Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

six meeting to order for the zoning board of appeals for the city of North Charleston. If we have three zoning variance applications tonight, if you are not the applicant and you want to speak on a variance, I need you to sign up if you haven't already right here. Um, please silence your phones. The way this is going to work is Mr. Wedge will read the staff report for each variance application. The applicant will address the board if they like. Um, anyone who signed up may speak and address the board at that time as well. At that time, I'll entertain any motions and discussion from the board and we will vote. With that, uh, the first order of business tonight is the consideration of the March 2nd, 2026 meeting minutes. Do I have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve. Second. I have a second. Second. Second. All in favor? I I uh Mr. Wedge, if you would read the first variance, please.

Uh yeah, of course. Uh first I'll go through the uh slideshow for it. So today we have a request for a variance from article 8 section 811E2 relating to the maximum signage area for the property addressed as 2150 West Oakrove Drive. Thank you.

In the B2 general business zoning district, Council District 6. As you can see, this property is uh sort of nestled in between Rivers Aav on the right and uh I26 on the left up uh along uh Remount Road to the south here. And uh they have requests for uh variance from the uh signage ordinance. Um this is the uh Jones Ford uh location uh facing I26. And so the representative of Tanya Bullington of Apollo Sign and Light on behalf of the property owner David Walters Jr. of Jones Ford and WCW Enterprises LLC is seeking a variance from article 8 section 811E to relating to the maximum wall signage allowable for the property addresses 2150 West Oak Grove Drive in the B2 general business zoning district council district 6 per section 85e for sign structures and wall signs containing multiple modules the sign face shall be calculated by reference to the area of the rectangle which if drawn would fully encompass all sign modules Because the signs shown on the south elevation on sheet A20 are located on the same facade. C see see following paragraph for discussion of the facade. The area of the proposed wall sign is thus calculated as the size of the rectangle which would encompass all three signs as shown on sheet A20 or 8200 excuse me. That rectang that rectangle is approximately 11 and a/4t tall by 417 feet wide with an area of approximately 4,6991 square ft. Section 85g speci specifies that for the purposes of sign area calculations and measurements calculations shall be made with the

entirety of a sign's building orientation i.e. south face, north face, etc. being considered a single wall without regard to the existence of any offsets or bumpouts. Thus referring to sheet A200, the total area of the south facing facade is approximately 12,200 square ft. Per sheet A200, the height of the building ranges from 28 to 32 feet and the width of the building is 427 1/2 ft. Section 811E2 specifies that the aggregate area of the wall signs plus the aggregate area of the window signs displayed on any given facade of a building may not exceed 15% of the area of that facade. As discussed earlier, the south facing facade of the building measures to be 12,200 ft, which would allow a maximum of 8 of 1,830 ft of wall and window signage along the entirety of the building orientation. Based on the manner in which the ordinance has been calculated, the proposed signage, when paired with the existing signage, measures 4,691 square feet. When all three sets of signs are measured individually, they measure out to be 237 ft, 736 ft, and 814 ft totaling 1,787 ft, which would meet the requirement to be under the 15% threshold set for set forth in the zoning ordinance. As such, the applicant is requesting a variance relating to the maximum allowable signage set forth by section 81E2. Per section 773 of the Z city zoning regulations, the board must make the following findings to grant the variances. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. The application states the building is altering the current signage because Ford Motor Company is has recognized the Jones Ford branch is replacing their signage to reflect this. The application states the

current signage or ordinance provides a great deal of difficulty for the property as the manner in which signage is calculated by the zoning code severely limits the the ability to have significantly sized and spaced signage facing I26. Staff agrees. There are extraordinary and exception exceptional conditions to this particular piece of property as the proposed signage when appropriately spaced out throughout the whole width of the facade is calculated as a singular very large sign. Due to this large spacing between the three sections of wall signage, staff finds that the property is hindered in its ability to install wall signage. Staff notes that for buildings that have less width, this method of calculating signage is not nearly as limiting and finds this to be an extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to the property. Number two, these conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. The application states that the ordinance's current method of calculating signage includes spaces where signage is not proposed to be installed. The application notes that other properties do not have buildings that are as large and do not front upon I26. Staff believes that the frontage upon I26 is not generally to apply to most of the properties in the area. Staff also notes that most other properties in the area do not have a facade nearly as wide as the Jones Ford facility and are not as restricted by the spacing between their signage. Number three, because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to the particular piece or property would would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application states that the inability to install the proposed signage that faces I26 prevents the property from being identified as a service center and conveying to traffic the services they provide and the brand they represent. Staff agrees that the application of the signage ordinance does make it very difficult for the property to appropriately and effectively convey both their business title and advertise the services provided at the site which

