The URL can be used to link to this page

04/26/1993-Board of Zoning Appeals-Packet(BVI �/ (u.' _l ��n..�ii.M :n�t�!�'.. .'��. rF y�..,. .:...r .,"a 3C r1 L'L.,-� gra t. .5�.,7 -~�.�� 4 � .�� • S ;L c .it:�}}:' .... :1 .... _...........__._... ._ NO2'SCE PUBLSC HEARSNG The Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment Meeting will convene in Regular Session, Monday, April 26, 1993, 1:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, One Town Center Court, Willi'I Hilton Parkway, Hilton Head Island, SC. Bi11�Marlow, Secretary AGENZ�A .BOARD. OF ADJUSTMENT RE��ULAR MEE2'SNG APRSL 2 6, 1 9 9 3 S •, 00 P:,.. M: I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES i March 22,' 1993 Meeting V. OLD BUSINESS i Applicant: Mr. E. H. Shutt, Heritage Motor Car Comp.ny Owner: Mr. Wakefield Request: Reconsideration of a previous decision by the Board of Adjustment at the 10/27/92 Meeting concerning Variance V-17-92, to deny requested Variance from sign setback. Property is, located at 160 William Hilton Pkwy. and Is Identifiedas Parcel 202 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map #8. Applicant: Mr. E. H: Shutt, Heritage Motor Car Company owner: Mr. Wakefield Request: Variance V-1-93 'Tabled from 3/22/93 Meeting.. For a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(c) to allow expansion of ..a ,.nonconforming site. Property is HeritageMotor Cara Co.,:- 460 William Fkwy.,i is identified on Beaufort Co. Tax, Map /8, Parcel 202. Appli. #: V-4-93 57 • BOA Agenda 4/26/93 Page 2 Old Business continued Applicant: Mr. Cliff Loveland of Carter -Molt Engineering for Nations Bank Owner: Nations Bank Request: Variance from LNO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be located less than the required ten foot setback from the right-of- way. The Sign is for Mid -Island Nations Bank, 862 William Hilton Pkwy., the property is identified as Parcel 153 on Beaufort County Tax Map # 11. Appli. #: V-5-93 VI. NEW BUSINESS t Applicant: Paula Thurman, Broad Strokes One Stop Decorating Center Owner: Paula Thurman Request: Varianco from LMO Section 16-7-1012 to allow changes to a nonconforming sign other than refinishing the surface of the sign, so as to keep the same appearance of the sign. Property is located at 26 Arrow Road and Identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map 115. Appli. P V-7-93 Applicant: Mr. Perry Wood for Greenwood Development Corp. Owner: Greenwood Development Corporation Request: Variance from LNO.Section 16-7-483(c)(2) and 16-7-915(d)'to allow a reduction in Buffer and Setback requirements adjacent to tidal wetlands. Property ;is known as Longview Island located in- Shelter Cove, .and ,is Palmetto Dunes and is identified as Parcel 28 ' on Beaufort Co. Tax Map / 12B. Appli. /: V-10-93 i c Applicant: Town of Hilton Head Island owner: The Grant Family Request: Variance from LNO Section 16-7-305(d) to ( relocate a nonconforming structure, a produce stand,`: further from U.S. 278 to better accommodate the Hilton Head Island Pathway. I Appli. is V-11-93: q i h S �' e 7r.� T, a0{ r� i rasp 'dt L C. F. 7 WR ;• 1Y i BOA 4/26/93 Agenda Page 3 Applicant: Ms. Fran Thresh for Grayco Auto Parts Owner: Mr. Sammy Gray Request: Variance from LNO Section 16-7-1030, to allow a sign to be located within the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. Sign and property are located at 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. 6 identified on Beadfort Co. Tax Map # 15, Parcel 253. Appli. P V-12-93 Applicant: Mrs. Barbara Hudson for Squire Pope Furniture Owner: Mrs. Barbara Hudson Request: Variance from LM0'Section 16-7-1012(a) to allow changes,to a nonconforming sign. located at.67 Squire Pope Rd., identified on Beaufort Co..Tax Map 1 7,, 'Parcel 2. APPli.B: V-13-93 .Applicant: Mr. James 'Male ,for O & P Ltd./JHP Hotel Corp. of Hilton Head: Owner: O i,P Ltd./JHP Hotel Corp. of;,HHZ Request: variance from LNO Sections 16-7-842,: Buffers,_; and 16-7-850, Parking distance requirements, and Section, 16-7-820,;:Open Space, to permit additional` ppeerrking, or.-variance,froe section 16-7-851, ;Minimum parking spaces, At the :Best Western Ocean Walk Development. Property;, Is. ' located at 36 ;South_,Forest : Beach, Dr. i is identified asParcel 240. on Beaulort Co. Tax Appli. P V -U-93 VIZ. CZTZSSN.PARTZCZPATZON VZZZ. AAJOORNMBNT t i i z its' NOT. SCE r PilBLSC HEARSNG �t The Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment Meeting will convene in Regular Session, Monday, April 26, 1993, 1:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, One Town Center Court, William Hilton Parkway, Hilton Head Island, SC. Bill�Marlow, Secretary AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEE2'ING APRSL 26 1993 Z. CALL TO ORDER ZZ. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA N. APPROVAL OF MZMUTES March 22, 1993 Meeting V. OLD BUSZNESS Applicant: Mr. Z. H. Shutt, Heritage Motor Car Company Owner: Mr. Wakefield Request: Reconsideration of a previous decision by the. Board of Adjustment at the 10/27/92 Meeting concerning Variance V-17-91, to deny requested Variance from sign .'setback. Property is located at 460 William..Milton.Pkwy..,'and is Identified as Parce1,202 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map is. Applicant: -Mr. B. H. Shutt, Heritage Motor Car Company. Owner: Mr. Wakefield Request: Variance V-4-99 Tabled from 3/22/93 Meeting. {, Fore Variance` from ZA0 section 16-7-M(c) to allow expansion of ;"a nonconforming, site Property is ,'8eritageMotor Ca= .Co.,' 460 William°Pkwy ;i is'=identified on Beaufort Co {4L Tax Map:/8, Parcel 202 y� �Y APPli. I: V-1-93tF � 11 '�' F, off F�514 r'{43iifi . /. BOA Agenda 9/26/93 Page 2 old Business continued Applicant: Mr. Cliff Loveland of Carter -Molt Engineering for Nations Bank Owner: Nations Bank Request: Variance from LNO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be located less than the required ten foot setback from the right-of- way. The Sign is for Mid -Island Nations Bank, 862 William Hilton Pkwy., the property is Identified as Parcel 153 on Beaufort County Tax Map # 11. Appli. #: V-5-93 VI. NEW BUSINESS Applicant: Paula Thurman, Broad Strokes one Stop Decorating Center Owner: Paula Thurman Request: Variance from,LMO Section 16-7-1012 to allow changes to a nonconforming sign other than refinishing the surface of the sign, so as to keep. the same appearance of the sign. Property is located at 26 Arrow Road and Identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map 115. Appll. {: V-7-93 Applicant: Mr. Perry Wood for Greenwood Development Corp. Owner: Greenwood Development Corporation Request: Variance from LMO,Section 16 -7 -*83(c)(2) and 16-7-915(d) to allow a reduction in Buffer and Setback requirements ' adjacent to tidal wetlands. Propertyis known as Longview Island and is :located in Shelter Cove, Palmetto Dunes and is.1dentified as Parcel 28 on Beaufort Co. Tax Nap / 12B. Appli. /: V-10-93 Applicant: Town'of Hilton Head Island Owner: The Grant Family:; Request: Variance from" LNO,.Section 16-7-305(d) ,to relocate a nonconforming structure, a produce stand, further -,from::, U.S. 278 to better accommodate ths;Hilton Head Wand Pathway. Appli. I BOA 4/26/93 Agenda Page 3 Applicant: Ms. Fran Thresh for Grayco Auto Parts Owner: Mr. Sammy Gray Request: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030, to allow a sign to be located within the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. Sign and property are located at 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. & identified on Beaiffort-Co. Tax Map / 15, Parcel 253. Appli. k: V-12-93 Applicant: Mrs. Barbara Hudson for Squire Pope Furniture Owner: Mrs. Barbara Hudson Request: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1012(x) to allow changes to a nonconforming sign located at 67 Squire Pope Rd., identified on Beaufort Co. Tax Map / 7, Parcel '2. Appli.#: V-13-93 r TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 r is -A One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. Mayor • Hurry Drieeam, Jr. TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. Mayor Hurry Drieeam, Jr. Mayor ProTem Coundl Members April 28, 1993 Certified Mail Frank Brarmm P 345 026 262 RussellL. Condit, Jr. Donna C. Marin Tom Peeples Dorothy a Perkin Ms. Paula Thurman Broad Strokes Michael C.ONeRI P.O. Box 6287 Z. Manager Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Re: V-7-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1012 to allow changes to a nonconforming sign other than refinishing the surface of the sign, so as to keep the.same appearance of the sign. Property is:. located at 26 Arrow Road and identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort County Tax Map #'15. Dear Ms. Thurman: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town ,of Hilton Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request regarding, the above referenced sign. The Motion of the Board. of Adjustment was to defer `Broad Strokes Variance request�until'the May 24, 1993 meeting, to allow time for appropriate advertising and consideration of a Setback Variance. If you have any,-gpestions please contact.me at 686-0904. Sincerel Bill Lytl . Assistant Current Planner cc: BOA Members Steve Riley, Tom'Breohko Greg.DeLoach BOA File: 91 Project File BL:BJM i gg , i Harvey W. Bwing. Jr. Henry Ddeaeen,lr. April 29, 1993 Certified Mail Mayor ProTem P '345 .026 263 Coundl Member Frank Brafaw RumU L. Condit, lr. Dona C. Martin Mr. Perry Wood To myc� N klro Wood & Partners, Inc. P.O. Box 7427 MlckaelC.ONNU Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Town Manager - Re: V-10-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-483(c)(2) and 16-7- 915(d) to allow a reduction in Buffer and Setback requirements adjacent to tidal wetlands. Property is known as Longview Island and is located in. Shelter Cove, Palmetto Dunes and is identified as Parcel 28 on Beaufort County Tax Map # 12B. Dear Mr. Wood: On Monday, April 26,-;1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request concerning. Longview Island. The Motion of the .Board of Adjustment was to gralnt a Variance lros LM0 Section s 16-7-483(c)(2) and 16-7-915(d) for a reduction'in bulfersand setback requirements adjacent to tidal wetlands,"to',allow develop>aent of Longview`Island pursuant to•plans presented _at the 4/26/93 BOA meeting. The _ { Motion was '1►dopted r If you have any questions?please.cnil me at 686-0904. Sincerely, Hugh P.'Talcott, Current Planner cc: BO:, Members Steve Riley Toa Brechko Greg DeLoach Charles.Pigg. BOA, File Project File . HPT:BJM I rif , ASF MW L46 1 TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. Mayor Henry Drieaam Jr. Mayor ProTem April 29, 1993 Coundl Member Frank Bnfman Russell L. Condit, Jr. Donna C. Martin The Grant Family Tom '71-10 oorouyc.Perkira C/o Ms. Janie J. Grant 651 U.S. 278 Mlahaelc.owaiu .Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 Town Menages V-11-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(d) to relocate a nonconforming structure, a produce stand, further from U.S. 278 to better accommodatethe Hilton Head Island Pathway. - Certified Mail P 345 026 264 Re: 1. r • TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. Mayor Henry Drleaaen, Jr. Mayor FroTem April 29, 1993 Certified Mail CouncdMembers P 345 026 265 Frank grahnan - Ruaaeg L. Condli, Jr. Donna C. Martin Ms. Fran Thresh TDoo,omyc� Ferwna Speedi Sign 180 Triangle square Michael C.oNem Hilton Head Island, SC 29926 Town Manager Re: V-12-93 Variance from IMO Section 16-7-1030, to allow a sign to be located within the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. Sign and property are located at 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. & identified on Beaufort County Tax Map N =5, Parcel 253. Dear Ms. Thresh: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request for the above referenced sign. The Board of Adjustment. Motion was to defer the Variance (V-12-93) to the May 24, 1993 meeting to enable Board members to visit the site to view the visual aspects in order to make a more certain determination. The Motion was Adopted. If you have any questions;plesse do not hesitate to call me at 686-0904. n Aerely, � aroi A. Krawczyk Current Planner V cc: BOA Members Steve, Riley Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach' Sammy Gray BOA File Project File - CAK:BJM . t • TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 t • MINUTES TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING March 22, 1993 I. Call to Order Chairwoman James called the Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 1:02 p.m., Murch 22, 1993. II. Roll Call Members Present: Beil, Brown, James, Robinson, & Rowan Members Absent: Israel & Miller Staff Present: Brechko, Krawczyk, Lytle, Riley, Talcott & Marlow III. Approval of A9endn Ms. Carol Krawczyk, Current Planner, made corrections to the Agenda for Appeal A-4-93, stating that the owner is Philip Ballard, also a typing error in A-2-93, should read Tree, not Gree. Motion to Approve the agenda as amended. Moved: KX.L RQWW aSeconds Mr. Heil Vote* 5-0-0 IV. horoval of Minutes Approval of the February 23, 1993 Board of Adjustment Minutes. Chairwoman James made a correction to 2/23/93 Minutes, to change the title from Acting Chairman Brown to Vice Chairman Brown throughout the minutes. Notion to Approve the 2/22LU Minutes as amended. Noved: Mr. Robinson Second: Nr. Rowan Vote* 4-0-1 Chairwoman James abstained she was absent from the 2/23/93 BOA Meeting. J • V. New Business Applicant: Ms. Arlene Williams for Islond Getaway Rentals, Inc. Property Owner: Prudential Kelly -Scott Request: V-29-92 Variance from LMO Sections 16-7-484 (a)(10)(c) Corridor Review Committee Sign Requirements, and from Section 16-7-1036(6), Dimensions and Quantity from the General Sign Standards. The property is located at 28 New Orleans Road and identified on-Seaufort County Tax Map #15C, Parcel 71. V-29-92 - Ms. Carol Krawczyk, Current Planner, explained that the property was chosen by the Applicant because of the location which gave frontage on both New Orleans Road and U.S. 278, which allowed signs to be seen by visitors from both roads. Upon moving 11/92, application was made to CRC for approval of the new signs and at that time the Sign Administrator informed the Applicant that a Variance was needed before installing the signs. Vs. Krawczyk said the two existing free-standing directory signs are nonconforming because the New Orleans Road sign is partially within the right-of-way and the LMO allows only one free standing sign for each entrance. The property has only one driveway entrance off of New Orleans Road. She also noted that the proposed new wordage in the amended LMO would allow a business that has frontage on two major roads to have signs on both frontages. This Variance request is exceptional because it is the first of many sign requests for businesses along New Orleans Road. Ms. Krawczyk said as a tourist related business the U.S. 278 sign is important for visibility and the Applicant said the removal of the sign would cause a hardship to their business. A wall sign was explored, but the lack of wall space and poor visibility made that type of sign unfeasible. Also, neighboring properties have free- standing signs on both road frontages. Ms. Krawczyk said the Staff recommendation took into consideration the variance criteria and the Applicant's agreement to work with Town Staff to bring the New Orleans Road directory sign into conformance. The Staff recommended approval of the Variance from LMO Sections 16- 7-1036(6) and 16-7-484(a)(10)(c). Mr. Beil asked if the Staff recommendation was based on the New Orleans Road sign being brought into conformance. BOA 3-22-93 Mtg. Page 2 e • M Mr. Krawczyk said that was correct; in fact the Applicant was presently working with the sign administrator to bring the sign into conformance. Ms. Arlene Williams, for Island Getaway Rentals, expressed the importance of visibility to customers looking for the business to check-in for vacation. She said without a sign on U.S. 278, their customers would find it more difficult to locate the business. The business had moved from Office Park Drive due to the difficult location. Mr. Beil asked if the two signs were in-confbrmance as to size. Ms. Krawczyk said both conformed. Mr. Rowan asked how long the signs had been in place. Ms. Williams said the signs were in place when the business moved there, and had been there for 8 to 9 years. The Motion as amended stated: The Board of Adjustment Motic _request from L•MO Sections 16- (101(c) to allow two free -ata Getaway Rentals. one facing e being subject to all other nt Moved: Mr. Robinson Second: Vice Chairman Brown Vote: 5-0-0 Applicant: Mr. E.H. Shutt, Heritage Motor Car Company Owner: Mr. William Wakefield Request: V-4-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(c) - to allow expansion of a nonconforming site. Property is the Heritage Motor Car Company, 460 U.S. 278, near Port Royal Plaza. Property is identified on Beaufort County Tax Map /8, Parcel 202. Mr. Hugh Talcott, Current. Planner, said the Variance requested today was to allow expansion of a nonconforming site, and the Applicant requested reconsideration of the 10/27/92 Variance denial of -a Sign Setback Variance. Mr. y Talcott said the requested reconsideration had not been advertised and no action could be taken by.the Board today. BOA 3-22-93 Mtg. Page 3 — r T? M, �i c }fi . , i y°fir' .w �'lfi (1 �' Yw�s�`�" Y{� r �4,� (''( ��', _ r F ;d; �p unman '.�v��1',V • S F Mr. Talcott said the site was nonconforming as to buffers and setbacks primarily along U.S. 278. Parking exists 30 feet from the right-of-way, 50 feet is the requirement. Structures also exist in the front Setback and Buffer area which include the sign and the raised car display. r Mr. Talcott said the proposed expansion included enclosure of a large car display area presently under roof, adding a canopied car service area to the rear of the building, and gravel parking for car display adjacent to Pizza Hut. The proposed improvements to the site would be landscaping the - front buffer and improving the building- appearance by painting and updating, with CRC approval. Mr. Talcott said there was nothing extraordinary about the site compared to other Island developments constructed prior to the LMO. However, Staff felt complete conformance with the LMO requirements as to parking within the fifty foot front buffer area would be a hardship, because the removal of the entire front row of car display would deprive the dealership of a reasonable display. However, removal of the car display ramp and the sign located in the Setback could be achieved as well as the landscaping and improvement of the building as suggested by the Applicant. Mr. Talcott said the proposal to only landscape and update the building would not meet the intent of the LMO without removal of the nonconforming structure and the sign from the buffer/setback, and the Staff would recommend denial. Chairwoman James asked if there was any substantive information that had been presented, that would cause the Board to reconsider the decision of October 27th. Mr. Talcott said no Application for reconsideration or new information had been presented to the Staff. Chairwoman James said without substantive now information there was no reason to reconsider the Board's decision. 7 Also, reconsideration of the October 27th decision was not •` published in the notice of the 3/22 meeting. Chairwoman James said the Board needed to take that into consideration, and the Board should not deal with reconsideration of that previous Variance today. Mr. Talcott said the Applicant would address the Board and if he presented information that the staff has not • received, and the Board decided to reconsider, a public • •;:; notice would need to be published prior to that hearing. BOA 3-22-93 Mtg. F° Page,4 V ., mwl i 3� e e M Vice Chairman Brown said the Board had given a lot of time to this particular issue and he did not think that the Board should reconsider. He felt the Applicant should comply with the October decision to remove the sign and sign structure. Mr. E. H. Shutt, Owner of Heritage Motor Car Company, addressed the Board, as a long time homeowner Mr. Shutt expres&ed an appreciation for the various Town Boards which try to preserve the character of the Island. He said when he took control of the business in August the business was not representative of how a business should look on Hilton Head and improvements are proceeding. He said mistakes had been made previously by not clearing with the Town the sign renovation. Mr. Shutt said the grove of 26 trees in front of Heritage put him at a disadvantage with competitors when trying to display signs for the business. The signs are directed at the 100,000 part-time residents who have trouble finding businesses. The car display was totally approved by the County in 1981 however, the specific approval for that sign has not been found, but it has been in that location for 12 years. He said to remove the only display that is in front of the grove of trees, would cause an unnecessary hardship. Mr. Shutt said he had received a letter from the Town of Hilton Head stating there were three options regarding the sign. He decided to get the CRC approval, as the Town Code Enforcement letter had offered. This option was exercised and approval was received. At this time the BOA approval is being sought to proceed with that total renovation of the site. He said it would not be appropriate to place the only sign for Heritage Motor Car Company in a grove of trees, or to remove the only display location that is available in front of the trees. Chairwoman James said clarification was needed regarding the Corridor Review Committee (CRC), their approval is for aesthetics only, nothing more. The Board is concerned with the location of the sign.` Mr. -Shutt said he understood, but money and time was spent at the direction of the Town of Hilton Head to present this issue to CRC. ,i Chairwoman James said after reading the letter from the Code Enforcement Officer that there was room for �j misunderstanding That code enforcement letter did not i portray the decision of the Board. Mr. Robinson said that to Pully consider the aesthetica of any sign, consideration has to be given to the location, and particularly in this situation. This sign .and image page 511, i w tim1, i y l�.F.1 k i,>• �F.�.i �,? �pc ..:r i ^• i, `q*' ''� r�'+1.:''w/'�`'�hl`�Ci.ier 3''`',.��1�.s3 ; �� E,- IN [r i F'Fi1 of a business really reflected what Hilton Head is about and how unique it is, usually this is done in a more commercial way. Mr. Robinson asked for minutes or other information regarding the CRC decision. Chairwoman James asked Mr. Shutt if he would mind waiting a few minutes while Staff gathered the needed CRC and BOA backup information. Mr. Shutt agreed. Mr. Tom Brech,,o, Chief of Planning said -the -Board could vote today whether they wanted to reconsider the decision, but a legal advertisement must precede the actual reconsideration of the October 27th. decision. V-4-93 will be continued. Applicant: Mr. Cliff Loveland of Carter-Moit Engineering and Mr. Richard Rabb for Nations Bank Owner: Nations Bank Request: V-5-93 - Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be located less than the required ten foot setback from the right-of-way. Property is Mid -Island Nations Bank, located at 862 William Hilton Pkwy., and identified as Parcel 153 on Beaufort County Tax Map /11. Mr. Bill Lytle, Assistant Current Planner, told the Board that this sign was approved for, and placed in, the center of the property with a ten foot setback. The Bank feeling that the visibility was not good enough, had the sign relocated to the former location of the C & S sign at the property entrance two feet from the property line. Mr. Lytle said after correspondence concerning the sign it was decided by Nations Bank to file a Variance, request to allow the sign to remain in the current location by the entrance to the property. Mr. Lytle said the sign setback is required to maintain a separation between roadways and signs so that the signs are not visually dominating. The proposed sign location allows only a two foot separation from the road right-of- way and may be an obstacle for future bike paths. Mr. Lytle said after review of the Variance criteria Staff found there was nothing extraordinary or unique about the Nations Bank site. Numerous developments have similar. frontage and access location, and, sign visibility is not BOA 3-22-93 Mtg. Page 6 e e M obstructed, allowing clear identification of the business. Since the Variance criteria were not met the Staff recommended denial of the Variance from LMO Section 16-7- 1030 to allow a sign to be located at less than the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. Vice Chairman Brown asked if the sign had been placed in the required location and then moved to its present unapproved location? Mr. Lytle said a lot of correspondence and phone calls - occurred between the Bank and Town Staff and some misunderstandings were evident. The sign was moved and installed without a sign permit. Chairwoman James asked Mr. Lytle if the Town would approve if Nations Bank wanted to return the sign to the conforming mid -site location. Mr. Lytle said the Town would approve that site because it had been previously permitted and approved. Mr. Beil referred to a letter from Nations Bank which said permission had been granted from the Town to place the sign in the present location. Mr. Lytle said the Town maintains that no permission was given to relocate the sign. Chairwoman James added that the Notice of Action letter sent to the Applicant after the BOA 6/22/92 meeting, only dealt with the sign at the Pineland Kill Shops location. No other Nations Bank signs were undev consideration at that time. Mr. Clifford Loveland, of Carter Moit Engineering represented Nations Bank. He said," he was perplexed that he was before the Board again today, he had appeared on June 22, 1992. Mr. Loveland said the correspondence received following that meeting did not suggest any other sign except the Pineland Kill Shops. However, the communication prior to the 6/22/92 meeting did not allow them to present the Mid -Island case, because these -thought they would be given an Administrative approval 1.4 regard to the setback, due to.meetings prior to the.6/22/92 - meeting. kKr. Loveland said he did talk to. the Town Hall at that mesting,about Mid -Island and suggested that they could go ahead and waive the setback or at least administratively approve the setback issues e with regard to Mid -island. We then concurred tlhat they would go to both Mid-Island'and.Pinaland'Rill to discuss W, specific setback issues, at both sites. He said after the Page _7 tr � a r t UI } e • M meeting Bill Lytle accompanied him to the sites to determine the best placement for both signs. His understanding was that they would be allowed a placement other than the ten foot setback which was required. That was affective only in the Pineland Mill site, as we were granted a Variance to setback formally on 6/22/92." Mr. Loveland said," when they went to the Mid -Island site Bill Lytle suggested that he could not waive the setback issue in that case and the best that we could do at that time was to place the sign at the 10 foot setback require- ment, which we both determined was best plabed in the middle of the lot, because there were buffers that would inhibit the view 10 feet back from the existing sign placement which was near the corner of the lot near the entrance. So therefore we proceeded with the installation of the sign at the 10 foot setback that yes they did approve, that was somewhat of a no-brainer approval. Knowing at that time he had recommended for us to set it back there temporarily until we came back with a approving hardship case to the CRC. So we placed the sign at the 10 foot setback in the middle of the lot, with the understanding that we would have the opportunity to go before the CRC and prove hardship to visibility of that sign. which we did we provided a video tape, and I've got a couple pictures here, in case the video tape does not surface, which I did think Bill tried to get, that exemplifies a hardship with regard to placement of that sign that we did put in compliance to the local code. Mr. Loveland said, "we also did some other things within the Town of Hilton that we were required to do making that our signage dimensions were with in facia percentages - obviously we reduced the red and blue for the most part on building signage to grey tones - you may recall I had several gator boards and a lot of artwork that I suppliep/cl so we could make a proper decision with regard to colors at that meeting. Prior to the 6/22/92 meeting my company and myself had met with the Town Hell representatives about three times to make sure that in preparation for this meeting we would be able to get some sound conclusions, so we had about three options of colors as well as options for placements of signs where we were given direction to do so. We were not given direction to do so for the Mid -Island site, in that they felt that they could administratively approve that and that communication was given to us prior to our Application for Variance at the Pineland Mill site." Chairwoman James asked Mr. Loveland if he said that the Staff felt that they could administratively approve the sign at the Mid -Island Bank. Page 8 6 6 • Mr. Loveland said, "That is correct." Chairwoman James asked if he thought the Staff could approve the colors or the Staff could approve the setback. Mr. Loveland said, "That the Staff could approve the setback not the colors. The colors we brought before the Board of Adjustments under the direction of the Staff stating that ultimately would like full color but here the other two grey tones that we would relinquish to not being able to not being able to not getting a full color signage at all the sites. This is getting a little more involved than probably what we need with regard to color because we are talking specifically setbacks, but my point being is that we met with these Town Hall people on three different occasions prior to applying for the necessary permits and also going before the ARB requested letters, as well as the CRC meetings and ultimately the Board of Adjustment meeting. So I think we were exercising due diligence in trying to provide all the information and make all the sacrifices so we could obtain permits throughout Hilton Head Island." Mr. Loveland continued, "Again, through the course of those meetings Mid -Island was never an issue and it only became an issue prior to the 6/22/92 BOA meeting that was addressing Pineland Mill specifically where we did not have the opportunity to apply for a setback Variance with the Board of Adjustments during the 6/22/92 meeting. During the 6/22/92 meeting this is where I brought up the fact that we were not given that opportunity. I'd like to address it before you at the time, at which time you asked the question of the Town Hall Staff, could they administratively approve setback at Mid -Island along with Pineland Mill, therefore I would not have to come back and re -address this issue in the future. We again set up a meeting with Bill Lytle in Town Hall to accomplish that task. The direction that we were given at that time was now we can approve this waiver of the setback, go ahead and install it 10 feet back and then prove hardship and come back to us and say that there is a hardship. As we did throughout the whole project tried to comply with the procedures and fallacies that the Hilton Head Island Town Hall Staff has made everyone on the island, all business owners, comply with. So we felt comfortable with - well ok we'll put it where it should be, that they had approved 10 feet back and we would comeback and prove hardship. Which was what we tried to accomplish at the CRC meeting on 10/13/93 through video tape sent to.Bill Lytle on 9/28 by Sherrie Sommerfeld from the Bank. During that CRC. meeting also colors were an issue in that our original BOA 3-22-93 Mtg. Page 9 s • M direction from the Town Hall prior to the 6/22/92 meeting was - have some options so if they give you the grey at some future date you can come back and try to get some color approval which is part of the review process of the CRC meeting on 10/13. Color approvals were granted they were subdued colors as we all know that are more earth tone oriented than the standard Nations Bank blue and red. So we did have somewhat of a conquest in that area. However, as part of the Agenda for the setback at Mid - Island that never came to pass during that CRC meeting -that I am aware of, even though we had presented a plot plan suggesting the placement as well'as the video tape that suggested hardship from the existing signage installation effort. Upon the results of that meeting Sherrie Sommerfeld received communication that yes we could go forward and hang up the approved red and blue colors as well as adjust the sign placement from the 10 foot setback that was prior approved to the current existing location that you see in the corner of the lot. There lies the communication difficulty between what was actually approved and what was not approved. I wasn't part of that communication so I can't speak for either Mr. Lytle or Sherrie Sommerfeld or Mr. Rabb in that particular instance. I do know that the setback issue was not part of the Agenda at the CRC meeting based on my conversation this afternoon with Mr. Rabb. I am perplexed that it wasn't because that was a major issue and has been all along.0 Mr. Loveland continues, "So now we are at crossroads and you have had the chance to read Sherrie Sommerfeld's record of what happened. We initiate moving the sign as we thought was approved to within a couple of feet of the lot line where the old C & S sign was and where a temporary Nations Bank sign was to.the existing location, that you have a picture there. More than a month later we received a letter from Town Hall suggesting that we were in violation and that we were to proceed with either moving it back or perhaps making application (I'm not sure exactly what that correspondence was) to get it approved �1 or adjusted. I think we received another correspondence a little later after the bank had not responded and specifically to that issue, suggesting that they would follow through with the policies of impounding the sign or fining the bank for non compliance to that particular request. At which point, Sherrie S. wrote the letter stating the facts as she knew it with regard to that sign placement, which you have before you. She received according to her a verbal communication that there was an approval to go to the existing location, and in there lies the difference of opinion. The main thing is that Town BOA 3-22-93 Page 10 6-A _ 1. q l f s pyo 9i,, �, r i �" v.�w 1� vs ti u,s . h • • M Hall has never been able to exercise what we all thought could happen and that was administratively approving the setback issues. Obviously the bank has gone to considerable expense in placing the sign where it is now °t and was willing to go through additional expense by placing it where we had initial approval. In addition to expense for temporary signage that we were required to do at this site because it was not part of the Agenda of the 6/22/92 meeting during our conversion weekend - not to mention my time which is somewhat nebulous, but they spent literally thousands of dollars trying to get this issue resolved. This is the point that we are af right now." t Chairwoman James thanked Mr. Loveland. She read from the minutes of 6/22/92 BOA meeting. "Mr. Loveland said he also wanted the Mid -point branch bank sign approved." Ms. Stone (who was the Manager of Current Planning) said," that the Mid -point sign location had not been advertised for a. Variance and a determination could not be made today." Mr. Loveland said, "those minutes are incorrect. I specifically addressed the Board here and they specifically talked to the Staff and in particular Bill Lytle saying that can we not address both sites at the time, and we arranged for a meeting right outside of this hall to make that happen. So I beg to differ with those minutes." Chairwoman James - I have a question of Staff. Mr. Loveland is talking about the Corridor Review Committee dealing with the Setback. Does the Corridor Review Committee deal with setbacks? Mr. Talcott - They can not grant a Variance from the setback, no. Mr. Robinson - I was not on the Board at that time, but I was in the audience and my recollection of this event was similar to what the minutes show. with the understanding that this item would come back to this committee for review but it was going to be at.a location which was satisfactory both to the bank and to the Staff. I think that is what has fallen through the cracks. Joint recommendations never come back this committee and I am not sure that we have got it here today. We have got one side of the recommendation and not both sides. •; Chairwoman James - My` recollection is very similar, we were dealing with signs that were temporary signs that were up at all locations at -that point. I recall you BOA 3-22-93 Mtg. Page 11 r f 0 M talking about the Mid -point location but, I do recall that i' we had stated that you should look at different locations and that if you needed a Variance to come back, because we could only deal with the one. Vice Chairman Brown - That is certainly my recollection. Mr. Loveland If Based on what I am understanding now with policies and procedures with regard to variances, obviously you are all here to approve variances and setbacks as was done at the Pineland Mill site. However, this is me against a number of people so yo'u'will beg forgiveness but my specific recollection of that communication was that Bill Lytle and myself would go to both sites at issue to determine the best placement without regard to the 10 foot setback request, but that they could administratively approve any setback issues given that there was an approval through the variance proceedings which I understand is this proceeding right here. However, my understanding and I think Bill Lytle*s understanding at the time this meeting was adjourned was that we would go to the site and they were allowed the ability to grant a setback variance or at least administratively approve the setback for that particular site. There in lies maybe the communication error - they certainly could approve anything 10 foot and beyond, but not 10 foot in the front and that is probably where the communication breakdown perhaps came." Chairwoman James - I recall with the sign at Pineland because of the situation with a large electrical box and all of the undergrowth around it and this is stated in a paragraph in the minutes also, that you and staff would take a look at the setback for that particular location and we gave a ratio or a distance to play with for that particular sign. There was nothing done on the Mid -Island sign at that point. Now, because of the fact that we have not addressed that we need to address that today because you have filed a variance for that or if, you would like to and I would hope that Staff would go along with this if you are concerned because of the recollection of that meeting and what actually was said,.I think that we would be more than happy to ask staff to prepare a transcript from the tape of that meeting. Where you can actually, \4 hear the conWe4tion and that might help to clarify some things. If you think that''ight.be appropriate and we can set.this Application aside and hear it at the next meeting after you have read the transcript.; , Mr. Loveland -0I think the issue at this point is what you are very well stating - not; to go back over old issues, lets address the variance issue here and go ;forward. Y Page 12 BOA 3-22-93 Mtg. h W apologize for taking the time and trying to explain this miscommunication effort." Chairwoman James - That is alright, you have a right to do that. That is why you are here. Mr. Loveland -'II would like to have the sign at its existing placement and I wanted you all to understand why it is there, based on the communication efforts from the past. I think the time I spent explaining it was time well spent. However, we just need to get going forward on this particular project. One of the issues'&& the Bank has presented in Sherrie Sommerfeld's letter to Town Hall is because of this miscommunication we don't feel that it is totally our fault in that I have explained to you the reasons why Bill Lytle and I went out and we went to the 10 foot setback and he said ok now prove hardship. We are asking Town Hall to pay for the relocation of it because we have exercised due diligence on all fronts and we ho+ght we exercised due diligence with this communication and the installation of the sign as we have done twice now. three times with the temoorary_siggn at the site. Now j they are asking us to go back or come before you and. determine.what we need to do from here." Chairwoman James - I think that we need to clarify something though you are using the word miscommunication. If there was communication that perhaps led you astray we don't have a copy of it. What we do have is a copy of the letter from Nations Bank from Sherrie Sommerfeld to Mr. Lytle where there is clearly a stated misunderstanding, but I did not see any miscommunications. Mr. Loveland -"Forgive me, misunderstanding is a better word." Mr. Boil - I wasn't on the Board in June when the Pineland situation was approved, but wasn't that basically just to approve the face of the sign and not changing position in any way shape or form. It was an existing sign and approval of the face of the sign changing it to Nations Bank as opposed to anew sign. Chairwoman James - It was a new sign. 1 Mr. Beil - It was a completely new sign, they didn't use that existing sign at all? The C i s sign? •i vice chairman Brown - As site indicated there was an electrical box as I recall and some shrubbery on some adjacent property that all go involved in that -was how.we determined (could not shear) P,1ge 13 s� lryl 7 r:tY7`p ry'r'�srn4.{':...57is .a`ryy:: TTMµ �..b n. i�.. r.. e n M Mr. Rowan - Do you have any problems moving that sign back six or eight feet to a conforming location? Mr. Loveland - To move it anywhere directly back from { where it is now will cause again buffer obstruction to that sign. There will be some obstructions -- telephone pole or several bushes and shrubs -- ' Mr. Rowan - You mean visual obstructions? t Mr. Loveland 2Yes sir. If we move it back to where it was in the middle of the facility, the middle of the lot you have an obstruction one-way and that is as you travel south on 278, there isn't clear visibility of that sign until you are actually at the drive-in area, and at whatever speed it basically to late to make your turn safely." Mr. Rowan - So what you are saying is - if you moved it back to that conforming location you would have serious visual problems. Mr. Loveland -Serious in the eyes of the bank, yes. Serious as a safety matter, that would have to be determined by other means. We feel that there isn't the proper visibility coming south, which is where your passenger turning into the facility would be warned enough to know that that facility is Nations Bank prior to that drive-through. There is another drive-through that was presented in the Staff's recommendation that follows the sign, that you can enter into the Bank, as they put it, it is not very well kept. I think they made that statement for Pineland Mill for that matter and then Nations Bank did address landscaping at Pineland Mill site. There is no way of knowing that that drive is quite a bit down the street and as well is not marked to any Nations Bank facility so the customers would know it is an entrance to the bank." Chairwoman James - Any other questions or comments from the Board? Chairwoman James - I need to say that C i S Bank changed to Nations Bank I made it a point to look for the new signage, because I knew, we all lmew, that there was some questions and concerns about signage. I didn't have any problem seeing the sign as I was yjoing south on 278 from the location near the front door where it was originally placed and I think that the other location that Mr. Lytle has shown, would be even more visible coming south on 278. Like moving back from where the current sign is I think`: BOA 3-22-93 Mtg. Page 14 0 0 M would be even more visible than the one in the middle of the bank. So I am thinking that perhaps the location that Mr. Lytle has pointed out on the plan may not be a bad location, in fact may even be more visible because of the open space from the Greenery down to the NationsBank. Mr. Loveland -'The most visible spot is where it is currently placed, I think we all would know that. I agree with you that there is a spot in the middle of the lot where we put it is not a serious issue. The serious issue here is that the bank has through the misunderstandings has spent considerable money trying to make 3t right and it is still not right and they just don't want to incur any more costs with regard to replacing all the electrical wiring to the new locations. They are at an impasse as to what is right now for the Nations Bank and the communications efforts or misunderstandings that have transpired until now.H Mr. Robinson - An I hearing right, that you are expecting the Town to pay if this Board requires you to conform to the requirements of the LHO and move it to one of the locations that conform? Mr. Loveland - That is the correspondence of Sherrie Sommerfeld's letter indicates, yes. Chairwoman James - What is your opinion of that or Mr. Rabb's opinion? Mr. Loveland -�I'd have to defer to Mr. Rabb other than the communication that I had with him prior to the meeting is that we feel that Town Hall has a certain amount of responsibility with regard to where the sign is now, based on communication that I have had directly with Bill Lytle directly in terms of its original placement at the to foot setback, what I felt was addressed here in the 6/22/92 BOA meeting with regard to the Town Hall saying that we all agreed or felt that Town Hall could administratively approve any setback issue and that was communication or misunderstandings that transpired from there. So, again 7 on all other fronts I think the Bank with the exception of this one has exercised due diligence in trying to make everything right and we can't understand why we are at this impasse knowing that all the other understandings have been somewhat above board and totally above board and in compliance with Hilton Head's requests." •' Chairwomen .James - Any further questions of Mr. Loveland? BOA 3-22-93 Mtq. Page 15 -• . ? E� ..'�14j ° �1 i ) l.rN:{ s .z r Sg 'f �jfli t xdu a t/u�t� i�ra, Fzfi6 '' 6 • M Mr. Robinson - I am concerned that we have a misunderstanding here and a'misunderstanding that has cost somebody some money and there is some liability issues involved. I think we have an obligation to get a replay of that tape of that meeting that is in question,.whether the Applicant wants to request that or not, as a body we need to request it. Chairwoman James - Would you like to make a Motion? Mr. Robinson - I would like to make a Motion that w Vice Chairman Brown - Chairwoman'James - May I ask Jim if you don't mind rather than asking for the Staff.to condense the minutes - to transcribe the minutes of that particular Application. Mr. Robinson - I'll accept that. Chairwoman James - Let me get any other comments or discussion from the Board members. Thank you. Mr. Rabb - I don't know if all this is as much needed as (unable to hear guessing at what he said) the request of what we did, the sign was moved to that location -- Chairwoman James - Mr. Rabb - Would you like to come up to the microphone so we can get your comments as part of the record? Mr. Rabb -"The sign was moved to the middle of the Mid- point Branch with the idea that we would be able to prove hardship. That is what we have tried to do with the video tape that we have and I don't know if it would be of any use for you to see that video tape, but the hardship and the tape purely shows that coming from a north - south direction you would be able to see our sign until you were on the sign or past the driveway to come into Mid -point Branch. That is the whole crux ,of the matter, it all points back to previous meetings and rehashing the situation, but the real request is for a Variance to leave the sign where it is, because of the hardship in visibility." Chairwoman James - Mr. Rabb I appreciate your comments, but we have not seen the videotape. Page 16 • s S Mr. Rabb OWe have the video tape here if you would be able to see it.' E , Chairwoman James - Thank you. One of the criteria that we have to go by to grant a Variance is hardship, so,that certainly is something that we should see, but one of the concerns that all of us on the Board have, and I won't Speak for everyone I'll let them speak to it themselves. We felt that we had a clear understanding o the Variance that was granted in June and we thought that we gave Mr. Loveland the direction that was necessary to deal with the sign at Mid -Island Branch. We have not-hedrd anything since June until we received the information on this stating that a sign had been put up by you (the Applicant) without approval of the Town. In fact, it was nonconforming. So, we need to deal with that because it is nonconforming to the LMO. our job is to make sure that things conform if at all possible, without undue hardship and also meeting the other 3 variance criteria. I think that the recommendation that we have is a fair one - to have that portion of the June meeting transcribed so that everyone can refresh their memory as to exactly what happened that day and perhaps deal with this_at our next Board meeting. We can also view the video tape so we can take that into consideration for our decision so we can make the fairest decision possible and the one that is going to be the best for the Town. Mr. Rabb - That's fine. Mr. Bail - Sue, the Staff's recommendation here states that in their opinion there is nothing peculiar or unique about the site and also that visibility of the sign at the approved location is not obstructed, etc. etc. Stating that in fact there is no hardship. Now, was this based on their also reviewing the video tape or have you had:an opportunity to view the video tape?.' Mr. Lytle - I've looked at that tape a couple of times, right here on the big screen. I still don't see a hardship. Basically they show in these photographs what they show in the video and.these are the photographs (can't understand) They show.approaches to the property from both ends. Chairwoman James - I don't think we`need to look at this because we have a Motion that is pwndingand I think at this point we should go ahead and cdil the.Question. Perhaps these photographs, as well as the tape, if • • s appropriate can be: reviewed. at the.%next Board meeting after we have the other information that;we need. . BOA 3-22793 Mtq. Page 17 y . e e M Mr. Robinson - Do you want to call the Question? Chairwoman James - I would like to. Alright and your vote? Mr. Robinson - I vote to call the Question. Chairwoman James - Alright, we have called the Question and we are going to vote now. The Motion is to table this request until our next, or we are not tabling - we are deferring it until our next meeting. We will get a transcript of the June meeting, have the video tape available and review it at that point. Mr. Robinson - I would move that and I will vote for that. Mr. Rowan - For the Motion Mr. Beil - For the Motion Mr. Brown - 'For the Motion Ms. James - For the Motion Vote - 5-0-0 Chairwoman James asked if the Staff was ready with the information for Mr. Shutt? V-4-93 - Heritage Motor car Company continued from page 6 of 3-22-93 BOA minutes. Mr. Talcott said Mr. Drane the Town's Urban Designer who handles cRC will address the Board. Mr. Talcott gave the Board copies of the CRC Notice of Action for the Sign review. The CRC reviews aesthetics only but, CRC did look at the Heritage Application as it tied in with the car ramp and did make some recommendations. We also have the certified copy of the Notice of Action for the Board's action on 10/27/92 concerning the Variance from setback for the Sign, which was sent to Mr. Shutt. Mr. Talcott said the BOA Notice of Action stated that the sign was to be removed. Chairwoman James read the notice of action letter which was sent to the Applicant regarding the ;BOA 10/27/92 meeting. Which stated:" On Tuesday, October 27, 1992 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request regarding the,Heritage,Notor Company sign. The Board of Adjustment, Motion was to deny the Variance from LMO 16-7-1030 to allow a sign,in that required setback. The.Board'found that no permits had . been issued for the sign and.thata,hardship did not exist, because a new.relocated.sign could provide more BOA 3-22-93 Mtg. page 18`. I i exposure for the business. Further, the Board of Adjustment requested the Applicant to remove the sign and the triangle sign structure. The.Motion was Adopted." This was a certified letter that was mailed to the attorney for the Applicant on 10/30/92 following the 10/27/92 meeting. Chairwoman James - The Corridor Review Committee Notice of Action for 2/11/93 stated: "As a result of the meeting held on 2/9/93 approved with conditions, which was, the elevated platform was allowed with new landscaping installed in this location, light fixtures be changed to concealed source fixture, both to be approved by Staff. Mr. Drane, Urban Designer, said that the Staff memorandum, dated 2/5/93, sent to the CRC members noted the Application was for approval of an existing free-standing sign at an auto dealership, on U.S. 278. The sign consisted of white cut-out letters applied to a railroad tie retaining wall which supports an elevated platform, displaying autos. This sign is illuminated by bare bulb incandescent flood lights. Minimal landscaping was provided for the sign. Staff recommendation was to approve with conditions that the elevated platform be removed and new landscaping installed in this location and that light fixtures be changed to concealed source fixtures, both of which would be approved by Staff. Mr. Drane said from an aesthetic standpoint CRC had no problem with the visual appearance of the sign, including the raised platform with the auto displayed. Mr. Drane said he took the position that the ramp was part of the sign since it was to attract attention, and it meets the definition of the sign ordinance. CRC did not feel they had the authority to order removal or change the location of the sign. Mr. Drane said CRC made a Motion to approve the existing structure and sign with the two conditions; landscaping to be added and for the light fixtures to be concealed. Mr. Robinson - Asked if the Staff recommendation was to remove the platform and put a sign in that location. Also, did the CRC have any discussion about the platform? Mr. Drane replied yes. He said the only discussion was that CRC preferred not to have a white or bright yellow car displayed, and as long as the car was earth blending they had no visual problem with that car being there. Mr. Shutt, " respectfully,added,`that there was a third condition in the transcript and hot in the summary, where I agreed not to display a white car. I, agreed to that as a third condition." BOA 3-22-93 Mtg. Page 19 I • • Mr. Shutt said there were two substantive changes since the BOA 10/27/92 decision, one was the CRC decision which he regarded as substantive, CRC approved the sign and the display ramp, and secondly the BOA 10/27/92 decision was based on one faulty fact - in the meeting tape .the point was made that the new sign intruded on the right-of-way and it does not, it is totally within Heritage property but, not 10 feet back from the setback as required. Chairwoman James said the CRC decision was not substantive as to the setback or buffer, which the BOA had to address. Chairwoman James suggested to Mr. Shutt that a wall sign might be considered as part of the enclosure of the front of the building. Mr. Shutt said the Hilton Head tradition is to have business signs along the entire length of U.S. 278,with signs 10 feet or less from the right-of-way. He said a sign on the building would not be visible to the island visitors, who do not know where the business is located. He said it would be a hardship to the business to locate the sign behind the grove of trees across the frontage. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to reconsider the Motion of October 27. 1992, due to new substantive infor- mation regarding the sign location in relation to the right-of-way. and to allow the Board time to receive and read a transcript of the October 27, 1992 BOA meeting. Moved: Mr. Robinson Second• Mr. Beil Discussion Mr. Talcott said that Mr. Shutt had a survey done of the property subsequent to the October action. He explained that the Staff Memorandum to the Board stated: "that the sign was located at the William Hilton Pkwy. right-of-way line with no setback provided." The setback should be 10 feet. Mr. Shutt said, ",the spirit of the verbatims transcript is not reflected in what Hugh just read." Mr. Beil assumed the Heritage reconsideration would be at the next Hol► meeting, April 26, and asked that the Staff provide the Board with as such information as possible with regard to the position of those trees and their opinion as to whether or not there could be any movement of the sign _to.another location. Page 20 e e • M Vice Chairman Brown requested the transcript of the 10/27/92 meeting be made part of the Motion. He said the Board was treading on thin legal grounds and the Board should have legal advice from the Town Attorney before voting. Mr. Robinson said the Board should have a full transcript of the 10/27/92 meeting before making a decision. Chairwoman James said that new survey information would be substantive information and would warrant a reconsideration. Mr. Rowan and Mr. Beil agreed that their recollections of the 10/27/92 meeting were that the sign protruded into the right-of-way. Also, that there was a discussion that the bicycle path might possibly go into the sign area. Chairwoman James said there being no further discussion, called for the Question on the previous Motion by Mr. Robinson to reconsider the Board's 10/27/92 decision. Mr. Beil - Fgr the Motion V -Chair Brown- against the Motion Mr. Rowan = For the Motion Mr. Robin 2n _ For the Motion Chair. James _ For the Motion Vote 4-1-0 Chairwoman James - The Motion passes to reconsider. Chairwoman James said the next Motion is for a Variance from IMO 16-7-305(c) to expand a nonconforming site at Heritage Motor Car Company. After two failed Motions Chairwoman James passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Brown to conduct the meeting. The Motion of the Board of Adjyat'ant vas to table the Variance reguest from LH0 Section 16-7-305(cl to expend a nonconforming site for the Heritage Motor Cer Camoany. until the Board's reconsideration ofe'October 27. 