Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

I'll blow everybody out of here. Um, good afternoon. Uh, we have, uh, if anyone is here for the Chick-fil-A, uh, variance that has been withdrawn. So, if you choose to leave, you may uh we I we also ask that you put your phone on silent. If you need to take a phone call, you may go out in the hallway and then come back in. Um we have right now five board members here. It takes four board members to deny or approve a variance. to approve I'm sorry to approve a variance. It takes four. Uh we are we were told he was coming. He may have gotten caught in traffic. And with that uh I will take a motion to consider the August 4th mini meeting minutes.

Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor say I. I. That has been approved. And Mr. Bach, Andrew Bach, will you introduce the blackjack variance?

Sure. Thank you. Uh first variance before you is a variance from article 4 section 4-73JI relating to the maximum fence height in the front yard for the property addressed as 3701 blackjack road uh and is located in the R1 single family residential zoning district and is within the Latin road overlay district. Uh these are pictures of the property as they were uh posted for tonight's meeting. And here's the subject property outlined in this teal color here. Um you can see the yellow is the R1 zoning and it is on the corner of Blackjack Road and Spencer Woods Road. And here's a more zoomed out aerial image. You can see um the house is oriented towards Blackjack Road uh with the um neighboring property to the rear facing uh Spencer Woods um which is cause for the variance. Uh and here's the site plan that was submitted showing the proposed fence location. Uh this would be a six-foot fence um highlighted in yellow here. Um the property owner Alan Tang is seeking a variance from article 4 section 4-73JII relating to the maximum fence height in the front yard for the property addresses 3701 Blackjack Road. The property owner had a a six- foot tall fence installed uh through his sidey yards and alongside his rear lot lines shown in yellow uh on the site plan. Per the diagram in section 4-3 JII where the where a lot's rear yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot. The area of the lot forward of the adjacent lot's front building line is limited to 4 feet in height. defenses location paralleling Spencer uh Spencer Woods Road right

ofway but set back 10 feet due to the general utility easement places it approximately 10 ft forward of the front of the house located to the south of the subject properties. Um the property owner is requiring or requesting a variance to allow uh the installed fence to remain as shown in yellow on the site plan. Um, I was just going to go back quickly to kind of explain that because that's a lot. Um, so the the house to the south here, um, anything forward of that building line, uh, is required to be a maximum of 4T in height. Uh, so on this site plan to the this side and to the rear, anything where in front of this building line towards Spencer Woods would have to be 4 feet. Uh per section 7-7.3 of the city's zoning regulations, the board must make the following findings to grant a variance. Number one, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to a particular piece of property. The application notes that section 4-73JI uh which illustrates uh two properties where the corners of the adjacent houses align is used when determining areas uh the areas in which a fence taller than 4 ft would be permitted. It is asserted that the alignment of the subject property with the adjacent lot to the south is not in the orientation shown in section 4-73JI as the houses are offset by approximately 14 ft. This offset it is stated resulted in a disproportionate reduction of the subject property's rear yard which may uh be fenced in by a 6ft tall fence. staff believes the offset between the building lines is an exceptional condition that merits consideration of relief.

Excuse me. Uh number two, the conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The application states that while there are a handful of other properties where the rear yard of one house adjoins the front yard of uh the adjacent house, the condition is not common throughout Spencer Creek Woods neighborhood. uh staff agrees that the offset houses condition does not generally apply to most other lots in the vicinity. Number three, because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to the particular piece uh piece or um property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application asserts that the restrictions on the placement of a six-foot fence result in diminished functional use of the backyard as well as a compromising uh as well as compromising privacy and enjoyment of the space. Staff agrees that strict application of the 4ft tall fence requirement to this lot would unreasonably restrict the property's use. Finally, number four, the authorization of the variance uh will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property owner or to the public good uh and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. Uh the application states that the granting of the variance will not uh harm any adjacent properties, the public good or the character of the area. It is also noted that the neighborhood's um architectural control committee reviewed and approved the plans um prior to the installation of the fence. Uh staff agrees that the approval of the variance is unlikely to be detrimental given the house on the subject properties positioning uh um relative to the house on the lot to the south. staff believes that relief is warranted and thus recommends approval of the variance of the requested variance to allow six foot tall fence to remain as installed as shown on the applicant's uh site plan exhibit

provided that an after the fact permit is obtained. I'll also note that a copy of this report was emailed to the applicant on Thursday, August 28th.

