Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, I got 6 o'clock. We'll go ahead and get started with the regular meeting of the North Augusta Board of Zoning Appeals for January 6, 2026. Happy New Year everybody. First thing we'll do is a roll call. London Smith, Kathy Stalworth, Kevin Skaggs, Bill Burkhalter,

Newman is absent, and we have a quorum. So, we can move forward here. Uh, the next item is approval of the minutes from November meeting. I didn't see anything this time. Anybody have any corrections to make? Um, I just have two two corrections. They're just grammatical. on the second back of the first page. I guess that's the second page in the um where the paragraph starts director paradise. You see that Tommy? Yes, ma'am.

The building is vacant and the last sentence the building is vacant and bes should be beside some self storage buildings. It says besides need to leave that s off and then only just to make it flow better. Uh Mr. Cardness in the next paragraph stated this was going this was only going to be for retail sales only. Let's get rid of that first only. I wasn't object, but I I underlined them because I knew you were going to

Oh, and then okay, on the third page, uh first paragraph, I think it's confusing. Um the second third sentence, the applicant wants to put up a sign at the back of his shop for customers to be able to find his phone. It should be I mean, weren't we trying to find his shop? change that shop.

Yes. And then the back of the home fronts an alley. Actually, it's the um store or his shop that fronts the alley. The back of his home fronts his shop. And then you've got the shop and then the alley.

How do you want that wording? Um just I think put shop in the place of home in both those anything else. I have a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Second. All right. Good. Okay. All right. Minutes are approved with as correct. Thank you. All right, we have confirmation of the agenda. We have two applications to review. One is a special exception request for a home occupation and the second is a variance request for sign. Anything else need to discuss consider the agenda is confirmed. Okay, we'll move on to the first one. Is Z25-012 a request by Daryl Frasier for a special exception for a home occupation to operate an an administrative home office for a licensed residential builder from table 5.1 use matrix of the North August Development Code. The request affects approximately 0.43 43 acres zone PD plan development located at 343 Old Walnut Branch Road parcel number 010-9-02-168. I'll go ahead and open up the public hearing for this particular application. So I'll ask Mr. Perise to

uh Yes, sir. Mr. Jeremy, this is um in um Walnut Grove section. I believe it's 7 343 Old Walnut Branch Road. It's for a home occupation for construction company. That company would be limited to having only his office there. Um we put some recommendations in the staff report to prohibit the storage of construction um any construction materials outside and also any um li and limit any people from coming and going from the location that is related to the business. So it will be strictly as as he has requested only for basically a place for his books and to do his um address for his business. This gives you the aerial of his um neighborhood. See it's your typical single family residential. It is in a planned development u zoning district. These are photographs of his uh house. See, riding down the road is your tickle typical single family detached home. He does have an outdoor garage with a lean to carport that is partially constructed. And you see his backyard here as well. I would bring to your attention that after the U agenda packet went out um I was contacted by a member of the HOA in

objection uh to this application. He forwarded to me as as I told him. uh he he sent me an email with documenting the objection and uh included a copy of the covenants and I I forwarded that to y'all for y'all to look at and have time to look at prior to the meeting and also um a copy of that is at the dis for your review as well. Any questions for me? Uh just to you mentioned about the home the covenants can you restate the position them how they fall down here and and Mr. Burke Halter is the attorney up there. So, um he may disagree, but I see it as two separate entities, two separate tracks. You have the BZA application for special exception with the criteria established for the BZA. And if you find that all of those that he meets all of those, uh you may grant the special exception. that does not preclude the HOA from taking action through the court of com the appropriate judicial measures um against the property owner as well. It's two separate things. One's through the city and then the other one would be a civil action. And Mr. Burke Halter, please tell me if you disagree.

That's that's correct. We the BCA does not have jurisdiction of what's in the covenants or the HOA I guess that a separate matter and and if you look he he was kind enough unlike others he was kind enough to provide a copy of the covenants and in the covenants it shows what kind of actions they can take and and and enforcing the measures there. I thought it was well done. Right.

And he did I I would point out though that in his letter he did make um um two um as far as the criteria he made three um opinion factors. Um, one on item two, he said the approval for business use could injure the value of adjoining properties. Of course, that's for y'all to determine. Um, item four, the location and character use would not be compatible with existing uses adjacent to and near the property. Such use could adversely affect the neighborhood in which the use is proposed. Again, that's a question for y'all. And then also item seven or criteria seven use would be detrimental and disturbing to surrounding land uses due to noise and potential for increased traffic related to the commercial activity. Just so that we've got that all out there. Mr. Chairman, make sure we all the same understanding. Um any questions for M. Paradise? One other thing about the he did have some recommendations in the back. I'm not going to well um if y'all were to approve it u they requested that you may um put some restrictions on there. So no construction machinery would be permitted at the residence and no customers, employees or subcontractors are permitted at the residence for business purposes. So if we get that far, we'll discuss those in addition. That's the way I was going to do it. And the gentleman who sent us sent us in with Danny Gettis at 100 Cottonwood

Court. Any other questions? Fair. Okay. The applicant forward and I have to swear you in. So you swear to tell truth, hold truth, nothing but truth. So helping God. Yes, sir. Okay. State your name and address for the record, please. I'm Daryl Frasier. Address is uh 3431 branch northwest of South Carolina. And can you anything else you want to add to this or?

Uh I would add that uh far as just the administration side of the business, I would run it typically the way that I run it at Bradfield Bradfield and Gory. As you see on my resume, it's eight billion dollar company and uh I operate off my laptop and my backpack you see me come in with. Uh I send in anywhere from been there 14 years. So I send in invoices anywhere from a million to $20 million off that laptop. And I would run this business the same way. It's just a hobby. has been one of my personal development goals I wanted to achieve. So, and then I'm trying to make a transition from that commercial side of the world that I've been traveling for 14 years back home because I'm I'm a traveler. So, I'm just trying to make a transition and get back to uh North Augusta

and and run my own business at some point. And this is needed for my license to exist. I got to have some kind of resident for the business to exist. Get it started. This is strictly administrative work. You would be doing it in the home.

Yes. Like everything you see in the picture. I talked to Danny on the phone. I do a lot of projects for myself. You know, everything you see at my house and my other properties. I pretty much do it myself on my free time because I'm not here on the week during the week and just two days out the weekend. So, I don't have much time trying to get that time back for this transition. You anticipate storing any equipment or anything the house or

uh No sir. I'm I'm going to treat it the way I've been uh operating at Brassville and Gory. Uh, I work out of Birmingham. I got transferred to Savannah to finish up that federal courthouse down there. Uh, I'm not going to store tools or equipment or materials at this residence. Same way I do deal with Bradfield and Gory. We don't store anything at the office that's associated with the job sites other than uh resumes, invoices, office materials. What about uh saw you not going to talk discuss matter you meet with customers at the house you have no clients there you're not anticipating that how about subcontractor

no sir so as I was constructing that uh detach and that lean to that I'm currently in the process of now I don't like a lot of people at my house so I did all of that work 90% of that work by myself. I don't like everybody coming to my house. You don't anticipate a whole lot of any traffic. I don't I don't I don't anticipate no traffic. No, that's right. No. Somebody finds my address and and claim that I owe them for a job and they they pop up. Can't answer that. But no traffic. Make sure I understood it right. You have any questions?