1992 decision is made.__ Moved: Mrs. James Second; Mr. Robinson Vote 4-1-0 No discussion. Mr. Beil opposed the Motion. BOIL 3-22-93 Mtg., Page 21 • • M Applicant: Mr. Tory Bergelt for the Dolphin Group Owner: Mr. Tory Bergelt Request: V-6-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(f) to allow re-establishment of an abandoned nonconforming development. Property is located at 155B William Hilton Pkwy. near Wild Horse Road and ,identified on Beaufort Co. Tax Map 07, Parcel 40A. Mr. Hugh Talcott explained that the site had been abandoned and that the last occupant was the Island Seafood Company. The Applicant was notified -when he began to establish a business in the building that LMO Section 16-7-305 does not permit re -occupation of abandoned sites unless the site is brought into full conformance. The building is set back 85 feet from the William Hilton Pkwy. right-of-way, although the site is otherwise nonconforming in all respects. The property as configured just included the building and a small area to the rear of the building. Mr. Talcott said the Applicant proposed to reduce the nonconformities of the site by installing a one-way drive with angled parking in front of the building which would provide a 30 to 40 foot buffer between the right-of-way and the parking. This.front area,as well as the sides of the building would be landscaped and the building facade altered subject to CRC .approval. Mr. Talcott said the nonconformities that would remain would be the front buffer,:and the off -premise sign. The only other opportunity for a sign would be a wall sign and adjoining businesses had signs in the front of the property. Mr. Talcott said the Staff felt this was a unique situation due to the way the property was configured and after review of the Variance criteria, Staff found that unique conditions and hardships, existed to allow many, of the site's nonconformities-t6 remain. The Applicants proposed improvements to the site will meet the intent of LMO 16-7-305(f) by bringing the site into.greater ?^ conformance, although the proposed landscape plan does not i conform to LMO Section 16-77483, Minimum Visual Buffer. Mr. Talcott said the Variance regpest.was recommended for approval, provided the landscaping; and building . improvements met CRC review standards. The recommendation did not include increased impervious surfaces on the o.125 3 acre parcel, which would require additional variances. • Mr. Robinson asked what criteria was used.to determine that the building was vacant for an extended period of time. Page 22' �ns.,ar „yr �f5 ,rvffi;.g �1:3:a 3,� .u.. i� 3: { ,•.,�'i` v ck%r�,. !.� 1u'Lrr fM�.L iOVMr�uk�id; J—r. "".+i� t",^ R� u,7�; i 1 ff%Erb -, err` [7 Appellant: Mr. Brian Carmines for Hudson's Seafood Corp. Owner: Mr. Brian Carmines Request: A-2-93 Appeal of an Administrative determination regarding a nonconforming off - premise sign. The sign is located at the intersection of Gum Tree and Squire Pope Roads and identifies Hudson's and Carmines' restaurants. Ms. Carol Krawczyk told the Board that the sign Administrator sent a letter to Mr. Carmines indicating that the changes made to the sign face at GUM Tree & Squire Pope Roads were in violation of the LMO. Section 16-7-1012(x) states a nonconforming sign may be maintained only by painting or refinishing the surface of the sign as it was when the prior permit was issued or the Town permit tag affixed." Hudson's restaurant has had directional signs predating the LAO. The sign located at Squire Pope and Gum Tree Roads was changed more than allowed by the LMO when the new restaurant name was changed on the sign and thereby became illegal. Ms. Krawczyk said Mr. Carmines indicated that the change - to the sign was neither substantive nor structural in nature, and merely reflected a name change. The Sign Administrator determined the sign was nonconforming because it was an off -premise sign, the 10 foot setback from the property line was not met, and the sign was within the sight triangle of the two intersecting roads. Chairwoman James was concerned that the sign had come before the Board now, when there had been two previous changes to the sign without approval. Mr. Brian Carmines, Owner of Hudson's Seafood Corporation and the subject sign, explained to the Board that his two restaurants were at the and of a private road about a mile and one-half from U.S. 278. Even with existing signage customers have trouble finding the restaurants. The sign was installed originally in 1975 and gavedirections to. Hudson's Seafood which was the only restaurant at that time. The sign was needed because customers told Mr. Carmines they had trouble finding the restaurants. He said if the sign was removed there would be further confusion as to which way to turn on Squire Pope Road from Gum Tree Road. Mr. Carmines said the face of the sign had been changed in 1983, again in 1991 and then November of_1992 to Carmines. The work done was nerely:a name change and that was accomplished, by putting new 'sign panels over the old panels. B0A 3-22-93 Mtg., Page 24 e • M Vice Chairman Brown asked if there w,. a any structural changes to the sign. Mr. Carmines said there were no structural changes to the sign whatsoever. Chairwoman James asked if any correspondence was received from the Town when the other sign changes were made. Mr. Carmines said nothing was received. Chairwoman James asked if there was an agreement with Mr. Barnwell to locate the sign on his property. Mr. Carmines said it was a handshake agreement with Mr. Barnwell. Mr. Thomas Barnwell, Jr., told the Board he owned Parcels 16, 16A & 16B, and he had'received the required registered letter giving notice of the Appeal. Mr. Barnwell said he had agreed to the sign being on his property since 1975. Mr. Rowan said according to the layout it looked like the sign was in the right-of-way instead of private property. Mr. Barnwell said the old markers were still beyond the ditch on the Squire Pope Road Section. Mr. Robinson said the layout before the Board was used for laying out water lines and not a good source to locate boundary lines. Ms. Krawczyk noted that the drawing had been submitted to roughly locate the sign. Mr. Barnwell appealed to the Board to grant the Variance request for the Hudson's Seafood sign, because of the need by first time visitors to find the restaurants. He also requested that future changes to the Corporation name on i the sign be granted, as long as it conforms to LMO size and other regulations in that location. s Mr. Robinson said the sign was located within the vision a triangle at the intersection and the State Highway Department liked to keep the triangle clear of signage. He asked Mr. Carmines if he would object to moving the sign a few feet to clear the.vision triangle. Mr. Carmines said he did not objaot, but under the LNO he would receive another violation sticker. With the BoardIs S' approval he would move"the.sign out of that vision triangle. BOA 3-22-93 Mtg. Page. 25 axti • 174t,4t�'h•Kd�Yahh�+`Zl"�`.i �[3v �.r (;?l• ,l !4 ,4�� rr'.A: .. i�..e. �• �a�'� �f��' r ��. a �'' The Board of Adjustment Motion as amended by Mr. Robinson and Chairwoman James, and accepted by Vice Chairman Brown stated: .the 1/,7/93 Sign Administrator' nonconforming..n! was illegal. changed from what was allowed i comply with a State regulationa apnlicant to move the sign out Gum Tree and Sauire Pone Roads. Discussion Mr. Brechko had concerns over the legal aspect of moving a nonconforming sign and sought legal advice from the Town legal office. Mr. Robinson said extraordinary and exceptional conditions existed for this sign. He said the LMo requirements created a hardship for Hudsons Seafood,. because the sign was a part of a larger sign system and, as such, important to that system. Mr. Brechko said a legal'opinion on moving a nonconforming sign was not available at this time however, when the Board either upheld or overturned an administrator's decision modifications would be allowed. Mr. Brechko said if the Variance was granted and the sign located outside the sight triangle it would still be an off -premise, nonconforming sign and other changes would not`be allowed. Mr. Brechko said Mr. Riley, Director of Community Development felt that the Board had the authority to request the change from the vision triangle. Chairwoman James called for the vote on the Motion. ySite 5 -c -c ' Chairwoman. James said the Appeal was granted. Mr. Barnwell expressed a need for extensive. fieldwork and consideration to be done before moving the sign. He felt the sign was, placed as well as it could be. Mr. Robinson said after the property lines had been located it :might be that the., sign was outside the triangle.He said this aspect of-the.L110 was a State provision to protect;averybody involved with the sign. Page' 26 e M Chairwoman James called a 10 minute recess. Chairwoman James reconvened the Board at 3:40 p.m. Appellant: Mr. & Mrs. Michael Nestor Owner: Mr. Philip Ballard Request: A-4-93 Appeal of the February 8, 1993 Administrative decision regarding the legal conformance of two dwelling units located at 7 and 7A Cassina Lane. The property is identified on Beaufort County !ax Map #15A, Parcel 65. Ms. Krawczyk addressed the Board concerning the Appeal of the Administrative decision not to pursue a violation for zoning enforcement action on the property at 7 and 7A Cassina Lane. Mr. & Mrs. Nestor the Appellants, reside at 27 Cassina Lane. Mrs. Nestor is President of Ocean Holdings, Inc. However the Appeal is on behalf of the Mr. & Mrs. Nestor. There are two distinct single family dwellings on the property and on February 2, 1993, the Town Inspections Department issued two buildii.g permits for renovation work on the two buildings to Mr. Ballard of Haversham Hills Development. After receiving complaints from Mr. & Mrs. Nestor that two dwelling units were being created where only one previously existed, a stop work order was placed on the property at 7 - 7A Cassina Lane to allow further investigation. Ms. Krawczyk said a review of the tax records back co 1988 indicated the lot was considered to have two dwelling units. One water meter served the two structures. The Palmetto Electric records indicated there were twD separate electric meters at the site one for 7 and 7A Cassina. Neither water nor electrical service was aver discontinued to the site. staff determined under the circumstances, it would be hard to prove that the second unit was built after the LMO adoption and abandonment would be equally difficult to prove. Based on the criteria outlined in Mr. Riley's letter of 2/12/93 to Mrs. Nestor, the Administrator believed the Town could not pursue a violation for zoning enforcement action against the owner of the subject property. (Letters of 1/22/93, 1/28/93 i 2/10/93 i 2/12/93 between the Town and Mrs. Nestor are attached.) Mr. Bill Foiles represented. Mr. i Mrs. Nestor in the Appeal. Mr. Foiles said in the 19508s a one-story dwelling unit was constructed on the lot. Approximately BOA 1-22-93 Mtq. Page 27 6 M in the early 1970's the lower portion of the existing dwelling unit was changed into a two-story structure, then an attached garage with servant's quarters was built. In the early 1970's the lower portion of the garage was converted to living space and it became a separate dwelling unit, creating two dwelling units on this lot. Mr. Foiles said the best he could determine the units remained vacant for a period of 2 years starting in the early 19901x. Mr. Foiles said in W vember 1992 Mr. & Mrs. Nestor noticed the building activity and contacted the -Town -Inspection department and started the process which lead to the Appeal hearing before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Foiles noted that IMO Section 16-7-305(f) states that a legal nonconformity voluntarily abandoned or terminated for a continuous period of six months or more shall not be reoccupied or reestablished without conforming to the IMO. Mr. Foiles said if abandonment is voluntary, under the law if a nonconforming use is abandoned the intent of the owner to actually relinquish the use must be established. Since intent is extremely hard to determine, many municipalities have established a more objective way of dealing with nonconforming uses, and this element dealt with termination sessions or discontinuance provisions. These ordinances state, if a nonconforming use is vacant for the specified time it is presumed and implied that the intent to abandon is there, and therefore, if it remains vacant for the determined time, there is no need to determine the owners intent. The use must be brought into conformity. Mr. Foiles said the law in this jurisdiction only dealt with a few cases on the termination or abandonment issue of nonconforming uses. He cited three cases in South Carolina of which none were the same as the one before the Board however, the provision most similar to the Town's law provided that, if a use had been abandoned or its use had been discontinued for a year, then it could not be reestablished with nonconformities. Mr. Foiles referred to the provision in the 1987 LMO, and noted that the IMO provided for a nonconforming use to be terminated in 90 days or a complete season, and could not be reoccupied. He said the Council later adopted the longer term of six months in order to avoid being involved in determining landowners intent, when the nonconforming property was not in use. He said if a property was not utilized for a continuous six month period this ordinance presumed that the use had been abandoned, and there was no need to determine the intent and the nonconformity must be brought into conformity. BOA 3-22-93 Mtg. Page 28 • • U in the early 1970's the lower portion of the existing dwelling unit was changed into a two-story structure, then an attached garage with servant's quarters was built. In the early 1970's the lower portion of the garage was converted to living space and it became a separate dwelling unit, creating two dwelling units on this lot. Mr. Foiles said the best he could determine the units remained vacant for a period of 2 years starting in the early 19901x. Mr. Foiles said in November 1992 Mr. & Mrs. Nestor noticed the building activity and contacted the-Town'Inspection department and started the process which lead to the Appeal hearing before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Foiles noted that IMO Section 16-7-305(f) states that a legal nonconformity voluntarily abandoned or terminated for a continuous period of six months or more shall not be reoccupied or reestablished without conforming to the IMO. M; Foiles said if abandonment is voluntary, under the law i.. nonconforming use is abandoned the intent of the ow:ic-r to actually relinquish the use must be established. Sint, intent is extremely hard to determine, many municipalities have established a more objective way of dealing with nonconforming uses, and this element dealt with termination sessions or discontinuance provisions. These ordinances state, if a nonconforming v:se is vacant for the specified time it is presumed and implied that the intent to abandon is there, and therefore, if it remains vacant for the determined time, there is no need to determine the owners intent. The use must be brought into conformity. Mr. Foiles said the law in this jurisdiction only dealt with a few cases on the termination or abandonment issue of nonconforming uses. He cited three cases in South Carolina of which none were the same as the one before the Board however, the provision most similar to the Town's law provided that, if a use had been abandoned or its use had been discontinued for a year, then it could not be reestablished with nonconformities. Mr. Foiles referred to the provision in the 1987 IMO, and noted that the IMO provided for a nonconforming use to be terminated in 90 days or a complete season, and could not be reoccupied. He said the Council later adopted the longer term of six months in order to avoid being involved in determining landowners intent, when the nonconforming property was not in use. He said if a property was:not utilized for e. continuous six month period this ordinance presumed that the use had been abandoned, and there was no need tij determine the intent and the nonconformity must be brought into conformity. BOA 3-22-93 Mtg.' Page 28 Chairwoman James asked Mr. Foiles if he considered a single family home that is on the market or vacant for six months and did not currently meet the code for setbacks, to be abandoned. Mr. Foiles said yes. He said the law provided that if a nonconformity existed the Town would allow utilization of that nonconformity but, if the property stayed abandoned six months or more, then the Town determined that the grandfathered protection was lost. The whole idea was to bring nonconformities into compliance. He said if a person had a nonconforming use it had to be -protected and that meant not letting the property go vacant for a period of six months or more. Mr. Beil said over the past 3 years there must have been 3 or 4 owners and the purchases were not made with the idea to abandon the property. Mr. Foiles said that a person should check the municipal and private regulations before purchase. if the property had two separate dwelling units on a single family lot, that should alert him to a nonconforming situation. Mr. Beil said he could understand an abandoned gas station better than a rental home, where the home could be vacant because the right rental persons had not been found. Mr. Beil asked if Mr. Foiles considered that abandonment. Mr. Foiles said yes. He said the situation was the same if the property was a nonconformity, there was protection under the ordinance, as long as the property was continually used until it is voluntarily abandoned, or the use is discontinued for six months or more. Mr. Foiles said the continuance of utilities was not a real utilization of the nonconforming property to protect it from the application of the provisions of IMO section 16-7-305(f). During the two year period the lot became overgrown and people parked cars on the lot while visiting the beach. He said when the LMO was adopted it was to reflect single family character not two or three dwelling units to a lot. Mr. Foiles said the encroachment into the neighborhood was eroding property values, increasing traffic and... congestion. He said the zoningregulations were designed to protect the character of the neighborhood and the Island. To allow these two dwelling units to restored and established on this small lot would be counter to the character of the naighborhood and the intent of the LMO. BOA 3-22-93" Mtg. Page 29 11 • Chairwoman James asked if the owner of the property had been notified. Mr. Foiles said a certified notice was sent to the owner of the lot. Vice Chairman Brown asked if there were any records of the actual usage on the water and electric meters during the past two years. Ms. Krawczyk said that the electric company found minimal action on the meters. Staff felt if the property was abandoned, the service would have been disconnected. Mr. Foiles pointed out that Beaufort County and the Town's DSO had provisions dealing with setbacks, impervious surface.coverage, parking and other standards and that are in the present LMO. He said he was not sure when the garage was converted but, it was done in conformity with the land use control laws at the time. Chairwoman James asked if any record existed to show a subdivision of Lot 19. Mr. Foiles said the tax and property -cords showed that it was one lot. Chairwoman James said that the Board could not rule on or get involved in covenants of the neighborhoods. She asked if the Nestors had pursued the covenants through the courts. Mr. Foiles said he informed the Nestors that covenants were a separate issue and they had reserved the right to pursue covenant violations, but have not done so. Mr. Steve Riley, Director of Community Development addressed the Board. He spoke with regard to the determination that had to he made, which was whether he, as Administrator, had made an error in the determination as to whether there was sufficient evidence to rule there was a case for abandonment. Chairwoman James asked for Mr. Riley's evidence to determine an abandonment. Mr. Riley said the only proof of abandonment was the word of Mr. i Mrs. Nestor, not to disparage the word of Mr. a Mrs. Nestor but it became an issue of their word against the owner's word. The utilities had not been disconnected and there was some activity ,on the meters. BOA 3-22-93 Mtg.: Page 30 I e • M He said the complaint as he understood it, was that a duplex was being established at this time which had not previously existed. The Town's investigation suggested that there had been two buildings since at least 1988. Mr. Riley said when the Town's inspectors looked at what was being remodeled and what was in place, it appeared that the living facilities in the converted garage had been there for some time, not new installations, and probably predated the LMO. At that time he became aware of the abandonment issue and the utilities were looked at. There was nothing else to substantiate the abandonment of 2 years but the Nestor's recollection. - — Chairwoman James asked whether the telephone records were checked, because the tenant was responsible for paying the telephone bills. Mr. Riley said the phone records had not been checked. Mr. Beil was concerned that the property had been left to become overgrown, and then sold to a new person who wanted to fix it up. When does the new six month period begin? Mr. Riley said the grandfathering generally applies to the use and the ownership is irrespective. Mr. Riley read IMO Section 16-7-305(f) but, noted there was a conflict in the Ordinance in Section 16-7-232, Specific Activities Constituting Development, subsection (7) Reestablishment of Abandoned Use. That section states it is not considered development and not subject to the LMO until the period of abandonment is one year. Because of the inconsistency issue in the LMO, Staff had not been willing to approach any abandonment issue, unless it could be determined that it had been abandoned for at least 12 months. Mr. Marty Propst spoke to the Board on behalf of the owner of 7 & 7A Cassina Lane, Mr. Philip Ballard. He said as a practical matter, many of the things discussed regarding this particular property may have been academic when discussing abandonment. Mr. Propst said Mr. Ballard had no intention of using this property as anything but a single family use. Mr. Ballard did not intend to rent it out as a duplex, and had informed the rental agent about the covenants and instructed that the property was to be rented out to one group at a time. He said Mr. Ballard's intentions were to use the property,as a personal.use for his family. The use would be for people who are extended family or people who knew each other or were affiliated in some way. BOA 3-22-93.Mtg. Page 31' e • M Mr. Propst said even if there had been abandonment that would not have affected the issuance of a building permit to renovate the property because the use was not dissimilar to the guest house or pool house seen on other parts of the island. Chairwoman James asked if this would be a short term rental situation. Mr. Propst said yes, both buildings would be rented to the same group at the same time with one account per rental for the entire lot. Mr. Rowan said if even a hallway connected the two buildings it would be impossible to rent it as a two separate units. Mr. Foiles said Mrs. Nestor pointed out that the property had been -sold two or three times since last August as a single family home. There had been a physical structure between the two units at one time but it had been removed. Mr. Foiles said that it was a good possibility that the open space, setback and impervious surface had been violated. Vice Chairman Brown asked if the two years of vacancy occurred prior to 1992? Mrs. Nestor said that was right. The following residents addressed the Board regarding the Nestor Appeal of 7 & 7A Cassina Lane: Mr. Dick Dye, representing the Forest Beach Properties Owner's Association, addressed the Board. Mr. Dye said the area was single family covenanted and single family zoned by the Town. He said tie Association wanted to maintain the use of property as it was covenanted because, if the use was not maintained, the value of the property would be destroyed from a residential standpoint. Mr. Dye asked if the'Town had the; approvalof the Forest Beach ARB before issuing a building permit and if a multi- family use was approved by the Town. Mr. Steve Riley said the Town did not approve the conversion, because it predated the.Town, and it was remodeling and not an expansion.. He said the Town's investigation found that the property was multi -family before the LMO and that made, it. a pre-existing nonconforming use. The Town did not have,approval.of the ARB to issue building permits, the interpretation of State BOA 3-22=93'Mtg. Page 32 1 codes for single family residential allowed the Town to ask if the there had been an investigation by ARB, but it could not be required as a condition of issuing a building permit for resilential units. Mr. William Lancaster spoke as an interested resident. He said he was involved with the property in the early 1970's when it was converted to a two-story home with an attached garage with two rooms above the garage, and it was connected to the total building. He sold the property during that time and it had been sold many times since. He supported maintaining the Forest Beach area -lis a single family residential neighborhood and he urged the Board to support the Appeal. Chairwoman James said the Board knew how concerned the residents were with the covenants of the area, but the Board could not become involved in covenants. The Board's decision concerned whether or not the use had been abandoned. The Board understood the emotions.but could not help with the covenants. Chairwoman James was excused and Vice Chairman Brown continued the meeting. Mo. Pamela Ovens addressed the Board and noted that guest houses were illegal in all plantations. She asked why two electric meters were needed and the reason for the 7 and 7A address separation. Mr. Dave Whit, a resident of Forest Beach, and ARB member, addressed the Board. He wanted to know if the Town asked the ARB before issuing the building permit. Mr. Riley said it was his understanding that the question had been asked by the Building +& Inspection department. Mr. Monty Weaver, a resident, questioned the legality of a duplex on a single family lot. He,said it should be denied. Mr. Weaver said he owned a.duplex and previously had to go through the Planning Coamissionto make his property conform. Letters were also received by the Board of Adjustment in, support of the Nestor's Appeal from the following persons: Douglas .& Margie Bence John A. Crawford �! J.H:"Shaw Robert's Jennie Thompson Callie Mobley BOA 3-22-93,Mtg: Page.iZ i it �. codes for single family residential allowed the Town to ask if the there had been an investigation by ARB, but it could not be required as a condition of issuing a building permit for resilential units. Mr. William Lancaster spoke as an interested resident. He said he was involved with the property in the early 1970's when it was converted to a two-story home with an attached garage with two rooms above the garage, and it was connected to the total building. He sold the property during that time and it had been sold many times since. He supported maintaining the Forest Beach area -lis a single family residential neighborhood and he urged the Board to support the Appeal. Chairwoman James said the Board knew how concerned the residents were with the covenants of the area, but the Board could not become involved in covenants. The Board's decision concerned whether or not the use had been abandoned. The Board understood the emotions.but could not help with the covenants. Chairwoman James was excused and Vice Chairman Brown continued the meeting. Mo. Pamela Ovens addressed the Board and noted that guest houses were illegal in all plantations. She asked why two electric meters were needed and the reason for the 7 and 7A address separation. Mr. Dave Whit, a resident of Forest Beach, and ARB member, addressed the Board. He wanted to know if the Town asked the ARB before issuing the building permit. Mr. Riley said it was his understanding that the question had been asked by the Building +& Inspection department. Mr. Monty Weaver, a resident, questioned the legality of a duplex on a single family lot. He,said it should be denied. Mr. Weaver said he owned a.duplex and previously had to go through the Planning Coamissionto make his property conform. Letters were also received by the Board of Adjustment in, support of the Nestor's Appeal from the following persons: Douglas .& Margie Bence John A. Crawford �! J.H:"Shaw Robert's Jennie Thompson Callie Mobley BOA 3-22-93,Mtg: Page.iZ i it �. Vice Chairman Brown said the Appeal before the Board was an Appeal of the 2/12/93 Administrative determination nit to pursue a violation of zoning enforcement action against the owners of the property identified as 7 & 7A Cassina Lane,by Mr. & Mrs. Nestor. The question before the Board - was there an abandonment and did Mr. Riley view `all the facts before him correctly in making his decision. Vice Chairman Brown reminded the Board that four affirmative votes were required to reverse the decision of the Administrator. Mr. Steve Riley said this was an enforcement-issue, a determination not to pursue enforcement. So, should the Board overrule the Administrator's decision not to pursue an abandonment case, it would not automatically revert to single family. Mr. Riley said he would be compelled to pursue an abandonment violation, but it would not prove abandonment or force the owner to take any action at this time. The case would then come back before the Board or the Town Judge, and he was not sure at this time how this would proceed. The Motion of the Board of Adjustment was to aRRrove the Appeal and override the Administrator's decision. because there was sufficient evidence of abandonment.eresented to the Board to re-ooei. the issue and have further Staff investigation. Moved: Mr. Robinson Second: Mr. Rowan Discussion Mr. Rowan said he felt that the best way to handle the matter was through the covenants; which would be far more effective than just settlement of abandonment. Mr. Robinson said the Board had to deal with the issue before them and their option was to overturn the decision 3 and send it back for further study, or uphold the decision and send it to the courts. He said more study was needed because additional evidence was available which hadnot been presented. vice ChairmRn'Bvown said he:was in agreement with Mr. Robinson. Mr. Beil said it was not the Staff's obligation to search out the information on,'abandonment. BOA 3-22-93,.Mtg. Page ' 34 i i I rVioxg1' � ?w HIH fru§ e e January 22. 1993 27 Cassina Lane Hilton Head. SC 29928 930036 Mr. Gregory De Loach, Esq. Director of Legal Services Town of Hilton Head Island One Town Center Court Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 w_ BE: Remodeling Project; Lot 19 Cassina (.ane, Hilton Head Dear Mr. De Loach: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me yesterday regarding the above. Your offer. to go to the Planning staff and to research the current LHO is greatly appreciated. As President of Ocean Holdings, Inc., the holder of the Covenants and Declarant Rights in the Lawton Beach Subdivision, and as a property owner in the neighborhood I feel very frustrated trying to maintain our neighborhood as the single family residential area that it it designated to be. I have been advised that the Town has a check- list, which includes ARB approval, that anyone requesting a permit for new construction or remodeling mist comply with. Mr. Hodge of the Inspections and Planning department of the Town, stated that it was not his responsibility to ascertain that ARB approval was granted to an applicant. If that is the case, why is it on the checklist? Our area, does have an ARB and no plans have been submitted for our review on the above referenced property. I am enclosing a copy of our covenants, which are recorded in Deed Book 78, page 70. These covenants. clearly state that the only out building allowed in our area is a garage, which may contarn servants quarters. On this particular property (Lot 19) there now exists two (2) separate, distinct buildings containing single family living quarters. This is a definate violation of our covenants. _Mr. Hodge_fu ether informad•me that once a:building permit is issued no folloWup-is done. to see that work being performed is in compliance with the permit as issued. 'The original permit on this property was granted for siding only and yet major renovations were being done. I was grateful when the Town placed a Stop Work Order on the property,, subject to new plans being approved by the Tpm However, "this morning an electrician was allowed to perform work on the property �D because the Bui]dirg Inspector decided that: the work tied in to the original permit for sid irg . CW O I I� z _ w_ f. t0 IME 010 OWApe hoee►y nJerias mati itself,IN smanssen id asalpo. • ponstool. alloulle Sad v releasable sae" am& right, ea, aver ad uadar the ~ to .rest, nlatal• ad us o}eetrle ad tolipheas "I",, 1Ne. Wles. adattJ, water, now' act other soluble 'otaltaeat'tirse gosrerme and, au of elestrteltr. swan, Ntephose, du aowsp. ester sr stlur public esavalosesa sr utilities aa, tai �e gnr the naw tin (J) fest sf mat. lot oldfloe (3)s00% atom am (1) $lds of artals lets, all as Showa as the plat at said subdivision. 6.: prior N .Ihe 99"Pus r of a:nalds"a is Sar let, L sal{ soldivlslsa. propos and suite/1e uptlo task. or f Sola: Miall to eentgoeid a ash US for the `dlopeeal'r.all po■sp. uI all .wrap Shall be s"Uma or discharges late cath tsah. or.Mahs. 11s Swrap,shoU ho emetled of disehoesl late er ipta the ana er the beech %honer. $ M ageless gr,sltwuln activity shall he ourtq,es rps Say tet; at shall may"log.be dens therels vhlc s is or esy tesenias usaymase or wlesae te: the aNdttgrhod. r . S.' 316 livestock or, live towel shell'te ualstalsd N soy 1;1 rtthont vrltta aunt ot'l M11101 010 oplpu /N _ ouseiwn elr uslps. p. ; Se Straits" et a tospenry ehesuter.'.tnller. We"eat, tut. shocki pnp. lata, or other oathulldlaS' be sada any lot atiaw time as •'eesldssas elpur tomprarily or,penrautly. 0. i let. shall ho undivided. or Its hoadap Uses cheatdoieept vith the rrittarl aeasat or M IVMI Oopgff. lteeeeenNnoraeolpe. er l0 t11LOf.=WA ff hentrespreasly name to;itself. 'Its ssaaan aid uelpc, the flOt %M est - e. y do"'or,etbowla)4r replat Sar W (S) or aH leN.ehws estMe plat et. sold aehdivlalyee q {e E 1cimisjplot el talldleg plate cash larges /a else thou Sar cue e! gg.Lte a sehdlvUd os isplatted. Warl a■ putts ��y�i� 1hot u a ult , ad a N 7r l mrd'leta as ud� MnL .Mali N ses~tned N�ieayi eta! - .-', _• Y h4 • P" �• SOUTH FOREST BES Ch LAWON BEACH SUBDIVIS . N SOUTH FOR BEACH DRIVE a0 s0 ; 79� sa''; '/as '.ba' '63,- .46�. tl 34 6 t of �ij at 7a r 70 ,84�j• ., b• 62 �,¢4 t7 t0. t2 3a r: 3! ,!1 3 i11 1 ' 24' 2 h . Be d2 7T 71' . 10 8 6! s1 a0 al ao .;0 II 20 14 m . +•� 3.13! 37: 3• •1 r!6 j � a7 � . a3j' 70 72 , � , i •. • ire as as 84 7b 7� 73 a•{ '�• 67 Sa bb• tt Ab tt' •4i !• !ti ¢7 1 � •j + SvbjIcer Ate rekry - • y,�n t5 v y'eit.r'��','i k..: ,. i. r JIY v r'1q�'el t a ti C /, i..s! 1 ''CF �F r "�� .. .e V CtF i.t?�AS�? ., • 'fS w r5, Y A M: + • • M TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 .y w. ear l<. Jan razy 28, 1993 Hurry Mum it. Mayor PMTam 4a -d'.'7 Y.Y �' .r'/Y{�:, CouncilMaMb= YY �. �y �X�1�4c (�[�� yk�l`'ry.YL�al{ 1 -�p0 lY1MLSl.e?{a 1.44-'l '-.Ya R we°9`wAftt.. Mrs. Josephine Nestor DMMQM.rm T= ay . #27 Cassina Lane Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 Mwwa.owa Subject: Remodeling Project; Lot #19, Cassina Lane, Tw-nMnupr Hilton Head Island Dear Mrs. Nestor. Thank you for your recent letter apprising the Town of questions you have with regard to aonstsuction work in your neighborhood. To some extent, the Town relies upon citizens like yourself to help us enforce our laws and we appreciate your assistance. A permit was issued for the above- listed property for the purpose of hStalling new 61din& As soon as the Town was notified that the additional work was in progress, the >itspections Deparbnent issued a Stop Work Order. On January 22, 1993, a Town inspector visited the site immediately after an electrician arrived to perform work an the residence. A worker, by the Hants of Bill Green, was inside the unit measuring, in order to fulfill one of the requirea►ertb for a Town Building Permit Application. Our inspector Promptly informed the electrician that he could riot continue to work on the site, as a Stop Work Order had been issued on the property. The electrician then remained to assist Bill Green in his measuring of the unit • Once a permit is issued, the Town does not pefform dark site inspections, for obvious reasons. The contractor is expected to notifythe Inspections Department with a request to inspect comp;sted work The Town then decides whether final approval is warranted. The Town of Hilton Head Island can and will continue to encourage all •; property owners to abide by their cavenants, however, we are unable to 1 legally enforce covenant restrictions. At the request of Cosutcilmember Russ Condit, made on behalf of the Forest Beach Association, the Town added language to the Building Permit Application Checklist concerning . 5�'r d, K� ( .+iq.tS+44i %w- ve.N�rA w.�`. �...wwaa�alaa��li 4a -d'.'7 Y.Y �' .r'/Y{�:, n�••i ��. !J S a 2:�`, � YY �. �y �X�1�4c (�[�� yk�l`'ry.YL�al{ 1 -�p0 lY1MLSl.e?{a 1.44-'l '-.Ya • 11 Michael J. 6 Josephine A. Nestor 27 Cassina Lane Hilton Head, SC 29928 February 30, 1993 Mr. Steve Riley Director of Community Development Town of Hilton good Island One Town Center Court Hilton Red, SC 29928 RBs Remodeling project, Lot 19 Cassina Ln., Hilton Head, SC 29928 Dear Mr. Rileys We would like to express our appreciation to sambers of the staff of the Town of Hilton Med for their assistance with trying to re- solve our problem with the renovations to the above referenced property, with special thanks to Ms. Barbara Barrett, Code Enforce- ment Officer who always goes that."extra.mile" for anyone who. seeks her. help and expertise, and Mr. Greg DeLoach, Director of Legal Services. It is our understanding that aftef the initial Stop work Order was placed on'subject property, now plans .were'submitted to the Town and two (2)now permits were issued, on for either the replacing or relocating of stairs (said pewit is no longer posted on property) and the second for remodeling and renovation. we were informed that ambers of the town staff hold a meting on February 8, to re- view all pertinent information regarding the issuance of these per- mits, and apparently it was determined that they were issued in full compliance of all current toning rsgulati6ns and LMO Articles. We would apfreciate it if you would provide us the following infor- mations The date the decision was made that application was approved and the date that decision was made that permits mut all criterion of the Town. The Articles Of. the LMO.that -were examined as well as the Zoning Regulation. _ . Since there are two (2) distinct single family dwellings now on said properties were item a and d(2), under Section 16-7-+28, R-5 Zoning examined for oEa9liance7 It is our understanding that our area, Lawton Beach Subdivision falls into this category. Another area that we would specifically want your comments on is Section 16-7-303, Article III, Part A, paragraph (f) which deals with a legal noncon- formity being abandoned or terainateO for a oontindoos.period of six (6) months, and paragraph (g) which states that the burden is on t!w Page 2 Mr. Steve Riley res lot 19, Cassina Ln. 2/10/93 owner of the non-6onforsinq property to establish that this property is indeed a legal non -conformity (refer to Sao 16-7-303, Definition of Trims.) Mr. Miley, your immediate issponee to this latter in requested since it is our understanding that we haeme only a United mount of time in which to file an appeal to the Board of Mjustsents. I may be contacted at either 795-4604 (w) or785-5275 (h) and my Musbend,. Mike, say be contacted at his work nudar, 842-A9686. _ Thank you for your continuing assistance. _ ti w.-Qm= • 0 TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7n8 February 12, 1993 H.vq. W. Ew �, Jr. Mryor He" Odumm Jr. 14"WPr.r m Mr. do Mrs. Nestor c-.wm mb.. M27 C wma Lane Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 RuuW16c.rmrtr. YAlft Toot. pi RE. Remodeling project, Lot 19/#7 & 7A Cassini Lane DaabrG P.kbr Ww�waavrn Dear Mr. anti Mrs. Nestor. Twn Mm gw Thank you for your letter of February 10th in which you raised several questions regarding staff actions taken relative to renovations to the structures on lot 19 of Cassina Lane. As Barbara Barrett, our Code Enforcement Officer, has relayed to you, the Town has determined that the structures involved are existing nonconfomung uses, that there is insufficient evidence to support a claim that the uses were voluntarily abandoned and, as such, that there was no basis for zoning enforcement action or a denial of the building permit application. Following your initial complaint, the Town issued a stop work order at s7 Cassina Lane as the work being undertaken exceeded that which was stated on the original building permit. The Town also investigated your concerns that the two dwelling units were being created where only one previously existed. Our review of the tax records, which went back oNy as far as 1988, indicates that this lot was considered to have two dwelling units at least as far back as that time. While there is only one water meter serving the two structures, palmetto Electric Company's records indicate that there were two separate electric meters at the site, one assigned to 07A and the other 07, since 1983. Neither water nor electrical service has ever been discontinued to the site. Our building inspections staff examined the building prdor to the lifting of the stop work order and determined that the plumbing features in VA, Including evidence of a kitchen sink, were not new additions but had existed -for some time. The building permit application= for VA specifies that no plumbing or electrical work is to be undertaken. The Inspections staff will review and verify this as part of their normal inspection operations. Based upon the above, and following review and discussion with our Planning; j Inspections, and Code Enforcement staff, together with our staff attorney, it was determined that there was Insufficient evidence of a zoning violation and that no further enforcement action would be pursued, «� ': ... �vK,.-�ii'J�°;�s.^�!.�t.�+xl%�.,'�i6r� �y?`�C�wt�. • 'i, i' �w � 'b :1 h.' • M M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Hugh Talcott, Current Planner RE: Request for Variance (#V-4-93) for March 22, 1993 Meeting DATE: March 15, 1993 _ APPLICANT: E.H. Shutt, Heritage Motor Car Company REQUEST: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(c) to expand a nonconforming site Heritage Motor Car Co., located on William Hilton Parkway south of Pizza Hut and Port Royal Plaza, has requested this variance to allow changes to the development that constitute expansion of the nonconforming site. The project was initially permitted by Beaufort County prior to incorporation of the Town and does not conform to buffer and sethick requirements. Car dealerships can only be permitted in this C-5, Commercial Center Zoning District by Planning Commission Special EnDeption review. Before this variance could be considered, the applicant sought this Special Exception approval, which was granted by the Planning commission at its March 3, 1993 meeting. The additional development also requires the requested variance from LAO Section 15-7-305(c) since the proposed expansion project will not bring the sit4into complete compliance with current LMO standards. Proposed expansions to the site include enclosure of a car display area currently under roof, additional gravel parking for car display, and a covered service area (please reference attached site plans). The proposed expansions thgrselves would conform to buffer, setback, and pervious surfaces requirements. The variance application of February 10, 1993 was modified by letter dated March 12, 1993, which details the proposed site changes. In addition to the variance, all of the changes would require staff level approvals including tree permits, and may also require CRC approval. The applicant has also requested that the Hoard reconsider the October 27, 1992 denial of the variance from sign setback. The sign has not been moved from the location that was previously considered. The Code Enforcement Olfiaer_of the Town requested that Mr. Shutt take one of several options regarding the sign, including seeking CRC approval. The applicant made application to the CRC, which granted approval of the sign. Although this CRC approval was granted, the fact remain that the setback variance was denied. This previous Board.,action requries that the applicant relocate the subject sign so .that it meets the i 4� O M V-4-93 March 15, 1993 Page two setback; the CRC cannot and did not rule on variance from setback standards. Following is a review of the variance criteria as they relate to this application: A. What extraordinary and exceptional conditions_ pertain to this property? _ Like many other developments, the subject property was developed prior to the LMO. As with other nonconforming developments, activity can continue on the site as previously permitted although any expansion is subject to the provisions of LMO section 16-7-305 regarding expansion of a nonconforming site. However, the current site layout and the use as a car dealership has certain requirements that would be unique to this site and this business. These are the frontage access easement and the need to have display vehicles visible. B. How would the application of the ordinance to this property cause an unnecessary hardship? Complete conformance with current L40 standards would necessitate the removal of all parking and other structures within the minimum fifty foot front buffer. The front row of parking for vehicle displaef is approximately 30 feet from the right-of-way line. Removal of this entire row of parking would deprive the dealership of reasonable display, especially considering the fact that the adjacent drive could not be relocated or eliminated. However, other improvements could be reasonably made to achieve better conformance with front buffer and setback standards. C. How are these conditions peculiar to this property and not shared by neighboring properties? Developments adjacent to this site are also nonconforming to current standards. Expansion of these sites are likewise subject to the criteria of Section 16-7-305. D. How would the variance not cause detriment to the public good or to the purposes and intent of the'ordinance? The intent of Section 16-7-305(c) requiring nonconforming sites to come into conformance as part of any.expansion project is to improve the compliance of developments as such as practicable without undue burden on the owner. several site improvements could be made to achieve greater conformance, thereby meeting the intent of the ordinance. Allowing the I r �1WLJ Y V-4-93 March 15, 1993 Page three i expansion without significant reductions in the nonconformities, however, would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. a Buffer and setback standards along major arterial roads are of primary importance to maintain the aesthetic,quality of Hilton Head development. Greater conformance to these standards should therefore be emphasized. - STAFF RECOMMENDATION j Staff feels that the intent of the ordinance requiring nonconforming developments to be brought into conformance could ,II be met with changes to the. front buffer area. The applicant has proposed:.additional.landscaping in this frontage area, although, s the nonconforming display structure and'the sign would be left in the setback. 'staff does not find,any hardship that would require jpl retaining the 'sign, elevated car display; and ramp within the setback. It is also,staffes view. `that. the existinq trees do not prohibit the location,; of 'a generally visible siggnn meeting the tan foot setback, and removal of the 'elevated car displa may,provide abetter sign location. ata!f 1 does feel-that -'requiring removal of, the front row of parking that is located within the buffer arae would create a hardship. With removal of,the nonconforming strpcture and sign from the .front buffer/setback, the proposal would, seat the intent of the ordinance.' the, the 'additional landscaping proposed by the applicant would not significantly improve. the -conformance of the site and `�would,not alit the intent o!, Us ordinance.: For these reasons, , Staff recommends that thi `viriance :request from LNO section 16-7 3o5(c);. Expansion: o! a Nonconforming: submitted, ba denied. ' i*# it 1w'' "rrl s s3fi i�`jl >i I t s ! LiNa f rlg IFYp'� IYlvi } �7e t% y 'dry Yid.'t i µ. t1 -} IS u.' ,ly}Y tt} * I t l ....ISd`'• ,. .., .� t'rB r' ", b �, f .:t' �: ''� I, .,. ....,r.. "�i.fi�tL4; y1w�S t7a�asi4: I!a..its..'. -}2'J :;. s TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing, Jr Mayor 11enry Driet en, Jr. Mayor ProTem Coundl Members Frank Rraiman Runnel! L. Condit, Jr. Donna C. Martin March 26, 1993 Tomreepla Dorothy Q Perkin Michael O.O'NA 'Town Manager NOTICE OF ACTION Certified Mail P 345 026 240 Mr. E. H. Shutt Heritage Motor Car Company P.O. Box 22889 Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 Re: V-4-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(c) to allow expansion of a nonconforming site. Property is the Heritage Motor Car Company, 460 William Hilton Pkwy. at Port Royal Plaza and identified as Parcel 202 on Beaufort County Tax Map #'8. The Applicant also asked for reconsideration of the Boards decision of October 27, 1992 regarding the Heritage Motor Company's sign and vehicle ramp. Dear Mr. Shutt: On Monday, March, 22, 1993 the Town of Hilton Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request regarding the above referenced expansion of a nonconforming site and for reconsideration of the Board's October 27, 1992 decision. The Motions of the Board of Adjustment were: For the Board to reconsider the Motion of October 27, 1992, due to new substantive information regarding the sign ' location in relation to the right-of-way, and to allow the Board time to receive and 'read :a transcript of the October 27, 1992 meeting. The Motion was Adopted.. •# For the Board to table the Variance from LMO Section 16-7- 305(c) to expand a-nonconforming'site for the Heritage Motor Car Company until the Boardas reconsideration of the October 27, 1992 sign variance decision is made. ppA�xitj,il � ''klz;.N✓.y. +r}« i"r.6*`n* uc7t 14%ws, .i}"3A� ywi`yi,.•t,ni'.1'1.r.'!h. ?'- ni'b -a 'x !¢ ' tdr yk' xr my7o�Ycs^Tuy7�v�'jX x;sr �•�L#s.lrla'`' +l'kci.r�r NU> J.e - . HERITAGE MOTOR CAR COMPANY OF HILTON HEAD 3/z�9 3 61 1�2- _.A, cp e • M March 12, 1993 70: Board of Adjustment Town of Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 FROM: Heritage Motor Car Co. Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 Edwin H. Shutt, President SUBJECT: Amendment to Narrative for Application for Variance dated February 10, 1993 Since the February 10, 1993 Application for Variance was prepared, four events have taken place: - On February 9. 1993, the Corridor Review Committee approved, with two conditions, the current design and location of the Heritage•Motor Car Co;�sian. (Copy of Notice of Action is attached.) That Corridor Review was the result of a letter dated 1/13/93 (copy attached) of January 13, 1993 from the Town's Department of Code Enforcement; we elected to exercise the first option described in the letter. - Thus, we now are asking reconsideration of the Board of Adiustment's October 27 1993 denial of our Application for Variance to permit a sign within the required setback. - On March 3. 1993 the Planning Commission approved our application for a special Exception to allow the Heritage Motor Car Co automobile dealership in the C-5 Commercial Center Zoning District. - To save time for all parties. Staff has recommended that we include in this Application for Variance all the changes we anticipate needing to make in the foreseeable future. Thus, this amended Application requests a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to permit: 1. The current Heritage Motor Car Co. ajjtn within the required setback. This sign presently is entirely within the required 10' setback (the point of the triangle is 1.4' behind the right-of-way). Please note the attached plan; since there are six sizeable trees less than 10' back, we do not believe the sign can be relocated more than 10' back and still be generally visible. (There are an additional 20 trees more than 10' back.) We would respectfully point out thai there are at least ten other commercial signs, most multicolored, that are closer to Cil iam Hilton Parkway than is our present sign. 2. Enclosure of the existing exterior New Car Display - as requested in the Application dated February 10, 1993. 3. Addition of a 25 x 20' gray canopy (to match the color of the builds a) on the front 1 of the 1250 sq. ft. service building at the northwest corner of the Property. With this canopy - outlined in red - we could clean/wax cars in inclement weather. a 4. Addition of 25 Parking Places, surfaced with 1 - 2" river rock, as shown in red on the attached plan. This will require removal of 5 pine and one gum tree (of a total 32 trees along the west edge of the property) marked with a red X. 5. Painting of the exterior and mleral refurbishing of the landscaping. The general appearance of the dealership has deteriorated; it will be improved substantially with an exterior painting in "Sea Pines gray", an overcoat of the blacktopping, and the planting of additional shrubbery, flowers and trees in the frontage area. We believe this amended project still meats the criteria outlined on the Application form for the reasons cited in the narrative dated February 10, M. kw,Yk,"V;E J" `� 71 K M NOTICE OF ACTION BY: CORRIDOR REVIEW COMMITTEE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND ONE TOWN CENTER COURT HILTON HEAD, SC 29928 PROJECT: Heritage Motors Sign PROJECT N: CR93-019 LOCATED AT: Highway 278 ACTION DATE: 02/09/93 NOTICE DATE: 02/11/93 OWNER: J. W. Wakefield P.O. Box 5250. Spartant,urg, SC 29304- — APPLICANT: Edwin H. Shutt P.O. Box 22889 Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 ON THE ABOVE MEETING DATE YOUR APPLICATION RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING ACTION: ( ) WAIVED REVIEW ( ) WITHDRAWN AT THE APPLICANTS REQUEST ( )) APPROVED AS SUBMITTED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW ( ) DISAPPROVED FOR REASONS LISTED BELOW 1) Elevated platform is allowed with new landscaping installed in this location; 2) Light fixtures be changed to concealed source fixtures, both to be approved by the staff. e M TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Rwing,1, Mawr January 13, IM CERTIFIED 117, Drleaam, Jr. MaI.Y.Tem Council Membom Mr- Edwin H. Shutt, Jr. hank &afman Dav N. ml' If Heritage Motor Car Company Post Office Box 22889 Hwy 278 c Tar P"Plr Hilton Heed Island, SC 29925 = - -- Danlhy G. PnWm Michael C.ONe10 Res Daniel of Variance nquest MV-17-92/pnmtt for "Heritage" business sign. Town M+naen Dear Mr. Shutt, I have been by your business on several occasions and believe your efforts to restore your side buffers are commendable. I hope that we may favorably resolve the Issue business sign and Its' structure. concerning your All variance denials are turned over tD the'Town's Enforcement Division for a compliance follow- up. In this particular can the Board of Adjustments !, decided to extend an additional option to You of completing a Corridor Review Committee application an your>xistin sign and turning this application into our Planning staff so that it may be j placed on their agenda. In addition you may choose to do one of the following; either to renhovE your sign and its' rail tie structure or submit a completed application to rail dview our planning staff for the Corridor R Committee's approval for a = sign. You will have ten (10) days from the receipt of this letter to complete one i of the dull options I have described for you. IA Failure to implement one of these options will result in enforcement action being initiated. Once enforcement action has been activated, a "violation" sticker will be attached to your business sign giving you fourteen (14) days with which to voluntarily remove the sign and ib' structure. If the sign Is not voluntarily removed, a citation will be Issued b you for violating Town Ordinance Section:167-1011. Bleeal cion This citation will subject you 10 Penalties of up to $200.00 in fines daily /or tinily (30) days in jail until compliance is achieved. In addition to the fines and/or Jail, the Town will also make arrangements to have your sign rnemoved. The cost incurred for that removal will *i be billed to you. If 1 may be of further asaIstance to you, Plehse do not hesitate b all me at 812.8900, ext- 1721. Sincerely, Barbara L. Barratt Code &J"cernehf cc Mr. Stephen Riley, AiCP Get" DeLoach, Squire BLB/bb e e M Application No.:y 4<-N3 TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND ONE TOWN CENTER COURT HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC 29928 Planning Division Phone (803) 686-0904 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Instructions: Please TYPE of PRINT legibly. Attach additional sheets if needed: Note: Variances will not be granted for u -se or density. Project Name: _NtrR�TAb� i I�ToRCAR Co FAICLOXu e- oP DISPLAr A89FA Tax KV Numbers) QO f and Parcells) msoZ.