would not obstruct the movement of pedestrians along sidewalks or through areas intended for public use. The drive-through would be located on the side and rear of the building, away from pedestrian and parking areas. The order box and pickup window would be located more than 300 feet from the existing residential uses. The order box and window would not be oriented towards any existing residential use. 3. With Outdoor Areas: The outdoor seating area would be located in the front of the building facing Anderson Road. The location would not obstruct the movement of pedestrians along sidewalks or through areas intended for public use. The proposed outdoor area would be located more than 300 feet from all existing residential uses.

100 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 5 The outdoor area would be located more than 300 feet from all existing residential uses, and therefore would be allowed to use the outdoor seating areas after 10 p.m. The site plan shows adequate parking for both the building and outdoor seating area. (b) Compatibility The proposed special exception is appropriate for its location and compatible with the character of surrounding lands and the uses permitted in the zone district(s) of surrounding lands. The proposed use is considered compatible with the surrounding uses because this section of Anderson Road contains other commercial land uses, including another restaurant adjacent to this site. (c) Design Minimizes Adverse Impact The design of the proposed special exception minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed special exception avoids significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and does not create a nuisance. The site currently has an existing gas station with several non-conformities such as access points, buffer yards, and signage. This project would redevelop the site, and meet all applicable Zoning Ordinance standards, which would enhance the site. (d) Design Minimizes Environmental Impact The proposed special exception minimizes environmental impacts and does not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. The proposed restaurant use has no foreseeable environmental impacts. Additionally, the project would remove vacant gas station and car wash buildings, and gasoline storage tanks, which may help the environment. (e) Roads There is adequate road capacity available to serve the proposed special exception, and the proposed special exception use is designed to ensure safe ingress and egress onto the site and safe road conditions around the site.

101 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 6 The proposed use has no foreseeable negative impacts to roads, traffic and pedestrian safety. The existing road network in the area is sufficient to handle any additional traffic from the new use. Given the close proximity to Interstate 77, a curb cut in this location onto Anderson Road would not be allowed if the property were being developed for the first time. However, in this case, the access onto Anderson Road is existing, and the proposed site plan would eliminate one access point, which would improve the ingress and egress conditions to some extent. (f) Not Injure Neighboring Land or Property Values The proposed special exception will not substantially and permanently injure the use of neighboring land for those uses that are permitted in the zone district, or reduce property values. The proposed use is not anticipated to have any negative effects on neighboring land or property values in the area. The proposed use is similar to other businesses on neighboring properties. (g) Site Plan A site plan has been prepared that demonstrates how the proposed special exception use complies with the other standards of this subsection. A site plan was submitted. (h) Complies with All Other Relevant Laws and Ordinances The proposed special exception use complies with all other relevant City laws and ordinances, state and federal laws, and regulations. This use would be required to comply with all other relevant laws and ordinances. Public Involvement The following public notification actions have been taken: September 28: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. September 28: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property. September 29: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in The Herald. Public Feedback Staff has not received any public feedback to date.

102 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z Page 7 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the special exception request, noting particularly the following: The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses, which are primarily commercial and industrial in nature. Because commercial uses exist in this area already, the addition of a restaurant without alcohol sales here would not diminish the use of nearby land for industrial uses. The use-specific standards regarding the outdoor area and the drive-through would be met. Staff has not heard from anyone with concerns about the proposed use. Attachments Application and supporting materials Site plan Staff Contact: Dennis Fields, Planner II dennis.fields@cityofrockhill.com

103

104

105

106

107 Glaus, Pyle, Schomer, Burns & DeHaven, Inc SITE SKETCH SITE PLAN Project Information Site#: Project Type: New Entity#: Building Design: Address: 1055 Anderson Rd S Provided Parking: 28 City/State: Rock Hill, SC Required Parking: 26 MIN - 32 MAX Store #: Drive-Thru Stack: 9 Signage Size/Ht: Taco Bell Use Date Received: Reviewed by: Contact Information Franchisee: Contact: Consultant: Matt Yanda myanda@gpdgroup.com Clint Langley Date Reviewed: Option 2 06/15/2018 GPD Job# TBC Brand Review* 07/13/2018 *This is an approval of your preliminary design only. Finalized drawings should be submitted to your Taco Bell Brand Designer for final A&D Approval, triggering your Notice to Proceed (NTP) which will be sent to the franchisee via notification. Andrew Nunez *All approvals, whether marked contingent or not, will have to be updated according to the live mark-up set found at Live mark-up set revisions dated prior the approval stamp must be incorporated into the approved drawings. 10' BLDG SETBACK 10' BLDG SETBACK 10' BLDG LANDSCAPE SETBACK show patio EXISTING GRADE DROP. BASED ON CURRENT INVESTIGATION, IT APPEARS THAT A RETAINING WALL WILL NOT BE NECESSARY DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE SITE. GPD WILL CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE EXISTING GRADES TO ENSURE A RETAINING WALL WILL NOT BE NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT. 25' BLDG SETBACK PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN 34 SF - 8' OAH PROPOSED STAMPED ASPHALT Anderson Rd S PROPOSED FREESTANDING HIGHWAY SIGN 164 SF - 24 OAH 10' LANDSCAPE SETBACK PROPOSED HYDRANT (Taco Bell Internal Use) 1. Conforms to standard unless noted. 2. Property dimensions, site square footage and existing surface features are approximate and may be subject to change upon the arrival of a certified survey. 3. Property boundary information provided by commercial Taco Bell record plans. Copyright; 520 South Main Street Akron, OH Fax

108

109 RC-II G C TOWNLAND DR RC-II G C UD OUTSIDE CITY Legend Z General Commercial (GC) Industry General (IG) Subject Properties I-77 SB OFF 77 RAMP UD OUTSIDE CITY ID MARINE DR I G ID I-77 SB ON 77 RAMP ANDERSON RD OUTSIDE CITY ID I-77 NB OFF 77 RAMP Zoning Data Current Zoning IG µ ID GLENN HOPE RD Feet Planning & Development Department City of Rock Hill 10/16/18