would restrict the utilization of the property. Number four, the authorization of a variance will not be of 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. The application asserts that the granting of the variances and thus the installation of the proposed signage will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or to the public good. Staff does not believe that the proposed signage, if approved, would be of substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or to the surrounding area given the appropriate sizing and spacing of the signage across the width of most of the building. As noted, staff agrees that the application of the signage ordinance of section 811E2 is a reasonable deterrent against the signage on a build on a building of this width based on the manner in which the ordinance calculated calculates signage on a single face. Staff notes that the inability to install the proposed signage is not typically seen with buildings of smaller widths and notes the inability to install the proposed sign the inability to install the proposed signage harms the ability of the property to advertise its services to the nearby vehicular traffic. Staff also believes that the proposed variance would not harm the character of the area or be of detriment to adjacent properties or to the public good as when all signs are calculated separately they would meet the ordinances requirement and stay below the maximum 15% of the facade. Accordingly, staff recommends approval of the requested variance of section 811E2 to exceed the maximum allowable wall signage. Also want to note that a copy of the staff report was emailed to the applicant on April 1st, 2026.

Would the applicant care to address the board? I'm Keith Sum. I'm a car freak. So, Jones Ford has been recognized as one of the 110 Ford dealerships that Ford has come along and asked them to put this signage up. They've been recognized as an outstanding dealership for service and without uh you moving forward, they're not going to be able to get this put on their building. This is like 110 Ford dealerships and North Charleston is the only one locally that's getting this uh from the local Tri County area. And so it it's really a great thing, but we need your help to let the sign go up so they can be recognized for the service that they render. Uh and we greatly appreciate your consideration. Does anyone have questions for staff? That'll entertain a motion. Uh, I'll make a motion to get some discussion going. Uh, motion to approve. second.

Second that.

Um I think some of the points in here are up for debate. Um I'm I'm I'm leaning towards approve because I do not think it will be a detriment uh to neighboring properties. Um but the the exceptional conditions I just I don't think that applies really here. Um essentially the hardship is is application of the zoning code as it's written. Um which is not not a hardship. Um but uh like I said I I don't think it's a detriment to the to the neighborhood to these surrounding areas. else.

All right. Uh, Miss Harper. Uh, yes. Uh, Mr. Macke. Yes. Uh, Mr. Callahan. Mr. O' Calhan, I'm sorry. Yes. Mr. Simmons. Yes. And Mr. Clawser. Yes.

Next one. All righty. This is a request for a variance from article 6 section 623A1 relating to the minimum side setback requirement for the properties addressed as 1835 Marine Avenue and 1303H Avenue then in the uh NBRD Navy Base Redevelopment Zoning District Council District 10. As you can see, uh this property is juts off of uh St. John's A and uh with this project is currently under site plan review with plans to uh uh combine these uh two parcels. And you can see along here in the exhibits the uh portion of the property where they would like to reduce the side setback from 10 to 5 ft. So the applicant Bennett Rogers of DRB Group South Carolina LLC is seeking a variance from article 6 section 623A1 relating to the minimum side sideyard setback for the property addresses 1835 Marine Avenue and 1303 H Avenue in the NBRD Navy Base Redevelopment Zoning District Council District 10. Section 623A1 specifies the setbacks for NB NBRD zone properties for side and rear yards. The required setback is 10 ft from the property line and section 32 defines a sideyard as a yard extending the full length of the lot in the area between the side lot line and a side building line. The applicant is currently going through site plan review site plan review to build a 59 unit townhouse

