Zoning Board of Appeals City of Rock Hill, South Carolina Date: August 20, 2013 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 20, 2013, at 6:30 PM in Council Chambers at City Hall, 155 Johnston Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Matt Crawford, Donovan Steltzner, Justin Smith, Michael Murnane, Timothy Pushchak Wes O Quinn Josh Reinhardt, Justin Westbrook, Leah Youngblood, Janice Miller, Bill Meyer Legal notice of the public hearing was published in The Herald, Saturday, August 3, 2013. Notice was posted on all property considered. Adjacent property owners and residents were notified in writing. 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM. 2. Approval of minutes of the June 18, 2013 meeting. Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the minutes and Mr. Murnane seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Mr. Steltzner arrived at 6:34 PM. Mr. Crawford asked for a motion to move Item 4 to Item 6 due to the large number of speakers on Item 4. Mr. Pushchak presented the motion to change the agenda order, Mr. Smith seconded and the motion carried by a vote of 5-0. 3. Appeal No. Z-2013-13: Request by QuikTrip Corporation for a Special Exception from the distance required for a Convenience Store with Gasoline Sales from a parcel that is zoned residential. The property is located at 1167 S. Anderson Road and is zoned Industry General (IG). The adjacent property is zoned Residential Development District-II (RD-II) in York County. Tax map numbers: 669-04-01-015 and 669-04-01-012. Mr. Reinhardt presented the staff report. Mr. John DiBernardo, 3701 Arco Corporate Boulevard, Suite 150, Charlotte, representing QuikTrip Corporation, applicant, addressed Board regarding the application. He noted that the current use was that of a convenience store with gasoline sales and that the current building would be demolished in order to construct a new QuikTrip that would meet current standards. He added that any environmental issues would be taken care of with the removal of any hazardous materials. He stated that construction of the facility would run concurrent with the re-routing of Paddock Parkway. 1 P age
Mr. Steltzner asked questions regarding the construction, as to whether truck lanes would be constructed, if this was a travel center, and if this would be built in phases. Mr. Di Bernardo answered in the affirmative and stated that the entire project would be built at one time. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion. Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to approve the special exception as presented. Mr. Murnane seconded, and the motion carried by a vote of 5-0. Mr. Steltzner presented the findings, as presented in the staff report. 6. Appeal No. Z-2013-16: Request by Garden Properties for a Variance to construct a selfstorage facility on a lot measuring 2.6 acres, which is smaller than the 3 acres required by the Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned General Commercial (GC) and is located at 2225 Eden Terrace. Tax map number: 662-07-01-001. Mr. Westbrook presented the staff report. Mr. Steltzner asked the rationale for 3 acres at the time when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Mr. Westbrook stated that he did not know the answer to that question. Mr. Mark Walker, 2038 Hempstead Road, applicant, addressed the Board regarding the application. He stated that he had purchased the property specifically for the purpose of building a self-storage facility, but that requirement for placing a water line was too prohibitive at the time. He noted that he wanted to continue with the plan that he had originally presented. He added that this was the only use that had an acreage limit. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion. Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to approve the variance request as presented. Mr. Pushchak seconded, and the motion carried by a vote of 5-0. Mr. Steltzner presented the findings, as presented in the staff report. 4. Appeal No. Z-2013-14: Request by Whitney Cain for a Special Exception to allow for a Funeral Home use in the Office & Institutional (OI) zoning district, which is allowed only by Special Exception, and a Variance request from the required number of parking spaces. The property is located at 914 Cherry Road and 992 Myrtle Drive. Tax map numbers: 629-18-01-001 and 629-18-01-002. Ms. Youngblood presented the staff report and noted that the Board was considering a Special Exception application and a Variance application. She provided the Board with a petition against the requests signed by many people living and working in the vicinity (petition on file at the City of Rock Hill s Planning and Development Department). Mr. Murnane asked about parking accommodations should a church form at the site. Ms. Youngblood stated that if a church was established, there would be a parking space deficiency based on current standards of 37 spaces. Mr. Steltzner asked if a lower maximum capacity could be required. Ms. Youngblood stated that the Board could stipulate this condition but that it would be difficult to enforce. 2 P age
