Zoning Board of Appeals City of Rock Hill, South Carolina June 16, 2015

Transcription

1 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Rock Hill, South Carolina June 16, 2015 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, at 6:30 PM in Council Chambers at City Hall, 155 Johnston Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Matt Crawford, Stacey Reeves, Michael Smith, Keith Sutton, John Antrim, Jeff Greene Donovan Steltzner Leah Youngblood, Melody Kearse, Bill Meyer, Janice Miller Legal notice of the public hearing was published in The Herald, Saturday, May 30, Notice was posted on all property considered. Adjacent property owners and residents were notified in writing. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM. 2. Approval of minutes of May 19, 2015, meeting. Mr. Antrim made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Sutton seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as amended unanimously by a vote of Approval of Orders from May 2015 meeting. Mr. Antrim made a motion to approve the Orders as submitted. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The Orders were approved unanimously by a vote of Appeal No. Z : Request by Will Jordan for a Special Exception to operate an Events Center use in the Industry General (IG) zoning district. The property is located at 534 Waterford Glen Way. Tax map number Mr. Crawford noted that the applicant had requested deferral of this item until the July 21 public hearing. No action was taken on this item. 5. Appeal Z : Request by Scott Friedman, Morgan Property Group, for a Variance from the parking standards required by the Zoning Ordinance in order to accommodate redevelopment of an existing as station/convenience store. The property is located at 2696 Cherry Road and is zoned General Commercial (GC). Tax map number Mr. Crawford noted that the applicant had requested deferral of this item until the July 21 public hearing. No action was taken on this item. 6. Appeal Z : Request by Mary Kate McManus, Hey Sugar Shop, LLC, for a Special Exception to operate a Specialty Eating Establishment in the Neighborhood Office (NO) zoning district. The property is located at 1121 Charlotte Avenue. Tax map number P age

2 Ms. Kearse presented the staff report, noting the copy of the provided for the Board members in opposition to the application staff received that day. Mr. Sutton asked about the use of the structure to the right. Ms. Kearse stated that it was a salon. Mr. Sutton asked if a business had existed in the building prior or if it had been used as a residence. Ms. Kearse stated that the previous use was that of a massage therapy clinic, and a chiropractor s office prior to that. Mr. Antrim asked if there were any requirements for street parking. Ms. Kearse stated that all of the parking indicated that it would be to the rear of the property and that the applicant was working with the salon owner on a shared parking arrangement. Mr. Greene referred to the about parking the Board received at the meeting, asking if the site had the required number of parking spaces for the use. Ms. Kearse stated that it did. Mr. Greene asked as to the need for a shared parking agreement. Ms. Kearse stated that this was because the handicapped parking spaces are in the shared parking area. Mr. Greene asked why the handicapped ramp would be put in the front and not the rear where the handicapped parking space was located. Ms. Kearse stated that the kitchen was located to the rear of the building. Mr. Antrim asked about the possibility of on-street parking blocking traffic and any time limits enforced. Ms. Kearse stated there was no mechanism currently in place to regulate parking on the street in front of these buildings. Mr. Crawford asked if people typically parked on this portion of Charlotte Avenue. Ms. Kearse stated that she did not know of many instances of on-street parking at this location. Mrs. Reeves stated that she had owned property on Charlotte Avenue and that there had been very few times she had seen people parking on the street. Mr. Greene asked if on-street parking was allowed on Charlotte Avenue. Mrs. Reeves stated that it was. The applicant, Mary Kate McManus, 1757 Wedgefield Drive, was available to answer questions. She stated that the only way to access the front of the building was by way of the handicapped ramp from the rear of the building. There were no further questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion. Mr. Sutton presented the motion to grant the Special Exception as requested, and Mr. Greene seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Mr. Sutton presented the findings, noting the restriction on hours of operations, the previous business uses of the building, the lack of changes to building that would create an impact, and noted the business would comply with all other laws and ordinances as required. 2 P age