Right. I just um So just no equipment at the No equipment. You see equipment now and that's in the process of doing my stuff at my house and proving my property. Other than that, no equipment. I don't own any equipment. So, you won't have a identification sign or anything like that property, will you? Other than my hat. Your hat? How about on your truck or anything? No, I'm not gonna put one on my truck because uh like I said, I'm still in the trying to transition back home to run the business and I don't want to fully advertise it in that manner because I can't do the work and I can't be home to do business.

So, you're looking to become a uh get out of the commercial business and become a residential home builder. Exactly. I've been traveling 14 years anywhere from Wyoming to Texas to California, Washington DC and uh kind of got burned out. Right. Speaking of uh advertisement and things like that, the address won't be published anywhere. From what you said, I don't think you're publishing it in any anywhere that anyone could probably possibly find you locations,

right? And I made that determination for part of one of my personal developments with this home builder thing. I was over the clubhouse in the ballpark as the general foreman down here. And I was home. This is home. And I was home for the two to three years that we was constructing this down here. So that kind of help inspired me to get back home. Do you have equipment that you store elsewhere? No. Not. So none. So would you be renting a facility or getting a facility later maybe for that or

as right now I got two buddies that's supposed to build two uh triplexes in a single family home in Warrenville and we going to try to sub 100% of the job out to other contractors which lead me to not you know have equipment uh haul stuff back and forth from the job site. from Lowe's or Home Depot, even from my residents. I don't want to do all I don't want to get into that. I want to hire hire a sub and let him do the hard work, do the labor. I just want to work the books in from the confinement of my bedrooms or any place in my house.

Got anything any questions? No, I'm good. I think we're good. Thank you. Thank you.

Does anybody else want to come forward to speak for or against this application? We mentioned the one we got in the mail from Mr. Gettis. Talk about the points that he opposed. We'll go we'll go through all that and his recommendations. So I will with that I will close the public hearing on this application. We'll get into the consideration phase and there are 11 criteria to get a uh special for special exception and you got to meet all 11. In addition there are 18 criteria for home occupation that got to meet also. and we will revisit a couple of those since it was brought out in the letter from Mr. Gettis. But uh we'll get to we'll discuss those 18 um at the end question before we do discussion question 11. So what I'll do is I'll read the criteria. I'll read the uh the applicant's response to the criteria. I'll read the staff notes and then we'll discuss among ourselves whether we agree or disagree with whether they meet the criteria and we got to do that for all of it. So I got to do a lot of reading so just bear with me. Get started. All right. The North Augusta Development Code section 18.8.4 Four defines the criteria the board shall use to hear in used in hearing and deciding upon requests for special acceptance following the staff analysis of the items submitted staff responses and appallet. The first criteria number one the use complies with all regulations conditions

and standards of this chapter unless approved as a major waiver. The applicant states the proposed homebased construction office will fully comply with all applicable regulations, conditions and standards of the North Augusta Development Code. No variances are being requested. The office will strictly the office will be strictly administrative in nature and all operations will follow any conditions established by the board of zoning appeals. Staff notes that the home occupations are regulated under section 5.3.7 home occupations of the North Augusta Development Code. Construction contractor business offices are specifically addressed in section 5.3.7 item 18 which allows such offices provided materials are stored entirely within an enclosed structure and are not visible from offsite. Based on the applicant statement and submitted materials, the proposed use is administrative only. So, are we good with item number one?

I am.

So, we I am too. So, we're good with number one. Number two, the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining properties or the use is a public necessity. This is one of the items that was brought up in Mr. Gett's letter. The applicant states, "All work occurs quietly inside the home with no noise, traffic, or visible business activity. There will be no impact on neighboring property values or residential character. Staff notes that section 5.37.6 Six, home occupations of the North Augustus Development Code. Requires that home occupations remain subordinate to residential use and not alter the exterior appearance of the dwelling. Based on what was submitted and discussed, I'm okay with this.

I am too. Yeah. The only thing I was looking at was and I know it's probably not totally related but it says pro prohibit prohibit prohibit I can't even say it of business act business activities article I think it's what 78 section five it talks about no business activities whatsoever I know that's obviously with the homeowners association but what is the consequence of that I mean like from a homeowners perspect perspective what's the consequence quence of in their case violating that. I mean, did anybody read that in what he sent us or you reading out of the uh

Yeah, out of the covenants like what was the what's the action they could take? I guess that's that was a civil that would be a civil matter there. There's fines that the HOA can assess. They could also foreclose if it's not paid. I got you. and and they could probably take uh the property owner uh to some kind of civil court and uh have a hearing asking the judge to give a court order to stop it. I got you. Okay. Yeah, I'm good with two. I just wanted to know that I that's what he's citing. I want to know what what happens. We're all good with two. Yep.

Number two. All right. We're good with number two. Number three, the use is of a size, shape, and character suited for the proposed site. The applicant states the homebased construction office will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or nearby properties. No exterior changes, increase noise, or visible business activity will occur. The residential appearance and character of the property will remain unchanged, ensuring continued protection of the surrounding property values. Staff notes that section 5.3.7 items 5 through7 require that home occupations not be visibly ev evident from the outside from outside the structure that the appearance of the dwelling unit not be altered surrounding properties are residential in character proposed use shall maintain compatibility with the neighborhood home occupation will use less than 23% of the residence number Yeah.

All right, we're good with three. Fits in with code.

Number four. Location and character of the use if developed according to the information as submitted and approved will be compatible with the existing uses adjacent to and near the property and will not adversely affect the development of the neighborhood or the district in which the use is proposed. The applicant states the proposed use is consistent with the intent and character of the residential zoning district. The office component is low impact, administrative only and will not alter the residential nature of the neighborhood. No employees or customer traffic will be present on site and no materials or equipment will be stored outdoors. Staff notes that the property is located within a PD plan development district where home occupations are permitted subject to a compliance with the development code. This low impact administrative occupation. I'm good with number four.

All right, we're good with number four.