Okay. The motion on uh the floor is to approve the uh variance request. Mr. Calhoun, yes. Mr. Clauser, yes. Uh Mr. O' Calahan, yes. Mr. Simmons, yes. Miss Mar. Yes.

Motion as it's written in here. Next item on the agenda is uh Andrew, will you introduce the Constitution appeal?

This is the Rivers Avenue appeal that was withdrawn. Okay. Uh the next item before you is an appeal of the decision of a zoning official under uh article 7 section 7-6 relating to the decision regarding a short-term rental permit application for the property addressed as 2718 and a half constitution Avenue um which is zoned R1 single family and is in council district 5. Uh here you can see the property on um Constitution A near the intersection of Gary Drive uh zoned R1. And here's an aerial image of that property um and the surrounding neighborhood. Um the registered agent Micah Van uh Strein Strin, excuse me, uh on behalf of the property owner NVS Ventures LLC is appealing to the the uh decision of a zoning official under article 7 section 7-76 relating uh to the decision regarding a short-term rental permit application. Uh the appellant purchased a subject property in September uh 2024 and received a short-term rental uh permit. uh your fourth STR permit for uh one of the two dwelling units located on the subject property in December of 2024. On January 30th, 2025, the appellent submitted an STR permit uh application for the second dwelling on the property. Um the appellant requested a status on the application of the STR permit, the second STR permit on June 12th, 2025 and was told that the application was on the waiting list for a permit in council district 5 due to that district currently being over the 60 STR unit cap set by a recently adopted uh change to the STR regulations limiting

uh each council district to 60 STR permits. Uh the owner now appeals that decision and his application uh that his application must remain on the waiting list per section 7-7.3A1. The zoning board of appeals has the power to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there's an error in an order requirement decision or determination made by an administrative deficial official in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. uh the appellance submitt provides the basis on which he believes STR applications should be processed and the permit issued despite the requirement of section 4-21F4 that STR applications uh received for a council district which is over the 60 STR unit cap can be held um until the number of STR permits in good standing in that particular council district has fallen below below the maximum allowed. Um now both sides will pres present their respective um positions tonight. Uh and the board may reverse affirm or affirm the staff determination wholly or in part or may modify the order requirements decision or determination. Do you have any questions for the staff board members? I call on the appellent Micah Van Strein to make his presentation. Okay.

Good evening. My name is Micah Van Strein and I'm here with my wife Alicia and my brother-in-law Paul and we make up NBS Ventures, the owners of 2718 Constitution Avenue. Thank you for the opportunity to present our appeal. I want to get begin by saying that I respect the city's efforts to manage short-term rentals um responsibly. We're not here to challenge the overall goals of the ordinance. We are here because our specific situation deserves consideration based on the timing of our application, our communication with city staff, and the fairness of how the rules are being applied to us. We purchased the property in September of 2024 knowing it contained two dwelling units. In December, we obtained our short-term rental permit for the first unit. From the very beginning, our plan was to permit both units, and city staff was fully aware of that intent. On January 30th, 2025, we submitted our application for the second unit. That was nearly a full month before the city council adopted the ordinance creating the 60 permit cap per district. The staff report states that the moratorum triggered the planning commission meeting on January 13th means that our application was submitted too late. But it's important to note this. We applied before the law was passed and we did so after direct conversations with city staff. Tiny MC Cargo, who oversees the short-term rental permitting, graciously contacted me and specifically encouraged me to submit before the CAP went into effect. That demonstrates two things. First, that the city knew we were planning to permit both units. And second, that we relied on staff guidance in good faith when we submitted our application. This is not a case of us trying to sneak something in or take advantage of the process. We were open uh we were in open communication the entire time. We acted promptly, transparent, transparently, and based on city advice. The intent of the CAP is to prevent overconentration of short-term rentals in the neighborhoods. In our case, both units are located on the same parcel under the same ownership and managed as one property. There's

