Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

body. Um, it is now 5:30, so we will go ahead and call this uh board of zoning appeals meeting for Thursday, March 26, 2026 to order. First thing we need to do is approve our minutes from last month. I was not here so I can't do it. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. All right. I second that. We have a motion for Miss James, a second from Miss Hill. Any further discussion from the board? We're hearing none. All right. All those in favor.

All right. All oppose. Okay. I can sign them though. I'll do that. All right. We've only got two tonight. Um so hopefully we will get uh everybody in and out of here relatively quickly. Um I am going to go ahead and read the criteria into the record. Um just for anybody that might be listening online, anybody in the room. Um the first just remember we got to meet all four of these to grant any sort of variance. Um so keep that in mind as you're presenting. Um the first is extraordinary conditions. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. Second, other property. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions do not generally apply to the other property in the vicinity. Third is utilization. Because of the extraordinary or exceptional conditions, 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 the variance. So, just keep those things in mind as you present or uh take questions from the board. With that being said, I'm going to hand it over to city staff. Miss Wilkerson, if you'll please present variance request A. Sure. This is a request for a variance from the strict application of the city of Conway's UDO section 12.1 nonconformities for the property located at 706 highway 544. The parcel was annexed and reszoned to the city of Conway mixeduse zoning district on October 2nd, 2017. At the time of annexation, the application identified the existing structure as vacant. The adjacent parcel was reszoned

to institutional district to facilitate the development of the ren coastal living um student living. Civil plans for the project were approved on July 30th, 2018. The current leasing office for the ren was established at 706 highway 544 without city of Conway approval or a valid city of Conway business license. The modular structure was occupied without a commercial review and subsequently additions were constructed without building permits. Per the UDO, legal non-conforming status is only granted to structures or uses that were legally in existence prior to annexation. Because the structure was vacant upon annexation, the current commercial use does not qualify for non-conforming protections. On March 27th, the board granted a use variance allowing the office to remain contingent upon the applicant obtaining a business license and meeting all site requirements. While the applicant has achieved signage compliance, the following deficiencies remain unpermitted structures. They have applied for a permit uh building permit for the porch, but it hasn't been approved yet. We're waiting on one final thing for that and site improvement deficiencies. While the applicant cites the proposed CCU pedestrian bridge as a hardship, the bridge would be located on an adjacent parcel and does not impact site improvements for the REN leasing office. To achieve compliance, the applicant must submit a platting action to ensure the structure meets required setbacks and the drive cut is correctly positioned on the parcel. And I spoke with Amanda Bailey at CCU and right now the only thing they have

going on with the um pedestrian bridge is they have a motion to negotiate. There are no plans approved. There's no timeline. It's just a motion to negotiate. So that is not impacting, right? It's not even definitely going to be um on the agenda. Okay. And Mr. O'Brien is here to represent the Martin O'Brien. Um Mr. Martin, is there anything you would like to add in addition to what has been presented by staff?

Um I've got a little bit of a presentation to make it and something to add. I I disagree with the city on two points. One is that the structure was Oh, yeah. Hold on one second. Sorry. 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. You can't say anything you just said. Um, no. If you would please state your name for the record and who you're here on behalf of. O'Brien Martin. I'm here behalf of Josh and PQs who are the applicants and the owners of this parcel and the parcel that um the city has highlighted there is pin 382040048. Both of those. So, who are the members of the Ren LLC? That would be

uh family members. Okay. Same generally same people. Okay.

Yeah, they're the same people. The Ren LLC. Yeah. And they own both of these both of these parcels. So, uh we take exception to the assertion that the property was vacant at the time of annexation. For one thing, they were operating that. This building, as I'm going to tell you in just a second, was a um the building was being used at that time and it has as I came before y'all uh last year um regarding another barrier we were in questioning for this piece of property that that this modular home has been there on that site for 30 years, 30 plus years. It has been continuously occupied. It has been continuously used as a commercial office building. tenants have come, tenants have gone, but it has never been vacant or abandoned. And at the time of annexation, they were in the planning um stages for this ren development. And the office was being used at that time for that purpose and for pre-leasasing activities. Um having said that, the second part of contention I would make is that the CCU bridge is absolutely going to affect this. The um I understand she spoke with Amanda Bailey. I've spoken with her as well since that time. I've also had the opportunity to speak with Alan West who is the CFO there for Coastal who has provided me with a lot more information about the pedestrian bridge. They have already been in contact with the applicants about entering negotiations for easements and for purchasing part of part of one or both of these properties for this bridge to go on. I've got this which I can hand out to you guys or not. But according to the CFO from Coastal, the timeline for this uh pedestrian bridge is as follows on 3:25. I won't read it out to you, but I'm going to hand this out. Can I

absolutely have more copies to make? But that's this is the timeline that has been provided uh for us by Coastal. Funding has been secured. They've got $5 million from the state as long as a as well as a $5 million federal grant