Item five, the use will not create traffic impacts or parking issues that will endanger public safety or contribute to traffic congestion or unacceptable, adversely impact nearby properties when compared with uses permitted by right in the same zoning district. The applicant states the homebased office will not create additional traffic, congestion, or parking issue. All administrative work will be done remotely from within the home. No client meetings, deliveries, or business related vehicle activity will occur at the property. Visting residential parking is sufficient for the intended use. Staff notes that the North Augusta Development Code prohibits a home occupation from increasing traffic or on street parking inconsistent with the residential area.

No, I'm good.

Good. You're good. So, we're all good. Number six, the use is consistent with existing and planned pedestrian and vehicle circulation adjacent to and near the property. The applicant states the proposed use will not alter or interfere with the existing or planned pedestrian or vehicular circulation patterns. All movement around the property will remain typical of residential use and no modifications to driveways, streets, or circulation paths are required. Staff notes that the proposed use does not require changes to access circulation or site design. Pedestrian and vehicle circulation shall remain consistent for residential use within the PD district. You go with six.

I'm good with six.

We're all good. All right. Number seven. The use will not be hazardous, detrimental or disturbing to surrounding land uses uh due to noise, light, glare, smoke, odor, fumes, water pollution, ruction of air flow on adjoining properties, or general nuisances. The applicant states the homebased construction office will not produce noise, odor, glare, fumes, vibration, or any nuisance that would affect surrounding land uses. All work performed is administrative, phone calls, scheduling, computer work, planning, and will not involve construction activity, machinery operation, or materials handling on site. Staff notes that section 5.37 item 4 prohibits home occupations from creating nuisance impacts. Section 5.37, item 19F, prohibits construction trades where activities occur on site. with seven.

I'm okay with that. I'm good with that. We're all good with seven. Number eight, the use will be adequately served by essential public services and facilities and will not require additional public expense. The applicant states that all essential public services, including water, sewer, police, fire, and emergency access are already adequate for residential use and will not require expansion or additional public expense. Homebased office does not increase demand for public infrastructure. Staff notes that the proposed home occupations does not increase demand for utilities or public services beyond what is typical for single family residents. Good with eight. Good with it.

We're all good with eight. Number nine, the uses will not adversely affect any site or feature of historical, cultural, natural, or scenic importance. The applicant states the property does not contain or impact any site of historical, cultural, natural, or scenic significance. The proposed use involves no physical alteration of the property that could eventually affect such resources and staff notes that no physical modifications are proposed and not and no protected resources are present on the site. Good night. Good. I'm fine. All the walnut trees are already gone.

So, we're good. We're good. Number 10, that the proposed use will not conflict with but will further the objectives of the city of North Augusta comprehensive plan. The applicant states that the homebased office aligns with the objectives of the city of North Augusta comprehensive plan by supporting small business development, encouraging entrepreneurship, and allowing low impact home occupations that do not alter neighborhood character. The use blends seamlessly into the residential area while supporting local economic activity. Staff notes that the comprehensive plan support small-scale entrepreneurship that maintains neighborhood compatibility into proposed home occupation functions as an accessory residential use. I'm good with 10. Good.

So, we're all good with 10. Number 11. The use will not materially endanger the public health, safety, and welfare if located, designed, and proposed to be operated according to the information submitted. A denial by the BZA based exclusy on this language shall include explicit findings regarding the way in which granting this special exception would endanger public health, safety, and welfare. The applicant states, "The proposed homebased construction office will not endanger public health, safety, and welfare. The use is low inensity, administrative only, and conduct entirely indoors. No employees, customers, or business equipment will be present on site, ensuring the use remains safe and compatible with the neighborhood. Staff notes that the proposed use complies with section 5.3.7 home occupations and does not in introduce hazardous conditions for incompatibility activity. The use does not materially endanger public health, safety or welfare. So since the staff notes references the 5.3.7 home applications that's the 18 criteria and in response to the letter we got a couple of them we need to related that I want to talk about make sure we could discuss. Um so the staff said we we meet they meet all 18 of them. So number four says the use shall not create disturbing or offensive noise, vibration, dust, smoke, dust, odor, heat, glare, traffic hazards, or any other type of nuisance as defined within the North Augusta code of ordinances. I think we're good there.

No, I think no. You mean while talking about what he's Yeah. Well, with this does it be meeting criteria, right? Yeah. Another one I circle was number seven. The home occupation should not be conducted in in a manner that would cause the premises to differ from its residential character or use a character by use of colors, materials, construction, lighting, signs, or increased traffic or the emission of odor, sounds, or vibrations. I think we're good there. Right. Yeah, y'all. Good.

Those are two I thought were related. We need to revisit any more of these criteria of the 18. I think I think covered it right. Good.

All right. So, agree with it. We staff notes on that particular one. So we've answered all 11. So if it says if approved, staff would recommend the following conditions. And there there are three here. Then I want to discuss the two that we came from the the letter from Mr. Gettis. Number one, the home occupation shall be limited to administrative office use only. Number two, no outdoor storage of materials, supplies, or equipment shall be permitted. Number three, no commercial vehicles shall be stored at the residence. Just for clarification, what do you consider commercial vehicles? That would be something that's used in his business and or businesses. That would be um skid steers, excavators, trailers,

um both flatbed trailers, dump trucks, um heavy duty trucks, that type thing. It would not include it would not include as pick up a pickup truck or something that you would normally find at a home. I think we're good there. It's the one trailer I see in that picture, but I don't I think that's temporary. Imagine. See the trailer covered left side. It is. And I don't know if that if it's if that is a work trailer or or not, but it does appear that it will be covered in out of sight. Yeah. You want to comment on that? There we go.

Drag race. Drag race. That's what he takes his he takes his car on. Okay. So, so those three. Are we good with those three? Yeah. Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, on on the staff recommendations, y'all had um mentioned signage and the applica applicant said he did wasn't going to have any signage. We did not put that in the staff report, but if you So, there's nothing that would prohibit him from putting signage in the future. If that's something you want, if you want to put that in there, that you could certainly put that in there at this time to

um you know, so we have that regulation if you wanted to. Um I think it's Yeah. The wording No outdoor signage. Okay. Yeah. No signage. Outdoor

outdoor signage business. Okay. Two that were recommended in the letter. We may already have them covered. recommending no construction machinery and in parentheses skid skid steers, mini excavators, trailers, etc. permitted at the residence. We already have that covered in the right and not in number or three. Okay. Yeah, we've got that covered.

And then this second bullet, no customers, employees or subcontractors are permitted at the residence for business purposes. I don't know that I well that that was covered that was covered already which one it is um number one what is it

is it it's number one I believe stalworth home occupation shall be limited to administrative office use only on the proposed recommendations you know, it talks about 10 business trips per day or something like that. So there's I guess there's a

now this is um you know under if approved staff would recommend the following there's number one underneath that. Yeah I was think about the criteria. Oh, okay. So, it's almost like there's some allowable traffic on the me when I read that I said that bullet think it's a little bit too somebody might need to drop off a drawing something and so that was just my fault when I saw that. I don't know how in one of they or in one of the homeowners this no okay there's no customers or boys or subcontin

it's the back of their first sheet of the hard copy of the email.