Mr. Murnane asked about the removal of the Quonset hut and additional parking. Ms. Youngblood stated it could be removed to create approximately 18 more parking spaces. Mr. Smith asked for clarification on the procedure for voting. Ms. Youngblood stated the Board would vote on the Special Exception first, then on the Variance request and that findings were required for both requests. Mr. Whitney Cain, 1849 Landry Lane, addressed the Board regarding the application. He noted that in order to operate the funeral home, he was willing to abide by any conditions outlined by the Board, including limiting the occupancy number, limiting days of services and hours of operation, providing traffic monitors for services, and placing No Parking signs. He added that he was forming an advisory board for the funeral home that would have seats for representatives from the adjacent neighborhoods in order to work with the surrounding community. Mr. Steltzner asked if the church would allow the Quonset hut to be moved. Mr. Cain stated that it could be moved. Mr. Crawford asked where the parking attendant would direct overflow traffic. Mr. Cain stated that he anticipated the chapel would be used for those who were not affiliated with a church so these would not draw a large crowd. Mr. Crawford asked about overflow parking. Mr. Cain stated that the church had an agreement with the adjoining businesses allowing the church to use the parking areas. However, he noted that he did not see more than 150 people at a service in the chapel. Mr. Dan Ballou, 417 Windsor Terrace, counsel to the applicant, provided additional information regarding the application. He noted that parking would be an issue regardless of whatever went into the building. He noted that Office & Institutional zoning allowed for a variety of uses with a greater impact than proposed. He added that the applicant was more than willing to work with the neighborhood residents. He also stated that there would not be a crematory at this location. Mr. Harold Montgomery, 984 Myrtle Drive, spoke in opposition to the application, noting the hazards of embalming activities of a funeral home, parking, bringing the site up to current standards, the impact of a funeral attracting three to four hundred people, and the effect on the quality of life of the neighborhood. Mrs. Connie Cain, 1849 Landry Lane, applicant, spoke in support of the application, noting that her family had been in the funeral business for over 60 years, that parking would be an issue for any business that located there, and that they wanted to partner with the community. Mr. Matthew James, 1166 Wendy Road, pastor of Trinity Bible Church, spoke in support of the application, noting that the church had been at that location since 1945 and had always had a good relationship with the neighboring properties. He noted that Mr. Cain was a professional and cooperative individual with credible plans for the building that would be an asset to the community. Mr. Jimmy Gordon, 980 Myrtle Drive, spoke in opposition to the application, stating that parking had always been an issue during church services. He added research done by the Appraisal Institute indicated that having a funeral home decreased property values by 15-17%, which is equivalent to living next to a sex offender or landfill. Mr. Mike Channell, 4315 Windsong Lane, representing the businesses across Myrtle Drive, spoke 3 P age
in opposition to the application, noting that they had not been approached about using the lot as additional parking spaces, that the businesses had an agreement with the church regarding parking during Sunday and Wednesday night services only. He stated that they had issues during weddings and funerals at the church with people using up the businesses parking spaces. He also noted that the intersection at Myrtle and Cherry was dangerous and that they had seen many accidents occur. He also asked those in the audience opposed to the application to stand. Mr. Smith asked if he correctly recalled a Special Exception for parking presented to the Board for a nearby property. Mr. Reinhardt stated that there had been a Special Exception granted for the opening of an appraisal office. Mr. Don Belk, 34 Twin Oaks Lane, Isle of Palms, SC, spoke in opposition to the application. He corrected the statement regarding the appraisal office, stating that a Special Exception was needed to open a personal services establishment for an alterations service. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance has since changed to allow that use by right in the district. He added that when the Trinity congregation was at the church, they were good to work with, but that he was afraid the overflow from a funeral home would impact the businesses across Myrtle Drive. Mr. Alex Fewell, 852 Milton, spoke in opposition to the application, stating that traffic moving through the area had increased as people used it as a cut-through from Cherry Road. He noted that the traffic increased dramatically during graduations and athletic events, and that with the College Town plan supported by Winthrop this was not a good place for a funeral home. He also added that he was concerned about property values, stating that a lot of the homeowners had purchased the properties in the area and fixed them up at substantial cost. Mr. Jeff Sparks, 835 Milton, spoke in opposition to the application, noting the Appraisal Institute s study about property values and several articles he had located regarding funeral homes in residential areas. He also noted that people were reminded of their mortality when living near funeral homes. He added that Myrtle Drive also had a blind hill that was dangerous for motorists. Mr. Terrance Aldridge, 729 Laney Terrace, spoke in support of the application, stating that Mr. Cain was proud to support the community through his service and would be a good neighbor. Mr. Matt Hayes, 777 Milton, spoke in opposition to the application, stating that mourners were already distracted and might cause traffic issues. He added that Winthrop Coliseum and athletic fields cause issues as well during events, and that many drivers use the neighborhood as a cutthrough to avoid Cherry Road. Ms. Beth Williams, 1482 Ivydale Court, owner of a business located at 860 Cherry Road, spoke in opposition to the application, stating that she was not against the funeral home use just the parking issues. She stated that most times, she and the hair salon were open until 8 PM, a time when most visitations occur and that her concern was that theirs would be the first place chosen for overflow parking. Mrs. Bertha Channell, 4315 Windsong Lane, spoke in opposition to the application, stating that they had had an agreement with the previous pastor, Pastor Schultz, to use the business parking on Sundays and Wednesday nights only, and that during other church events people park on both sides of the street and make it impossible for cars to drive through the area. Mr. Chris Davis, 976 Myrtle, spoke in opposition to the application, indicating that he lived four 4 P age