as well. Um this is the timeline the vision for the construction of the bridge and which is obviously much needed and um on this particular location I think in the last 10 years there's been six or seven kids that have been killed trying to cross that highway. So, this is an important uh public uh improvement uh property. In the packet that I submitted, there was also drawings and renderings and um potential site plans for this bridge. Um and if you can if you look at those and you can see where they've got that pedestrian bridge outline, it it does cover right here. And if you go out to this property and you look at this property, it's not a big property. I mean that that bridge is going to take up that entire portion and likely a small portion of the other parcel in which the rent office does uh in which the rent office does sit. It's I mean go out there and look at it. It there's no way they can construct a a bridge of this size that would not substantially impact the piece of parcel the parcel of land that the Ren sits on. Having said all of that, I do want to give you just a little bit of uh just a little bit of background. Um the city did annex this property in 2017. At the time of annexation, the city did not require site improvements or upgrades despite the fact that the property was already operating as a commercial office space. And since its annexation, it has served as the leasing office for this development. uh five or six years later in late 2024, the city notified the applicant of violations, including the unpermitted signage and unpermitted fence, and that there was no zoning approval um for the business at this location. Um I think that you know this property has remained the same throughout despite that five to six year gap between when they annexed it and when um they served a letter noticing

the applicants that there were uh problems with the site. Um since that time there have been no changes or expansions of use under the UDA UDO would trigger the site improvements that the city now speaks. Um, this board granted variance uh last March, March 27th of 2026, allowing this commercial leasing leasing office to continue to operate on this parcel conditioned upon the applicant obtaining necessary permits and a city of Conway business license. Since that time, we have obtained the necessary permits for the signage. The unpromoted fence was removed. There was an overhang that was added on to the as she mentioned that we've got a a we had some hiccups with that and we've got something we still need to submit to that but that will be also approved u very quickly. We then did what the board asked and we went and applied for a business license uh which was rejected by the city on the grounds that it was not not approved for commercial use because site improvements still needed to be made including landscaping, paid parking lot, curbs, gutters, storm water management, lighting, landscape records, all of those all of those things. Since that time, Coastal Carolina has approached the applicants about purchasing their land, part part of both of these parcels and asking for easements on the property as well because obviously this is going to be a a massive uh construction project. Um the applicant does have plans to redevelop the site in the future. In the packet we submitted, those plans are also in there. though given this development those will likely have to be substantially changed because this is going to significantly affect as you can see the highway there and if you look at the proposed uh bridge plans it's going to significantly affect the access to the parcel that is on um where the rent office sits now u the nature of our

request here we're not asking the board to excuse the applicant from having to perform these site improvements entirely The applicant is asking that the variance be conditioned conditioned on full compliance once the CCU pedestrian bridge is complete. Construction of that bridge is uh as I mentioned that's going to be a big project that's going to require crew access, crew parking, heavy equipment, cranes, staging, and materials that are all going to go directly on this this site. any improvements that the city is is wanting to force the applicant to make now today will be in the way, damaged or completely torn up when they begin this construction project. This is not a huge parcel of land. It is going to affect a very large part of it. Um, this site has remained largely unchanged for 30 years. And and it's at least my reasoning that I don't see that there's any good reason to force the applicant to spend a substantial amount of money twice on the same improvements. I think that a conditional variance is a fair and equitable solution in this case. I think it accomplishes everything that the ordinance requires by simply letting the bridge be built first. It prevents unnecessary waste of time, money, and resources for both the applicant and quite frankly Coastal Carolina University. The the tens of thousands of dollars that are going to be required the applicant is going to be required to spend on site improvement. You know, at some point those costs are going to be passed on to the university, which is what I have been talking with Alan West and Amanda Bailey about that they would prefer not to see happen, quite frankly. um to address the the specifically address the different criterias. You know, I think we again would would point that we feel anyways that this pro this property was annexed into compliance uh without sorry, it was annexed into

the city without any of these conditions being imposed on them at that time. The city sat for five, six, almost seven years before they sought any enforcement action necessarily. Um, and so we do feel that it was a pre-existing nonconforming use and that the provision should allow it to continue as operating as is. As I stated, this site has not changed in 30 years. There's been no expansions. There's been no improvements uh substantial improvements to its use or anything like that that I think would necessarily trigger compliance in this case. And in terms of of an extraordinary condition, you know, this pedestrian bridge coming up is going to tear all all the all or a significant amount of the improvements that they want us to install today. Um, I think is an extraordinary condition um and a hardship quite frankly that exist with these particular pieces of property that do not with with any of the adjacent properties uh beside it. No other uh property faces this particular um combination of pre-andization history, legal non-conforming status and this imminent obviously construction project. um you know, the city is conditioning the the this routine business license on the improvements um that they want this applicant to make when there has been no new construction, there has been no change, no qualifying renovations have occurred that would trigger in our minds this enforcement. Now, um and requiring these improvements before CC tears up the site, um I don't think it advances the ordinance's purposes. I don't think identify anybody other than that's already stated, wasting time um and money. As I stated again, it does not harm any of the of the adjacent properties. Um it has remained in this condition unchanged for a very long uh period of time. It does not demonstrate