- of Project. Location of Project: �� h .. -- w Y Base Zoning District(s) of Property: C - Applicable Overlay Zoning District(s): • Owner(s) of Record Applicant(s)• All Duly Authorized Agents• Name: E• li. SMY.r Address: .o. a ! o f w. u 2 �Mo» t Phone: (- Z- 48(-49 •LMO Section 16-7-603 requires applicants or the authorized agent to have a local mailing address and telephone number. Section Number(@) of the Osdinanoa froom which a variances) is requested:___ I -MO Ec:Tto,J t6 - 7 3ofirc) • February 10, 1993 TO: Board of Adjustment Town of Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 FROM: Heritage Motor Car Co. Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 Edwin H. Shutt, President SUBJECT: Narrative for Application for Variance Heritage Motor Car Co. has been operating at the present location since March, 1981. The purpose of this Application is to obtain approval to enclose with glass and weatherize the existing exterior New Car Display Area in our building at 460 William Hilton Parkway. We are located on a 2.5 acre site. Presently: -there is - approximately 12,600 sq. ft. under roof in the main building. (There is a separate, small service building of 1250 sq. ft.). Approximately 11,100 sq. ft., or 88%, of the total main building is heated and cooled for year-round use, with the balance of 1520 sq. ft., or 12%, in an open New Car Display Area. We now find that the inside Display space of about 1600 sq. ft. is inadequate to meet our sales needs in inclement weather. Since the existing Display Area is enclosed with glass, the installation of a glass facade 25 ft. closer to the road is unlikely to be noticeable to passing traffic. We will install and landscape a heat pump unit in the buffer area on the northeast corner of the building so that it will be hidden from view. Since our business depends on the goodwill of our present and prospective customers,, we will of course make certain that this project results in an appearance of our facility that fits even better with the non-commercial look that.Islanders prefer. We believe this project meets the criteria outlined on the application form: 1. A. We know of no extraordinary or exceptional conditions that pertain to this property. B. Application of the ordinance to this property would require the termination of this business since a Car Dealership is not one of the uses specified for this site. Further, the fact that this is not a specified use for this property makes it impossible to bring it into conformancewith current standards. C. We know of no conditions peculiar to this property and not shared by our neighbors. D. This project does not entail a material expansion of this site since there will be no increase in the size of the building.or the space under roof. Approval of a variance would result in our being able to better serve the needs of our --customers and thus would not cause detriment to the public good. 2. A letter from the owner of this property, Mr. J. William Wakefield, approving of this project is attached. 3. A dimensioned site plan is attached. The. area of the building to be enclosed is outlined in red. 4. A sketch of the general vicinity is attached. 5. Front and Side Elevation and Plan views with the proposed space to be enclosed outlined in red. 6. Our $100 check for the filing fee is attached. ® Wakefield Buick, Inc. Telephone 582-4588 — W. St. John St. @ W. Main St. eu:cK P.O. Box 5250 Spartanburg, S.C. 25304 January 26, 1993 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 0 AZ .2.03 -�Oac. 5.0 ac. 3Z!7 0.66 PAR. A L tA �6 8 Aj W4 y 157A 1202-C -12 AC. .02 2.0 a c. Siam 81 A I C. y 2 y6......� ' 175 202 3.50. - — 353- 157 0-9511C 2.5 ac. 74AC A2 IP 3.0 ac. rt Wetlandt 192A .192 2 5.26 AC.' W9 AC.,': 8.44 AC. S" L i e • +•• •j - � I OVMf4 � ; � � , / i r't 1 ' ; J i I .. ' Y(—� u �V• ..l u AZ 3 �� ` , •\ ;/ i i I �, i I i b' I �I a'Q" M tett oat..r _ ..� w. –_.�. _, ri I• •..� i . _ .} _ ._ ...-...�-.-r_--j---•�—•:--;� € , ut 1 111 I .j7 r,: , .. - O 4 ii.i Y u. ' viola au. 1 - ,/ _��i "r• tRi a• ,, r� rwu �C •' r L y:Y _ .fir.••' ..f' ♦ » . s/ T ' r[' M'hwwt • . M.� t't"t �L ,� 1 -p� lie! �•' + wW � / �_.. �� t Oar., 'ial '�Jw•`` ti, w -Im Taal 1 a • , •:{ I � � � t Y � M/tteK t rete. uo t �1 • t .--..�' ..._ 3r'La- —_ ._.. ..'�{--._ice ..... T... .Si-...._ • .... .,,moi w, ef•• . • '. �.eKOttta {f pttaa' t .r .-. r/`/(` JACK P. ASHMOFE •y1 - Le s� f G• - f.r. ' 'r Frelesltbtn-Ys•rk�s, y .... M/w/{.eN rrer{{ w{.. ././M{ \..: /{{a{ ��y,•� t{�, tew t. fes. �-t �yy�t -I. HM.R�Aer.�M.. .! •:� �Wt� altVairiW N 1-11-1 r- ►_► 1-11-11-1 L► ► ►► ►C ► ► 'i' I ;4 u�� .. .. �. '.11�:.1y'e �t� 5 �•., •• •� 1111113 11111111 111111=1 11 1-11-1 1 1-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ll 1 1 ZI .. "i9 tt. :qf•.tSl 1Vk4^•jf,' ,N i .>t .4. .t� �(y y�rYtt•'� r . f . A• a r v r. { 18 eAL� J IBIGCE MOTOt W CO n■. Wil Got�sao, Ilillw'111M IYd SC:7ff8 fr fLw-MYII MR•A21 t K r A c t r C t �"• 1 �:� "`f' -X tYh� t• MVS 4 �+ _n�� `ir i tri F, �\ eft i �` 'S 4 :. i � �, �. ! r S�ii` �rifi 1`�kjh ��t—+t :,MK�'Sl�•�-0b _ ! i t�\yi SJi �N ��""'P �}�,Z \l f�ti^k f{}�N ��x 4� F`Y �'„r A. � 4Y � '�(i '�� 5��+�� '� It �' Y4�t{ 1� f 7V� 1�� 1 XYA: }/ B �Fj �b t r},r {/ � .�,,,✓4 't'(,} 1� ' ,, :� :•i I�:j�:ti(i'y.f,A��i`Y'+ekiSF 7��31+t.�a��lal�a.MA�..�44 e1?F�.F�r�.(�F.ns.l.�l�i. t.. �7`. M�u. ll..i. S�tu.::1P4 �J.VIX•tr�. .`�.rilrJr�., ... .., f:. 5. ... �. "A • M TRANSCRIPTION - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING 10/27/92 Heritage Motor Car Company V-17-92 Request for a Variance (V-17-92) from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to permit a sign within the required setback ,from William Hilton Pkwy. for Heritage Motors Dealership, located adjacent to Port Royal Plaza. The property is identified as Parcel 202 on Beaufort County Tax Map #8. Mr. Hugh Talcott, Current Planner - I would like to start by passing around the original photographs,that were in the packet, that were very hard to read. The top 2 photographs are the applicable sign the top one being the new structure, the bottom the old. Mr. Israel - Being the new structure? Mr. Talcott - Yes, the new railroad ties there -- Mr. Rowan - Better do a drive-by. What is new and what is old? Mr. Israel - Is the structure itself new? Is that what you are talking about? Mr. Talcott — This was the old sign Everybody talking at once - can't understand Mr. Israel - Is that the same structure that is built up higher? Mr. Talcott - Higher and larger. Mr. Talcott -.This is a Variance from 16-7-1030 to allow a sign in the Setback. The sign administrator noticed this sign and the railroad tie structure that serves as its base being reconstructed,so these photographs were taken in the.process. The ordinance requires that any nonconforming sign'cin'hot be replaced except in conformance with the chapter of 'the LMO. This sign was clearly replaced the railroad ties needed repair they were replaced with larger railroad ties and.lerger base. The base now extends to the, corners ofthecar display area.. The car display area is permitted, so that could remain. We are recommending that that sign,that was replaced without permits not be allowed to continue where it is. The letter.in'the 'packet - page 1' .f '�`a'� .: •"��IIw1A�l�1 o' • M is a wider space its larger than it was, but I do not know if it extends farther into the right-of-way or not. Mr. Israel - Well since they rebuilt a nonconforming structure, they should not have done that. Mr. Talcott - That is correct. Mr. Israel - So what do you want them to do about the structure? Mr. Talcott - We are recommending -- that the structure. is part of the sign that is the sign base that they remove that and apply for a conforming sign elsewhere in the buffer meeting the setback. Mr. Israel - So on this photograph - would you have them square that off and take the point off? Or what? Mr. Talcott - The car display area has been permitted that was on the approved plan for that development with a square front. Mr. Israel - Ok. So you want them to cut that to square it back and to relocate the sign. Mr. Talcott - It could be this type of sign perhaps if CRC would approve it or some other sign perhaps, even a larger sign. Chairwoman James - Hugh, if they cut off the point - you said that the point was what was encroaching on the buffer - right? Mr. Talcott - Yes. Chairwoman James - Alright. By how much - how many feet or inches? Mr. Talcott - The point previously was right on the right-of-way line and it is at least that large now. Vice Chairman Brown - So you are saying that you would take off that whole triangle there. Mr. Talcott - Yes. And the structure for the car display still - would not conform to the current buffers and setbacks but,that was on the approved plan for the development and can remain and it was not altered. Chairwoman James - So basically what you are saying is,if they were to take the lettering for Heritage Motor Car Company and put it on the stand where the vehicle display is - that possibly something like that would be approved fora sign. Page 3 r M Mr. Talcott - Yes, that would meet the setback, sure. I don't know if that would be the best for them for exposure. Chairwoman James - Right. Mr. Beil - It wouldn't be practical you could only see it from the front and not from the sides, I don't think. Chairwoman James - Ok, any further information that you would like to give us? George - I'm sorry. Mr. Rowan - The old sign and structure - if they chose to put that back just the way it was before - could they do that now? Mr. Talcott - No sir. Not now that they have removed it. Nonconforming and not to.be replaced and it has been replaced. Mr. Rowan - There has been reference to the point of the base where it comes into the right-of-way, has that been -- I guess you spoke to that - that it is actually on the right-of-way the point? i Mr. Talcott - Yes. Nr. Rowan - So the new one is on the right-of-way also? j Mr. Talcott - It may encroach farther into the right-of-way but it is about the same. Mr. Rowan - You know - give or take a couple inches. Mr. Talcott - Yes. Mr. Rowan - So what you are saying is that this should be brought back to the line which was the line approved by the County when they had it laid out. Mr. Talcott -.Which was not the sign it was the (jar display. Mr. Rowan - Did the County approve that elevated --?. Mr. Talcott- Yes that has been approved and that can remain. ti Mr. Rowan -,So all they have to do now is to go back to that •, ? location and square it off there. Mr. Talcott - Yes sir. ' Mr. Boil - we assume then that the County approved the sign tit originally or --? •3 Mr. Talcott - We. have no record of that sign being approved. Mr. Bail - So what you are saying now is that never -the -less`: it is an abandoned use of a nonconforming sign anyway, if.it in abandoned then we: have a right'to .tell thea to take it down. Page.4 i 111p 0, F yr t ,:,�. F 4 w`_�{wrl iii' tk'a .• _ 'ae ".x` �q.: • M Mr. Talcott - Yes, that would meet the setback, sure. I don't know if that would be the best for them for exposure. Chairwoman James - Right. Mr. Beil - It wouldn't be practical you could only see it from the front and not from the sides, I don't think. Chairwoman James - Ok, any further information that you would like to give us? George - I'm sorry. Mr. Rowan - The old sign and structure - if they chose to put that back just the way it was before - could they do that now? Mr. Talcott - No sir. Not now that they have removed it. Nonconforming and not to.be replaced and it has been replaced. Mr. Rowan - There has been reference to the point of the base where it comes into the right-of-way, has that been -- I guess you spoke to that - that it is actually on the right-of-way the point? i Mr. Talcott - Yes. Nr. Rowan - So the new one is on the right-of-way also? j Mr. Talcott - It may encroach farther into the right-of-way but it is about the same. Mr. Rowan - You know - give or take a couple inches. Mr. Talcott - Yes. Mr. Rowan - So what you are saying is that this should be brought back to the line which was the line approved by the County when they had it laid out. Mr. Talcott -.Which was not the sign it was the (jar display. Mr. Rowan - Did the County approve that elevated --?. Mr. Talcott- Yes that has been approved and that can remain. ti Mr. Rowan -,So all they have to do now is to go back to that •, ? location and square it off there. Mr. Talcott - Yes sir. ' Mr. Boil - we assume then that the County approved the sign tit originally or --? •3 Mr. Talcott - We. have no record of that sign being approved. Mr. Bail - So what you are saying now is that never -the -less`: it is an abandoned use of a nonconforming sign anyway, if.it in abandoned then we: have a right'to .tell thea to take it down. Page.4 i 111p 0, F yr t ,:,�. F 4 w`_�{wrl iii' tk'a .• _ 'ae ".x` �q.: Mr. Talcott - Yes. The ordinance says it shall not be removed or replaced and that is clearly what has taken place. If they get a Variance from the setback and get CRC approval they could leave it where it is. We think they should meet the setback and provide a new sign. Chairwoman James - Ok. Any other questions of Hugh? Mr. Heil - Setbac,.k from the right-of-way is how much? Mr. Talcott - 10 feet. Mr. Israel - That triangle thing looks like, unless angles are deceiving, that it extends out beyond that original squared off face by 3 or 4 feet. Mr. Talcott - Well it certainly is larger than the original one. Mr. Israel - We are not talking a matter of inches now, that extension, that is & matter of some feet. Ok I just wanted to --- Mr. Heil - Well it extends right to that drainage ditch, I checked it out before, there is a drainage ditch in front and it extends right over to that. Mr. Israel - Yes. It is clearly shown on this. Mr. Rowan - If they set that back to the line that was given before they could put their sign across that. Mr. Talcott - They could put it across the front face'of the car display, either side of the car display, subject to CRC approval. Chairwoman James - Any other questions of Hugh? Thank you Hugh. Terry. Mr. Terry Finger - Representing Heritage Motor Car Company. Thank . f you I'll try not to - the last sign discussion with (can't understand) I'll try to stay away from that. Not. that I understand this that greatly. If you look at thepurposesof the sign ordinance_ it. says, nonconforming signs can be repaired, repainted as long as you keep theoriginalappearance.- That is the purpose. If you look at the enabling legisletion,if you look at the first section, section 1002, it says leave it with the same appearance.. If you, look at 1022 and 1012 it says you can repair and replace nonconforming signs as longr as the overall appearance remains the.same.-What we' have. here clearly is, a Page 5 k � t . sign which appears exactly the same as it did in 1981. The Staff has indicated they were unable to find any type of sign permit. ?attached to my Variance Application is the sign permit from Beaufort County that the owner provided to me, when I ask him to provide me the overall sign permits, I believe September of 1981. Chairwoman James - We do not have a copy of your sign permit.' Mr. Finger - I'm sorry it was attached to my Variance Application, I have a copy I'll pass it around if you need it. Mr. Finger - It is Permi.: 2252, signed by W.B. Vanness, on November 30, 1981. Chairwoman James - Would you like to share that with us? You could give that to us and we could pass it among the Board members and that would be helpful. Mr. Finger - This is the document provided to me by Bill Wakefield when I asked him to send me down the sign permits. He indicated to me that that was a comprehensive permit for the signs that were done back then. I also have to hand around a copy of a trade publication in 1987 showing both the front of Heritage and most importantly on the second page how the sign looked in 1987. I have looked briefly in.the Beaufort County records to see if there are any sign permits back in this time, and the state of the records are just not adequate to tell t whether there were or was not. All I can represent to the Board, is that the document that Madam Chairwoman has in her hands now is what was presented to me by Bill, Wakefield, the owner of the property, when I asked him to send me down all the sign.permits. Whether it specifically deals with this sign - he tells me it was a comprehensive permit for a lot of the signs that were on the •I' property. Chairwoman James - I have concern,about this Mr. Finger. This permit says that it is an on-premisesign,; illuminated,: the face of it is white sheet metal, with an I-beam frame with a metal , •` support, with the, lower edge at grade and the upper edge at 10!1 7/8" and it is a 301 square si • •`; qu gn. i'am wondering if this wasp t R a sign that was.on the building? 6 , ` Cr Page 6 rf 2: • • M Mr. Finger - All I can represent to you Madam Chairwoman is that is the only sign permit that my client was able to find in all his records. We were unable to find one in Beaufort County. He indicated to me, and I cannot represent for a fact, that that was a global permit for all the signs that were there. All I can say is that is what he has told me and of course I was not involved in 1981 at any time. But again, if you go to the intent of the sign ordinance, I don't think that the point of this sign is any different now than it was. In looking at it this morning it appeared as though, if it hit the right-of-way)it was only by an inch or so, It appeared to be located on the property to me. Under section 1012 and 1022 we have a right to repaint, replace nonconforming signs as long as the appearance remains the same. It is our position that the appearance does remain the same. Making him take that point away and trying to put Heritage Motor Car Company on the side or on the frontito me is going to create a problem with people being able to see it and read it. If the purposes of this sign ordinance is to promote the safety of persons and not create traffic hazards, etc. the best way for them to do it is exactly the way it is. If you are going to make them move it Into other areas you can see from the last variance request we had is that we have nothing but trees along this front side,and trying to put a sign that would identify a business among all these trees is just something that is not.practical or necessary. Mr. Finger continues - We have not applied for CRC review because we wanted to see what you all were going to do. If you were going to go for it there was no sense of us spinning our wheels with CRC. That.seems to be practical sense to me, you said. we should have done it. I disagree. That is really all we hcvepthe Staff memo that you had passed out to you,state M on page.2, that maintenance of a sign structure is permitted. If the railroad ties had gotten old we were entitled to replace, them under the Staff's own analysis. Againthis memo says, maintenance of the , sign and the sign structure is permitted on a nonconforming sign. Page 7 r YY �t pbn�r_• `st��M�rs r , .��r Ptd n .I 7 t1�eR•.lz4 rt�r A.'tit �.�. e-i_r cF.��,i • My client's position is that is all he has done. That sign has been there in continuous use since 1981 and he would like to leave it there. We would ask that you all favorably act on this Variance. Thank you. Chairwoman Janes - Anyone have any questions of Terry Finger? Mr. Bail - Just a comment 1012 actually says, that a nonconforming sign may be maintained only by painting or refinishing, it doesn't deal with replacing. It just says painting or refinishing. Mr. Finger - I believe 1022 goes on further than that. 1012 deals with the sign structure, there would be no need to mention sign structure if all you could do was paint the sign. Mr. Bail - Well, the only mention they have is that any structural or other substantive maintenance to a nonconforming sign shall be deemed abandonment. Mr. Finger - But, my response back to you sir, is that in section 1012 there would be no need for there to be the words sign face or sign structure,if the only thing that you could do was paint the sign face. There would be no need to have the word sign structure included in there and the bottom line of 1012 and 1022 is that the appearance has to be the same. And it says the painting or 1022 I'm looking at now says the painting or refinishing of the surface of a sign face or sign structure. I believe that under this ordinance we would have a right to replace rotted railroad ties, because it is part of the surface of the sign structure and that is part of refinishing the sign structure. I think if a sign is attached to railroad ties and that sign continues in existence and the railroad ties need to be •` replaced I think it .is ludicrous to say,if you replace the railroad ties the whole sign is gone. I don't think that is the intent of our ordinance, is.what I an saying. Mr. Boil - Except there were two additional ties put -- •� Mr. Finger - I think if.you count the ties, I counted four and both the before and after signs'. r Chairwoman James - Is the new sign higher than the old sign? Page 8 1 -Y ar$0 r ! . C Mr. Finger - The old sign, if you look on this picture in 1987 it is at the same level at the top and that appears to be exactly the same as the before and after pictures. I don't see those (can't understand Mr. Finger not at microphone). Chairwoman Jamea - Where are the pictures that were being passed around here? Mr. Finger - It appears that the only change that there was is that it is a little bit wider. Vice Chairman Brown - Mr. Finger you talked ,about replacing those ties. If you read 1012 and go further it says, that if the nonconforming sign has become dilapidated or structurally unsound such sign shall be moved within 20 days. It seems to me if the ties go you do not have the right to replace those. Mr. Finger - That portion of the ordinance in my understanding, is if the sign is so old that it is in danger of harming someone, if it is suspended from a building or something like that, then perhaps you don't have the right, but there would be no reason to include in 1012 or 1022, sign structure, if you couldn't do anything to a sign structure to keep your sign in place. Mr. Israel - I think the Board took the opposite view on a recent sign decision, the one that was blown down. Vice Chairman Brown - Definitely, the case on the Hudson sign. Mr. Israel - Madam Chairwoman, I am really puzzled and I think maybe George is too. My question is why isn't this a variance request for that triangularstructure rather than -- we wouldn't even have to be dealing with the.sign, if the Variance request - was for the structure. I think we are dealing with the wrong piece of property. Chairwoman James'- I think the reason that it isnot a Variance for that is, because of the fact that the sign was reconstructed differently than the previous one. Which means that there is now another nonconforming structure on -the site.' They didn't go for a sign permit, which is'illegal .and I mean, that you need.to have a sign permit. They didn't go before the CRC for.approval and because it is in existence now on that site, we'need to address that particular sign. Is that correct,'Hugh?: page 9 i Mr. Talcott - Yes, we are considering the triangle as the sign base. Mr. Israel - Oh, so you are considering this a package in other words? If we deny the Variance they are going to have to remove that sign base,which is the triangle too, is that your interpretation? Chairwoman James i Mr. Rowan - Yes. Mr. Israel - Ohl Chairwoman James - And then they will have to go before the CRC for an approval to put the lettering back on it or not? If they remove the point of that triangle, and want to take the lettering and put the lettering back up on the flat part,can they go ahead and do that or do they need to go before the CRC? Mr. Talcott - They have to get CRC approval for that. Chairwoman James - Ok. Does everybody understand where we are? They dont get any easier do they? Mr.. Israel - When it comes to signs - no. Mr. Rowan - As I understand it -- what confused Tom and I,they talk about the structure and you think of a sign structure as something on,a post, etc., but this is nothing but an extension of the construction of this base the V coming out,or point coming out,and they used that to mount their lettering to get the visual affect on the side as opposed to having it flat. Coming off that V, it comes off the square and I presume the square was what was approved by the County, and that the Agency then extended that out to a V in order to accommodate the letters. Mr. Finger - It is my understanding that when the original,and I . use "car ramp°,and that.is what I have been calling it and I dontt know whether-that is the right terminology or not, but the car ramp is clearly shown on the 1980 approved County plan. It is my understanding that .the car ramp was built, that.triangle was also installed and the sign fade was installed at that time. ` So that car ramp and that sign has been there since 1990 or 19el when the dealership opened. ` Chairwoman James - Was that triangle considered a part of .the q ✓fir` "car ramps? page 10 YY f Mr. Finger - I would like to say yes, but I don't know. It would be in my client's benefit to say yes, but I wasn't there and the County records do not show�and I do not intend to mislead the Board. Chairwoman James - It is not showing on this pian it is showing . flat -- Mr. Rowan - Has there been a survey to indicate this V on the plan? We have a plan which was the County plan, but we do not have a recent survey that shows the actual location of this V. Mr. Finger - There is no site plan that is yet in existence. Part of the work the surveying consultant has done is an attempt to locate edges of the pavement and things like that. Mr. Rowan - That would answer all the questions you know. Mr. Finger -.In looking at the line this morning when I was there it appears that the V is either on the line or within an inch or two either Way - of the property line. Mr. Boil - Butjwhether we are dealing with this sign or we are dealing with an entirely new sign, I think what we are considering at this moment is a Variance from '1030 which is really a variance from the setback.requirements, which assumes, I guess it assumes, that the existing sign has been abandoned because it's nonconforming use situation, that's been determined that its an abandoned sign. Now we have to deal with it and whether we are dealing with a new sign or dealing with the . existing sign,we still have to consider a variance based on the setback requirements. so, if we figure that you can't put a sign r, any place else on the property and it would be an extreme hardship for you not to be able to show your Agency on 278 because of the -trees or whatever. Then we might favorably consider a Setback Variance. I. think that is where we are, at. Mr. Finger - I agree 1003. I think it is a.two-step analysis the xfirst step being, was there anabandonmentof a prior �j nonconforming sign? j Mr. Boil - I don't.think we have to determine that, because I think that is not what is before us -As it?. Page li e 7 { , ,, r ,,�� '"NE i�,iy xi a �,r� _•::.�. L,r,!"F.�u`�4'?4d,t7Lh..•r�i(+lr".k...: �.i?Jt!. ME - , t:Kw. _ r..-4tA�i,,i� aW.S'U txaitr�CSirX. 2& '�S.tCA StSIGiFXkk • Mr. Finger - If this Board finds that what we did was nothing more than what is allowed under 1012 and 1022 then there is no need for a Variance. If the Board finds that what was done to the sign is outside of 1012 and 1022, you then have a right to grant a Variance to let that sign stay where it is within the setback and within the buffer. What the Town required us to do was file a Variance application asking for the sign as it exists to remain in the buffer. our initial position,was we didn't do anything outside of 1012 & 1022, but if you think we did we will come before the Board and we will ask for permission by way of a Variance to leave the sign as it is located, because it is in the same place as 1981 and it is the same letters. Chairwoman James - I would like a clarification from Hugh. The Variance is for Section 16-7-1030, Allowing a sign in the required front Setback. In reading Section 16-7-1030 it says, "all signs shall be required to be setback at least 10 feet from the street right-of-way". Where does this sign stand as far as the street right-of-way is concerned? Mr. Talcott - It is on the right-of-way, the nose of the sign is on the right-of-way so there is no Setback. Chairwoman James - Should the occasion come about in the future where bikepaths go .down that side of the street what would have to happen to that structure? Mr. Talcott - It would be in the way or we would have to put a large culvert in the ditch in front of it. Chairwoman James - Thank you. Mr. Finger- I don't have the authority for my.client,_but I an certain that he would be willing to relocate that sign if it was left where it.is now, in the even.that any bikepath went down that side in the future and that sign needed to be relocated. I would be happy to make that a condition of any Variance. Chairwoman James - We can't permit variances with conditions, but you are saying that should the time come that where bikepaths were to go down that side of the road that you feel sure that ;the owner would make allowances for that and would move the signto permit that? Page 12 Mr. Finger - Based on my relatively short history with Mr. Shutt, which has been about 6 weeks, I have found him to be as accommodating as any client that I have ever dealt with vis-a-vis the Town. That was his initial reaction on the other thing - "If they don't like what I an doing, 1,131 do it the way they want." That appears to be his corporate attitude. I don't have any problem, I'd be the only one that could object to a Variance being granted with conditions and if I don't object�i don't see why you can't have that placed as a condition. Chairwoman James - The only concern that we have is that your are representing Mr. Shutt and we don't know how long Mr. Shutt is going to own the dealership. So -- Mr. Finger - The dealership is Heritage Motors and he is the stock holder. j Mr. Roman - An academic question,if your extension there does not protrude into the right-of-way and they wanted to put a bikepath down there why should the Agency be concerned, why should we be concerned about a location for the bikepath. They would have to get -- like some people who I know they had to condemn to get their bikepath located. Do you see where I am coming from? Vice Chairman Brown - It does protrude though doesn't it? Chairwoman James - It is protruding into the right-of-way correct? Mr. Finger It does not protrude into the right-of-way. Chairwoman James - I asked the specific question, I think -- Mr. Rowan - Is it in the right-of-way? Mr. Talcott - As Terry and I mentioned the nose of it is right on the right-of-way,whather a few inches across or a few inches back, in essence it'- isnot inside the right-of-way. Mr. Rowan - That is what I mean,if you are coning out with the i bikepath they have to get permission from,the owners to use their ground for a path. �.r Mr. Talcott - Certainly. Mr. Finger - I think if there were any future bikepaths put along there the only way to do it would.bs.to pipe it - there is a Page 13 i iiiiiijillill�illillillillillillI Jill 11111111 J h '.1�e 4 :'j aY •'r rig ... s a t ' i s.�.� i�,v.�itTn3:'gY±:i't`M . Y OMMW , _ 5�1'a a r t' �l OEM= twelve foot drainage ditch along there and I'm not an engineer and I don't know what the cost is but,that is the only practical way of doing something like that. Chairwoman James - Ok any further questions of Terry or Hugh? I think we have beaten this one to death. Mr. Rowan - The only comment I would like to make is that I would like to see a site plan. Mr. Finger - If this Board feels that this should be tabled at this point,I would be happy to ask Surveying consultants to expedite that. Mr. Rowan - I'd like to know what we are dealing with because we are talking about maybe in the right-of-way, maybe not in the right-of-way. Maybe the deed that he has got out there only -- maybe the line which the County permitted him to go, we don't know. Chairwoman James - What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Israel - Well, I don't know, the thing that gets to me is that the only site plan we have does not show that triangular extension. Which indicates to me that sometime after the site plan was prepared that was placed there and placed there improperly, and now they have further altered it. 1 think it is sort of a clear cut case to me, I would just as soon get rid of it today, I don't know whether a site plan would really help. Mr. Rowan - I agree with Tom in that respect,if the Agency put that sign in you know, going beyond what they were approved then they were in violation back in 1981. We don't know that. Vice Chairman Brown - I think we might as well dispose of it today. Mr. Beil - The -only thing that concerns me is that originally.you had mentioned the fact that that was pretty much the only place that the Agency could put a sign that could be looked at from 278, but then later on you just said if we asked he would move it. I don't know - where would he move it thens I'm concerned about taking away from the Agency the only. spot that they can put a sign on 278 that can be seen from north and south traffic, Page 14 r which could be considered a hardship then, but if there are other Places then you could conform by putting it at 10 foot setback within the buffer area. Mr. Finger - For my view of the property this morning with Mr. Shutt any relocation of that sign would necessarily involve some trees along the front, having to be requested to come down. That is why he is -- although nothing would suit Mr. Shutt more than having a bunch of trees taken down, because he is spending $1000 .a month just washing cars. He has to wash every car once a week and he says he spends about a $1000 a month in acorn dings and branches coming down on that very heavily treed site. He's love to take all the trees down but he realizes that will never happen. Relocating the sign would involve some tree problems along the front side. Putting it over at the main sign over past Pizza Hut and on that main sign for Wal-Mart and all that would have no value to the Agency. Mr. Miller - I think that this case is very consistent with the last one that we dealt with, with Hudson. Chairwoman James - Who is prepared to make a Motion? Vice Chairman Brown - I move that we deny the Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a sign.in the required front Setback and further that the Applicant remove not only the sign but also the sign structure, which is that.triangle. Mr. Israel - loll second the Motion. Chairwoman James - Ok any discussion? Would you care to add some .information as to why we you feel that we.should be denyinq.the Variance? such as.not meeting the criteria? Vice Chairman Brown •- Well, on the site plan that we have available it shows that that sign structure, the triangle „was not included in that site plan. Therefore, the sign whenever it was placed was done so illegally. Chairwoman James - Ok. '_Any further information to go into the Motion? Mr. Rowan - I just want to make this one comment - I may not be to order, but loll make it. That sign,- I we gone up there a 1000 Page" 15 times in the last 13 years well, since 1981, and to me it is not a very grabbing sign. I think this may be a golden opportunity to improve on that by doing something else. This is only an observation by me as a traveller going up and down. From that point I don't think there is a great hardship to relocate the sign. Mr. Israel - I don't see any hardship at all. The fact that that car is setting out there at an angle is the best advertisement, plus all the BMW's that are parked along the frontage there. I think the sign is kind of irrelevant, but that is really not my business though. I would have no trouble -to recondiser the whole case at some future time if they can demonstrate a true hardship, which they have not done to my satisfaction. At least on this one, if we want to make this one without prejudice to them coming back to use at some future time with a request for a -Variance for a sign in another location. I for one, would be willing to consider that on its merits, but I think if we have any allegiance to the LMO at all, I think we need.to deny this particular Variance request. Chairwoman James - Any other comments? Mr. Finger - If we take the letter off we don't have a'sign anymore and I don't think the Board can force the Agency to.take away that triangle, I mean if he wants to landscape the top of the triangle or do -something like that'we don't have a sign anymore, so all I'm saying is that if you want him to take the sign down it is not a sign anymore and I don't see how you all can make him take,the triangle away. I'm not saying -.maybe he will I don't know. I don't think that is an appropriate part of the Motion. _ Vice Chairman Bram - I would say.that is part of ;.the sign structure and when you say take the sign down you take the structure with it:` Mr. Finger -.I understand your position. I just wanted to put mine on the record. Pages 16 I Billie J Marlow�,Sec/retary } Page,17 ;E I i � f ,I •' i r 1 r r } fF i aK 7 : rr f. r - i •••le rr - � � rh% lv >r � ✓ v wr+� y e Harvey w.EwlnyJr. January 13, 1993 CERTIFIED Mayor Hery Driaaam Jr. Mayor PmTem Counaf Member. Mr. Edwin H. Shutt, Jr. Frank Brarme Heritage Motor Car Company aua&LC edfair• Post Office Box 22889 Hwy 278 oC. Mawin T TomPaapl� Hilton Had Island, SC 29925 _ _.. Denny G. Perkin Re: Denial of Variance request *V 17-924mmit for "Heritage" business sign. MiQuai G.ONIM Town Manaaar - Dear Mr. Shutt, I have been by your business on several occasions and believe your efforts to restore your side buffers are comrmendable. I hope that we may favorably resolve the issue conceming your business sign and its' structure. i All variance denials are turned over to the Town's Enforcement Division for a compliance follow- up. In this particular case the Board of Adjustments decided to bated an additional option to you of completing a Corridor Review Committee application on your existing sign and fuming this application into our Planning staff so tlut it may be placed on their agenda. In addition you may choose to do one of the followkV,eitlrcr to remove your sign and ib' rail tie structure or submit a completed application to our planning staff for the Corridor Review Committee's approval for a = sign. You will have ten (10) days from the receipt of this letter to complete one of the three options I have described for you. Failure to implement one of these options will result in enforcement action being initiated. Once enforcement action has barn activated, a *vk)kdW sticim will be attached to your business sign giving you fourbeer (14) days with which b voluntarily remove eine sign and Its' structure. If the sign is not voluntarily removed, a citation will be issued to you foe violating Town Ordhnuroe sectIM164--Ml, W" sign: This dtstlon will wbioctyou b penahles of up io$2WM ion daily firm and/or thirty (30) days.in jail until compliance Is snideved. In addition to the fines and/or jail, the Town will also make arrangements to have your sign rennovad The cost incurred for that removal will also be billed to you. It I may be of further assistance to you, please do not hdate to call me at 812.8900, ext: 1721. •' Sinaedy, dS •Cvi�►e`— Barbara L eaereet 3 Code Enforaerw►t �, CC Mr. Stephen Rfley,'AICP' Gregory Maack Esquire M/bb rk1�,9 fih +}'S �,da -°c i a�3�rF .rya k'1", TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing Jr. Mayor Henry Ddesson, Jr. Mayer N.Tem Coundl Member October 30, 1992 Certified Mail P 249 335 276 Frank Brahman Russell L. Condit, Jr, Donna C. Martin Tom Peeples Mr. Terry Finger Dorothy G. Ferldm P.O. Drawer 5280 Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Mkhael C.ONdll Town Managur Re: V-17-92 - Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to permit a sign within the required setback from William Hilton Pkwy. for Heritage Motors Dealership, located adjacent to Port Royal Plaza. Dear Mr. Finger: On Tuesday, October 27, 1992 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request regarding the Heritage Motors Company sign. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to deny the Variance from LMO 16-7-1030 to allow a sign in the required front setback. The Board found no permits had been issued for the sign and that a hardship did not exist, because a new relocated sign could .provide more exposure for the business. Further the Board of Adjustment requested the Applicant to remove the sign and the triangle sign structure. The Motion was adopted. If you should need any further information please contact me at 686-0904. Sincerely, I ` •. c.,ru�,16.11.1 a U a 1r oded" «rakaa. A" wish to nalw the WA vo Manes 0. e dr u, feel: urvbu Har on,oldn -wweywr dtovw..+r.r.narmaw•rNtlilamrYntw•m feel: w AmOft aralr ma lam r11 Mm 6x11 ad ft m 1141 w •n rr Mat R apes 1. O Adenr s Addnu fghP. Talcott I dmMpmYL • 3 J rwar'wwnRCWPPOWC'On .nryrrPlanner w.wln.rrrw 11. Z pCurrent TM"1111yrrw�,w,,M. Connie force 4.;' tats cc: BOA Members) 3; ArtloN Ad6uud to : , %,/7 llt� 44ArIkN Nenlber ,� i Steve Riley Tom Brechkol IUp'"'ad Greg DeLoaq' t" �ii.C«tliiia prcpor� Heritage Ma y� s', �.2 p E+M ltidl O Iba.ri Meo�bt for BOA File I ��,�- Project Fill arG4hl�i.dC��y�p °" HPT : BJM I s sgnaua+ 1 '' a . o HINy 11 rem mw end.fn M prd) jro isatin . liswnlar;tao tires twl-�n, OORVW= NETUM REf IPT A ,.� fl �, `1'it t3Pfal,�Sji�y`hN`i'`'�; res �l3, i' 47fiL i,i n�' hr,Jyya �� hcg+"t�Ji�J9 ^ • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Planning Staff RE: Variance Request #'V-17-92 for October 26, 1992 Meeting DATE: October 20, 1992 APPLICANT: Terry A. Finger for Heritage Motor Car Co. REQUEST: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a sign in the required front setback Heritage Motors, located on William Hilton Parkway adjacent to Port Royal Plaza, recently replaced a nonconforming sign. This sign consists of a 'v' -shaped railroad tie structure upon which the copy 'Heritage Motor Car Co.' is attached on two sides. The entire sign structure and the signs were removed and replaced without approval. The new structure is larger and higher than previously existed, although the sign letters were re -painted and attached as they were. The sign structure is located at the William Hilton Parkway right-of-way, with no setback provided. The attached copies of photographs show the previous and the new sign structure. The sign is nonconforming becauue it does not meet the required setback and because it has not been reviewed by the Corridor Review Committee. Because this sign was replaced in violation of the sign ordinance, it is now deemed an illegal sign. The attached letter from Bill Lytle, Town Assistant Current Planner, notified Mr. McAbee, manager of the business, that the replacement of the sign was a violation of LMO section 16-7-1012. The sign apparently never had a permit from either the Town or Beaufort County. The record site plans for this development show the raised car display area but not the 'v' -shaped sign support structure. Mr. Finger has made application for a variance from the required setback as Mr. Lytle requested in hisletterof August 28, 1992. If a variance from the setback requirements is ' granted, the applicant would still: have toreceiveCRC approval t for sign appearance. If CRC approval were granted,'a sign permit j could be issued for the sign and it would become.a legal, conforming sign. �.' Following is a review of the variance criteria as they relate to this application: A. What extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to this property? i C"'� 0 �at, G. b�� t V: CXZM= • • M } The sign and its railroad tie base were installed prior to current Land Management Ordinance standards, as were numerous other signs on the Island. All nonconforming signs and structures may be maintained as permitted in LMO Sections 16-7- 305 and 16-7-1012 but may not be otherwise altered, expanded, or replaced. B. How would the application of the ordinance to this property cause an unnecessary hardship? The nonconforming sign could be removed just as easily as it was replaced, and a new sign erected elsewhere on the site that conforms to CRC standards and setbacks. Such a new sign would probably give the applicant more exposure and it would be consistent with current standards. The rectangular car display area could remain without the sign structure extending from it. C. How are these conditions peculiar to this property and not shared by neighboring properties? Neighboring properties may also have nonconforming signs, since this Port Royal Plaza development area was permitted prior to the , Town. The same regulations prohibiting replacement of nonconforming signs applies to these signs as well. D. How would the variance not cause detriment to the public good or to the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The purpose of the sign setback is to allow space for any future pathways along the road, and also to avoid the visual dominance of signs immediately adjacent to the roadway. A pathway on this side of William Hilton Parkway is considered in the long-term, and the sign structure would be an obstacle. The enlarged sign structure is also inconsistent with the purpose of setbacks to limit the visual impact of structures so close to the roadway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the applicant had contacted the Town prior to undertaking this project, he would have been notified that maintenance of the sign and the sign structure was permitted. However, the sign was removed, replaced, and enlarged contrary to Town codes. Because it was the applicant's responsibility, to obtain Town approvals for this activity, the cost of removing this sign and its base structure should not be considered a hardship. Further, removal of this illegal s.iyn would not preclude seasonable signage for the business. Sign codes would permit a new. sign in the front buffer ten feet from the property line, subject to CRC approval. , Staff sees no hardship to allow the placement of this sign at the roadway right-of-way as it has been done without approval. Because allowing this variance from setbacks would be contrary to the purpose of setback regulations and inconsistent with the variance criteria, Staff recommends that this variance be denied. Q �e I co I m ho - 1 0 lil j, �.: •.— W15 po¢ TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND 20 PALMETTO PARKWAY P.O. BOX 22779 HILTON HIM ISLAND, SC 29925 Phone (803) 681-8396 Application No.: JLLZ-1e-Z APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE - " Instructions: Please TYPE of PRINT legibly. Attach additional sheets if needed. Note: Variances will not be granted for use or density. Project Name: Heritaae Motor Car Comoanv. Inc. Tax Map Number(s) and Parcel(s) 202 of project - Location of Project: H ahway 278 Base Zoning District(s) of Property: - Applicable overlay Toning District(s): Road Corridor and Airportazar Owner(s) of Record Applicant(s)R All Duly Authorised Agents* Name: William Wakefield Heritage Motor Car Co. Terry A. Finger, Esquire Address: ox Rigel way Z78 rawer _Spartanburg, Hilton' Read, SC 2992F— Hilton Read, 3%, 29933 Phone: 9A? -4589 681-4500 785-7606 "LMO Section 16-7-603 requires applicants or the authorized agent to have a local mailing address and telephone number. Section Number(s) of the Ordinance from which a variance(s) is requested: 16-7-1030 par114,n9 ana repairea/repi;aceo several railroad ties. Attach the following items (see LM Section 16-7-672): 1. A narrative answering all of the following questions (criteria for granting the variance): A. What extraordinary and ammptional conditions pertain to this property (size, shape, topography)? B. How would the application of the Ordinance to this Property cause an unnecessary hardship? C. How are.these conditions peculiar, to this property and not shared by neighboring properties? D. How would the variance not cause detriment to the public.good or to the Purposes and intent of the ordinance?: r, NARRATIVE This Narrative is submitted by Heritage Motor Car Company, Inc. in conjunction with its Applicant for Variance for Section 16- 7-1030 of the Land Management Ordinance. This Narrative will set forth, among other things, responses to the questions included in the variance criteria ordinance of the LMO. QUESTION 1: WHAT EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS PERTAIN TO THIS PROPERTY (SIZE, SHAPE, TYPOGRAPHY)? RESPONSE: There are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions pertaining to the subject property. Applicant is merely continuing to use that which pre-existed the L40 and the previously enacted Development Standards Ordinance. Applicant has been utilizing the area in question for many years and has merely replaced some of the deteriorated railroad ties and had the lettering refurbished. QUESTION 2: HOW WOULD THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE TO THIS PROPERTY CAUSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP? RESPONSE: If the Ordinance was strictly enforced and Applicant was unable to use the railroad tie structure with the lettering on it that Applicant has historical,y used. Applicant would lose its primary signage along Highway 278. QUESTION 3: HOW ARE THESE CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO THIS. PROPERTY AND NOT SHARED BY.NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES? RESPONSE: None of the neighboring properties are automobile dealerships and do not have similar railroad tie areas. QUESTION 4: HOW WOULD THE VARIANCE NOT CAUSE DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD OR TO THE PURPOSES AN INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE? RESPONSE: The variance requested by the Applicant would not cause -any detriment to the public good and does not run contrary s' to the purposes or intent of the ordinance. . The ordinance recognizes pre-existing uses and there is no change in the use or �• character of the railroad tie structure, it was merely refurbished. While Applicant has submitted this application for a variance ' because it was instructed to do so by the. Town Planning Staff, Applicant does not feel that a variance application is necessary and because proper Applicant has, essentially done nothing more than refurbish an existing structure. •4 r y t 1 i • i vi k a 1� 3 �,� :. 3} �4 ffr • 11r a ti k, y.'�p$1 ',• :' }}t A � 1 5 fi 41I',jyyII k k 1"1}. ( y�.$ Jyai F[> t� � fi ! ''\ ; J, R i.b L o14 F .�.1 ..�G�)�F.�: }G�Fc� ..1 �` ��Y ��Yy,. ��%'•t� P` f .t: -i'{`i ��+�� Y'�;• 'a q� l�uq�l5,^1,'� � R�.�'�t j4f f� �.. !III II I.�� .�•"s.�v$9 .., Q .tu • f • �\b 2 ' BEAUFORT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS 909 Ribaut Road, P.O. Box 1228, Beaufort, S.C. 29902 e2252 Hwy. 278, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 29928 B 5A24 -NMT Ert. t59 1ULTONHEAD 785.7701 Q lno,,-IFS. APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT i pplication is hereby made to(grect lter, repair, move a sign at_ / C TYPE SIGN: Freestanding Projection Nall Other On Premise Off Premise _Illuminated Non Illuminated (,{p MATERIAL: Face,:5)k4%,TAlt%% rams a/1 Support_ HEIGHT: Lower Edge_ Upper Edge i SIZE: Total gross face area of sigV4MSq Ft Single Face Double Face LEGEND:--&UQ"6./.5 M661."YA.�sign Value c NOTE: For Off Premise signs attach written consent of owner. I hereby agree that if this application is approved and a sign permit issued, that I will comply with all requirements of the Sign Ordinance and Building Code for Beaufort County, South Carolina pertaining to signs. Any permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by it shall have been commaeel within six (6) months after its issuance. a SIGNED:. No • SIGNCONMCTOR OWNER ,� • Approved 'ay Data Permit Numbsr�2�010Z. C Parcel Napshset District •;� SKETCH OF SICK SITE PLAN • •z 1 9 t„ �� _'.i �g i }. �?y� l lr q}�.Li4 5 1' 1��' ii` ` h A �" � 4 rt. F_•�� 1. o rn(t y 4 �r"� 1�� t � iS i -,_Y ,� �y 41 N) 0 0 M August 28, 1992 Mr. Bob McAbee Heritage Motor Car Company PO Box 22889 Hilton Head, SC 29925 Dear Mr. McAbee: The recent reinsti_:i�.,,on of the signs on the railroad tie structure at Heritage Motor Ca:- ompany is a violation of Section 16-7--1012 which states that a nonconfoi i ding sign, and/or structure, can be maintained way by painting; any other maintenance would constitute "abandonment". These signs and structure were classified as "nonconforming" because they do not have a permit from either Beaufort County or the Town of Hilton Head, and do not meet setback requirements. Because these nonconforming signs and structure were removed and reinstalled without permitting, they have been reclassified as "abandoned" and must be removed until proper approval has been received. In order to have a legal sign and structure it will be necessary to request a variance by the Board of Adjustment (BOA) from Section 16-7-1030, "Setback From Right -Of -Way". A application to the Corridor Review Committee (CRC) for aesthetic approval must be made also. Following these approvals a sign permit can be easily and quickly obtained. I have enclosed CRC and sign permit applications for your convenience. The application procedures are clearly outlined on each form. If a request for variance from setback has not been received by September 14, 1992, and the signs. and structure are still in place, impoundment procedures will be implemented. Like the signs on the railroad ties, the facade signs on the front of the showroom which read "Pontiac, Olds, Buick", are nonconforming, they do . not have a sign permit, and may not be repaired or altered. However, they may be permitted after CRC approval. The Town's Urban Designer, Ed Drane, can answer any questions you may have about the CRC application and review process. • t 1 t r MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Bill Lytle, Assistant Current Planner RE: Request for Variance (/V-5-93) for March 22, 1993 Meeting DATE: March 5, 1993 APPLICANT: Richard Rabb for NationsBank REQUEST: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030, to allow a sign to be located at less than the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. The mid -island branch of NationsBank, located aclacent to Hargray Telephone Co. headquarters on William Hilton . -kway, is requesting a variance from the setback requirement for :r existing freestanding main I.D. sign. The sign is proposed to be located with a two (2) foot setback from the road right-of-way whereas a ten (10) foot setback is required. The sign has been moved to this location without approval. The sign was approved for, and placed in, the center of the property with a ten foot setback. Feeling that the sign was not seen soon enough by approaching motorist to make a safe deceleration and turn, NationsBank had the sign relocated near the property entrance two feet from the property line. Please refer to the attached plans which indicate these sign locations. The CRC reviewed and approved the sign when it was proposed to be located at the conforming location. Following is a review of the variance criteria as they relate to this application: A. What extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to this property? The Nationebank property and its entrance drive location is similar to other commercial frontage parcels. As enclosed photocopies and the videotape supplied by NationsBank show, there is good visibility of the.conforiing.sign location from both directions of the Parkway. Landscape material in the buffer will not hinder visibility;of.the approved sign location from the roadway. • M B. How would the application of the ordinance to this property cause an unnecessary hardship? Application of the ordinance would permit a visible sign for this NationsBank location that should allow for reasonable identification. The sign located at the setback would be visible from approaching motorists from the north from a great distance, allowing time to turn into the facility at the entrance before the sign. Another entrance to the development, although it is currently not well maintained, is located beyond the approved sign location— C. ocation—C. How are these conditions peculiar to this property and not shared by neighboring properties? Hargray Telephone, north side of the subject property, has similar site conditions, although the Hargray sign meets the required setback. Although the Hargray sign is located two hundred feet before the entrance drive (when traveling south), the drive location for the NationsBank parcel in relationship to its frontage is not peculiar. in fact, the location of a sign for any development with one entrance in relationship to the entrance only depends on which direction one is traveling. When traveling north, one must turn left into the Hargary facility two hundred feet before the sign, just as one must do for Nationsbank when traveling south. D. How would the variance not cause detriment to the public good or to the purposes and intent of the ordinance? + The sign setback is required to maintain a separation between roadways and signs so that the signs are not visually dominating, and also to allow space for future bike paths. The proposed sign location allows only a two foot separation from the road right-of-way and may be an obstacle for future bike paths. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After review of this.variance as it relates to the above listed criteria, Staff finds that there is nothing peculiar or unique about the NationsBank site. Numerous developments have • similar frontage and access location. Further, visibility of the sign at the approved. location is not obstructed; therefore allowing clear identification of the business. Because all of the criteria than are.required to be mat in order to grant a variance are not: met, Staff recommends that the requested variance be denied. u;l 01100AN Of -013'PINE 14 O 0 Of' PIXIE FG. lie. 13.40 0 130PINg too zzto a *C.0-090 S. I • PA VING —+04.59,— 14- 73' -7:77 + 7 4." link yTW........... NO 1 o. �v �K •� � �"' � � (:. • :� � o �rA•Yt� flR1VL' %P/d�1�INb z - Application•No p @ �dTOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND ONE TOWN CENTER COURT FB 19993 HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC 29928 Planning Division Phone (803) 686-0904 APPLIC11I0N FOR VARIANCE Instructions: Please TYPE of PRINT legibly. Attach additionat-sheets if needed. Notes Variances will not be granted for use or density. Project Name: NationsBank Tax Hap Numbers) 8500 01.1 000 0153and Pareel(s)L1...P13- 3.1-,P-1.06 of project, Location of Projects Mid -Island Branch, 862 Highway 278 Base Zoning District(s) of Property: Applicable Overlay Zoning District(s): Owner(s) of Record Applicant(s)w All Duly Authorized Agents" Carter-Miot Engineering Names NationsBank Richar6 Rabb Cliff Loveland Address: M1 NationsBank Plz NationsBank 1 SopRoad -Charlotte, NC 2825559 Popoee Avenue o um a, 2t9777 — Phones 704-386-1593 Hilton Hea s , 803-771-4005 "LHO Section 16«7-603 requires appligants or the authorized agent to have a local mailing address and telephone number. Section Number(s) of the Ordinance from which a Variance(s) is requested: Attach the following items (see LMO Section 16-7-672): 1. A narrativa answering all of the,follewing questions (criteria for granting the variance): A. what extraordinary and e>aooptional conditions pertain to this property (size, shape, topography.)? B. tow would the application of the ordinance to thle property cause an unnecessary hardship? C. Now are these conditions peculiar to this, property and not shared by neighboring properties? D. i(ow would the variance not cause dot riasnt to the public, good or, to the purposes and intent of the ordinance? k relation to the affected site and to surrounding parcels and uses. A reproduci- ble copy of this plan, no.larger than 11" x 1711, must -also -be submitted. d. A vicinity sketch showing the general site location and depicting vehicular ' access routes accuratPly,relersncee'to'the nearest public .road. S. Any supporting documentation deemed necessary by the applicant. 1 6. Filing fee: $100 payable to Town of Hilton Head Island. Show project name on face of check. a f 1 ,t To the best ofmy knowledge, the information on this application and accompanying . r documentation is true, faetual and'complete. I hereby agree'to abide by all conditions imposed by. the, Town of Hilton`Head island if this variance is granted; i 3J 1 + , 7 understand that'such conditions shall. apply to the proparty,',&Ad ora a right or F I r obligation transferable by .sale 5 Si Daly Authorized Agent) Dat Cliff Loveland ease pr nt or type name. 0 gent %MD A052190 AML. L ) } E � li � � t� '•x r 1 tib tis SS -b Pi � � a _ � �.{^�y V'�{ 4 . ' l {: 11 S I! arrs' j, Jh� � 51 L lfr { f �rY t�,,tA�A��lkr (Y1%('� l i�' �.',hv4}j�r•'bF{U F�� 1J" �Yt�i � Post Otllee Box 212,121 Columola, South Caroti "Fax (607) 262.2212 77. i Qr==1 • • Nationsnane Services, Inc. 121 West Trade Street/NC 1005466 Charlotte, NC 28255 Tel 704 386.6000 HalionsBank February 2, 1993 Mr. William Lytle One Town Center Court A Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 Dear Bill: I have received your letter dated January 25, 1993 notifying me of the need to relocate the mid -island branch. I will be more than happy to cooperate with The Town to resolve this matter before Feb. 8, however due to the circumstances I would request that you be open to extending this date if the need arias. I have spoken to all parties involved with the signage issues so that I can accurately state the facts of what has transpired over the past six months. Richard Rabb, the Hdton Head Banking Executive has been involved in some of the variance proceedings and Cliff Loveland, of Carter-Mrot, has attended variance meetings and been responsible for coordination of all installations and narad itchn ing. I want to dearly Mate the sequence of events of signage related issues at mid-it;W4 so that an effxdive decision will be made that will not need to change at sonic time in the future. The initial irurtsilation of the Stee•standing signage at mid -island was located approximately 10 feat back from the property line and 20 feet 8iom the edge of the parking lot. Richard Rabb and several other senior buddng executives were opposed to this location due to its lack of visibility. After I received their negative reaction I personally made a trip to the site to video the sign 8iom Hwy. 278. I submitted the video to the Town on Sept. 28 for review of the location and the colors. This submission was Wm before the Corridor Review on Oct. 13 for approval. Richard Rabb attended that review m my absence„ and following the , • • review he informed me that the colors had been approved. The location proposed in my Sept. 28th correspondence wasn't discussed at this meeting. I arauued, due to the original BOA meeting on June 22 that dismissed both the pmeimd mall site and the mid -inland site for administrative approval, that this location could and certainly would be handled administratively as my proposal stated. I received verbal apprfval from the Town that thw sign could be moved to its existing location �z L r�T1l f y 6 • Upon hearing this I instructed Carter -Mot to move the sign to its new location. I clearly realize that the signs new location does not meet the IV setback, but as I previously stated the purpose of our proposal was to have the setback requirement waived to get the sign to a visible location. This is what we thought we were achieving with our approval from the town. We wouldn4 have proposed to move the sign to a location with a IV setback, because a IV setback on the site where the sign is located, would not be a visible location. Roughly a month and a half later I received your notice of Dec. 4 with a statement that the sign was in violation of the IV setback. This surprised me for two reasons. The first reason is we were already aware of the fact that the sign did not meet the IV setback and consequently for that reason we approached the BOA to have the standard setback waived by,the BOA. The second reason is that NationsBank was . not informed, as soon as the sign was moved, that it was in violation. NationsBank is very eager to put this issue behind us, so at this time I am asking for your cooperation in a timely solution to this problem. In my opinion and that of my fellow associates in iidton Head there aro only two options to resolve this. The first option is for the Town to instruct NationsRark to move the sign to the appropriate location, of which will be staked by the Town so there is absolutely no doubt of the specified location., Nthis option is chosen NationsBank will ask the Town to beat all the costs, which will include moving the sign, moving the exterior sign lighting, repairing the landscaping, and any other related costs. The second option would be for you to once again bring this site issue before the BOA for a setback variance.. This option concerns me somewhat because we have already been before the BOA and they have turned the issue back to you for administrative approval, :; •`. NationsBank is clearly in favor of option two because of the hardship we would l have to incur if the sign was forced to move. I hope that the Town will concur with option two, so that we aro not forced to jeopardize your interest by asking you to i bear the coats of moving the sign. Acting on behalf of NationsBank, I apologize for any information that has been unclear or misinterpreted . in the. past.However, I feel that NationsBank has cooperated with all the guideWta ad forth by the Milton Head Town Administration in all of our signage issues thus fir and I am curious to know what mote we need to do to resolve this issue: �ti"t t't+`iav7VTsei d} �'r4 E�am Shade Samnbddd Corporaw RW FAme .704 -396 -IM .1 Wit AVdww — cad" Mw 0 11 • MOTION BOA 4-26-93 Nations Bank V-5-93 Mr. Israel made Motion I move that the Board deny the requested Variance from LMO 16-7- 1030 on the grounds that there is no demonstrated hardship because there are other visible locations that are much more in conformance with the LMO that the Applicant could have used for placement of this sign. Vice Chairman Brown - Second Discussion Chairwoman James - I have a question for Bill. The sign where it is presently located - as Mr. Robinson had mentioned - it appears (and i know nothing about landscaping) that there is room that that sign could be moved back so it is closer to the 10' setback, from what I know. Is that something -- I need a clarification -- we are looking at this application for moving the sign from one location to another, but it really doesn't matter. We choose to suggest a Variance from the setback to move that sign back so maybe it was 2 feet less than the lo' setback. We can still do it on what has been advertised - is that correct? Bill - I'm sorry - you can still do what? Chairwoman James - Ok? We are looking at the Variance of where a sign is located within a 10' setback - so even if I were to say to Mr. Loveland - Mr. Loveland would you be willing to take a look at the possibility of moving that sign back further into the property of Nations Bank at its present location to get it back closer to the 10' setback. Is that something that you would consider or have you already looked at that? Mr. Loveland - We would consider that -- definitely. We just want to resolve the issue and hopefully to get it closer to where the consumer turns into the lot as opposed to they may view it further down the lot. To reduce the possibility of minor fender benders and what have you. Also to advertise where you turn in as a kind of a directional as well. Chairwoman James - My understanding is that we are just looking at a Variance to allow a sign to be located at least to be located at less than the required 10' foot setback from the right-of-way. We are either going to grant it or not grant it -- doesn't matter where it is located. Hugh Talcott - You could allow a reduction in setback - if Mr. Robinson feels that 6' is appropriate setback - you could grant the reduction from 6' in the setback. 0 e • M Mr. Israel - Can we do that as part of this motion? We all would prefer not to force the applicant not to come back for two variances if they agree on the location. People talking all at once ------ Mr. Israel - I would be glad to amend my Motion is you will give me the right words ----- leave it to the discretion of the Administrator as to how far the setback should be violated. Chairwoman James - Lets get a little more discussion on this because I am not an expert. Jim -- you are an architect in looking at that - does it look -- It looked to me like it could go back further, it would give them the visibility that they needed because I do have to agree- I bank at that bank and I go by it every single day and I have been looking at it because of this -- I honestly believe it would be difficult to see it if it were in the middle. With the amount of landscaping that is already there and the potential growth of it. i"d like to see another solution - Itm think that this may be a possible solution. Jim did you look at it from a professional point of view. Mr. Robinson - I did and I recommend that our Motion be to the order that we allow a Variance but, to LMO section 16-7-1030 to allow a setback, but that setback not be less than 7 feet. Chairwoman James - Ok we have a Motion on the floor that has been seconded - we can withdraw that Motion. Mr. Israel - I would be happy for the sake of efficiency and speed to withdraw my Motion if the seconder (Mr. Brown) would agree. Vice Chairman Brown - agreed' Chairwoman James - Mr. Robinson would you restate the Motion? Mr. Israel - That the setback would have to be 7 feet. Mr. Robinson - Yes xr_ 1sraei - Ind be happy to second that Motion. Bill Lytle - Could we make this thing pending whether there are no cables or anything under there. We dont know what is under the #round there we may not have 7 feet. 2 e e M TRANSCRIPTION - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING 6-22-92 Nations Bank Pineland Mall V-8-92 Request for a Variance from LAO Sections 16-7-1012(a) to allow a new sign face on a nonconforming, off -premise sign, or from LMO Section 16-7-1030, to allow less than the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. Property is located'in Pineland Mall Office Bldg., the former C& S Bank location, and is identified as Parcel 247 on Beaufort County Tax Map #8. Ar. Hugh Talcott, Current Planner. This is the proposed sign for the Nations Bank at the former C & S location at Pineland Mill Shops on U.S. 278. They are requesting a variance from LAO 16-7- 1012(a) to put a new sign in the same location as the C & S sign. The C & S sign is an off -premise sign that does not have a setback, it is set right on the right-of-way line of U.S. 278. The bank is located on a separate parcel from Pineland Mill Shops so therefore they are permitted to have their own free standing sign. The existing location is best for visibility both directions along the roadway. In order to k,A the sign on the parcel that the bank is on there are some landscaping considerations that would obstruct some of the visibility. However Staff feels that this on-site location could be worked out so the sign could be on the property, however a reduction in the setback may be desirable or may be required in order to have visibility for the sign. We therefore recommend that until the on-site location can be investigated to determine how such of the setback applies here, it would be necessary that a Variance not be granted as'requested to permit an off-prei4se sign. we have some photographs of the property and the area in the front that which will show the possibilities of the locations. Page i e e M Chairman Stone - What supposedly is going to happen while this matter is referred or tabled? Mr. Talcott - The Staff and the Applicant will look into the exact Variance from setback that will be necessary to locate the sign where it is visible on the site. Chairman Stone - So, it is the request of the Staff that we not decide thiF today and give the Staff and the Applicant the opportunity to see if this can be located on a site that would work. Mr. Talcott - Unless it could be determined today just where -- the other Staff members who were involved with the problem were not able to determine just where the sign should be located and how much of a Variance and a setback would be necessary. Chairman Stone - Anything else of Hugh at this point? Vice Chairwoman James- In reading the recommendation I am having a problem understanding why we are expecting the Applicant to go ask favors to change things and why we are putting the Applicant at the mercy of other people who they have no control over and have no reason to help them? I donOt understand that. I'd like to know what the reason is? Mr. Talcott - I did not do this writeup, I'm not sure what you are referring to - which page? Vice Chairwoman Jamas - Staff recommends that the Variance from Section 16-7-1030 be tabled until the Applicant can explore options of landscape mitigation -- selecting new planting on site and working with the Oaks to thin their shrubbery and look at the alternative designs and locations on site which will provide adequate visibility and identification. The pampas grass is all grown up and the electri,"'al boxes and so forth are not on their property, they have no control over that. Page ,2 Mr. Talcott - I believe the pampas grass and the electrical boxes are right along the right-of-way on the C & S parcel. I can show you the photographs. Vice Chairwoman James - But how are they going to convince the people at the Oaks that they should change their landscaping? Chairman Stone - Maybe we ought to wait -- (can't hear on tape). Mr. Tom Brechko, Chief of Planning - If I may answer that - the suggestion of Staff is to give a little more time to work out these issues of the landscaping problems to see if they can be addressed. We feel that in the case of the pampas grass around the power boxes, that removal and replacement by some other type of shrubbery that is adequate enough to cover the box, but not the type that is high enough to obstruct some of the view. By doing that and possibly putting the sign on a raised base that meets the code as far as being -- you can go up to four feet to the base of the sign face itself, that from that side the sign actually may be visible by changing some of the vegetation. Now, the side at the Oaks we don't know if it would be something that they would be agreeable to removing or thinning out some of the buffer that they have in front of their property. Actually, I believe that some of that is in the right-of-way. Until we work it out with them, we don't know if it is possible and if it is not then that may affect the degree of setback that is needed. If they can remove some, it may not require as much of a variance, we need to look at it, if they won't agree to move it then that is somethinq to consider under the Variance request. Chairman Stone - Is somebody here for the Applicant today? we can ask his some of those questions right nor. Mr. Breahko - It is not sale to grant a Variance or something that is actually a, condition that they have to work this out with' Page 3 them. If it can be worked out that is something that is considered when you look at the Variance request and the degree of Variance. Mr. Rowan - Is it a power company box? Mr. Brechko - It is a power company box that is there. I don't think the power company dictates the type of vegetation, they would have to be consulted as to whether or not the• vegetation_ would interfere with their cables. But it is something that you could probably change the type of plant materials there by the buffer and it wouldn't be at height to interfere. Mr. Talcott - and that pampas grass is on the property of the C & S Bank --(can't understand.) -- Chairman Stone - Thank you. Mr, Rogers. Mr. David Rogers - Mr. Chairman my name is David Rogers and also with me is Mr. Cliff Loveland of Carter -Rift who represents Nations Bank. Chairman Stone - Are you an employee or agent of behalf of Nations Bank? Do you have a position at Nations Bank. Mr. Rogere - No I do not. I work for a graphics corporation here on the island, the fabricator of the signs. Chairman Stone - And you Sir are with Carter? Mr. Loveland - Carter-Moit Engineering, we were contracted to manage the entire Hilton Head signs conversion and 'change over. Chairman Stone - You heard Mr. Talcott and Mr. Brechko testify here just a moment ago, with the recommendation that Staff be given an opportunity to see if there is a way that this can,be accommodated by cutting back sameofths.foliage and so forth and determining what if any is the Variance they think is necessary. Can you answer any of the issues that they have raised here.' today? Page 4 e • Hr. Cliff Loveland - Sure, but before I answer that I would like to refer to the primary issue that we -- in deference to the Staff's recommendation we have the --can't understand --in place where the existing one is. I don't think it has been totally negated yet, so I will address the pampas grass issue and I'd also like to address the letter that was written to David Rogers for this meeting. I will reference it by saying that the existing sign there to replace that would not increase the proliferation of signage, when in fact we are just replacing -- we are not adding to that particular parcel. That parcel is also owned by --- Chairman Stone - But you acknowledge that the sign you are seeking to replace is a nonconforming sign and you are replacing it with a nonconforming sign, is that not so? F. Hr. Loveland - That is what we are asking the Variance for, that is correct. Chairmen stone - I mean that it is nonconforming the way you have proposed it. It is not in compliance with the LHo is that right? Hr. Loveland - That is correct. I thought that was the purpose for this Variance meeting was for us to obtain a variance for that particular sign. Again, as to the proliferation of signage, the Pineland Hill Shope sign is an entirely different parcel at least 200 feet away. I don't believe that in this particular case that. asking for the Variance of the --replacing the C i S sign would cause that type.of proliferation as put. Vice Chairwoman James - I don't think we have a copy of, that. Mr. Loveland - The memorandum? He also stated in the letter that s what we were replacing is -- Page 3 - that'we are not really , proposing to paint the sign but construct a much 'larger sign in ,J the same location, that isnot a statement of fact as well. The . f signs that via have proposed and got. aesthetically approved by CRC y ti ,l r t Page 5 ' 4n � y I}i•! to ��. I��rf�„-,,�dl p�j �• I��'itiL .L�l��yl.S}� fi� ,i}g1{ e�y.0 ti .jhS�ti}I! Y fiM1, 43'%' n • 11 is less in square footage than the existing sign. Not only is it less the graphic display surface area of the existing C & S sign is about 20 square feet. The graphic display surface area of the Nations Bank proposed and approved sign is approximately 5 square feet. So we have quite a bit of difference in terms of graphic display surface area. So the two issues of -- can't understand - - of signage within a common parcel, the other.issue is obviously the display surface area and what we are trying to attract and that is the consumer on the road. That is why we are trying to get best placement for this particular sign, it is close to the entry way, you won't incur traffic hazards and that it is not only identification but as a directory. In terms of a directional type of sign where people readily recognize the entrance along with the placement of the sign. If we were to place it as what is considered as Proposal B, it is quite a ways away from the entry you have got people passing the entry before they can appreciate where it is -- cant' understand. So that first and foremost is what we are trying to obtain. Certainly better visibility and there is a bermed area on that particular parcel where the C & S sign is as well, that increases the height and visibility, it is a natural berm. Across the entryway is flat and has less visibility. We also, - when we came here initially two months ego to begin meetings on this particular merger, we were informed by the Staff in a meeting, that when we proposed the placement it should be for our primary option and that is what we are here for a. Variance for. The secondary option should be what is within compliance o,' the existing ordinance, therefore that is why we proposed the B option which is within the ordinance on the existing Nations ,Bank parcel and setback ten fees. I think better informed, we would have proposed Option B to get; the setback Variance so we could put:.the Page 6 sign at the right-of-way within the Nationo Bank parcel. Two options are acceptable to Nations Bank, if we can get the Variance for the setback to be at the right-of-way. I think we would obviously like to be able to walk away - be able to place our sign --garbled -- for this particular site. Have we got maps for the Option B placement? The existing right-of-way is nine feet from the curbing on either side of.tho parkway the -- garbled- that is currently there is based where that meets the 9. foot setback on the curbing is where the right-of-way begins for the highway. What we are proposing as an alternative to Option B in terms of placement on the Nations Bank parcel is to have the leading edge of the sign 9 feet from the curbing which is at the same point•as the highway right-of-way. Chairman Stone - To begin with you have a nonconforndty as to the location with one, sign. is that correct? Mr. Loveland - That is correct. Chairman Stone - And you are proposing that to be an off -premise sign, right? Nr. Loveland - Yes ,sir, and we also have ,--garbled-- have a caveat that if.he is required to bring his sign into conformance at some point in the future we would have to remove that sign, so: that we donIt increase the proliferation of signs on the parcel. - Chairman Stone - Pardon me, what did you say the stipulations from land rule were what? Mr. Loveland - If he at some point -with -the passing.of.the new ordinance, which he is familiar with,,have to bring his existing Pineland Nill sign into compliance, which brings it,into a '> different area of. that, particular, parcel,which my, be encroaching upon the.existing C.6 s or-proposed:Nations Bank sign. Then we will be required to, remove our sign and brinq,it into compliance ourselves. Page T' • • Chairman Stone - So, if it causes him a problem you would be required to keep the sign. Mr. Loveland - That is right, he has the primary option for placement, we have a secondary option agreement for Nations Bank: Chairman Stone - Starting with an off-premise sign and you are proposing to replace the existing sign with the new sign at the Nations 24-hour Bank, is that correct? Is that the -sign that you are saying is within the parameters allowed within the LMO as far as --can't hear -- is concerned? Mr. Loveland - That is correct. Chairman Stone - Is the existing sign within the LMO? Mr. Loveland - I'm supposed to be allowed 40 square feet for that particular parcel, our official proposal for CRC aesthetl-s approval was a 32 foot sign, they felt that was to large and they reduced it to a 20.6 square foot sign and that is smaller than the existing C & S sign. Chairman Stone - What I am looking at here is a sketch that is 7 feet linearly by 61/4 feet. Mr. Loveland - That has been adjusted since the CRC meeting to meet their requirements. Chairman Stone - What is it now? Is it now 716" in width and a height of 903/16" Mr. Kilgore - While we are looking - what sign is currently on • that site? Mr. Loveland - As of we have replaced the C &'S, sign with a ,today temporary Nations Bank sign in compliance with, the code of 20 Y' 1 square `feet, - • Chairman Stone - While-we are doing that s i would like to ask you another question. Theo!!-premiss location o! the sign is'at ,r �. the right-of-way, is that right? Page �.S r°r + Jr r 7 r � i� .. ��}I�•�rAx e� +�FiS i �'41�� jF -al F� 3 Mr. Loveland - It would be setting at the right-of-way line, at the property line, yes sir. Chairman Stone - On property owned by the landlord. Mr. Loveland - That is correct, yes sir. Chairman Stone - He has given his ok subject to the condition that it does not adversely affect the existing sign he has for the property right now, is that right? - -• Mr. Loveland - Yes, also any future ordinance that he may be required to comply with that would obstruct that. Chairman Stone - And if he has to move as a result of some decision then he has the right to go to you and ask you to remove your sign to another location. Mr. Loveland - That is correct. Mr. Israel - I am confused about location. You had proposed Option B as an alternative location --? Mr. Loveland - We proposed B as given guidance by the Town Staff, as the other location that would be within the existing codes and in compliance. That wasnIt our secondary option, that is how we were asked to propose that option. Mr. Israel - Then let me ask Staff - I thought you were talking about the alternative location he preferred much closer to the entranceway. This location B that is shown on this little map here looks like it is considerably north of where I thought you were talking about. Those utility boxes are a ways down ,the -- Mr. Talcott - I don't recall that Staff. proposed any, certain location on the parcel, perhaps the proposed Option B location but, not at the 10 foot setback. Perhaps 5 or 4 feet would be visible, that may be more visible than directly ---can't hear --- to the driveway. We didn"t propose 'a directlocationjust that it be on the property'nr-t off-premi.ne. Page 9 Kr. Israel - Could location B �on the other side of the utility service boxes closer to the entranceway? Kr. Talcott - That depends on how the sight. triangle visibility for the curb cut worked out. There may be a sight visibility problem there. Kr. Israel - Assuming that the ---can't hear----- pampas grass could be done away with and that ---- Kr. Talcott - And assuming that it didn't obstruct the visibility of motorists at the corner of that drive. Mr. Loveland - I was here on the site finding the setback - I haven't done a specific measurement, but I am quite certain the placement of the utility boxes are either going to be at that or in that triangle, so therefore placement of the sign - we would not be able to place our sign in between the utility boxes and the entryway it would have to be on the other side. At the right- of-way we were to place it anywhere close to the utility boxes basically your obstructions would be the utility boxes themselves without any pampas grass or any other cover for that particular utility area. Mr. Israel - Are the utility boxes that tall? Mr. Loveland - They are quite tall as a matter of fact, if you look at one of the pictures with the Pampas grass that dvasn't sufficiently hide the boxes. - Chairman Stone - well, getting back to what Staff initially suggested when they opened this item on the Agenda. It seems to as that there are some things to talk about with Staff and With your people, and see where is the beat location to meet your needs and at the same time do as iittle;violencs as possible,to the requirements of the sign ordinance. Do you have any problem meeting with them and defer action `on this as'they are requesting Page 10 until such time as the two of you have the opportunity to get together? Mr. Loveland - We did take that opportunity last week with a Bank Executive officer, Richard Rabb, from the old NC & B and Nations Bank went to the site to review with Bill Lytle possible placements. The placement that was suggested by Bill Lytle I believe, and •this is getting second-hand information through me, was reversed after everyone had disbanded from the site, there was a placement not only at the Pineland Mall that was recommended, but also another placement at the Mid -Point or Mid - Island location. Where we were requesting similar variance of replacing the existing sign. Those particular spot placements were reviewed with David Rogers, here, and also Richard Rabb and Bill Lytle, were reversed after the fact. Chairman Stone - Who reversed them? Did the Town reverse them? Mr. Loveland - Well, apparently we received a call after everyone had been away from the site, David Rogers (correct me if I an wrong) stated that where staff had recommended placement for what was considered temporary_ signs, and again temporary signs was another issue I have with CRC, but that is neither here nor there, that was reversed. So we thought we had placement already approved everybody went home, and we got a call about a hour later that this placement was not approved and we had to go through this ----- Chairman Stone - Let's see if we .can straighten this out right now. Is there a problem here >that 'can't 'be resolved are you . telling us that you thought you hada deal and.the deal was reversed and now, you want a decision on the spot. Is that what you are saying at this point? Mr. Loveland - Right. ''This in for temporary placement until the. meeting that the..Staff'°allowed - that was the issue .that we had Page ll I , i M before - ok? But that temporary placement we felt, was also was the placement that we were trying to get through purposes of the Variance, other than the existing sign at the Pineland Mill location. This is confusing issues here - we haven't seen eye to eye from --- Chairman Stone - With all due respect it seems to be very confusing. Let me just ask - is there still a_possibility of working this out or not? Mr. Bill Lytle, sign Administrator - Not as far as I am concerned. I have to go by what the ordinance says. Chairman Stone - You don't think there is a possibility of working it out? Mr. Lytle - Not as the ordinance reads. Are you talking about the permanent signs? Vice Chairwomen James - Now wait a minute - when you all met and this gentleman walked away from the meeting along with an, executive officer of the bank and they thought that they had an understanding of the placement of the signs -- Mr. Lytle - Excuse me - I'm sorry, when we met out there I showed them where the signs could be put as per the LMO. Then I was informed by David's boss that he had received word from the Town of Hilton Head, that they could put the signs on top of the old former bases, off -premise in the right-of-way bases. I disagreed with him on that and he and I had a very heated argument about that out there. He informed as that he had gotten a phone call from a certain member of the Town, authorizing him to put the temporary signs on those existing bases, I told his I would get back to Town Hall, and I.would research that, and I would see.if it was true and if it was true, I had no authority to deny it. I said if it wasn't,true you °can not put; them on the bases. Page 12 ` 1 • • M Chairman Stone - Without a temporary permit. Mr. Lytle - They are temporary signs. When I got back to Town Hall I found out, indeed no such permission had been issued. Mr. Loveland - This is a conversation that I wasn't aware of between David Roger's boss and Bill Lytle. And anyway, resolving the issue I think there is something that we can resolve between the Town Staff and dations Bank, certainly as to the placement,of signs. option B would be acceptable as the setback of the right- of-way, it is just a matter of us coming to mind, we have done everything that we can to make things work for the Town of Hilton Head relative to aesthetics issues. I have spent a lot of research and time to make that work we even had --garbled-- time at the meeting to reduce signage and colors -- Chairman Stone - I hear you, I hear you - ok? Hugh did you want to say something. Can you bring some light to bare? Mr. Talcott - I am not very familiar with all the discussion, but in talking to Shannon and realizing that he is agreeable to Option B, in a sense that the sign be on the property, subject to his setback he is agreeable to the Administrator, we figured the variance can be granted for re64ction in setback subject to the Administrator's approval. Vice Chairwomen James - Can we move on that? Chairman Stone - Why don't we do something similar to what we did in the last case. It seems as though they are agreeable to working this out, it seems as they basically have an agreement on where the thing ought to be and it is just a question of effectuating. So, I think what we ought to do is to make a Motion to defer this for thirty days. Is that soon enough you've got your temporarysigns don't you? Mr. Loveland - We'll need an extension.. Page 13 • • M Chairman Stone - Alright we'll do the same thing. Mr. Talcott - Grant a Variance for reduction in setback subject to Administrative approval of the actual distance of that setback and that would let the Applicant and the Administrator work out that. Chairman Stone - Is that acceptable to you? Mr. Loveland - That is fine. Mr. Talcott - It may turn out to be one foot or two feet we can work that out. Ms. S. Stone, Manager of Current Plenning - I think that may be preferable so that we can resolve the temporary sign issue to everyones satisfaction by getting a permanent sign in place. Chairman Stone - Alright - ok. Mr. Loveland - May I add one more thing - in regard to Mid -Point location, which isn't on the Agenda hero, but should have been in my mind, because they could also administratively approve the location for the Mid -Point location, and when it came past time being able to apply for this Variance meeting, we found out that that wasnOt the case. Now we have a temporary sign there that we will not be able to address before you until the July docket. And in which case we are going to run into the same situation Chairman Stone - I have a feeling that the Staff is going to be very cooperative and work this out. Mr. Loveland - I would like for them to be able to administratively approve placement of Mid -Point as well, without going through the proceedings. Chairman Stone - We can not decide anything that is not before us on the Agenda, but i think you are going to find them very cooperative on that. Shannon do you have something else to say here. Page '14 • • n TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Bill Lytle, Assistant Current Planner RE: Request for Variance (#V-7-93) for April 26, 1993 Meeting _ DATE: April 15,1993 APPLICANT: Paula Thurman of Broad Strokes REQUEST: Variance from. LMO Section 16-7-1012, to allow modifications to a nonconforming freestanding sign The 'Broad Strokes sign, located at 26 Arrow Road, was installed late in 1986 and has two nonconformitims: (a) it is in the road right-of-way; and, (b) does not have CRTC approval. Recent alterations required the Sign Administrator to void the permit and deem the sign "abandoned" as per Section 16-7-1012(a). The owner, Paula Thurmon, is requesting a variance from Section 16-7-1012(x) to retain the sign in its Present location and to allow the modifications which consist of altering the sign copy and colors. Following is a review of the variance criteria as they relate to this application: A. What extraordinary and exceptional .conditions pertain to this property? This site was developed prior to the adoption of the current LMO standards. Because the building was allowed to be placed so dose to the road, the drive and parking area are very narrow, requiring nearly total use of the remaining property. •' Only 12" inches remain between the edge of the concrete drive and the front property line. There is a 5 foot wide strip of land on the west end of the property where the sign could be placed. Although the location is partially concealed by a hedge on the adjoining property, and a curve in the road when approaching from the west, a sign can be located in such a manner as to be readily Seen by approaching motorists. A • variance from the Setback (Section 16-7-1030) would be required for this lbcatim ..(� 2. B. How would the application of the Ordinance to this property cause an • lie to 611ilw�tll �h a �. 1 :� • ��-.�,. ' ' �.. " r`{ �OROs�O MMr�t Y�r z � !IIT, , S>S r `t • 1. N k r �� car{ry F?n5K x"l� }; ��Uyv 4r sitt Yrs✓ l,f�tti,�as_ �£ Bio ,��a '� t5 r —f� �'r d -5 ,✓ � �� i � _. s -5 tiAz r l�.id {^r ! p � � 9't +.n< �� 1�4 n � �f A^4 ) �,� i ,� rq> r s�' d i (,:' r ;i� I ttq �� + t eF Y t :siaM!.IM�vMMb:r �{11 sa i J '. BLY+` nt �Oa 4 �.. �•. f'b .7�� 4 t A i«"��`ia., `�,YN to? 'Fis'F.�i�S �.t 9'�:�,a: 3� sr � k 7 7 rt I �<r 11 s fllima?k+SLA }� _y i Z Kt,R lk r? nl}r .rYtTl n. .,.., P'a, is tp .K" ✓.'•kC !4i}Y'47 m f c 1 d �- t f k r 1.� dr ., � ..... ,. �i.r. ... - _. r� f � r _.... i-., i ;� .. i � � �. � ` i r a 'ii' � ��. � e } � 4 r �1` f � s 3: r, ,1, a" S � ��1% ! 4' r�- } t 1 IY,q '��6 "ttilh �'i y'y)�y�k�� J� �f7: y .'M' t { y 11. �. �i �� L� J 1T`'y{ Svy�jt ! SHO � 1(S' If � �? " YfS�f 42 � ��•,9��tiyj r�{�5 ' dr ., � ..... ,. �i.r. ... - _. FEB19I''3 • Application No.:_V- TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND ONE TOWN CENTER COURT HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC 29928 Planning Division Phone (803) 686-0904 ; APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Instructions: Please TYPE of PRna legibly. Attach additional sheets if needed. Note: variances will not be granted for use or density. Project Name:6S 4Z-- �>?jo e�/aT•: �ey��c� Tax Nap Natober(s) and Parcels) 12%S of project. Location of Project: _�2G tGury .Pd . Base Zoning Districts) of Property: m� asp Applicable Overlay Zoning District(s)- Owner(s) of RecordApplicant(s)• All Duly Authorized Agents* Nam: �/&a--;;%yew7II,, Address: -211p._pX Gyn-i 1fiL 7Ow, 6ft6ga Phone: �,C�S A&616 ' •LMO Section 16-7-603 requires applicants or the authorized agent to have a local mailing address and telephone number. Section Number(s) of the Ordinance from which a variance(s) is requested: Describe completely and specifically the requested variance• EXPLsin briefly why the variance In repeated: Attach the following items (see LMO Section 16-7-672): 1- A narrative answering ail of the following questions (criteria for granting the variance): A. Nhet extraordinary and pertain to this Property (size, shape, topography)? ' �s B. Bow would the app]]��aa �`�' Party cause an unnecessary hapds= down of niton tread Island Planning Division APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE �,'s„ Mr. Israel -' I move that we defer this until the next meeting [ u. L AF*.— .vh4nh h..n Ann._ �.m C] M M E M O R A N D U M 1 TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Hugh TalcottCurrent Planner RE: Request for Variance (OV -10-93) for April 26, 1993 Meeting DATE: April 20, 1993 APPLICANT: Perry Wood for Greenwood Development Corp. REQUEST: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-483(c)(2) and 16-7-915(d) to permit less than the required setback and buffer from tidal wetlands The subject property, known as.Longview,;Island is an undeveloped tract in the Shelter Cove area of Palmetto Dunes Resor:. It was originally a part of the mainland before Shelter Cove and the horbor were constructed and is now separated by a channel with bulkheads on both sides. These.bulkheadecccnstitute the South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC).;Critical; ,Line used in: .determining, setbacks.. sect g ion 16-7-483.(0).(2); from which a variance is requested, requires. that there be a minimum 20-,aoot and 40''foot"aysrage'buffer adjacent, :to::,tho.:SCCC,Critical-Line : adjacent to tidal wetlands. The applicant proposes to provide a 4 to 5 foot separation between the bulkhead and the parking or driving aisle. Section 16-7-915(d) requires 25 foot minimum and 50 foot average setbacks from the SCCC Critical Line for impervious paving. The drive aisle is proposed to be located 4 to $ feet from the bulkhead. The narrow buffer strip proposed would be landscaped with trees and under -story vegetation, and additional landscaping would be provided between the parking and the interior development. The applicant has provided t detailed application with a vicinity map, proposed site plan, preliminary landscape plans with elevation section drawings, and photographs of existing conditions. �3Following is a review of the variance criteria as they relate to this application: ;, • u A. What extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertainto this. property? w�,,�.rL4�"'%';ti`..u++�';��ti:,. e • M V-10-93 April 20, 1993 Page two Longview Island was created when Shelter Cove was originally developed with a harbor and channel to Broad Creek. The man-made channel necessitated the bulkheads that are along both sides of the harbor. The channel and bulkhead construction left an area void of vegetation along the perimeter of Shelter Cove and Longview Island. The area along the bulkhead of Longview Island would be developed in a similar manner as Shelter Cove harbor water frontage with pedestrian walkways, seating areas, and landscaping. B. How would the application of the ordinance to this property cause an unnecessary hardship? Longview Island has expansive frontage along the bulkhead that has been cleared of vegetation and, in contrast, a heavily wooded interior with numerous old live oak trees. If development were'restricted from the setback, and buffer.areas along the bulkhead, development activity would.be:pushed back into the wooded area.. The application indicates a project that is much less dense -than permitted; the variance request does not arise from any attempt to maximize development of the tract but rather to minimize disturbance of the wooded areas. C. How are these conditions peculiar to this property and not shared by neighboring properties? As previously noted, the planned development features along the bulkhead is similar to the adjacent Shelter Cove, however a more detailed landscape plan is proposed. Landscape buffers are proposed both between the parking and the bulkhead and the parking and the interior development. The man-made boundary of Longview Island and Shelter Cove bnrbor is not typical of tidal wetland buffers, which typically have natural marsh and vegetation. D. How would the variance not cause detriment to the public • good or to the purposes and intent of the ordinance? The intent of both sections from which variances are being requested is to.,.prsserve natural:vegetatton.:alonq,the,,marsh for both aesthetic and environmental purposes. In this case,. however, there is,no:,,marsh and no existing,ve4etation tooprotsct= along the bulkhead. Granting of the variance& would allow; more • of the significant vegstation.cn._the.interior of the property to be retained. All of Longview island's boundaries adjacent to , • • a natural tidal areas will adhere to the buffer and setback requirements of the LMO. f� V-10-93 April 20, 1993 Page three STAFFRECOMMENDATION After review of the requested variance with respect to the applicable criteria, staff-finds that unique conditions and hardships exist{•toVMa rant :grant n9 the,„requestad'•vertanoes The intent of the ordinance would not <be: compromised since the setbacks and buffers are established ,primarily 'ca.protect.natural tidal marshes. The vegetation proposed'along tk!o bulkhead, Which will be subiect'to Corridor Review-Committee approval, will provide the. visual buffer that is`also desirable and intended by the IMO.. For these reasons, {staff Ireconie #,that these variances from LNO Sections 16-7s4n(c)'(I), and-16-T-951(4)+;:berr gra�Sted"'as "requested. 1 , r r,t , tt r 4 �r' t ,�F 1. v f l i4 1 r. _ I r rtiW ��ti S2 i s Ar d d� �a r 1 hfi s r i YA�a�,_;�. esto�>�' 4'�7}�' '4�•rJ r >I t�� 'e : �: ��5��" z,�r, f9i'lip trvim`�nf�t• ��*' +�i4 31 Y$$``�'� • dd f rKl Y LW{ii R } f t 1 VI fiz 1, 1 11 �YY4 }rk yrs' bS }y it x nr Application No: TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND 40 PALMETTO PARKWAY HILTON HEAD ISLAND, S.C. 29:28 PHONE (803) 681-8396 D%r,- : w1ARICH 2/,1993 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Instructions: Please TYPE or PRINT legibly. Attach additional sheets if needed. Note: Variances will not be granted for use or density, Project Name: ISD Tax Map Number(s) andParcel(s)of project. Location of Projects Bass Zoning District(• o ropertys - Applicable Overlay Zoning District(• s Owners) of Record Applicant(s)* All Duly Authorized Agents* Name: W-CAUc�.F1&0 4441,YE Address:) Phone: `1 fie. ~ *LM0 Section 16-7-603 requires applicants r the authorized agent to have a local sailing address and telephone number.. Section Humbar(s) of Ordinance from which a variance(si'is requested: 11s-7—WSW Describes conpT_ ate y— and specifically the roque ted variances n Explain briefly why the wriance is requesteds /�fiAcJl. h j Attach the following items (See LMO Section 16-7-672): 0 ' 1. V Written narrative sufficient to answer :&L of the following questions (criteria for granting the wriance)• AY What extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to this property (size, shape. topography)? . BV. How would the application of the ordinance to this property cause an {{ unnecessary hardship? �A CV .How are these conditions peculiar to this property and not shared by neighboring properties? D.V How would the variance not eauaa detrisent to the public good or to the '^ purposes and i,t,,t,of the, ordinance? t •kl "C okjjj} t�.�r' ,�y2rF�vai3� i}17Q l'?C�i�g �l March 26, 1993 Mr. Steve Riley WOOD AND PARTNERS INCORPORATED Administrator, Department of Community Development LANDSGPEAKHITECfS Town of Hilton Head LAND PLANNERS One Town Center Court Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 Re: Application for Variance from Corridor Minimum Visual Buffer (16-7-483(c)(2)) and Tidal Wetlands Setbacks (16-7-915 (d)) for Longview .Island ]Residential Village, Shelter Cove Dear Steve: Herein, please find an application for a variance from the above referenced LMO Sections, made on behalf of the property owner and applicant, Greenwood Development Corporation. These requested variances are specific to a particular development concept known as Longview Island Residential Village, as illustrated on the attached "Preliminary Site Plan". The variances, if granted, as well as the proposed reduction in development density would only apply to this specific development concept (see also attached owner's consent letter). The following outlines general background about Shelter Cove and the proposed concept and subsequently addresses evaluation criteria for granting variances: I. GENERAL BACKGROUND Shelter Cove was developed in the early 1980's and consists primarily of residential uses with a man-made harbor basin and shopping district as its focal point. The planned environment is urban in scale, and is dominated by a contemporary Mediterranean architectural character. Longview Island (the subject property) was not an island prior to the development of Shelter Cove, though was surrounded by water as a result of the construction of the harbor basin. The expanses of water that separate the island from the "mainland" vary from slightly less than 200' to as much as 400'. The bulkhead on the harbor side and the bridge to the island were constructed as a part of the harbor development The Harborside, I, H, & HI residential • i' complex is directly across from Longview Island (see ' attached Context Plan and Location Map) and consists of ground floor shops, and restaurants with four floors of residential development above. With few exceptions, all development along the harbor edge is 5 stories ' in height. The typical condition between these mid -rise buildings and the harbor itself includes: O Urban plazas (interlocking brick) 0 Pedestrian sidewalks and circulation areas Page 1 of 7. ' P.O. eox 7427. sults: 5081 a FINELAND OWE l MTER 0Nt120N HEAD LUAM S.C. 2"e(80)681.6618 a FAX a (803)681.7016 • , t.r y. {' �.+'}a'M�46 r:, '� hAl �t 8�'t rs_ ins. •a+�: ' .z • ❑ Accessory Uses Supply Room Services Parking is located on the outside perimeter optimizing the use of two significant features of the island; ❑ The zone adjacent to the bulkhead is cleared, nearly void of trees as a result of the construction of the harbor and bulkhead itself (see attached photographs of existing conditions). ❑ The interior of the island is predominately large mature oaks and pines. ❑ Considering the above features, the parking is located in the existing cleared zone, residents leave their cars and walk through a landscape transition zone (which separates the parking from the residential environments) into a garden where the cottages are located. Though the parking is closer to the Main Lodge and Lodge Houses, it is located in existing cleared zones, Between the parking area and the harbor, treatment which includes low rail fences, hedge rows, large trees and arbors have been introduced to soften the edge and screen the parking from views across the harbor (see attached "Proposed Harbor Edge Treatment Plan"). The architectural character of the Village will be a Low Country theme, buildings will be wood, and colors will be compatible with the environment. Based on a maximum of 175 units and 12.5 acres of developable land, the intensity of land use (density) is 14.0 units per acre as opposed to the 37.5 units per acre allowed for. The Main Lodge may be as tall as 3 stories though all other structures will not exceed two stories, in contrast to the predominance of 5 story structures across the harbor. Ill. VARIANCE(S) REQUEST ❑ Section 16-7-483 (c) (2) requires that there be a minimum visual bufer of 20 feet minimum and 40 feet average adjacent to Conservation District boundary, or the S.C. tt` Coastal Council Critical Line. In the ease of Longview Island, on the harbor side, the • 1 setback would be taken from thecap of the bulkhead. As illustrated on the attached "Tree i and Topo Site Plan" as well as the "Harbor Edge Treatment Plan", from the bulkhead landward there is proposed a 6-7 foot edge treatmen acme then a 22 foot drive and a 18 . foot parking stall followed by landscape treatment. A variance must be granted to allow for the drive and parking to occur inside whatwould be 13-14 feet of the required 20 foot minimum buffer and 33-34 feet of the required 40 feet average: buffer. ' i Pef e3of7 1 Y 5' 1 rn, 7 • �'M .� �� ,,q�ttyy �` a;;, rl�liiCs�ata� ' '4v i i • O Section 16-7-915 (d) requires that there by a setback of 25 feet minimum Mrd 50 feet average for impervious roadways and/or parking areas. As with the above, measurement is taken from the SCCC Critical Line which, in.this case, is the bulkhead. Similarly to the above, the edge treatment zone, drive and parking are located in the setback area and a variance must be granted to allow for the drive and parking to occur inside of what would be I8-19 feet of the required 25 foot minimum and 43-44 feet of the required 50 feet average setback. The attached "Tree and Topo Plan" delineates where the variance zones are located. IV. VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA i A. What extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to this property! i O The design and layout of the harbor consisted of bulkheading an extensive amount of edge of the harbor, including the bulkheading of what was to become Longview Island. Earthwork and clearing specifications required that the harbor be cleared of trees (from the bulkhead inward) as well as extending that clearing limit 50 feet landward of the bulkhead. This 50 foot swath between the bulkhead and the forest edge to remain, would serve as a construction zone for heavy equipment dredging the harbor, and building the bulkhead itself. I O The above described condition most noticeably exists on Longview Island (see attached existing conditions photos). With a single exception (see attached "Tree and Topo Plan") there is today a 50 foot cleared swath adjacent to the bulkhead. j B. How would the application of the ordinance to this property cause an unnecessary •, hardship! 0 The primary point of requesting a variance for both setback requirements,is so that Z the drive and parking area can occur in an area nearly void of trees: As shown on the "Tree and Topo Plan" approximately five palm trees, eleven.oak trees and two pine trees will need to be removed from the drive/parking area. If the minimum setbacks were adhered to(that is, 25 feet minimum setback from the bulkhead) the drive and parking area would be moved into the forest necessitating the . removal of the trees mentioned above, as*ell es in excess of thirty other mature pines and oaks. If the average setbacks were adhered to (50 feet average from the bulkhead)`a gross amount of valuable vegetatioo'would be lost. Page 4 of 7 1„� lgt]f�ff aL Pf r�'F.31y�f ;.i��ttlp�?7�}bac'"b qs CReEM ❑ This project's success relies on the preservation of as many trees and natural vegetation as possible. By design, the relaxed and casual layout of building positions accommodates possible future adjustment to avoid trees. By design, the large green spaces between the buildings preserves an abundance of existing forest. The project's design intent is to save trees as is the Town's. When the ordinance is applied, the hardship that is caused (extensive removal of trees) is shared by the project and the Town. ❑ The development concept of The Longview Island Residential Village is best j described as a low density, low profile retreat in the woods. Its priority is to preserve i the natural character of the island to the greatest extent possible. } Where a five story hotel might be, two story cottages are being proposed. Where 469 units could be developed, a maximum of 175 units are being proposed. C. How are these conditions peculiar to this property and not shared by neighboring properties' ❑ The fact that the surrounding properties, specifically the main harbor basin areas, were built prior to the enactment of the ordinances in question is irrelevant to some degree. ! However, adherence to the setbacks on Longview Island creates a unique atypical condition in the context of the existing urbanized conditions one finds at Shelter' Cove.The clearing of the construction zone 50 feet land war d.of the bulkhead, as i described earlier, occurred throughout the basin area. These zones tddq are generally the plazas, steps, walls, walks, etc., which were described in the General Background portion of this narrative. D. How would the variance not cause detriment to the public good or to the purposes and intent of the ordinance?- ❑ As mentioned in B. above,,the public good is served well by this project as a whole and by the specific effect of granting the variance. ❑ Preservation of trees ❑ Low `prattle development ❑ Allowed development density voluntarily reduced dramatically. Page,?tN of 7 •'!%l,N,�i qf��r� SA �`yy'Ixf rF3* 4 a 'g 9 '',. r Y�'r.°:� i O The purpose and intent of 16.7-483 (c) (2), the minimum visual buffer, is to preserve trees and understory vegetation and create a natural buffer which would soften the visual impact of development from the 'corridor". The corridor in this case is the Shelter Cove Harbor basin itself. By granting the variance, trees will be saved. The proposed "Harbor Edge Treatment" (see attached plans) creates the visual buffer intended by the ordinance, as one views j the project from the water. iO The purpose and intent of 16-7-915 (d), tidal wetlands setbacks, is to preserve transitional vegetation between the upland and marsh and to allow for a zone of ,i natural conditions to receive and filter storm water run-off prior to entering the critical area. The 50 foot construction zone mentioned earlier was cleared, excavated for bulkhead construction and backfilled with dredge material. Construction equipment continued to use this zone resulting in a high soil compaction level which will not currently support vegetation. There, is no transition zone as the critical line (bulkhead) was created by man, not nature. The S.C. Coastal Council through its certification. process requires, that all paved surfaces adjacent to the critical line be sloped and drained away from the critical area,. if a filtration zone is not providedfor. The intent of the project is to divert and drain I all storm water from the drive and parking area to retention areas located internal to. j the site. As shown on the attached. "Tree and Topo Plan", the average setback, (considering pavement and buildings) of the perimeter of the entire island, is 40 feet. The minimal �! proposed setbacks on the harbor side (variance conditions) are mitigated by the extensive setbacks found on the marsh side associated with the buildings. These far` s exceed the minimum/average requirements ofthe,LMO. ,' I 3 � f i j A 'Page 6 of 7 1: :j. r. II I Steve, I look forward to meeting with you and Tom Brechko next Tuesday, March 30 at 3:00 to review in. detail this application. I look forward to working with you through thisprocess and �.b I � 1 ' j r � Y l t Ptt a 7`or ys i,T.