Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular MeetingFort Mill, SC · September 16, 2019
Minutes
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
September 16, 2019
6:00 PM
Present: Amber Bryant, Carolyn Blair, Ryan Helms, Chairman Jim Thomas, Terri Murray,
Jody Stegall, Assistant Planner Nick Cauthen, Planning Director Penelope
Karagounis
Absent: Becky Campbell
Guests: John Elvington (Applicant)
Chairman Thomas called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Thomas noted he would like to add details to the minutes from the July meeting to reflect
that he asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak before the public hearing was closed
and being that there were no additional requests the public hearing was closed. Mr. Helms made a
motion to amend the minutes of the July 9, 2019 meeting as submitted by staff with the addition
of Chairman Thomas’ requested language. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The motion was
approved by a vote of 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Variance request from Modulex Carolinas – 818 Tom Hall Street – Case # 2019-783:
Chairman Thomas noted the applicant and the location of the variance request. He added
that he asked staff for 2 additional photographs from the street that would show what a
driver sees coming from each way on Tom Hall Street in relation to the sign, and that these
would be shown at the meeting.
Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the variance request, the purpose
of which was to allow an increase in the dimensional requirements for a ground sign. Mr.
Cauthen noted that according to the applicant, due to the topography of the sign’s location,
its visibility from Tom Hall Street is severely restricted with the current size regulations.
Mr. Stegall asked if this request was just for the road signage. Staff responded yes and the
new sign would be in the same location as the old sign it is replacing.
Mr. Stegall asked if the sign’s dimensions are maxed out now in relation to the UDO’s
requirements. Staff stated they did not know for sure but it was very close if not.
Mr. John Elvington (applicant) arrived at the meeting.
Mr. Elvington stated that part of his argument had to do with the fact that if the property
had slightly more road frontage then the sign presented would be allowed due to increased
dimensional maximums allowed with 300 ft. of road frontage.
Chairman Thomas asked the applicant for his name and relationship to the company listed
on the application. The applicant said his name was John Elvington and he was the owner
of Modulex Carolinas (sign company).
Mr. Elvington noted that Kuester Development came to him about enhancements at Tom
Hall Plaza including face lifts to the buildings along with additional square footage and
new signage. Visibility, size of the tenant plates, and a better contrast of colors was the
goal for the new sign. The overall height of the sign was increased to get the tenants,
especially on the bottom, closer to traffic eye level since the current sign’s base is below
the road at this time. There is not a proposed increase in number of tenants on the sign, just
larger name plates for each.
Mr. Stegall asked what the uses will be. Mr. Elvington said there will be a mixture of uses
including retail, office, and a possible restaurant.
Mr. Stegall asked if owning an office ware-house a couple of miles away on Hwy 160
precluded him from voting on the sign. Staff responded that it is ultimately the decision of
the Board member to recuse themselves but there did not appear to be any conflict if that
was the only connection.
Ms. Murray asked if multiple signs are allowed. Staff responded that only one sign is
allowed along the road frontage for this development. Ms. Murray asked about wayfinding
signs within the site and staff responded that these could potentially be allowed.
Chairman Thomas asked about the vertical address on the sign. Staff responded they had
no issue with that.
Chairman Thomas asked about the LED lighting for the sign. Staff responded that it would
be externally lit which increased the maximum allowable area to 80 sq. ft. but the proposed
sign still exceeds that amount.
Mr. Helms asked if the sign will be closer to the road. The applicant responded that no it
would be at least 3 ft. from the right-of-way.
Chairman Thomas asked if the entire grassy area between the parking lot and street could
be raised. Mr. Elvington said he is not sure due to cost and drainage concern issues. He
said he was recommending landscaping around the sign.
Ms. Blair asked for the height of the existing sign. The applicant stated it was 7.5 ft. from
finished grade to the top.
Ms. Bryant asked if the sign material would be the same as the existing sign. The applicant
stated it would be 100% fabricated aluminum, the faux stone from the existing base would
be removed, paint colors of the sign will match the new paint schemes of the buildings.
Chairman Thomas opened the public hearing portion of the meeting, being that there were
no requests made, the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Thomas asked if there were any additional comments or questions. Being none,
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. Ms.
Murray made a motion that there were extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining
to the particular piece of property. Ms. Blair seconded the motion. The motion passed by
a vote of 4-2 (Murray and Helms opposed).
Mr. Stegall said he read if you have 300 ft. of road frontage you could have a larger sign.
Mr. Helms asked if there are any other 250 ft. linear feet of road frontage properties in the
area. Chairman Thomas said there is a bank that may be close, not sure about the gas station
nearby. Mr. Stegall noted that to his knowledge all signs in the immediate area are close to
the same size. Staff said the monument sign requirement is standard across Town.
Mr. Stegall asked if granting the variance would give the property an unfair advantage.
Staff responded that decision is up to the Board. Chairman Thomas noted the issue is the
number of tenants in the developments, individual uses have no issue meeting the
requirements of the UDO. Ms. Blair agreed. Chairman Thomas said he cannot read the
tenants on the sign as is. Mr. Helms stated that is the main reason the applicant is asking
for the variance.
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. Ms. Bryant seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of
4-2 (Stegall and Murray opposed).
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the application of the ordinance effectively
prohibits or unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. Ms. Murray made a
motion that the application of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably
restrict the utilization of the property. Mr. Helms seconded the motion. The motion passed
by a vote of 5-1 (Murray 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. Stegall 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. Mr. Helms seconded the motion. The motion passed by a
vote of 5-1 (Murray opposed).
