Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Um, thank you all for being here. We got a full house, pretty full agenda. So, we'll go ahead and get rolling and be as efficient as we can while also making sure we're every voice is heard and we appropriately consider all of these agenda items. Um, first thing we have is a little bit of um, business for the board. We need to um, talk about and approve our minutes for last month. Anybody on the board have any questions, comments, or concerns about last month's stuff? I make a motion that we approve those. Second.

All right. We have a motion from Miss Hill. We have a second from Mr. Hagen. Um, any discussion on that? All right. All those in favor.

All those opposed. All right. Deal. Um before we get rolling into the actual request, um there is one on here, a couple on here that don't apply to this, but for any of the stuff that is an actual variance um request, keep in mind we have four um legal prongs we have to meet um to determine if there's hardship and we can grant the variance. So, I'm going to read those into the record so I know everybody's heard them. When you are presenting or when we are rendering a judgment on anything, just keep in mind um these are kind of what we use for that. So, the first is extraordinary conditions. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. Second is other property. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions do not generally apply to the other property in the vicinity. Three is utilization. Uh because of that extraordinary or exceptional condition, the application of the ordinance to a particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. And last is detriment. The authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property or the public good and the character of the district will not be harmed by granting a variance. So keep all that stuff in mind. Um for the appeals that we have um we are basically determining whether or not the city planner has aired in any of their orders, requirements, decisions or determinations and um we can reverse or affirm those decisions in whole or in part um while we are reviewing everything. So it's kind of like it's coming to us brand new. Um so keep that in mind on the appeals. Um, I also want to just there's a lot of people in here. I'm sure a lot of people are going to want to be heard. I will ask you do not speak from your seat. I need you to come up here and talk to the microphone if you want to have anything

put on the record. All this is being recorded and broadcasted. So, if you want to speak, I need you to come up to the microphone. You'll get sworn in. I'll get your name, who you're here on behalf of. Um, and obviously we'll know which which appeal or um variance request that it pertains to, but just keep that in mind. Don't talk from your seat. Um, it's very easy to kind of raise your hand, start talking, but we'll try to be orderly, get you up here. Um, technically I can require a time limit. Um, I usually do not do that, but just keep that in mind. Um, so we like to hear from everybody. We like to give everybody a chance to be heard. um and make sure we have all the information before we render a decision. So, just keep all that stuff in mind. And with that being said, I'll hand it over to city staff for variance request A. Uh variance request A is a request for a variance from the strict application of the city of Conway's UDO section 6.6.2 two mechanical equipment, dumpster, recycling, and trash handling for the property located at 1600 Church Street. The parcel is located on the corner of Church Street and 16th Avenue. It's zoned highway commercial and is located in the Gateway Corridor overlay. The parcel is part of the Coastal Center redevelopment and is proposed to be a Parker's Kitchen. Upon sketch review by technical review committee, staff made the comment that the dumpster facility must be located in the side or rear yard. Per the UDO, all ground level equipment and trash handling facilities must be completely screened from the public rightway and adjacent properties. Due to the multiple frontage frontages and the need for the underground storage tanks, the applicants are requesting the following varants. Section 6.6.2 2 and section 6.3.5 a variance to allow the dumpster facility as well as utility equipment to

be located in the corner front yard against 16th Avenue. And Mr. Daniel is here if you have any questions. All right. Please raise your right hand. Sure. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. All right. If you will please state your full name for the record and who you are here on behalf of. Sure. Uh my name is Daniel Ben Israel and I'm representing Drayton Parker Companies LLC. Perfect. All right. We will hear from you.

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board and staff. Um, as staff stated, um, we're requesting a variance from the, uh, requirements of the ordinance to allow the dumpster enclosure and dumpster to be placed within the, uh, what is effectively the front setback, um, given that this is a corner lot. Um, we've, um, met with difficulty in place finding a place for it that, um, does comply with the ordinance. Uh given the multiple driveway access points um and the need to place the canopy storage underground storage tanks the staff mentioned um this uh turned out to be the most logical and reasonable place for us to to place the dumpster. Unfortunately, again, this is a corner lot and so we are having to comply with uh the ordinance requirements on both sides uh on um fronting 16 and um 501. And so we're we're here asking for some relief from the um ordinance requirements to allow the dumpster to be placed there. We started off where the dumpster was encroaching on the setback by I think approximately 10 ft. uh we were able to make some changes, structural changes to the dumpster enclosure. Um and now I think we shrunk that down to where it's probably approaching between six to seven feet. So we we tried to improve it, but um in the end um we're still needing some relief. We don't we don't think this is going to be detrimental to adjacent properties or to the character of the community. Um this is a unique situation as is this property is a part of a larger um shopping center development. It's a redevelopment site and in fact u as I mentioned it's a corner lot and so we're kind of having to meet this requirement on both sides of the property where a conventional lot would only be needing to meet this requirement

um on on one side. Um again uh this this these conditions don't generally appro apply to all other properties. This is this is again a quote a lot. Um and um so we do we do think we have a unique situation here and I'd like to respectfully ask for your favorable consideration of of our request. Kim, is that is the road behind it is that actually is that a road? No, that's the driveway in Coastal Center and the development itself. So it's not technically a road, but Right. Road. Right. It's not a city maintained right away.

Um, if this was if the only street around was Church Street, what would what would the setbacks be? Oh, he would be fine to have it there. And sanitation is fine with the location. And as I put in your issue paper, staff can require additional landscaping um just to screen the dumpster facility more from 16th. But this is and since that back road um is not technically a city maintained road or anything, we don't have any official like sighteline issues or anything. Right. Got it.

This is kind of like that double front thing again. It hits us every time. Yeah. So, if you're and looking at the picture, so if you're facing the store as built with the dumpsters technically being in the rear, that's what it looks like from the picture, but because we're on the corner front, it's a corner front yard, but when it it's completed, looking at the face of the store, the dumpsters, which essentially be in the rear, a good distance behind the parallel line of the back. I went by there and looked at it yesterday. So, it would be but it is going to meet the setbacks that y'all require. Well, that's the I mean,

well, they're not going on a variance for setbacks, just a variance for the location. The dumpster facility can be in the mention like setbacks. That's what I just wanted to make sure that we weren't doing both. It's not a permanent structure since it's movable like parking can be in setbacks. All right. Is there anybody else in the audience here um to present either for or against this variance request?

All right. Anything else from you? I'd like to say that we'd be more than willing to plant additional uh shrubs or you know trees, low behind trees to further screen screen the dumpster enclosure. And I assume it's safe to say that the design of all this will be consistent with all your other Yes, it will be. Um all right. I'll make a motion that we close public input. Second. All right. All those in favor? Good deal. Um, obviously we all know this is kind of what we deal with a lot. I think u we definitely meet all four prongs and it is for all intents and purposes. It is in the back of the line and Paul I'd like to make a motion that we grant the variance.

Good deal. Sorry. We got a motion from Miss Hill and a second from Mr. Alman. A few seconds. All right. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Take care. He's not going anywhere because he has another one coming up.