No, it's on the back of the first page. Back of the first page right above his signature. So, I don't know how y'all feel. That's already I think the first dots covered. Clearly covered. Yes. Both the requirements city and indications from that already discussed second.

I mean, how do you how do you uh control that? Okay, somebody come by or you left this in my office, you know, I'm just returning it to you. That kind of thing. Think within reason, right? You got to be reasonable. I didn't know if we need to add that bullet in here.

I think it's sort of dimminimous. I mean, it's kind of it's not going to be I mean, most you probably get paperwork, I would imagine. It's not a steady flow of people in and out. And that would be, you know, he he he said about his wife working from home. That's a separate issue

and people come her her work somebody fellow employee coming to see her would not be covered under this ordinance or or order that would be separate and so we would have to prove that but he doesn't anticipate like I said a steady stream of people coming to bring you stuff or whatever Right.

Right. So, let me ask you, do you have any issues with this bullet? Then it says no customers, employees, or subcontractors are permitted at the residence for business purposes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Almost like you can meet at like a coffee shop. You know what I mean? Yeah. Already said it's limited to Yeah.

Right. And you can't help it if if somebody happens to come by. Like I said, because you left something at their office and they, you know, on the way home, I just wanted to bring it to you. You can't help, Mr. Chairman. If if y'all gonna discuss with the applicant, he needs to really come back to the microphone so we can get him recorded. I personally I think it's a little bit too I think he's intended to meet this bullet, but as written down as a condition, I think it's a little restricted. What do you think? How can we word it so it's not so restrictive? Maybe min like minimal. It's the word minimal.

Yeah, minimal customer employees are so contra we put that in there. Then it sounds like affecting it. I just think that's the way it was written in the letter and I know Mr. Get is a good person, smart person. I think he's got some responsibility with the HOA. I'm not sure. But I just think that's that's just too restrictive because you we put that in there and the you know just happen stance somebody comes typically some kind there Frzer's house and somebody runs out and said oh you violate the rules. We don't want we don't want to hang that kind of harness. I I would say and and and maybe I shouldn't, but there is not Mr. Gettis, but there are some individuals with the HOA there. We we our code enforcement office has received half a dozen complaints a day um for, you know, every now and then. And they're they are not code enforcement issues, they're HOA issues. So I just say that so that you know that they have HOA members or board members or people in authority that are out there looking um for issues.

Yeah, I think that's too I think it's too restrictive. I do. I mean because like Bill said if somebody comes by just happen stance by and then you've got these people that are you know looking for trouble. I think we I mean that's I would call it um I think we just can't put that in there.

So the the first bullet is covered. The second bill we'll leave out. So we left with four. So um we've answered an affirmative for all 11 criteria and of the for special exceptions with four conditions normal motion maker out. So you have to go back to your your old

retirement here. Okay. Based on the findings previous previously discussed and voted on, I move that application number Z25-012 Frasier and Sunb Builders and Remodeling LLC, a request by Daryl Frasier for special exception pursuant to sections 5.37 home occupation North Augusta development. code to for a uh home occupation business be granted with the following conditions and we have four. Number one, the home occupation shall be limited to administrative office use only. Number two, no outdoor storage of materials, supplies or equipment shall be permitted. Number three, no commercial vehicles shall be stored at the residence. Number four, no outdoor signage related to the business shall be visible.

Second motion got a second. Any other discussion? All in favor handception is approved. Good luck to you. Our next item is ZV25-012 and appeal by Jill Leemax for a variance from article 9 signs tabled 9.3 to exceed the 300 square foot max area for all signs by adding an additional 182.31 square ft of illuminated and non-illuminated signage to the Edgewood Plaza. The request affects approximately 19.89 acres zone GC General Commercial located at 171 Edgewood Drive, PPN00006-12-05-00001. that I will open up the public hearing for this application from Mr.

Uh Mr. Chairman, this let me start out by saying that this one has caused me some pause as I have drilled into it and and and I want to be looking at going forward, am I really interpreting this correctly? Um right now um table 9.3 in the general commercial you can have a maximum um area of 300 you can have um percentage of the ground floor area 10 for that and total sign area and linear foot of the frontage is three and we interpret that right now for the parcel and then you take the lesser of those. So it generally always comes out to 300 square ft. what we have done been doing in these type situations on the new uh and I may be telling you more than you need want to know but on new constructions we get a sign package an overall sign plan of what the different tenants are going to get. This is an Edgewood Square. It is a older shopping center that is really coming back to life um and is looking good. But we look at that 300 square ft for everybody for for per parcel. Um in other shopping centers, you typically take a sign down and you put that same size back up. And of course um our code allows you to replace a non-conforming sign. So that's how we've

been doing that in this particular case. And this is a little bit of it. Um down here I think yeah and the old Roses store. Um, and you can see where the Roses store is being separated out. You got sign A, sign B, got Burlington in the middle. Roses has been divided into three different shops. So, that kind of shot us in the foot about replacing signage. Same square footage that you had up there because each tenant space is going to want signage. So that's why we're here and um because of the 300 square foot limit. Now just to give you an idea back here of some of the signage. This is the signage that uh Marshalls is proposing. Um, whenever I looked at it, uh, well, to give you an idea, the signage up there now for Roses was 147.53 square ft. Um, it's taken Marshall's is one of three tenant spaces and they're requesting a wall sign of 156.2 2 and then two signs on columns of 4.57 square ft each and that'll give you a total of 165.34. Uh you'll see there in the middle a canopy sign. It's my understanding and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong that they're doing away with the

under canopy sign. Uh they're refacing the existing freestanding sign which is 54 square ft, but it's not all 54. They're sliding in and using half the panel. Um that was for roses. And when we get down there, I don't know what we're going to do when the third one comes in, but we'll we'll handle that then to give you some idea. Find the right one. There you go. This is some other signage in the shopping center. Kind of give you an idea. Tractor Supply has 192 square ft. Hobby Lobby has 254 square ft and Five Below has 187 square ft. The other ones I don't look at as being your big box or your anchors. They're more of your smaller um tenant spaces. Um now to give you an idea of you know what does this look like and this this is the freestanding sign how Marshalls is going to go in where Rosses was out. So that doesn't need a variance. You know we're good with that. All right. So when we look at Marshalls, you know, one of the things from my end um that I always think about is the architectural. How does it blend in? Is it is the signage overbearing or or is it to scale so to speak? And when I looked at the front face of Marshalls, it's 90 the least space, excuse me. If you take the walls, the lease space, and it says 76 and three inches there, but that's not the lease

