Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

June 25th 2026 board of zoning appeals meeting to order first matter of business is for the board for the approval of our May 28 26 minutes does anybody have any comments questions I make a motion we approve that's all all right we have a motion all those in favor aye All right, I'm going to move on to the criteria that we have to meet in order to grant any variance that comes before us. Just keep in mind that this isn't an either-or thing. We have to be able to meet all four of these in order to grant the variance. The first is extraordinary conditions that 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 other property in the vicinity. Third, 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 three is detriment. The authorization of a variance will not be of or the public good and the character of the district will not be harmed by granting a variance. So keep those in mind and I'm going to hand it back over to staff for our one and only variance request for tonight.

Okay. This is a variance request from the strict application of the City of Conway's UDO section 6.5.2 gateway corridor overlay for the property located at 1717 4th Avenue. ASL sign services acting as the property owner's agent submitted a permit application for a new 12-foot monument sign. The planning and development department denied the request, citing the UDO restriction that limits monument sign heights to 10 feet within the gateway corridor overlay. Although the permit was never approved, the applicant stated that fabrication had already begun and the sign framework is complete at 12 feet. Per the gateway corridor overlay, the maximum sign height shall be 10 feet per section 12.1.6 D nonconforming signs and sign structures nonconforming business or identification signs that did not comply with current standards for size elimination location or number may continue provided the sign is not expanded or modified in a manner that increases the degree of nonconformity Any alteration to the sign shall bring the sign into greater conformity where feasible. No additional nonconforming signage shall be installed." And I state that because they had an existing sign that I believe was hit by a car, and that's why they're currently replacing that monument sign. The specific variants requested Section 6.5.2 M, Gateway Corridor Overlay, a variance of two feet to allow for a 12-foot multi-tenant monument sign versus a 10-foot allowed by the UDO. And the sign company is here if you have any questions.

We had this exact issue not even a whole month ago. I know. Is there anything either you two fellows would like to add to what staff has presented so far? Absolutely. Yes, sir. I'm Dennis Falk. Hold on one second for me. If you please raise your right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. And now state your full name and who you're here on behalf of.

I'm Dennis Falk. I'm with ASL Science on behalf of Waccamaw Flooring. Yes, sir. And Jenkins Science, R.J. Jenkins. If I may just kind of set the picture. I've been doing this a long time, but unfortunately, when our permitting girl turned into permit, and what she's accustomed to seeing when we get an invoice is we don't pay an invoice until the permit's ready. She didn't read the little writing down below on there that said, this is not a permit, which we later saw. We were under the impression that we had a permit cleared. That's why we went into production. We wouldn't do that without having a permit. So moving forward, we found out that the sign could only be 10 foot. It's actually a 10 foot sign with a 2 foot brick base. This was the damage from the accident and the previous sign was 12 foot. So we thought we were in line with building a 12 foot sign. I will say, I don't know if all of y'all are familiar with the location of the sign. It's on a sloped ground. And when I say it's on a sloped ground, the brick wouldn't be as, like, two foot all the way across. It would be two foot at the highest, you know, the lower grade, if you will, of the property, if that makes sense. Okay? And... Of course, you've got this picture up there. I just brought some big, this was the original sign, obviously, on that. We do have a letter. I know it might be a little late from the business owner.

Yes, sir. We've got that in our packet.

Oh, beautiful. Beautiful. Okay. And we certainly learned, I don't know, I don't remember who we had spoken to, but a taller sign is allowed if it's a pylon or, you know, free space in between the poles and not be in a monument. That's pretty much what I got for you guys.

One thing to add, too, is they want to take the same.

Hold on one second. If you're going to comment, I do need you to be sworn in. Sorry. No problem. 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. Now please state your name for the record and who you're here on behalf of.

My name's RJ Jenkins with Jenkins Signs, and I'm here on behalf of Whatcom Offlooring as well. Brian, the owner, Brian Squires, the owner of Whatcom Offlooring, has stated that he wants to take the same brick that's on the bottom of the sign and do a facade on the front of the building to tie them in together too. So it's more for the beautification of the town as well. So I wanted to make sure that that was on the forefront of.

obviously we appreciate what you've said but we literally cannot take those things into consideration um uh the the fact that it's going to tie in with the building was something we appreciate but that's not we're here to address a very very narrow thing um and obviously we hate that the sign was destroyed we hate that i can assure you and i respect the fact that there are other signs in that area that are currently legal non-conforming because they were in existence prior to the adoption of these parts of the UDO. We had this exact same issue last month and denied it. The exact same issue. Sign itself was under 10 feet, brick facade at the bottom was going to push it over 10 feet, and we denied it. All these new gateway corridors were kind of coming into town, whether or not it's actually a gateway corridor or not, but where they're all coming into town, we're getting pretty strict scrutiny. from city council to make sure we're conforming to what we've got to do so that everything from this point forward is in conformity. I respect the fact that it's already been made, but it was made before the permit was issued. Again, that's something that we can't really consider. That's a financial issue and there's language in what we're supposed to do that says that's not something we can consider.

there does anybody have any further questions i have one yeah as far as the height of the sign yeah where are we basing the bottom of the sign are we basing it from the roadway or the very lowest point that's because there's there's a foot foot and a half drop off from the roadway to the base of the cam all those things are measured from the from the building um the sign height the vertical distance measured from the average

finish grade at the base of the sign to the highest point top of the sign or supporting structure. So it's in the middle, essentially, on this one? Right.