Should have put yours in a row. He asked, but I tried. Yeah. Yeah. I have to be fair. I hope you don't have to drive back to Savannah or somewhere else tonight. If you do, we'll go fast as we can. Um, all right. With that being said, um, before I hand it over for variance request B, I am recusing myself from this matter. So, then it goes over to Vice Chair, Miss Dingle. Okay. So, we are on number two, Westridge Boulevard, and I'll turn it over to staff to lead us through it.

Okay. This is also a request from the strict application of the UDO for section 6.6.2 2 mechanical equipment, dumpster recycling, and trash handling for the property located at Westridge Boulevard. The parcel is zoned R2 and the applicants are proposing an incomment. The UDO defines an incoming development as a development where any mix of single family homes, multif family, duplex or town home developments are located on commonly owned property and ownership of the land is collectively held by all owners of the dwelling units. Upon sketch review by TRC, staff made a comment that the dumpster facility must be located in the rear or sidey yards per section 6.6.2. The sanitation director is requiring a dumpster facility instead of individual roll carts since the turnaround of the sanitation truck would be impossible. Um, and due to the lot size and configuration, the applicants are requesting the following variance. Section 6.6.2, a variance to allow the double dumpster facility to be located in the front yard along West Bridge Boulevard. And Mr. Tyler is here if you have any questions.

Okay. Would you raise your right hand, please? Promises tell the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. All right. Is there anything you'd like to add? Um just that where uh where it's at. We tried to do roll carts. That's not allowed. So it's a double dumpster. Um can't be in the back for the turn around and the truck can't pull in and then back out into the road. So the only thing we could do is move the dumpster to the front. Um we have put landscaping around it to kind of skirt it and um aluminum powder coated gate to dress it up so it's pleasing to the eye. Do you mind have any questions from Mr. Thomas?

Yeah. So, the truck still has to back in some at some point, right? He's going to he's when he services Westridge, he would come and pull in and then he has a better straight way out to whip. So, he's going to back out to the road. Yeah, he would back out that way. He pull in straight and then go from what I understand. but he couldn't go all the way into the because the dumpster was going to be between five and four.

Um they were going to do roll out carts by the sidewalk, but then that would be even more less appealing to the eye to have a bunch of dumpsters by the sidewalk or trash cans. So they put it there with a screen and the um surrounding area and then the landscaping around it. Is sanitation good with Oh yeah. 5% the plan that sanitation actually prefers the quickest route in and the quickest route out. Really? Regardless of what the UDO says for sure. And they were the ones that said roll carts,

right? Roll carts. Uhhuh. And these are the elevations. Is there anybody else that's here to speak for or against this particular request? Anybody have any more questions for Tyler? Well, I will make a motion to close public input. Second. All those in favor? I.

And Katherine, I'll make a motion that we approve the variance. I feel like we meet the criteria. I do too. Um, so there is a motion to approve the variance as written. Is there a second? A second. Okay. All those in favor? I. I. Okay. requested granted. Thank you. And I will turn it back over to All right, chairman. Thank you, ma'am. Um, all right. We will and then I will hand it back over to staff to present to us variance request seat.

Okay. This is a request for a variance from the strict application of the city of Conway UDO section 5.2.1 2.1 accessory structures for the property located at 910 Pine Street. The parcel is located on the corner of Pine Street and 9inth Avenue and is zoned R1 with setbacks of 20 foot front, 20ft corner front, 10t side, and 20 foot rear. After being issued a stop work order by construction services, the applicant submitted a permit application for a 24x20 detached garage. Upon review of the site plan, staff made the applicant aware that detached garages are permitted in the rear or sidey yards only. Um, upon a visit by staff, it was determined that the parcel is almost fully screened um from 10th Avenue with an undisturbed landscape buffer. The placement of the detached garage was based on the existing cement slab. The structure meets the setbacks for the zoning district of 20 foot front and 20ft corner front. Due to the parcel being a corner lot and existing cement slab, the applicant is requesting the following variance. Section 5.2.1, a variance to allow the detached garage to be located in the corner front yard instead of the side or rear yards. And this gentleman's here as the owner of the property.

Yeah. My name is James Clemens. All right. The honor of 910 Fine Street. All right. Will you please raise your right hand? Please raise your right hand. That's my left hand. Um, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Anything you would like us to hear beyond what staff has presented.

This This caught me by surprise. So, there was already a cement parking spot at that location and it appeared to me and I can't swear for sure, but the previous owner of the house is like 90 years old. Probably had some kind of a metal carport over it. So, I didn't think anything of, you know, putting a little something nicer there, like a gazebo that matched the house you could see on like the vinyl siding. Um, because 910 Pine Street, that's the front of the property. So it kind of caught me by surprise when she informed me that 10th Street, which is way behind there in France considered the front of the property, especially since the address is 910. So I was a little confused.

I go down. It's nice looking in the metal cardboard, don't you? Thank you. Mr. House, I go down 10th every day cutting through on my way to work and I can attest you cannot see that structure whatsoever from 10th Avenue. Matter of fact, I was turning on to Pine Street and I saw the variance request sign and I thought for what I don't see anything too to actually get on Pine Street. Exactly.

Yes. I had to come walk All right. Um, is there anybody else here to speak for or against this particular variance request? Um, would that be me, ma'am? Would that be me? It has his name and address on my paper. Uh, perhaps. Do you live around this area? I live right behind you. Okay. Yeah. If you would like to speak, I'll get you to come up here so you can sit down for me. I don't care what he does on the property. Oh, well. So, all right. Let's do it this way. Yeah.

Let's come on. Come on up. If you'll please state your name for the record. Uh, Crystal Souls. And what is your address? 910th Avenue. Okay. And um, please raise your right hand for me. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Do you have an issue with this variance request? No. Okay, perfect. That helps us out. Thank you. All right. Is there anybody else here who would like to speak for or against this variant, this particular variance request? All right. I think we're

all right. Um, I'm going to make a motion that we close public input. Second. All right. All those in favor? Ah um this kind of falls in the same thing. He's almost got through double front and um it certainly seems to look I'll make a motion that we Okay, I'll second it. We got a motion from Mr. Hagen. Uh second from Miss Hill. Um any discussion from the board? All right. All those in favor? All those opposed? All right. You're good. Thank you, sir. To go. Thank you. confession. Yeah. Well, let us issue the permit for us.

Yeah, you got to go. Go get your permit. Go. You're done with us. As far as we're concerned, you're good. But she risked her light to take pictures. You might you might want to go take uh might want to make sure you get the building permit before you keep going. All right. Right. And now we are on that D. All right. Going to hand it over to staff to present variance request D. Okay. Are you I'm recused from this one. Okay. All right. So, um, Miss Dingle is recused from that and we will continue on.

Okay. This is a request for a variance from the strict application of the city of Conway's UDO table 6.1 dimensional requirements for residential zoning districts for the property located on Technology Boulevard. The parcel is zoned R3 and construction plans are currently in review by TRC for the expansion of University Suites at Coastal. The initial submitt was received on July 7th, 2025. And on July 21st, 2025, city council approved a revision to the residential dimensional requirements for incommon properties. The setbacks for R3 zoning district are 15 front, 20 rear, and five sides. However, the revision for incomments created a required 25- ft building setback from all exterior boundaries. Upon review of the plan, sta staff made the applicant aware that a 25- ft building setback is required from all exterior project boundaries. Due to the project being fully designed prior to the new setbacks receiving approval from city council, the applicant is requesting the following variances. Table 6.1, a five- foot variance from the rear setback to allow for a 20 foot rear setback and a 10-ft variance from the left side setback to allow for a 15 ft left side setback. And Mr. David Schwar is here if you have any questions.

