Spartanburg County Planning and Development Department

Transcription

1 Spartanburg County Planning and Development Department MINUTES Unified Land Management Board of Appeals May 24, 2016 Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Michael Padgett, Chairman Thomas Davies, Vice Chairman Kae Fleming Jack Gowan, Jr. Marion Gramling Jason Patrick Louise Rakes Jonathan Adams Bob Harkrader, Planning Director John Harris, County Attorney Joan Holliday, Deputy Planning Director Josh Henderson, Senior Planner Laurie Horton, Senior Development Coordinator Brandy Blake, Development Coordinator NOTICE: Pursuant to Section of the S.C. Code of Laws, the annual notice of meetings for this Board was provided on or before January 1, 2015 via the County website. In addition, the Agenda for this Meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the entrance to the Administration Building as well as on the County's website and was ed to all persons, organizations, and news media requesting notice. 1. Call to Order Michael Padgett, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. 2. Approval of Minutes of March 22, 2016 Marion Gramling made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Jack Gowan seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 7 to 0. Jonathan Adams was absent for the vote. 1

2 3. Unfinished Business a. None 4. New Business Laurie Horton was sworn in and presented the following Staff Report: 1. Factual Dates Fairway Outdoor Advertising, LLC-818 Duncan Reidville Road, Duncan SC Tax Map Number a. Variance Application Received 04/26/2016 b. Public Notice Herald Journal 05/08/2016 c. Adjoining Property owners notified 05/10/2016 d. Variance Sign Posted on Property 05/10/2016 e. Board of Appeals Hearing 05/24/ Background Information Fairway Outdoor Advertising, LLC, is proposing to construct a new billboard on their property at 818 Duncan Reidville Road. There is an existing, legal non-conforming billboard on the property that predates Spartanburg County s sign regulations. The new billboard is proposed to be located 900 feet from the existing billboard. Fairway is proposing to install a two-sided, digital sign with 672-square-foot surface areas. Fairway Outdoor Advertising, LLC requests to reduce the required separation between billboards to 900 feet from 1000 feet as required in Section 3.20 Signs, 2. Spacing of Billboards. Fairway also requests to increase the square footage of the sign surface area of the billboard to 672 square feet from 378 square feet as required in Section 3.20 Signs, 6. Maximum Sign (Billboard) Surface Area. 3. Staff Recommendation Variance 1 The request to reduce the required spacing between billboards to 900 feet from 1000 feet does not meet the four criteria for granting a variance as set forth in Section (2) of the ULMO and the SC Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act (SC Code of Laws, Title 6, Chapter 29). a) Extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. The variance request does not meet this criteria. The wetlands, as delineated on Fairway s site plan, do not interfere with locating a new sign 1000 feet from the existing sign. The sign could be placed on the property outside the wetlands and still meet the 1000-foot spacing requirement. Placement of the sign would not require clear cutting the natural landscape that Fairway desires to keep, but space for the sign would certainly have to be cleared. Further, because of the size of its property, Fairway could 2

3 move the existing sign in order to accommodate the new one at the location it desires and satisfy the 1000 separation required by the ULMO. b) These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The variance request does not meet this criteria. There are wetlands and natural areas on neighboring properties. c) Because of these conditions, strict application of the Ordinance effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. The variance does not meet this criteria. This proposed sign could be placed so as to meet the requirements of the Unified Land Management Ordinance. Further, the property is already being used for Fairway s business and another outdoor sign, so utilization of the property has not been prohibited or unreasonably restricted. Again, Fairway could relocate the existing billboard if it desires to leave the natural area totally undisturbed by the proposed sign. There are options where the proposed sign can be constructed to meet all requirements of the ULMO. d) No substantial detriment to adjacent property or public good and character of area not harmed. The variance does not meet this criteria. The requirements in the ULMO reflect the community s desire to have the visual impact of billboards minimized by requiring a 1000-foot separation on the same side of a highway. Staff recommends the variance be denied. Variance 2 The request to increase the required Maximum Sign (Billboard) Surface Area to 672 feet from 378 feet does not meet the four criteria for granting a variance as set forth in Section (2) of the ULMO and the SC Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act (SC Code of Laws, Title 6, Chapter 29). a) Extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. The variance request to increase the surface area of the sign does not meet this criteria. The size of a sign face is not a factor in considering the extraordinary and exceptional conditions of the subject property. The applicant desires to have the two signs to be the same size in order to maintain the symmetry between them. This symmetry could be maintained by bringing the existing sign into conformance with the sign surface requirements of the ULMO. b) These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The variance request does not meet this criteria. Again, the size of a sign face is not a factor for consideration of conditions pertaining to the property s characteristics. c) Because of these conditions, strict application of the Ordinance effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. The variance does not meet this criteria. The sign, which can be placed to meet the separation requirements found in the ULMO, can also be constructed to meet the maximum sign surface requirements. This strict application of the ordinance would not restrict sign advertisement as desired by the applicant and would allow them to meet their overall goal. 3