space. They sent us some other diagrams this morning that I got that space from. It's 97 ft wide and it's about 25 1/2 ft high. So that gives the front face of that wall about 2,473.5 square ft. Just the face of that building. Um the total wall size on that 2400 almost 2500 square ft is 165.34 square ft. Now Miss Stalworth I'm not good in English and math was certainly not my subject. Okay, but by my math that comes out to about 6.6% 6% of the front face of that building, which tells me, you know, I I I see a lot of codes and I see 10% of front face. So, some some codes go by the wall surface. You get a certain percentage. Some of them are 10%. Some of them are 20%. Yeah. Um, I think this one falls within that parameters of meeting that um, scale to building. Um, for what it's worth. I know I'm not supposed to advocate, but I just this one's a little different. Want to make sure I got all the information out there. And just so you know, the total of all the signage um, in the shopping center is 785.74 square ft. now without roses, cassa de pizza, and star nails. And that's because Paris couldn't find permits for those. So, I probably told you a lot more than you wanted to hear on this application. Um, but do you have any questions for me?

Well, I have a question. Um, are we just talking now about the Marshall sign? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Marshalls is the only application you have. You may have another one next month for another tenant space. I'll Who else is going in there besides Burlington? I don't know. Oh, okay. Um I just I just wanted to be clear that we are just talking about Marshalls. Yes, ma'am.

So, go to the the page where you had to show the Biden stores. I will I got it up here so that they can see it. Yes. Upper right hand. Mhm. So sign A. That's the Marshalls in the blue. Right. The blue would be Marshalls. Yes. All right. And so Burlington and then the green. So is Burlington between I'm looking at this.

Burlington will be in the middle. in the middle. So, it looks like is there room for a comparable size sign to be in that space? And that's where from from what I have looked at for Burlington. Yes. But um we'll need to get some better diagrams as dimensions on what is their lease space across, what is the height of the building, determine that percentage and and see if it's going to fall in scale um as well.

Okay. There's one thing though, um, I have, you know, from my experience, which is, you know, you for what it's worth, the people that lease these shopping centers, they're no dummies and they're pretty tight on their signage and what they allow and what they won't allow. It's important to the people that lease the p the buildings. You know, they're not going to come if they can't have signage, but typically there is u the property owner has final has a say in what goes up there as well so that there is compatibility um so that he can attract the next tenant and fill the spaces and keep the tenants happy.

So the property owner has a really reviewed this, right? Like a like a veto, right? Yeah, he would. I I I would think that he would. I haven't seen the contracts and that type thing. What I'm getting at is is a lot of times in the conditions we say what you install as to match what's in here. Mhm. And and then but if a prop the property owner wants to tinker with it a little bit, got to come back. Well, if if the property owner wanted to reduce it smaller, I don't think we'd have an issue with that unless y'all tell me so. But he certainly couldn't make it any larger. We have to word it right.

All right. All right. Thank you for clarification because I had all kind of notes wrote out and just I've been enlightened because I didn't understand. Yeah, said somewhere says somewhere our exceeding the 300 square feet by another 180 something square. So it's like what's the total footage of the

the proposed signage for for just Marshalls is 165.34 more questions. 300. I'm missing something, too. I don't Well, a whole parcel. Correct. And that's and that's But we're only talking about Marshalls,

right? But the 300 square ft covers the whole shopping center is the way we're interpreting it. Now, now I'm going to go back and full disclosure. I'm not I'm going to go back and I'm not ready to do this till I run some numbers, but say, okay, maybe we maybe I need to interpret this um so that you look at the facade. You know, what is the width of the facade and not the property line? and I need to drill into that. Uh I really didn't get into it till the last few days. Um like I said, it had hasn't been an issue until this one, but I want to make sure that if I go that right, excuse me, go that way. I'm not allowing something there. Looking for the unintended consequences before I go there and talk to other staff. But this sign is just for Marshalls. But by strict adherence to the code, the property now, the way I'm interpreting it, is non-compliant with the signage. Nobody could get a new sign in the shopping center.

That's the hard

Y. So um and their ask um you know from the planning department side is c certainly reasonable like I said it's less than six it's 6.6% 6% of the face of the building. That's if if our code went by the face of the building or the codes that I've seen go by the face of the building, 10% is the lowest I've ever seen. So that's why I say uh when you look at this, you may want to look at not only what the ordinance says, which is the right thing to do, but also does it meet the size and the scale, you know, for that shopping center because the shopping center, we can't have a shopping center and limit it to only 300 square feet. It just doesn't work. And that's why I'm struggling to be quite honest with you. Now, is Marshall's going in the um is the sign for Marshall's going to be where the roses sign was?

I'll let the applicant speak to that. I I doubt it because you're going to have that's going to be divided in three, right? And they were probably centered. Um so, I'll let the applicant talk about how they're going to do that. But each tenant space there will need a sign and a wall sign because business is not going to come without a wall sign question. Okay. How about the applic I have to swear you in. So raise your hand please and you swear to tell truth hold true not but truth to God.

All right. Please introduce yourself and state your address for the record, please. Um Jill Limax, Charleston, South Carolina. Okay. Jim Herie, um North Charleston, uh South Carolina with Anchor Sign and I'm uh 4251 South Rhett Avenue uh in North Charleston Park Circle area right there. Thank you. Thank you. And before we start, we our mistake, which is terrible because I think we're the greatest sign company, but we screw up. We have better drawings that are updated. They look a little cleaner. Okay. I'm happy to hand those over and and we even put it on a blow up here. So, it might help out a little bit. All right. Sure.