Hello, sir. Will you please raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Please state your name for the record and who you're here on behalf of.

Sure. uh David Schwer uh with Dashores and we're on here on behalf of the owner uh Dr. Sanction as well as the operators of University Suites the apartment complex that will be taking this. Um earlier this year we had gone through the process of resoning. So it was actually reszoned specifically for this project this design. It hasn't changed since the resoning was submitted. uh in terms of the building layouts, the building sizes, uh the densities, all of that was submitted with the resoning. Um the architectural elevations were already done and then uh the the ordinance was changed. Um and it was after we had already submitted all the plans and we're at the point now where we're ready to submit the final version of the plans since we didn't have construction plan approval. We weren't invested. Um but we had already submitted the construction plans and met the majority of the requirements. I think we had some landscape revisions that we had to do but the density and the parking and everything else was included and met all those requirements. So there didn't require any plan changes except for the fact that the setbacks changed on us.

Um and we weren't even aware those setbacks were changing. So that was a whole thing because it was changing within common and multif family got changed at the same time that the in common development was adopted. So

So the the variances lie on the back side and the left side. Yes. So on the back side there is a 20 foot. We're asking for 20. Um, and it's the new ordinance requires 25. Behind this property is actually the loading area of the food line shopping center. So, there's not really a neighbor back there to get upset. Uh, and on the left hand side variance is a utility substation. So, they're pretty quiet neighbors as well. Um, and you hope

this is the uh this will be university uh college housing, same as the operator across the street. So, it's just an expansion of that same uh project. Um, and like I said, it was reszoned with this site plan with it went through the whole public process with this exact thing. So, nothing we didn't like come back in with a different building size or anything like that. This was what has been the plan since we submitted the resoning. Okay. It was the ordinance changed afterwards after everything was submitted. After everything was already submitted to staff. Okay. And you had and you didn't have any indication that that change was coming.

No, because the actually the public noticed in the agenda notice noticed that it was single family in common was getting amended not multifamily. Okay. And I attest to that. Okay. Because we we would have tried to go back but we had already had architectural drawings and everything done. Um, even the MEP was like 95% complete, which tells you how far along the project was. Yeah,

we have one other multif family project that was in that had already been submitted as well, but we've gone back and amended this. We we had we didn't have a floor plan for the other one where the elevation drawings and all that were done. So, we've actually pulled that back and we're amending that project, but this one was already complete and ready to go. And like I said, nothing has changed since public hearing went through and everything with the resentments. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Short right now?

Well, my only question is could it be moved toward technology boulevard 5 ft? um to explain the way it is. Those the way it works is this two-story building and so there's the parking lot and then the sidewalk and then there's actually landscaped areas but there's actually the stoops and I don't know if I can I can walk up here. These are actually the concrete porches that are here and we need that distance in order to make sure that we can make a unit in each of the buildings ADA accessible to be able to get the distance for the ramp up. So these areas will be, you know, landscaped with the mail kiosk. These are the concrete stoops and there's there's a, you know, it's covered with a front porch basically

to make it a little on the back. There's there's really no room to move it. I didn't know if there if you could move the entire parking lot. I mean,

no. Um, so underneath on the front hand side, while there is what looks to be room um out here, we've had to put inside, there's actually a power underground power line easement that so that serves a substation that supplies power to all of technology. And so I can't move it any further into there without putting everything right on top of those power lines that are you don't see them because they're underground. So moving it forward doesn't really give me any option. And we're at the setback line here. We've got the just enough room up front for landscaping. So the only way to do it would be to get rid of a sidewalk to make that rear set back. And like I said, the the back property is the food line loading area. Um, also the food line and this were all part of the same original shopping center uh agreement. So the property, if you don't see it here, but the the pond itself for the food line, the back part of the pond actually drains out through the side other side of this property. So we couldn't even that's the reason we couldn't shift it to the right. So

I got um if you saw the overall site plan, and I don't know if that's in the book or not, but on the right hand side is the pond. Yeah, it's our pond and then the pond for the food line. So there's no room to go right, which is why we need the left side variance. And on the back, there's no room to move it forward without impacting the power lines that are under there. And like I said, it was all part of the original shopping center um parceling out. So, it's not like the the food line has any issues. Um and we're expanding this this the sidewalk. I mean, it's just a continuation of that same project. So,

all right. Um any further questions for him? All right. Is there anybody else here to speak either for or against this particular variance request? All right, I'm going to make a motion that we close public input. Second. All right, we have a second. All those in favor. All right, public input is now closed. All right, discussion board any questions, comments for each other or staff? So, just so we're clear, Kim, that the thing was changed on the 21st, right? The thing being

the the important rules that we're here to discuss. Yeah. Um, so prior to that, this would have been fine. Correct. Yes. No. And you have attested that they were very far along in the process, right, when this and the reviewer does not have an issue with this variance. Okay. Requested all. Um I I certain conditions. They are not the normal type of extraordinary conditions that we are normally faced with.

But I think a reasonable mind can see that this is pretty extraordinary. we had a pretty short window of time and you guys kind of fell into a weird trap with that. Um, and we do appreciate with the other project having the time to do so. Um, I definitely don't think this applies to the um other property in the area um because as you mentioned, we've got power line easements and retention ponds and then obviously ADA type stuff is important. Um, and if you weren't here for this one, because you moved it all around, you'd probably be here for about five or six other ones um to make it work. Um, and on the utilization, I think because of the um the the length of time in the planning process that you guys had gone under the old rules. Um, I definitely think we kind of fit that one too. I definitely don't think it's any detriment to the area. It's a continuation of what's going on over there in a good way. Um, does anybody else have any comments or any concerns or anything before we continue on?

All right. Um, for those reasons, I will make a motion that we approve the variance as requested. I'll second that. We have a second from Miss Hill. All those in favor? All right. All those opposed? All right. Hearing none.

Yeah. Thank you. All right. And we are now on to E. Okay. Um, this is a request from the strict application of the city of Conway's unified development ordinance. Table 6.2 two non-residential zoning districts and table 9.1 required landscaping for the property located at 748 highway 544. The applicants discuss with city staff the plan to develop half of the parcel and build a scooter's coffee the parcel service by city of Conway water as well as being contiguous to property within the city of Conway. Annexation and reszoning to the city of Conway highway commercial zoning district was approved by city council on August 4th, 2025. Once the parcel was annexed, the applicant submitted a subdivision plaque without subdividing the entire uh parcel would have to come into compliance with the new commercial project. A minor subdivision plat was submitted for review. The minor flat met all the requirements for the parcel zoned HC with the exception of the existing building on parcel B. The setbacks for the HC zoning district are 30 front, 20 rear, and 15 sides. The existing building is 12.9 ft from the proposed property line. The commercial plans were reviewed by city's TRC concurrently with the minor plaque. staff made the following comment. Upon review of the commercial plans, a type A landscape buffer is required against the proposed property line. Um, the applicant is requesting the following variances. Uh, table 6.2 two

non-residential zoning districts, a 2.3 foot variance from the proposed property line to allow for a 12.9 side setback instead of the required 15 ft side setback. Table 9.1 required landscaping type, a 5-ft variance from the required 5-ft landscape buffer to eliminate landscaping against the proposed property line. And Mr. John is here on um behalf of uh the Scooters franchise. All right. Would you please raise your right hand? Will you please state your full name for the record and who you're here on behalf of?