any sort of adverse impact on the adjacent properties. And again, we're not asking to not make the improvements. It's just it does not seem equitable. It does not seem fair. and and to require them to make these thousands of dollars of improvements when this bridge is coming and they're building it sooner rather than later. Um, as evidenced by by the the processes laid out by Alan West with Coastal Carolina. Um, you know, and and none of this is for the applicant to try to get any benefit, to try to make any money, to try to make any changes to this. This is simply trying to avoid spending money which they know they've got to spend now um before this university public this public project moves forward um which is going to damage or remove those things. Um so quite you know to sum it up the you know the ask is simple. We we just this is enforcing this now would be a waste of time and resources. it could quite frankly frustrate the the process of Coastal getting these easements and purchasing the property.

I I certainly appreciate Coastal's interest in this. I think it'd be foolish to totally ignore that, but our conversation through staff with them had a little different tone to it than that, which I respect that they have a lot of they're trying to balance a lot of interest, but also they're not here. Um, and there's not a lot we can do. We can take your word for it. We can also take staff's word for it. They're not here. Um, and another issue we have with that spending the money is although they may have to recompensate this property owner after it's done, that's not this property owner's hardship.

Okay? that money would come from Coastal and would reimburse the property owner for whatever additional work they had to do. Well, it may or may not. I mean, I understand your position though. And we also have an issue where I'm looking at the timeline you just gave us and it looks like in a best case scenario which we know is difficult with the government involved even though I understand it's a government board especially with state procurement. It looks like the earliest that ground could be broken on this project would be March of 2027. That's that's correct.

And that would be 24 months after we initially gave the condition that we needed the site work completed. So you un obviously I think it's pretty clear everybody has to understand this board's position. We're now sitting here 12 months removed from what we said last time which we felt was a pretty fair compromise based off all the facts presented. Yeah, I agree.

And and we still don't have compliance. Um so we're we have to start with the procedural history which has some non-compliance in it and we have to consider that as we work towards a decision on this particular request. I do appreciate the situation has changed some, but in in theory it's the same request that we heard last March. Um I think it needs to be noted that this is this is a new condition that you're bringing to an old case. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. I mean this is just something new.

This the the grounds for this has been going on for quite some time. And the reason that and and I know it's been operating for years under and hadn't changed but it was operating without a business license and that's what triggered the whole setup.

Well, uh speaking let me do let me clear up one thing about the timeline of the business because I think there's some confusion by us because we we have the application for annexation from 2017. It says the current use is vacant and that is signed by the property owner. So either there was an operating business in the building at the time of annexation and this was written for whatever reason or there was nothing there and now a new business is operating out of there that was built in 2019, two years after annexation.

Yeah. And and I've discussed that particular part with the applicant. That application was filled out by Mr. accuses wife and was sub and was submitted to them not by him. They were in fact in that building. Now that's what's on the application. So I can't change that. You guys do not have to believe or take their word take their word for it. Obviously I have no other way of proving to proving it to you. Um but that again that site it was being used as an office space for them at that time. Okay. So it was but it was it being used as a as a leasing office for anything or was it just family office space?

No, no. It was an office space for this this Brim project. That's where they were they were working out of in terms of developing the project and doing some pre-leasasing activities and everything like that. That's what it what it was being used for. And I would like to counter that with they requested mixed use for this parcel. Mixed use is commercial and residential. If they were using it as just an office space, why did they request mixed use?

I think the mixed, and Josh can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the mixed use was was at that time them trying to look forward. They're going to be annexed into the city where that property is located. They obviously do have plans to to redevelop that property in the future. it be much more valuable and profitable for them to uh redevelop that into a mixeduse type of of building there or project there than leave it the way it is now. Um I cannot speak to why that the multiple reasons necessarily why that development has not moved forward at this point. But that is the that is the ultimate plan with that and they've got the plans drawn up. that's going to have to all be put on hold again too while this bridge uh is being constructed. And I don't think and listen the second the first application that we came the first variance request that we came to make in front of you guys was that they would I'm trying to remember exactly what it was but I I feel that this one is is different. I'm just talking about the same piece of property. We're still talking about requirements that need to be done on it. I'm not arguing or fighting necessarily that the the improvements should not or do not need to be made. It's the cost and expense and and just the general waste of having to make them. Now, the first variance request, if I remember correctly, was that they could not operate a leasing office, this kind of commercial building, any kind of commercial office on that property based on what it was zoned.