But I think it's you are correct in saying that we're not wanting to exceed that 300. Um it's our understanding that because it's being divided into three parcels now we are limited to what roses have which was would have been 300 which means that we get 100 100 which um going back to your point about you know the code says 10% of the facade. So really if we just looking at the marshals portion we would be allowed and we're just you know we're not trying to go the basic size that a typical marshall with um it's about 15. So to the point is that we are under you know the if we were treated as a separate we're under that but unfortunately it's we have to share

and I'm gonna let Jim has a lot of um knowledge here absolutely and thank first off thank you Mr. Chairman, members, it's Thank you for letting us be in your town. Um, gorgeous area. I just had the best wings I think I've ever had like right across the street. So, I give you credit for that. It was phenomenal. Um, just answering a lot of the questions. First off, I thought that was one of the best staff discussions on the issue. The and and I have all the store frontage square foot so you can see it. But the issue is if you you again I I was reading the what the variance is for. This this is not we're not asking for 182 extra square feet above the 300. Really if the code was as it was that you get 10% of the facade or no more than 300. We're in the code. But to staff's point that whole entire side of the building is sharing 300 outside of the tractor supply. So Burlington would have to share 300. we would have to share 300 and whatever that third parcel ends up being if it gets filled they will then have to share. But under the current code if you use the storefront like you do for Hobby Lobby and the others we would have that 10% or up to 30 300 ft and the I I was just doing my math here. It's to the number that we're looking for is 165 square feet and 0.54 not 34 54. So, we're right in that model. Um, and I was wanted to just say, you know, this this store is going to open in fall of 2026. We've been doing work for TJ Maxx companies almost going on 17 years. And it's this is going to be an amazing shopping center that's redone. It's going to have the Hobby Lobby, which the Hobby Lobby, if you haven't, the signage is absolutely stunning. It just takes up the entire front of the building. It's gorgeous. It absolutely is a brilliant part of that of that center. Um along with Marshall's

Burlington, Five Below, Alta, this is going to be a great shopping center. The square footage for the front of our building for Marshalls is 24,000 ft. Uh Tractor Supply is 31,112 ft. Hobby Lobby is 50,285. Burlington is 24,564. So we're smaller than Burlington a little bit. And Max Fitness is 25,685. So, we are right in that space. Um, we have signage that we think will fit well. Uh, and I was just, you know, noting to this point that of these sizes that are there, we're going to be smaller than Tractor Supply, just a slight bit bigger than Roses, just barely a little bit bigger, but don't have any intention of anything other than just fitting the central part of that facade, just like Hobby Lobby has done. It's going to look almost identical in terms of how it fits perfectly on the facade where it's measured. It's not too big. It's I don't think it'll be too obstructive. It's going to be the the top will be internally illuminated. The two column signs will not be illuminated. Those will have timers on them. Um they're not going to be on 24 hours a day. It will fit well within the community. But again, to the point, it's it's either 300 or those three spots, the green, Burlington, and then Marshalls, or it's a split or is there an availability to put the code for Marshalls and I assume the code for Burlington and whatever the third is? That's a great question and that's so really we may not need the variance if if it's to deem that it's 300 or 10%. But if it's not, then we would need a variance saying, "Hey, these guys want to be able to do uh 154 165.54 square feet," which would be over the 100, it would be 65.54 ft above the 100. Either way,

as it stands tonight, they will need the variance. I have not changed my interpretation. So looking at this drawing so that you're saying the what are the dimensions of your the sign you'reing 66 inch high? Yeah, it's the next p next page is the full dimensions of the sign. 66 inch high and 28 and a half wide. Is that right? Yeah. So 66 inch letters. The the M will be that tallest. Okay. So the background is just the margins around there are just lost space. That's not part of the sign. Nope. All right.

I just need to make something clear. Get get in my mind clear. The the rose former rose store is being divided into three. Okay. It'll be three separate. But but so let let me I don't I didn't really ever go out there very much to roses, but um what we're looking at here on the upper right upper left picture is two of the one with the um awning over it. That is that's not y'all. I think I mean it's not any any of the three, right? You're just the roses store, but I couldn't remember how far the roses roses store went.

I think there might be a swim school or some kind of I was there today, but that's where that awning is. That's where the first location that first location is. So again, the roses stands out, but if you go all the way over to where that line and it gets up against that's where Marshalls will go out to. So I'm confused now. So which one is Marshalls in the upper left hand picture? Basically, it was so you're the Marshalls is a setback.

So, so it's originally Rose's original building. We're just the entrance way will be more to the center of where that that that smaller section is right there. So between those two columns yes almost exactly to that point. That's where our entrance will be. And then I guess tractor supplies in the far left. Yep. You can see right then so in between that is where the burden is coming. So that awning how does that go up in here? It does. The awning doesn't show up. It's not in front of them.

No. Right. Because the awning on that far that awning is a I think it's a swim school. I I maybe a swim school of some kind. I I saw water. I'm looking at the picture over your shoulder. The top left corner where it has roses. Then it has that red awning. That red awning is a separate I think it's separate. Yeah. Separate swim schools parcel. I don't It's a separate business at all. Yeah. It's a separate parcel. We're only um working with where that awning is to the left of it all the way to Charger Supply. That's that's a new storefront you're putting. Exactly. Sorry. There.

And it will look like that picture. That's the typical Marshall. So that will be and then um Burlington will have their own facade whether it's their typical looks like um and then whatever that so there will be three separate entrances and facades for these three businesses that be taken over current location.

Okay. So you're potentially we would have three businesses in that little middle section already. what we're talking about. They're going to make roses into three separate business,

three separate fac because because they are separate or they will be separate. We are still held unfortunately under the umbrella that we have to share with the 300 square feet between these. You see the 300 applies to the whole parcel the whole shopping center. Correct. So um there is not 300 ft to defide right now. Yeah. So I guess we have to discuss what's the reasonable

but I if I could if we're the first person in which it sounds like I don't know Burlington's come forward yet but if they have not we could help set that standard. So, a good size for that building. Now, we're smaller than Burlington. Of course, you know, TJ Maxx Corporation, they have everything thought out to a T is well, is that um is the square footage for that sign, which is coming out at uh 156.2. That's that front facade. 156.2 is at Marshalls. That's going to fit perfectly for what's 24,000 ft. Now, Burlington is 24,564 according to the measurements. their signage, and I can't speak for Burlington, should be similar to ours in size because it's it's that the third parcel, whatever that is, could be exactly the same. I don't have that size, but there it's going to be another 165 or 65 or 16. What is it? I think it's a 156.2 somewhere in there.

Correct. They should all line up around the same to look. So, in your vision, you can see those lining up all across. Well, we just think, you know, even with looking at Tractor Supply, you know, their sign compared to what Burlington will have, what we will have, what Hobby Lobby already have, what a typical five below has, what Ulta typically has doesn't put us out of the 10% that we weren't in this

there's been input obviously with Marshall, obviously for you guys when it comes to um I guess the landlord. Have y'all spoken with this individual? And if so, has he had input into size and design of the sign?

I can tell you that um our systems is you know we present you know we do a code check. As you know, our due diligence, we put together drawings to propose to the client because we love it. The rest of the landlord before we even enter the permit. So, we get permission from them. They get we get approval. We wouldn't even be in the state. They've already, you know, and again, we were we gotten a blessing. We had submitted for permit and thinking we're within our 10% not realizing there was another caveat and that's that's the only reason

that's the owner signature right here is it not yeah so the so the the application with those drawings the it has the um the property owner signature on it is have it right here it's uh Coastal Equities

Edgewood Square Investors Coastal Equities in Florida it's on the page of our application So just restating the hardship. We're going to get into the first question. It talks about the hardship. Is the hardship strict application of the code and the way the property is divided does not give you any allowance for a sign. That what we're saying? Yes sir. That's what we're preparing.