My name is John Grieva. I'm with Malcolm. I'm here on behalf of the uh agent for the owner who will be the franchisee, William McIll. Okay, perfect. Um and then now we can do the man thing. Um do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth? Yes, I do. All right. Thank you. Is there anything you need to add on behalf of what staff has already presented to us? I

I think the only thing that I would add is on the scooters parcel um you know by subdividing this larger piece um creating the two smaller parcels, the idea is to try to create as much developable area in the future for that state farm parcel on the south on the hard corner. Um, but also one thing I did want to mention is that because of the location of this scooters coffee being right across from the college, um, Scooters typically does not have walk up windows. It is purely drive-thru service only. Um, but the franchisee, Mr. McIll, myself, our architectural team and scooters have worked together. Um, knowing that this is going to be it's going to draw a lot of foot traffic. Um, so this actually is a little bit uh different from their prototype where there is an outdoor patio area that's on the north side of the scooters building. Um, so that's, you know, one of the reasons that we need the north south depth that we're showing for the scooters. Um, and again to try to maintain as much developable area for the future is why we only have about 2.9 ft from the back of curb to the property line and not the full 5t uh, as required. [Applause] and staff doesn't have um as big a concern with the setback requirement um because that is an existing building and should that um uh old State Farm building come down, anything that goes there in its place would have to meet the 15t um side setback. Our bigger concern is with the landscaping. Um to not have any landscaping on that side when all commercial projects have to install landscape is a bigger concern for staff

and the change in the setbacks came through the resoning. No, through the minor platting action platting. All right. Yeah. Okay. So the the previous screen is what that type A landscaping is what right should be that is the requirement for yeah down that yellow line.

Okay. And they could um as I stated in the issue paper, they could do it without subdividing, but if they were to do that, they would have to bring the entire parcel into compliance with landscape buffers everywhere, paved parking, curb and gutter for the State Farm building. So, um that's what initiated the platting action. Gotcha. Has that already been done?

No, not without this variance.

Okay, gotcha. real quick. Does anybody have any questions, further questions for him right now?

All right. Is there anybody else here to speak for or against this particular variance request? Nobody. Okay. All right. Um before I close public input, any discussion amongst the board that might generate Yeah, I had a question. I'm concerned about the the lack of the the landscaping. Yeah, we're Yeah, that's we're kind of under

and I guess my the only other question is Is is there anything that could be changed with that plat where the variance looks like it's five feets required? I don't know if it you know if that line could be moved again then we're back to a you know that 12.9 we'd be at 7.9 that's another variance but at least we'd have the landscaping I don't know

if I could offer something on that. So I did speak with Mr. McIll earlier today. One one thing we we we could look at and we need to verify some truck circulation through the site. Again, we're pretty tight north south, but we we might have a little bit of room within the site without changing that proposed subdivision line, and we might be able to shift everything north just a couple of feet. I can't say that we'll get to five feet, but we might be able to get to something that's wide enough to at least get some landscaping in there. I think the way that it's shown right now, it's just not wide enough to get any you're not going to get a row of shrubs or anything. Yeah, I think um we can't do no

we can't open that door. We can't do that. We would be here. We would have 40 things on this agenda every month and they would all be that. Um so let's let's do this. Um I'm going to make a motion that we close public input. Second. All right, we have a second from Miss Dingle. All those in favor? I. All right, public input's closed. Let's um do we have any discussion on the first request um on the setbacks and that Kim, correct me? That's the one we're guys are okay with. Right. And Right. And had they not done the minor platting action, it wouldn't even be a thing. Okay.

And it should anything new go there, it would have to meet the 15T. I got you. Perfect. I think I'm good with I think we need the number one on that because the platting is creating that condition with the existing building. I think it's fair to say that those conditions don't apply to other properties. Um it would affect your utilization based on what you've told us and I don't think it's to the detriment. I mean it's an improvement. Yes. I I feel I can I feel like I can make a motion to approve the setback. I'll second that.

We have a motion from Miss Danielle, second from Miss Hill. Any further discussion from the board on the first varian request? All right, hearing none. Um, all those in favor? I.

All right. All those opposed. Okay, first one we're good on. On the second one, um, we just can't do none. Um, we certainly appreciate development, but we also want it to look good. That's one of the main things we're trying to work on with all this. Um, and I know, and ours really aren't that strict when you ride around other places in the state. Um, so I don't know what we need to do. Um, I agree. I mean, the current space isn't I don't think anything would live in there, but

um I don't know if we if we potentially table it for them to come like come back with other plans or just deny it and then would would you be if if we're could could we work with staff to develop a plan that provides landscaping or is maybe a better way to ask it. Is it is it an all or nothing thing? Do we need do we need to either provide the 5T as required or could you approve a 4 foot setback and we'll work with staff to provide the landscaping?

Um I don't want to I don't want to approve any and we've done this has kind of been our mo in the past is I don't want to approve anything without a plan in front of us because then that kind of opens up a can. But I'm happy to I'm happy to just table this one or excuse me, I'm happy to make a motion that we table it as long as everybody up here agrees. Um I'm happy to make a motion to table it and if you need to, you know, give that'll give you about 30 days before you would come up on December. But we don't have December. Do we have December? It's just earlier. It's just um

I'm happy to do that. I I don't want to approve or not. I would like to give you the opportunity to fix it without us giving you something not knowing what's coming. Understood. Um c can I ask a sorry for just so that I understand. So if we if we're able to come up with a plan that has the five foot setback and we can provide the required landscaping and then can we work with staff because at that point it's no longer

at that point it would be it would be a moot point anyway. Um, this it may end up if a lot of stuff changes, it may end up in technically being a brand new variance request. It technically if the numbers change, it's going to be a new one. Um, but I'm happy to I'm happy to make a motion to table it just to give you time to work with staff. Okay? Because like I said, we're all for development, but we do need it done the right way. And obviously, you understand we can't I know you go all around doing these kind of things. We can't say no landscaping because we'd be in a we'd be in a bind. Yes. Um, okay. Well, let's I'll make a motion that we table this one to allow the applicant time to work with staff on a solution. I'll second that. We have a second for Miss Hill. All those in favor?

All right. All those opposed. Okay. Good deal. Thanks, man. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. All right. Now, we are on to our first tree appeal.