Correct. And so then we came before you guys to get a variance to allow them to operate the leasing office on that in that building on this piece of property. You guys were very gracious. The board was very gracious and did um and did strike a compromise in that and said that's absolutely fine. That property has been there for a long time. this business has been operating there um for a long time and the city, you know, and I don't know and maybe it's not an important point at all and and maybe I'm just spinning my wheels on it, but I do find it strikingly strange that this the city allowed them to operate there and it's open and notorious. Look at the photographs. There's there's lights. I mean, there's a they put signage up um in multiple different places on that property. They cut down trees that were on that large pine trees were that were on the front of that property. And so the city was aware and they had notice that this was operating there. Now why they waited five or six years um to come up to come back and say hey there's unmitted signs there and oh by the way this is mixed use. I don't know and maybe that weighs plays nothing into this but I think it's worth mentioning u regardless. Um, and so we we were happy with the last variance decision. We got the signs permitted. Uh, we took the fence down. We're getting we're in the process of having the courts permitted and we applied for a business license at which time we were told no, not going to be issued until site improvements are made. Those are that's a big project. Those are costly. We came to find out about the the existence and the planning of this pedestrian bridge which is on track to be built within the next two years. And we certainly are of the opinion u that it is a it is a hardship that is unique to this piece of property and and to to the chairman Lawson's

point um it is their hardship. I mean I just I kind of disagree with you on that a little bit. It might be Coastal's hardship in the future at some point but at the right now at this moment it is this applicant's hardship. it is this applicant's money that is going to be spent um on improving this site. And so I I I do think respectfully disagree that it is a hardship on them right now. It is a hardship that is unique to this piece of property that does not substantially uh affect the other similar properties around it. And there has been no expansion or improvement of the use of this property. We are simply requesting a variance condition that it remain the way it is until this pedestrian bridge can be built. Um and and that's in my opinion that that is just a smarter way to move forward with this u and an equitable resolution to to the issue

and the timeline that um you guys got said I'm sorry Kimch 27 yeah and again she I know I know Kim spoke with Amanda Bailey and I spoke with Amanda Bailey and Amanda Bailey communicated the same thing to me that she communicated indicated to Kim, which is what Kim presented to you when she first uh presented the case here. They've been given permission to negotiate with the property owner about acquisition of the land. That's pretty much Yeah. But we knew nothing. I knew nothing further than that. Then I didn't not until very recently until I did get the CFO on the phone because I wanted to get more clarity from him about, hey, is this happening? I mean, they're I'm going to go in there and get questions from the city and the board board in there saying, yeah,

we don't know if you guys are ever going to build it. Do they have funding yet? Do you I mean is there a plan set up? Is there a timeline? I mean is there anything here and this is what he's given me. They the funding is secured. This is going to happen. It obviously a project of this nature has got to you know work its way through state regulation. It's got it's a project that's going to be ultimately managed by the department of transportation. But they are on track to do it. And this project is happening. It's not a fantasy. It ain't it's not moving. It's not going away. Um, you know, I if it would help me out up here, I wish they start construction and break ground tomorrow, but that would help us out. Yeah. Um,

I would like to also say that in talking to Amanda, um, they don't have based on what she told me, um, they still have to get an once they decide on the land an appraisal, a survey, work with SC DOT and and get the plans done. They don't even have approved plans yet. That could take a year just to have approved plans. And and all of that is and I discussed all of that with Alan West and I realize he's notless here today to speak for Coastal himself.

Um but I'm not a um I don't fabricate things. I try not to exaggerate things and I don't lie about things. And most of you sitting on this board know me in a personal u personally as well. And so I'm not up here misrepresent I I don't think anybody thinks anybody's making anything. I know I'm just comment

I understand that this new addition has put the property owner in an interesting situation. I I don't you all of a sudden you get approached about something like this. I think that's an interesting situation. I I but I also hope that the applicant through you understands that this situation has this whole procedural situation has put us in a weird spot. Yeah.

Because had the work been done when we agreed in March of last year, it would have been completed before Coastal ever called. And so I I'm just we're we're stuck and I don't want to waste anybody's money, but we're really not supposed to make any decisions based off profitability, which also includes saving money. Makes you make more money when you save money. Um that that is one of our guidelines. We also have a lot of people that we answer to. Um there are people above us that enable that empower us to have this job on city council. Yeah. And I think it's also very understood that the 501 overlay corridor and this area on 544 are two of the fastest growing areas probably in the country. There's stuff popping up like crazy. We're getting variance requests over there like crazy and we're working through it. I think that probably has a lot to do with why the city things started happening when they started happening with this matter is the city's got a lot to try to stay in front of through that stretch and they're doing everybody's doing the best they can. Um, but in this situation, I don't know if we can't say you can just have an infinite period of time. I mean that's you know we don't if we if we granted essentially what becomes a variance on a variance with an in infinite amount of time we have set a very bad precedent for ourselves and if we do that

I can assure you I I can probably name off the top of my head about four businesses on 501 and 544 that would be in here by next month to ask for the exact same thing.

Um so I understand that there are issues. I just I don't necessarily think it raises to the level of a hardship based off things that might happen in the future. And I certainly agree. I hope this bridge gets built for all the reasons you stated. It needs to be built, but they've been talking about it for over a decade and it's still not there. So, um, and my my position is that is I don't want anybody to waste money, but we're really not supposed to consider that. Um we we've we just had Scooters coffee in here that's going right down the street. We going next door.

