Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular MeetingFort Mill, SC · July 9, 2019
Minutes
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
July 9, 2019
6:00 PM
Present: Amber Bryant, Carolyn Blair, Ryan Helms, Jim Thomas, Becky Campbell, Jody
Stegall, Terri Murray, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Assistant Town
Manager Chris Pettit, Assistant Planner Nick Cauthen, Development Coordinator
Parrish Dunn
Absent: N/A
Guests: See attached sign-in sheet
Acting-Chairman Thomas called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone in
attendance.
ELECTION OF CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR FOR 2019
Acting-Chairman Thomas called for nominations for the position of Chair. Mr. Thomas was
nominated. There being no further nominations, Acting-Chairman Thomas called for a vote. Mr.
Helms made a motion to elect Mr. Thomas. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The motion was
approved by a vote of 7-0.
Chairman Thomas called for nominations for the position of Vice-Chair. Mr. Stegall was
nominated. There being no further nominations, Acting-Chairman Thomas called for a vote. Ms.
Murray made a motion to elect Mr. Stegall. Mr. Helms seconded the motion. The motion was
approved by a vote of 7-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Helms made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 15, 2018 meeting as submitted
by staff. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0.
WITHDRAWAL OF VARIANCE CASE # 2018-1040 (Hiram Matos)
Mr. Stegall made a motion to accept the withdrawal of Variance Case # 2018-1040 (Hiram Matos).
Mr. Helms seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Appeal request from Bret McNabb – Corner of Fort Mill Parkway and South Dobys
Bridge Road – Case # 2019-0541: Assistant Town Manager Pettit described the Boards
authority granted by state statute concerning appeals of the zoning administrator’s
interpretation and the conditions the applicant must meet in order to appeal a decision.
Mr. Pettit detailed the case including the location of the property and the zoning district
and overlay that the property was assigned. Mr. Pettit continued by stating Bret McNabb
is appealing the interpretation of staff that a convenience store/gas station is a permitted
use in the Highway Commercial (HC)/Corridor Overlay District – Node (COD-N) zoning
designation. Mr. Pettit described the timeline of events regarding the 7-Eleven
project/process.
Mr. Pettit stated that staff reviewed the permitted uses of HC and the COD-N requirements
as well. Gas stations/convenience stores were found to be allowed in HC per the Town’s
UDO. COD-N states the uses allowed in the underlying zoning district are permitted,
except for a list of prohibited uses, which does not include gas stations/convenience stores.
Therefore, staff made the decision that a 7-Eleven with gas pumps would be a permitted
use within the HC/COD-N district at the subject property.
Mr. Pettit continued by describing the applicant’s argument that the COD-N prohibits
industrial uses which is what a gas station should be considered. The applicant stated in his
application that gas stations are a permitted use in the Limited Industrial (LI) zoning
district, deeming them an industrial use, therefore prohibiting the use in the COD-N.
Mr. Pettit expressed to the Board that all uses allowed in an industrial district are not
necessarily industrial uses, including greenways, doctor’s offices, and vet clinics among
others. He stated this is the case across other zoning districts as well. Churches and
daycares are allowed in residential districts but are clearly not residential uses. Medical
offices are allowed in industrial, commercial, and residential meaning their use cannot be
considered all three. Mr. McNabb’s argument cannot be the intent of the ordinance.
Mr. Pettit continued by voicing the purpose statement of the LI zoning district. It includes
language that says the district is designed to promote the economic development of the area
by providing for location of light industrial, distribution, and commercial uses.
Mr. Pettit requested the Board to affirm staff’s decision based on the argument presented.
The Board of Zoning Appeals is solely charged with interpreting the ordinance as it is
written, the Board does not have the authority to change the ordinance, nor does the case
before the Board have anything to do with personal feelings relating to gas stations or
likeability of the ordinance.