even dedicated parking for both units that is not visible from the street. Allowing the second unit does not increase the density in the neighborhood. It simply allows us to treat the two units consistently and fairly. If this appeal is denied, the second unit won't sit vacant. It will be used as a midterm or long-term rental. In other words, the house will still function as housing. Denial doesn't reduce rental activity. It only blocks us from using the property for its intended purpose as a short-term rental, which we had already communicated to the city well before the ordinance was adopted. Um, I believe we fit in really well with the neighborhood so far. We get along with all our neighbors. Um, my neighbor across the street, Cody, sent in a very nice email saying how well we've managed everything and how um how respect respectful we've been of the neighborhood. Our neighbor to the left, Bernard, um really nice guy. I've been talking to him since day one. He he'll come and cut the grass for us, take the trash out, do little odds and ends jobs for us. Um when we first got started, um Preston, who lives down Constitution a little farther, got to talking to him. he owns a cleaning business and we've been able to utilize his company to come in and do some cleaning for us. So, I I really feel like we're we're trying to do things the right way and be very respectful of the neighborhood. Um, so in closing, I I ask that um you recognize that we purchased this property and invested in it under the old rules. We obtained one permit and staff was fully aware of the intent to permit the second. We submitted our application in good faith before the ordinance was passed, relying on staff guidance. To deny this appeal would be to enforce the rule retroactively against someone who was already in the process, who is open with the city, and who has acted responsibly every step of the way. We respectfully request that our application be processed and that we be granted the ability to operate both units under the short-term rental framework. Thank you guys so much for your time. We really appreciate it.

Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Vanstream from the board? Thank you. Uh do you have any uh questions? Do do you have any witnesses to call or question? Miss Anderson to make the city's presentation, please.

Good afternoon. The board must decide on three issues this evening. The first being whether the applicant should have a blanket access to short-term rental permits because he has an STR for a dwelling unit housed on the same parcel of 2718 Constitution Avenue. Two, whether staff was correct in their interpretation of applying January 13th as the deadline date. And finally, whether the applicant's untimely application prevented their business from receiving protection while the text amendment change was underway. You will hear from Eileen Duffy, planning and zoning project manager for the city of North Charleston. He will testify to the steps needed for businesses to secure a short-term rental permit, the date the tax amendment was issued, the day it took effect, the and the impact in which it had on both the rentals in process and those new and the new applicants, excuse me. We ask that you listen carefully and uphold the decision by the zoning official to place this short-term rental application on the wait list. Any questions for the city attorney? Excuse me.

Oh, witnesses. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record. Where do you work? What is your title? How long have you worked with the city of North Charleston? Tell the board what your involvement is with short-term rental. Can you tell the board how does an individual get a permit? Can you define what is business is already permitted for one

dwelling unit. Does this grant blanket access to additional permits? Can you tell the board how you're familiar with Mr. Van in the context of his application? Can you tell the board when the mortorium took effect?

Can you confirm what day Mr. Van's application was submitted?

Can you tell the board how the moratorum affected pending application? Can you tell the board what district is 278 in? Is that district at capacity? What must Mr. Van do with his present application? Mr. Van Stern Stre I'm saying your last name wrong. Okay. Van String. Oh. Oh. Did you have does the board have any question for any questions for Eileen the witness? Mr. Vanstrain has any questions for the witness.

Excuse me, Madam Chair. You may want to ask him to form in a question for the witness. He'll have a chance if he wants to some Any other questions for your witness?

Mr. Vanstream, do you for to call you for summation? Thank you, Miss Anderson. summation. Thank you.

Call for a motion to reverse, affirm, or modify the staff decision. Decision motion to affirm.

Discussion among board members. Um, I agree the timing is very unfortunate for you. Um, ultimately we need to decide if staff have made a mistake here and I think the timeline is the critical piece of paperwork that we're looking at. Um, so I do not think that they have made a mistake here given that the moratorum was in place when the application was submitted. Any other comments? And would you do a roll call, please?

Uh, yes. The motion is to uh affirm the staff decision uh that the STR would remain on the waiting list per section 421F4. Mr. Calhoun, yes. Miss Classer, Mr. O' Calahan, yes. Mr. Simmons, yes. Miss Mora, yes. The motion is upheld. And with that, this meeting is adjourned.