Yeah. We didn't give them what they wanted. They've got to put in landscaping and all that stuff. Um we tried to be reasonable in that situation, too. Do we have the um the required the site improvements that we would that we would need to be compliant? Do we um is it just the landscaping buffer along the back and the landscaping uh parking? I was told landscaping irrigation, irrigation, lighting, um gutters,

um curbing, um whole nine yards. Whole nine yards. I mean, it would be a complete redevelopment of the site. It would be it would be a bigger substantial change that has ever taken place at this property in the last 35 years. All to be ripped up in two to three years time. And they've been talking about building this bridge for 10 years, but there's never been concrete plans like this. Funding has never been secured, which it is. All right. Um, how much of the property is Coastal planning to purchase?

I think they're they're still in the process of trying to figure that out. I mean, this is this crosses. This is where they want the bridge to go right across that uh right across this intersection. And so the the if you look if you look at the application that was submitted

how from Stantech I think it was it looks like this. You can kind of see you can kind of see our proposing putting crossing. So it would be it would be this particular uh this particular area right here. This is in black and white so it's hard to see but this is in red. So it would be in this area right here. So it's this what's the total acreage of this property? Do you know property the subject our pen? Yeah that we're worried about. Yeah,

I think it's 444 but but what they're

So, but there's only a small portion of it that's that the tower is going to sit on. Right. Right. There there would only be a small portion that the tower would sit on. But, you know, the problem with that is, like I said, you got they're also seeking easements to use the rest of the property, too. You're going to have to have staging crews. To to be clear, the variance request is not on pen. Yeah, that's on the adjacent property. So, that's correct. So, it's a different It's a different property. Yes. Totally different. Okay. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Yeah. So, they But they own the adjacent property. They adjacent property. I mean there

it's 47 and 48. So 47 is the it's technically this variance request. 48 comes around it. Okay. 48 it looks like based off these plans the entirety of that landing of the that end of the bridge would be on 48. But I think what correct me if I'm wrong what what Mr. Martin is telling us is that they're also going to be seeking easements on 47 for staging. That's correct. and to move to move vehicles u heavy equipment and materials but that doesn't affect 47 well a little bit but it may

I think we don't have any concrete evidence on or concrete information on where these uh easements and staging areas would be there is a lot of room

no concrete evidence on that but it this this is not a large portion of land there's there's absolutely no way you can you cannot You cannot access this property from the opposite side. There's a business in a parking lot over there. So, it would not make any sense for them to access there, which is why they've approached this property owner. And while the bridge itself is going on that pin number 00048, I think there's a there's a very good likelihood it's going to encroach on 0047. And on top of that, um, as I stated, it is the 0047 is going to be substantially affected by the construction of this bridge. But look, I I don't want to I don't want to belabor it anymore. I I understand u the

No, I think comments the chairman has made and I'm happy to answer any any other questions. Um, so we're talking that and I want to make sure I'm clear on this. Basically, if they do need to encroach or need an easement, I if it if they did have to go over into where the building is, it would only mess up a parking lot. Correct. More than likely, because they have not said anything about we're going to buy the whole property and tear the rent down. Correct.

Not yet. Now, the rent itself sits behind that. I mean, this is this building is on the the front the front piece of the property. What I'm asking is is the the things that the city is asking that be done to the building itself and maybe signage um really won't be affected. The only thing that's really going to be affected financially is if they have to put a parking lot in and that parking lot they ease over into that or that parking lot gets tore up. Right. Lighting and irrigation and landscaping. eventually they're going to have to roll some cranes and trucks and heavy equipment in there and it's going it's it's so the building Well, I'm just saying the building itself the building is not we don't we don't anticipate the building itself to be affected.

Okay, gotcha. That's that was my question. No. Yeah. No. Does anybody else have any questions for Mr. Martin? Am I good? All right. Is there anybody else here to speak for or against this particular variance request? Anybody here? I'm say one thing about just if you could if you would just please raise your right hand and do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. All right. Will you please state your name for the record? Josh Hughes. All right. And are you the property owner? I am.

Okay. Thank you. Uh just on timing, Coastal approached us last summer and we've been having discussions with them since. So the Coastal Foundation approached us. We've met a few times. We've had questions go to Stantech. Uh we've had our engineer engaged looking at stuff. So while Coastal just approved this uh approval to negotiate, we really had the pre-negotiation since last summer, which if you look at last summer to when the original um PCA approval was, it it really wasn't that much time when before we were like, "Oh, hold on. There's going to be other changes at this property. Okay. So, thank you. All right. No, I was just Okay. Here for more questions.

All right. Does the board have any questions? Any comments? Probably need to discuss some stuff before we do anything. You got any? No, I don't have any questions. Questions? I just wanted Yeah. Yeah. My my thought is the fact that we're looking at a piece of property that a year ago we set these expectations or these stipulations we'll call and now the hardship is a piece of property next to it has it it doesn't I mean it's it's like one it's one bridge too far.

Yeah. And I I agree with that. I also agree I don't I don't like being in this situation. Um, but I think we I'm worried as a board based off what we do today with as fast as that that particular area is growing, we would set a precedent for staff to deal with and for us to deal with down the road that would would not be good. um because the type of type of uh businesses and people that are are operating or trying to operate in that area are going to be acutely aware of anything we do for any other property in that area. Um not that that should change the analysis, but it's just a fact. Um anybody else got anything? All right.