The applicant (Mr. Bret McNabb) presented his case. Mr. McNabb stated this is not about
interpretation. It can clearly be determined gas stations are prohibited in the COD-N. Intent
will not be discussed because the language of the ordinance pertaining to the issue at hand
is not ambiguous. It is very clear.
He continued by stating industrial uses are prohibited within the COD-N. The limited
industrial uses include convenience stores. The personal definitions of a particular use
cannot factor into the decision.
Mr. McNabb gave an example of how sexually oriented business are described within the
ordinance. It is what the ordinance deems a sexually oriented business and not how an
individual may define a sexually oriented business. A sexually oriented business is defined
by the list of examples listed in the UDO.
Mr. McNabb further added that the drafter of the UDO intentionally prohibited all
industrial uses in the Node. Industrial is not split into separate categories like light and
heavy manufacturing.
Mr. McNabb stated the main question up for discussion is what an industrial use actually
is. He said balls are defined by a list of balls, fruits are defined by a list of fruits. General
industrial and light industrial list all permitted industrial uses. The listed, permitted uses,
are the definition applicable to the use described in the district. The uses listed in the local
commercial district are local commercial uses. The uses list in the light industrial district
are light industrial uses.
Mr. McNabb continued by saying because the list is exclusive to LI and because the district
is reserved for LI purposes, you must conclude that a convenience store along with all other
uses permitted in LI are an industrial use. He does not necessarily agree that all of these
uses are actually light industrial but it does not matter because it is about what the ordinance
says and not what individuals conclude for themselves. It can only be concluded that a
convenience store is a LI use when applying the ordinance for what it says. We are not
considering if these uses are appropriate for the district.
Mr. McNabb continued by saying the convenience store definition allows the sale of
gasoline. Convenience stores are also allowed in the HC district making it a HC use. This
is not an issue because many things are classified in multiple categories, as Mr. Pettit stated.
This includes sports balls. A basketball is round and orange. If a basketball is a use and a
particular district prohibited orange items and allowed round items, a basketball would not
be allowed because although it is round it is also orange. This is about a basic reading of
the zoning ordinance. As a result the only whole and just finding is a finding in my favor.
Ms. Murray asked Mr. Pettit if there was a specific definition and list of industrial uses like
sexually oriented and heavy manufacturing uses have.
Mr. McNabb stated there is not a definition listed but the list of uses serves as this which
makes it the definition.
Mr. Pettit said the language isn’t clear so intent must be looked at. If the intent was to
eliminate all used allowed in industrial districts in COD-N then the ordinance wouldn’t
specifically list individual uses allowed in LI and separately list industrial uses in the
prohibition list as it currently does.
Mr. Pettit also stated the closest definition of industrial uses is described under the first use
described within the general industrial district, which includes heavy manufacturing and
raw processing. He strongly disagrees that a district is defined by the uses allowed. A
residential district allows uses that are clearly not residential.
Mr. McNabb rebutted there is redundancy in the prohibitions in case those particular uses
were ever amended in the industrial sections, they would still remain prohibited in COD-
N. In the context of the ordinance it does not make sense to conclude that a use permitted
in a residential district is not a residential use. It is irrelevant what we may deem residential
in our own minds. What the ordinance says must be the focus, the text clearly suggests
convenience stores are prohibited within the Node of the corridor district.
Mr. Pettit stated there is currently a convenience store in a Node within Town.
Mr. Stegall asked if a convenience store without gas pumps would be acceptable at this
location.
Mr. McNabb stated the ordinance would likely prohibit it but in the context of the appeal,
the building alone would probably eliminate the grievances that he had.
Chairman Thomas opened the public hearing. Citizen Melissa Cardona spoke in favor of
Mr. McNabb’s position. Citizen Tanya McNabb also spoke in favor of Mr. McNabb’s
position. Chairman Thomas asked if anyone else present would like to speak or comment
on the case, being none, Chairman Thomas closed the public hearing.
Discussion occurred amongst the Board Members and staff concerning industrial uses,
retail uses, and service stations. Ms. Murray asked if retail sales and services is considered
industrial. Mr. Pettit responded that in and of itself retail sales and services would not be
considered industrial.