Let me ask you this, just to throw it out there. So we're talking about a two-foot base right now. Yes, sir. What if we were to reduce that base down to, say, like a foot and a half? I mean, yes, they put something over Kim's foot, but not that much.

Again, I appreciate all these facts, and these are the type that it stinks for us for these to come in front of us, because I understand there's a lot of stuff at play. We're really supposed to look at, is it too tall? Right. And that's something that we've been kind of... Because if we do one... You know, one foot over is the same as 100 foot over in terms of it is over. And... we literally had to tell somebody no last month for this exact same issue and i just we've kind of set the precedent there and if if we change our mind less than 30 days later um because of circumstances we're not really supposed to consider that could put us in quite a pickle um Any questions?

I mean, it's just that when we look at the criteria and the four conditions that we're supposed to look at, you know, it's not anything exceptional for your property than the property next to it. You know, if there was an extenuating circumstance that was different for your property than someone else's, but there's not. You know, so the next person that comes along says you did it for them, then we'd have to do it, you know, for them as well.

And what we said last month was if we do it now, we are basically amending the UDO on our own, which we do not have the power to do. That comes from city council. We'd be amending it. on our own because once we tell one person they can do it then obviously we've told everybody that comes after that they can do it and in that same vein we just told somebody that can't do it okay we've got a hard time telling somebody that can't do it have y'all considered the fact that since you can't have a pylon and it can be the pylon can be taller than that by how not a pylon a freestanding post sign if you don't have the brick

How high would you be?

It would be 10 foot without brick. He just wouldn't have any brick.

What I'm trying to say is if you've already started the sign, I'm just trying to think how can we save the sign.

That's basically what's going to happen is we're going to nix the brick off of it. And the brick looks nice. It's going to be what makes the sign look beautiful for the town. And that was my main concern was like we want to make it look good for the town. I just knew you said you'd already constructed it. I mean it does look nice.

Yeah, the sign's built, it's just the brick comes later.

Amen.

yeah i mean but we did tell some the same exact thing like yeah last month and what did they do were they gonna they're just redoing it to be 10 feet yeah but they hadn't obviously they had no they had not built their lower and that's what makes this one yeah really rough for us because we're not supposed to consider that that's the at some level a mistake was made but it wasn't us sure so we're which we certainly feel that we we feel that for that situation but like i said if we were to say yeah you can do it at 10 and a quarter all of a sudden we've changed the rules that now everybody can do it at 10 and a quarter right whether and i also would like to add that Us ruling based off the four criteria and based off what the UDO says does not necessarily mean we agree with what the UDO says. We don't have the authority to amend it. Does anybody else have any questions? Is there anybody else here to speak for or against this particular variant? anything else from you guys okay all right i'm going to make a motion that would close public input sorry all right we have a second any further discussion all right all those in favor all those opposed all right um Yeah, I hate this. I really do. But we literally had this exact same issue last month. We had to tell some people know on the exact same thing. We certainly appreciate and understand that there are special circumstances on this. Unfortunately, they're not circumstances that we're really able to apply to this particular situation. Can I ask one more question?

like if we were to if we were to rebuild it to where we needed to combine a couple tenant panels a couple tenant panels and remove that to get that two foot brick yeah would that be as long as it's within the tent if the whole thing's underneath you're good and that's a staff question but yeah i mean as long as the whole thing's on i'm just trying to figure out what gold waste if the customers it's just the overall how to make it work

yeah it's it's not the fact that there's the bridge i think it looks great i'll say i think if current the picture looks great um i know it will look great both y'all every sign i've seen both y'all do looks great this doesn't have anything to do with aesthetics um we're just kind of we're currently with this one we're pigeonholed into a weird a weird position that we don't like being in because these conversations obviously aren't easy and it stinks that we have to do it i wish that picture was tinted

I mean that looks so much better than the sun that was there absolutely well I do know the staff will work with you to

whatever you need on getting it getting it into conformity. So unfortunately, I'm going to make a motion that we did not. So we have a second any further discussion. All right, all those in favor. All those opposed. All right. And that is it. So my guys appreciate the opportunity. Yes, sir. Again, no worries. All right.