I can tell them how to do it without spending money if they want me to tell. All right. um that all the time. Mr. Martin, do you have anything else before I close? Public input. You know, just add one thing. Um the parking lot part of this is obviously and I I'm not this is not necessarily my municipal code, is not necessarily my area of expertise in the law. So, I don't know specifically what would be required. Just one more thing for the board to consider because I kind of see where this is heading. We would The parking lot is the most expensive part of this thing, right?

The landscaping, the lighting, the irrigation. I don't know exactly what part of it would be what part what you're heading in the right direction. What parking lot would be required? Yeah. But if there could be some sort of exception or variance made for the size or type of parking area that we could put in to save on the expense, we would again we're not trying to get out of doing anything. So if the we need to put in lighting, irrigation, the landscaping to the city's liking, have no problem with that. It is just the massive expense of of paving this area. How much do they have to have? What what what do they have to have on that piece of property? A paved paved parking lot. How many? How many? How much? How many spots?

Um, I would say probably four to five. Okay. So, it's not We'd have a hard time going any lower than that. Yeah. That's That's I knew it wouldn't be very many. Yeah. Because if the building is going to stay there, you going to have to have four or five bargain spots anyway. Um, yeah, I knew it would not be many cuz it's not under any sort of um type or use that requires amounts per square foot. It's it's I think it would be I'd be shocked if it was more than five for the size. Is there any designation as to where that parking lot has to go? This has to be on the property.

No, you're right. It just has to be on parking lot on the side that's not going to be affected. throw some construction is what I would do. Yeah. Um if that's acceptable by the city. How many I don't think this matters, but we know how many square feet the building is. Do you know? I have no idea. Uh probably 2,000. Okay. I wouldn't think it was. Even if it was under the one per 250, you're looking at eight. Uhhuh. Which one? But I can't tell you parking lots are expensive. Yeah, that's what I said to you. Don't put more than you need, you know. Um,

let's give Miss Wilson just a second. So, we have an answer on this about six. Okay, there you go. All right, I'm done. Okay. Um, and I do just I I want to thank you guys one more time for your time today. And I also want to thank you for giving me an opportunity to come back. I was not at the last meeting. I had a medical thing going on and my office did not uh clear my calendar like they were supposed to. So, I appreciate you guys letting me come back uh to No, we when we discussed the reconsideration, we thought on a case like this, it was very important that that you be here. the applicant had a chance to be heard before we did anything. Um,

is there anything further from the board? Any more questions or anything? All right. Is there any Again, I'm going to ask, is there anybody else here who'd like to speak for or against this particular variance request because I'm going to close public input in about five seconds. All right. Three, two, you hurry up. No, I want to make sure we everybody's got a chance. And obviously this isn't my I'm not the property owner. I'm just here speaking for him. So that that the last the last thing I would mention and then I am leaving. Um um is the time frame to do this. Uh I don't I don't want them to be in a situation where

tomorrow morning the city starts issuing citations and just continues to do so. Okay. I don't I don't think that they would but I I would request some time for this is obviously now that the variance is not Granted, when it doesn't sound like it's going to be, then there's obviously going to require them some time to get that process started and get the money together. Yeah. And I I'll include this in the motion, but just I would think um would do that. I I mean I as long as good faith efforts are being made in the right direction, I don't think we're going to have a problem, but we can put some time constraints on it for when it needs to be completed. I don't want to then create a new problem.

No, no, no. I mean, and I think based off I just want a general my concern is just a general understanding there's there's been some tension between the applicants and the city on this and some other various projects. I don't want to end up in a situation where we walk out of there or you got a notice tomorrow Judge Mayor's office in two days. Yeah. No, I I get that. Um I don't what what is the city's stance on that as far as Yeah, we would have to look at a site plan. In fact, Josh, I could uh design the site plan and email it to you of what would be required and six months. Yeah. Okay. I was going to say so that works. All right. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you guys.

Thanks, Kim. Um I'm glad we get unheard. I I'm going to um make a motion that we close public input. Second. We have a second. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor? I Okay. All those opposed? None. All right. So, public input is now closed. Do we have any further discussion from the board before we make any sort of motions?

All right. Um I am going to make a motion that we deny the variance request for the following reasons. Um I do not believe that for this particular pin number there are any extraordinary and exceptional conditions that pertain just to this piece of property. Um as we've discussed this area is growing and all uh commercial properties or uh similarly zone properties are going to have to meet the same requirements. Um and that also goes into um the other property the e the uh there are no extraordinary exceptional conditions for this pin uh in my opinion. However, um anything in this stretch would apply to all properties the same and it certainly doesn't stop the utilization. The property is being utilized the way the applicant wants. That's why we're here. Um and then detriment. I believe granting a variance would be of a huge detriment to the to the city um because it would create um a situation where precedent had been set that we don't need to set in a rapidly growing area. So for those reasons I will make a motion that the variance request be denied.