Mr. McNabb and Mr. Pettit both concluded by reiterating their previous arguments over
whether a permitted use within an industrial district automatically deems that activity an
industrial use as referenced in the COD-N prohibitions.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on the appeal. Ms. Campbell made a motion to affirm
staff’s decision in order to allow a gas station/convenience store at the corner of Fort Mill
Parkway and South Dobys Bridge Road, zoned HC/COD-N. Mr. Helms seconded the
motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-3 with Ms. Bryant, Ms. Murray, and Mr.
Stegall opposed.
There being no further business, Mr. Helms made a motion to adjourn, Ms. Murray seconded the
motion. By a vote of 7-0, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Cauthen
Planning Department
July 26, 2019
Agenda
TOWN OF FORT MILL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
July 9, 2019
112 Confederate Street
6:00 PM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2019
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Regular Meeting: October 15, 2018 [Pages 2-8]
OLD BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Variance request from Hiram Matos – 111 E. Gregg Street – Case # 2018-1040
(REQUEST WITHDRAWN)
NEW BUSINESS ITEMS
1. CASE # 2019-0541 Applicant is appealing the zoning administrator’s
Bret McNabb decision to allow the use of a convenience store/gas
Corner of Fort Mill Parkway station within the Corridor Overlay District Node.
and South Dobys Bridge Road [Pages 9-68]
Tax Map # 020-12-01-316
Zoning District: HC, COD-N
ADJOURN
The following press was notified of the meeting by email or fax in accordance of the Freedom of
Information Act: The Herald; CN2; WRHI; Fort Mill Times and WBTV. The agenda was also
posted at the entrance to Town Hall the required length of time and on the Town website.
The Town of Fort Mill is committed to assuring accessibility with reasonable accommodation, of
Town services and facilities for all individuals, in compliance with federal law. Please contact
the Town Manager’s Office at 803-547-2116 if you need assistance.
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
October 15, 2018
6:00 PM
Present: Amber Bryant, Scott Couchenour, Ryan Helms, Chairman Jim Thomas, Becky
Campbell, Jody Stegall, Planning Director Chris Pettit, Assistant Planner Nick
Cauthen
Absent: Terri Murray
Guests: Joseph Bates (Applicant), Victoria Bates (Applicant), Hiram Matos (Applicant),
Carol Mason McMeekin, Winni Evans, Krista Huff, Mark Kerr, Will Howle,
Carolyn Blair, Paula Sparks, John Somjak
Chairman Thomas called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Couchenour made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 20, 2018 meeting as
submitted by staff. Mr. Helms seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A) Variance request from Joseph and Victoria Bates – 102 Brickyard Road – Case #
2018-1039: Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the variance request,
the purpose of which was to allow a pool in front of the principal structure. Mr. Cauthen
noted that according to the applicant the orientation of their corner lot and the woods behind
the home made it very difficult to place the pool in any other location than between the
home and Brickyard Road.
Chairman Thomas asked the applicant to detail the reasons for the request. Mr. Bates stated
there were only 2 homes on his side of Brickyard Road and he was the owner of both. The
pool would tie into the side of the home and would be the ideal spot to entertain and keep
an eye on his children for many years to come. Ms. Bates also mentioned that it was not
ideal to cut trees behind the home in order to build a pool and this would prevent the pool
from being connected to the home.
Mr. Helms asked if the driveway circled around the back of the home and the applicant
responded that yes it did.
Chairman Thomas asked if the woods were on grade? The applicant responded that the
majority of the wooded area could probably be built upon but removing the trees to place
a pool in the middle of woods was not desired.
Mr. Stegall asked if trees would be planted as depicted in the packet provided? The
applicant responded that yes trees had already been planted and the goal would be to add
more and to make the pool area completely hidden from Brickyard Road.
Mr. Stegall asked why the pool could not be built between the house and Spratt Street?
