Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA July 14, 2020 5:00 PM Town Hall (annex) – Council Chambers 200 S. Main Street I. Approval of minutes from June 9, 2020 (For below item, signs posted on property June 29, 2020 and ad on June 28, 2020 in Post & Courier) II. OLD BUSINESS: 1. No Old Business III. NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 232-07-03-033, 308 McDougal Circle, zoned PUD – Planned Development District, owned by Kristina Siddle – variance request to reduce the required front setback from 25 feet to 20 feet, Ordinance Sections 2.10 2. TMS # 379-00-00-273, 215 Brutus Lane, zoned PUD – Planned Development District, owned by Ralph and Suzanne Tileston – variance request to reduce the required rear setback from 10 feet to five (5) feet for the construction of a pergola . Ordinance Section 2.10. 3. TMS # 154-00-00-009, 0 Ladson Road, zoned UC-MX – Urban Corridor Mixed Use, owned by Tricoastal Properties II – variance request to increase the permitted sign height and size from six feet and 36 square feet to 14 feet and 67 square feet. Ordinance Section 10.4.2.A. IV. MISCELLANEOUS: None V. ADJOURN Posted July 7, 2020  Board of Zoning Appeals Tuesday, June 9, 2020 Council Chambers – 3rd Floor Town Hall Annex Building Members Present: Staff Present: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator Don Nye Lionel Lawson Scott Riddell Items on the agenda: OLD BUSINESS: 1. None NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 137-05-05-017, 612 Central Avenue, zoned GR-2 – General Residential, owned by Mona Caudle – variance request to reduce the required side setback from 15 feet to one foot, Ordinance Sections 2.7.3.C. 2. TMS # 146-14-00-012, 247 Judith Drive, zoned R-6 Multifamily Residential under the Town’s old zoning Ordinance, owned by 247 Judith LLC – variance request to eliminate the Class 2 buffer . Ordinance Section 32-322. 3. TMS # 136-08-06-062, 415 Hemingway Circle, zoned N-R Neighborhood Residential, owned by Gretchen Kondroski – variance request to reduce the required side setback from 15 feet to seven feet. Ordinance Section 2.5. 4. TMS # 137-03-06-007, 419 N Cedar Street, zoned D-MX Downtown Mixed Use, owned by Robert Pratt – variance request to reduce the required parking lot screening from eight feet to one foot. Ordinance Section 8.5.2.A. 5. TMS # 153-12-03-011, 159 Oak Bluff Road, zoned PUD Planned Unit Development, owned by Randy and Jessica Girard – variance request to reduce the required accessory structure setback from 20 feet to five feet and increase the impervious surface limit from 35% to 36%. Ordinance Section 2.10 MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Mr. Denis Tsukalas. Mr. Tsukalas asked for any comments or edits for the minutes from the May 12, 2020 meeting minutes. A motion was made by Mr. Nye to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Riddell. The motion passed 4-0. OLD BUSINESS 1. None NEW BUSINESS 1. 612 Central Avenue – The first item under New Business TMS # 137-05-05-017, 612 Central Avenue, zoned GR-2 – General Residential, owned by Mona Caudle – variance request to reduce the required side setback from 15 feet to one foot, Ordinance Sections 2.7.3.C. Mr. Macholl explained that this is a request for a variance to allow the construction of a proposed carport on the side of the house. Ms. Mona Caudle came to the podium to discuss the proposed carport. She explained that there are existing shrubs on the property line and that she wanted to pour a new concrete pad and build the carport to provide some cover. It would be big enough for one car and be designed to match the house. Mr. Riddell asked why the carport was proposed to be as big as it is, if there was any other alternative use proposed. Ms. Caudle explained that she wanted to be able to open car doors underneath the carport to easily get in and out. The location was chosen to preserve an existing tree in the rear yard. The Board discussed the location of the carport and whether the proposed location was appropriate. They proposed the other side of the house. Mr. Macholl explained that there was actually less space on that side and a variance would be required on that side as well. Mr. Tsukalas asked if the applicant was willing to change her plan. She advised that no she could not the driveway already existed on that side of the house. Mr. Nye made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tsukalas. The Chairman asked if there was any additional discussion. There being none the Chairman asked for the vote. The vote ended 2-2. A tied vote goes with the nays, resulting in the motion to approve being denied. 2. 