<_t-.�.:IJY.t.Si,b Longview Island Residential Village Shelter cove Proposed Harbourside Edge 'Reatment See Preliminary. Site Plan For Locations ro March 1.993 1-00 .yp Lana"Ped Butler PaFkkv fty Fire/Access Lem Wfk* Walk Edge Concept A 19 I JL .,. .. r_1 'r�__1 !1 J '� A ....-� �t.l .e G•� ,�, A4 'y ��.Z �. ,. .ii, •' � r Longview IslandResidential Village Shelter Cove Proposed Harbourside Edge Treatment See Preliminary. Site Plan For Locations .jI!, to• o.c. March 1.993 ..�. M7. .. ti� nr�� k •Y^r ��.,;., ...r tt "�. •(.ra.. `•r'C•.r.yA... .N u ryy.^? R .iJ rl •�t•r % • ' lir• 'h.. 11 Y e �}r�t'"in� } ,t`et'ra 1, - L •4 .i�t 't Landscaped Buffer Puking Bay FlrelAacaaa lana Minna Walk Edge Concept A ®®.M • • 'M:E M O R A N D U M f TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Hugh Talcott, Current Planner RE: Request for Variance ('/V-11-93) for April 26, 1993 Meeting DATE: April 5, 1993 APPLICANT: Town of Hilton Head Island for The Grant Family REQUEST: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(d) to relocate a nonconforming structure The Grantr,Faailyohas operated a produce'stand along the front of their property located at 651 William Hilton Parkway for over thirty years. The stand is adjacent to Mrs. Grantfs residence and other small structures at the front of the property. The widening of US 278 to four lanes brought the roadway very close to the produce stand, which is now set back less than five feet from the street right-of-way. The Town*s pathway has been constructed in front of the stand as close to the roadway as feasible while the Legal Department and the Owner negotiated easement issues. The owner of the property has now proposed an alternate produce stand location that would be further from the roadway but still would not meet the required setback. Please refer to the attached site plan. This variance;, is being requests& as a result of"the Town' exercising power of eminent domain for the pathway easement. The LMO provides "for'•'specials.aonsider`ation'of•"verences under these circumstances, as stated in Section: l6 7;-30,7(b)'(3), as follows; "Where a legally established struature or site subsequently. becomes non -conforming, as to road setback requirements, only because of an intervening governmental exercise of the power of eminent domain,compliance with these provisions shall be required only to the extent practical." The Town is acting as,ag*nt,rfor the property,,vwner and therefore wi1T'_not make a recomaendation on this variance, but provides the following review inrelation to the variance criteria. A. What extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to this property? Like many other developments, the subject property was developed prior to the LMO. As with.other nonconforming developments, activity can continue on the site as previously permitted.subject to the provisions of LMO Section 16-7-305 regarding nonconforming sites.and'uses.. The subject produce Town .`staff -initially proposed.a stand location behind the paokage store and tailor shop buildings, which'°would most the required setbacks. This location'would.be a hardship ;since the other buildings' could not bs'.operated by thesame person if the prod�do stand was located -behind them. The produce aarket also relies on<.passer-by .visibility.which would notexist with the locationbehind the .other `buildings. C. How are these conditions 1. peculiar to`this property and not shared by neighboring properties? DevelRPmAtA �adiacu)b„toikthios�site ark �elsof nonoonlor ing to current standards, although lew,structures,are ss close to the roadway.. Thisjphase of the pathway ''did not encounter any other restrictions as great as this that ,would necessitate site alteration.. D. How would the variance not cause detriment'to the,publ'ic good>'or to',the;purposes and intent of the'ordinance? The intent of section 16-7-365(6) prohibitinq nonconPorsing. atruetures to he ralocwted tecanv ether nonconforaina location is to brinq;the ,locat! current standards. would be fifteen'';fo located'`' approxiimat For: safer -use of the pathway without obs! customers. The stand would also be;loca! 0 Application No.:� II - 93 odONE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND TOWN CENTM COURT HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC 29928 D Planninq Division Int 2 6 Iii Phone ( 803) 686-0904 APPLICSYIaf raa vAaLllNM Iastr'ctions: Please TYPR of-PRnM legibly. Attach additional sheets if needed. Note: variances will not be granted for use -or density. Project Nese: ltot-uc r— a -rioA1 Tax Nap Number(s) aced Parcel(:)_ o! project. Location of Project: G T•1 I LL I A•M 1AW—r0nl =/AY Rase Zoning District(*) of Property: Q -2 - Applicable -2- Applicable Overlay Zoning District(s)- G_Re- Owners) of Rsoord Applicant(s)• All Daly Authorized Agents* 7Re ~r OWW/IV Name: a jVAn R]Jc.M -MLeorr Address: G.rl 14 r. 27e CST. Gat - 0�IU4 LJiLTOW HAt�.SG•?lM SG Phone: _ p 4 04 ■LND Section 16-7-603 requires applicants or the authorized agent to have a local mailing address and telephone number. Section Number(s) of the Ordinance from which.a variance(s) is raquasted: JC-'/ -A d) ...Es f ,moo+. Attach the following items (seeLN0 section 16-7-672): 1. A narrative answering Ma of the f0UMdng 4wstims (criteria for granunq the variance): (AT��4cl1�p� A. What eoctraordi9ar! and exomptiooal oaWitioos pertain to thin psaperty (sisal shape, topography)? H. How would the application of the ordinance to this propertr cause an unnecessary hardship? •. C. Sam are these conditions Peculiar to this Property and slot shared by neighborinq Properties? 1 D. How would the varia:cs not cause detriment to the public good or to the Purposes and intent of the ordinance? 4a�M�r$3ti n y'r �� r !I� �4,� �, r. icn� rri�2. • T A.N .. ld,: k a:r I 1 fi 78+00 79+00 STATION 79+60 TO 81+10 INSTALL ASE CONCRETE BPATH. (4PORTLAND CENT CONCRETE NM 80 WWF REINFORCING) 80+00 81+00 REDUCE PA �� rASPHALT BIXE PATH t4 U.S. HIGHWAY 278 (WILLIAM HILTON PARKWAY) ® 0 REMM SIDE SLOPE AT GRATE INLET STRIPE IN A ® CTIONS 13 REMOVE SAWCUT AND REMOVE t< SIGN E)OS11N0 ASPHALT / . r -a► - - -�-- --a--- --t -- r ,Z. a� ---- ------ _ -a _ Aa r8G►iF'oYnr.`, X PAWAS ao smr ,�� 'lam °Mcm a� ° 's %r rw�rstray o �0 � o, nt MAP 12 To-1LOA SHOD � PARCEL 26 AP 12 �Ropres ter► PHRUS i PARCEL '4C SAWCIJT 's' •; ABRAHAM GRANT ANW IM MOVE DOSTNiO ASPHALT 0. DALE MALPHRUS RELOCATE PALMETTO 1 G. DWAINE MALPHRUS0VESHRIM LARRY S. MALPHRUS W �Sftalors OTKii REMOVE AND REPLACE 14 LF CONCRETE RAID AIiD _'GUTTER AM 10 IF STATION 77+00 TO 79+50 AND SWIPE DEMOPA1HTIfAV AND mm= �, - ,: t ,, .. 00 0 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: APPLICANT: REQUEST: 6 M MEMORANDUM Board of Adjustment Carol A. Krawczyk, Current Planner Request for Variance (#N-12.93) for April 26, 1993 Meeting April 16,1993 Ms. Fran Thresh, from Speedi-Sign, for Grayco Auto Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030, to allow less than the required 10 foot setback from the right -0f --way. Grayco Auto Parts is located at 1012 William Hilton Parkway, on the western side of the road. The existing Grayco sign is located within the'road rightwf-way, between the two entrances to the site. During the Marsh 13th, 1993, windstorm, the sign was blown down Under Section 16-7-1012(a), such sign would be deemed abandoned if a variance were not applied for. The Owner had contracted with the Applicant's sign company to design a new sign because of the condition of the existing sign and because business listings on the freestanding directional sign had changed. The Applicant had noted to Planning Staff and the Corridor Review Committee that if the sign were, set back ten;feet froin'the right -way:;line as required in the Land Management Ordinance (LMO), then it would not adequately: seen because of obstructions such as the Burger King sign on the adjacent property, a telephone pole and landscaping in the site's front buffer. William Hilton Parkway begins to curve at the Island Carwash, and continues to do so until after the Grayco site. Traffic signage and the obstructions previously mentioned contribute to the poor visibility of signage in this area. The Applicant has met with Planning Staff on the Grayco site and has staked`the location which'she'felt could be on the property and still be seen so that people could use both driveways. This location isat the propertyline as indicated on the Applicant's site plan (See attached). Following is a review of the variance criteria as they relate to this application: A. What extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to this property? The property is located on a curve in the Parkway. Landscaping and signa$e in the right -of --way on both the subject property and land to the north obstruct the view. The property has two entrances, however, and if one misses the sign initially, there is e • M z. still the opportunity to enter the second driveway. B. How would the application of the Ordinance to this property cause an unnecessary hardship? Application of the ordinance would require the new sign to be set back on the property by ten feet. If this sign were built, the sign would be obscured by landscaping and signage. The Applicant contends that this would-be an ineffective sign. There would not be a hardship in this case, however, because the site has two driveways into the site off William Hilton Parkway. Traffic signs noting the existence of a traffic circle, coupled with the speed limit change from 45 to 35 m.p.h., help to slow traffic just before the Grayco site. Thus, if the sign were set back at the required distance and could not be seen immediately, one could still enter the second driveway without difficulty. G How are these conditions peculiar to this property and not shared by neighboring properties? At least three properties share the inconvenience of the curve along William Hilton Parkway, but only Grayco has two driveways. Where there may be some difficulty seeing the sign initially, the second driveway allows access to the site after one views the sign. D. How would the variance not cause detriment to the public good or to the purposes and intent of the ordinance? If the sign were to be located at the property.line, but on the property, as the Applicant has proposed, there would be adequate mom for a bicycle path/walkway either in front or behind the sign. By allowing signs to be placed as far forward on the property, however, we encourage the visibility problems along the roadway. If the Burger King sign on the adjacent property were set back the required distance, for example, some of Grayco's problems might be solved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After addressing the four criteria required for variance consideration, Staff does not believe that the Applicant has adsqualslypsoved`thit tMidle'is differimt* m;its neighbor, nor don,there appew,lote wh dship if the sipmere pleaed :with regard to the:required ee#beck. Therefore, Staff mmmiends that the request for a variance from IMO Section;16.7-10.30,ba'dutMd: , 0 om"Mag • IJ e e M Application No.:� TOWN OF.HILTON HEAD ISLAND ONE TOWN CENTER COURT D HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC 29928 Planning Division Phone (803) 686-0904 M 2 6 M APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Instructions: Please TYPE of PRINT legibly. Attach additional sheete if needed. Note: Variances will not be granted for use or density. Project Name: Tax Nap Numbers and Parcel(s)ofp fact. Location of Project: b'1 ,'L4JA Base Zoning District(s) of Property: Applicable Overlay Zoning District(a)- Owner(s) of Record Applicant(s)* All Duly Authorized Agents* Name: Addrese: Phone:_ *180 Section 16-7-603 requires' applicants or the authorized agent to have a local mailing address and telephone number. BeOtiOn Number(s) of the Ordinance from which,a variance(w) is ra posted: - -/030 - t `; — 1. „p r rx� .J i t t. + t i: I i r I k li, °. r t t a t / k f' t L y it "' i ;y ti l .rl':::;T'.:,(.:, t _ j, r , :+ ;,, • t �' �®1. r .: • - �': , ,. s - .. ...... ........�....... -„, ` _..._.....is �� ..._........_....,,_..,... ,.�...,.........�......�..�_......._....._.._........._?.__........,.... ? .m...mmrta�+dixf CDr, > �� ,` fl It h ri�'�ytt'�` .r a ' t , �.rbt t Ue t {kC j c 6 t laf: r it r,I ,- i . - 1 r_T7 1 1 r: + .1 1 1- y l 6'} 2t. '' - Y f . , i; t , . �:', , �. N + 1 1t ,ti' ' - , ' .: -+ 11 ' 7 .MARCH 26. 1593 r', h - t ,' + f. r, G3RAYCO AUTO PARTS. TRUE VALUE . _ . . _ r + h � r r 'y; h A. THE LANDSCA, 11PING INCCUDING:TREES PROHIBITS VIEWING THE try 'r SIGN !IF PLACED 16 F,T BACK IN A TIMELY MANNER FOR MOTORISTS �• 'K ', g �; MOTION 4-26-93 BOA V-12-93 Grayco Auto Parts - Fran Thresh Carol Krawczyk r Mr. Israel - I'm sort of at a loss - since I didn't realize what the sign was when I drove past it I really at a loss to make a judgement as to what to do to move it back 10 feet. I guess more than 10 feet from where the existing sign is. It looks like friim there - there is no problem with visibility. I would love to have the time to take another look. Fran Thresh - Could we Table it? I could erect something- put up plywood or something. Chairwoman. James - Lets see what the pleasure of the Board is are you comfortable to deal with this today? JIM - I am but if the Applicant wants to withdraw it she got that right. Jim Brown - I would like to take another look at it. .Been going in and out for years and never realized it was different from True Value. Pete - I'd feel comfortable reviewing it today. Andrew - I'm comfortable reviewing it today. Chairwoman James - What would you like us to do? I'm comfortable with reviewing it today. ! Mr. Boil - Motion' I'll move that we approve the Variance requested from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow the sign.to be not closer than the property line (guess that is the way we would word it). I don't want the sign to go into.the right-of-way just on the property line. Chairwoman James - Would you like to reference the drawing in the package for the location. Stating as proposed --------- Mr. Boil - Amend Motion as reflected by the drawing presented with the Application. Chairwoman James - Do I hear a second.` Motion fails for a lack of a second. jO 4 In`nu n .1 1 w T 1 �'1 f i Information - 3-22-93 BOA Heritage Motors`/4.4a434 Hugh Talcott - Ed Drane the Town Urban Designer with the CRC is in the hall, he will be in here in just a moment. In the meantime I have copies of the Notice of Action from the CRC for the sign review. As Chairwoman James has said the CRC reviews the aesthetics only. Their application did look at the sign as it ties into the ramp and.did make some recommendations on that assuming that it was going to be there. These are copies of the Notice of Action. We also have the original copy of the Notice of Action for the Board's Action in October concerning the Variance for setback from sign and this is the original copy of the certified letter sent to Nr. Shutt and that notice of action did say that the sign should be removed. Chairwoman James -Give use one minute to review this and --- Hugh Talcott - So is it your desire now to have Nr. Drane discuss the CRC1s --- Chairwoman James - If you will give us one moment to review this information. Hugh Talcott - Sure. Chairwoman James - Thank you. Chairwoman James - For the information of the Applicant and the audience I am going to read the letter that went to the Applicant regarding our meeting on October 27, 1992. It states: "on Tuesday, October 27, 1992 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request regarding Heritage Motors Company sign. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to deny the Variance from LNO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a Pign in that required front setback. The Board found no permits had been issued for -the sign and that a hardship did not exist, because a new relocated sign could provide more exposure for the business. Further the Board of Adjustment requested the Applicant to remove the sign and the triangle sign structure. The Motion was Adopted." Chairwoman James - This is a certified letter that was mailed to the Attorney for the Applicant on October 30th following the October 27th meeting. The Notice of Action by the Corridor Review Committee dated February 11, 1993 as a result of -the meAting held on February sth was approving with conditions listed below',a-which is.- elevated platform is allowed with new landscaping installed in this location, light fixtures be changed to conceal.source fixtures,` both to be approved by the Staff. Mr. Drane. Save P:V-415-93.MOT' p� rt f tr �y f o � ` • r1 iI 9 I. . ' f r V ",_ . . ., ..'M1 1 t i� ... 1 .. 1 1 - - ' 'fl �'' ti '.M1 9,9 . . . .., I. t - i ti, .':'� 1 r f, 1 "1'•r. ::. is _ - 1 `1 tS 1 , l I' r r< I' - - 1%I 9- ( )I 1( I I 9 \ r I (rel 1 t [ 1 I fl f h ,, .' �' j_I 1 Lt ti iI. I r c [ a t r. 1 M1 r 1 r 1 1 `1 _t r a, .,I (� . . . !; e;�/'!1%,f� fir, I } r , 'j - r,9 I ty1.V1. t i 1 SP it a r M1'. i. Z) I V 1 J it i1-: %' i l V ,, t r 7 l ){ ty. .� r t s' 1.ti s7 - s o at ��jj {/J� �! t t 1 t .fyi - i! I,.L/,, .� I/ 0 1r �i tlr it 1 tl a �`L� a J>r =y l�fl _: .�,ri� �{ 2 1 t r rfl I r. • . q�i� h e "It R� 't< t o y 1$ i� s, s4 !i 7 � 'J r '11 t I , i 1 t x 1 ilt ri f yr 4'i �+ rll,ry.fa��. ? r Ir IUix i, I t l M1 ,hr ftis,� 4 Y ft ''ti 1�1 t 1� - s. ! I 1 i) t "t !Y. 4 il't 3' r J rtrtt' L e i r I t r,7 t d r it r Z? ti i V g;. I, r1 :. _. �I t '. f .La Id(r t- 1t x '`-.r 1v� ,fir t1� �M 1 roi�.�l `— �� y rtt t, � 9 �:1 I � I "ayG rVr S ,yif 1 J 1 J Jr i 1—,- L.. 1... �{ t z s` aI � t, Lr } r � 3 H i 'I �f f 1 M1! fit, �� yZi* a�' t f Ill 1-.�ir)4 i h- I f"J7�'. M1s.. It :n� f� { YfrJ �4a�(�C��R� J k t r n V7at r.) i }. -'*rr 'y�.r` ',gF' v�gsi , 9,., -., I f x` ' )f rl b ° 4 ,t 1�J 't a� t ! r- t . t t t t' r t J'"i C trii �. Yi¢ C. t t *7 �1 r fV• j r' r S t R �, I ]M J r a%,. 1 r t I v �i 14jlti f`` d { N yf 7 y ts5 > >V�1�1 f t s 1` P f L 1 j a rr 4iU"f } x t al { {,�So + �^ r4 .% I ! ( ! it 777 s IA S/ l M1 1 I ti"Sy ? aa,9 r rS d r ! drff. rtKQ�" T /tiA I:,I , c f ,rXu s 3y a k Y (4 1 rt r !1 I k 15 5 � iJ 1440 d� r :.a 8 �sY T�. Iti rltI t t 11,4 ix 1 r.1", 1 r .1.'l Ui; rr, ', ti r t , r:!' f tCi r kr t ' (1f >" f tlf 1'} }� �� t �S Yw3.b ?' M1u " ltt� k� Y�r¢S. 1 4 J gl'E�q ,r;'IXI -, 14 9 ^ , . �'l r .V J' n ri: 1 a, t}Jil !?ii }C+ it >.7.j, i(tCP.1.Y t Y' r�St , k141,`l t at sr Yp`'` I I m' r t ��b,, t 1 ,i Nt l r� dl Sri ly Y - r11 p ,I I t a a rJ rs . V � �l1� tvfj ? ., Jt � � a5 y rA;r� ni�"' ltf l t�Y 1 1 �t rl 5 ft J,f,,,' rs1,! , •. . l a t, t t t ) 'F-0 � �$ tt t:m —,:, :`t i L�� J tM1 , rI dxg, g ��'� �& 't 'r H`'� S h.'"7�. jS A 4y,ir r PF,j j r rFl .a uJ '� H �—fc.Fr�r S'1` t vrs' t} for r S e a r"ti x qty , ,It y k2!� tJyes"� S cr1 I i t< a 1n ; Irl �t, P —.. 1 i a s >F ; T'19 +t' r '�� # SS� r • 1 a - `. J ! 1 ttt V.,, { al r r}i! l �, S !? t ntv.. t. al ( f s', Yli'J.5 i} i ^t t,ti! � �t 4hr '4"yk,,I Frw�r SdtP r. it i. r {,1 M1;L a t 1. 1 1 1 ,� x ra�'t1)t t t t i . '' {J t d �'3 ti r` w '�d.3..q4 l rn 'lSr �� 't�" t rr �J�u tr—�tibSy. �C:_ r'T ! : !>< i,.i �' t t4 y�tafi:VX j� r !r;tit,, r 11 g�d'1 ry5 Fr•?a�r. [a I `w� tt�i,,>g�;rc'�rwFsl � ..,yA t ,. i .,. ;} * (4 ! v :i*1�,Y t,. f pltr* aIs).t " a'�l iw1't,.,"'trY''+rt ?IX"�X�r 1 .q,tl-°x �sY4't "k til :i„r,,' „'��`r�.'"•�s`a3��rt �,, rl' 1.], , i� 7Td.�2! c `�_t. .f :�'+,�fhkw.r Cr°. �+�•a” ' tR �x `�"1 F� s na t } }GJ Y. .* I 1,t%`;lI'llI. 'rt 1 Jf \- ,pk--,i 0ii A' rh 1� 37 �y bbl t P r 6'J' lhP .� a I y 1 't M1 ', 11 I 1� frtyEl y., f r r 1 1 'llit f -9 u, r 4t ilt t 1 t 1 r i if 1 1 M1 t rt 1 4 tt r Yi1> '�l <I. 1 t t i e 1 rt� ti a 1 i t, E1 , t, k�`t'4t:.� J Sl I ( Y. 1 ,4. A Y,.t It rt 1yr. ".• : i C' !� !r 1 q r j. f ))�� k �r�t(N 1} 1 ))' t 5 it d t r r• )))7 M1 if it f t ^'1 r raf 5 .NNQQ ,.,� i� 19 t i't I I i M1 Yd r} •, ! '�2 l �.`�..,:.�erNz f.'.A r tJ�T+ t_:v k t; �: `!.: .. ., ci ,i�rr 4.. '�. °Syv?c� �41r�`iP�'� rlmrt•�re • • G Mr. Drane - Yes Madam Chairman. Do you want an explanation as to how the CRC arrived at that finding. chairwoman James - Yes please - If you would explain what the Application was, because that is not noted. All we have is a ruling we don't have the information on the Application. Mr. Drane - Let me read you the Staff memorandum the CRC members got. Dated February 5, 1992, it says this Application is for approval of an existing free-standing sign at an auto dealership located on William Hilton Pkwy. The sign consists of white cut out letters applied to railroad tie retaining wall which supports an elevated platform displaying autos. This sign is illuminated by to bear bulb incandescent flood lights. Minimal landscaping has been provided for the sign. The Staff recommendation to the Committee was recommending approval with the conditions that the elevated platform be removed and new landscaping installed in this location and that light fixtures be changed to conceal source fixtures both of which would be approved by the Staff. During discussions with the Committee, who remember only look at visual things not such things as setbacks and variances they had no problem with the visual appearance of the sign including the raised platform with the automobile being displayed. Which I took the position that that was part of the sign since it was designed to attract attention, it certainly meets the definition of the sign in the sign ordinance. so CRC did not feel like they had the authority to tell him to remove that or to change the location of the sign from a visual standpoint - purely aesthetics. They made a Motion to approve the existing,structure and sign with the two conditions that you read. Chairwoman James - Any questions from the Board for Mr. Drane? Mr. Robinson - If I understood correctly Ed, the staff recommendation was to remove the platform and leave the sign or put a sign in that location. Mr. Drane - That's correct. Mr. Robinson - And it was subsequently changed by the action of the CRC who was looking at the whole thing. Can you give us some of the flavor of the discussion about the platform? You touched on it briefly, is there any expansion that you can give.us? Mr. Drane- I think the only discussion - somewhat tongue-in- cheek was that they preferred not to see white or bright yellow cars parked up there,_as long as the color of the car was earth blending they had no problem with the visual appearance of that car. But again we didn't deal with anything such as where that was located as far as setback -- Mr. Robinson - They didn't comment on.its appropriateness in that environment. r .rrtirr,rr • • M Mr. Drane - I guess they thought it was appropriate based on their Motion. Chairwoman James - Any other questions for Mr. Drane? Thank you Ed. Mr. Shutt - I would only respectfully add there was a third condition that's in the transcript whereby I agreed to never display a white car it was an exchange and I indeed agreed to 0i that as a third condition. (This is the CRC meeting). Madam Chairman my only thought is that there have been two substantive changes since your October decision. One is and I choose to regard the CRC decision as substantive, they did approve the sign and the display ramp, secondly, the October decision, your decision was based on one faulty fact in the tranacript which I have listened to from beginning to end. The point was made that Other than that I have no Chairwoman James - Ok. I think that the CRC decision is not substantive when it comes to what we need to deal with, because it did not deal with the setback or the buffer. So -- alright any other questions or comments from the Hoard members. None Chairwoman James - Is someone prepared to make a Motion? I have one other comment to ask Mr. Shutt. With the -- the Variance you are asking for is to enclose the area, which is now like an overhang area. Mr. Shutt - It is a patio. Yes Chairwoman James - In so doing what would be your consideration in making a sign for Heritage Motors as a part of the enclosure of that area. I believe that our ordinance does give a business a right to put a sign on the face of the building within certain parameters. What would be your thought on that? Mr. Shutt - The current Hilton Head tradition is signs along William Hilton Pkwy. its entire length with signs ten feet back or less from the right-of-way denoting businesses. Again I keep belaboring this grove of trees but it is there it is a fact, it is much bigger than it was 12 years ago. We think a sign on the building would not serve the purpose of informing the visitors to the Island who need service that we are there unless they crank their head to the right at the right time. Chairwoman James - There is a stop light not far from there so if they are heading south they certainly would be able to see it. Mr. Shutt - I can*t argue that a certain percentage of people are 0 going to notice one way or another, spouse, child in the car, them having to look, etc. etc. It is a hardship for our business with this grove of trees in front to require that we remove the sign or put it within the grove or behind the grove. Chairwoman James - Anyone prepared to make a Motion. Vice Chairman Brown - Are you looking now for a motion as to whether or not we reconsider our decision of October 27? Chairwoman James - I think we can do that, I think that we can do two motions on this. One on that so that we can put that to bed and then one also on the current Variance from IRO 16-7-305(c). Vice Ch'sirman'<Brown -%; 'make'a Motion that we do not recons . ides our decision of Oct. 27, certified notice was sent to the Applicant on Oct. 30, at which time he choose to do nothing, he had the opportunity to appeal that decision to Judge Kimerling although no action was taken at all, nor was anything done about removing the sign. 3o I would move that the Motion that we made at that time was very clear and that we not reconsider it. Chairwoman James Do I''Rear- a'`second? , llotion,aails"Lor.- a ,lack of;as�bond. Do I hear.another Motion. °Saond =-,� Keil Discussion Chairwoman James - Hugh do you recall what you said about the right-of-way and do you question what Mr. Shutt has said? I have a recollection but Ilm not to clear, I believe that I recall that you said that it protruded maybe a foot into the right-of-way, or some small distance. Hugh Talcott - Mr..shutt has had a survey done subsequent to the October action. Oue�~staffLm=orandutt,ststy thatrAhw,sign!was a' located Amt. It did not say that it intruded into the right-of-way. Chairwoman ,Tames -so our itemo is stating that it did not protrude into the right-of-way but, it still is not within an adequate setback. Hugh Talcott - Read from Memo: The sign is located at the William Hilton Pkwy. right-of-way,with no setback.provided. The setback should be lU feet. 1 • • Mr. Shutt - The spirit of verbatims transcript is not reflected in what Hugh just read. Chairwoman James- Any further comments from Hoard members. Mr. Heil - The only comment that I might make is that the reconsideration I assume will be at our next meeting or shortly thereafter it, and at that time the Staff provide us with as much information possible with regard to the position of those trees and in their opinion whether or not there could be any movement of the sign to another location. Seems like there is a complete opposite of opinions from the Staff and Applicant on that issue. Vice Chairman brown - I would also request that the transcript of October 27 meeting be made a part of this, together with the Notion and how people voted. Nr. Robinson. -_Is that.an smana--nt to mv','totion?,-- Vice.. Chairman Brown-,That..is diacussion,:I;guess :.. Chairwoman James - Would you like to have that amend the Notion. Vice Chairman Brown - No because I am going to vote against the Motion. Chairwoman James - But you can still amend the Notion in case it passes that way - that we would have that information. Vice Chairman Brown - I think you all know my opinion is - I think we are treading on ground here from a legal standpoint that is very thin. I would certainly hope that we would have the possibility before we vote on any sort of a Notion such as this as having an executive session so that we could get legal opinion from our attorney. Chairwoman James - Ok, how do the Board members feel? Have a session with our Attorney for further information on this? Mr. Robinson - I think we can't be to cautious, wi+ua�rN�NaiN< thstwshould. bsv� t6m: ZuhL�+txamm�ip�ra. my recollection of the discussion is very such like Mr. Shutt has indicated, but I could be wrong to. I would like to see the verbatum so I would know what we said. Mr. Rowan - We are talking about the sign we are also taking about expanding the building, we are talking about cars parked along the front. Where are we going? Chairwoman James - --ri"tVmow-isv*- %M&3r"..uiarnj _.�.na�, wa--ary Yi �NM:i4..4y��Y"�wiq. Chairwoman James - I hava.a question to, I guess if there is new M information such as new tree locations that would be substantive information that would warrant reconsideration. Mr. Rowan - When we voted on this before, I was under the impression that the discussions were that the sign protruded into the right-of-way. Now the minutes are telling me something different. I remember that distinctly. Mr. Beil - I agree with you in that we even discussed the fact that the bicycle path might possibly go right into where the sign was. Chairwoman James—No-further discussion. I"ll.call the question. This is a'Motion to reconsider our decision of October AZ& -2222. Mr. Heil For the Notion Mr. Brown Against the Notion Mr. Rowan For the Mgtilm Mr. Robinson - For the Motion Chairwoman James For the Motion Start here 3/25/93 Mr. Shutt Mr. Brown I just wanted to make the point that under no intention of our operation be _can't hear_ , in fact we were advised by our attorney and it was subsequently verified in this letter from the Town that the Board of Adjustments decided to extend an addition option to you of completing a Corridor Review. We had no intention of ever not complying with the letter and spirit of the law and we were misunde--stood and I was not here and I apologize for that, but what I heard took place in October apparently was not what took place and we did nothing except exercising the option of applying to the CRC. Chairwoman James - Alright, .le are going to put that to rest once we see the transcript and see exactly what was talked about at that time. it is a little difficult for all of us I think to genuinely recall what was said. I can tell you that this Board has been very concerned over the months that the Heritage Motor Car Company has not done anything on this. So I think the sooner we put this to bed the better off we are all going to be. Mr. Shutt - We had a Sales Manager and a General Manager who are no longer with the company who made a series of important mistakes not only in customer relations but in Town relations. That is one of the reasons for their departure, I don,'t think they did it maliciously but they did it. It will not be repeated. Page 9 Chairwoman James - Thank you. Now wa wire "going .to"deet" Mich` the Variance',%fros;rib-7-3os(o),.to,�wpand *-�,nonoonforsing:,sits;.at:.r Heritage Motor Car Company. Do I hear a Motion? Mr. Heil - I'll make the Motion. I move that Variance request from IMO section 16-7-305(c) expansion of a nonconforming site as submitted be ayproved. Chairwoman James - Alright, do I hear a second? Motion fails for the lack of a second. Do I hear another Motion? Vice Chairman Brown - I.would just reverse that Motion and saX Me deny that. /1t - Do I hear a second? I r e • M 16 MOTION - 3-22-93 BOA Mtg.V� 5-93 Nations Bank Sign Mid -Island Mr. Robinson - I'm concerned that we have a misunderstanding here, a misunderstanding that has caused somebody some money and there is some liability issue involved. I think we have an obligation to get a replay of that tape of that meeting that is in question - whether the Applicant here wants to request that or not I think as a body we need to request it. Chairwoman James asked Mr. Robinson - Would you like to make a Motion to that affect? Mr. Robinson - I would like to make that Notion, yes. Chairwoman James - would you like to make the Motion? Mr. Robinson - I would like to make a Motion that we take no action on this or that we table this until we have had a chance to hear what the staff has heard and condensed the tape of the (was it Oct. - July?) Chairwoman James and Vice Chairman Brown said June Mtg. -- of the Board of Adjustments to determine exactly what it was that was approved and not approved. Vice Chairman Brown - seconded - I think that is a good idea. Chairwoman James - May I ask Jim if you don't mind rather than asking for the staff to condense the minutes - to transcribe the minutes of that particular application. Mr. Robinson - right. Discussion on Motion - None Mr. Rabb - I don't think all this is as much needed as the ------ ----can't hear as what we did. The sign was moved to that location in the middle Chairwoman James - Mr. Rabb would you come up to the microphone so we can get your comments as part of the record. Mr. Rabb - the sign was moved to the middle of the mid -point branch with the idea that we would be able to prove hardship. That is what we have tried to do with the video tape that we have. I don't know if it would be of any use for you to see the video tape, but the hardship and the tape purely shows that coming from a north - south direction yciu would be unable to see }' our sign until you were on the sign or Fast the driveway to come into mid -point branch. That is the whole crux of the matter, it , all points back to previous meetings and rehashing the situation, but the real request is for a Variance to leave the sign where it , is because of the hardship in visibility. t� •Mor. r .. � Chairwoman James- Mr. Rabb I appreciate your comments, but we have not seen the video tape. Mr. Rabb - We have the video tape here if you would be able to see it. Chairwoman James - Thank you. One of the criteria that we have to go by to grant a Variance is hardship so that certainly is something that we should see, but one of the concerns that all of us on the board have, and I won't speak for everyone I'll let them speak to it themselves. We felt that we had a clear understanding of the Variance that was granted in June and we thought that we gave Mr. Loveland the direction that was necessary to deal with the sign at Mid -Island Branch. We have not heard anything since June until we received the information on this stating that a sign had been put up by you (the applicant) without approval of the Town. In fact it was nonconforming. So we need to deal with that because it is nonconforming to the LMO. Our job is to make sure that things conform it at all possible, without undue hardship and also meeting the other 3 criteria. I think that the recommendation that we have is a fair one - to have that portion of the June meeting transcribed so that everyone can refresh their memory as to exactly what happened that day and perhaps deal with this at our next Board meeting. We can also view the video tape so we can take that into consideration for our decision so we can make the fairest decision possible and the one that is going to be the best for the Town. Mr. Rabb - That's fine. Mr. Boil - Sue, the staff's recommendation here states that in their opinion there is nothing peculiar or unique about the site and also that visibility of the sign at the approved location is not obstructed, etc. etc. Stating that there is no hardship - now is this based on their also reviewing the video tape or have you had an opportunity to view the video tape? Mr. Lytle - I've looked at that tape a couple of times, right here on the big screen. I still don't see a hardship. Basically I show in these photographs what they show in the video and these are the photographs (can't hear. They show the approaches to the property from both ends. Chairwoman James - I don't think we need to look at this because we have a motion that is pending and I think at this point we should go ahead and call the Question. Perhaps these photographs as well as the tape if appropriate can be reviewed at the next Board meeting after we have the other information that we need. Mr. Robinson - Do you want to call for the Question? Chairwoman James - I would like to. Na MOTION BOA 3-22-93 V-6-93' The Dolphin Group Chairwoman James - Hugh has a wall sign been discussed with the Applicant since the situation is so unique as far as --- Hugh Talcott - We did not discuss that. It was Staff's feeling that most businesses in fact, do have signs near the frontage. It would be a sign meeting the setback, we felt that it was a hardship requiring such a wall sign. Chairwoman James - Is it possible for the landscaping, we received I think, part of a plan for the landscaping. The Staff was concerned about it, saying it wasn't going to meet the standards. Is it possible from your viewpoint to have it meet the standards? Is there enough room to do it so it would meet the standards? Hugh Talcott - Yes, certainly. There is at least 30 feet in most cases 40 feet across this narrow frontage directly in front of the building - 50 feet is required. So it is close to what is required. Chairwoman James - Ok. Any other questions? Mr. Bergelt do you have anything you would like to say to the Board? Mr. Tory Bergelt, Owner of The Dolphin Group. The only thing that concerns me is making improvements on the property. I have the right to use that as parking, I am concerned about having the riqht to improve upon it. Chairwoman James - Improve on what? Mr. Bergelt - The buffer zone - you are speaking about. Landscape improvements and all that - I'm concerned that that property does not belong to me, but if you are requiring me to landscape it, I don't know if there is a problem, with that with the actual owners of the property. I'm not objecting to doing it but there is a problem there. Chairwoman James - Would you feel better if we asked for the approval of the owner of the property? Can see how any owner would not want to have his property improved. Mr. Bergelt - No. I wouldn't have any problem with that at all. Mr. Rowan - These buildings were built on postage stamp sites avid they were to be a series of stores all contiguous and this. gentleman's concern about landscaping these areas -- it may be just temporary because it is owned by someone else etc., etc. Should have approval of owners. Landscaping on sides is excessive page 1 e • M Chairwoman James - That is correct. Mr. Robinson - I would like to second it but i would like to zrian aim wouia accept znaz amenamenL. - _-- vice chairman Brown - As Brian indicated I wonder if he might just get another violation sticker -- that he work with the Staff to locate that exact position. Tom Brechko - I not sure but there might be soAe legal problems with moving a nonconforming sign, I'll check into that, I'll try to do it now. vice Chairman Brown - Section 16-7-1012(a) ???? Mr. Robinson - Do we want to have discussion on the Motion while we are waiting on that? Chairwoman James - I think we want to finish up the Amendment and get that approved and discuss that. Any objections to the Amendment of adding the Sections numbers that we are dealing with? Mr. Robinson - Not at all. Chairwoman James - and the Motion is seconded? We already did that. ok discussion. Mr. Robinson - Several things that are important here, foggy night etc. etc—got me off roads is a safety assist. The imposition of the zoning ordinances have caused this sign to be a hardship --- have created a hardship for this particular sign. I believe this sign is really part of a larger sign system which starts out at 278 and brings the people back to the restaurant and as such, it is an important part of it. Mr. Rowan - The suggestion of moving the sign, and lcoking<at this I don't know exactly what the relation is between the street sign and the sign itself. If you moved it back more I'm afraid you would loose some sight advantage on the sign, because of the Page 2 • • street sign. Also for visual opportunities coming around the corner it appears to me to be a low sign, that you would have visual opportunities going above the sXgn. Tom Brechko - I could not in that short time get a legal ruling W-tNa—t—actlon of allow ng the sign to be relocated outside the site triangle• but one of the issues when you look at an Appeal s to either uphold or overturn the Administrator also allows for modification of the situation and I think that the Board could go forward with that. There wasn't any legal advice that came down I talked to Steve on that issue. The e s to be pointed out is if allowed to Feep the sign and actially— racwtWit out of the sight r a e it would be considered an nWMdnT-6r-m-rn-g'&ff-premise sign and any other modifications of SlTerattons to the structure in the future would still bring up the issue that it is a nonconforming sign that was modified more than was allowed by the ordinance. Chairwoman James - Are wo alright without getting a variance on the location? Tom Brechko - I am uncomfortable with making that change, I think there is benefit with getting it out of the sight triangle, but Steve did not think there was something would keep you from making that Motion. Chairwoman James - Ok Mr. Robinson - My personal feeling is that that is simply a modification to the motion and to the sign in its present location that improves its safety to the general public and I think that the purpose of the sign and the reason that I feel like it is nondstrimental to the community is that it does improve the safety by getting people off the road which does decrease traffic. If we can pull it back at the same time that will alleviate another potential problem and I would like to see both things happen. Chairwoman James - The Motion stands as made and I'll call the Mr. Beil - In Favor of the Motion Mr. Brown - _In Favor Mr. Rowan - In Favor Mr. Robinson -`In Favor Chairwoman James - For the Motion Vote 5-0-0 Chairwoman James'- The Appeal has been granted. Mr. Barnwell - Spoke about things that were here prior to the Town incorporation ----- you are probably correct about the eye sight triangle ----------- That 'sign, is.about.as same as any movement that any eng. firm would:probebly recommend.. I Page ; 3 r 4MzWzM MOTION 3-22-93 BOA - :A -40M93, -f.'Ni6fiael 4 JoSe . phine Nestor Mr.: -Robinson,,- I:move that thare. is t. cufficienevidence of abandonment to.xe-open, this issue and have'the Staff investigate further Mr. Brown - In other words you are voting to override the decision of the Administrator Mr. Robinson.- So they can go back at it again Mr. Brown - So a favorable vote would be to override Mr. Robinson - I think there is additional evidence that needs to be brought before this group or whatever group makes the final determination. I think that should be got Mr. Brown - Do Rhear a second? Mr. Beil - Are you making a notion to approve the Appeal or deny the Appeal? Mr. Robinson Xlam,mkin to is .th 'Akisa 9�,-a, Notion: Pprove" an i: 6v,ortido'�thit"'ibigMa"n!"son fbelieve there sufficient evidence of abandonment, i.e. the neighbors observation, grass not cut, and that was the same evidence that was used on a previous case this afternoon by the Town for determining vacancy was that it was observation and I feel like Mr. Boil We are not tabling or anything, we are voting on a Notion? Mr. Brown & Mr. Robinson - We are voting on a kotlon. Mr. Brown - and a favorable vote would be an override of the Administrative decision. Mr; Brown,--!- -Do,-I- hear-67,Socand-to-,thate- Mr. Rowan - I'm going to vote against this Notion becauseI feel that this is such a small element in a big problem thatthe property has that I think the avenues in the Covenante,would be far more effective than just settling this question of abandonment. Mr. Brown So at this point we don't have a second. SECOifD Ca"n't'Cell .who; did;t,Msaaotid r};think..it^;was-lfr::Rown , Mr. Brown Call for the Question Page I .. ........ -W U:- 0'� A- Z. 'a# e • M Mr. Robinson - I don't disagree with what you are saying the problem we have is that this is the only issue that has been put before us and therefore we have to deal with it or not deal with it and I don't think we have the option not to deal with it. We have to deal with it one way or the other, we.can either overturn it which sends it back for further study or we can uphold the decision which for our purposes would put it in the hands of the Court. I believe it would be a more prudent decision to send it back for additional study because I feel like there is evidence not on the table yet. Mr. Brown - I agree with you Mr. Beil - I don't understand what we are talking about here - sending it back. What we are doing --- someone has to reappear before us again if we vote not to approve the Appeal. Mr. Robinson - If we vote to approve the Appeal then there is no problem. Mr. Brown - Then it goes back to Mr. Riley and -- Mr. Robinson - There are several other things that could happen Peter - one is as George has pointed out there are a number of other nonconformanities, at least it sounds like there are. This would cone under the category of the definition of development, it certainly seems to, just reading here while we were listening to some of the discussion. It comes under the category of development anti if it is nonconforming and it is development and again it should come back to this committee or a permit should not be issued one or the other. That is the only way I see to get that out on to the table. The other thing is that the issues of additional evidence that need to be brought forth, and I don't think we can get that if we don't ---- I suppose we could defer this and ask the staff to come back with additional evidence, but the way we do it we are doing the same thing. Mr. Beil - it isn't the Staff's obligation to ferret this out though, I understood that as far as abandonment is concerned someone has to -- Mr. Robinson - I think it was pointed out that it is the property owner's obligation to present evidence that he has not abandoned. If I heard the discussion correctly. Mr. Brown - The only reason I would suggest your idea of deferring this decision is we are down basically to a quorum of 4 members and this is an Appeal ofan Administrative Decision and under our rules it would take 4 affirmative votes to override that decision'. Although we do have a Motion on the floor now and Page<2 i Mr. Beil - But we are not voting to defer we are voting to -- Right now the Motion is to Approve the Appeal! Mr. Brown - That is right! Mr. Beil - With no covenants? r Mr. Robinson - It does not affect the covenants - it is saying that there is evidence of abandonment and it should be - that the owners should have to bring forth further evidence to support that.it was not abandoned. Mr. Boil - So it has been moved and seconded - move to vote. Mr. Brown - The vote. Mr: Beil - I support the Appeal Mr. Robinson - For the Motion Mr. Rowan - For the Motion Mr.. Brown - For the Motion 4-0-0 Vote Motion adopted. Chairwoman James left the meeting • aavr= • M Fua'Tati�'�a.+r� MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Carol A. Krawczyk, Current Planner RE: Request for Variance (#V-13.93) for April 26, 1993 Meeting DATE: April 19,1993 APPLICANT: Mrs. Barbara Hudson for Squire Pope Furniture REQUEST: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1012 (a), to allow changes to a nonconforming sign.' Squire Pope Furniture, located at 67 Squire Pope Road, shares an entrance drive with Benny Hudson Seafood. Both buildings have been in existence before the Land Management Ordinance (LMO). During the Match 13,1993, storm, the awning and two letters from the sign were damaged. The Applicant, in her effort to repair the awning, wished to also repair and repaint her sign to match the colors on the free- standing sign which identified Benny Hudson Seafood. In the process.of applying to the Corridor Review Committee, Mrs. Hudson was informed by Staff that she would need to bring her.sign into compliance before she could paint it. When the site was developed, all available area in the front of the site was used for parking or building. The lower portion of the building is a glass storefront and affords no area but the upper parapet for signage. The existing sign is nonconforming because of its size. According to Section 16-7- IWa), building and wall graphi:s signs shall not occupy more than ten (10) percent of the signable space on any one facade of a building with a maximum size of the sign limited to forty (40) square feet. Squire Pope Furniture's sign measures sixteen (16) inches by thirty-four (34) feet, for a total of 45.2 square feet, but the allowable area for the sign is ten percent of the lattice parapet wall which is 13A square feet. j • The Administrator determined that the letters damaged in the storm were not structural in nature, so the sign was not deemed abandoned as in LMO Section 16-7- 1012(a). IBenny Hudson Seafood recently bad a freestanding sign placed on his site. The j Applicant indicated that this sign had a nautical theme which would not be in • keeping with a sign for Squire Pope Furniture. So, rather flan add to the existing 'licant requested a variance to paint her g signsam ccolorng alp, the the sas hw standing P signign These colors have been approved by the Corridor Review Committee at its April 13,1993, meeting. J A , S M 2. Staff met with the Applicant on the site to determine if the letters on the existing sign could be reduced so as to comply with the ordinance and still allow the public to see the words. Smaller letters on the existing lattice parapet wall would be appreciably lost. The Applicant decided that she would prefer to keep her existing sign and apply for a variance to paint it to match the colors on Benny Hudson's sign. Following is a review of the variance criteria as they relate to this application: A. What extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to this property? Under LMO Section 16-7-1036, only one fteestwdidentification sign is permitted per entrance. There is only one entrance between these two buildings. Therefore, only one free-standing sign would be allowed. The Squire Pope Furniture building has a glass storefront which does not allow for any other type of wall graphic other than the parapet sign. This type of sign is permitted under the existing sign ordinance. B. How would the application of the Ordinance to this property cause an unnecessary hardship? The Applicant is at a disadvantage because the only allowable location for a sign is on the building parapet. When Planning Staff met on the site with the Applicant, they placed reduced versions of the letters on the parapet, then observed flow well such letters Stood Out, TO Comply with the Ordinance, that is, to reduce the sign face, would result in making the sign ineffective. This would be a hardship. C. How are these conditions peculiar to this property and not shared by neighboring properties? There are very few businesses along Squire Pope Road. Squire Pope Furniture and Benny Hudson Seafood are surrounded by residential uses The Applicant, in an effort to comply with the Corridor Review Committee's suggestion that businesses on the same commercial property share a common sign system, would Wm te paint her existing sign the same colors as in the Benny Hudson free-standing sign. D. How would the variance not cause detriment to the public good or to the purposes and Intent of the ordinance? Painting the sign to coordinate with other site signs would meet the intent of udo Section 16-7-484 (I ft) which calls for an integrated sign system. STAFF RECOMMI)ATION After consideration of the four criteria which determine whether or not a variance should be granted, Staff behaves .that the four criteria haveteen mets Therefore, Staff recominends.that the request for a vadancle,ftm LMO Section 16.7-1012 be: P491 '�x 2.44 6A .5:AC $A 6 690 190. " 56OAC ZA( 589 .5 5 Ise 9 L7 &SAc. Z -E u - cc. 2D I cc a. E ra LA - jo 24 0, b A P4 cl 3.0cc. I C 1 2 24 s • M c NOTICE OF ACTION BY: CORRIDOR REVIEW COMMITTEE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND ONE TOWN CENTER COURT HILTON HEAD, SC 29928 PROJECT: Squire Pope Furniture Awning/Sign PROJECT is CR93-062 LOCATED AT: Squire Pope Road ACTION DATE: 04/13/93 NOTICE DATE: 04/14/93 OWNER: Squire Pope Furniture 67 Squire Pope.Road _ Hilton Head Island, SC 29926 APPLICANT: Barbara Hudson (same) ON THE ABOVE MEETING DATE YOUR APPLICATION RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING ACTION: ( ) WAIVED REVIEW ( ) WITHDRAWN AT THE APPLICANTS REQUEST ( ) APPROVED AS SUBMITTED (� APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW ( ) DISAPPROVED FOR REASONS LISTED BELOW Staff and a CRC member to approve the awning color and material. r�. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION. IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AN APPEAL SHALL BE FILED (RECEIVED BY THE 1 ADMINISTRATOR OR POSTMARKED) NOT LATER .THAN: TEN (10) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF ACTIOW NOTED ABOVE. (LMO 16-7-678) NOTICE:.APPROVAL BY THE CORRIDOR REVIEi1 COMMITTEE MAY NOT CONSTITUTE .. ,? AUTHORITY TO PROCEED. PLEASE CONTACT THE:CONMUNITY DEVELOPMENT..DEPARTMENT AT 842-7630 TO FIND OUT IF OTHER APPROVALS OR PERMITS.ARE REQUIRED FROM. THE PLANNING, INSPECT OR ENGINEERING DIVISIONS. BY: , URBAN DESIGNER' Edwin B. Drane,-AIA e e m Application No.:'� TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND ONE TOWN CENTER CODRT 1:/ Own HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC 29928 PIE Planning Division Phone (803) 686-0904 MAR 2 6 PA(i APPLICATION FM VARIANCE Instructions: Please TYPE of PRINT legibly. Attach additional sheets if needed. Note: variances will not be granted for use or density. Project Nana: r P Ave F4 m rr"" Tax Map Nwber(s) an P 1(s) of project. r. -ti.-.. of Project Base Zoning District(;) of APP"cable Overlay Zoning District(s): Owner(s) of Record Applicant(;)• All Duly Authorized Agents* Name: e Address: "-f 0 A Phone: *LKO Section 16-7-603 require; applicanu of the Xtborised agent to haw a local mailing address and telephone number. Section Number(;) of the Ordinance from which a variance(;) is requested: ................ _ .---------:._-_�'a.�.n.*e. d..-. ___ ��►_� ----_. C.cylGr-S- __-- ��._q..d�jva_�.L1Qa. � F_....._`i�. 5_-.-,_� • y_h..__ . do/�_e . . ,_!� ... Color......------ --�-/ -- ........ _ oq lei 4� r ------ - --�.. _� ;_�.�._•� ._-_a_�K-�—___/?ate . �:.. %h c4 r.-__..a_h:o �.��e..Y,_'__: 4 � ._---- ---.�. _._.... __ L:� � sem. ��:.�..�� •-s..�_. -7-7 . .da .. ria, ...o a' T1 i it (' ra I i s • M i M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Hugh Talcott, Current Planner RE: Variance Request $V-14-93 for April 26, 1993 Meeting DATE: April 21, 1993 APPLICANT: James O. Hale for 0 & P Ltd. /�,�- REQUEST: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-842/ Buffers, and 16-7-850(g), Parking Distancety> t This variance request relates to existing and proposed parking provisions at the Oceanwalk/Beet Western development on South Forest Beach,Drive. Some history of the project is necessary to understand the particulars about the request and the relationship of this project to the adjacent buildings. All of the Oceanwalk and Xanadu development was permitted prior to the Town's incorporation. The platted parcels of land that the buildings and their parking are on are irregular in shape and include cross easements for different purposes. Phases ii and III of the Oceanwalk development were recognized by the Town Planning Commission in 1984, as reflected in the attached letter dated December 30, 1984. The last two buildings which are the subject of this variance request were built in 1990. The five story building fronting on South Forest Beach Drive contains 40 units, while the three story building at the rear of the development contains 32 units. Because this project was permitted based on a prior approval, the minimum number of parking.spaces established in the LMO wera not required. When the Planning Commission reviewed this previously approved project in 1984, they expressed concern that, due to the lock -out units proposed, the parking to be provided may not be sufficient. Therefore, a condition was placed on the Planning Commission action stating that if, after one year from approval, the Commission found that parking was inadequate, additional park ;rug could be required in a 50' easement strip at the rear of the property that extends to i Cordillo Parkway. Since the project was opened, the Town has not been aware of any parking problems or been requested by the Ii applicant to determine if any additional parking was needed. • • s Current LVD,standards would .require that a total-oU421 spaces. ;be -provided for the two buildings: 114-,are.,now.:provided. Since construction of the development, the adjacent Xanada project has contested the rights of Oceanwalk to install parking within a different 50' access easement extending from South y{i1 • .. S. �, •{l �bf il, } t11� `� 7 } '��iiww .�� 'i._ ,M• .. rX, ..if,Pini`T,....zfi�5fii�31�.�':F��a':u'�.le?�7'.wrx:i a3,.�:7ii..f:Ht 'I' 1 l -. d + J. t h 1 1; ,i2:id:�dA,�l::;kl'�.1?;�St.......,� • .1 f V-14-93 April 21, 1993 Page two Forest Beach Drive 383' in the property. The State Court of Appeals declared by order of May 7, 1992 that Oceanwalk (JHP Hotel Corp. listed as defendant) had no right to install parking within this specific easement. The result was the loss of 23 spaces that are now in this'easement. The applicant is now requesting that he be -allowed to replace these parking spaces in the rear 501, access easement owned by the applicant. _ ;..