3 7. Appeal Z : Request by Edward J. Morton for a Variance from the parking and use setback standards as required by the Zoning Ordinance for the property located at 1037 Camden Avenue. The property is zoned Limited Commercial (LC). Tax map number Ms. Youngblood presented the staff report. Mr. Sutton asked if the setback request was approved, would the applicant still be required to have the 27 parking spaces in order to remain in operation. Ms. Youngblood stated that the 27 parking spaces was based on square footage of the building and that the higher number was based on occupancy load, and had nothing to do with the setback requirement. There was discussion on the computation of parking spaces required. Mr. Crawford asked if the business could continue to operate without the variance as it operated currently as long as it remained inside the building. Ms. Youngblood stated that it could. Mr. Sutton referred to the statement in the staff report referring to the 20 setback requirement and whether that still applied to a building that had existed prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Youngblood stated that because the building existed prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance, it was considered a legally nonconforming site. Mr. Sutton asked if he understood correctly that the allowance of the fence extended the building itself. Ms. Youngblood stated that the fence extended the nonconformity by extending the active use area of the property. Mr. Sutton asked if, when the permit for the fence was requested, the applicant was aware of the restrictions. Ms. Youngblood stated that staff was not made aware of what the area truly would be used for, that permitting staff was led to believe that the fence was for security only. Mr. Antrim asked if there were requirements as to the size of parking spaces, as well as requirements for compact versus oversized vehicle standards. Ms. Youngblood stated that there were requirements on both, that a certain percentage for compact cars was allowed. Mr. Greene asked if the use were that of a private club, was it considered conforming. Ms. Youngblood stated that the private club use was conforming, but that the parking situation and the building situation were nonconforming. Mr. Greene asked if the current use was conforming, should the applicant have additional parking added to accommodate the new use space, or if they needed to calculate parking for the complete square footage. Ms. Youngblood stated that the parking was calculated for the entire area by the building official based on the information provided by the applicant. There was general discussion on a conforming use existing where nonconforming conditions existed, as well as general conversation regarding the acquisition of the fence permit. 3 P age

4 Mr. Sutton asked if the 20 setback was required regardless of the use. Ms. Youngblood stated that provided the fence was being used only for security, it could be placed on the property line, but that if the fence was in place to allow for more extensive uses other than security, it would need to meet setback requirements. Mrs. Reeves asked if the applicant had been made aware of the 20 setback requirement. Ms. Youngblood stated that the applicant would have been informed of this if the permitting staff had been aware that the actual intended uses implicated zoning concerns, but that because the permitting staff was told the fence was for security only, they issued the permit without looking into potential zoning issues. Zoning staff was not aware of fence permit at all until the zoning inspector did his inspection after-the-fact. Mr. Greene asked if the fence could be placed on the property line for a business use. Ms. Youngblood stated that it could if used for security but that the concern here was that the fenced-in area would allow for expansion of the use in a nonconforming manner. There was continued discussion on the number of parking spaces necessary for the current use and parking necessary for any possible changes to the site. Mrs. Reeves asked if this would remove the conforming use status. Ms. Youngblood stated that it would not, that they just could not use the outside area as extensively as they had planned. Ms. Reeves asked about any previous parking issues. Ms. Youngblood stated that she had not been made aware of any by the applicant. Mr. Crawford asked about the parking numbers and whether the ones provided through the shared parking agreements were marked spaces. Ms. Youngblood showed the location of the two shared parking areas. She added that the applicant is trying to get agreements from other properties as well. The applicant, Edward Morton, 608 Rabun Circle, presented the Board with materials regarding the proposed use of the outside area, including a proposed site plan with four cornhole courts and six picnic tables. He stated his frustration with the process, noting that had he been aware that putting in the fence was going to create this type of issue, he probably would not have built it. Wade Sweat, 1410 Woodhurst Drive, spoke in favor of the request, also presenting the Board with materials supporting lower parking numbers and other information about the request. He also noted that the newly constructed American Legion facility had not been held to the same standards as the Silver Dollar with regards to the number of parking spaces required. Mr. Greene asked if the cornhole games would be in place permanently as shown on the site plan. Mr. Morton stated that the boards would be brought inside during the winter, but that he had planned on putting permanent markings to indicate areas for play and tournaments. He added that the intention was not to have outside concerts or major events, just that he wanted to provide a comfortable area for existing members who smoked. 4 P age