The applicant responded that they considered the Spratt Street side to be the front of their
home considering it is where the front door and porch are located.
Chairman Thomas opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and invited anyone to
speak in favor of the variance.
Mr. Somjak spoke in favor of the request.
Ms. McMeekin also spoke in favor of the request.
Chairman Thomas closed the public hearing. There were no speakers against the request.
Mr. Thomas called for voting on the four criteria required in granting a variance, specific
to the applicant’s request. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether or not there were
extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. Mr.
Helms made a motion that there were extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining
to the particular piece of property. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The motion passed
by a vote of 6-0.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the conditions apply to other property in the
vicinity. Mr. Helms made a motion that the conditions do not generally apply to other
property in the vicinity. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of
6-0.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the application of the ordinance effectively
prohibits or unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. Mr. Couchenour made a
motion that the application of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably
restrict the utilization of the property. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion
failed by a vote of 3-3 with Mr. Helms, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Stegall opposed.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the authorization of a variance would be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good, and whether the character
of the district would be harmed by the granting of the variance. Mr. Couchenour made a
motion that the authorization of a variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property or to the public good, and that the character of the district would not be harmed
by the granting of the variance. Ms. Bryant seconded the motion. The motion passed by
a vote of 6-0.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether or not to grant the variance. Mr. Couchenour
made a motion to grant the variance in order to allow a pool in front of the principal
structure. Ms. Bryant seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 3-3 with Mr.
Helms, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Stegall opposed.
B) Variance request from Hiram Matos – 111 E. Gregg Street – Case # 2018-1040:
Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the variance request, the purpose
of which was to allow a 15’ reduction in the minimum 35’ front yard setback requirement
due to topographic issues. Mr. Cauthen noted that a variance had previously been granted
in January of 2018 in order to reduce the site setback requirement from 10’ to 5’.
Chairman Thomas asked the applicant to detail the reasons for the request. Mr. Matos said
there was confusion as to the location of the property line. It was originally thought that
setback distances were measured from edge of curb and not edge of right-of-way. Without
the variance the garage would have to sit back in a very low area which may create
foundation issues depending on the soil in that area. The applicant stated that only 2 feet
of the original variance was needed and that he hoped this would lead to some additional
leeway in regards to this request. The applicant continued by explaining pictures showing
the nature of the property which also included a stake showing the location of the garage
if the variance was not granted.
Chairman Thomas asked if it was possible to grade further back or to build a basement?
The applicant responded that there was a slope followed by a steep drop off making it very
difficult.
Mr. Thomas asked staff how close to the creek could the property be graded and filled?
Staff responded that the Stormwater department would have to review any changes to the
original approved plan.
Ms. Campbell asked if the drainage area of the creek has increased in size due to the erosion
of the slope? Mr. Matos responded that he did not know because he does not currently
reside on the property but to his knowledge it has not. He also mentioned that the creek
was on the adjacent property but there was a curve in the creek near the rear portion of his
lot that created the issue of needing the variance.
Mr. Stegall asked staff the distance from the street of other homes on the same side of
Gregg Street in the area? Staff responded that there is an average setback clause within the
zoning ordinance, but it would not apply to this property because the existing homes along
Gregg Street meet the 35 ft. setback requirement.
Chairman Thomas stated that he would like a grading report on the property in order to see
the buildable area of the lot. Staff noted that the plan with the house setback 35 ft. from the
front property line was approved so anything closer should also be okay from a grading
perspective.
Chairman Thomas opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and invited anyone to
speak in favor of the variance.
Mr. Somjak spoke in favor of the variance citing that in his opinion it will not detract from
the neighborhood and if anything will increase the property values.
Ms. Matos stated that permits had already been granted and that she and her husband Mr.
Matos had already closed on the loan for the house.
Ms. Somjak stated that the surveyor was extremely concerned with the drop-off of the lot
and the trouble that could cause with the construction of a home.