style multif family development also known as Navyyard town homes. The applicants plan on removing the existing structures on site in order to construct multif family units while also planning to maintain most of the existing driveway aisles that are currently on site. Site currently has a private road truck and avenue running through the property that connects to St. John's Avenue that the applicant would like to construct 12 units alongside. The proposed dwelling units would have building footprints that are approximately 956 feet each. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the 10-ft side setback requirement to 5T along 3740 St. John's Avenue. Prior section 773 of the city zoning regulations, the board must make the following findings to grant the variances. One, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property. The application The application states that the extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this property is the need to align the proposed entrance with Trxton Avenue, preserve as many Grand Trees as possible, the requirement to provide access while minimizing disruption to the neighboring low country orphan relief facility and the unique shape of the subject parcel. The application notes that all of these unique factors combined constrain potential layouts for the property's development and make complying with the required 10-ft side setback behind buildings three and four impractical. The application also states that the that applying the standard setback requirement would significantly reduce the space available to cater to these unique circumstances, creating an unnecessary hardship by limiting the ability to construct townhouse style units consistent with the district's redevelopment goals. Staff agrees the unique shape of the parcel is an extraordinary and exceptional condition. Staff also agrees that the need to connect to Truxton Avenue and provide access to low country or orphan relief is another exceptional and extraordinary condition pertaining solely to this piece of property. Staff also notes that the proposed side setback production does not preserve any grand trees as many of the grand trees

proposed to remain are located on other properties with none being located in the sideyard where the variance is proposed. Number two, these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The application notes that other properties in the area do not have lot configurations that are as irregular, do not have similar hardships that apply. Staff agrees that the surrounding parcels do not have the same conditions as the subject parcel due to the efforts to maintain connection with St. St. John's Avenue and Low Country Orphan Relief. Number three, because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to the particular piece of property would effectively and prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application states the that the application of the 10-ft side setback requirement would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property because the reduced buildable area would result in impacts to existing grand trees while also impacting the development's ability to provide an ADA accessible path to the SOD SCO ride ofway St. John's Avenue. The application notes this would damage the character of the proposed Navyyard town home site. The application also states that without the granting of a variance, the property cannot be developed in a manner that is consistent with the district's intent to connect communities. The application states the allowance of a 5-ft side setback would would provide sufficient separation from the neighboring parcel while enabling reasonable use of the property. Staff disagrees that the application of the 10-ft side setback requirement unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. is a setback requirement does not limit the ability to construct the other 47 units proposed as part of this development. Staff also notes that the 10- foot side setback requirement being abided by would result in constructing 12 units along Trucks and NAV in a similar in a slightly smaller footprint. Staff finds that the construction of all 59 proposed parcels

is still feasible and thus does not find the application of the ordinance to unreasonably restrict the use of the subject parcel. Number four, the authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjing to adjacent property or to the public good and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. The application states the granting of the variance will not negatively impact adjacent properties. The application notes that the proposed setback maintains adequate spacing for safety, access, and neighborhood character while supporting the goals of the Navybased redevelopment zoning district. The application notes that the s reduced setback would not impair property values, block access, or create adverse impacts as the proposed setback is adjacent to a Dominion energy substation. The application also notes that it would allow the property to be reasonably utilized in harmony with the surrounding development, preserving the character of the Navy Yard Redevelopment District. The application states the granting of this variance would help minimize impact to the neighboring low country orphan relief as adhering to the 10-ft side setback would cause utility relocation and impact access to the parcel which would disrupt the functionality of low country orphan relief. Staff agrees the granting of variance would not be of sub substantial detriment to the adjacent property or to the public good and notes the character of the district would not be harmed by the granting of the variance. Staff finds there are exceptional and extraordinary conditions pertaining to this property due to the regular lot shape and the connection that Trucks and Avenue serves to the neighboring low country orphan relief facility. Staff also notes these conditions not should generally apply to nearby properties. Staff finds the granting of the proposed variance would not be of substantial detriment to the surrounding parcels and would not harm the character of the district or the public good. Although sympathetic to the applicant's concerns regarding utilization of the property, staff does not find that the application of the 10-ft side setback requirement unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. Accordingly, staff

recommends denial of the proposed variance to reduce the side setback to 5 ft. Copy of this staff report was emailed to the applicant on April 1st, 2026. The applicant would like to address. Thanks. Hopefully.

Uh hello, my name is Greg Craft. I'm uh work with Kimley Horn. We are the sites engineer uh project manager for this project working along with DRB um in in pursuit of this variance for Navyyard town homes. Uh thank you all for your time today. Uh as as was said uh there let me pull this a little closer. We also have this sidewalk. A lot of that's everything. Although not in our site of a foot. You also have this inordination.