5 Mr. Crawford asked if the fence could be moved. Mr. Morton stated that it was approximately 30 off the building and could be moved in 10 or 20, but that he would have liked to have had the information about using the space prior to building the fence in order to make that decision. He added that he was agreeable to limiting the types of activities that could occur outside. Mr. Greene noted that it appeared that people regularly used the outside area for smoking and cornhole before the fence was installed, and asked staff if it was okay to continue to use the area as it had been in the past if the fence was no longer in place. Ms. Youngblood stated that very occasionally would be okay, but could not regularly be in use. Mr. Greene asked if, when the smoking ban was put into place, it was an expansion of use if a business provided an outside area. Ms. Youngblood stated that it depended on if a nonconforming situation existed, noting that the Kickin Pig on Cherry Road was also in the process of installing additional outside use seating and parking prior to the property being purchased and redeveloped as part of the WalMart Neighborhood Market site. Mrs. Reeves asked for Ms. Youngblood s opinion of Mr. Sweat s information, if she felt the information was accurate. Ms. Youngblood stated that staff had used the information provided by the applicant for making their calculations and that she stood by those reports and figures. Ms. Youngblood commented on the letter sent to the property owner mentioned during Mr. Sweatt s presentation, explaining that staff wanted to make certain that the owner knew that because the ZBA had determined the use of the property was a private club and not a bar, the establishment had thereby lost its nonconforming status and the owner could not reestablish a bar in the location in the future. Mrs. Reeves asked about the calculations for the American Legion site. Ms. Youngblood stated that the American Legion property had an additional 19 acres to use for parking, if necessary. Mr. Smith asked if this was fair comparison. Ms. Youngblood stated that if they did not meet the computed parking requirements, they would have had to go through the same variance process. Mrs. Reeves asked, based on the numbers submitted by the applicant, how the plan was approved if there were not an adequate number of spaces. Ms. Youngblood stated that she trusted the reviewer making the final approval of the plan. Mr. Greene noted that this plan had come before the Planning Commission when he was a member of that board, and that the plan had been approved under the condition that because of the adjacent school and residential neighborhood nearby that the property would remain as one unit and could not be subdivided or further developed. There were no further questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion. 5 P age

6 Mr. Greene presented the motion to grant the variance request as submitted, Mrs. Reeves seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 4-2, with Mr. Crawford and Mr. Smith voting in opposition. Prior to presenting the findings, Mr. Greene presented a motion to reconsider the vote. Mr. Antrim seconded, and the motion carried by a vote of 5-1, with Mr. Crawford voting against. Mr. Greene presented the motion to grant the variance requests as submitted, under the conditions that the fenced-in area have no stages, live bands, outdoor entertainment such as bounce houses or other attractions of concentrations of people, and that the cornhole games are kept in place as was presented to the Board. Mrs. Reeves seconded, and the motion carried by a vote of 4-2, with Mr. Crawford and Mr. Smith voting against. Mr. Greene presented the findings, noting the area was necessary because of the smoking ban in place, the business would have full control over the access and use of the area, the existence of the railroad tracks to the rear does not create an imposition on the neighbor, and no other property owners had an issue with the request. He added that should there be a violation of these conditions, the variance could be revoked. 8. Appeal Z : Appeal Decision of the Planning & Development Directory by Damon Young, Momentum Motorcars, that the property at 216 Oakland Avenue cannot be used for Automotive Rentals & Sales. The property is zoned Neighborhood Office (NO). Tax map number Ms. Youngblood presented the staff report. Mr. Greene asked if a building permit had been issued for the work being done to the property. Ms. Youngblood stated that a stop work order was issued when it was discovered that work was being done to the property. Mr. Antrim asked about the minimal use of the utilities. Ms. Youngblood stated that it was discovered during research that the electrical usage for the site during the past few years was at 3% of what it was in prior years when a business was actually operational there. Mr. Antrim asked if there was a difference between the utility service being on and occupying the building. Ms. Youngblood stated that there was. Mr. Crawford asked if the Zoning Ordinance had a requirement for a building to be considered as being in continuous use. Ms. Youngblood stated that this was part of the burden of proof the applicant needed to present. Mr. Sutton asked if the violation had been brought to the City s attention because fire inspection had not been done since 2008, referring to the statement in the staff report that the fire inspector had had to call and make an appointment with the building owner in order to do a fire inspection of the building. Ms. Kearse stated that the last Zoning Compliance issued stated that Mr. Daher had been using the property and keeping his licenses continuous with the DMV. When Momentum Motors came to apply for its Zoning Compliance and the ZO/CO inspection was performed, it was noted by the Building Inspector that the building was in major 6 P age