Second. All right. We have a second from Mr. Hagen. Um any further discussion from the board? All right. Hearing none. All those in favor. All those opposed. All right. And obviously you don't need to be told this. There this isn't the end. There's other avenues if the applicant so chooses to take them. Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And now we will go to variance request B. I will be recusing myself from this particular request due to my relationship with the adjacent property owner that is mentioned in the application. Okay. So, I'm going hand it over to staff to present and Mr. Hagen will handle that request.

This is a variance request from the strict application of the city of Conway's UDO table 8.3 parking requirements and table 6.2 non-residential zoning districts for the property located at 15019th Avenue. In 2023, the applicant Dr. Faulk acquired the adjacent parcel and recorded a combination plat. Both parcels are zon professional which per which permits both residential and commercial uses. The applicant proposes to expand his existing practice by constructing a commercial addition to connect the two existing structures. The completed facility will total se 7,444 square ft. 3,722 will be administrative office and 3,722 will be um medical use. Based on the parking calculations, 28 uh parks would be required. Um the total proposed with the 10 from the adjacent property would be um 22. So they would be short six spaces. The variance request would be based on these six spaces. They are short. And upon review of a sketch plan, staff identified an unpermitted shed on the property. While a 2017 variance allowed a 3 and 1/2 ft setback for the two smaller sheds, the current larger shed requires the same 3 and 1/2 ft setback. Um, so the variances requested are a variance of six spaces to allow for 22 total spaces instead of the required 28, a variance from the 75%

on-site parking requirement to allow for a combination of leased and shared off-site parking, and an 11 12T variance from the 15t corner front setback to allow a 3 and 1/2 ft setback. back for an existing shed. And Dr. Faulk is here if you have any questions. There. Hello. Will you raise your hand? Swear to tell the whole truth. Tell the truth. I do. And just state your name. Dr. Daniel Paul. Good deal. You want to elaborate a little bit? You got some more?

Um, yeah. Yeah, we're we're a very busy office and as Miss Wilson said, we did expand our office a little bit in 2017 and that's when I found out that we didn't have quite the setbacks to the extraordinary property where the building is kind of set really close to the the property lines and so we had to request a variance at that time and it was three and a half ft to allow for 5T around the whole building just to a 500 foot expansion and we have for a PT bay and u we've expanded we're so busy. We have two doctors, we have a nurse practitioner, we have a a massage therapist, and we see 100 patients a day. And so, people come in and out, and we have just a lot going on. And we've been trying to expand. And now with insurance, uh, it's it's a lot because administrative is just kind of kicking our butt, so to speak, because we have three full-time people just doing insurance work. Uh, and it's just a lot to deal with. And then our front staff has to try to move our patients around so they can get in and out quickly. Uh and so they're not taking up parking a lot. But um and so does the spots that we have. And on the uh the north side of the building, which is not highlighted, uh there is a whole parking lot there, which I found out in 2017, our whole property line does not include that parking. So that's 12 or 13 spots there that do not count. It's considered off- streetet parking. However, uh there's no other businesses around that use that parking. All our patients do. We wouldn't be deny anybody else to park there in anywhere, but that's kind of the parking that our patients use. So, there's 12 13 spots there. And on 9inth Avenue, there's five or six spots that our patients use as well. It's right in front of our building. Uh we worked with DOT. They were trying to make that no parking for a while and then they allowed us to have one spot as motorcycle only parking so people could see to get out and we actually strike that uh area so our patients know where to park and there's no problems there.

We've maintained that other parking lot. We've resurfaced it twice. We put the parking spots in and um so we always thought that was kind of our parking. So if you include those spots, that would be additional 18 spots or more and plus the spots lease from the Charlie Ray on the uh east side of the property is part of a larger parking lot which our patients also use and a lot of patients use parking on the street. So um even though these are the spots that are allowed that we count as the UDO as kind of on our property that uh we have there's a lot more parking that patients and and back in these as well. It's kind of an extraordinary property. We're not really going to change anything or or encroach or encroach any other properties in the area because we're just building in between the two buildings. And again, as Miss said, between just for a lot of administrative stuff that we need and just we're our nurse practitioner works out of one room and she really needs several rooms to be able to work out of and the administrator that we need. As far as the shed is concerned, uh we did replace the two sheds that were there. They were a rotting metal shed and uh I asked someone from the city at the time. I do a lot of finishes on the table and talking with patients and I said we're going to put the shed here. We're just replacing these. So, do we have to get a permit or anything? And they said no. So, I was sortly misinformed on that. So, I kind of wish we had worked on that at the time. I thought it would have been here when we did that five years ago. There is a wall on the side of that shed which faces the the part we're talking about as far as the setback I think is concerned. And I'm glad that wall is there because one of our patients actually hit that. did not damage our shed, but the wall was damaged. So, we replaced that and we built that um there's that brick wall on

the side of the shed and we we fixed that within a day. So, but it it kind of matches the building. I don't think it takes up any spaces or or parking spots, but it's just kind of replaced what we had there and it's much nicer. Understand if we want to put a metal shed there, we have to put a wooden shed. So, we had that custom made for that spot. Um, can you jump back to the parking spot real quick? So, in the in the explanation, there was five existing spots, seven lease spots, and so can you which ones are which on that? What are that yellow highlighted? What are those? Um, let me walk.