Okay. Now in fairness, we did write all of them to meet that 100 square feet. how difficult it would be C and all those. So all those are in there based on the current. So yes, but even if the property wasn't divided, it wouldn't there's not enough square footages there to the way we're looking at 300. It wouldn't matter. That right unless it was unless you were saying you could go back like you said just the same size as the road. Correct. Okay. All right. Yeah. So, three, if we had that whole facade, we still couldn't go above 300 temp. So, we're stuck in that whole space. Yeah. Okay.

Almost like we need three times what they have plus extra. Yeah. I think I got it. And and what we have run into the past is been basically been your box sign where you slide a panel out and slide a panel in. It's the first time we've run into this. Anybody have any more questions of that applicant? You mentioned 10%. Um, would that would cover you guys. Would it cover It would not cover Burlington. Obviously, would not cover It would. It would. So, it would cover two others of the same size of y'all's third. And the third and Yeah. times three. Okay. So, 10% would equal times three of that.

Just like all I'm guessing that you know, five below they would have gone. Yeah. It's an estimate for sure. Yeah, I understand. That's where that's where we start. Yeah. Okay. That's an Okay. Thank you. But but Mr. Smith, just to be clear, the 10%'s not in the code. Yeah. That's what I'm thinking is if you put it in or if we make a special exception, would we build 10% in? I would imagine you the application before the board is for Marshalls. Yeah. You have you're not Yeah, I got you. It is we see here that it is 10% or 300. Yeah. Or 300

up to this percent of wall area. That's where we start. That's the for partial wall the lesser of. So we know there wasn't 300. So that's why we Okay. So it is in the code for how we can hear. Any other questions? You have a comment? Yes. I'm I'm let it go.

Okay. Well, I think we're good. We might have to call you back up, please.

All right. Thank you. Anybody else want to speak for or against this application? Okay, now we'll close the public hearing application and we will move forward with the consideration. Um, variances have criteria like the previous one. I'll read the criteria and read the applicants position and then the staff notes and then we'll discuss ourselves and you got to meet all 10 in order to approve the variance and then we'll add conditions at the end. So I'll go ahead and get started. Again I'll be doing a lot of readings so bear with me. Okay. Following is analysis required by North Dakota development code section 5.1.4.5.B B and uh staff commentaries in bold and italics package. All right. Criteria number one for variance and unnecessary hardship exists. The applicant states the unnecessary hardship results from the strict application of the sign size limitations following the subdivision of the former Ros's parcel. Reduced sign allowance limits Marshall's visibility to motorists and pedestrians where when compared to other tenants within the same shopping center, creating a disadvantage that restricts the property's ability to function as intended. Staff notes that the applicant identifies an unnecessary hardship created by the strip application of the sign size regulations following the subdivision of the former Ros's parcel. Reduced sign allowance limits visibility for marshals when compared to other tenants within the same shopping center as I thought. So it's basically the strict

application. You wouldn't be able to put up a sign. So that to me that's that's the hardship. There's something else missing here thinking.

Yeah. I was thinking about the fact that these are three businesses going into the same place and I'm thinking that we're looking at this per business, right? Okay. So, okay. I'm just trying to think if we're looking at it per business, we're also looking at it with total parcel space with you see what I'm saying? Like the code is going to the whole thing and it's like per business I guess. So, the whole code is I guess what we're trying to figure out is I don't know. I'm just trying to get my mind right. Never mind. I'm going down.

That's what I was thinking. Strict application. They would not be there's no square footage left to put up a sign. Yeah. Allowable. So, that's the hardship that we got to and I I think they have a a a brand. They're not I mean, I shop at Marshalls. uh when I when I have one, you know, I'm near one and you know that you know that sign as we know track to supply and you that sort of thing. So, um I don't I think it would be a detriment if we can't if they couldn't put up the sign that they're known by. I and I agree and what they're proposing

right side. So anyway, I'm good with number one with the hardship. Good. I'm good. Yeah. Okay. So, we meet number one.

Number two, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. The applicant states the extraordinary conditions include the size and role of Marshalls as an anchor tenant, the store's location within the shopping center and the subdivision of the original parcel that reduce the allowable sign area. These conditions are unique to this site and directly affect how the sign regulations apply to the property. Staff notes that the applicant cites the size of the Marshall retail footprint as its role as an anchor tenant, his location within the shopping center, and the division of the original parcel as extraordinary or exceptional conditions. I agree this is extraordinary and except condition.

I do too. Yeah, it's kind of neat. I think are we good with number two? Yeah,

we're good with two. Number three, the conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The applicant states that the conditions described do not generally apply to other properties in the area because other tenants either retain signage allowance allowances based on their original parcel configurations or occupy smaller retail spaces. Subdivision of the former Ros's parcel created a circumstance specific to Marshalls that is not shared by other properties in the district. Staff notes that other properties within the shopping center either retain signage allowances based on their original parcel configuration or are smaller in scale. The conditions described by the applicant are specific to the marshall's parcel following subdivision and do not generally apply to other properties within the district. This subdivision

I think I think this is all very true. I'll give a three. We all agree with three. Number four, because of the conditions, the application of this chapter to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The applicant states that the current sign size limitation as applied to this subdivided parcel creates an unreasonable restriction on Marshall's ability to achieve adequate visibility. assistant with similarly situated anchor tenants. Signage is a critical component of retail operations and the restriction limits to the property's effective use. Staff notes that the signage is a critical component of retail operations particularly for the anchor tenants. In this in instance, the sign size limitation as applied to the subdivided parcel may restrict the buil applicant's ability to achieve visible visibly comparable similarly situated tenants within the same development. Yeah, I think it it's reasonable to want a sign

and when their location at the back of the shopping center, you want to be able to see it from Highway 25 and it's not and they're, you know, and you have to be able to see it quickly with all the traffic there. So, um, I think if we have it any smaller or less or more restrictive, uh, it's going to be a detriment. I think the way he laid it out allows room for two of the other two to put in there also. I think it's very reasonable. Yeah. Yeah. Go with number four. Four. Four.

Four. We're good with four. Number five. The authorization of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. harm to the character of the district may include structures that are significantly out of scale and the creation or potential for creation of excessive noise, light traffic or incompatible late night activity. The applicant states grant the variance will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties or the public good. The proposed sign will not exceed the size of other existing tenant signs within the shopping center and will remain consistent with the established commercial character of the district. Deaf note says the applicant proposes a sign that will not exceed the size of existing signs within the SPY center and will be consistent with the established commercial character of the area. Granting the variance is not expected to be result in the visual clutter, safety concerns or adverse impacts to adjacent properties, nor would it be harmful to the character of the district. I think what we've seen reflects that and also you got the approval of the land the property owner right

I think that helps. So are we good with number five or six? Five. I'm good with it. Yeah.