Thank you, city council. Okay. So, um, city council has moved tree board appeal to come before the board of zoning appeals instead of going before city council. In December 2024, the applicant submitted a request to prune a 36-in live oak tree. The applicant stated that the pruning was needed due to overhead power lines. Based on the approved plans for Parker's Kitchen, the request was denied as staff was unable to find where the tree would interfere with the power lines as depicted on the plans. Parker's Kitchen then appealed staff decision to city of Conway tree board. The meeting was held on Wednesday, January 8th, 2025 with the real estate development manager for Parker's Kitchen as well as an agent for Ory Electric, both present at the ME meeting. A motion was made uh for a pruning plan to be submitted to staff um to approve um the pruning practices and make sure they adhere to uh the standards we require. Staff never received the pruning plan that was requested by tree board. And on February 4th, Ory Electric trimmed the tree with no approvals from the city. staff met uh with a certified arborist on site and based on her inspection, she concluded that this live oak was not pruned according to ANSI A300 standards for proper pruning techniques. Due to OR Electric's actions, the property owner has assessed a penalty. The penalty assess being appealed to the board of zoning appeals. Um they were assessed a penalty

of $22,950 based on the 36 inch um live oak. Uh they planted 10 of the 27 trees. So now they're due 14,450 in mitigation fees. Um and this is straight from the UDO. Uh because the penalty would hold up the certificate of occupancy, Parker's Kitchen planted 10 of the 27 trees which left the penalty at 14,450. Staff has the check from Parker's kitchen. However, per section 9.8.16 appeals of the UDO. Uh they are appealing the penalty since the pruning and trimming of the 36 in landmark live oak was done by a third party and not contracted or hired by Parker's Kitchen. and Mr. Ben

and also Katie Dennis the treeboard liaison is here if you have any questions for her. We need a sign that says that. Um yeah, it's like I'd like to make a motion we give it back to city council. I'll second that. Whatever. Um all right. If you would please raise your right hand. Sure. technically already sworn in, but do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right, good deal. Do you have anything to add? I think this is we all know what happened.

Yes, I I I do actually. And I like to say that, you know, this is a tricky one because, you know, staff, we work very closely with staff uh throughout this entire process. We want to be good neighbors. You know, we don't want to fight with staff or the city. Um we're looking forward to establishing our presence here in this market and we want you know to be good corporate citizens. Uh but we were caught in a situation here where we did get approval to prune the tree. Um and unfortunately the entity that was tasked with pruning the tree in accordance with the approved inapproved pruning plan never followed those those uh conditions. Um, so you know, I I think where we are now is one, I understand that staff has made a determination, the uh based on the arborist's opinion. I'm not here to argue with that at all. Um, in light of the fact that the tree is still there and I inspected the tree. I'm not an arborist, but it's in pretty good shape. Um and um it's still alive and it's fitting quite nicely into our overall landscape pattern for the site. Um and and as staff mentioned, just uh because of the way this whole thing um transpired, I'd like I'm here to ask for I guess what I'm asking for is a partial overruling or of of staff's determination specifically with regards to the penalty. um in light of the fact that the tree is still there um and still and is still alive and we did try to mitigate by um planting additional plantings. I think it was 10 plantings. I forget the DBH that that amounted to,

but um so we made our best effort to rectify the situation. Um, so I'd like to respectfully ask for um a decision that would allow us or that would not require us to pay the um mitigation penalty. Any questions? I have a question. Okay. Okay. You all trimmed the tree. Who trimmed the tree? Um Mr. Chair, if I may, or electric. Okay. Um yeah. And did you all have did Parker's Kitchen have them to do that or did they do that on their own valition?

Um Mr. Chair, if I may. So it was required by Oreo Electric in order to affect the relocation of a power of an existing power pole. The power pole that was there prior to our construction was in um the vicinity of what is now the driveway off of 501 for our location. Um and so it needed to be relocated. Um the location or the best location for it to be relocated um required um the tree to be trimmed in order for the dying um to be placed where it needed to be placed for the for the pole to be placed there. So um it was a requirement by oral electric which you know obviously our plans created the conditions um which then uh necessitated the pole to be relocated but in the end it was a requirement of Ory County um that the tree that that the that the uh tree get pruned a requirement of the city I'm sorry a requirement of Ory County that the tree get pruned or electric

or or electric to place the uh guy in for the for the power pole. So, whose responsibility would that have been to get approval to have that tree pruned so that this would not have happened to you? Whose responsibility was that?

That's a great question and Mr. Chair, um you know, um I'm not here to place blame on anyone. I'm I'm really asking for some relief, but I think the way the vote was conditioned, the expectation was that be the individuals pruning the tree know or should know how they're going to prune the tree and they should have presented that information to the city. And even if they had presented that information to us as the owner of the property, it would have then been our responsibility to relay that information. But that information never um never came forth. And then I got the phone call from from Kim and and um from from Kim and Katie saying that um you're in trouble. So

yeah. Well Well, are you I'm I'm just asking the question. Um Kim would this would Or electric not know this as well that Or electric was in the treeboard meeting. Okay. They were present for treeboard. Um however um for this department we hold the property owner responsible. Um okay. I don't feel like Parker's Kitchen they didn't go out there and watch or electric do it. or electric went and had no um concern about submitting a plan to uh the city for approval.

Yes. I I was just going to clarify a little bit on the power pole relocation that came up. Um or electric when the plans come before oral electric, they go through, they look at it just like kind of what we look at. They see what they already have there. Then they plan their power poles, where they need to be located, if they're going underground, if they're staying above, all of the things. So because of where these guys were proposing the drive had to be because of SDOT requirements because that is a state road. The only location that OR electric had was to relocate one pole kind of over behind where this tree is this way if you're looking at the top left picture. Um, and because of that hole being relocated, there were guywires and then there's certain amount of footage. I'm not exactly sure on the footage that Oreo Electric is required by the state to maintain around their lines. And I will say um Duke Energy or Electric are and Oral Electric are probably the two very best ones that follow that law to the letter. Um, they if they don't, they're fined, which means they're a corporation. So all of their people's money and bills and everything will increase. So they have to keep those lines cleared and have a certain amount. Santa Cooper is a little bit different. They're state entity, not private. So you guys understand that can be slightly different. Um but this one as well in Parker's Kitchen defense um they had no choice of where Oreo Electric chose to relocate the P.

Let me ask you this though. In the tree meeting, and this isn't really a question about Parkers. Um, I'll get to that in a second, but were there clear guidelines put in place for how this needed to be handled? Yes, the motion was extremely clear to the point of they wanted a certified arborist to them to work with the certified arborist to supply pruning plan, the pruning plan to be submitted to staff and then once staff reviewed and approved and were okay with what was proposed, then a pruning permit would be issued. And at that time they could notify staff when the printing would take place and then after and staff would verify it met ANZA 3000. And was that plan followed? Absolutely not. Okay. Exactly. Electric was present in that meeting.