These are the five that are on his site. Okay. These are the seven that are owned by Charlie Ray, okay, that he has a lease with and those are the 10 that are on the adjacent property that he will have to create, pave, stripe, and then um landscaping will be required. The the 10 over here, that's that's on the that's referencing Dr. Harit. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So,

I've been talking for the past six months. I've been trying to buy that piece of property from him. Uh he's not asked to sell it to me yet, but he says he willing to lease it for parking and pavings on me. He said, of course, but and I've also talked to the DOT about um any access we might have to do for that. He said, "Well, as long as we get the spots and the engineer works on that, that shouldn't be a problem." Okay. So, so but that property right now is leased to another entity until Right. That's that that you don't you're not leasing their property right now. Well, we have I have a lease in hand in the letter from Dr. Harwood. Okay. Um and so he said they don't use that piece of land for anything. It's just grass right now. So I have a lease ready, but he hasn't signed yet. He has had his attorneys.

Okay. Gotcha. He's more than willing to let us do it. All right. There's no other use for that land. It's just grass right now. Okay. Um All right. Any other questions about the parking? So that makes the 22. Well, correct. Okay. I think you I was trying to see the terms of your lease with Charlie Ray. These lawyers, they make these things complicated. I've offered to buy that those spots from Charlie Ray several times. I don't know if you know Charlie Ray, but he does not sell things. I don't I don't want this line of questions to indicate anything other than just information. But, you know, Kim, is there a precedent? You know, so much as parking is leased,

you know, or asking for a variance on something that may change. I guess specifically I don't know about the Harage property if that's a vacant lot or if that can be developed what happens if then those parking lots don't be remain available Dr. Faulk do we have a potential conflict of parking down the road Dr. far was that um if you wanted to even share that area, I'm going to pave it anyway and it could be parking for both properties. Um but I mean there's there's more than enough if curb is changed. But yeah, his plans wouldn't be approved if the parking fell through. No, I think he's asking about in the future if like five years

he said you can't lease that anymore. Then what happens? I see what you mean. Um, well, we encourage shared parking throughout all the overlays. Um, okay. Uh, the UDO encourages it. So, um, so that would the city would be flexible to that, right? Yes, sir. If there was a develop on Parl. Okay. And like I said, even though those are the the proposed parking spots, there's a lot of parking around the office anyway. Yeah. I think you've demonstrated to be a good steward of lease parking with repaving and you looks like you've been in the lease with Charlie Ray for almost 10 years. So, I mean that all I think bodess well for you. So, thank you. Yeah.

All right. Um any other questions on the parking? All right. Um and so let's jump to the the building there, the shed. Um so how long has the shed been there for? like the the original shed since we uh we moved in 2006. We've been here for 20 years. Okay. Um so at the time was was the shed legal? Was it conforming or is it Right. They had two smaller sheds and in 2017 they got a variance for a 3 and 1/2t setback. Okay.

But then he exchanged the two smaller ones for the bigger one. Okay. They're falling apart. and he's applied for the permit. Yeah. Um but the he needs the variance for the permit to be approved. Okay. All right. Which the one shed is better than two, right? Sure. Okay. And it does look better. Yeah. Okay. Um any other questions? Is that George in the picture?

All right. Um, is there anyone else that wants to speak for or against um this request? Anyone else? We do have a letter from our neighbor across the street saying how we're good neighbors and park our patients don't park on their side or anything. And also I talked to uh Miss Albbright which is directly across from our not allowed her public parking which is our parking lot and she says that at first she had some of our patients were parking on our lawn but we've made sure that our patients do not do that. So she said since then we've been good neighbors.

All right. Um good deal. Is there any other public input? Any other questions from from us? Um um is there a motion to uh close public input? I'll make a motion we close public input. I'll second. All those in favor, please. I

opposed. All right. Um any questions or any discussion from the board? Um thoughts or concerns? Um my thought here is is kind of to to Andy's point. Um it looks like uh you've done a good job of securing as much parking as you can um that you know that that area has a lot of street parking um that we're familiar with. We had a discussion um last last meeting uh and so I I I feel good about the parking issue. the building again. Um kind of to your point, one good building is better than two bad buildings. Um and if you had the variance previously, um I think we're in good shape there. Um any other thoughts from the board?

Okay. Um good to make a motion to approve the variance request. I'll make a motion. Second. No, I'll second. Uh, all those in favor, please say so by saying I. I. Any opposed? All right. We appreciate it. Thank you so

We probably should have done that one first. I knew that the other one was going to get lengthy. Um, all right. That being said, does anybody else have a motion? I'll make a motion that we adjourn this meeting. All right. All those in favor. All right.