--- Installation of parking in this strip could not allow the required buffers from adjacent properties, nor could it meet the minimum distance from the building that it is to serve. Thus, these variances are now requested. Following is a review of the variance criteria as they relate to this application: A. What extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to this property? The property is an existing nonconformity which was developed in many phases prior to the current Land Management Ordinance. Like other nonconforming developments, there is minimal undeveloped land and little flexibility for parking arrangements. The development was planned based on an interpretation by the developers that they had the right to utilize the front easement for parking, which was affirmed by a Beaufort County Judge but overturned by a Superior Court Judge. Without this parking, there would be minimal parking for the front 5 story building. The site development does not provide for any other apace for additional parking except in the rear easement, located approximately 900 feet from the front building. B. How would the application of the ordinance to this property . cause an unnecessary-har8:yhip? r.` If a variance were not granted from buffer standards, no additional parking could be installed on the site as there is no •; other property rnmed by the applicant suitable for parking except for the rear easement. Parking and a drive aisle must utilize j 40' of width, which would leave only 51 of buffer on each side. x The adjacent properties are also fully developed and could not be considered for any shared parking arrangement. Without perking to'replace the'''lost spaces ,:;;the^development j •+ would have 30,parking'-apaces less than�th�,iZl.uinimum,.requized to be provided under the'LMO'` This would lie a significant • • parkin deficien that 4 deficiency probably leave sam►e�resideats or .; •_would. guests with no place, -•to. park. Due to the rear strip's distance from the front building, a variance would be required from Section 16-7-850(q), which states r T�7 ; lrj'it' 42: l • J F'1 , f I: � r � i t t� i. .5 r x A � '� �: � that parking shall be within a reasonable walking distance of the buildings they are designed to serve. A guideline of 500, is suggested for hotel or residential use, however the closest space in this rear easement would be over 900, from the front building. This section does allow exceptions to this distance requirement when provisions are made for a shuttle service or other transit from the parking area. Therefore, a variance from this section would not be necessary if the applicant were to make transit or shuttle provisions. Staff at.the Best Western building could provide such services as guests check in or out. C. How are these conditions peculiar to this property and not shared by neighboring properties? Neighboring properties are similarly over-developed with inadequate space for any possible parking expansion, however this variance request is the result of a specific legal action related only to this property. D. How would the variance not cause detriment to the public good or to the purpose and intent of the ordinance? Property adjacent to the 50, rear easement where replacement parking is proposed is intensely developed close to, the property lines. The intent of the buffer standards is to provide some visual and spatial separation between developments. The distance of 51 on each side of the proposed parking would not provide much of a buffer. However, in this case, the need for parking and the hardships that exist necessitate compromise on this buffer standard. Heavy landscaping on each side of the parking, and pervious parking only would minimize the impact of the parking area on adjacent developments. Drainage concerns and the existing amount of impervious surface, on the development site would dictate that the parking be pervious. Since the rear easement is the only place available for replacement parking, the distance standard of 5001 could not be met. However, a variance would not be required from this section if the applicant provides some type of transit or shuttle service. This service would be in the best interest of the patrons and residents and also meet the intent of the ordinance as a variance would not be necessary if this service were provided. STAFF RECOMMMIDATION: . .. . Staff finds that aiiirdship- Wffer 'standards ...... since the rear 50, strip of land is the only available to the applicant to install replacement parking. Further, the amount Of parking being removed, as a result of the Court;=OrderAs necessary for the facilities. The intent of the buffer standard could be met if the minimal buffers that could be provided are heavily landscaped. Staff;:,,wou?,d,,:therefore..recommend.- approval;.of .the -,variance <request- from-rLMO- Section 16 7,-842 to allow the installation of this parking with:;substantiel^lanecaped buffere.� Staff does,Ynot—find that there would be 4► hardphip to y require that the operator of the development provide"s'ome type of transit or shuttle service to the rear remote parking. This parking,,areaarwould°clearly not be within an reasonableodistance for guests or residents.and would be contrary to the intent of ; theordinance where the option of providing shuttle service exists., we; thereforerrecod"zid'ideniai:,of �thiss�requested variance'.} n ! I ' � r ' (I -�trylli "A� llLi(!i 1 lIr: 11 . f 1 ! , � r � r � 1 , 1 •t til 01'iP ,Il F I IV I 1 A{ 1, p�t• Al 4 a� ii, fl t f { i x ae44r4c.C'S��t ,.�U L ij • f 4•A 1. Id 3. A! I r 1 rt < AM1 MMS p � 1 s S i I r, -f 1 • :.-�'F°1 spy,, 1 1 x e`' • L 1 • • ' !L•IOA '' 1 tM TfN/Yt' [t IOCLtO a tILTO. OY. i, [L • M t • TY W M . . 'tIt NTMIMlT If f1�NT ': odd r c s•u �L c [. r Mr'j' OL=O ,EL.0 0'AC,Wo e t. fY A/t. :tu J P.IY \S 71= \IYf NAn it't* •' J Y Yr ItO Af LtAR [ Wr • i ItftYT .Y M. ILOaY Y 1" 1 9!J{•Nu C". r[\[•ff A...:u 1/Oil. YATYf Y•OCIAfM NIn `•, Iq•/ ••• • . • IMNNI.L[ YUYICUU. LWAL YtUULA'Iw/ IfatY r"1 AYr CMTAI[ Kw0 Y\[YC Y'OfLn: -SMS Y •nLMtvl .so .Y :YI wsrGG[•. Yxu ca:.nxflN a :au n SECTION [L[v1T10N .. � 'n tN[/[ Mtf/.tl(T[D AI[Y. tNTYMCf 1. DRAINAGE r f'rnl u wvrMlNlNtx 1, [Lntl�u[wm 1• LEL[vtnox CONTROL 'STRUCTURE DNpN Lw•ra ; oMw•at 'x4 xat uswar • Y.r• _. / n\.. I'F:, 4r. wF a rr .r ruouM[ n i ;� r Y . L, .. _. A• • rrnrvu:nn n •I r 1 t14 k 1 lA r II}\TE0 TLNM (j • • t I YITM1n YT 1 .Yer �t[r, et n 1 r 11 n In 1 IM /CION II -II. . H— I� • YUL1' •Iy +• LIM � �1:7r-r� w�i1�. �'- • MnN Ino M im 1 V . . Ir'Y/I4t I i3 NUL h.• :M:r COLKT:ff tfrtTe . 1 ••o L • . Y.aCo II:CTfp b rNIL f!•i AY [M / •� • •_ L:NY.IAI "I 4[ I.C1 N M: Lf ON N[YN YLW •� LI50 N .t•.t NTJI. Lrp:Nl1:C( .I :r:Y3N {C•1-rN AIR I ��-� IL i• 1'. JJ :4•IY11•'rt ]r 1•W II/fNIW. / O _� Nitlr,/il.� �•• M6: Lull L' 1 YI • rine. i.-DiliittYi• W __ IIIAIr I.M. U1111•... Itf nl /MIMfT f• \Yr "It. a IM IMPURITY [NOW ' - M •Y✓1 • ...:WtL NA:t:r :INt0(AL L \ •[ YY M I.. CpnLCl. - 1Vic • - VIL Day N•.400RO111NfM ' - I [NItTINO f 1•WYYYI bTTMi lL.•[f .# •' 10•r.F A• CLM\C YO YYYICY I\MYIMI LILLY NW N �� {•�f I\I[tt ACCIVYIMLT Yln A rt. 1 ' Ob IMf[ rI--of OM • 0.t •NY 111 AN 1. ' Nti1M f 1 'COYtIf IY IITI t :• 1W TM colplYt »• �. • •• I• rtf'11' IIIIYIIp I/A Il111,011111 C!IBLI. -"ITS AN IArt' It tram NO � "It MTM Y . t!..•�• •�: �r r• • 11♦�Aj T •`IK • AMCLNIYLC FYLf MLbp 1 (N' [LYItMR.4M•. \LL 11t :TI[i tip wonwmmr j•• ••' �`� All r pCiLrlr Ur11CYln til xr :pNn\CMIf a ff •''T •r.4I•Ni far T"N OClT 4 Ati} cumlATt0/ n _ ® Ir t .f ai Yr nn yieLY•IN s �0�M1• J •'r t .r L^Y t :: L o .mall•IYnM 10�OW Tf0� �• • • Y. !tt'tVAiIt3 [ +•�• �fOYfl[f'CI101 �rl 1. N \t N•11. / YLA to Ii •It TIR1 6, Came O.70f� L Yttt AMP l:tiNMW 'Y '' I nt WI . - `.I •trflrN •rM•N•f•rylf 0[NT • 4TA[ •' ! r" CMIInCf UY !II Ln:n IYAYfW I/. ,LIYI n::flC ri0/ LI' .AtY1\LTOtt fill TI NA.L 1L It In N •\I tI1NY 1f TNf O�cJj •NYCM Jf•:IALrM .. _ `,I + _ . , Y1Y,IIMIY 1414IYT L4 J CYY f EUY N 9291P.1110 NYts t 1 [ fl • I MIR. fYN NfR 409 =0 ' a N : fi Y.Y I [ W. CO.,AOR it I JIY 20. MSW.N TR NnN � • � YY , Yltt IM lT NA ..LIN Yr.L M[Itt. r C! 1'•Li1M'- M 14 t MY • !1• AtM\LtIC ..' •°K . �Y�1 I I tr .Y r •tii pIw uttiw • N ♦ 1 11+�rl • I �[ ! 1 It}.J iF qt n :ICN rM OWINN. t :r'N4 1110 �, •■li f/1 :: R A L • fY•. MYA /'.N m. aft IMI. • a7 YIfIN a TN SIM CLMLIM FNM. OI W fWLIC .. JIMI,IRTAtt. ttw\r ♦ ..{L+ , flN[OtrA11RR /M INW�:ONr:MLttIY. •/.1Y f114La ONORAM NIM IWr" t 1 1 r• • YpAMRtN r[MIC.. • • .. , . �� III f f C 0.MI[ 11YtTL11Rff Y OII NT11 YfMI 1 • 11 IflllNf NWM[•. r • YOL.• t•1{N /. S •ii�MIG�1•f •�It � W [NInYt ti •. � I -._ ..... � .0..0.• • ... '.. .. • .... - i ; f11M1N OWWLO. KMR M 10CIt 11I•■I�• k•♦ ' . gOffI1R ffL1lCfIfR :•\ f 1f'11 1Y y, I •i • I . TRE?LA01MEN SPAC+i pR1/RN►FY M1. - t�. r I ' s1Ywt•►s tlTt'„ •LAM - 15_ fR�1°' ` `" I OCLANwALR C0M00NINIYYt: MNK 3-' 'Z' ' lYY1 .aN.NA R♦T71 if1� i • - 1 r �\ - r I t r � ftp rt. far Riff frwr -I+ .. 0.RpIRNff/f0.'M RII• IARAlNNA1R{ � � i 1 )1 TRIM IwiO ) � '. Irr[ lR1MROM CAIi1N MN[AMRRM AINIfAM wC10 Rf ( ' a a. 'U �'IR Kf»► - , t �wWr I! 1 `11MA MTIMLL 7777 I ANARq*INNA 1 r �a'`rin'11 }'b' 3'r„if�.3i r lrhirr 11 i ,?4 t. r- 11 • sti.ra�. 1 • f h•!.;11„ 3r.,,V:1� ...S.L-)fna'a,y.. '� _ , +:ta„r ?�'+.zti S.. `�,1?: r.F J. . r ,l>..•:. 4;, . liig Application No.: f.5 MIE [ID, @OVTOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND MAR 26 IM ONE TOWN CENTER COURT HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC 29928 Planning Division Phone (803) 686-0904 APPLICalaff FOR VARIANCE I Instructions: Please TM of PRINT legibly. Attach additional sheets if needed. Note: Variances will not be for dengity. granted we or Project Name: Oceanwalk Phases II and III %%z 11ap Numbar(s) see attached isx-and Parcel( -------- A - Location of prcjec-t7---T9-T0-UTR-r—oresb-- Beach trivet -4fland,act - SC Base Zoning Districts) of property: RD -1 central forest Beacn zon-rFff7DTfft7Pftt AVP'icR 1* Overlay Zoning District(s): Kc Road ors or Gver lay--Z-6-nTW§-DTfftrftt Owner(s) of Record AwLicaut(s)* AL). Duly Authorized Agents* Name: O&P, Ltd. f/k/a JHP Hotel Corporation of H.H. Mr. Reggie Matthews Address: P.O. B Hilton -Me -a -a island—sc Z99ju -di[MEW-0. "are -,-Esquire Phone: (d03)U42-3TUU— *XAQ Section 16-7-603 requires applicants or the authorized agent to have a local LLLA9 address and telephone number. Section Number(s) of the Ordinance from which a -99 l 16-7-842 pertaini to Buffer Areas; Sect. 16-10 pertan"ngoil-a eeW bwrk*ng—. ociplAtely and spocifical y requested Huffer Buffer Areas r the variance: duce Or eliminate t he re��uired, by R- �r! !a'L LMO 16-7-842 to allow Fnr 4R -rt on strip of* -W— --=Ly why the variance is requested To low for fafffg ata seater distance a than required from the buildings-Eelf r! - are designed to serve as require y Sect on 7- bubsec tion G. U50 Attach the following jLtaus (on LW Section 16_7_=): 1. JLnezrauve SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUK. FOR RESPONSES INCORPORATED -'HEREIN By answeEW -8M of the f*L'*w'W 4R66ticu (criteria for grenting tb%R2?ERENC: variance): A- Mat QXtX0Wa=xr and amo%ftonal conditions Pertain to this propertr (also, dope, topography)? 8. Bow Womm the application of the ordinance tA this 9&%Waxtr cWme an mukao"Saxy hardship? C- NOW are these *M"tJ=X POCRIIALC to this Pavertr and not dmixed by neighboring propertisgI D. am would the variance not cause 'ietrimnt to I tJ'w publig good a . r to the PuxPcdeg and intent of the ordinance? *property for parking.. f 3. A dimensioned site Plan that clearly'Unstrotes, zelatioo to the affected site and to t ie9aastid variance is i .parcels and h]e copy cf this Plan, an larger than u1 • q,also be submittedP�i vicinity sketch showing the 9cniral sits location aand access �ntu accurately referenced to the nearest Pnb� � Vehicular 5. A" Non9 motion dessnd necessary by the cpplicant 6. Filing face Offcheck100 payableto ibwo`of Hilton eead`U aod,' Show Pr*J-ct ease oa j To the best of say keowlAP. tb� 1t+ioraatioo 'oo this is docmuotatica true feetual and aPPlioation nod; aocoaP�Uf1AD cooditilaas Imposed bT the,'ibMa cf limt. a Qa�d X here � to' abide by all S understand that sn� Laos is it obligation transfarablebyi sates s'Y to the proPertl. and era a,* � I tT:il ] 2 d i cf APPlteant (ar.DilY J►q�nt) Date _ �S a rii 'spay t 1 ..� lase. pt t.0! t I� � 'S l'��{51.4i4 1 r �R lieV, ! c S ySy;�Ff�yA `i1�1+'I+kY _ X�Y-�� 4• Cy�rr ire j4 :i t I J� r5 i t sl�''lyl r+r r: 4. + ! n t �'•.( �' v e -iP'4Y7 #r• +�rl ^ti,�tt s..r K ..t..... ._ ? ,I„:ie tiiuf: Mtw�, e • M .APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE NARRATIVE OVERVIEW The project is located at 36 South Forest Beach Drive and consists of two buildings utilized as the Oceanwalk Beat Western. The first building defined in the Master Deed is Building #1, consisting of a three-story building containing a total of thirty- two (32) apartments with divisible dwelling units and Building #2, a five -story building which contains forty (40) dwelling units with divisible dwelling units and a private restaurant.*..=Building #2 is located on a .918 parcel on South Forest Beach. Building #1 is located on a .925 parcel located adjacent to the pre-existing Oceanwalk I Horizontal Regime and behind the Xanadu Property Regime. Adjacent to this parcel is a fifty -foot (501) strip of land which runs from South Forest Beach Drive to Cordillo Parkway. The Variance requested is to reduce or eliminate the buffer areas required by LNO 16-7-842 to allow for the insertion of parking in a fifty -foot strip of property running from the back portion of the project to Cordillo Parkway. Additionally, Variance is requested from Section 16-7-850 to allow for parking at a greater distance than required from the buildings they are designed to serve as required by Subsection g of Section 16-7-850. The Variance is requested to comply with an Order issued by the Honorable Thomas Kemmerlin, Jr. on Nay 7, 1992. In this ruling, this Order requires the removal of twenty-three (23) parking spaces located in a portion of the fifty -foot strip property located closest to South Forest Eeach Drive, which is subject to an ingress and an egress easement serving the Xanadu Regime (a copy of the Order attached hereto as Exhibit "B". As a result of the removal of this parking, the Oceanwalk Best Western will lose a total of 23 parking spaces and will lose an additional 14 to allow access to the parking area proposed in the back portion of the fifty -foot strip of property. Ia. What extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to this property (size, shape, topography?) • In order to comply with the above referenced Order, it will be necessary to remove 23 parking spaces from the front area of the fifty -foot strip. The only area available for the placement of additional parking is located at the rear of the project toward i Cordillo Parkway. The utilisation of this area for parking will f require the removal of an additional 4_parking spaces. This strip 1 of property has a length of approximately 920 feet and a width of •; 50 feet. It is located approximately 25 feet from the Building #1 and approximately 900 feet from Building #2. The portion of the 50 foot strip located closest to the building contains a storm drainage retention area serving the covered tennis courts located 1 • • C] 5 r as part of the Van Der Meer Tennis complex. Given the width of the area, variances are needed from the buffers in order to accommodate the replacement parking, and since this is the only area available to the applicant for parking, a variance from the location requirements are also needed. lb. Haw Mould the application of the ordinance to this property cause an unnecessary hardship? , r Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a December:•10, 1984 letter from Raren Popek, Senior Planner for the Town of Hilton Head to Mr. Rummer R. Viewanathan. This documented that the Planning Commission recognized the pre-existing rights under which the Oceanwalk Phases I and II were to be built (Phase I consisting of the existing Oceanwalk Regime, one containing 79 dwelling units with lockouts) and the remaining 72 are part of the present application consisting of Phases II and III Oceanwalk. In this letter, the Planning Commission started that they would review the parking requirements of this project one year from the date of approval, and if it was found that the parking war, insufficient to serve the units, the developer had agreed to provide an additional parking in the amount up to 75 spaces in the event that the Planning Commission determined that additional parking was needed to serve the project. No such requirement was ever imposed by the Town and the Developer proceeded to build the project providing 114 spaces which is seven short of present LNO requirements as shown on the analysis contained in the letter attached hereto as Exhibit D, which was approved by the letter of Mr. Hugh Talcott attached as Exhibit "E". Twenty three of the spaces to be utilised are located in an easement area, which at that time, provided access and egress and parking for the adjacent Xanadu Regime. On September 6, 1989, an action was brought by the Xanadu Regime requiring that such area not ba utilized for parking. On January 2, 1990, the Honorable Thomas Remmerlin, Jr. ruled in favor of OAP, Ltd. to allow parking to remain in this area. This ruling was subsequently overturned by the South Carolina Court of Appeals and the Order dated May 7, 1992 was enured requiring the removal of all parking within this area. i This resulted in the project having 30 spaces loss than required by the LMO standards (23 from loss of parking in Xanadu Easement an d7 W representing prexisting shortfall from LHO requirements) as reflected on the analysis attached as Exhibit D. This application is to replace the parking which is being lost due to the removal as { required by Judge Kesmwrlin's May 7, 1992 Order. • lo. Now are these conditions peauliar to this property and ,' • • not shared by neighboring proportion? w 2 P 7 Vy S' 1\ • .77 • y ,. r� Y 1 � s j. ll4 �, -, b 7.e u1,��L� �8;t"A 1�'�c�a1 47 .; 5. �� 2�j7. :Fi t �. ..,, '. f p tf �W�q�~�'�;j , rf. * a�'a �f � �. s e M This area of South Forest Beach has been substantially developed and there are not other areas available for the placement of parking to serve the project. No other locations are available to the applicant for such parking and the placement of the additional parking is in an area previously found acceptable by the Town Planning Commission as reflected in the letter from Ns. Popek on the attached Exhibit "C". id. now would the variance not cause detriment to the public good or to the purposes and intent of the ordinance? By allowing the replacement of the parking within the fifty foot easement area, sufficient parking will be available to be utilized as part of the existing development within the tract. This will reduce the strain and potential problems that could result from insufficient parking. Furthermore, the placement of parking in this rear fifty -foot strip will simply represent a continuance of the existing parking which is located between the Xanadu ingress/egress easement and the southern boundary of the fifty -foot strip of property in question. Furthermore, the parking within this fifty -foot strip is to be located in an area which is adjacent to the parking area utilized by Forest Gardens and the area utilized as part of the Player's Club project. 2. Written certification, signed by the owners) of record of the property, that the owner(s) consents to the request for variance. Certification is not necessary if the owner is the applicant. Since the owner is the applicant, this portion is not applicable. 3. A dimensioned site plan that clearly illustrates the requested variance in relation to the affected site and to surrounding parcels and uses. 1 reproducible copy of this plan, no larger than 11" x 170, mast also be submitted. Submitted herewith is a plat of lots I, II and III of Oceanwalk Horizontal Property Regim, showing the location of the property in question. Further submitted is the approved parking plan dated 6/19/90. Note that the spaces which are indicated to be deleted representing spaces 72-94 show those spaces that are located within the Zanadu easement that are to be rw oved. Additionally, four additional spaces will be removed with,. the rear of.that fifty -foot portion 3 4. A vicinity sketch shoring the general site location and depicting vehicular access routes accurately referenced to the nearest public road. See the modified parking plan referenced in item #3 above. W, OM1,. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF BEAUFORT ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 89 -CP -07-1714 XANADU HORIZONTAL ) PROPERTY REGIME, ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) ORDER-- ) OCEAN WALK HORIZONTAL ) PROPERTY REGIME, JHP ) HOTEL CPRORATION and ) CLECKLEY & MCGEE, INC., ) Defendants. ). The Court of Appeals has ruled, and it is a final ruling, that the Defendants had no right to put parking spaces in an easement in which Xanadu had an interest. The Order of remand embodied an injunction against the Defendants. Xanadu moves now for an Order: i 1. RequiringDefendant JHP Hotel Corporation I to remove all of the lined parking places from the 50' x 383' easement which is -the subject of this actions ' 2s Requiring Defendants JHP Hotel Corporation and Cleckley & McGee, Inc. to remove the beamed encroachments from the southern side of the subject easement and to resiore:the.• islands which existed prior .to:the Defendants' encroachment ,upon the " easement;', 3. Requiring Defendants JHP Hotel Corporation and Cleckley,&:McGee, Inc.,,, .to restore to working order all subterranean lines belonging to the; Plaintiff, said lines being damaged or destroyed by construction in the subject ease ment. 4. Permanently enjoining :all Defendants from blocking or in any way reducing the 50' width',`- of the easement of ingress Cand egress which is the subject of this action 'r-'_ z � :_: r�'� i i i i �. a.: Vice'?resident The Delta.Grcup 2 Corpus Christi Circle- ircleSuite Suite101 Professicoal"Building Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 Dear Kuaa:: This Tette: ia'official notification of the action of the Planning Coudision ae its December S, L984 coating concerning your special -about request Oeeaa- walk. The Commission voted to recognize that;, the Oceaawalk project to '"lock -out" units. Dun to their coaeato abauc'the potaacial.ispaets of lack - Out units they agreed that -;dun to`ehe mature of r� your vested. righes.projecc-- You would reduce eha aucbar of dva131af units to ba built From 180.to 151; acting that chase 151,coacaia lock-ouc,units. .They also vo cCad':to allow the ' eaawalk project to contain a`Private food and beverage Facility as a. private amanicY,so.lcng'as ic;is,racordsd in the castor dead and,covenancs'aa:such and not used to:serve:,thcpubl c. In, addition, Choy voted; 6,toviav chs• Parking requichair ameaca of this p;ojatc with the lock,outunits' one,Y"i,from'the the date of their approve*. Ac chis'tima if it is;;Foundehac'parking is inrom to.sar+a units you will afrae to provide is ch as �W't4 73 addieiaaal parking ypacaa, as errant co,satia! eha Davelo y pmant Standirds:Oidinance. r "Car sly t lcarea Popok Senior Planar KP/dw, cc 'ailj,+am legal • Olansalk project fila 1 _.. s:,l `':' _, ...,,#a�f7�. i•<+�'_„+..,.0 .,..�'nti+-r(.r..�tst.,u: �,...,k;',..,�`_r:;�;�?f.,,..1.��t.,,�, • COASTAL ,:� r Vrern SVi�.♦G.....•. 70MI�e/SANo so"925 R� &ENGINEERING CO. June 19, 1990 ter: L.ANO SURVEYING lNGINRSRING MYOROGRAPHIC SURVEYING Mr. tl19I% TalUULL _ Current Planner t=omof Hilton Head p.6. Sox 6659 Milton Head Is", S.C. 29938 Res parking Spaces;Ocean Walk Dear Hugh: Thank you for taking time to rep iewtha,wparking^�re9uirements • I..w .Th �. 1.r... .. r•A .. As a result of the meeting Iwwish to confirm the following: 1. The two spaces adjacent to the 5 story building which were eliminated for a turnaround wili.now be used for parking as originally intended. 2. pour spaces will be added. in the 50 foot wide right-ol-way numbered 51 through 54 on the plans... 3. T•t.4•9 analysis will now look like this: LK Requir•mentes 5 Sty.bldg. 40 units = 1.5-;60 spaces 3 Sty. bldg. 32 un48 spaces its z 1.5: 25 employees : 0.5 13'spac•s Required Bpaces Available 114 spaces Shortfall 7 spaces Using the 114 spaces Required compact -114"i.l/3� 38 spaces. Shown on plans -,36 Compact spaces If the above agrees with your version. the meeting the With would appreciate a letter stating that; construction my pO all parking and drives as, the Completion of the buildings is iminent.rkia 0ne Enclosed are two sets of. the plans showing the pa g� set may be given to sally. Krebs if she ,has..further investigations to do.' n regard to trees--- Thanking you again for your'considesation on this swttes. aine•r,•iy:•.. • ' A.A.'_ Mastaeiani,P•M• AAM:kct Enc: . CC: Mr. Marion Wooten • Rr. Jorgen Petersen 1 r a ! ' j f � 1 Jd r a i l t 1 1 , k � '„� br rY.slr�Fr Sj }Ptic it �' 4 t' r,ihv�tiyu , tY 5�<4�'Fe , _.Crb7�R r 1 iF r r i Yx d S Meq 1 r � � � � �� ti��s�F L ll+,t i s •fit x � � t • AV y� r i ,�LW,� y x �,: a ,..{� .?!s �.... �'..., .. 1 ? ixtZs. 1��.hY.aaiwd.:r'�{�Ja° �.�u,v:.��aY r) a_[�y4 >•1 �t_s.... a��: ��'`da �i�c st � �� s F June 22, 1990 Mr. •A1 Mastriani Coa►•.tal.Surveying and Engineering Co.-- P.O. Box 1427 Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 RE: ocean Walk Revised Parking j Dear Al: The revised parkiuy la,Yuut for the final phases of ocean Walk is approved as shown on three (3) drawings dated June 19, 1990. This `pa, ing layout and the number of spaces are.referenced in your letter of June 19, 1990 to the Town. Please note that compact and handicap spaces must be appropriately. mar' Where pervious material is indicated, this materialcannot be crusher run. Approval of .the same plan by Sally Krebs, Town Vatural Resources Administrator, is conditioned on the following: 1) In addition to the nine.(9) pervious spaces shown, spaces' numbered 8, 9, -and.29-must also be pervious. The previously approved site plan for this development notes that overflow parking may be constructed in the fifty (50) foot right- of-way connecting. to DeAllyon Avenue._ As discussed with Jim Hale last week, this may only be done if, after the facility is opened,'Town Planning Staff determines that this addi.ional parking is necessary.. Please let me know if you have any questions';'or desire to; change 1 this layout in any way. We appreciate your _taking the time'to } modify these plans to improve this project. Sin er ly, .ug Talcott Current Planner cc: Sally Krebs file .� � , t t�-.c+.�'Arti-eu taw '% . _ .. e • MOTION 4-26-93 BOA V-14-93 James Hale for O & P Ltd/JHP Hotel Corp. of HHI Hugh Talcott Mr. Robinson - I move that we approve a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-842 dealing with Buffers and I would like to put it into the record that the Applicant withdrew the''request-for Variance from LMO Section,16=7-850(8)"l with:,the,lunderstanding that he would provide,a:<;shuttle''service. Mr. Israel - Second Discussion -,None Mr. Miller For the Motion Mr. Bail - For the Motion Mr. Israel - For the Motion Mr. Robinson - For the Motion Vice -Chair. Brown For the Motion Chairwoman James recused herself from Variance request V-14-93 due to a possible Conflict of Interest. Background V-14-93 Vice Chairman Brown - I want to ask one question before the Motion. Hugh, from what you said, can we ignore Section 16-7- 850(g)7 Hugh Talcott - That is correct because .they will be.complying with the requirements of that Section. Vice Chairman Brown - The Motion should only deal with Section. 16-7-842. Hugh Talcott - To approve that and to deny 16-7-850(q) - yes. e! Mr. Robinson - To deny what? it Hugh Talcott — Section 16-7-850(8) which was advertised,as a requested Variance as asked by the Applicant. If that were f denied he would have to provide shuttle service that he.says.he will provide. Mr. Robinson But we do need to deny it. Hugh Talcott - Yes. Deny that one and.'approve the other one. Mr. Hale I will withdraw. i. • MOTION 4-26-93 BOA V-14-93 James Hale for O & P Ltd/JHP Hotel Corp. of HHI Hugh Talcott Mr. Robinson - I move that we approve a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-842 dealing with Buffers and I would like to put it into the record that the Applicant withdrew the''request-for Variance from LMO Section,16=7-850(8)"l with:,the,lunderstanding that he would provide,a:<;shuttle''service. Mr. Israel - Second Discussion -,None Mr. Miller For the Motion Mr. Bail - For the Motion Mr. Israel - For the Motion Mr. Robinson - For the Motion Vice -Chair. Brown For the Motion Chairwoman James recused herself from Variance request V-14-93 due to a possible Conflict of Interest. Background V-14-93 Vice Chairman Brown - I want to ask one question before the Motion. Hugh, from what you said, can we ignore Section 16-7- 850(g)7 Hugh Talcott - That is correct because .they will be.complying with the requirements of that Section. Vice Chairman Brown - The Motion should only deal with Section. 16-7-842. Hugh Talcott - To approve that and to deny 16-7-850(q) - yes. e! Mr. Robinson - To deny what? it Hugh Talcott — Section 16-7-850(8) which was advertised,as a requested Variance as asked by the Applicant. If that were f denied he would have to provide shuttle service that he.says.he will provide. Mr. Robinson But we do need to deny it. Hugh Talcott - Yes. Deny that one and.'approve the other one. Mr. Hale I will withdraw. i. TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 I I—ey W. L„1ng, Jr. Mayor , lenry Driessen, Jr, Mayor ProTem October 30, 1992 Certified Mail Caundl Mrmbcrs P 249 335 276 Prank Urafman R-11 L. Candle, Jr. O -n. C. Mmin tomteepees Mr. Terry Finger - - D"`°�yG I'e'ki"' P.O. Drawer 5280N Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Michael G. O'Neill foa•n Manager Re: V-17-92 - Variance from LMO Section 16-7 — 1030 to permit a sign within the required setback from William Hilton Pkwy. for Heritage Motors Dealership, located adjacent to Port Royal Plaza. Dear Mr. Finger: On Tuesday; October 27, 1992 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustmentheard your Variance request regarding the Heritage Motors Company sign. The Board of. Adjustment Motion was to deny the Variance from LM0.16-7-1030 to allow a sign in the required front setback. The Board found no permits had been issued for the.sign and.that a hardship did not exist, because a new relocated sign could "provide more exposure for the business. Further, the Board of Adjustment' requested the Applicant to remove the - sign and the triangle sign structure. ` The Motion was adopted. If you should need any further information please contact me at 686-0904. Sincerely, p . •i faghP. Talcott Current Planner rs F.3W. J.puu j�j ,Ifr usowo.,r.»w, cc: BOA Monbers Steve -Riley '� S ,� a m• 9 Tom Breehko �r 1 eru Greg DeLoach' o �e.�` g Heritage Motors „ +i ' BOA File ✓ P$" W Project File' s • a a ;i Y)i ' � r ' �� °rr � ti HPT:BJlI a w Ir I ' K0 N 5`�SIX �. �r 1�Mi til.. _ a vue luwn %.enter .our:, nuton peau isaanu, a.%-. Arca 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Hmey W. Ewe-•& )r. - .. Mrym HemEm—'Jr- April 27, 1993 Certified Mail MryorPmT= P 345 026 259 Cauncl MemberFrmk . RuneULr.CandlL)r. Mr. - E. H. Shutt ✓ ��17 _ - T=PftpIn Heritage Motor Car Company - omee Dmotb,•G. Pakim P.O. Box 22889 Hilton Head Isly, a, SC 29925 Mkhm1 O.0W.1U TownMwagw 'Re: Reconsidera ; :a ofa previous decision by the Board of Adjustment a the October 27, 1992 Meeting concerning Variance .V-17-92, to deny requested Variance from sign setback. Property is located at 460 William Hilton Pkwy. and is identified as Parcel 202 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map N8. Dear Mr. Shutt: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton-,Head,Island Poard of Adjustment heard your Reconsideration request regarding the Board's 30/27/92 decision. The Board of Adjqstment,�Xot_W was to deny the request to overturn the Board!s 10/27 93 ecision on V-17-92. The new survey showed the point,o e,sign to"be 1' 41' behind the Right -of -Way liner and in.the Setback:;by'8 2/3'. The sign , remained a nonconforming sign , The,Motion was adopted. , - 1 A copy of the Board of,Adjustment Notice of Action letter from October 27, 1992 meetingis:'enclosed. Because, this earlier _ action was affirmed, this previous' -decision` must be complied with. If you have any.:questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ; Hugh P. Talcott Current Planner cc: BOA Members Steve 'Riley ✓Of ! Tom Brechko ✓ ; b ' • " Greg Dela] h✓ C i:tJa ti t r 801► File � '�1�`�, sJ^ s'i � ��, Project File ✓ t~'�;,,+ v pr; KPT:BJM �� tri5r'tii t t j9p r N�iw �/1•i ��f��ii+�� F Y $ �{ ii �ti � Zr r��sr tJ ��1 im tl' • ,� TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewlns. Jr. Mayor Henry Wt—Jr. April 27, 1993 Certified Maj.l Mryor PmTem P 345 026 259 • Coundi Member Frank &af n" Runell 6 Condit, Jr. . Mr. E. H. Shutt De""s C. Martin Tom Peeples Heritage Motor Car Company - DerothyG.rerklne P.O. Box 22889 Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 Michael C.O'NelU Town Messer Re: Reconsideration of a. previous decision by the Board of Adjustment at the October 27, 1992 Meeting concerning Variance V-17-9$, -to deny requested Variance from sign setback_. Property is located at 460 William Hilton Pkwy. and is identified as Parcel 202 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map /8. j Dear Mr. Shutt: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town%of Hilton:Head Is, ' Board of Adjustment -heard ,your Reconsideration request regaru-ng the Boardfs 10/27/92 decision. The Board of Adjustment;Motion was to deny the request to overturn'the'Board!sdeaiaion on:V-].7-92. The new 10/27/93of'.the•sign survey 'showed the pointto be:1' 4" behind the Right-of=Way`;line .and in1�the'Setback:,by 8 2/3 . The sign remained a%nonconlorminq sign ;The.;Motion was adopted. A copy of the Board pir.,"justment Notice of. Action letter from October 27, 1992 .beeting-islanclosed Because this earlier action was affirmed,',4- tfti s. previous,�deciaion must be `complied with:' If you have any?),' uaetions',,pleil do not hesitate to - contact me. Sincerely, , �s Hugh P. Talcott Current Planner cc: BOA Members Steve Riley �. Tom Brill Greq Dmloach BOA file Project : File HPT:BJM �, 7T TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 hanky W. rm.&;r. Mayor I lenry Driem", Jr. Mayor N.Tem Co—ii Members October 30, 1992 Certified Mail P 249 335 276 Frank Bralman Russell L. CnndB, Jr. Donna C. Manin ram reeples Mr. Terry Finger DmamyG.FAim P.O. Drawer 5280 Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 �h.hael G.O;\MII lawn Mawger Re: V-17-92 - Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to permit a sign within the required setback from William Hilton Pkwy. for Heritage Motors Dealership, located adjacent to Port Royal Plaza. i Dear Mr. Finger: i On Tuesday, October 27, 1992 the Town of Hilton Head Island i Board of Adjustment, heard your Variance request regarding the Heritage Motors Company sign. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to deny the Variance from IMO 16-1-1030 to allow a sign in the required front setback. The Board found no permits had been issued for the sign and that a hardship did not exist, because a new relocated sign could .provide more exposure for the business. Further the Board of Adjustment requested the Applicant to remove the sign and the triangle sign structure. The' Motion was adopted. If you should need any further information please, contact me at 686-0904. Sincerely, �P. 4 Talcott Current Planner. vs Fonn 3M. June 1945 % , ::u..nRo.,w.»4-M cc: BOA Members ° F c 9 Steve, Riley , M. v Tom Brechko Greq . DeLoach Heritage Motors }' BOA File ✓. aQ W , 4 Project File „ m Ln HPT: HJM ni l i IIIYYY tl'rare a f of Adjustment heard your Reconsideration request regarding the, BoardFs 10/27/92 decision. The Board of. Adjustment Notion was to 'deny the request to overturn the .Board*s-10/27/93 decision on V-17-92. The new survey. showed. the point of the sign to be 1' 4" behind the Right -of -Way line.end in the Setback by 8 2/3*. The.sign remained it nonconforming sign. The .Notion was adopted. A copy of the Board of Adjustment Notice of Action letter from October 27,. 1992 meeting is enclosed. Because this earlier action was ,affirmed, this previous decision must be complied with.. ifyou have any,questions please .do not hesitate to i contact me. Sincerely, Hugh P. Talcott Current Planner cc: .BOA Nembers ,+ , {r Steve Riley. Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach BOA File rpt 3 Pro jact ;Pilo: HPT:,WN e e e • m I P:NOT—ACT.93\HERT-REC.NOA I�1 � 1 1: 1 1 1 t u.ramim�nratvantlesrxcaw•mJfim+. uiomvn.��s;-�r.�M%^AM9.T.�Y.:t'7� 1+; 1 I�1 `1 r Z. <S F, +. ��'�'�: it { F'. TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 liarvcy W. Bwm& Jr. Mayor 1e y Dr1 s n, Jr. Mayor ProTrm Caundl Members October. 30, 1992 Certified Mail P 249 335 276 Frank Bralman Russell L. Condit, Jr. .. Donna C. Martin Tom Porplm Mr. Terry Finger _ Dorothy G. Porkies P.O. Drawer 5280 Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Michael C. Owrlu Town Manager Re: V-17-92 -Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to permit a sign within the required setback from William Hilton Pkwy. for Heritage Motors Dealership, located adjacent to Port Royal Plaza. Dear Mr. Finger: On Tuesday, October 27, 1992 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request regarding the Heritage Motors Company sign. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to deny the Variance from LMO 16-7-1030 to allow a sign in the required front setback. The Board found no permits had been issued for the sign and that a hardship did not exist, because a new relocated sign could .provide more exposure for the business. Further the Board of Adjustment requested the Applicant to remove the sign, and .the triangle sign structure. The Motion was adopted. If you should need any further information please contact me at. 686-0904. F' Sincerely, 0'' Hfigh P. Talcott Current Planner ns form �OO;.Julu �Na ; ,ly u.nRo.,N.a>N w, t cc: BOA Members .'a m• Steve Riley Tom Brechko 01 Greg . DeLoach cNy��a 1 $ .n'ra Heritage Motors a ss a BOA File ✓ Y e Z y Q a W P Project File .A ru !r 11 HPT:BJM M ESQ 4 i it i • II TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing. Jr. Mayor i'l—Ddeaeen,J', April 30, 1993 Certified Mail Mayor PmTem P 345 026 259 . CouncU Membm - - Frank Erdman RunnegL.Condit.Jr. Mr. E. H. Shutt - - TomPeapls Heritage Motor Car Company Dorahy Q Perkin P.O. Box 22889 Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 Michael G. oweill Town Manager Re: Reconsideration of a previous decision by the Board of Adjustment at the October 27, 1992 Meeting concerning Variance V-17-92, to deny requested Variance from sign setback. Property is located at 460 William Hilton Pkwy. and is identified as Parcel 202 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map /8. Dear Mr. Shutt: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head.Island Board of Adjustment heard your Reconsideration rzquest regarding the Board's 10/27/92 decision. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to deny the request to overturn the Board's 10/27/92 decision on V-17-92. The new survey showed the point of the sign to be 1' 4" behind the Right -of -Way line and.in the-Setbagk,by 8 2/3'. The sign remained a nonconforming -sign., TheNotion was adopted. i' A copy of the Board of Adjustment Notice of Action letter from October 27, 1992 mestinq' s enolosed.;. Because this earlier action was affirmed, ::this previous decision must be complied with. If you have any -questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Hugh P. Talcott Current Planner cc: BOA members Steve Riley Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach Bak Fila _Project Fila HPT:WN L , y IN44CYA f :l +fi r a • TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Pax 842-7728 I larvey W. Euin& fir. _ Mayor I lcnry Ddessen, fir. Mayor ProTem un�IMem�rs October 30, 1992 Certified Mail P 249 335 276 frank Orafman Russell L. Condit')r. Donn. C. Martin F.. Peeples Mr. Terry Finger Unrorhy G. 11erk1ns P.O. Drawer 5280 Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 •.I.h-„i a. ow,iu l invn \lanagcr Re: V-17-92 -Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to permit a sign within the required setback from William Hilton Pkwy. for Heritage Motors Dealership, located adjacent to Port Royal Plaza. Dear Mr. Finger: On Tuesday, October 27, 1992 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request regarding the Heritage Motors Company sign. The. Board of Adjustment Motion was to deny the Variance from LMO 16-7-1030 to allow a sign in the required front setback. The Board found no permits had been issued for the sign and that a hardship did not exist, because a new relocated sign could .provide more exposure for the business. Further the Board of Adjustment requested the Applicant to remove. the sign and the triangle sign structure. The Motion was adopted. If you should need any further information pleasa contact me at 686-0904. Sincerely, % fghP. Talcott Current Planner PS F&M 3ft J W IM. •u.ano. »ra�,w cc: BOA Members a!! i stew Riley Toa Brechkor Heritage Motors e • a i BOA )Rile ✓ t,. > j W Project File i N HPT:BJ![ r�iM ru w i ,or • TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey w. Ewing, J,. Mayor I1—y Drleasen, Jr. Mayor PmTem April 28, 1993 Certified Hail Cowdl Membea P 345 026 261 Frank Bafman Russell L. Condit, Jr. Donna C. Martin Mr. E. H. Shutt ✓ -! TomPeePlm Doroay,.reraro Heritage Motor Car Company P.O. Box 22889 Mlabaelc.ONatu Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 Town Manager Re: V-4-93 Variance request Tabled from the 3/22/93 Meeting. For a Variance from LM0 Section 16-7-305(c) to allow expansion of a nonconforming site. Property is Heritage Motor Car Company, 460 William Hilton Parkway and is identified on Beaufort County Tax Map I8, Parcel 202. Dear Mr. Shutt: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request for the above referenced property. The Board of Adjustment granted a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(c) to allow expansion of a nonconforming site, subject to the additional landscaping agreed upon by the Applicant. If you have any questions please contact me at 686-0904. Sincerely, Pr,4ia�` Huh P. Talcott qd Current Planner BOA Members cc: Steve Riley ✓ Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach ✓ BOA File Project File �j HPT:BJM •�tift�9: ... i r i r 3 ,: � (r � � .r + � �� _. �'' r � � �� ,... .. � � c � s ��! .l 1, s �..� r t � b � � lr,:,.sF � 1 � � � 7 'ytl Y Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. Mayor Henry Drinan, Jr. TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing, Jr.�: - Mayor Henry Drieasen, Jr. Mayor PmTem April 28, 1993 Certified Mail CouncdMembers P 345 026 261 Frank Brafman Rud^ell L Condil,Jr. — - Derma c• M,"in Mr. E. H. Shutt Tom Peoples Daroihy C. Ferklin Heritage Motor Car Company P.O. Box 22889 Michael G. ONeIE Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 Town Manager _ Re: V-4-93 Variance request Tabled from the 3/22/93 Meeting. For a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(c) to allow expansion of a nonconforming site. Property is Heritage Motor Car Company, 460 William Hilton Parkway and is identified on Beaufort County Tax Map 08, Parcel 202. Dear Mr. Shutt:. y f; On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Hilton Head Island Board of ' f Adjustment heard your Variance request for the above referenced property. 4 The Board of Adjustment granted a Variance.from LMO Section 16-7-305(c) to allow expansion of a nonconforming site, subject to the additional landscaping agreed upon by the Applicant. If you have any questions please contact so at 686-0904. sincerely, Huh P. Talcott Current Planner cc: BOA Members Steve Riley, Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach BOA File , s Project File • •y x �� ' �}) HPT:BJM ' `Yf t ONO', t ( _J tti'JNVOW417%b3Sf � - - m - TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 i Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. Mayor � {{envy Dneaxn, Jr. MayorlToTem April 28, 1993 Certified Mail CoundlMemb- P 345 026 261 Frank Brafmim Russell L. CondB, Jr. Dmm C. Manin Mr. E. H. Shutt - Tom Pory{s Do<mhyG.Pmd. Heritage Motor Car Company P.O. Box 22889 Mkhadc.DTJeiu Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 Town Managa Re: V-4-93 Variance request Tabled from the 3/22/93 Meeting,, F Vai from TWO Section 16-7-305(c) to allow i or ar ance expansion of a nonconforming site. Property is Heritage Motor Car Company, 460 William Hilton Parkway and is identified on Beaufort County Tax Map /8, Parcel 202. Dear Mr. Shutt:: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the 'Hilton Head Island Board of { Adjustment heard your Variance request for the above referenced y property. The Board of Adjustment granted a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(c) to allow expansion of a nonconforming site, subject to the additional landscaping agreed upon by the Applicant. ! If you have any questions please contact me at 686-0904. Sincerely, rX Huh P. Talcott I Current Planner cc: BOA Members Steve'Riley Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach BOA .File'.' Project File HPT:BJM , j �7 Y, F', i • Of(, z7,1v. April 28, 1993 Certified Mail P 345 026 26.1 Mr. E. H. Shutt _ Heritage Motor Car Company S` P.O. Box 22889 Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 Re: V-4-93 Variance request Tabled from the 3/22/93 Meeting. For a Variance from LMOr Section 16-7-305(c) to allow expansion of a nonconforming site.. Property is Heritage Motor. Car Company, 460 William Hilton Parkway and is a w....a�a�..w ..., u..-..o....a n......a.. mom.. u-.. Iu n----� ene. ._...Alli ... .. ..... .... TOWN OF HILTO!"J HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 noara o= eujuecmenc nearu your. variauve rayu— w a--%jc, 1 Squire Pope Furniture sign. The.Motion of the :Board of Adjustment was to approve the Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1012(a) to allow changes in a nonconforming sign. Approval was granted, on the basis that the Squire Pope Furniture sign will be replaced within a year after; the new sign ordinance is; adopted, with a new e sign in 'conformance with the new ordinance. The Motion was Adopted. fIf you have.any;questions please call' me at 686-0904. isin erely,' u / � .�i��G Carol A.,Krawczyk,. Current Planner; Members cc: BOA a Steve Riley 4 Tom Bkechko Greg.DeLoach BOA File i Project: File �; ; n«, �� • , CAK BMJ! jr�"it`+id J ,1Ff ....ice r,..� . ...._.u_ �.. ..... .... .. .... _ .. .. . _ April 29, 1993 Certified Mail P 345 026 266 J Mrs. Barbara Hudson Squire Pope Furniture 67 Squire Pope Road Hilton Head Island, SC 29926 Re: V-13-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1012(a) to allow changes to a nonconforming sign located at 67 Squire Pope Road, identified on Beaufort County Tax Map 7, Parcel 2. Dear Mrs. Hudson: on Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your variance request to change the Squire Pope Furniture sign. "I The Motion of the Board of Adjustment was to approve the %Y-4 .nn- V— i.Yn aen4.4 nn 1 A-7-7 n1 -it n % to ni i nw nhann-a in .. .., 1 : April 30, 1993 Certified Mail i Mrs. Barbara Hudson t, Squire Pope Furniture 67 Squire Pope Road Hilton Head island, SC 29926 4 Re: V-13-93 Variance from IMO Section 16-7-1012(a) to allow changes to a nonconforming sign located'at 67 Squire Pope Road, identified on Beaufort County Tax Map 7, Parcel 2. Dear Mrs. Hudson: ; i, On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of. Hilton Head Island" S Board of Adjustment heard your va,'riance request to change the Squire Pope .Furniture sign. i The Motion of the Board'of Adjustment was ! I l � sincerely, �s 1 t }f t Carol A. Krawczyk i II Current Planner cc: BOA Members i y Steve' Riley •;$ Tom Brechko Greg. DeLoach ti , BOA File I Project File� CAK:BJM Save: P:MOT-ACT.93\Sq-Pcpe.HOA 1 4Fk4?f aexk7 �' t ak f'a I sincerel , Bill Lytl . Assistant it,Planner { cc: BOA Members f Steve Riley ✓eY ` Tom Brechko ✓ Greg, DeLo9ch ; ' BOA Fila Project Filar BL:BJN !t y F qz, itk r A TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND 'ate Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. Mayor Henry Driessen, Jr. Mayor ProTem Cmmal Members April 28, 1993 Certified Mail Frank erafman P 345 026 262 Russell L. Condit, Jr. Donn Donna C. Man Tom Peoples Dorothy G. Perkins Ms. Paula Thurman Broad Strokes mkhaac.oweiu P.O. Hox 6287 Town Manager Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Re: V-7-93 Variance from IMO Section 16-7-1012 to allow changes to a nonconforming sign other than refinishing the surface of the sign, so as to keep the same appearance of the sign. Property is located at 26 Arrow Road and 1 identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort County Tax Map #15. Dear Ms. Thurman: 4 On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Island Board of Adjustment heard your; Variance request regarding the above reference) sign., The Motion of the Board of Adjustment was to defer Broad Strokes Variance request until the May 24, 1993 meeting, to allow tine for 'appropriate advertising and consideration of a Setback Variance. If you have any. questions -please contact me at 686-0904. Sincere) , Bill Lyth Assistant Current Planner cc: BOA Members Steve. Riley Toa Brechko Greg DeLoach BOA File Project File BL:Bt7M 1 l . ai" '�. .. �.�1S4S�1 Y�5FS.4i� a t��',.1��-t"�aws'�e's7'�'A�1<„rh •..' ., , � ,.• ' 9� 0 TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. - Mayor Henry Ddessen, Jr. . Mayor PmTem Coun ilMem6ea April 28, 1993 Certified Mail Frank Rrafman P 345 026 262 - Russell L. Condit Jr. _ Donna C.MarRn .. - Tom P.?lo Dorothy a Perkim Ms. Paula Thurman , Broad Strokes Michael —Go NNE P.O. Box 6287 Town Manager Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Re:V-7-93 Variance from IMO Section 16-7-1012 to allow changes to a nonconforming sign other than refinishing the surface of the sign, so as to keep the same appearance of the sign. Property is located at 26 Arrow Road and identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort.County Tax Map #15. i Dear Ms. Thurman: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request regarding the above referenced sign. The Motion of the' Board of Adjustment was -to defer Broad Strokes Variance request until the May 24, 1993 meeting, to allow time for appropriate advertising and consideration of a Setback Variance. If you have any,;questicns please contact me at 686-0904. Sincerel � Bi11 Lyt1 Assistant Current Planner `t cc: BOA Members 1 Steve Riley TO Brechko Greg DeLoach BOA File s7l Project Fila k F BL-.WM Ts,9ff I��ls� ^Y�4�IUr$}�l l,`F pA�}il ' di ti -, April 28, 1993 e Certified Mail P 345 026 262 s The Motion of the Board of Adjustment Sincerely, Edward Drane Urban. Designer cc: BOA Members ` - Steve' Riley +' Tom Brechko , :'Greg DeLoach HOl► File 4 M, Project File ED:BJM r t P:N3T-ACT.93\Broad-St.NOA Jkrl� Iv,, r • ;� , s jr r r' hes No • • TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Hervey W. Ewing, Jr. t Mayor Henry Drie»m, Jr. Mayor l rorem April 29, 1993 Certified Mail Coundi Member P 345 026 264 Frank gnfman - Russell L.Condit, Jr. D� The Grant Family - --' `CC..IM"'i" DorotkyQ Perkim c/o Ms. Janie J. Grant 651 U.S. 278 Miebeeic.owem Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 - ' Town Manager - Re: V-11-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(d) to relocate a nonconforming structure, a produce stand, further from U.S. 278 tobetter accommodate the Hilton Head Island Pathway. Dear Ms. Grant: On Monday' April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request to move your produce stand. The Board of Adjustment Notion was ,to,grant a Variance from LMO Section .16-7-305(d)to relocate the nonconforming produce stand closer, to the required setback, in accordance with the site -plan•-presented at the 4/26/93.BOA meeting. If you,have any questions please `call ae at 666-0904. Sincerely, H gh P. Talcott - ' Current Planner j - BOA Members r cc: Steve Riley'.--140, +r Tom Brechko ✓ Greg` DeLoach Hugh Talcott BOA File i • Project File HPT:BJM z' 3 ts+ Id �ky1i xC;7.�1�{*`tk tr, Y k rV ;Xyl < TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 i Harvey W. Ewing. Jr.. r .. Mayor Henry Ddeum lr. . M,yorProTem "April 29, 1993 Certified Mail Council Members P 345 026 264 Frank Brafmae _ Rua.oB L. Condit, Jr. -- - Donna cMartin The Grant Family ' ' Tom Peepla Dorothy G. Perkins c/o Ms. Janie J. Grant 651 U.S. 278 Mkh.eiG. owe Hilton Head' Island, SC 29928 Town Manager.... Re: V-11-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(d) to relocate a nonconforming structure, a produce stand, further.from U.S. .278 to better accommodate the Hilton `Head .Island Pathway. Dear Ms: Grant: i On Monday, April 26; 1993 the Town of Hilton Head island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance -request to move your produce stand. The Board of Adjustment Notion was to grant. a Variance from 5 I , LMO Section 16-7-305(d) `to relocate the nonconforming produce stand closer„to the required setback,' in accordance with the site.plan.presented at the'4/26/93 BOA meeting. If you have any questions please call.me at 686-0904. y 1 Sincerely, ' `` J } I1 � t ' e H gh P. Talcott Current Planner G �t cc: BOA Members .Steve Riley Tome Brechko ryfL Greg.,DeLoach 4 Hugh Talcott BOA File Project File. HPT:BJII i �E s o ,?j1 `�`� � s •'9 li pht $ r d u s �r' '! C kk{ € 'Ian i �• 5'i a , 5'fiti t�,i{�N t4�y c�'ryt��Ryw • a. p. Sincerely, Hugh P. Telcott ;I s' Current Planner cc: BOA Members •3 Steve.Riley Tom Brechko ' Greq,DeLoach Hugh Talcott N BOA File Project File HPT:BJII � Save - P:NOT-ACT.93\Produce:NOA 4 )I r 4�✓,y�7 � 77�,ti�n j,�l f�� I �� ry54l.y �. 2-�A4'%t V •X` 7 �� its � `%r� S��i .L''�!F`. 1 r •��SYrl�i�.9v d�..lY.4 Y.tiK,rt< Htc,�,*`.»kaercxuw a. .. _ .... ... ,�'..� � .. . _ _.. April 30, 1993 Certified Mail The Grant Family c/o Ms. Janie J. Grant i 651 U.S. 278 Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 i Re: V-11-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(d) to relocate a nonconforming structure,'a produce stand, further from U.S. 278 to better accommodate the Hilton Head Island Pathway. Dear Ms. Grant: On Monday, April 26,,1993 the Town of HiltonHeadIsland Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request to move your iproduce.stand.' The Board of Adjustment Motion was Sincerely, Hugh P. Talcott Current Planner ✓ I cc: BOA Members Steve Riley, i Tom Brechko } Greg DeLoach Hugh Talcott BOA File y i Project File HPT:BJM.. Save - P:N0T-ACT.93\Produce.90A i j i r ' • 1 r TRANSAGTION REPORT w w APR 29-93 TNU 11 .38 w DATE START RECEIVER: TX TI`,ME PAGES NOTE # APR -29 11:57 681.2174 12, 1 #*ww******»***w*w*********ww Www****ww*#*www***www#•wwwwwwwwwww �� Y .... -., j - ?'y'fl t p .5 t�:�L).a l..,'d"',t t,F i 2dr,(�''.,M1,j• �w�� +(+a(,� ' •tttA77i9:'�.9�A Y w'F'�� y 3dr. '� c. """444... �E�/•,r e TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 lismoy W. Ewln& Jr. Mayor Henry Dria ' Jr. M.ym 11roT= April 28, 1993 Certified Mail Coundl Mm,bm P 345 026 260 Funk &affnm . Ruu UL.Condll,Jr, Dom PC. „N Mr. Cliff Loveland =a✓7'Z� - 'cplsrerNn. Carter-Miot Engineering 1829 Shop Road Mlchwammu Columbia, SC 29201 Town M"pr Re: V-5-93 deferred from 3/22/93 Board of Adjustment Meeting. Variance request from LHO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be located less than the required ten foot setback from the right-of-way. The sign is for Mid - Island Nations Bank, 862 William Hilton Pkwy., the property is identified as Parcel -153 on Beaufort County Tax Map Nil. Dear Mr. Loveland: On Monday, April,26, 199,3; the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment'.heard'the Variance request concerning the above referenced sign at the Mid -Island Nations Bank. V-5-93 was previously deferred 'in•order, that the Board could read the 6/22/92 meeting transcript .and view the Nations Bank sign video. The Board of Adjustment granted a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030'•to allow Tess,.than the required 10 foot setback from the right oi-wcy,�but not less than'7 feet back from the right-of-way—, This Variance .would be subject to review by the Adainistrator�rekative to underground utilities that may necessitate• less.; setback:. ` .The, Notion was Adopted. ce �7nWl a y Bill LYt Assistan Current Planner cc: BOA Members ✓ Steve Riley ✓ �N Tom-Brechko Greg ;DeLoach r Hugh Talcott BOA File Project File ✓ ` BL:BJM v� y� yid. �� ✓,�/s� XPi Harvey W. Ewlny Jr. . Mayor Henry Drlexn.lr. " MayorrroTem April. 28, 1993_ Certified Nail Council M=b= P 345 026 260 ' F(a1llt BrahTN Russell L. Condit, Jr.. _ T� m"' Mr. Cliff Loveland Dorothy Q Perkins; Carter-miot Engineering 1829 Shop Road Mlahael C. OWaIE Columbia, SC 29201 _ Town Marupr - Re: V-5-93 deferred from 3/22/93 Board of Adjustment meeting. Variance request from LMO,Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be.located less than the required ten - foot setback from the right-of-way. The sign is for mid - Island NationsBank, 862 William Hilton Pkwy., the property is identified as Parcel 153 on Beaufort County Tax Map /11. Dear Mr. Loveland: r On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard the Variance request concerning the"above referenced sign at the Mid -Island Nations Bank.' V-5-93 was previously deferred in order that. the Board could read the 6/22/92 meeting transcript and view the Nations Bank sign video. The Board of Adjustment granted a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-3030 to allow less than the required: to foot setback from the right -of -way,; -but not less than 7.'feet back from the right-of-way. -This Variance would be subject to ,review by the Administrates.reiative to underground utilities that . may necessitate lesd',setback.. Ths'�Moticnl ties._Adopted. f Sinca BiliAssirrent Planner cc: BOA Members 1 Steve Riley Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach • Hugh TalcottBOA ;fir •,, eFile �S1V,?' Project BL: BJH • . i April z,199 Certified Mail P 345 026 260 t whim ,rne aoara ox Aa3uszmenz grantea a variance rrom L section 16-7- 1030 to allow less than the required 10 foot setbaok from the right-of-way but not -less than 7 feet back from the right-of-way. This variance would be subject to review by the Administrator. relative to underqround utilities that may necessitate less .setback. The Notion was adopted. 