Chairman Thomas invited anyone in attendance who was against the variance to speak.
Ms. McMeekin provided a petition (attached) with 31 signatures against the variance and
stated that she was against the variance. She also stated that she was not happy that a very
old tree was cut down in order to build on the lot.
Ms. Evans stated that she thought moving the house forward would look completely out of
place.
Ms. Huff stated that from her sunroom the proposed home would stick out creating a bad
look for the neighborhood.
Ms. Sparks stated that she was against the variance because it would create a home out of
place.
Mr. Kerr was against the variance due to the speed of traffic along Gregg Street and the
potential safety concerns that a new home could cause regarding this.
Mr. Howell stated that he lived directly beside the subject property and that it would be
much closer to the road than his current home on the corner.
Ms. Blair stated that a home closer to the road creates parking issues because the driveway
is typically shorter. She continued by saying this inevitably leads to parking on the street
and can cause unsafe conditions especially in close proximity to an intersection.
Chairman Thomas closed the public portion of the meeting.
The applicant requested that the case be deferred. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on
whether or not to grant deferment of the variance request. Mr. Helms made a motion to
defer the variance request. Mr. Couchenour seconded the motion. The motion passed by a
vote of 6-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Cauthen
Planning Department
October 16, 2018
\
Town of Fort Mill
Board of Zoning Appeals
Item for Action
Item #1 CASE # 2019-0541 Applicant is appealing the zoning administrator’s
Bret McNabb decision to allow the use of a convenience
Corner of Fort Mill Parkway store/gas station within the Corridor Overlay
and South Dobys Bridge Road District Node.
Tax Map # 020-12-01-316 [Pages 9-68]
Zoning District: HC, COD-N
Background
The applicant, Bret McNabb is appealing the zoning administrator’s interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance and subsequent decision to allow the use of a gas station/convenience store on the
subject property (Tax Map # 020-12-01-316), which is zoned Highway Commercial (HC) and is
located within the Corridor Overlay District - Node (COD-N).
Staff received plans for a 7-Eleven gas station/convenience store along with a request to be heard
by the Planning Commission for Commercial Appearance Review Approval in early May of 2019.
At that time, staff made the determination that a gas station/convenience store was a permitted use
within the HC/COD-N zoning districts and, therefore, that the development process could proceed.
Zoning Administrator’s Determination
A gas station/convenience store is a permitted use within the HC/COD-N zoning district. This
determination was made after careful review of the Zoning Ordinance generally, the zoning
regulations of the property’s underlying / base zoning classification of Highway Commercial (HC),
and the additional zoning regulations that are applicable for the property from the Corridor Overlay
District – Node (COD-N).
The subject property has an underlying zoning district of Highway Commercial (HC) which
specifically lists gas stations and convenience stores as permitted uses per Article II, Section 9,
Subsection 2 of the Zoning Ordinance (see attachment 2).
The subject property is also located within, and subject to the requirements of, the Corridor
Overlay District - Node. Article II, Section 24, Subsection 3(A) addresses permitted uses allowed
within the overlay district. It states:
All permitted, special, and conditional uses of the underlying zoning district are allowed
subject to the specific requirements and procedures for each use classification, except as
follows.
Subsection 3(B) continues by specifically listing twelve (12) uses that are prohibited within the
COD/COD-N overlay. Neither gas stations nor convenience stores are listed as prohibited uses
for properties in the overlay district (see attachment 3).
Therefore, the zoning administrator’s determination that a gas station / convenience store was a
permitted use on the subject property was due to the uses being specifically listed as permitted in
the HC district and not listed as prohibited in the COD/COD-N overlay district.
Board of Zoning Appeals Authority
Pursuant to Section 6-29-800(A)(1) of the SC Code of Laws, the Board of Zoning Appeals, has
the power to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in an order, requirement,
decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of the zoning
ordinance.