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether or not to grant the variance. Ms. Bryant made
a motion to grant the variance in order to allow an increase in the height and allowable area
of the proposed sign for Tom Hall Plaza. Ms. Blair seconded the motion. The motion failed
by a vote of 3-3 with Mr. Helms, Ms. Murray, and Mr. Stegall opposed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Cauthen
Planning Department
September 26, 2019
Agenda
TOWN OF FORT MILL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
September 16, 2019
112 Confederate Street
6:00 PM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting: July 9, 2019 [Pages 2-6]
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. CASE # 2019-783 Applicant is requesting a variance from the zoning
Modulex Carolinas ordinance to allow an increase in the dimensional
818 Tom Hall Street requirements for a ground sign.
Tax Map # 020-07-01-001 [Pages 7-23]
Zoning District: HC/THCD
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
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
A) 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 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
Town of Fort Mill
Board of Zoning Appeals
Item for Action
Item #1 CASE # 2019-783 Applicant is requesting a variance from the
Modulex Carolinas zoning ordinance to allow an increase in the
818 Tom Hall Street dimensional requirements for a ground sign.
Tax Map # 020-07-01-001 [Pages 7-23]
Zoning District: HC/THCD
Background / Discussion
The Town has received a variance request from Modulex Carolinas for a proposed non-conformity
related to the installation of a ground sign at 818 Tom Hall Street. The proposed sign would replace
the existing sign for Tom Hall Plaza, which is also proposed to undergo major renovations and
possible additions (see Exhibits).
The request is to allow an increase in the maximum sign height from 8 ft. to 11 ft. and to also allow
an increase in the maximum sign area from 80 sq. ft. to 117 sq. ft.
Article III, Section 13(1)(3) of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance lists the following ground sign
requirements relating to height and area.
1) Maximum height. Eight feet above normal ground level
3) Maximum area. Nonilluminated or indirectly illuminated – 80 square feet.
The petitioner has stated that due to the topography of the sign’s location, its visibility from Tom
Hall Street is severely restricted. In addition, the existing panel sizes do not allow some of the
tenant’s names to be large enough to be visible according to the applicant.
Pursuant to Section 6-29-800(A)(2) of the SC Code of Laws, the Board of Zoning Appeals has the
power to:
Hear and decide appeals for variance from the requirements of the zoning ordinance when
strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.
A variance may be granted in an individual case of unnecessary hardship if the board makes
and explains in writing the following findings:
(a) there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece
of property;
(b) these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity;
(c) 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; and
(d) 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.
(i) The board may not grant a variance, the effect of which would be to
allow the establishment of a use not otherwise permitted in a zoning
district, to extend physically a nonconforming use of land or to
change the zoning district boundaries shown on the official zoning
map. The fact that property may be utilized more profitably, if a
variance is granted, may not be considered grounds for a variance.
Other requirements may be prescribed by the zoning ordinance.
A local governing body by ordinance may permit or preclude the
granting of a variance for a use of land, a building, or a structure that
is prohibited in a given district, and if it does permit a variance, the
governing body may require the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
local adjustment board members present and voting.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the local
governing body may overrule the decision of the local board of
adjustment concerning a use variance.
(ii) In granting a variance, the board 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 advisable to
protect established property values in the surrounding area or to
promote the public health, safety, or general welfare.
Submitted by:
Nick Cauthen
Assistant Planner
September 5, 2019
York County Tax Map # 020-07-01-001
Zoning Map
York County Tax Map # 020-07-01-001
Aerial Map
EXISTING SIGN
PROPOSED SIGN 170"
SIGNAGE
SPECIFICATIONS
Window Vinyl
152 1/2"
12" Monument
12" 62" 2"
2" 10" Material: Fabricated aluminum box,
5"
1/4"
surface painted, with internal structure
to secure onto concrete slab (by
818 TOM HALL PLAZA
others). 1/4" acrylic dimensional
address letters applied to side border.
Tenant Tenant 5" 12 1/2" 1/8" painted aluminum tenant panels
with applied white vinyl.
Thickness: 12" Base; 10" Cabinet; 2"
91 1/4"
77 1/8" Tenant Tenant Border
Graphic Color: SW 7757 Highly
Tenant Tenant Reflective White
Background Color: SW 0050 Classic
95 1/2" Light Buff & PMS Black C
Tenant Tenant Mounting Method: Fabricated internal
structure to be secure onto concrete
Tenant Tenant slab.
LED Light Fixture
Tenant Tenant (2) 44" W 5k White LED light fixtures,
frame to be black for external
illumination and to match monument.
23 7/8"
DATE: July 18, 2019
DRAWN BY: NB
Tenant Tenant
818 TOM HALL
REVISION: Original
Tenant Tenant
Tenant Tenant
Tenant Tenant
Tenant Tenant
EM
* Colors shown in this drawing are for presentation purposes only. For actual colors, refer to color match sample. * Modulex does not check
for errors in production artwork provided by client, including logos. Clients are responsible for any production errors as a result of artwork
discrepancies or mistakes. * Braille shown on this drawing is for presentation purposes only. Actual signs are to have Grade 2 Braille which is the
same color as the background of the sign.
CLIENT: 818 Tom Hall FUNCTION OF SIGN: Monument SIGN
S ig n is mou nted as This drawing is the property of Modulex. This drawing is submitted under a confidential relationship for a specified
purpose and the recipient, by accepting this document, assumes custody and agrees that this document will not PROJECT: Exterior SCALE: 1/32" = 1"
TYPE
show n to the wall be copied or reproduced in whole or in part, nor its contents revealed in any manner or to any person except to
meet the purpose for which it was delivered without express written permission from Modulex.
PROPOSED RENOVATIONS
(for informational purposes only)
Get email alerts for Fort Mill
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.