houses down from the church. He stated that there were a number of children in the neighborhood that rode bikes and that cars parking along the side of the street during services would create a danger. He added that he felt the funeral home would destroy the neighborhood. Ms. Madeline McDonald, 969 Myrtle, spoke in opposition to the application, stating that as owner of the Plant Peddler florist business, she knew that it was challenging to have set service times for funerals since the families set the service times. She added that recently many families have been planning for the visitation and funeral on the same day to save costs and that this would tie up the streets for several hours. Mr. Calvin Nantz, 846 Milton Avenue, spoke in opposition to the application, stating that with a hundred space parking requirement and only half of that available, nearby streets would be used for parking. He added that this was difficult to enforce and regulate, and that other businesses will have the same issue but will be workable. He added that while there were plenty of people from the neighborhood who had spoken against the application, no one from the neighborhood had spoken in support. Mr. Cain was allowed time for rebuttal. He noted that the State required a room for embalming but that this service would actually be performed by a company in Charlotte. He added that a prep room was also required by state law. In relation to the services, he said there should be no reason to have services for a large funeral in the chapel, nor would he have two funeral services at the same time. He reiterated that he would not have a crematory as there was not enough room available for that type of service. He stated that he was sensitive to the needs of the children in the neighborhood. He stated that parking was always an issue and that if a church were to be located there, 37 more spaces would be required under today s standards than are available. He noted that he was presenting a good neighbor plan by having two seats on the board open for neighborhood representation. He also stated that if families were not comfortable with the set funeral times he planned, they were welcome to go elsewhere. He also stated that he would be willing to open the facility as a retail operation only with casket sales and planning services. Mr. Crawford asked for further elaboration on his last statement. Mr. Cain stated that if it was possible to do the services elsewhere, they would plan the services in this facility but hold the funeral services elsewhere, that he would be able to have the caskets, bodies, planning and retail operation at this facility. Mr. Smith asked if this was display only with no services. Mr. Cain said that this was correct. Mr. Crawford asked about visitations. Mr. Cain said they would not offer this if it was a condition of approval. Mr. Smith asked for the history of the property. Mr. Cain stated that the property had been on the market for approximately 10 months. Mr. Smith asked if the building was ready for occupation. Mr. Cain stated there was little work necessary to make the building ready. There were no further comments or questions from the audience. Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion. Mr. Smith asked staff for the square footage, approximately 11,900. 5 P age
There was discussion among the members regarding the use being more acceptable than the parking variance. Mr. Crawford presented the motion to approve the Special Exception application as presented. Mr. Smith seconded. The motion failed by a vote of 3-2, with Mr. Murnane and Mr. Pushchak voting in favor, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Steltzner and Mr. Smith voting against. Mr. Crawford presented the findings noting that the because of parking issues and conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood, it failed to meet the requirement for compatibility with the surrounding land and uses. Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to approve the variance for parking. Mr. Smith seconded. The motion failed by a vote of 3-2, with Mr. Murnane and Mr. Pushchak voting in favor, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Steltzner and Mr. Smith voting against. Mr. Steltzner presented the findings noting that a variance permit would be a substantial detriment to adjacent land, or to the public good, and the character of the district would be harmed by the granting of the variance. 5. Appeal No. Z-2013-15: Request by Caroline Voelkers for a Variance on required setbacks for a new deck on an existing residence and carport due to the irregular shape of the legal property lines. The property is located at 207 Marion Street and is zoned Single-Family Residential-5 (SF-5). Tax map number: 600-04-01-009. Mr. Crawford noted that this item had been withdrawn from consideration. 7. Other Business. There was no other business to discuss. 8. Adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM. 6 P age