The Board, as noted in 6-29-800(E), has the authority to reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or
may modify the order, requirements, decision or determination of the zoning administrator. The
Board has all the powers of the zoning administrator in such cases and may issue or direct the
issuance of a permit.
Submitted by:
Nick Cauthen
Assistant Planner / Zoning Administrator
July 3, 2019
Attachments
1 Zoning Map/Aerial Map p. 12
2 Highway Commercial permitted uses p. 13-14
3 Corridor Overlay District Node permitted uses p. 15
4 Notice of Appeal Submittal p. 16-68
Attachment #1
York County Tax Map # 020-12-01-316
Zoning Map
SUBJECT PROPERTY
York County Tax Map # 020-12-01-316
Aerial Map
Attachment #2
Article II, Sec. 9 HC Highway Commercial District, Subsection 2. Permitted Uses:
2. Permitted uses: The following uses shall be permitted in any HC zoning district:
1. Administrative offices.
2. Research, development and testing laboratories.
3. United States Postal Service.
4. Hardware stores.
5. Horticultural nursery.
6. Antique stores.
7. Food stores.
8. Convenience stores.
9. Apparel and accessory stores.
10. Home furniture, furnishing and equipment stores.
11. Restaurants.
12. Taverns.
13. Drug stores.
14. General merchandise stores such as bicycle and sporting goods, books,
stationery, jewelry, toy, photography, gift, luggage, sewing, catalog,
consignment shops (but not flea markets) etc.
15. Personal service stores such as florists, optical goods, art supplies,
telephone stores, pet stores, travel agents, etc.
16. Pet shops.
17. Animal hospital specifically excluding boarding facilities.
18. Banking, lending institutions, security and broker services, insurance
companies specifically excluding check cashing establishments, title loan
lenders, deferred presentment lenders, pawnshops, title loan brokers, and
small loan companies.
19. Real estate agencies.
20. Dry cleaners and laundry services.
21. Photographic studios, beauty shops, barber shops, shoe repair.
22. Funeral service and crematories.
23. General retail trade such as department stores, food stores, etc.
24. Gas stations.
25. Car washes.
26. Repair garage.
27. Warehouse (excluding mini-warehouses or personal storage units).
28. Hospitals.
29. Offices for health care services, such as doctors, dentists, and nursing,
and personal care facilities.
30. Legal services offices.
31. Professional offices and workshops for engineering, accounting, research,
artists, etc. Daycare centers.
32. Recreational activity centers such as bowling alleys, skating rinks,
miniature golf courses, playhouses, and arcades.
33. Schools.
34. Hotels.
35. Theaters.
36. Seasonal or temporary uses, consistent with the character of the district
and in conformance with all pertinent requirements of the municipal code.
37. Accessory uses in compliance with the provisions of article I, section 7,
subsection G.
Attachment #3
Article II, Sec. 24 COD/COD-N Corridor Overlay District, Subsection 3. Permitted Uses:
3. Permitted uses.
A) All permitted, special and conditional uses of the underlying zoning district are
allowed subject to the specific requirements and procedures for each use
classification, except as follows.
B) Notwithstanding the provisions of the underlying zoning district, the following
uses shall be prohibited within COD/COD-N:
1. Automobile rental and sales.
2. Automotive wrecker service.
3. Bingo halls.
4. Casino or gambling establishment.
5. Check cashing establishments, title loan lenders, deferred presentment
lenders, pawnshops, loan brokers, and small loan companies.
6. Communications towers. Where such towers must be permitted per the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and it has been demonstrated that no
existing towers or structures (such as rooftops, water towers, etc.) can
accommodate such equipment, the towers shall not exceed 100 feet in
height. To the extent practicable, they shall be roof-mounted, not
freestanding, structures.
7. Industrial or heavy manufacturing uses (prohibited in COD-N only).
8. Junk or salvage yards.
9. Mobile homes.
10. Sexually-oriented businesses.
11. Sweepstakes cafes.
12. Tattoo facilities.
Attachment #4
Get email alerts for Fort Mill
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.