7 disrepair and needed to be repaired before it would pass inspection. This was when research was done on the utilities and asking for proof of continuous use, six months previous to February The property owner, George Daher, 5089 Darling Drive, Fort Mill, and applicant, Damon Young, 2720 South Boulevard, Charlotte, were present. Mr. Daher stated that the real estate broker told him he could remain as an automotive dealership as that was the previous use. He added that the building had undergone major damage during the previous winter s heavy snow. He stated that, due to state laws, he switched from being a retail car dealer to wholesale dealer so that he could work from home. He stated that Mr. Young had signed a lease in February and that all of the issues had happened when he tried to switch the utilities over to his name. He stated that he had successfully gone through several audits with the state Department of Motor Vehicles, that the DMV did not require him to have vehicles on a lot in order to do retail sales, only an office. Mr. Smith asked about the small amount of utility usage. Mr. Daher stated that as the only person in the office, he only needed a lightbulb in order to do his paperwork. He stated that the majority of his inventory was shipped overseas. He stated that Mr. Daher was required to have utilities and water, but there was no law that required showing usage of utilities to prove he was in business at the location. Mr. Smith asked if this was a requirement of the City. Mr. Young stated that he could not find any laws to that effect, that the state law regarding retail auto sales stated they could do business outside of the property through auctions, that they were not required to display inventory. Mr. Crawford asked for clarification of the business license being issued for a car sales use, the last time a car had been sold on that lot, and the use of the property as a business office. Mr. Young stated that the consumers they dealt with did not have to come to the property to do business, such as dealer to dealer. He added that Mr. Daher had provided copies of retail sales transactions to the City. Mr. Sutton asked if Momentum Motors, as the applicant, would use the lot as a retail or wholesale operation. Mr. Young stated that Momentum Motors acquired the property from Metro Petro in order to open a retail sales operation. He stated that while there were no cars on the lot, it may have appeared to have been vacant, but that the state law allowed for retail sales without an inventory on site, that they were not retailing cars to the public. Mr. Crawford asked how long it had been since cars had been on the property for sale. Mr. Young stated that Mr. Daher had inventory sitting on the lot during that time but were not be available for retail sales, that these cars were delivered for shipment to other locations. Mr. Greene asked for the mailing address for Metro Petro. Mr. Daher provided a post office box in Charlotte. Mr. Greene asked if he thought the property represented the quality of the product presented and if it has been used as a business. Mr. Daher stated no, it did not represent the quality of product presented, but that the DMV required 96 square feet of office space for a car dealership, either retail or wholesale, not cars on the lot. 7 P age