Good. All right. We're good with five. Number six. In the approval of an application for a variance from the provisions of article 9 signs regulating the size, height, appearance, or location of a sign. The board of zoning appeals shall also find that no alternative signage solution that complies with the provisions auto sign is available and provide adequate visibility, recognition and understanding. The applica states no alternative signage solution that fully complies article 9 will provide adequate visibility, recognition or understanding for the Marshall store given its size, location and role as an anchor tenant within the shopping center. Request variance is necessary to achieve fine vis signage visibility comparable to other tenants without exceeding the scale of existing signage in the development. Staff notes that the applicant has indicated that alternative signage solutions that fully comply with article 9 will not provide adequate visibility or recognition for the Marsh store given its size, location and ro within the property. I agree with that and they're within the 10%

and we really covered that earlier with their their particular sign that that um TJ Maxx pod would not approve if we make them do something different.

Yeah, good. We all good. We're all good with six. Number seven, the board of zoning appeals may not grant a variance to the effect of which would be a to allow the establishment of use otherwise permitted in the zoning district. De notes that the variance request applies only to sign size under article 9 and is an accessory is accessory to an existing permitted commercial use. Approval will not allow a not allow a prohibited use. Thank you. B to ex extend physically a non-conforming use of land. The subject use is a legally permitted commercial use where requested variance does not expand or intensify a non-conforming use. Bank C to change zoning district boundaries shown on the official zoning map. The applicant application does not propose a change to the zoning district boundary. We're all good with all good.

Number eight. If the unnecessary hardship is self-imposed by the applicant, the variance should not be granted. Hardship results from partial division parcel division and sign allocation requirements not from the actions taken by the applicant. The hardship is not self-imposed. I agree with that. Eight. Yeah. We are number nine. The fact that the property may be utilized more profitably should be variance be granted shall not be considered grounds for a variance. The applicant's request is not based on increased profitability, but achieving signage visibility compared to other tenants. I'm good with that. I always struggle with that one.

Now's your opportunity. I mean, if I I'll have to go to the legislature. I'm getting too darn old to go to do that. So, it's okay. Can you live with nine? I can live with nine. Okay, we're good with number nine.

Right. 10. And in granting a variance, the board of zoning appeals may attach to it such conditions regarding the location, character, or other features of the proposed building structure or use as the board may consider it advisable to promote the public health, safety, or general welfare. And the staff would recommend two uh conditions. Number one, the approved sign shall be constructed as conceptually shown in exhibit in the exhibit or smaller or he's already approved it. That's right. So the what you handed out is that the same. Okay. Just we took the under canopy out to make it clear and clean,

right? It was really confusing in the previous one. That's that's what that these drawings are identical in size. We just got rid of the under canopy. Okay. So this is title to this exhibit.

How you want to word this? I would suggest you go with the per they've submitted a permit application. I would approve it as with what's been submitted for the permit application le under canopy sign. Okay. So we'll say the approved sign shall be construction as conceptually shown in the permit in the application less the canopy sign. Sound right?

Yes sir. I let me the point I was trying to make earlier. I kind of want to just come back. I know I was all over the place. This is the thing I was thinking about. If they take out like let's say Hobby Lobby leaves, let's say Max Fitness leaves, right? you've opened up sign aotment basically. So if we approve of all this and it says any additional signage shall comply with all applicable provisions blah blah blah. If something else leaves technically they have more sign space and we've locked them into this. Y'all see what I'm trying to say with that? I mean, if depending on who is in this shopping center, you know, at a given time gives the other people more signed space technically because it would be an aotment for the whole shopping center.

Am I right in that? I I I don't believe so. What what's before the board Yeah. is Marshalls, right? Only Marshalls. And you're doing the sign aotment for Marshalls. It doesn't have anything to do with the remainder of the shopping center. except for the conditions that's created by the square footage allotment. But the square footage if Hobby Lobby changes increases the amount. Am I wrong in that? For the whole shopping center. If Hobby Lobby leaves because this is all like like let's say if Hobby Lobby left.

Yeah. There's it would be possible it may be possible to replace their signage under the non-conforming provisions, but we would look at that independent. You know, the the you don't you wouldn't add all of this up and say, "Okay, that's how much square footage this development gets." We're not doing that. What you're saying is Marshalls with this tenant space gets the signage is conceptually shown here and and it doesn't affect any of the other businesses and what occurs with any of the other businesses does not have an effect on Marshalls.

Okay. I think what you're saying also is about precedent being set. That is that it?

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, well, let me just ask this way. The whole shopping center has an aotment or amount of signage. It can have like something square feet, right? If Hobby Lobby leaves, Max Fitness leaves, you open up more signage space that a person can use or like let's say Marshalls, if we make a special ex, you know, exemption all this and something leaves, well, technically I guess this would be their restriction, not the extra sign footage that has opened up. Does that make sense? I think this one's

No, I I I think that if if the sign ordinance were to change or there's additional as long as they met the ordinance in place at the time, they could enlarge the sign if that sign met the requirements of the code. So, it could if Hobby Lobby left, they had more square footage they could use. They could expand it. Well, they wouldn't have additional square footage because right now you're limited to the entire shopping center only having 300. Okay. Who comes in still? I got you. Okay. All right.

So, so the read condition number two then any additional signage shall comply with all applicable provisions of article 9 of the North Augusta Development Code. Correct. And that's Yeah. So, that was just those two. Yes. Need to add any more or we good with those two? I'm okay with those.

Okay. Okay. All right. So, we're good with 10 the two conditions. So, we have answered in the affirmative of 10. So, the motion. Okay. Based on the findings previously discussed and voted on, I move that application number ZV 25-012 Marshalss, a request by Jolie Max for variance pursuant to section table 9.3 of the North Augusta Development Code. for what was the number you said 1645 165.54 square foot of signage for marshals be granted with the following conditions and we have two number one the approved sign shall be constructed as conceptually shown in the application less than less the cont canopy sign. Number two, any additional signage shall comply with all applicable provisions of article 9 of the North August development code. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second, Mr. Burke Holder. Any other discussion? All in favor hand. Your application is approved. Good luck to you. Thank you.

Your staff is phenomenal. It's one of the most complicated issues. I've never heard somebody explain it as well as that. I spent 13 years at the federal government, so I give him credit for that. That's I'm sorry for the confusion, but he helped us understand the code. So, thank you. We do agree. Good luck to you. Anything else?

That's all, sir. I read I was looking at that's what All right. Anything else? Uh, no, sir. All right.