247 Judith Drive – The second item under new business TMS # 146-14-00-012, 247 Judith Drive, zoned R-6 Multifamily Residential under the Town’s old zoning Ordinance, owned by 247 Judith LLC – variance request to eliminate the Class 2 buffer . Ordinance Section 32-322. Mr. Macholl explained that this project previously received Design Review Board approval, under the Town’s previous zoning ordinance. Mr. David Willis came to the podium to address the Board. He explained that the project backs up to the CPW water tower and an outdoor storage yard for the adjacent subdivision. He explained that the elimination of the required Class 2 buffer, which was originally shown on the plan, would allow this project to be completed. Originally it was thought that it would be possible to get all of the required material in that space, but there are overhead power lines to the water tank, an underground water main, a drainage swale and existing trees on the adjacent property. These things together are making it impossible to fit the tree planting materials in the area, and still provide the required drainage for the site which drains from the back of the property to Judith Drive. Mr. Tsukalas asked to clarify that they intend to leave the existing, just not add any additional materials. Mr. Willis Confirmed. Mr. Riddell asked how this will benefit. Mr. Willis explained that the omission of the plants will allow the drainage on the site to flow better in this area. Mr. Riddell asked Mr. Macholl if there is a precedent for this type of request. Mr. Macholl explained that it does happen. Sometimes during the planning process you can fit the required materials on the paper plan, but when you get into the field it is more difficult or impossible to actually meet the planting requirements. Mr. Riddell expressed a concern about providing relief to a developer who created the issue by trying to put too much development on a property. Mr. Tsukalas asked if the building met all of the other requirements. Mr. Macholl confirmed that the development was in conformance with the other requirements in place at the time of approval. Mr. Nye made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lawson. The Chairman asked if there was any additional discussion. There being none the Chairman asked for the vote. The motion passed 3-1, with Mr. Riddell voting against. 3. 415 Hemingway Circle – The third item under new business TMS # 136-08-06-062, 415 Hemingway Circle, zoned N-R Neighborhood Residential, owned by Gretchen Kondroski – variance request to reduce the required side setback from 15 feet to seven feet. Ordinance Section 2.5. Ms. Gretchen Kondroski came to the podium to address the Board. Mr. Macholl explained the request. Ms. Kondroski explained that the proposal consists of building the screened porch over the existing patio shown in the pictures. She explained that the pavers shown in the pictures would be removed and the screened porch would be built on the concrete. Mr. Lawson asked if the dryer vent would be enclosed in the patio. Ms. Kondroski explained they are aware of the location of the vent and that if it can’t be moved it will be on the inside of the porch. Mr. Tsukalas asked if there will be a screen door. Ms. Kondroski confirmed there will be a door. Mr. Tsukalas made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Riddell. The Chairman asked if there was any additional discussion. There being none the Chairman asked for the vote. The motion passed 4-0. 4. 419 N. Cedar Street – The fourth item under new business TMS # 137-03-06-007, 419 N Cedar Street, zoned D-MX Downtown Mixed Use, owned by Robert Pratt – variance request to reduce the required parking lot screening from eight feet to one foot. Ordinance Section 8.5.2.A. Mr. Macholl explained the request. Mr. Robert Pratt came to the podium and addressed the Board. He explained that he had purchased the property and that he wanted to preserve the cottage as a piece of Summerville. He wants to convert the small house into an office, but needs to provide parking for the use. He explained that he wants to preserve the large Pecan Tree in the front yard while adhering to the UDO requirements. Ms. Amanda Barton the landscape architect explained that with the building located closer to the back of the property and it being a very tight site, with the addition of the drive to the back and to be able to provide adequate maneuvering space there is no room for the required eight (8) foot buffer on the edges of the parking area. She explained that there is already a considerable amount of landscaping on the adjacent properties. There is an existing magnolia on the adjacent property that has very shallow root system that would prevent the planting of materials on the property to meet the buffer requirements. She explained that the cottage was built in the 1930s or 40s. Mr. Lawson asked about the gravel parking on the south side. Mr. Pratt explained that he felt that the prior owner had probably used that to access the property due to the lack of an existing curb cut to the Cedar Street side. Mr. Riddell asked for some clarification on the UDO requirements, and if they apply because this is a redevelopment of an existing site. Mr. Macholl explained that there are some allowances built into the 2 UDO for this kind of situation, but because this is a change of use, and the drive aisle and the parking are new to the site, the eight (8) foot buffer would be required. Ms. Barton explained to the board that she felt that the existing property is not really wide enough to support standard development and that without the variance they would not be able to fit the requirements. Mr. Tsukalas made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nye. The Chairman asked if there was any additional discussion. There being none the Chairman asked for the vote. The motion passed 4-0. 5. 