4 d) No substantial detriment to adjacent property or public good and character of area not harmed. The variance does not meet this criteria. The requirements in the ULMO reflect the community s desire to have the visual impact of billboards minimized by limiting the sign surface to 378 feet. The granting of this variance would allow a second legal nonconforming sign on the same property. Staff recommends the variance be denied. Laurie Horton presented the Board with an aerial view and copy of the plat for the property. Tom Davies asked Laurie Horton if the existing sign was legal non-conforming because of the square footage of the sign. Ms. Horton replied, yes. It was put up prior the sign ordinance. Jack Gowan asked Ms. Horton why the address on the plat for the property was different from the address on the application for the variance request. Ms. Horton replied that the address of 818 Duncan Reidville Rd, Duncan, SC was given by the Spartanburg County Addressing Department as the correct address for the purposes of issuing a permit for power to the sign. Michael Padgett addressed the Board that he had previously spoken with Ms. Horton and Greenville Spartanburg International Airport about the property being within the airport environs area and the possible effects on incoming aircraft. He found there are no issues. Jack Gowan asked Ms. Horton if the State of South Carolina will require a permit for the sign as well as Spartanburg County. Ms. Horton replied, yes, the State is waiting on the County s approval. Michael Padgett opened the public hearing. Richard Steel, General Manager of Fairway Outdoor Advertising, was sworn in. Mr. Steel stated this was an opportunity to better serve Fairway s customers by constructing a billboard on their property. Fairway felt that closing the spacing between the billboards would allow them to cut fewer trees and be more effective for advertising. As for the second variance request, on the size of the billboard, they had hoped to match the other sign on the property for aesthetic purposes. All the company is doing is very progrowth for the community, according to Mr. Steel. Jack Gowan asked Mr. Steel how far the proposed site for the sign is from the wetlands. Mr. Steel replied 60 to 100 ft. Tom Davies asked Mr. Steel how Fairway Outdoor Advertising serves the public interest. Mr. Steel replied that the digital billboard networks they would like to have in the future at this location are connected to the FBI network so missing children, public information, storms, and other disasters will be displayed on the network so the bigger the image the bigger the impact. 4

5 Michael Padgett closed the public hearing. Marion Gramling asked whether Fairway Outdoor Advertising would lose the nonconforming size on the existing billboard if they move it. Ms. Horton replied yes. Mr. Gramling asked if there is a height stipulation in the Ordinance. Ms. Horton read the section of the Ordinance that applied. Mr. Gramling asked if the sign would be at the same elevation, not height, at either position on the property. Richard Steel replied yes, that is correct. Mr. Gramling stated that granting the variance could set precedence for the future. Marion Gramling made a motion to deny the first variance request to reduce the required spacing between billboards to 900 feet from 1000 feet. Tom Davies seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 7-0. Marion Gramling made a motion to deny the second variance request to increase the required maximum sign (billboard) surface area to 672 feet from 378 feet. Tom Davies seconded the motion. Jack Gowan voted against the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 6 to Other Business a. None 6. Adjournment There being no other business, Marion Gramling made a motion to adjourn. Kae Fleming seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 7 to 0. The meeting adjourned at 4:52 p.m. 5