Absolutely. So they went they went on and prmed a tree without doing any of it. They just sent somebody out there to do it. Correct. And our understanding for Kitchen is they arrived at work one day. the guys who were over the project arrived at work one day and the tree was pruned. Okay. And they they were um in conversation with us and we did work really closely with them and they did tell us that they had reached out to or electric asking for the printing plan telling them we are still working on this. What is going on? What did you do? So it kind of happened

and and I certainly understand and appreciate Parker's position. I've and I certainly understand the public utilities aspect of developing something on state road. Um the issue that we obviously are faced with is if we tell you we hate that or electric did this to you and we tell you you don't have to pay a fine or electric then has zero care in the future to ever listen to anything that the tree board says. And I hate that it is you guys that are stuck in this. Um, we appreciate you being in the community. Um, and I certainly think you definitely have a bone to pick with them. Um, on that. My only worry is if we wave this because it wasn't really your fault. And our position and staff's position, this has to go to the property owner. It's just the way the rules are. We could argue for days on whether that's fair or not when you've got third clear third party, you know, involvement. Um, but obviously we're stuck a little bit that if we just say you don't have to pay anything, we're sorry it happened. Then on every single one of these that Oreo Electric or anybody for that matter has pending in the future, they're going to say, "Oh, just cut it down." They'll say, "It's our fault." And they'll let the property owner go. I know you guys are new to the community. Trees are not new to this community. Um, I'm sure you have heard a lot about that since all of this happened. We have a tree board. We have a treeboard leaison. Um, yeah, we got a lot going on with trees. Um, so these rules are in place and they're really really in place for the oak trees. Um, and that's kind of the root of where it all began. So obviously you can understand we're in a tough spot.

Sure. Um. Sure. Does anybody else have any questions or comments or anything? Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Sure. So I I I understand um what you're saying and I I certainly agree with you. You're stuck and we're stuck. Honestly, I I would like to say though that we um it if the board were to um render a decision that would not allow us that would allow us to pay no further penalties. I would like to say that we have um in essence I would say paid a penalty already because we did do some mitigation. Yeah. So, we planted additional trees and so that that amount would be I think somewhere equivalent to just in round numbers $8,000.

Yeah. Um plus or minus. Um and so in in and actually providing that amount of mitigation, we we did in effect pay a fee if you will. So just to be can make sure we're clear the original fine would have been 22950, right? And then because of the trees planted the 10 of the it would came down to the 14 450. Okay. All right. Um any other questions from the board? I just I have one more. I'm sorry.

No, no. I I I you know I have a construction background and I just feel like what would Forgive me Lord for saying this but no don't um because I'm I'm for truth and you know um I know the way I do business is if it's my fault it's my fault. If my boys go out and do something they're not supposed to do, then Leslie pays the penalty because it's my company. What's to say that this won't happen again and because Ory Electric gets away with it, they just say, "Oh, we'll just let them get the fine."

Well, there are a myriad of ways they could re $14,000. I assure you. I I'm just asking like for I guess for for my clarity. I just want to make sure that we don't have the turn of the coin on the other side too of them saying that oh well, you know, if if if we mess up they'll somebody else will fix that, you know, kind of thing. I don't know. I feel certain that Parker's general counsel um would get involved relatively quickly um based off our decision. I just mean like in the future, not and I get that. I think future stuff. The purpose of the tree ordinances are to avoid this situation

and because there was so much laid out on how it needed to be handled and I again we know that this other than this entity owns the dirt and was doing the work um to build everything. We understand that you nobody associated with you really did anything wrong. We get that. Um, everybody's in a bit of a pickle. Is there anybody here from or lecture? That's right. And maybe they could work it out together. I don't know. Katie, do we And again, that's kind of what I'm saying. We can't Yeah. We can't we do not have the power to find or electric.

Yeah. But if we totally mitigate it, take say you don't have to pay anything extra, then we that's a real big can of worms. Do we have any gauge of how egregious we are from ANC A300? I mean, if we' done everything the right way, would the tree have looked the same? I mean, how is if you grade the pruning, is it a C? That's what I was about to ask. That was my next question. Hey, Kim, can you go to the pictures with the yellow lines?

Yeah. So, this is what we actually presented were presented originally as staff and this is what we denied based off of. Um, and then this is what was appealed because based off of the amount of the tree canopy that was being proposed to be removed, it was more than I can't remember the exact percentage. I clearly looked it up at the time. Um, but it was more than the percentage that ANZA300 allows for a canopy to be removed. So, as the certified arbor said when she did her inspection, the cuts themselves were done correctly. They did them and they took them to the tree trunk as they were supposed to for each limb. However, it is not necessarily the way the cut was made or how the cut was made that put them in violation of proper pruning practices. It was the amount of the canopy that was actually removed.

Okay. Um because here is what they requested to be removed and then what oral electric ended up doing was far more than what we had originally denied. Can we go back to what they did? Have you all had any discussion with or electric about if we are stuck with this? Do you all have a plan to help us out or I mean has it been crickets? No. No, we we haven't actually we haven't engaged um them on on this at all. So you haven't asked them you haven't brought this to their attention.

Certainly awarded letter has not been drafted. I feel like it's been drafted opens up a whole another open window service. They're pretty good people. It's like, you know, I mean, they're pretty fair, I feel like. Not a state entity, but they're pretty close. And um you know, it's um again, we've we've worked very closely with them as well. We're working with them on other projects. And um

we we just thought that we would try to work with the city and get this resolved. and and we did look we took a very close look at our landscaping plan to see if we could plant like even more trees um to meet the mitigation requirements and then after looking at it we said hey you know I think this is the best we're going to be able to do given the space that we have because this was pretty late this was pretty late in the building process right yeah yeah well it was it was before you know we did the landscaping but it was it was you know after we had gotten further along and the the pruning t took place I I mean, it's been a it's been a couple of months. February. Yeah. I was about to say it looks like it was winter time. Yeah. So, that kind of makes it a little bit

the or the tree preservation ordinance does allow mitigation plantings to be done on any property that Parker's Kitchen owns within the city limits. However, the caveat to this would be their other property that you heard of earlier tonight. I don't think you put a lot of trees there. just at the time and then trees there and construction design and then we also couldn't give this place a CEO without the mitigation in place. I got so it was a really neat dance that we were having. Yeah. I really wish somebody from Electric was here. I do too.

Um real quick for staff. This is obviously this the fine folks of city council sent on. They probably saw this coming. Um, do I'm sorry. Just I mean do to clarify, we can do we have to follow the formula for the fine? No. As a board, if um you see there's a reason to reduce the fine amount, you have that power as a board. Okay. We could use mitigating circumstances to to reduce it.

And I will say too, the find looks very shocking. The ordinance improper pruning is considered as if the tree had been removed. And then if the tree has been removed, the penalty assess is based on a removal penalty or violation, which is here. The size of the tree was so large. That's why it was three times the amount of what? the original mitigation would have been. Um, let me ask you this. Did the arborist and their did they give any a written opinion? She did. Okay. Go ahead. We have it in our file. I'm not Okay. Um, does do they seem to think the tree is all right. Um, she didn't necessarily state that.

I mean, I know it takes a while. Um she didn't state a future prediction of the tree, but in person she did discuss that she would be worried about the health of the tree in the future because it was such a a large amount of canopy removed. But she did say that it was pruned properly. The cuts were correct. Okay. Just too many of them. I got a bunch of those trees in my yard. That's why I got it. All right. Um and like you said, this fee is based off of um the tree being the tree being removed. Removed completely. Okay. And the tree could um flourish. I mean, we don't know. Okay. Sometimes that helps them. Um

All right. Is there anybody else here who would like to speak from the public for or against this appeal? All right. I'm going to make a motion that we close public input. Second. We have a second from this back seat. All those in favor? I. All right. Any further discussion from the board? Go ahead. I think we need to figure out how to reduce Yeah, I do too. this because the tree is still standing. Yeah. And they base that on the tree being removed. Mhm. Um and they did do some mitigation already by planting more trees and we want to keep their relationship with their electric people good

and that because they're going to continue to build. So the the base number that the multi before the double or triple what was that base number? So had the original 36 in you were asking what the mitigation would have been. Yeah

it would have been nine yeah nine trees or sorry or $7600 76 they met they met that. Yeah. And also to keep in mind is um if the tree were to ever need to come down because it is a live oak tree, it would still have to go back to the tree board and then the tree board would then once again get to determine the circumstances at the time and if they want to assign more mitigation to that tree. So let's in theory if we said based off what we're seeing you mitigated enough but then in a year the tree needs to come down because it's dead. The tree board will then say can then has the opportunity to do all this again.