159 Oak Bluff Road – The fifth item under new business TMS # 153-12-03-011, 159 Oak Bluff Road, zoned PUD Planned Unit Development, owned by Randy and Jessica Girard – variance request to reduce the required accessory structure setback from 20 feet to five feet and increase the impervious surface limit from 35% to 36%. Ordinance Section 2.10. Mr. Randy Girard came to the podium to discuss the project. He explained that the shape of the lot, being a pie shape, has resulted in the house being pushed back away from the road. Additionally, the existing trees in the back yard he wants to preserve. This prevents the appropriate placement of the shed meeting the required setbacks. Mr. Tsukalas asked to make sure that the shed was proposed to be built in the back yard and if the fence shown in the pictures is located on the property line. Mr. Girard confirmed the shed would be in the rear yard, and that it backs up to a large pond area. Mr. Riddell asked if others in the neighborhood had done similar things. Mr. Girard explained that he could not speak for other homeowners and if they had sought the appropriate variances. He noted though that other properties do have sheds. Mr. Tsukalas suggested the removal of a tree. Mr. Girard said that he did not want to do that. Mr. Lawson asked if the shed could be seen from the street and if it will be built on a concrete pad. Mr. Girard stated that the shed would be able to be seen from the street and that it is proposed to be built up on blocks. It was suggested that the shed could be moved to another part of the yard to meet the required setback. Mr. Girard stated that he was trying to preserve the open space that exists in the back yard. Mr. Riddell asked how far from the front property line the shed was proposed to be. Mr. Girard thought that it would be about 90-100 feet. Mr. Riddell made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nye. The Chairman asked if there was any additional discussion. There being none the Chairman asked for the vote. The motion passed 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:09 PM on a motion by Mr. Tsukalas and a second by Mr. Nye. The motion passed unanimously 4-0 Respectfully Submitted, Date: ________________ Tim Macholl Zoning Administrator Approved: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman _____________________________________; or, Elise Richardson, Vice Chairman ______________________________________ 3  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS#232-07-03-033 308 McDougal Circle, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS July 14, 2020 Request: Variance request to reduce the required front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet for a covered front porch Property Zoning: PUD Planned Development District Surrounding Zoning: North: PUD Planned Development District South: PUD Planned Development District East: PUD Planned Development District West: PUD Planned Development District Ordinance requires: Ordinance Section 2.10 Planned Development District Response: In order for a variance to be issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals, an applicant is required to show that all four of the conditions listed below have been met and an unnecessary hardship must be shown. (b) Variances. The board has the power to hear and decide requests for variances when strict application of this chapter's provisions would cause an unnecessary hardship. (1) The following standards must apply for finding an unnecessary hardship: a. Extraordinary conditions. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property, which could exist due to topography, street widening or other conditions which make it difficult or impossible to make an economically feasible use of the property. b. Other property. Extraordinary conditions generally do not apply to other property in the vicinity. c. Utilization. Because of these extraordinary conditions, the application of this chapter's provisions to a particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. d. Detriment. The authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by granting of the variance. Background: The need for a setback variance was determined at the time of application for building permit a. Extraordinary conditions do not exist on the property that prevents or unreasonably prevents the use of the property b. Other property in the area do not have similar issues, some properties were built originally with a front porch. c. Utilization of the property is reduced but not eliminated due to the position of the house on the property preventing the construction of the front porch. d. Detriment will not be caused to other properties by the issuance of this variance on this property. Macholl, Tim From: kristina damico <kristina2boys@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:29 PM To: Macholl, Tim Subject: Re: Additional Submittals Required A. The extraordinary condition is this porch would encroach on the 25’ set back rule. Our hoa has approved our plan to add a porch and have no issues with the addition B. This addition of a porch would not encroach on either of our neighboring houses C. We are asking that we are allowed to add a front porch to our home and encroach on the 25’ setback to finish