We are not wellfully all operations water supply daily oper As far as setback being shown, we do have 10 location drive plus sidewalk looking about 42. Carlson Charlestonific. wants to see.

Uh specifically speaking on the utilization, uh there's actually only 55 units being proposed. If if these units if if we go to a 10-ft setback, the units can't be built, which would be a decrease of 22% of the proposed units on site for this development. Sorry. So we're showing from the property line about 35 although the back only being proposed on our property.

So 55 units. So if you decrease it, it goes down to what?

If we remove these 12 I've got a couple questions. Um, can you, it's hard to see from here. Can you show me where the CWS easement is and where the line is that you're talking about? And that line has to shift. If you would have water supply

for how long? So when you say cut off the water the water that means they won't have like no water the whole uh low country. I'm sure there's um Low Country Orphan Relief, they have another access point, right? That they they don't have to go through your parcel to get to their property. Um yeah the um

these units they they look like parkers. Is that one one space? Uh yes units are proposing a garage but we do also need to meet That requirement is is what? You have to park at it so many spaces per unit.

Yes. I have it written here. The requirement is one per 300 square feet. So the requirement is eight or sorry 16 and we're proposing 17. total off streetet parking. So of that we have four 43 11 11 of those spaces are uh in this section that we're looking at. You're required to have 16 parking spaces. You have to have 16 on street parking spaces for the site. And how many do you have on your site plan? How many bedrooms are these units here? Building three and four.

Um, I provided a footprint. I don't have it in front of me. Do you know off top of your head? Yeah. And has there been consideration to reduce the footprint of buildings three and four?

Yes, we've gone through multiple iterations of coordination with uh Navyyard Charleston with um city city of Charleston or city North Charleston uh as we were in the subdivision process. But yes, multiple and it they've been approved now with uh Navyyard Charleston. what has been approved as is with threebedroom with

threebedroom the footprint that provided uh that I'm showing now as far as a 40 foot depth question for staff. specifically with the Navy base. That seems to be item number. Can this property be utilized? What is redevelopment from Charleston. What is their role? uring one that those redevelop

Yes sir. Sir I I agree with staff that this um does not adversely affect um the utilization of the property um by by sticking with uh the zoning as it is. Um it looks like some modifications could be made here to the building footprints to adhere to the setbacks and still get close to the the unit of the is not really effective.

Anyone else?

My I mean my thinking all this specialty district Charles All we have No further discussion.

All righty. Uh, Miss Harper, deny. No. Mr. Mavine, yes. Mr. O' Calahan, no. Mr. Simmons, yes. Mr. Clawer,

yes. Uh, the last item we have on the agenda is a variance from article 6, section 61 C2C, relating to the minimum separation requirement for an accessory building for the property addresses 4650 Jenkins Avenue in the R1 single family residential zoning district, conservation overlay district, in council district 10. This part this property is uh located um on uh the corner of Jenkins Avenue and uh Hatfield Street. Um it's uh across the street from uh North Charleston High School. Um, and the property owners, Bernard and Jessica Casey, are seeking a variance from article 6, section 61 C2C, relating to the minimum separation requirement for an accessory building for the property addressed is 4650 Jenkins Avenue in the R1 single family residential zoning district, Old North Charleston, uh, Old North Charleston Neighborhood Conservation District, Council District 10. The owners are seeking to construct a 10x5 ft shed in their sideyard with no separation from the house and six feet away from the side property line. The the subject lot located at the intersections of Jenkins Avenue and Hatfield Street has a shallow rear yard which ranges in depth from 10 to 22 ft. The lot had a required 13.85 85 foot re foot foot rear setback at construction and the two required parking spaces are located in the rear