Correct. Okay. Okay. We're new to trees making sure. Thank you city council. Yeah. Um, so the other one would have been nine trees or seven grand. Is that what you said? Yes. 7,600. 7,600 bucks. Cool. And again, I apologize. What What would that What would have had to happen where that was the fine tree would need to be smaller? Smaller tree.

So if it was not considered a landmark live oak, it would have been just considered a protected tree, which is a different mitigation calculation. It's easier for staff to grant approval for protected trees versus land trees. The only people who can give approval for a landmark live oak vote to come down is the tree board and staff can grant approval for pruning so long as we feel it's going to meet the NZA 300, but in this instant it didn't. We denied they appeal. Okay, this is all great information. Yes,

sorry to uh anybody from Monument Science talking. Um, okay. So, I think we would have one tree extra if it was a protected tree and that's if the tree board would have granted approval for the tree to come down. Okay, anybody? I know what I'd like to say, but I'm not sure I can word it correctly. Being new to the tree business. Yeah.

Need a tree guy. We got a tree girl. When staff has one, we need one. We need a team meeting about trees.

Um, all right. I'm going to make an effort at this and you guys, if you don't like it, we'll start over. Um, considering the circumstances, considering the property owner's role or lack thereof in the pruning of the tree, and considering despite the fact that they didn't really have any involvement, their efforts to mitigate immediately thereafter with the planting of 10 trees. And in light of our prolonged discussion about how these fines and mitigations are calculated, I would make a motion that we um do away with the remainder of the fine. and um with the understanding that if the tree dies in the future, the tree board will have a have a chance to revisit this issue regard as it pertains to this particular tree. So, I would make a motion based off all those things that we um we do away with the remainder of the fine um appreciating the property owner's efforts with mitigation. They technically if this was just a a protected tree, they planted one extra. Um, so I think based on all of that, um, I will make that motion that we we reduce the fine to $0 as long as property owner acknowledges they understand if the tree dies, you'll have to face the tree board again.

I'll second that. We have a second from Miss Hill. All those in favor? I. All right. All those opposed. Okay. Watch your trees. I appreciate it. Thank Thank you all very much. And this is I must say this has been one of the most intellectually stimulating um deliberations I've participated in. That's a little scary. Um right. Got to remember they worked their way up through Ridglin and all that.

Okay. Anybody in there from Ridgley? I love Ridgel. I go there to play golf. The only one I can think of is because I go to that Parkers every time I go play golf down there. Um okay. Um first of all, thank you for everybody else in here for your patience. This has been a long meeting. Um and so with that being said, let's get it done. We'll hand it over to staff to present uh G.

Okay. This is a request for a variance from the strict application of the city of Conway's UDO section 11.4.6. six monument signs for the property located at 300 Singleton Ridge Road. The current Conway Medical Center monument sign is located on the corner of Highway 501 and Singleton Ridge Road and is being removed because of Highway 501 widening project. The applicants would like to relocate the sign to the hospital entrance at Myrtle Trace Road. The sign is considered uh legal non-conforming based on its current location because it's an offsite sign and because of the size. The parcel at 300 Singleton Ridge Road is zoned institutional and per section 11.4.6 monument signs. The maximum height shall be 8 ft and the maximum area shall be 40 ft. The existing sign is 13 feet tall with an area of 221 square feet. The applicants are requesting the following variances. A 5-ft variance on the height of the sign to allow for a 13t tall sign and 181 square ft variance on the area of the sign to allow for a 221 square foot sign. And um these two gentlemen up front here are here on behalf of this.

Hello.

All right. Will you please raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? All right. If you'll tell me who you are, who you're here on behalf of? Uh my name is Paul Sh. I'm uh I work for Image 360. We're the sign company for Common Medical Center. So, they asked me just to come help on the behalf tonight. Gotcha. I gotcha. And um while you're up here, if you'll please raise your right hand in case you say anything. Do you swear to tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth? All right. And what is your name? My name is Collins. I'm project manager for construction projects at medical center. Okay. So, you work for medical center. Got it. Cool. Um is there anything you guys want to add? uh pretty cut and dry. They

they're asking SC DOT is asking them to remove the sign. They've asked us if we could move the sign for them to another location. Originally the goal um when I spoke with the marketing director, not not Robert. Um he wanted to actually have it in the front of uh Singleton Ridge, right in front of the hospital, but because eventually down the road they're going to widen that road. he didn't want to have to move that sign back again and move it again. So, he said, "Well, we really need this entrance um off of Myrtle Trace. It's the emergency, it's it's the preferred emergency room entrance for um non-ambulants coming in and it's also um the entrance for the birthing center and and a lot of other a lot of other come in through the back." And so the current sign that's there um

uh I'm not sure if you have a photo of the current sign that's there. There is one there. I it may be only four or 5t tall. Um maybe 5t wide. Yeah, there was one. It's in here. And so we're actually in a process right now of updating a lot of the signs around there. None of them are changing in size. They're just kind of updating the information on them and a lot of them have faded over the years. This one is, you know, wayfinding handicap type signage. This This one is a little bit of a different circumstance. I have a photo of the existing sign if anyone would like to see that. So, it's the one at the corner of Myrtle Trace and Singleton Ridge. Is that where this will go? Yeah, it's make sure I know where.

No, no, no. My daughter just had a baby over there and it's not Adam. It's all It's actually off. Yeah, I got it. And will it be in the same approximate location as the existing one? Yeah. I actually have that. This is Singleton Ridge Road here. This is Myrtle Trace. Okay. Was that called Cypress where it is currently there? This sign right there. I'm trying to see what it looks like Google. We actually own all the property across the street as well. All right. So, in Cypress Circle is the one that kind of goes through

through the middle of the property. All right. I'm making sure. I didn't know that had I don't even know if I knew that had a name. All right. I'm aware. Yeah. Can't see it really good. No. No. My daughter just had a baby there not too long ago. I was like, gosh, they need bitter size.

But I would like to point out that there's not a sign that's um permitted for that size in um the city of Conway or the UDO. This was a legal non-conforming sign that was built in the right of way. Um, it wasn't permitted by this department, but as long as it was there, they could change out the face and we wouldn't make them move it. Now, it's being moved and it's humongous and we don't permit any size sign that size. Okay. So, that's what this is in reference to. I got you. for the little sign. The little sign is fine, but the size of this monument sign that they're going to put there, right? That they want to put there

because this is the one out on 501, right? Yeah. Are there visibility concerns at all with it being that size? Definitely. I think they'll be far enough off the road, but um the biggest concern is that um our ordinance just does not permit a sign this size. So, what's the biggest we go to? It is current and this is with that sign.