8 Mr. Crawford asked how long the building had been in disrepair. Mr. Daher stated that damage occurred from the snowstorm this past winter, that it was a financial burden for him. Mr. Sutton asked the reason for involvement if only 96 square feet required for office space. Mr. Daher stated that his main reason for purchasing the property was in order to have a car dealership, that he was strictly a retail operation from the time when he purchased it originally until February in order to move strictly into wholesale. Mr. Young stated that he had signed the lease 45 days after the roof damage occurred and was in the process of getting building permits to repair and upfit the building when the zoning issue arose. Mr. Smith asked if the Board was to determine if the business was being used as a retail operation. Ms. Youngblood stated that the Board was being asked to determine if this was being used as a retail automotive sales and rental use. She added that the Zoning Ordinance did not distinguish between wholesale and retail car sales, but that a wholesale use would fall into the business office use category. Mr. Crawford asked if this would include continuous operation during any 6 month period since Ms. Youngblood stated that this was true, but that the Board was specifically being asked about the 6 month period prior to February Mr. Antrim asked for the definition of retail. Ms. Youngblood stated that the use included automotive sales and rental, that wholesale use was seen as purely business office. Mr. Antrim asked if the items in place for retail sales. Ms. Youngblood stated that a business office use was permitted for wholesale purposes, but that an automotive retail sales and rentals was not as this property had not been seen as an active car sales use within the recent past. Mr. Sutton asked what the options were for the owner if the Board ruled it as nonconforming. Ms. Youngblood stated he could use or market the building for any conforming use. Mr. Greene asked if the decision was affirmed, could the applicant request a Special Exception. Ms. Youngblood stated that auto sales were not permitted under any circumstances in the Neighborhood Office zoning district, that it would have to be rezoned in some form to allow the use outright or by Special Exception. Bill Meyer, Planning & Development Director, stated that using the property for automobile sales and rental was totally nonconforming. He noted that he himself had driven past the property regularly for the past nine years and had not seen cars on the lot within the past several years. He stated that the electricity use did not provide proof of active use, adding that a business office use was permitted on the property, that a compliance could be issued for a business office use. He added that the City could not issue a compliance for a retail car sales use. He noted that the use was not always considered when the City issued a business license, that it was evaluated at the time of a tenant change. Mr. Sutton asked if Momentum Motors could use the property as a business office. Mr. Meyer stated that they could. 8 P age

9 Mr. Sutton asked if Momentum Motors and Metro Motors were using the address for their business, was there a need for cars to be present on the lot. Mr. Meyer said the question was correct but that the question before the Board was the property had been used for a retail automotive sales use. Mr. Daher stated in rebuttal that it was not required for them to have cars on the lot to be a retail sales operation. Mr. Young added that he would fill the lot for retail sales and not use the property as a business office use only. Mr. Smith presented the motion to affirm the Decision of the Planning & Development Director. Mr. Greene seconded, and the motion passed unanimously by a vote of Appeal Z : Request by Spencer Lee for a Variance from the lot width standards as required by the Zoning Ordinance for the properties located at 1110 & 1114 Marydale Lane. The properties are zoned Single-Family Residential-3 (SF-3), Neighborhood Office (NO), and General Commercial (GC). Tax map numbers & Ms. Kearse presented the staff report. Mr. Sutton asked if the City would have issues or restrictions with curb cuts for two driveways. Ms. Kearse stated that in discussing this with staff, a shared driveway could be an option with the removal of the existing light pole, but that two driveways could also be established to serve both properties. Mr. Sutton asked if the 29 flag portion was an easement of some type. Ms. Kearse stated that this was not an easement but the configuration of the flag lot, that it appeared at some point to have been an easement for a shared driveway. Ms. Kearse stated that the lots did not meet the requirements for access, so the applicant wanted to recombine and divide the lots in this manner to accommodate access off Marydale Lane. She stated that the could combine the lots and develop it as one lot, but that a variance from the standards was required in order to build on two lots with narrower lot widths than allowed. Mr. Greene clarified that the standards required 90 wide lots and that the request was for 74 wide lots. Ms. Kearse stated that this was correct, that the total width of both lots was approximately 150. Mr. Antrim asked if the 74 width requested would allow the lots to meet setback requirements. Ms. Kearse stated that the applicant should be able to meet the minimum lot size requirements. Mr. Crawford asked if the width would be at the front only or throughout the lot. Ms. Kearse stated it would be throughout the lot, indicating the slide showing the proposed lot division. Mr. Crawford asked if there was an established square footage throughout the neighborhood. Ms. Kearse stated it was approximately 14,000 square feet as required by the code. Mr. Crawford asked the house size. Ms. Kearse stated it could take up to 65% of the lot by code. She added that she had researched deed restrictions but did not 9 P age