our home and help our home to blend into existing neighborhood D. The character of property and neighborhood would not be harmed by the addition of the porch it would only increase our curb appeal Sent from my iPhone On Jun 10, 2020, at 2:28 PM, Macholl, Tim <tmacholl@summervillesc.gov> wrote: Thank you for the information. Attached is the worksheet. Tim Macholl <image005.jpg> Zoning Administrator Town of Summerville 200 S Main St Summerville, SC 29483 843.851.4213 summervillesc.gov <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> From: kristina damico [mailto:kristina2boys@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:05 PM To: Macholl, Tim <tmacholl@summervillesc.gov> Subject: Re: Additional Submittals Required The roofing material will be shingles - sending pics separately of Front of house. I also didn’t see the 4 questions? Could you forward them to me Thank you Sent from my iPhone 1 On Jun 9, 2020, at 9:27 AM, <TMACHOLL@summervillesc.gov> <TMACHOLL@summervillesc.gov> wrote: Mayor Town Admin Ricky Waring Colin L Council Members: Tow Bill McIntosh, Mayor Pro Tem Walter Bailey <logo.jpg> Beth Me Aaron Brown Town A Kima Garten-Schmidt G.W. Bob Jackson Terry Jenkins TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE Plan Review Letter Dated: June 09, 2020 Kristina Siddle 308 Mcdougal Circle Summerville, SC 29483 Re: BZA20-000015 front porch 308 MCDOUGAL CIR We have completed a preliminary plan review for the above-captioned project and find the following items that must be addressed before the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on July 14, 2020. 1. The two drawings provided have different roofing materials. One shows shingles the other a metal roof to match over the garage. Please clarify the roofing choice. 2. Please provide additional photographs of the existing front facade. 3. The written statement does not address the four criteria for a variance. Please upload a new statement which addresses the criteria specifically. 2  I have attached a work sheet that details the specific criteria that must beaddressed as part of the submitted statement. Please feel free to contact me at 843-851-4213 if you have any questions. Regards, <_Documents_301_13564_Signature.gif> Tim Macholl Zoning Administrator 200 South Main Street, Summerville, SC 29483-6000 * 843.871.6000, Fax: 843.871.6954 www.SummervilleSC.gov <logo.jpg> <_Documents_301_13564_Signature.gif> <Variance Standards.pdf> This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Town of Summerville. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please reply to the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. <Variance Standards.pdf> 3 Macholl, Tim From: kristina damico <kristina2boys@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:05 PM To: Macholl, Tim Subject: Re: Additional Submittals Required The roofing material will be shingles - sending pics separately of Front of house. I also didn’t see the 4 questions? Could you forward them to me Thank you Sent from my iPhone On Jun 9, 2020, at 9:27 AM, <TMACHOLL@summervillesc.gov> <TMACHOLL@summervillesc.gov> wrote: Mayor Town Administrator Ricky Waring Colin L. Martin Council Members: Town Clerk Bill McIntosh, Mayor Pro Tem Walter Bailey <logo.jpg> Beth Messervy Aaron Brown Town Attorney Kima Garten-Schmidt G.W. Parker Bob Jackson Terry Jenkins TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE Plan Review Letter Dated: June 09, 2020 Kristina Siddle 308 Mcdougal Circle Summerville, SC 29483 Re: BZA20-000015 front porch 308 MCDOUGAL CIR 1 We have completed a preliminary plan review for the above-captioned project and find the following items that must be addressed before the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on July 14, 2020. 1. The two drawings provided have different roofing materials. One shows shingles the other a metal roof to match over the garage. Please clarify the roofing choice. 2. Please provide additional photographs of the existing front facade. 3. The written statement does not address the four criteria for a variance. Please upload a new statement which addresses the criteria specifically. I have attached a work sheet that details the specific criteria that must beaddressed as part of the submitted statement. Please feel free to contact me at 843-851-4213 if you have any questions. Regards, <_Documents_301_13564_Signature.gif> Tim Macholl Zoning Administrator 200 South Main Street, Summerville, SC 29483-6000 * 843.871.6000, Fax: 843.871.6954 www.SummervilleSC.gov <logo.jpg> <_Documents_301_13564_Signature.gif> <Variance Standards.pdf> 2  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS#379-00-00-273 215 Brutus Lane, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS July 14, 2020 Request: Variance request to reduce the required rear yard setback from 10 feet to five (5) feet for the construction of a pergola Property Zoning: PUD Planned Development District Surrounding Zoning: North: PUD Planned Development District South: PUD Planned Development District East: PUD Planned Development District West: PUD Planned Development District Ordinance requires: Ordinance Section 2.10 Planned Development District Response: In order for a variance to be issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals, an applicant is required to show that all four of the conditions listed below have been met and an unnecessary hardship must be shown. (b) Variances. The board has the power to hear and decide requests for variances when strict application of this chapter's provisions would cause an unnecessary hardship. (1) The following standards must apply for finding an unnecessary hardship: a. Extraordinary conditions. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property, which could exist due to topography, street widening or other conditions which make it difficult or impossible to make an economically feasible use of the property. b. Other property. Extraordinary conditions generally do not apply to other property in the vicinity. c. Utilization. Because of these extraordinary conditions, the application of this chapter's provisions to a particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. d. Detriment. The authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by granting of the variance. Background: The need for a setback variance was determined prior to application for building permit a. Extraordinary conditions do exist based upon the size of the property and relative size of the house, the structure stretches from setback to setback because of the location of the lot on the cul-de-sac. Any vertical structure on the rear of the property will require a variance due to the small size of the lot. b. Other property in the area do have similar issues, a rear setback variance was previously approved at 220 Brutus Lane for a rear setback reduction in 2018. c. Utilization of the property is reduced but not eliminated due to the position of the house on the property preventing the pergola on the rear. d. Detriment will not be caused to other properties by the issuance of this variance on this property.  Ralph D. and Suzanne J. Tileston 215 Brutus Lane Summerville, SC 29485 Ralph.tileston@gmail.com (843)412-5042 Cell June 18, 2020 Town of Summerville Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) 200 South Main Street Summerville, SC 29483 Board Members: Attached please find a Plot Plan for our home at 215 Brutus Lane in Summerville. As you can see, our rear set back (10 feet) dissects our patio exactly in half and is preventing our contractor from attaching/installing 10 feet by 32 feet pergola across the rear of our home. We are located at the bottom of Brutus Lane and our home is adjacent to a common area leading to a retention pond. Our intention is to install the pergola over the patio area plus an additional 12 feet of width of additional concrete patio. I have also enclosed some photos in our file submittal. Specifically: Extraordinary Conditions: Due to the placement of our home on a cul-de-sac, a portion of the front yard was lost for street and storm drain placement forcing the home to be placed further back on the lot. In addition, the contouring process for the rear area of our home is part of the drainage and pond servicing access that was deemed necessary for proper flow and function. We are asking for a 5-foot reduction to the setback rule in our patio area only. (Would not affect any other portion of the property). Other Property: This Variance would only affect the areas of pergola placement and would not affect any other area of property. Utilization: Due to the position of our home (front East and rear West), the rear patio is not usable until evening by wife due to the sun exposure and heat discomfort earlier. The installation of the pergola would allow usage of the patio area for most of the year to block the sun and the rain. My wife has been advised by our dermatologist to avoid direct sunlight whenever possible. Detriment: The authorization of this variance would not be of any detriment to any contiguous property or the public good. The character of the district will not be harmed by granting of the variance. Sincerely, Ralph D. and Suzanne J. Tileston  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS#154-00-00-009 Ladson Road and Limehouse Drive, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS July 14, 2020 Request: Variance request to increase the permitted sign height and size from six feet and 36 square feet to 14 feet and 67 square feet. Property Zoning: UC-MX Urban Corridor Mixed Use Surrounding Zoning: North: UC-MX Urban Corridor Mixed Use South: UC-MX Urban Corridor Mixed Use East: UC-MX Urban Corridor Mixed Use/Out West: UC-MX Urban Corridor Mixed Use/Out Ordinance requires: Ordinance Section 10.4.2.A – six feet overall height and 36 square feet sign face Response: In order for a variance to be issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals, an applicant is required to show that all four of the conditions listed below have been met and an unnecessary hardship must be shown. (b) Variances. The board has the power to hear and decide requests for variances when strict application of this chapter's provisions would cause an unnecessary hardship. (1) The following standards must apply for finding an unnecessary hardship: a. Extraordinary conditions. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property, which could exist due to topography, street widening or other conditions which make it difficult or impossible to make an economically feasible use of the property. b. Other property. Extraordinary conditions generally do not apply to other property in the vicinity. c. Utilization. Because of these extraordinary conditions, the application of this chapter's provisions to a particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. d. Detriment. The authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by granting of the variance. Background: The applicant has been in discussions with staff concerning the proposed signage for the recently approved development of a Parker’s Kitchen at the corner of Ladson and Limehouse Drive. The applicant is requesting the variance only for the Ladson Road sign. a. Extraordinary conditions: Extraordinary conditions do not exist on the property that would prevent the utilization of the property for its intended use. The property is still permitted to have a sign, additionally the DRB has granted the developer the right to have two signs on the property, one on the Ladson Road side and one on the Limehouse Drive side. b. Other Property: The UC-MX zoning has been applied to properties along Ladson Road. The undeveloped properties in this corridor will be restricted to the same signage requirements as this property putting no one at an advantage. c. Utilization: By complying with the requirements of the code the property will not be unnecessarily restricted. The DRB has already approved the additional signage that is permitted with DRB approval. d. Detriment: The issuance of the variance will not necessarily be detrimental to the surrounding properties, but it is staff’s opinion that it will set a precedent for future development and will be detrimental to the character of the corridor that the Town is trying to establish with the passage of the UDO. 2 Town of Summerville BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS / VARIANCE REQUEST APPLICATION ADDENDUM Pursuant to Chapter 32 Article II, The Drayton Parker Companies and Gregory M. Parker Inc. is seeking a variance from Section 10.4.2 of the UDO where it allows a maximum height of 6 feet and area of 36 Square Feet for monument signs in the UC-MX zoning district. The applicant is requesting a maximum height allowance of 14 feet and area of 75 Square Feet for the allowed signage. (a) Extraordinary Conditions: There extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property, which could exist due to topography, street widening, or other conditions which make it difficult or impossible to make an economically feasible use of the property. The site, situated at the corner of Ladson Road and Limehouse Drive, a heavily traveled arterial corridor, provides a great opportunity for residents and motorists along this corridor to be serviced with convenience, food and fuel; however, the economic viability of the site will be significantly impacted due to the severely restrictive signage allowances for height and area. (b) Other Property: Extraordinary conditions generally do not apply to other property in the vicinity. The property in question is one of only few properties along the Ladson Road corridor situated in the Town’s UC-MX district, where the majority of similarly zoned properties are located in the Town’s more densely developed urban corridors and downtown business district with significantly different traffic patterns and speed limits. Other properties along this corridor are not equally burdened with the more restrictive zoning and signage requirements of the UC-MX Zone. Those properties sharing the same zoning designation were in some cases previously developed under less restrictive sign standards. (c) Utilization: Because of these extraordinary conditions, the application of this chapter’s provisions to a particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. In light of the aforesaid unique conditions and constraints surrounding the subject property, if the applicant were not granted a variance and is forced to comply with the forementioned maximum height and area requirements for signage, there would be a substantial negative impact to the traffic flow and safety along Ladson Road and Limehouse Drive. With the larger signs the applicant intends to provide advance notice to motorist along this busy corridor of the availability of convenience and fuel while allowing for adequate site distance, response time and safer turn movements entering and exiting the site.  (d) Detriment: The authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. The above referenced circumstances warrants allowances for the safe circulation of, vehicular, pedestrian and delivery traffic in vicinity to and throughout the site. The exercise of power in granting a variance in this case would be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance as granting the variance will vastly improve safety, circulation and service to the public and will not adversely impact adjacent properties or uses nor will it be detrimental to the overall health, safety and welfare of the community. The character of the district will be significantly enhanced given the overall design of site, landscaping and aesthetics of the proposed signage. Signature of Applicant Date 061920 __________________________________________Signature _____________________Date