yard in a tandem style layout due to the limited rear yard space. Additionally, the site also has a sideyard along the northern property line with 4656 Jenkins Avenue ranging from 8 ft to 16 ft. While section 61 C2C requires 6ft setbacks from other structures and 3ft setbacks from interior lot lines. The contemplated shed is proposed zero feet from the existing home on the lot and six feet from the northern side property line as shown on the provided site plan. A variance to the minimum required separation requirement of 6 ft for an accessory use building is thus requested. Per section 773 of the city zoning regulations, the board must make the following findings to grant the variance. Number one, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. The application notes that the existing property layout does not provide other possible locations for a shed as the rear yard is used to fulfill the minimum off- streetet parking requirement for a single family dwelling unit. The application also notes the rear portion of the property has notable gradient in incline and is better suited to retain its current use as the driveway and parking area for the property, thus making the sideyard that is not facing Hatfield Street the most appropriate location to place the desired shed. Staff agrees that there is limited area for an accessory building and notes the property's location on a corner with parking at the rear does severely limit potential locations for any accessory structures. Staff considers the existing layout of the property and limited rear and sideyard space as extraordinary and exceptional conditions that pertain to this particular piece of property. Number two, the application states that the other lots have conventional and usable rear yards, more rectangular lot configurations, non-tandem parking layouts, and are able to have space to fit a 150 ft shed while still abiding by the city zoning regulations. The application also states that due to these conditions, many other properties in the area have functional rear yards

that allow for placement of an accessory structure. Staff finds the lack of of available lot area to install an accessory structure is unique in this area as the majority of the properties in the area have space to a lot for an accessory structure in the rear in the in the rear or sideyard. Number three, because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application notes that although the ordinance does not prohibit accessory use structures entirely, it limits the practical and functional placement on this particular property due to minimum parking requirements and setback and separation requirements make placing a set a shed in the rear yard difficult due to the current parking layout grade and constrained maneuverability. Staff notes the property is already developed with a single family dwelling unit which may remain and be used indefinitely. Staff also notes that the inability to install an accessory structure is rest is restrictive to this particular piece of property as many of the surrounding properties have an accessory structure on site. Number four, the authorization of a variance will not be of 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. The application states that residential accessory storage is is commonly found throughout the district and asserts that the proposed shed will not be detrimental to neighboring homes nor negatively affect the public good. The application also notes that the proposed structure will most likely be screened from view or mostly be screened from street view and maintain a minimum distance of at least five feet of separation from the interior lot line. Staff agrees that the granting of the variance would not be a detriment to the ad adjacent property or to the public good and finds no reason to believe that the character of the district will be harmed by the granting of the variance.

Staff understands the applicant's desire to have a shed placed in the sideyard and finds that there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions that are unique to this property that hinder the placement of an accessory building on the property. Staff also notes that the installation of the shed would not be a detriment to the public good or be a nuisance to neighboring properties. Additionally, staff finds the application of the ordinance is rather restrictive to this particular parcel. Accordingly, staff recommends approval of the requested variance to reduce the minimum separation requirement between an accessory building and a structure from 6 to 0 feet in the sideyard. A copy of the staff report was emailed to the applicant on April 1st, 2026. Thank you. Any questions for staff?

Care to address the board?

Couple notes about why I'm proposing pitting it. It's in the sidey yard versus the rear yard. As mentioned, um that far right side there, there is really not much room. That driveway area is full crusher rock gravel material on an incline. So, if you think about put in a shed there, that's what you're walking on. Um, although this drawing shows tandem parking, we're actually able to park two sides, two cars side by side right now. If we were to place a shed or any structure in that corner, that takes that away. And essentially, we have to play, you know, swapping cars around in and out to get out. Um, placing it in the rear yard, you're essentially moving it further away from the adjacent properties, so it's less of an impact. Um, with the way the current ordinance is written, it'll be about three away, three feet away from the other properties. If it were in the corner, um, by moving into the rear yard, you're five to six feet from one property, then 20 plus feet on the other property. That side of the house, you have two or three crate myrtles facing facing the street. Um, so if you're coming down Jenkins, you really wouldn't be able to see that structure. and from Hatfield because it's directly behind the house, you wouldn't see it there at all. Um,

I have one question for staff actually. Um, does an accessory structure like this have to adhere to the building setbacks? Um uh accessory structure has um its own setback uh setback requirements. Hence the uh three-foot setback from the uh property line. Okay. And then six feet from another structure. This would meet the uh setback requirement from the property line. Okay. Got it.

Motion to approve. Second discussion.

All right. Miss Harper. Yes. Mr. Meline. Yes. Mr. O' Calahan. Yes. Mr. Simmons. Yes. Mr. Classer. Yes. Uh do you have any updates for the uh UDL at all?

Okay. Are you Hold

down this end.