Is there anything is there anything with the signs? I know when we're talking about wall signage and all that, we've got some stuff with like number of tenants and that kind of stuff. Um, for some of these bigger signs that we see on on, you know, roadside signs where let's say you got a shopping center with eight places, I mean, they would be this big and Right. Yes. Yeah. multiple tenants.

Yeah. But I'm sorrying specifically for the zoning where in institutional is it is much smaller for institutional. Um, and that was one reason why we had reached out to Kim was because I used to work at Coastal Carolina and I used to work at Georgetown and they have quite a few larger signs than than what they're supposedly zone for as well and we're considered the same zoning as so we had discussed that and that's that's where we kind of got to this meeting right before. So in the background information it says the existing sign is 13t tall with an area of 221. Is that is that the one on 501? Yes. Right. That's the one they're

and so basically trying to keep it consistent. No, it's that sign. It's that actual sign they're physically. Sounds like DOT wants y'all to get that sign gone. They got to move it. They want to reuse it. You're repurposing. Yeah, you're repurposing. There's really nothing wrong with the sign. have kept it up really well and it's um it it should be a pretty easy move actually. Mhm. Kim, is there anywhere in institutional zoning I mean if

with institutional zoning can you have a multi-tenant building? I don't know if you can or not. The reason I'm my line of questioning is basically because I'm trying to we've got ortho, we've got the birthing center, we've got the erh we've got multi-en a lot of stuff back there that it's all Yeah, it's all CMC, but it's a lot of things under that umbrella. Mhm. And we could talk about why they're all under the same umbrella, but that's a whole different ball game. It's a whole different arena. There you go. And it doesn't have anything to do with these guys. I can guarantee you.

Exactly. Have to call the Department of Insurance to get going on that one. Um in doesn't list multi-tenant. Um but let me see what shopping centers are. Um, a maximum height of 25 ft and a maximum sign area of 300 square ft. 300. Okay. 300 square inches. 300 square feet. Four square feet. Okay. All right. Okay.

So, this would they would be within that if you looked at it as a shopping center sign. Yeah. And you do have multiple buildings and tenants in the hospital area. So I certainly think um really in my opinion we definitely meet um extraordinary conditions.

We definitely meet other property um and really what I think we get down to is um and utilization is always interesting with signage. um doesn't really it's an interesting way to try to apply it signs, but we're really kind of talking about detriment. Is the sign too big? Would it look bad?

Is there any compromise on the location to avoid a visibility issue? Does it have to go? Our our intent is to keep it far enough back from the from the intersection of the dish bank where it's not going to be a vision. There should be any size triang I want to say it's like 35 ft back already. The one is and that we're going to go in the same spot there. Well, we have plenty of side on that road. I happen to just have been over there like two days ago. My husband Dr. And you didn't see the one that was there, did you?

I get frustrated with that white sign. I don't like the white sign. It's like, what does it say? All right. Um, is there anybody here to speak for or against this particular variance request? Yes, sir. Yeah. Uh, hold on. Don't talk from your seat. If you could come up here for me. Sure. All right. If you would please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. And what is your name? Christopher Sak. All right. And um what is your relation to this particular piece of property? Right off the back back side of our yard. Okay, got it. Fair enough. Close. Um and appreciate your concerns, too. You're bringing up things I didn't even think of. So, that's good. That's what we're here for. For better or worse. Um true. All right. What's um

I'm just concerned on how large it's going to be, the lighting, you know, how bright it's going to be, uh things like that because when they did add like to the cooling units over at the hospital, they went 20 ft above the wall that they had and I mean I used I couldn't sleep at night a lot of times. Now I'm retired so and they've done a few things now that make it a little bit better or because it was such a high pitch. Uh they had the sound guys out there and it was over the sound at the time, but then they they raised they changed the wall and made it higher so that it was okay. Yeah. But I still live with it.

So my concerns are now it's just that how big is this sign going to be? How bright is it going to be? Those kind of things before it all happens. Yeah. And I didn't see any of the plans. There was just the sent to the house and nothing else. Well, we appreciate first off, we do appreciate you being here. Public input, obviously, this has been one of our more involved meetings in a while, but it's very important for you guys to come and talk to us so we can make sure we understand and to the extent possible take care of everybody. Um, anything else? Any questions? Am I able to ask a question?

Not really. Um, you can come ask me a question after we're done. Um, as long anybody have any questions for him? All right. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. You come back up. Go ahead. Okay. I I was only going to um I I had quite a few phone calls at our sign company from from people that um their buildings were across the street, but from my understanding, there's no homes across the street from this sign. So, I'm not sure it's um

I'm not saying he's wrong. whatsoever. I'm just saying I it might not be where he thinks it is or where they might have not told him where it is cuz it's it says 300 Singleton. What's your address? 159 Lander. Okay. So, it's at the other corner of Myrtle Trace. It's at the other other corner of other end of Cypress. It's not near you. Coffee place. No, sir. No, no, no, no, no. It It's on the It's down Myrtle Trace Drive at the stoplight. That's where I'm at. And then it's right up to that stop lake. Okay. But it's um ju just so I can answer your question. Point to it on on the

I'm on Google Maps and just letting you know I'm measuring the distance and it looks like it is 0.15. Hold on. Perfect. Yeah, it is. And I'm thinking Landers on the other side. It must be right at the It is 0.15 of a mile. And there's two existing signs there now at that intersection. This one is at a different intersection further down. Memor right at that lake there. It's over. It's over at this.

No, no, no, no, no. Hold on. Hold on. Everybody, stop. Sorry, but just keep it on the rails. We're trying to keep everything a clean record and all that. It is over a tenth of a mile down Myrtle Trace from that intersection. It's almost 210 of a mile. Sorry, everybody's getting a little rambunctious. Um, getting tired.

So, God, I forgot I had this. Um, it's the only time only chance I've ever had to use. So, all right. To to address your fears, it is over, it is 0.15 of a mile from that intersection. Um, so I don't think lighting of a sign, a backlit sign or anything like this. I don't I don't see that as an issue. And I'm looking at it on Google Maps. It is all commercial stuff around there. Is it is all the stuff on the other side of Singleton Ridge, is that hospital property? Yes, sir. Okay. Um, and we have illumination requirements that it can't cross the property line. And like when we go out to inspect, we'll make sure of that.

Okay. Okay. Perfect. Um, all right. And now I think we got one. Would you like to speak? No, I understand what it is now. Okay, perfect. Um, all right. I am going to make a motion that we close public input. Second. All right. All those in favor? I

All right. So now, um, we were kind of going through the stuff. I I think now that we kind of know the location, we know the use. Um, and especially considering the number of tenants that fall under the umbrella. Um, I I think we I think we meet all four prongs. Anybody else have any further discussion on that? Um, and I'm glad that we went through exactly where it is because at first I was thinking the wrong intersection myself. Um, does anybody have anything any further input, questions, comments? All right. I will make a motion that we approve the variance.

We have a second for M. We give it to M. Second for M. Um, any further discussion from the board? None. All right. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? All right. Anybody want to make one more motion? Please. I will move that we adjourn. All right. All right. We have a second. We don't need to vote on that one. Um, again, thanks guys for being here.