10 find any information about any restrictions, and that the neighborhood had been developed in the 1940s and 50s so those requirements may have changed. Mr. Crawford asked the lot sizes of the surrounding properties. Ms. Kearse stated that the two homes across were not the same as the rest of the area, but that the average lot size was approximately 16,000 square feet. Mr. Greene asked if the frontage requirements on the other lots met code. Ms. Kearse stated that they did. Mr. Sutton asked if the applicant was aware of the requirements. Ms. Kearse stated that he did know of the setback requirements but they had not gone over the design requirements at this point. The property owner, Fred Garrison, 1520 Granville Road, stated that he had purchased the properties as two lots and had paid taxes on both properties. The applicant, Spencer Lee, 4114 Lesslie Highway, stated that he understood that there may be restrictions on the property and would meet any requirements. Mrs. Reeves asked the square footage proposed for the house. Mr. Lee stated that he was looking at building houses between 1500 & 2000 square feet. Mrs. Reeves asked about the exterior construction materials. Mr. Lee stated it would be brick and vinyl siding as required by the City. Mr. Smith asked if the plan was to develop the lots and sell the houses. Mr. Lee confirmed this. Mr. Crawford asked if he knew the square footage of the surrounding properties. Mr. Lee stated that he did not. Mr. Crawford asked about the design proposed as the surrounding properties were ranch houses. Mr. Lee stated that he would probably build a narrow two-story house rather than a ranch style. Mr. Antrim asked if he planned on using a common driveway or separate ones. Mr. Lee stated there would be separate driveways. Mr. Crawford asked if he had any issues with using architectural features to match the existing surrounding residences. Mr. Lee stated that he was willing to match those features. Mr. John Clark, 1118 Marydale Lane, spoke on his concern regarding the design of the new houses not fitting in with the rest of the neighborhood. He stated that there were not many two-story houses in the neighborhood, and that a Charleston style row house would not fit in with the existing ranch style architecture. Ms. Jessica Ruepp, 1129 Marydale Lane, stated her concern that the reconfiguration of these lots into two long skinny lots did not make sense, that the proposed configuration would not fit in the neighborhood. She also stated her concern over these becoming rental properties. She asked that the Board table the item to give the neighborhood a chance to meet. 10 P age

11 Mr. Sutton asked if Ms. Ruepp had received the notification of the ZBA meeting. Ms. Reupp stated that she had, and identified herself as the neighborhood association president. She stated that she could organize a neighborhood meeting to discuss this even though they did not meet regularly. Mr. Greene asked if there was a means to keep the final owner from using the property as rentals. Mr. Lee stated that he had no control over what happened to the properties once purchased. There were no further questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion. Mr. Greene asked staff if changes had been made to the Zoning Ordinance since the property had been purchased eight years before. Ms. Kearse stated that the property had been purchased several months after the Zoning Ordinance was approved in There was general discussion regarding the formation and use of the flag lot in the past. Mr. Crawford asked if the flag lot could be used as a driveway or if there was concern over the minimum lot frontage required. Ms. Kearse stated that the flag lot requirement was 35, noting that that because this one could not be used as such because it did not prevent the occupant from backing out onto an arterial or collector street, that Marydale was a local street. She added that a flag lot was allowed if it met the requirements, that prevented someone from backing onto an arterial or collector road. Mr. Greene asked if a Special Exception was possible. Ms. Youngblood stated that no, but the applicant could file an appeal of the Planning & Development Director s decision. Mr. Crawford presented the motion to approve the variance as requested, with the condition that the homes design be in character with the existing homes. Mr. Antrim seconded. There was further discussion on the request. Mr. Crawford called for a vote. The motion failed by a vote of 2-4, with Mr. Crawford, Mr. Antrim, Mr. Sutton, and Mr. Smith voting against. 10. Appeal Z : Appeal Decision of the Planning & Development Director by Kate s Skating Center, denying the uses requested in its Zoning Compliance application that do not involve skating, and reaffirming the business nonconforming use as a skating rink. The property is located at 1530 Celanese Road and is zoned Community Commercial (CC). Tax map number Mr. Crawford noted that the applicant had requested deferral of this item until the July 21 public hearing. No action was taken on this item. 11. Other Business. 11 P age

12 12. Adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:23PM. 12 P age