'J. ;{* I�,rrr "V41hi: Z. r 41gW ;N 21 g Fu1J7rp 10, I;V. g", M 49, .... ... ... S c e e M MOTION BOA 4-26-93 Nations Bank V-5-93 Mr. Israel made Motion I move that the Board deny the requested Variance from LMO 16-7- 1030 on the grounds that there is no demonstrated hardship because there are other visible locations that are much more in conformance with the LMO that the Applicant could have used for placement of this sign. Vice Chairman Brown - Second Discussion Chairwoman James - I have a question for Bill. The sign where it is presently located - as Mr. Robinson had mentioned - it appears (and I know nothing about landscaping) that there is room that that sign could be moved back so it is closer to the 10t setback, from what I know. Is that something -- I need a clarification -- we are looking at this application for moving the sign from one location to another, but it really doesntt matter. We choose to suggest a Variance from the setback to move that sign back so maybe it was 2 feet less than the 101 setback. We can still do it on what has been advertised - is that correct? Bill - I'm sorry - you can still do what? Chairwoman James - Ok? We are looking at the Variance of where a sign is located within a 100 setback - so even if I were to say to. Mr. Loveland - Mr. Loveland would you be willing to take a look at the possibility of moving that sign back further into the property of Nations Bank at its present location to get it back closer to the 100 setback. Is that something that you would consider or have you already looked at that? Mr. Loveland - We would consider that -- definitely. We just want to resolve the issue and hopefully.to get it closer to where the consumer turns into the lot as opposed to they may view it further down the lot. To reduce the possibility of minor fender benders and what have you. Also to advertise where you turn in as a kind of a directional as,well. Chairwoman James - My understanding is that we are just looking at a Variance to allow a sign to be located at least to be located at less than the required 10F foot setback from the right-of-way. We are either going to grant it or not grant it -- doesnOt matter where it is located. Hugh Talcott - You could allow a reduction in setback - if Mr. Robinson feels that 60 is appropriate setback- you could grant the reduction from 60 in the setback. - e Vice Chairman Brown - Agreed Chairwoman James - Mr. Robinson would you restate the Motion? ---Any,further .discussion. s • M TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. Mayor Henry Drie ,Jr. Mayor PmTem April 29, 1993 Certified Mail Council Members P 345 026 265 Frank Bnfman Russcg L. Condit, Jr. TDumPa .Martin Ms. Fran Thresh ' W4,1 - Dorothyc.Perkin Sposdi Sign 180 Triangle Square Mlrbael C.ONdg Hilton Head Island, SC 29926 Town Manager Re: V-12-93 Variance from IMO Section 16-7-1030, to allow a sign to be located within the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. Sign and property are located at 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. & identified on Beaufort County Tax Map # 15, Parcel 253. Dear Ms. Thresh: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request for the above referenced sign. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to defer the Variance (V-12-93)' to the May 24, 1993 meeting to enable Board members to ;visit the site to view. the visual aspects in order to make a more certain determination. The Motion was Adopted. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 686-0904. n erely, (-6ar!1 A. I awczyk Current Planner cc: BOA Members Steve Riley ✓ Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach Sammy Gray ✓ #IAO BOA File ✓ Project File CAK:BJM dui ✓ ,� .:. TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 %l. William Hilton P$wy. 6 identified on Beaufort County Tax Map i 15, Parcel 253. Dear Ms Thresh: On Mond: Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of adjustment heard your Variance request for the above referenced sign. The Board of adjustment. Motion was to defer the Variance (V-12-93) to the May, 24, 1993 meetingto enable Board members to visit the site to view.the visual.aspects in Order to make a more certain determination. The Motion was Adopted. r;. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 686-0904. 12 Sincerely, Carol A. Krawczyk Current, Planner cc: Boll Members Steve Riley Tom Brechko ^ Greg.,QeLoach Sn Gray, 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. t, BOA : File Project File Sls ve: P: NOT -ACT 93\Grayco. N011 �irr r r•ryn ��' SSO� �.�i. , ,SSS ��il �aStit � yrYi i .y r � ! 1 �ud, ter 1 � S V, - AIJ, 4.1 Jv 11 C �f-,tYM•)! t 7ji��RrYt�d�� tiK > aF i y i I 11S�x' `p�r a'tr.F4 rtt, C �, of UllMill ��`�w�4 v✓� Ib! d I + 4 M Mr. Robinson - For VOTE 6-0-0 Mr. Israel For _ Mr. Brown For Mr. Beil - For, i Mr. Miller - For Mrs. James - For Wella deEer'it until next month. 1 1{ 2 I :a I • 1 � Y F t . ,. -.�i :, a..�i�i t °..1,�.:9 ,,^� � .�., i' .,.., :�;tr•,is�d..��d, n.. MOTION 4-26-93 BOA V-12-93 Grayco Auto Parts - Fran Thresh Carol Krawczyk Mr. Israel - I'm sort of at a loss - since I didn't realize what the sign was when I drove past it I really at a loss to make a judgement as to what to do to move it back 10 feet. I guess more than 10 feet from where the existing sign is. It looks like from there - there is no problem with visibility. I would love to have the time to take another look. Fran Thresh - Could we Table it? I could erect something- put up plywood or something. Chairwoman James - Lets see what the pleasure of the Board is - are you comfortable to deal with this today? JIM I am but if the Applicant wants to withdraw it she got that right. Jim Brown - I would like to take another look at it. Been going in and out for years and never realized.it was different from True Value. Pete - I'd feel comfortable reviewing it today. Andrew - I'm comfortable reviewing it today. Chairwoman James - What would you like us to do? I'm comfortable with reviewing it today. Mr. Beil - Motion I'll move that we approve the Variance requested from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow the sign to be not closer than the property lieu (guess that is the way we would word it). I don't want the sign to go into the right-of-way just on the property line. Chairwoman James - Would you like to reference the drawing in the package for the location.- Stating as proposed -------- Mr. Beil - Amend Notion as reflected by the drawing presented with the Application. Chairwoman James. Do I tear a second: lotion fails for a lack tof a second. _ 1 TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Hervey W. Ewing Jr. Mayor Henry Meeeen, Jr. Mrym ProTem C-WM-b- April 28, 1993 Certified Mail P 345 026 267 Frank Bnfinen RuueB L. Condil,Jr. DwmC.MeNn ... - Tom PaeFlee DnranyaPakiro Mr. James 0. Hale O & P, Ltd. Mkhad G.M U P.O. Box 6748 Tom M' ger Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Re: V-14-43 Variance from IMO Sections 16-7-842, Buffers, at the Best Western Ocean Walk development. Property is located at 36 South Forest Beach Drive & is identified as Parcel 240 on Beaufort county'Tax Map 118. Dear Mr. Hale: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request for the Best Western Ocean Walk development. ` The Board of Adjustment approved a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-842, Buffers. The ,Applicant withdrew the Variance request from LMO Section 16-7-850(g) because he acknowledged that..shuttle;aerviae,Nould be provided for customers. The Motion was Adopted. If you have any questions please.contact'me at 686-0904. Sincerely; 1 1 err Hugh P.:Taicott Current Planner cc: ' BOA Members ` Steve Riley. Tom Brechko Greq DeLoach �) BOA Members. Project File. HPT:BJM 3s a • id April 29, 1993 Certified Mail P 345 026 267 Mr. James O. Hale 0 & P, :Ltd. : P.O. Box 6748 Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Re: V-14-93 Variance from LHO Sections 16-7-842, Buffers, at the Best Western Ocean Walk development. Property is ; located at 36 South Forest Beach Drive,& is identified as Parcel 240 on Beaufort County Tax Map / 18. Dear Mr. Hale: a °On Monday, April 26,. 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board �r of Adjustment heard your :Variance request for the Best Western „ ri Ocean Welk development.. . , A The Board of Adjustment :approved .a Variance from LMO. Section16-7-842, Buffers. The Applicant withdrew the a iance. request from LMO Section 16-7-850(g) wl6h--th- Lee«-14kq.,+ erstandtnet.that shuttle.'service would be provided for �� . r. customers. The Motion was Adopted. If you have any questions please contact me at 686-0904. - -. ..Sincerely ,i, . i Huq alcott Current Planner CC: BOA Member8� at i Yk v a Steve Riley Tom Brechko 7 Gr DeLoach BOA Members Project File` + T +i rir tie t1c ^� uG5 hY� 4 t y t dal • R A,�r m F s u a HPT:BJM � , t , � �,a�x��t if ,� � t S'ii•��; /�.,y41-Fj � �`�y.Y 1 4 Z. 01 C fi H4i i 1 � t��i. p�''•u , , MOTION 4-26-93 BOA V-14-93 James Hale for O & P Ltd/JHP Hotel Corp. of HHI Hugh Talcott Mr. Robinson - I move that we approve a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-842 dealing with Buffers and I..would-li.ke.to,put it intos.the: reoord that: the,;Applicant='withdrew.the request °for Variance froa._LMO Sectiom a6 -7-850(g) with the understanding that he would provide a shuttle service. Mr. Israel - Second Discussion - None Mr. Miller - For the Motion Mr. Bail For the Motion Mr. Israel - For the Motion Mr. Robinson - For the Motion Vice -Chair. Brown - For the Motion Chairwoman James recused herself from Variance request V-14-93 due to a possible Conflict of Interest. Background V -14-93-407n/ %,!ft' Vice Chairman Brown - I want to ask one question before the Notion. Hugh, from what you said, can we ignore section 16-7- 850(g)? Hugh Talcott - That is correct because they will be complying with the requirements of that Section. Vice Chairman Brown - The Notion should only deal with section 16-7-842. Hugh Talcott - To approve that and to deny 16-7-850(g) - yes. Mr. Robinson -.To deny what? Hugh Talcott - Section 16-7-850(g) which was advertised as e requested Variance as asked by the Applicant.If that were denied he would have to provide shuttle service that he says he will provide. Mr. Robinson - But we,do,need to deny, it. Hugh Talcott - Yes. Deny that one and approve the other one. Mr. Hale I will withdraw: TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. Mayor Henry Drieam, Jr. April 29, 1993 Certified Mail Mayor ProTem P 345 026 263 Cowril Membw Frank it han Rumell L. Condit, Jr. �� C. IMartin Mr. Perry Wood - es DarmhyG.Prrkim Wood & Partners, Inc. P.O. BOX 7427 Mmn.el c. o'Nem Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 . Town Manage Re: V-10-93 Variance from IMO Section 16-7-483(c)(2) snd 16-7- 915(d) to allow a reduction in Buffer and Setback requirements adjacent to tidal wetlands. Property is known as Longview Island and is located in shelter Cove, Palmetto Dunes and is identified. as Parcel 28 on Beaufort County Tax Map N 12B. Dear Mr. Wood: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head •Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request concerning Longview Island. The Motion of the .Board of. Adjustment was to grant a Variance -from LM0_sections 16-7-483(c)(2) and 16-7-915(d) for a reduction iin buffer and.setback requirements adjacent to tidal wetlands;'-to'•allow development of Longview Island pursuant to`planei,presented at the. 4/26/93 BOA meeting. The Motion was klcoted. ; , If you have any questionw pleese•call me at 686-0904. sincerely, Hugh P. Talcott Current Planner cc: BOA Members J Steve Riley ,✓i�%sy l Tom Bra chko Greg DeLoach-✓ • Charles Pi a BOA File Project is ✓ HPT:BJM r Hyl �l N""ein:tb�MON n,4' Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request concerning Longview Island. The Motion of the Board. of Adjustment was to grant a Variance from LM sections 16-7-483(c)(2) and 16-7-915(d) for a reduction in buffer and setback requirements adjacent i to tidal wetlands, to allow development of,Longview Island ` pursuant to plans presented at the 4/26/93 BOA meeting. The Motion was Adopted..; if you have any questions please call me at 686-0904. sincerely, Hugh P. Talcott Current Planner.' cc: BOA Members s Steve Riley Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach :.Charles Pigq BOA File ProjectFile r s ti HPT: BJM }}; hr r iq hr L i r Longview Island. i. The Motion of the Board of Adjustment was to grant a Variance from IMO Sections 16-7-483(c)(2) and 16-7-915(d) for a reductio in buffer and setback requirements adjacent' to tidal we ands, to allow development of: Longview Island pursuant plans presented at thin 4/26/93 BOA meeting. The Motion a Adopted. If you h a any questions please call me at 686-0904. r f Sinc sly, Hugh P. Talcott Current Planner l cc: BOA Members Steve Riley, 1 Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach Charles Pigg jile � Project ject File HPT'aJM i , ) f {H zz5J4 >W, o noara o= nujuazmenz nearu .your varannce requeaz concerning Longview Island. The Motion of the Board of Adjustment was ) sincerely, , Hugh P. Talcott Current Planner cc: BOA Members Steve Riley Toe Breahko Greg DeLoach Charles Pigg, VP, Greenwood Develop. Corp" P.O. Box 5628- a ;f BOA File ,+ Project File. HPT: BJ![ P:NOT-ACT.93\LongviewNOA. t cVv c 5 hi t i ri' it f f Save: - t Jt,Cy�y�Vr 41'Q hr, e MINUTES TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 I. Call to Order Chairwoman James called the Regular Meeting -of the Board of Adjustment to order at 1:04 p.m., April 26, 1993. II. Roll Call Members Present: Beil, Brown, Israel, James, Miller, & Robinson Members Absent: Rowan Staff Present: Brechko,Krawczyk, Lytle, Talcott & Marlow III. ARRroval of Agenda Motion tei_Approve the Agenda as submitted. Moved: Mr. Israel Second: Mr. Brown Vote: 6-0-0 IV. Approval of Minutes Chairwoman James made the following corrections to the minutes of 3/22/93: Page 7, Para.9, Line 11, eliminate "did the Board"; Page 8, Para. 3, Line 6, should be "supplied" instead of supplies; & Page 12, Para. 4, Line 16, should be "conversation" instead of conservation. Motion to Approved the 3/22/93 Minutes as corrected. Mr. Brown Mr. Beil Vote 6-0-0 V. Old Business Applicant: Mr. E. H. Shutt, Heritage.Motor Car Company Owner: Mr. William Wakefield Request: Reconsideration of,a previous Board of Adjustmentdecision at the 10/27/92 Neeting 'concerning ;V-17-92, to deny a -Variance from sign setback. Property is located,at 460 William "Hilton Pkwy., and -is identified'as Parcel 202 on'Beaufort County TaX.Map #a. 6 • V-17-92 - Mr. Hugh Talcott, Current Planner, referred to the transcripts from the 10/27/92 Board of Adjustment meeting regarding the Heritage Motors sign variance. He noted that the transcript on page 2 stated, that the triangular point of the Heritage sign was at the right-of- way line.an&-not as prevJauslas a� Mr. Talcott said that Staff maintained their previous recommendation that there w44 suitable locatiarivwithin the front buffer meeting the setback, --v to place the sign. Staff does not agree that the trees would prohibit trite adequate visibility of a sign meeting the 10 foot setback. Chairwoman James suggested to Mr. Shutt that the Board did not need further information because of the lengthy - discussion October 27. However, she opened the discussion for questions from the Board. Mr. Israel said consideration should only be given to substantial new evidence which was not considered at the time the Board made their decision. Mr. Beil asked Mr. Shutt if he disagreed with the Staff concerning placement of a sign _within the trees at the front of the property. Mr. Shutt, Owner of Heritage Motor Car Company, made the point that the minutes had quoted Mr. Talcott as saying that the previous sign structure point was on the right- of-way line and the structure was increased in size. He said,"this reader would infer that in fact the new point was over the line". Mr. Shutt pointed out that there were no other signs along William Hilton Pkwy. which had been required to be placed behind trees. Mr. Shutt said to be required to place a sign behind trees was a hardship to the dealership. He was concerned about the 100,000 visitors being able to locate the business. Mr. Shutt asked the Board to allow the sign to be located in the original location just outside the tree.line. j Mr. Shutt said there was one other substantial change and that was that the Town wrote him a letter confirming what his attorney told him of the previous meeting. He referred to the letter sent to his by the Town8s Code Enforcement officer, which stated, "the Board of J Adjustment decided to extend an additional option to you Corridor Review Committee of completing a application on , your existing sign --". He said he complied with that BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page 2 • • letter and CRC approved the existing sign in its present location, and he felt that was a substantial change from the October 27 meeting. Chairwoman James explained to Mr. Shutt that that particular letter was written on 1/13/93,months after the 10/27/92 Board decision, and he did receive a certified letter stating the Board's decision. She told Mr. Shutt that if he had followed the order of the Board, the sign would not have existed when the Code Enforcement letter was received. Mr. Shutt said the letter from the Board was a request not an order, and the 1/13/93 letter confirmed what his attorney had told him had happened at the 10/27/92 meeting. Vice Chairman Brown said that a Town employee chose to put words in the mouth of the Board, because the 10/27/92 Motion was very clear. Ho said the Board's decision was based on the IMO, and the Board should not be asked to reverse their decision on something that a Town employee did. The Board does not employee anyone. Vice Chairman Brown said the Board should have had legal advice. Mr. Israel said a Town employee could not overrule a decision of the Board, so that would not constitute new evidence. Mr. Shutt questioned why the Board did not consider the CRC decision as substantive evidence, Chairwoman James explained that the CRC decision was only on aesthetics, CRC had no jurisdiction over setbacks. She said in some cases CRC approved aesthetics and the Board had not granted a Variance for placement gthe sign. Mr. William Wakefield, owner of Heritage!property, said he had worked hard for four years to keep General Motors from placing a garish sign on the property. He said the property design had won the 1981 American Builders award for the beat design in the U.S. Mr. Wakefield said a lot of thought and planning went into -designing the building to go with the Hilton Head environment. Vice Chairman Brown asked if other Board members would like to comment on whether they had found anything of substancetoinfluence their decision. He said he had not. BOA 4-26-93 lItg. Page 3 Mr. Robinson said the purpose for deferral was that there had been some discussion at the 10/27/92 meet ng whether the sign was in the right-of-way. H&6 review0ef the verbatim transcript with a number of places where thsae sign location was discussed, and the final statementhe sign was within inches one way or the other. He,id his decision would have been affected if he felt the sign was in the right-of-way as opposed toIbeing behind the right- of-way. Mr. Robinson said he would have had more concern and felt strongly that the sign should have been removed. Mr. Israel said he had no other comments. - Mr. Beil said the right-of-way was not as important as the hardship being created for the Applicant. Staff said the sign could be.placed elsewhere on the site, and the App! :giant said the sign could not be placed without remov..tq trees. Mr. Beil said it would be very difficult to move the sign and not remove trees, and he felt the crux oi the situation was whether,a hardship w,.)uld be. placed on the Applicant by moving the sign. Mr. Miller said his position had not changed. Chairwoman James called for a Motion. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to deny the request to overturn the BoardIs 10/37192 decision on V-17-92. The new survey showed the point of the Heritage Motor Car sign to be IF4° behind the Right -of -Way line and in the Setback by 8 2/30. The sign remained a -nonconforming sign, Moved:. Mr. Brown Secande. Mr. Israel Vote: A=L--Q— Mr. Robinson'A Mr. Beil voted Against the Motion., Chairwoman James said the Motion to reconsider the 10/27/92 decision was denied. Applicant: Mr. B:H. Shutt, Heritage Motor Car Company Owner: Mr. William Wakefield Request: Variance V-4-93 Tabled from 3/22/93 Meeting.. For a Variance form Section 16-7-30.7(c) to allow expansion'of anonconforming site., Property is:,Heritage.Motor Car:Company,'460 William Hilton Pkwy. ''& is identified`on Beaufort Co. Tax'Map #B, Parcel 202. BOA 4-26-93.Mtg. Page 4 r i 1 Mr. Robinson made a Motion to bring Variance V-4-93 back on the Table. Second: Mr. Israel Vote: 6-0-0 Mr. Hugh Talcott, explained that before the Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(c) could be considered by the Board a Special Exception approval had to be given by the Planning Commission arod this was granted 3/:;/93. He explained the expansions to the nonconforming site included enclosure of a car display area currently under roof, additional gravel parking for car display, and a covered service area. The proposed expansions all conform to buffer, setback and pervious surface requirements. Mr. Talcott said complete conformance with current IMO standards would necessitate removal of all parking and structures within the mirvimum fifty foot front buffer. However, removal of thlo"w of parking from the buffer would deprive the dealership of a reasonable display and it would be a hardship to require removal. T S of still recommended that the sign and the car removed from the front buffer. The current code does not allow structures in that front area. Mr. Shutt, Owner of Heritage Motor Company, said he did not have any additional information other than the narrative he provided. He would take questions from the Board. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Shutt if he was willing to go along with Staff recommendations to remove the raised platform and cars from the buffer. Mr. Shutt said as he understood it the Staff had not asked that the display row of cars be removed and it would be an extreme hardship to the dealership to do so. In regard to a r -h am he Staff had consistently, persistently talked I > a out r m :val.of-theThis ramp was originally b e incorporation approved before the of the Town, and no changes were inade to the ramp and he proposed that it remain as it was approved by the county prior to the Town Incorporation. Vice Chairman Brown said the Board agreed that the ramp had been approved and the Board had dealt with that before. Staff agreed removal of the display row of ,' parking would be a hardship. However, Staff said to bring the site more into conformance the.ramp should be removed. BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page 5 • • Chairwoman James said the Staff worked very hard to find ways to bring a site into conformance and help it meet the character of the Island. When requesting a Variance the Applicant needed to work with the Staff to bring the site into conformance with the LMO. Chairwoman James said one of the reasons the Town was Incorporated was because of the dissatisfaction with the County over zoning, design, etc. because they were not right for Hilton Head. Chairwoman James asked Mr. Shutt if there was anything that he had to offer to bring the site more into conformance. Mr. Shutt explained that he was working with a small site and with the Town's restrictions on the distance from U.S. 278 to where commercial activity can begin, .and -any move in that area becomes a hardship and almost precluded operation in that area. Mr. Shutt said even though the grove of trees is a real barrier to people passing by, they want to embellish and augment the landscaping to make the site more attractive. Mr. Israel asked for clarification of the: ast paragraph of the Staff writeup. Mr. Talcott said the recommendation was that all�1 stru urea be remoVl d ro th front setback, Chairwoman James said the Variance is to allow changes to the development including an enclosure of a car display area, the additional gravel parking for a car display and a covered service area,.all of which conform to buffer, setback and pervious requirements. The Staff has recommended that the sign, the elevated car display and the ramp within the setback be eliminated. The car display row can be.maintained and additional landscaping added.to the front buffer. The Board of Adjustment granted a Variance from -= Section 16-7-305(c) to allow expansion of a nonconfornina site, subject to the additional landscaping agreed upon by the Applicant. Second*. Mr. Bail Discussion Mr. Israel asked if the ramp ,would `remain and the triangle. removed under the Notion., Chairwoman James said that was correct and additional landscaping would be proi►lded by`the:Applicant. Vote: 6-0-0 Variance granted. Page 6 i Applicant: Mr. Cliff Loveland of Carter-Miot Engineering for Nations Bank Owner: Nations Bank Request: V-5-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be located less than the required ten foot setback from the right-of-way. The Sign is for Mid -Island Nations Bank, 862 William Hilton Pkwy., the property is identified as Parcel 153 on Beaufort County Tax Map N 11. Mr. Bill Lytle, Assistant Current Planner, addressed the Board. Mr. Lytle noted that the Variance request had been deferred from the BOA 3/22/93 meeting so, the Board could read a transcript to clarify the 6/22/92 proceedings concerning the Mid -Island sign and view the video tape of the sign location area. Mr. Lytle said that the transcript confirmed there was no action on the Mid -Island Bank sign at that meeting. Mr. Lytle said the Staff found nothing unusual or unique about the Nations Bank site and that a hardship did not exist in locating the sign in conformance with the LMO. Because the four variance criteria had not been met the Staff recommended denial of the Variance. The Board viewed the video tape. Mr. Loveland presented additional photographs of the sign to the Board. Chairwoman James said the purpose of deferring the Variance until the April 26 meeting was to get a copy of the transcript and be sure that any misunderstanding that came about as a result of the June 22, 1992 meeting. She said the transcripts were very clear on the decision that the Board made and there was also discussion about the Mid-Islond site. Chairwoman James asked Mr. Loveland if he would like her to read the details from the transcript. Mr. Cliff Loveland of Carter-Miot told the Board he wanted to apologize for digressively going into the past, with regard to past communications and he'.agreed that there was •` a misunderstanding. He said he would just like to procred. Fir. Loveland presented and explained photos and a plot plan which was prepared a few days prior. He hoped to better present to the Board the line of sight and the 1, •� alignment with other businesses of the previously approved sign location. Mr. Loveland said.the bank thought they •. had approval to move the sign :to the present location, IY however they would still like to keep the sign in the present location. Page.7 �•S,; •:':C. ,. rr i. ,. `t Mr. Israel asked Mr. Loveland why the sign had not been placed closer to the main building legally, rather than placing it on the property line. He said the main value of the sign was to place. it advantageously for people driving south. Mr. Loveland said the submission of the plot plan by Ms. Sommerfeld had led to some misunderstanding due the location drawn on the plan. Mr. Israel asked if the sign could have been placed legally by the entrance, by moving it back about 10 feet, rather than the center of the lot. Mr. Loveland said no, because of a telephone service utility and parking area. He explained the size of the sign would obstruct that placement. Mr. Lytle said there were cutting and trimming regulations concerning native vegetation, so this could not be done to provide visibility for the sign. He did not agree that the sign's size would obstruct placement by the entrance further back on the lot. Mr. Lytle said if the entire setback could not be met it would be very close. Mr. Robinson thought the sign could be moved back at least 6 feet. He questioned why Mr. Lytle would support moving the sign from the original location forward into the buffer area and not from the present location by the entrance. Mr. Lytle said there were a number of oak trees that hindered the view, the sign could be seen coming from the south, but not driving south. The Corner location was visible traveling from the north and south, even with setback, trees were not a problem. ' Mr. Israel made a Motion to deny the Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 on the grounds that there was no demonstrated hardship and other conforming locations existed for sign placement. Second Vice Chairman Brown. Discussion Chairwoman James said it appeared that the sign could be y# moved back from the present location closer to the 10 foot. setback. She >asked "'Mr. Loveland, if he would be willing to • consider moving the:sign back closer to the.10 .foot setback. BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page6 �.{kil A2 rn�. . Ji+•! .i•C �i'%+ y, W }"� iyyh.44 r'y'e �i 'Y'',^' 45 `L 5 ncleaw� .?a` I r� Fa�. FfdY9 A 7 '�'�ti h7+—J �. r V4'� . f�. Mr. Loveland agreed to considar moving the sign closer to the 10 foot setback, because the bank wanted to resolve the issue. He wanted to see the sign closer to where the customs5turned into the bank. 6(1 Mr. Israel said that a maximum setback from the right-of- way had been suggested and he was agreeable to amending the previous Motion. Mr. Robinson suggested the Motion be amended to grant a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a setback but that the setback not be less than 7 feet. Mr. Israel withdrew the previous Motion and Vice Chairman Brown agreed. Mr. Lytle asked the Board to make the Motion pending any unforseen underground utilities or obstructions. 3 _Motion was to orant a V underground utiuties that may nto- less setback. Moved: Mr. Robinson Second: Mr. Israel Vot;ee 6-0-0 The Variance was granted. A-4- - Mr. & s. Ne r - Re: 7 & Cassina Lane. Chairwo n James - ted tha Mir. Nestor wa present and. Mrs. Nes r had to Is a but, ere was nothi on the ends co con erninq the A nlwh:: was on the 3/22/93 .genda. Ho ever, to upda a the B d she said th owner o the props ty had applie for a pe it for a poo and o er improve ` nts and the FI tor's we concerned t t th owners wou not comply w the LMo Chai oman James Id Mr. Nestor, hat the Bo d could no handle anything cont"rning the Ap al today, ause the Appeal d not been 1� ally adverti d for the 26/93 meeting d consequent could riot be eard. Chairwoman amen said the teff -was stil working on e permits that had been issue, and still wor ng on that and they were.awa of the Nestar concerns. s said it s the Staff*s re nsibility,-the and could no elp. 4-26-93 Mtg- Page 9 Mr. Nestor asked how,"they could get reco dered. Chairwoman Jame aid on 3/22/93 thF: oard overturne the Administrator' decision. She tol. Mr. Nestor if ere were more c cerns about the pro rty he should lk with Mr. Tom Br chko, Chief of Plan ng, Mr. Steve ley, Director f Community Develo ent or Mr. Mik !stold eill, Town Ma ager. Chairwoman mes said if the a anythi g the B rd could do with a Appeal or if /they othe busi ss to bring before the Board, nott hesitato d so. Mr Robinson sugges d/ that the Nestdr's also c with M . Frank Hodge. r. Nestor said a spoken with r. Hodge and that he had no con of over it. M . Nestor pursu dd (he was not at the micro one and his r arks could notibe heard clearly). Chairwo n James told Nestor that a responsibilities of the oards were se forth by law a d unfortunately the Board could not hel in this situat n. She suggested tha Mr. Nestor di cues his toner s with Mr. Riley, Mr. Ho a or Mr. Bre ko and if he r eived no satisfaction to s eak with Mr. 'Neill. Chairwoman J mes called a br k at 2:25 p.m. / The Boar reconvened at 2: 5 p.m. VI. New Business Applicant: Ms. Paula Thurman, Broad Strokes One Stop Decorating Center Owner: Ms. Paula Thurman Request: V-7-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1012 to allow changes to a nonconforming sign other than refinishing the surface of the sign, so as to keep the same appearance of the sign. Property is located at 26 Arrow Road and identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map #15. Mr. Bill Lytle said the Broad Strokessign was ! nonconforming, because it was in the right-of-way and had not been approved by .the CorridorReviewCommittee. Recent alterations required the sign permit.to`become •� void. Ms. Thurman requested a VariancefromLMo Section 16-7-1012(a) to retain the sign in the present location ,i with the changes to the sign copy and colors BOA 4-26-93 Mtq. Page 10 "Torsi-`! �w " •.:" `4 {va { P M�t� i.145'yI r'+{" tK > a!":..fit r r, G,�• tiL Mi -k,..... e ..:,�� l,zv ,F:... ..1 -ukS�l14til.E.%s.r r 42"; rf �tr% d 1pa,t� e A e 0 Mr. Lytle said the sign should conform to the LMO, specifically CRC review and be removed from the right-of- way, however Staff recommended the Variance from the setback be approved. Mr. Israel asked if the sign could meet the setback if it were placed in the five foot piece of land on the west end of the property. Also, if a facade sign could be used. Mr. Lytle said if the setback was met the native vegetation on the adjacent property and a large powerline pole would obstruct the sign. Mr. Lytle said a facade sign would meet requirements. Ms. Paula Thurman, Owner of Broad Strokes, told the Board that there was no other place to put the sign. She said people have a hard time seeing the present sign. Chairwoman James asked if a sign on the posts in front of the store would be acceptable. Ms. Thurman said because of the lighting it was almost impossible to see building signs and that people driving down Arrow Road have to almost come to a complete stop to read building signs. Chairwoman James asked if Arrow Road would be affected by the dual route. Mr. Lytle said that the widening of Arrow Road would stop considerably before the Broad Strokes business. Mr. Beil asked if Ms. Thurman had a proposed site other than the right-of-way. He said he agreed with staff on the proposed.location. Ms. Thurman said the landlord had paved the parking lot and where the pavement stops is where the sign begins before the ditch. The proposed.location had to be checked out, due to the fact that Mrs. Thurman did not own the property. Chairwoman James asked Mr. Lytle if he was comfortable that the marker on the property represented Broad Strokes property line. Mr. Lytle said he had checked the property on the tax maps and there was nothing on the tax maps to indicate there was any other property between Broad Strokes.and the electric company right-of-way. BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page 11 F„ ,�1 �} �iON.,�nf 'kA 4 G¢*N. i .i � dLlll�i _ `r 4 Mr. Hugh Talcott, Current Planner, told the Board, that the ? legal advertisement did not include'a Variance from the setback, so a setback Variance could not be, granted today. r' •# Mr. Israel suggested that. the case be deferred to the May r, a •1 • 24 meetin to allow for th g e proper advertisement: :. '6f TheMnt i on the: Board ' of Ad justment was todefer the • Applicant: Ms. Fran Thresh for Grayco Auto Parts Owner: Mr. Sammy Gray Request: V-12-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030, to allow a sign to be located within the required 10 foot setback from the right-of- way. Sign and property are located at 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. & identified on Beaufort Co. Tax Map 15, Parcel 253. Ms. Carol Krawczyk, Current Planner, addressed the Board. Grayco Auto Parts is located at 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. and the sign is within the road right-of-way between the two entrances to the site. On March 13 the sign was blown down and the owner decided to obtain a new sign due to the existing sign's condition and the change of business listings on the directional sign. Ms. Krawczyk said the Applicant pointed out that if the sign was moved back ten feet from the right-of-way line as required by the LMO, the sign could not be seen because of the Burger King sign; a telephone pole and front buffer i landscaping. The Applicant requested the sign be placed at I the property line for the best visual location. Ms. Krawczyk said Staff did not agree with the Applicant as to the hardship, because the.site had two entrances, 01 the traffic is slowed to 35 m.p:h. in front of the Grayco site and there are at least three other businesses that , share the inconvenience of the slight curve in the road in j front of the property. BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. .Page 15 ' - tv' n! • � '.!-,'t:'3 N -IA a�'\I`�.f n,.sJ lt;.w f �_. .:..= C !",._ '..1 :;� 7"c .t � w'.L'. f}i %:Lr �ir- .'r2' �'" C C �1�.}f�t Pv ^fin �!l�i��l�u�+t'�T'�•4.'�rf �'+C,..�.� ` -� � f- ;.%'�`T1�7-�t�il��ry�r a�r�4r�HXkAn.9 .�.+�k+�l�'rhe`1'.C§c�A�nnti,'nSr-ni3d7.'{�,rr�Fuwwri:.-..�T�•,,.J .e:. n��.61.-�ic�^ui�.�c_iliC.�i.YaS. 9�V:e t • • Ms. Krawczyk said after addressing the four variance criteria, Staff did not find that a hardship had been proven, with regard to setback or uniqueness. The Staff recommended that the Variance request from LMO Section 16- 7-1030 be denied. Mr. Israel asked if the Applicant's proposed sign location was on the setback line. Ms. Krawczyk said that was correct, the Applicant felt this was the best location. Ms. Krawczyk said the Staff recommendation was ten feet behind the property line and the sign base was ten feet wide. Mr. Israel asked if the sign would have to be set back the width of the existing sign to be conforming. Ms. Krawczyk said that was correct. Ms. Fran Thresh represented the Owner of Grayco. Ms. Thresh said currently 50% of the existing sign was over the property line and because of the road curve, trees, telephone poles and Burger King sign, if the sign was moved back about 16 feet it could not be seen. She said even with two entrances the area was heavily congested and people do not have a lot of reaction time. Ms. Thresh said Mi. Gray had driven down the road to see if they could live with the ten foot setback, and he said the investment would not be justified wi visibility needed �� e presented a hardshiait would not be brought into conformance anytime soon. Ms. Thresh urged the Board to consider the Variance favorably. Mr. Beil asked if the proposed location would be interfered with by vegetation. M3. Thresh said there was natural vegetation on the site and hours had been spent trying to find a location which could be seen by customers. Mr. Israel asked if the proposed sign was two-sided and legally conforming. No. Thresh said the sign was two-sided and approved by CRC. Mr. Israel said he was not ready to make a judgement as to where to move the sign, as to visibility and he would like to take another look at the site. Ms. Thresh asked if the Variance could be tabled and she would erect something on the site to show"the locations. Page 16 r . e El m • O Applicant: Mrs. Barbara Hudson for Squire Pope Furniture Owner: Mrs. Barbara Hudson Request: V-13-93 Variance from IMO Section 16-7- 1012(a) to allow changes to a nonconforming sign located at 67 Squire Pope Rd., identified on Beaufort County Tax Map 7, Parcel 2. Ms. Carol Krawczyk told the Board that Squire Pope Furniture and Denny Hud I o0d share an entrance drive. The Squire PopeM'kcl Aeiqn and store awnings were damaged during the March 13 storm. When Mrs. Hudson applied to CRC for approval of the sign -j-d awning color change, she was informed by Staff that Uia sign was nonconforming and needed to be brought into conformance before it could be painted. The existing sign is toolarge (45.2 sq. ft.) educed size letters (limit of 40 sq. ft. allowed son felt the sign could not be read from the road. Ms. Krawczyk said Mr. Hudson recently placed a free- standing sign on his site, and rather than add to the existing free-standing sign.Mrs. Hudson decided to request a Variance to paint and repair her existing sign in the same.colors as Mr. Hudson's sign. Theme colors were approved by the Corridor Review Committee (CRC) at the 4/13/93 meeting. Ms. Krawczyk said Staff decided the four,variance criteria had been met, and recommended that the Variance f ron LHO Section 16-7-1012(a) be granted. y, -. �' `` BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ----------- i_ yy i pA ,.y r Jii4`s�Ff:1F�F4'tIMC' r�n %�� { £. �u �� H p_ ��ry'� L� df��'�k2F if ��' ��rY V�j�,{W{a¢ � ¢.p�w�� >F[� .v [iiT'n� .i FSei.T, .} r .. .. .. v .na51�S1F��. al��.�Y.It1n �✓v"k 4,�.>;'L � '�}i i�'0f r�'Nx ykj.7k d ^1� r t Way Y..i A� kY. � � 5S; "L• :F+I19iN k�.ri0v. e 11 0 Mr. Israel commented that the design and subdued colors in the Benny Hudson sign were very attractive, and if the Squire Pope Furniture sign letters were brought into color conformance with the other sign it would be very pleasing. Chairwoman James asked if it was possible to have two free-standing signs on that parcel. Ms. Krawczyk said o free-standing signs were allowed but at present there dtnot seem to be a location where the sign could be placed. Chairwoman James questioned the size of the letters in the current sign ae to conformance. Mr. Bill Lytle, Assistant Current Planner/Sign Administrator said the present sign was nonconforming to size. Chairwoman James said that there was a need for fairness and consistency. If the letters fell off t was like a piece falling off the llmi mY i n Ms. Krawczyk saij the structure of the sign was not p damaged,only lettg�r_gg Mr. Riley, Director of Development%Tn-dicated in that .� Community an earlier meeting two letters coming off of the sign was not considered structural 44 -Alt - Chairwoman James said if this is a nonconforming sign with letters that have fallen off, it should be looked at and brought into conformance andshe had problem with the inconsistency in the law and it needYto be looked at. �GL{tit�t Mr. Israel said the facade sign when softened w"4 not be noticeable and was preferable to a free-standing sign. r� Mr. Bill Lytlej( said Mrs. Hudson was aware of the (,tis Z 7 $ nonconforming !Status of the sign and that was why_a variance was sought. Mr. Lytle said Mrs. Hudson wanted to keep the sign until the new sign ordinance was adopted. One year following adoption of the new ordinance this sign UW4( wkl:k have to be replaced. During that time Mrs. Hudson would seek a new conforming sign. The Board of Adjustment Motion rats to approve the Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1012/al to allow changas in a nonconformingnonconformingsi��roval was arantad on the basis basis BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Wht(,( Wwj Paaa 19 • i. " I?. r • ,. h f � I 1 a 1 r . • - ' c t i.t S ..'•1 , r movedi Chairman Brown , • .vice Seconds Mr. Robinson vote: s -zoo Chairwoman Janes and Mr. Miller voted' • R;q 1� 1y�4 � • against the Motion. .The Motion was,Czf ( r adopted.- P 7 } y7 Chairwoman Jamas said she voted Against the .Motion because ter srt 2 t ` Sr ' it stated this, was a nonconforming,sign beaaws of its `being size. She said a signwee repaired -that waste1� and an�thepast nonconforming,the'Hoard V a precedence that could be compared to ;this. sign $he asked that`the Staff note this those` inconsistanaies .make o!, aa' one o! -.,to ;that needed be • Moved: Vice Chairman Second: Vote: 4-2-0 airwoman J es and Mr. Mill voted against t Motion. The M on was adopted. Chairwoma James said a voted agains the Motion b ruse it stat this was nonconforming s n because of is size. he said a s gn was being re ired that wa non nforming, the Board set precedence the past th could be mpared to this ign. She as d that the aff make n e of this as o of those n nsistencies hat neede to be looked i o. Applicant: Mr. James Hale for O & P Ltd/JHP Hotel Corp. Owner: 0 & P Ltd/JHP Hotel Corp. of Hilton Head Island Request: V-14-93 Variance from LMO Sections 16 -7 -842 - Buffers, and 16-7-850(g)- Parking Distance, and 16-7-820 - Open Space, to permit additional parking, or variance from Section 16-7-851 - Minimum parking spaces, at the Best Western/OceanWalk Development. The property is located at 36 South Forest Beach Dr. & is identified as Parcel 240 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map 018. Chairwoman James recused herself from the hearing citir..q g possible conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Brown conducted the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Hugh Talcott told the Board that the variance related to existing and proposed parking provisions at the Oceanwalk/Hest Western development on South Forest Beach Drive. Mr. Talcott saili,,the history of the Xanadu and Oceanwalk development Oftrior to the Towr4tncorporation and the platted parcels of_land for the buildings and parking were irregular in shape and include cross �s&ements for different purposes. The last two buildings a withl72 units were built in 1990 and are the subject of this Variance. Mr. Talcott said the project was permitted based on a prior approval and the IMO parking regulations were not required. Current IMO standards require 121 spaces for the two buildings and 114 are provided. A recent court case ruling resulted in the loss of 23 parking spaces. The Applicant requested permission to replace these 0 parking spaces in the 50frear access easement owned by the Applicant. Mr. Talcott said installation of parking and a BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page 19 Ca Y_ t� 1r + + r k+ .F'•, ( I h, a rt kl4' t+ �'p ,,: 27 ��.r-?;6 'w n �;1 -i�... .li rrt x a r Svw �ig7i�i,L 54` 1v rtt�i i 3 .. s .y •i, drive aisle in this strip woud allow only 5 foot buffers from adjacent properties and the minimum distance from the building it is to serve, thereby the need for a,-*arJaPso.. Mr. Talcott said Staff found that a hardship existed regarding the buffer, because parking had to be prov and the rear easement was the only place availab Staff recommended parking within 'chat easement, with foot mla4maR- buffers.T�of the IMO would be met if that buffer was andscaped yYith as much visual screen as possible. Staff recommended approval of a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-842 with landscaping. Mr. Talcott said the Applicant also applied for a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-850(g) that required a parking distance standard of 500 feet. The LMO allowed parking 1000 feet away if shuttle service was provided. If the Applicant provided some type of shuttle service the intent of the ordinance would be met and a variance would not be needed. Staff found no hardship in reguiring the development to provide this serviceSom tha rear parking area. The Applicant indicated before the 7aeting that shuttle service would be provided for gueecs, therefore the only variance needed was for the buffers which was previously recommended for approval. Mr. Israel asked if the proposed parking was located by the tennis facility and if any residential property was involved. Mr. Talcott said Forest Gardens was on the other side of the tennis facility, however only the parking lot was close to the easement. Mr. Beil asked how many parking spaces the rear easement would provide. Mr. Talcott said it was suggested that only 23 spaces that were lost as a result of the court ruling plus an additional4 spaces be installed. Mr. Talcott said when the Applicant applied for development approval the Staff would make sure all the requirements were met. Mr. James Hale, represents -O i P Ltd. Mr. Hat told the Board that under previous approvals and review by the Planning Commission, a condition was placed on the action which stated, that after one year if the Commission found that parking was inadequate, additional parking would be required in a 500 easement strip at the rear of the property. Mr. Hale said essentially this strip of easement was located between parking areas. BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page 20 } Ormam e • • Applicant: Mr. Perry Woad for Greenwood Development Owner: Greenwood tevelopment Corporation Request: V-10-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7- 483(c)(2) and 16-7-915(d) to allow a reduction in Buffer and Setback requirements adjacent to tidal wetlands. Longview Island is located in Shelter Cove, and is identified as Parcel 28 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map N 12B. Mr. Hugh Talcott said Longview Island was t=e undeveloped tract in the Shelter Cove area of Palmetto Dunes. The Variang,request was from LMO Section 16-7-483(c)(2),which requireff a 20 foot minimum and 40 foot average buffer adjacent to the SC Coastal Council Critical Line adjacent to tidal wetlands. Mr. Talcott said in this case the intent of the ordinance would be met by allowing this buffer and setback because, this was a man made bulkhead verso the natural marsh with vegetation that the ordinance protecNF. The Applicant would meet all the buffers and setbacks along the naturally vegetated tidal wetlands, it was the area along the man made bulkhead where the setback and buffer variance was needed. He would provide some buffer and plant material subject to Corridor Review Committee review. The Staff recommended approval of the variances from LMO Sections 16-7-483(c)(2) and 16-7-951(d), because unique conditions and hardships exist. The intent of the LMO will not be compromised since these variances are to preserve natural vegetation along the marsh, however in this case, there is no marsh or existing vegetation along the bulkhead, and the Variances would allow more of the significant vegetation on the interior of the property to BOA 4-26-93 Ktg. Page 12 • be retained. The vegetation proposed along the bulkhead would provide the visual buffer that is desirable and intended by the LMO. Mr. Perry Wood represented Greenwood Development Corp., he noted Mr. Chet Williams was also present. Mr. Wood thanked Mr. Riley, Mr. Brechko and Mr. Talcott for their assistance and guidance. Mr. Wood said Longview Island had extensive frontage along the bulkhead which had been cleared of vegetation and a heavy wooded interior with numerous live oak trees. He noted that the success of the project relied on preservation of as many trees and natural vegetation as possible. If the 25 foot minimum setbacks were adhered to, the drive and parking area would be moved into the forest necessitating the removal of many palm, oak and pine trees. If the 50 foot average setback was adhered to a gross amount of vegetation would be lost. Mr. Wood said the development concept for Longview Island Residential Village was best described as a low density, low profile retreat in the woods. Its priority is to preserve the natural character of the Island as much as possible. The private residential development consists of a maximum of 175 units to include: Main Lodge, Lodge Houses I & II, and Cottages. Recreational uses include: pool and amenities area, boardwalks, and fishing dock. Mr. Wood said the intent of the LMO Sections from which Variances were requested, was to preserve the natural vegetation along the marsh for both aesthetic and environmental purposes, which does not apply in this case. Granting of the Variance would allow more preservation of the significant vegetation on the interior of the property. He said all of Longview's natural marsh boundaries on the sound side would be adhered to and in fact, they were in excess of the minimum and average setbacks. With an overall average for setbacks of 40 feet with the marsh and sound side in excess of 60 feet. Mr. Wood said at the request of Mr. Talcott, he met with Fire Marshall Padgett on the project for Fire Department preliminary approval and will continue to work with the Fire Department to receive approvals. The Board of Adjustment Notion was to grant a Varinnc@ from LMO 3ectionA 16-7-493(0121 and reduction in buffer and setback raauirements adjacent to tidal wetlands, to allow development of Longview Islam pursuant to pins presented at the April 26, 1993 Meet na,_ BOIL 4-26-93 Mtg. Page 13 �a , e • Moved: Mr. Robinson Second: Mr. Israel Vote: 6-0-0 Applicant: Town of Hilton Head Island Owner: The Grant Family Request: V-11-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7- 305(d) to relocate a nonconforming structure, a produce stand, further from U.S. 278 to better accommodate the Hilton Head Island Pathway. Mr. Hugh Talcott said the construction of the Island Pathway necessitated the moving of the Grant Family produce stand which had been in operation on their property at 651 William Hilton Pkwy. for over 30 years. The stand was -moved - siy when the Pnra#ay Vas -Y widened. The Island rad—. t asamoat-issvee=-te relocat t further from the roadwayANithout meeting the setback requirement. Mr. Talcott said this Variance was a result of the Town exercising power of eminent domain for the pathway .g easeme The LMO provided for special consideration of ;5/�'aances in Section 16-7-307(h)(3). The original tion pro sed by the Staff which met the setback was nd the MW buildings and this proved to be a hardship C/ for the owner. The owner suggested an alternate location that would be approximately 35 feet from the street right-of-waybiter aFere the r asau-- f om is location besauao-spase-would !e- allows& for safer use of the pathway without obstruction by produce stand customers. Mr. Talcott said since the Town was acting as Agent for the property owner no recommendation would be made on the Variance. Mr. Robinson asked if the structure would conform to •` building codes. Mr. Talcott said the Inspections Department had been contacted and limited requirements apply due to the type i of structure, but it would conform. ,. Chairwoman James asked if the structure was being moved or •. rebuilt, and if the new location.had adequate parking. •r_ BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page 14 1 iii Y r 1 t ti a lia F>il FC �,J Ilk II 4 -n 1 1 c9ft} t 21 $ it 3 iA Y Jr N tri l .4 t` ...4 m t +mss • m - -1 • Second: ViceChairman-Brown Vote* A=Qma The Variance wa.s.unaninously Adopted. = _ ! |- 'N77 It r� r � r _r ► r �► � r � r ► r _r ►_ i t D 1= Ll 1 110 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D 1= 1= 1 1 11 0-1 1= Ll Ll 11 1. Ll 31 _.1 _I 1 1 1 11 1 =1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =1 1= 1= 1 1 1 1-1 1 Ll 0-11-1 1 11 11III.13 1I1-11111 111=11 1111111 111111 I U_1_1 1 izzlrl�,"lml ►� 1-► fi r _► ►te 1-11-11 1 1-1 _r ►_ 1 iririri 1-1 LI ► ir_►_r ► 11 l� ► _► ►f - ►►--?I ► n _►r 1-1 LI L1LI C 1 ►►^►1 ► ► 1-1 3 0 U 1111111 111111 1 11_11=1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _I I 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-1 1 1 1 _I 1 1 _I i 1-1 Li L iii iii 1 1-1 -ii 1 n In 1-1 nril-fil 1-13cc LIUUC 1111113 11111111 11 D1=1= 1-11-11-1 L 1 11 11 1 1 1-1 .D1-11-1 111111-7 111`l1-1ll 11 D C 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-1 1 1-1 =1 1 1 I r► ri r _r i r►�►i r� r i t _rte r l r l r► r _r 1-11-11-11 r► r D C 1 1 iri►1-1 iri�ir ► 01 r 1� 1 1 I-' 3 n 1 1 ri1 1 1 1 =1 1 1 1 1 I_l 1-10-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 11 _I 11-1 ► ► ► ► ► 1 1-1 ► ► ► ► ► ► ► -11-1 ► UUU I LID iC �� 111111.1_1 11 111 1 A r r� ►� r _r ► r� r► ri r i r _ri ri r i rr_ri rr_ i ri ri r r i t _� ► r 1 1 1 1 1 1 =1 1-11-11-11 1 1-1 =1 I 11= 1111111 Ll 1-1 Ll 1 11_I 1_I 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1-11-11-71 1 n-11-11- 1 1 1 1 1 1 =1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l I _I I I 1l?1 1 1-1 #-11-11 1 1-1 D1-11-1 1 1 1 1! 1, 1-10-11-1 1 Ll _I 11:71 1 1 1-11-1 =1 1 1 1 1 1-0 1 1 11' 3 n Of 1111111 111111 I ll_1 I'# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ;1 -10 1 1 ILI 1-1 I 1 1 1 11 11 1 I 1 1 _Ill 1 1 1 1-11-1 =1 1-11-1 1 1 1 1 1-1 ,-11-1 =1 `' 1 1 1 1 1_I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 _I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =1 1-11-11-11 1 1-1 -10 1 _I 1111111 U1111 1 11_111_1 ��►�r-► -) ►► ►► ►1 ► 1-1 _►� ►1 ► i►i►U 111111 ► i►31i► 111111=1 11111111 11=10 1 �l Iw 1 11 1 1 1-1 1 1 I 11 _I Cl _I iiiiiii iii iii i ii_iiiii LI u u 3 0 I-Inf-131 r-11-11-111 I-lDor--1 U L 1-1 cl E <' Q44''iu't3�.cd3 1 1 1 1 =1 1�' 11' 1-1 ii ii1-1 ii 1 i i _i ii i 1 I #-I 1 13 1 1 1 1 1-11 1 1-1 =1 1 1 1 1 1 Ll 1_J I 1-11-1 1 1 1 1-1 _I 1 1 S 1 1 I 1 11 =1 1-11-11 1 1 1 =1 1 1 =1 1 1 1-1 1 1 1 Li 1 1 10 1 111111=1 11111111 11=10 1111111 111111 1 11_1 1_I U ir►r�r_r ►r►r�rir �r_r►rir . i ri ri ri i ri ri i t i t _r r r 1 ►'-i I ►-1 3 1 n 1 I 1 1-)=1 1 Ci ►i ►i ►i ►_►i ►i i ► i ► D ► _► I t 1 1 1 1� 1 11 1 3 1 1 1= i �i �i �i i �i iii � i i _� �i � I Ll A • m e r, c��T�rier � r� � NOTSCE PUBLSC HEARSNG The Town of Hilton Read Island Board of Adjustment Meeting will convene in Regular Session, Monday, May 24, 1993, 2:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, One Town Center Court, William Hilton Parkway, Hilton Head Island, SC. lr�_l. is Billie JiMarlrlow,PSecretary AGENDA BOARD OF AD E7STMEIV27 REGULAR MEETSNG MAY 2 4� 2 9 9 3 2x30 .P -M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA N. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 26, 1993 Meeting V. OLD BUSINESS Applicant: Ms. Paula Thurman, Broad Strokes One Stop Decorating Owner: Ms. Paula Thurman Request: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free- stamling sign to be located less than the required ten loot setback lroa the right-of-way. Property is i located at 26 Arrow Road i is identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map /15.. This case was deferred from the 4/26/93 BOA meeting. Appli. /: V-7-93 NIJ I• ' ury{3 ate: l "'diiwfi'..,a,;r'u�s �si� '' i .;t.i�.u.Ytr�W yaiaw .1r2",rs i'�_`a'�+,'+�A ��r,�Y{ MR -0.11 g g V.5yy7yjwa11�1 rex% � Aay 24, 1993 FROM: Chris and Stan Szuberla, Lot 1, 9radley9each TO: :*embers of the Board of Adjustment RG: To urge members to vote "NO" and deny a permit to the Town Planners for a "Public Beach Access" at Rradley Reach.9ecause of its too close proximity to oceanfront owners, the lune/beach walkover will create a NUISAIIC^ and cause I)EVAL'TATTCN o+' ornr private property. in an 08 --Residential zons-as designated on the L)10 map. 1. It seems very wrong that the town's actions should lock us into a life of abusel The town's proposed development plan at Bradley Beach will condemn us, oceanfront owners, to .live next to a beach walkover where literally thousands of people will come and go at all hours of the day and night with dogs, bicycles, music boxes, etcetera. The pedestrians will be within sight and sound o£ my windows. It seems a sad state of affairs an H.H.I. when an American citizen has to fight town hall for protection of private property rights that are already guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It's not the will of the good people of H.H.I. or of other ,good Americans. c. In 1986, the Board of Adjustment upheld the Planning Commission's decision of that year to deny a permit for a beach walkover and access in our residential area because it would have created a NUISANCE. The applicant was the Rosehill Plantation Corp. Itwantedto es ablish a private beach club for its hundreds of resident*. In good conscience, the Board voted "N10" and denied the permit. 3., Today, you will vote on whether or not the Public, thousands of ,:people, should gain access in the same residentiAl area. The difference is that the applicant is the Town of Hilton Head Island. It seems that "MIGHT IS RIGHT" is the attitude held at town hall today. Itjs t ,¢armee arrogantunprincipled attitude of land grabbers c.1r�}�iut. i �..31ire robbed slanders of the original public access at Ci Bradley Beach to make way for the swimming pool of the Admirals Row complex—Now, we are expected to pay the high price for those wrong actions !Common sense..and common decency dictate ,just how wrong those actions were. The Board needs to vote "NO" and protect our rights. The town,ls law needs to be in touch with humanity. l,. However..should the "Ayes" have it today, then the Board needs to attach a condition to the permit: "Just Compensation" needs to be paid to,those oceanfront owners who will suffer the NUISANCE and whose properties will become DEVALUATED. It needs to try to make ' amends to those oceanfront owners w ose lives will be forever changed. Aye, The PiperMustBe Paidl The Principle involved: �t RICHT IS. RIGHT and WRONG IS WRONG I; -Let iiIGHT:-be donel Thank youl "Chris Szuberla. `i �rf`Wa' fi. . • • ----------------------------------------------------------------- BEFORE THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD PLANNING COMMISSION may. WB X MAY 24, 1993 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES DELIVERED BY DR. WIL GRANT ----------------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION The Driessen Beach Association is composed of residents and property owners in the fourteen (14) lot subdivision adjacent to the proposed site of the Mid -Island Public Parking Lot. The Association, on behalf of its members, supported the decision of the Hilton Head Planning Commission in Mazch of 1986 to deny a permit for construction of a parking facility by a particular plantation. We went through that period, endured much anxiety, knowing that we had to fight and fight hard to keep that proposed parking facility out of our neighborhood. We prevailed and an. such, believed that action of denial was the end of such a. proposed and, I might add, unwelcome, inanimate newcomer to our neighborhood. The sigh of relief by the residents was short lived, however, in the history of our Island. The problem is with us again. This time, the very same governmental entity whose administrative bodies smote the 1986 plantation parking facility request and threw it.out "hip and thigh" is now, the agent seeking to place a new and different parking facility right next to our quiet residential.neigbborhood. Indeed, the parking facility:proposed by the Town makes the rejected 1986 plan look • e puny by comparison; that is, a rejected 21 space parking facility then compared with a more than 800 parking facility now. What is "new and different" is really not new. The residents of the two a Associations see this proposal as a continuation of what was captured succinctly and correctly by No. Elizabeth LeLand of the Charlotte Observer who wrote eloquently of the irrepressible development of this Island at the expense of indigenous and/or long time Island residents. The article was published in the j Atlanta Journal and Constitution on July 23, 1989. As you know from the record of the Planning Commission, the Town has made significant modifications to its ori.ginal plans. The hew and cries of the residents were heard because that abject I consternation was loud and clear and our objections were based j squarely on the Town's own ordinances. Indeed we pointed out a i substantial list of concerns that were duly noted by that i Commission. Upon its review, the Planning Commission (a) sustained some of our objections, (b) expressed concern that might be occasioned by the Towns parking facility on the quality of life of the residents in the Bradley and Driessen Beach Association's Communities, (a) expressed their expectation that any future increase in size or scope of the parking facility would receive their extreme scrutiny in the context of the impact of the agreed to 212.place parking facility on that quality of life with respect to how'that quality of life may have been r� 01 affected and how it might subsequently be affected by An future expansion. 2 � Y riY�T iii Y��fi 1 1 7 i1 �,4 1 �v� �S { S1 l W 'D ) cif{'7V �l• Q.., 1A�'S ry )*'J • While I will yield to the notion that the Planning Commission was fair and extremely courteous as we made our case, and engaged in dialogue that would have made Thomas Jefferson and Frederick Douglas proud, we contend that the Planning Commission possibly erred in three areas. Before we state these points, I would like to state, on a personal note, that the Planning Commission, particularly its chair, was most cordial, respectful and open - having provided time for the aggrieved citizens to have their say. This was in stark contrast to th.!" appearance of our President, Mrs. Martha Nilson, who was rudely gaveled to silence in an appearance before the Town Council in the recent past. It appeared to me and apparently to many others in those chambers that that constituted a measure of rudeness and insensitivity that the Planning Commission exhibited none of. Specifically, Madame Chairman and members of the Board of Adjustment, we object to three items: (a) On Page 3 of 12, PCM 2-3-93, 21, Mr. Drane provided specification sheets describing the material that would ; be used for the noise barrier fencing. While that fence is near state-of-the-art, it does not address the problem of diffracted sound that would surely affect Mr. and Mrs. Walter Glover and possibly Dr. and pr. Wil Grant's residences. This is a somewhat difficult physics problem but it can be solved. Simply put, it means sound that is incident on the top, of the fence in bent around the fence.. When this occurs, the SPL 3 ,I • • (Sound Pressure Level) at the site of ground is such that the sound incident at the top of the wall does not "see" the wall. This would constitute a nuisance covered by Section 9-1-111 of the LMO. I am willing to perform this study and to submit my research findings in a timely manner to any one competent in the area of acoustics for peer review and certification to the Town and/or its staff. (b) On page 5 of 12, PCM 2-3-93, Second Motion. The Park would be opened from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. That motion stated that the park would be staffed at all hours it is oRen. The gate to the park would be closed at 8:30 pm. Thus, there is a 3 1/2 hour period in which the park would n2t be staffed. (c) On page 5 of 12 PCM 2-3-03, concern was expressed regarding parking on Bradley Beach Road. This is a truly contentious point. This situation has not been studied carefully. One needs only to lock at the history of people parking on Burke's Beach road to see a portence of what may follow on Bradley Beach Road. The Town has IIs, specified in detail how the property rights of the Citizens who reside on either side of this road would be protected from transient beach goers who park in front of their homes. Most people who talo advantage of the beach are good citizens who will obey the law. Many, unfortunately, will not do this. In 4 • fact, someone parked literally in my front yard, recently, and, with his entourage, proceeded to my private walk to the beach. I informed the trespasser that he was on private property and did not have permission to use my private walk. The person uttered what I believed to be an ethnic epithet at which time I informed him that he must and shall leave - period. Be left. The point is, this is a potentially dangerous situation and should be studied carefully and by competent people. Subsequent to this study, the Town should meet with the citizens to assure them specifically that all measures will be taken to insure their safety and the inviolability of their properties. (d) The matter of ingress and egress on Bradley Beach Road is a problem that has not been fully addressed. Mention and concern were made of it page 5 of 12 of PCM 2-3-93, 23. The stacking lane on the highway possesses sufficient space for only about two to three cars. There will surely be backed up traffic there, and accidents occasioned by that traffic. Indeed, there will, in all likelihood, be death there. Keep in mind that two vehicles, a small car and.a moderate size truck that collide head-on at very moderate speeds, will result in a force of many g's on the inhabitants of the small vehicle. 5 i • Recent events on another Barrier Island suggests the nature of such a traffic mess and the resultant activities that left one person dead and another seriously injured. In that incident, traffic was backed up 10 miles according to the newspaper accounts of last Sunday and Monday in the Savannah Morning News. (e) We see no reason why the proposed phase 1 of the parking facility should not be located just west of the small wetland area that appears on your maps. Such a location is about in the middle of the tract of land purchase by the Town for the purpose of hosting this parking facility. At this location, the nuisance noise would be least obtrusive to all the residents of the area. In conclusion, let me reiterate our concerns. First, we don't want a public park as a neighbor, period. Given the progress of the matter, I, for one, woula Implore you to consider carefully and in detail the five (5) items listed above should you approve the 212 space public parking facility. Our arguments have always listed that the considerations of equity and include but are not limited to illegal parking, increased traffic, noise, litter, trespassing, burglary, vandalism, noxious fumes, etc., which are concomitant by products of the.facility. Our historic neighborhood has,a distinguished heritage of brotherhood where we have welcomed anyone who is a good neighbor. This facility will not, nor will it every be, a good neighbor. 6 f • Recent events on another Barrier Island suggests the nature of such a traffic mess and the resultant activities that left one person dead and another seriously injured. In that incident, traffic was backed up 10 miles according to the newspaper accounts of last Sunday and Monday in the Savannah Morning News. (e) We see no reason why the proposed phase 1 of the parking facility should not be located just west of the small wetland area that appears on your maps. Such a location is about in the middle of the tract of land purchase by the Town for the purpose of hosting this parking facility. At this location, the nuisance noise would be least obtrusive to all the residents of the area. In conclusion, let me reiterate our concerns. First, we don't want a public park as a neighbor, period. Given the progress of the matter, I, for one, woula Implore you to consider carefully and in detail the five (5) items listed above should you approve the 212 space public parking facility. Our arguments have always listed that the considerations of equity and include but are not limited to illegal parking, increased traffic, noise, litter, trespassing, burglary, vandalism, noxious fumes, etc., which are concomitant by products of the.facility. Our historic neighborhood has,a distinguished heritage of brotherhood where we have welcomed anyone who is a good neighbor. This facility will not, nor will it every be, a good neighbor. 6 7 _ __ i?'� ~ �. 'i3 .. �� • • MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 1993 TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Ed Drane, Urban Designer RE: Appeal (MA -5-93) for May 24, 1993 Meeting APPELLANT: Dr. Wil Grant This is an appeal of the February 3, 1993 decision of the Planning Commission to grant public project approval to the Bradley Beach Public Access Facility. This project will provide parking, staff office, restroom facilities, boardwalk, and a dune walkover at Bradley Beach. The site consists of three tracts totaling 14.57 acres. The Town of Hilton Head Island owns two of the tracts (13.79 acres) and leases the third from Beaufort County (.78 acres) which is the current beach access parking. Two hundred and twelve improved spaces are proposed at this time. The fifty one existing spaces will be replaced by the expansion. (See attached Exhibit 4; site plan.) The site is zoned RD -2, Resort Development, which allows public beach facilities as a by right use. Adjacent property is zoned RD -2 and R-8, Residential Moderate Density, and contains both multi -family and single family residential development. A concept plan was presented on October 9, 1992 at a special meeting at Town Hall attended by approximately 20 residents of the neighboring coaawnity. Concerns expressed at that time centered on the issues of traffic, noise and security. After refinements in the plans a public hearing eras held by the Planning Commission on December 16, 1992. (See attached Exhibits 5-11, items submitted to Planning Commission.) Residents of the area again -expressed their concerns about these items. After the lengthy 'discussion the Planning Commission voted to deny approval based .on ten points which reflected the discussion.. (See attached. Exhibit 1, minutee.of meeting.) r; �'k The staff held another meeting with the residents at their request on Sunday, January 31, 1993 at the home of Mr. & Mrs. Mark Moore. Each of the ten items and possible solutions were discussed. The plans for the project were again revised to reflect these solutions and presented to the Planning Commission for reconsideration at its February 3, 1993 meeting. (See attached Exhibit 2, Response to Planning Commission Concerns, for a description of how each of the ten points was addressed.) ` The Planning Commission againheard comments from the residents and discussed in length the proposed project and its previous ten points of concern. The Planning Commission then voted 8-1-0 to grant 'public project approval with 3 conditions. (See attached Exhibit 3, minutes of meeting.) Subsequent to the Planning Commission. decision, approval of the project was given by the Corridor Review' Committee on April 13, 1993. As is customary, the staff will not make a reccumndation on an appeal. .The appellant is asking- .you if the ,that .decide Planning Commission acted,in error in, gianting;their.approval of this project based on the information that was'presented to 1 them. As with any appeal, you: may uphold,': modify, or reverse itheir decision. (14 Application No. TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND I Town Center Court Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 803/686-0904 R®QDEST FOR APPEAL Instructions: Please TYPE or PRINT legibly. Attach additional sheets if needed. Appellant Duly Authorized Agents Name: 1)lt vw1L- G12A.N7 Nailing 104 V.41_ -GY C? Address: ST'ATesAbno GA -304-Ta 1-911 - 6'I-6242 e Phone: I-911- 489-1434 14 Please summarize the decision you are appealing: TILE 'PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF 71tE PRopossn EewnLBV .E@AG.N PLL9LIG PAQK Al aelsSeNrED BY rNE TOWN sr AFF IHAa'93. Please explain tha basis upon which you have the right to appeal: Sear/ OA/ /c -S- 10 Mi�roN MEAN S3LAN}] teas Town official or body which made the decision: pLAtu N, N r- Cewt+11310N If applicable to the nature of the appeal: Naso of affecteddevelopment: iv /A Base and Overlay Zoning District(s): N /A Location of Project: TME 14QEA Jt!!T SOurN ee BRADLAY sEAeN ROuW . Tax Nap Nuaber(s) N/A. Parcels) AVIA of development. Attach the fellawina itaea• 1. A detailed narrative outlining grounds of the appeal, and citing any LM Section tubers relied upon; and a statement of the specific decision requested of the Board of Adjustment. 2. When an appeal is filed by an agent for another party that party wt submit written certification consenting to the appeal., IM Section 6-7-603 requires the appellant or autivirised agent to have a local mailing address or telephone number. 3. Aad+ other supporting documentation, limited to the elaboration of facts already presented to prior decision makers. 4. Filing Fee payable to the Tom of Hilton Need Island: $10 for appeals of the sign Administrator, $100 for all other appeals. �i.Q iG.Na.v✓� / W ItMEB 'Cr RANT' - S IQ Signature of Appellant Date nease print/type of Appellant/Agent (or duly Authorised Aient) ■=: The appellant sball.provide noties to all lana criers. of,record.within two hundred (200) feet4m all aides of the 'aid land beiw' considered for au appeali Such .notice sbali be made by certified mail. 'SL' Coat ahallsbe boron by the appellant. Ord.83-6 Tera Court Section`16-3-i0 Appeals to -tlr Bard.: = e e 0 Mr. Thomas Brechico Board of Adjustment 1 Towne Center Court Hilton Head Island, SC 29926 February 12, 1992 Dear Mr. Brechico, This letter is written in order to notify the Board of Adjustment for the Town of Hilton Head Island that the Driessen Beach=Association wish to make a presentation to the Board regarding the proposed Bradley Beach Park. The members of the Association believe that the proposed park poses a significant nuisance to the residents from several perspectives that were not thoroughly addressed by the Planning Commission. We believe that the Town has not demonstrated that the noise accompanying the proposed park will meet the Town's noise ordinance. In addition, we believe that sufficient thought and planning have not been given to the actual location of the proposed 212 parking spaces of Phase I of the proposed.park that would minimize the intrusive impact on the residents whose properties are just adjacent to the proposed park. Continuing, we believe that the security plan for the proposed park is flawed because of an "uncovered" period of time wherein there will be no security at the park for a period of time when the park is officially open. Further, we believe that the question of direct line of sound from the proposed park to the residents in immediate proximity to the proposed park has not been studied nor addressed with respect to the sound level at the site of these residents. Moreover, we believe that the question of trespassing from the beach onto private property with its accompanying a litter and vandalism has not been addressed to the full satisfaction of the members of the .Association. Finally, we believe that plans for ingressavrl egress to and from the proposed park to and from Highway. 2781 ares flawed from a traffic e l congestion perspective. Indeed, we believe that the traffic along Bradley Beach Road will impact negatively. the peace and tranquility of the residents whose properties are on either side of Bradley Beach Road. This pristinely beautiful area, of the island has been` heir property long before Hilton .Head became the Town of Hilton: Head. ;,the residents of this. historically significant' area. seek to protect its residential nature and pastoral serenity. The proposed park, as presently,planned,, falls ,far short of being a good neighbor to our quiet' residential community.; +t l�';`" � •�%�3N't+k'j�d'R 1�iHf?. `�6rhina,%wn,`,.V .1. i- ,+{-! A:` NARRATIVE WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO ITEM NUMBERED 1 OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM LABELED "REQUEST FOR APPEAL" 1. There are three specific grounds upon which this appeal is based. a. The "stacking lane" that exists on Highway 278 is inadequate. b. The proposed placement of the initial phase of the park is controversial and needs to be rethought. The association feels that this initial phase can easily be placed just west of the small wetland area in the park and therefore be less obtrusive to the affected residents than the present proposal. C. it is clear that all the specifications of the nuisance ordinance are not satisfied. Specifically Town Code Section 16-7-451, subsections (d) and (f) are not satisfied. We require of the Town and request that the Board insures that the nuisance ordinance is rigorously satisfied. Further, the Town should provide evidence of this satisfaction not rhetoric before this project is permitted to proceed. Section 16-7-451(2) defines "Class B Nuisances [as] ... [1] and uses and activities capable of unnecessarily disturbing public or neigh- _ boring land uses and activities ..." Among the activities listed in the ordinances as illustrating Class B Nuisances are "... establish- �'DS ments for public amusement and recreation which generate light on neighboring properties, or other potentially disturbing phenomena ..." [subsection a]; "open storra�gyards and depositories foc any objects ..." [subsection d]; . any use which interferes with television or radio reception, or physical or electronic disturbance perceptible F beyond the boundaries of the premises op which such use is conducted 1 � 1 "[subsection c]; "...any light ...that casts disturbing rays or Y. , creates glare so as to constitute a nuisance beyond the boundary of the premises ..." [subsection f]= "...facilities, installations or " activities which result in the production of noise levels in excess of 1 fifty-five (55) dBA measured at the property line" [subsection i]. f"""J - STAFF NOTE ON PARAGRAPH C. This section, 16-7-451, is a reference from the Development Standardss' Ordinance which was replaced by the -Land Ordinance on January 19, 1987. There is no similar, nuisance criteria in the LMO.. Ed Drane au I r f s `t ti Y t� t� Snip X�1 k d�,� t C. r 4 •1 r . it i' S � ,. n•U,1f,."j4F 1. > a x q A'[f,rl N r a • M EXHIBIT 1 V. Appearances by Citizens Chairman Moore requested that anyone wishing to speak on an Agenda item, please wait until after all presentations have been made on that particular item. There were no other appearances. VI. Old Business Commissioner Barnwell requested that the traffic signal (light) at Mathews Drive and US 278 be checked. The timing is off at night. VII. New Business A. Request for Public Project Review of proposed Bradley Beach Park. Improvements to include public beach access with restrooms, security office, public parking and landscaping. Property located at the end of Bradley Beach Road. Public parking lot to be located on Parcels #22 and ti5NA, Beaufort County Tax Map M8 and 09. Ed Drane, Urban Designer, presented an illustration of the design for the proposed Bradley Beach Park. The property for this park was purchased from Councilman Driessen by the Town. Drane stated that this application represents the next phase in the Town's commitment to provide public beach access on the Island. In order that adequate buffers can be maintained and a park setting provided, the maximum number of parking spaces will be 695 of which 212 will be.constructed in this initial phase. The Proposed park will feature a boardwalk and dune walkover leading to the beach and a beach facility housing men and women's restrooms, an office for the attendant, storage and vending space. This facility will be very similar in scope to the facility located at Coligny Circle. This project has been specifically designed to recognize the residential character of the • area with 50 foot buffers and In some caeca 60 foot buffers. The 1 parking density has been reduced to allow 20 feet of'medians between parking aisles and to eliminate parking where significant trees occur so that there will be a shaded parking lot. Fencing will be utilized to insure that pedastrians cannot access: private j property from the park The area will be adequately signed and marked Water and sewer are available in the immediate area Page 3 of 10 PCM 12-16-92 t` s i 51 i r Y • 1� and no problems are anticipated when tapping into Public Service District No. l lines. ]Engineers have completed the tree and topography survey and Staff has done some fine tuning to the layout to eliminate spaces where trees conflicted with parking. Drane stated that there had been some discussion on who will staff and maintain the facility, there is a possibility that a sophisticated electronic metering system will be used or that approximately 60 parking spaces will be metered and the rest would be an attendant lot similar to the parking lot at Coilgny Circle. A discussion ensued on the number of improved and unimproved parking; metered parking; easements; and proposed bikepath that will run along the northern side of the Town's property. Chairman Moore asked that appropriate barriers be provided to keep traffic in appropriate parking places. Charles Cousins, Planning Analyst, discussed the traffic and road situation associated with the beach park. He stated that there is a left turn lane on US 278 southbound in the median for turns onto Bradley Beach Road. The main improvement that may be needed in the next Capital Improvement Program would be a deceleration lane on US 278 northbound going onto Bradley Beach Road. However, Staff feels that the majority of cars using this park would be from the north, so the need for this improvement is unclear at this time. Staff wants to observe the number of cars and the use the first year the park is open before recommending that the Town go forward with a deceleration lane. Staff also considered the use of the easemrrt purchased by the Town, but felt that it was too dose to the existing hitersection of US 278 and Bradley Beach Road. The Commission discussed their perceptions of traffic conditions in this area and expressed concern that the existing left turn lane on US 278• southbound at Bradley Beach was not long enough to accommodate the volume of cars which would use the park from that direction. There was also discussion of the ability of Bradley Beach Road to accommodate the volume of can which would use the park and the Commission suggested that the road may require minimal widening. Page 4 of 10 PCM 12-1692 e 0 M Chairman Moore requested Commissioner Paffenbarger to list the conditions discussed so that the conditions could be Incorporated into the motion to bring to the attention of Town Council at the time they approve the specific capital projects. Property owners in the area spoke in opposition to the proposed park. The Bradley Beach Road and Driessen Beach area residents' concerns were numerous but the most significant concerns were. 1) security/safety of children and home, 2) traffic, O.e. speed and amount), 3) inadequate roads, 4) depreciation of property, 5) access to beach by property.owners, 6) noise/loud sounds, 7) vagrants, 8) litter, 9) quality of life being diminished; and 10) the black community not being treated fairly, giving more than their share for local access. Speaking in opposition to the proposed park were: Graham Dugas, Dr. Wil Grant, Mary Bradley McDew; Mrs. George Beruiett, Leonard Law, Martha Wilson, Mark Moore, Ted Whittaker, Jon! Dimond; Chester Williams, Pauline Grande, Frank Chapman, and Connie Angeletti. The Planning Commission, Staff and residents discussed the concerns of the property owners and Chairman Moore defined the purpose of the public hearing. Commissioner Barnwell asked what the exact proposed time frame for this project, beginning date and ending date, would be, as well as the proposed planning dates for additional parking in other locations on Hilton Head. Drane responded that this proposed project would be under construction in early April 1993 and opened by June 1, 1993. - There Is documentation supporting the fifth year for the rest of the parking. Commissioner Calhoun asked if there was any obligation to proceed with subsequent phases regardless of the utilizAtion of the first phase. -Steve Riley stated that a tentative schedule of implementation of improvements was provided to the Coastal Council. It indicated that Phase I of this park wouldbe built first with the other parks and the future bases of m hope d in: slowly and to monitorparg needs before moving forward with development Page 5 of 10. PCM 12-1692 r at the remaining park sites and to put off for as long as possible future expansion at this site until the needs are demonstrated. There was general discussion on the impact traffic would have on the neighborhood during the beach season; the possibility of the Town monitoring the traffic impact on the neighborhood; the Possibility of constructing sidewalks for the safety of people walking back to US 278; and the Planning Commission looking only at Phase I of this project at this time. Mark Moore, a resident of the Bradley Beach area, asked what projects were presently on the books. Riley responded that three sites were provided to the Coastal Council: 1) the Ocean Tract adjacent to the Westin Resort; 2) the Driessen site; and 3) the Malphrus Tract off of Singleton Beach Road adjacent to Four Seasons Resort. Ted Whittaker, a resident of the Bradley Beach area, stated that 85% of the parking spaces are being concentrated in one general area. Whittaker feels that some changes should be made and -that the parking spaces for beach access should be evenly divided across the Island regardless of locations. t After discussion on the possibility of other ways to acoess the Bradley Beach Park, the following motion was entertained: Motion: Move that the proposed public project as presented be denied on the basis of location, character and extent for the following reasons I. The requested parking area should include only the number to be developed initially so that future review will be made before the parking is acpanded. 2 71te adequacy of sound bankers between project and adjoining residents and land owners should W reviewed. • s 3 The adequacy of visual barriers and bullasshould be 4. The adequacy of security barrim and buffers sltould W reviewed s, • 5. iniad! planned lighting siatBar to ' I i 4 • • , Folly Field BeaClt. { 7 Page 6 of 10 PCM 12-16.92 i r "r"o,, c', 11 • • 6. The adequacy of barriers to contain vehicles within improved parking areas and proper signage to prevent illegal parking along Bradley Beach Road and elsewhere should be reviewed. 7. The adequacy of Town owned land on the south side of the boardwalk area to provide buffers and to provide visual blockage of beach access should be reviewed. 8. Plans for security of the area should be defined when it is open and closed, and attendants are not on duty should be defined. 9. The adequacy of Bradley Beach Road to handle future flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and emergency vehicles should be reviewed. 10. The adequacy of stacking of inbound traffic approaching Bradley Beach Road from the north on highway 278 should be reviewed. Moved: Paffenbarger Second: Shay Vote: 7-2-0 Commissioner Calhoun voted in opposition to the motion because he believes the location to be acceptable, restrictions need to be placed but can be accommodated, and that the 212 spaces is a reasonable beginning toward meeting a demonstrated need. Commissioner O'Donnell voted in opposition to the motion because he beLeves the Town should go forward with the 212 spaces at this time and defer. any further expansion until it is termed to be necessary. Chairman Moone stated that the members of the Planning Commission understand why the Town purchased the property and that the vote of the. Planning Commission reflects the concern of the Planning Commission that the concept has not been adequately defined and adequate provisions for a good neighbor policy toward those that live close by has not been developed. 1% continued that it is not to say that Ste Planning Commission is rejecting the site for future: public parking but saying that what the Palming Commission heard today does not address the concerns that the Planning Commission is charged to address. Page 7 of 10 PCM 1216.92 e • BRADLEY BEACH PUBLIC ACCESS RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS EXHIBIT 2 1. The requested parking area should include only the number to be developed Initially so that future review will be made before the parking is expanded. The project has been revised to include only the 212 spaces of phase one. Any future phase(s) will be submitted for Public Project Review. This represents an increase of 161 spaces from the current number at the site. 2. The adequacy of sound barriers between project and adjoining residents and land owners should be reviewed. A Thigh fence has been added between parking areas and single family lots. The fence material is designed to reduce sound transmission and also to absorb sound. See revised site plan and manufacturers data. The fence will be attractively designed with heavy wood posts and a wood cap. 3. The adequacy of visual barriers and butters should be reviewed. The LMO requires 20 It. buffers to r this type recreational use next to single family property. Project calls for 50 It minimum at parking areirs. The Town is in the process of purchasing an adjoining parcel to the boardwalk. This will provide and additional 70 N. of buffer at this area. The vegetation in the buffers will be left undisturbed. 4. The adequacy of security barriers and buffers should be reviewed. Access toA*m the beach will be controlled by the fencing and natural barriers (marsh, dense vegetation) to prevent trespass by park users onto neighboring ocean front property. 5. The project should Include planned lighting similar to Folly Reid Bach. Lighting of area has been induded. See revised site plan and manufacturer's data. 6. The adequacy of barriers to oonWn vehicles within Improved prancing area and Proper signs" to pwant Illegal parfdng a" Bradley Beach Road and elsewhere should be rovhrd d. T1W has always been a part of the proposal. Braley Beach Road wig be posted and no parking wiN be s ly enftvsd The Town's ffidSo in the 7. 8. 9. 10. • • M North Forest Beach and Folly Field neighborhoods have had no problems in handling this effectively. Residents In these areas were skeptical at first but now have a very positive view of the Towns operation of its facilities. The adequacy of Town owned land and on the south side of the boardwalk area to provide buffers and to provide visual blockage of beach access should be reviewed. See #3 above. Plans for security of the area should be defined when it is open and closed, and attendants are not on duty should be defined. The parking areas will have gates to prevent vehide access when the park is dosed. The neighborhood residents will still be able to utilize the pedestrian boardwalk however. Security in the area will be improved from the present conditions due to the increased presence of Town staff, the sheriffs department, and during daylight hours, increased utilization of the area. Much of the present problem can be attributed to the isolation of the area and the low utilization due to lack of facilities and poor beach access. The adequacy of Bradley Beach Road to handle future flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and emergency vehicles should be reviewed. Bradley Beach Road should be able to handle the increased traffic from phase one. The present 20 It. pavement width needs to be cleaned of soil and vegetation along the edges and re -stripped. A shoulder should also be created to allow pedestrian traffic by residents to and from the beach access. The Town will work with the SCHD to have these Items accomplished The Town will monitor the situation during the first year of operation to determine H further Improvements are needed. The road can be widened to currentSCHD sWxWds without aoquiringadODnal right-of- way. B4de/pedestdan traffic from outslda the neighborhood will be routed along the northern boundary of die Town property in oder to reduce the use of Bradey Beach Road for this purpose. The adequacy of stacking of Inbound Diad : approachIng Bradley Beach Road from the north on Highway 278 should be rwlewed. There 49 suildent area between FoNyFletd Mad and Bradey Beach Road to fadlltW turning tense for both /Momedbns. (Sae ModW ~ng). This wile also be closely monNored to dstsrmine the need for any modfirafions to the present paveineM sW'>a • EXHIBIT 3 V. Appearances by Citizens No appearances by citizens. VI. Old Business None VII. New Business A. Reconsideration of Public Project Review of the proposed Bradley Beach Park. Improvements to include public beach access with rest roomer security office, public parking and landscaping. Property located at the end of Bradley Beach Road. Public parking lot to be located on Parcels #22 and #241, Beaufort County Tax Map #8 and Parcel #&MA, Beaufort County Tax Map #9. Ed Drane, Urban Designer, and Prank Margotta, Manager of Special Services, addressed the ten concerns that were raised at previous meetings with the residents of Bradley Beach area and at the December 16,1992 Planning Commission Meeting. Drane stated that this application had been revised to include only the 212 spaces of Phase 1. Any future phases would have to be resubmitted and receive separate approval under Public Project Review. Any land designated for future parking will remain untouched and no fencing will be installed at this time for future parking. Drane presented a site plan of Bradley Beach Road and the surrounding community showing location of the current parking area, Admirals Row, and other areas that would be affected by the beach park. A state of the art sound barrier fence has been proposed beginning at the freshwater wetland and going down the property line and up to the comer where the proposed boardwalk will be located and on to the tidal marsh. Drangpreserded slides of the proposed beach park area. During the slide presentation, Drone explained where the vegetated buffer would be planted in from of the fence: showed the area where the current parking was located, and showed the location of the bath house and boardwalk to the beach There were several slides of property belonging to homeowners so that the Planning Codumission could see how the beach park would affect their homesites. Page 2 of 12 PCM 2-3-93 4i s.• • M Drane stated that the fence had solved the problem of the visual barrier of the Town's facility from the community. In the packets received by the Planning Commissioners, there were specification sheets describing the material that would be used for the noise barrier fencing and lighting. According to Drane, an investigation was conducted by Town Staff on Bradley Beach Road to determine if Bradley Beach Road was suitable to handle the future flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and emergency vehicles. The Town will work with the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SCDHM to improve the pavement width and to create a shoulder to allow pedestrian traffic by residents to and from the beach access. The road can be widened to current SCDWr standards without acquiring additional right-of-way. The right of way width is ST. The Town will monitor the situation during the first year of operation to determine if other improvements are needed. During Drane'a presentation, the Planning Commission asked questions regarding dosing access to Admiral's Row, utilization of mechanical barriers after closing; paving the pathway to make it user friendly, total cost of all improvements, and the left -tum stacking lane on US 278. Frank Margotta, Manager Special Services, commented on Security/Operational Aspects conducted by the Town's Special Service Division. Margotta covered the following topics during his presentation: 1) scheme of operations, 2) hours of operation; 3) parking enforcement, 4) traffic flow, 5) dishWwces, and 6) property values. Margotta Mated that the beach park would be staffed by one park attendant from 8:30 AM - 5-00 PM (normal operating hours). This person will oversee the orderly flow of beach-pattons, proper parking of motor vehicles, Cleanliness of the Mt wow, and general conduct of business at the beach, park. A roving Parking &*roement Officer will monitor the parking at both the Bradley and My Hold Beach accesses. The bgadLWk will .be offidally open fio,n- 8-00 AM to WO PM during the beach season. A meatunical barrier(s) will be utilized to restrict use by vehicle traffic after 8:00 PM. According to Margotta, the Bradley Beach park will -utilize a new concept In meta parking. The plan isw Ir stall a centralized Parkmaster instead of " individual parking meters. The Parkmaster is Page 3 of 12. PCM 2393 electronically capable of monitoring all 212 spaces and will eliminate the need for a parking lot attendant, parking attendant shed and individual parking meters. The roving Parking Enforcement Officer will monitor the parking facility along with the beach park attendant to identify any vehicles illegally parked. Citations and flowing will be administered as needed. Also, it is anticipated that the Sheriffs Deputy will periodically patrol the area between 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM. Margotta stated that he plans to have "NO PARIONG" signs installed on Bradley Beach Road to facilitate an orderly flow of traffic without the reduction of roadway capacity. He continued that since the Town passed the ban on "Alcohol -on -the -Beach", Special Services has not experienced, to any degree, any incidences of disorderly conduct, drunk and disorderly or assaults. The parks and the rest rooms will be cleaned daily, and with the beach park area under the control of the Town, there should be minimum noise disturbances. During Margotta's presentation, Commissioner Shay stated that the major concern was security and that security has to be totally emphasized. Commissioners asked questions regarding off-street Parking for residents and more clarification on the Parkmaster. Prior to hearing from the residents, there was general discussion about the meeting that was held by Town Staff (Ed Drane and Steve Riley) with residents of the Bradley Beach area on Sunday, January 31, 1993. Commissioner Barnwell broached the concern regarding the availability of sewer. He continued that it was not the concern of the Town to have sewer made available, but would it not be a good neighbor policy to,•try to encourage that service to be available? Drane responded that the Town has had that discussion with Mr. Pitts of the Public Service District, and he has stated that he has no plans to extend sewer service in that area in the near future. Residents from the Bradley Beach and Driessen Beach areas spoke in opposition to the proposed Bradley Beach Park. Their concerns were secu�r .tit (after 5:00 PM), more crime, not lees, traffic congestion at US 278 and Bradley Beach Road; noise/fitter, depreciation of property value, emasculation of the pristine beauty of the area; monies for project; and the black community not being treated fairly. . Residents from the Bradley Beach, Singleton Beach and Drieasen Beach areas speaking in opposition were: John Moore, Dr. Wil Grant, Martha Wilson, Mark Moore, John Lawton, Sarah Davis, and Mildred Bennett. Page 4 of 12 PCM 2.3-93 e • M Other residents speaking in opposition to the proposed beach park were Joni Dimond, Pauline Grande, Connie Angeletti and Carolyn Amburn. A letter from James B. Bowers, of West Hartford Connecticut and a property owner at 21 Bradley Beach Road, was read during the Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Hund stated that there had been a good attempt on Staffs part to address the issues, but that he was still concerned about the amount of traffic on Bradley Beach Road. Commissioner Hund feels that Bradley Beach Road may be able to sustain the traffic in Phase 1, but he was not in agreement that it would sustain traffic for the entire project. He suggested that there could be possible alternatives for phasing and planning. Feeling that alternative designs on the traffic flow had not been studied enough, Commissioner Hund made the following motion: Motion Move that the proposed Bradley Beach Park Public Project Review be tabled for reconsideration of the design of parking and the access points, for now and for the future, until the Planning Commission has had an opportunity to adequately study those alternatives Moved: Hund I Second: Paffenbarger Vote: 3-6-0 s M would be made by the Town to accommodate those special situations. Vote on the Motion: 8.1.0 Hund opposed Commissioner Hund opposed the motion because, in his opinion, further alternative studies should be made regarding the traffic flow for the entire project, not just Phase 1. Commissioner Shay reminded the Planning Commission and Staff that this project would be receiving very close scrutiny and that it will become a model of what Staffs ability will be to provide what it says it will provide. B. Request for High Traffic Commercial Special Exception Review for a 64 seat restaurant and a 73 seat restaurant in existing space within South Island Square, 841 William Hilton Parkway. Property is identified as Parcel NC on Beaufort County Tax Map 811. Commissioner CYDonnell requested that the Planning Commission waive Staffs presentation on this request. Hugh Talcott, Current Planner, did clarify that the application was for a 64 seat restaurant and a 73 seat restaurant even though the traffic study referred to a 78 seat restaurant rather than a 73 seat restaurant. Motion Move that the Planning Commission follow Staffs recommendation and approve the request for High Traffic Commercial Special Exception for a 64 seat restaurant and a 73 seat restaurant in the existing space within South Island Square. Moved: O'Donnell Second: Barnwell i ,I. _ c P S ':�1 f '. ! t 1 { t ,}�. >: ;'�.� i `Fi t i • i i J;; a ?:4 e • M EXHIBIT 6 I BRADLEY BEACH PUBLIC ACCESS NARRATIVE This project is to provide parking, staff office, restroom facilities, boardwalk, and a dune walkover at Bradley Beach. The site consists of three tracts totaling 1457 acres. The Town of Hilton Head Island owns two of the tracts (13.79 awes) and leases the third from Beaufort County (.78 acres) which is the current beach access parking. There will be approximately four hundred improved and three hundred unimproved parking spaces. This is one hundred fifty fewer unimproved spaces than was indicated in the initial plan for the project. These spaces were deleted in order to provide for larger buffers and less tree removal. Two hundred and twelve improved spaces are proposed in phase one. The fifty one existing spaces will be removed to allow for the expansion. The Town's Special Services Department will staff and maintain the facility. One hundred twenty (60 in phase one) of the parking spaces will be metered and the remaining spaces controlled by an on site attendant. The restroom facilities will be located in two buildings of 300 square feet each with a smaller staff office and storage structure, all connected by a elevated wooden walkway. A small gatehouse will be located at the entrance to the attendant perking area. All areas will be illuminated with low intensity, eonceak-d source pole mounted fixtures. The site is zoned RD -2 which allows public beach facilities as a by right use. Adjacent property is zoned RD -2 and R-8 and contains both multi -family and single r family residential t. Owe reflect neighboring uses by providing undisturbed buffers, reducedde density i with large landscaped medians and residential scale structures. Attractive fencing •' will be utilized to prevent pedestrian access to adjacent property and wried noise. `.j Water and sewer will be provided by Hilton Head Public Service District A. Connections are available near the restroom facility, Initial researldt indicates that a lift station will not be required. Electrical power is available, from the Palmetto )' Electric Cooperative. 0 Tree survey and preliminary design has been completed. One meeting was held with the adjacent property owners to listen to concerns about the design. These r will be incorporated Into the project. Completion is sdheduled for June 1,'1993. Marl4�1 r r 91 a } k tx'w�� '^'Tt >' s nor an'+tfihi^ 1 . . h `i . 1 r .( 9Y: 1 r I NFN v. r t s t 'Yy?}Y r r � J .rlj4 ; � r ?�t• ux� jai y 5 h h°� , r, e • Y. t 1 ,. ¢irYtrf}z l�hti a::a ggoal ill. 'Va".�,3�'aj�Y,L tS'r'{t. r'w rFla'h'� ":! `A;j, Ai*', 1: te.yr hai;r�''Y.dd��M1. �#`.E,' .. 'a _y. ., ` .� r z. 1 a fix. 3 ^F,� � � � � . a ��t��'��%'�"CTs�"3t,R � t � }i �i•Y' t t N rt. �.i„,' 2� ot�'r yMf �.r�� 7� Ye>�j , � F 5 •7:. s w' .•.rFr.p`l i'`<d`.'s. �P�i1'(,. •' e ��A � ""• 0_1MM=M 6 • EXHIBIT 7 PRESENTATION Te Frem: HHI Planning Commission DATE: February 03, 1993 SUBJECT: Bradley Beach Project This presentation will cover the operational aspects conducted by The Town's Special Services Division for the management of the proposed Bradley Beach Park. A. SCHEME OF OPERATIONS: It is proposed that the Beach Park will be staffed with one park attendant from 8:30 am - 5:00 pm. This person will oversee the orderly flow of beach -patrons, the proper parking of motor vehicles, cleanliness of the rest rooms, and general conduct of business at the Beach Park. I will augment this person with a Roving Parking Enforcement Officer who will monitor the parking at both Bradley and Folly Field Beach Accesses. B. HOURS OF OPERATION: The Beach Park will be officially open from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm during the beach season. It will only be staffed from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. A mechanical barrier gate will be utilized to secure the beach park, thus restricting use by motor vehicles after 8:00 pm. C. PARKING ENFORCEMENT: Bradley Beach park will utilize a new concept in meter parking. We plan to install a centralized Parkmaster instead of sixty individual parking meters. The park master is electronically capable of monitoring up to 2000 vehicles. By utilizing the Parkmaster system, we eliminate the need for a parking lot attendant, parking attendant shed, and individual parking meters. The Roving Parking Enforcement officer will monitor the Bradley parking facility along with the Beach park attendant to identify any vehicles illegally parked. Citations and towing will be administered as needed. it is anticipated that the Sheriff's Deputy will periodically patrol the area between 8:00 pm and 8:00 an. D. TRAFFIC FLOW: As envisioned by the Planning Department, the flow of traffic, although incritased from the present time, should cause no major safety problem. I know that they are , looking into that aspect at this time. 2 plan to have "NO PARKING" signs installed on Bradley Beach road to facilitate an '. orderly flow of traffic, without the reduction of roadway capacity. As a special note, experience at the Folly Field access has shown us that traffic starts flowing inbetween 9:00 - 11:00 am, and than reverses itself around 3:00 pm.' We did not a the Sheriff Is patrols on the beach have had a.very sobering elect on the conduct of those beach -p Irons who would otherwise conduct themselves differently.I would also add at this time that since the town began ,to actively operate, maintain, and, control the beach access points, and the orderly parking of motor vehicles, the beaches and parking lots have become 'safer places. F: PROPERTY VALMIsa With the control exercised by the Special Services Staffs:the beach parks are attractive, sale and 0 • EXHIBIT 8 R��a Deet 7b•�r 12, 1992 FROM: Christina and Stanley Szuberia, Lot 1, Bradley Beach . TO: 4r.eob Accra, Planning Commission Choirman and Commissioners Com -rents on the Town's actions to establish an ordinance for a "Publio Project" and to .gain a permit for such a project: the major "general public beach access" on the Driessen Tract. We request that the ordinance and the proposed clan be tabled until "protection" of our private prooerty Whts are addressed. Pr ncieled leaders n:}t—Firat Things Firstl A. "lease understand that our oceanfront property Is adjacent to the proposed project for public access at Bradley Beach.Tt's about 100' from the pv.rking area and washrooms and about 250' from the dune walkover. Therefore. the access will create a major "Public Nuisance" in our R8 designated Residential 'Lone. Such Nuisance is a violation of our private property rights that are guaranteed protection under the U.S. Constitution and the Fifth Amendment. The LNO should reflect the same protection since it's an instrument of the law. 9. Please consider that the dune walkover will be within sight and sound of ray windows. it will parallel our home. Pedestrians at all hours of the day and night will come and go with doge, bicycles, Music boxes, F,t cetera. Common sense dictates that re;uiAr setbacks and barriers will not suffice. A brick wall can't be built across wetlands. Nuisance travels across property linea. It takes away property values. C. Please remember that thle project will be the first major Public Beach Access of its kind on R.P.I. A preliminary plan shouldn't be pereissable under the circumstances. The full"purpose intended" for the plan should be taken into consideration •tore any ordinance or permit is put in force. The purpose is to provide hundreds of parking spaces for cars that will bring thousands of osople to the beach to lain access.(Soe attached article about numbers involved). We believe it is"Onreasonable"of town leaders to expect us to continue to live under such.a "direot'ispact." We feel the town should do what's right and buy our property in an effort. to protect our.rights under the law. To diareaard a,pers'on!s privet* 400 Die• property right@ is very wrongl:There 1a;r Principle involveds Right is 'tight and .jrong Is Wrong. , Principled >,leaders, out .first things_rirst and do what's rightl M DECEMBER 17, 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES DELIVERED BY DR. WIL GRANT ----------------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION The Driessen Beach Association is composed of residents and property owners in the fourteen (14) lot subdivision adjacent to the proposed site•of the Mid -Island Public Parking Lot. The Association, on behalf of its members, supported the decision of the Hilton Head Planning Commission in March of 1986 to deny a permit for construction of a parking facility by a particular plantation. That plan was to build a twenty-one space parking facility in the middle of our quiet, residential neighborhood. We objected on numerous grounds, including those cited by the Planning Commission at its March 5, 1986 meeting. That decision was supported by both legal and ewitable considerations. Having gone through that eswtional and traumatic period, we, the members of the Driessen Beach.Association,'believed that those actions constituted an enlightened precedence that would render such future attempts to compromise the. residential character of our neighborhood with snch`a,,or similar, parking facility moot and.without legal, equitable and/or ethical considerations. Raving been informed recently by the Town Council of its interest in expanding the existing small parking facility that resides South of Bradley Beach Road and across a wooded thicket from the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Walter Glover, I was necessarily concerned but somewhat sanguine as I recollected the aforementioned recommendation of the Planning Commission that was sustained by the Town Council. Subsequently, the Association met in my home on the Island in order to ascertain some facts of the proposed parking 'lot expansion. Our invited guest was a member of the Town Planning Staff. My recollection was that he was a delightful gentleman who brought the news that the Town did indeed plan to build a parking facility at the site north of the Glover's and West of the Grants, the 7amenone-and the Wilsons. That was not terribly distressing until he informed us that the proposed facility would be more than eight hundred parking spaces. Moreover, this number constituted more than one-third of the additional public parking spaces mandated by the South Carolina Coastal Council as it required the Island to provide increased public access to its beaches since so much of the Island's beach access is behind guarded gates. It is clear, to me that this parking facility constitutes a Class B nuisance. Specific Town ordinances describe in detail the constitutions of these nuisances. Illustrative. examples are "establishments for public oxmsemeat and recreation, any activity which generates light on neighboring properties,' loud sounds transmitted to neighboring properties, or 'other. potentially disturbing phenomena; that is, open storage yards and The applicant argues that none of the above illustrations apply to its project. Reference Letter from Welton Corporation to Hilton Head Town Manager, March 24, 1986. The argument that applicant's parking and beach access facility is not covered by 16-7-452(2) requires an inappropriately restrictive construction of that section of the ordinance. As noted, the general definition of Class B Nuisances includes "land uses and activities unnecessarily disturbing public and neighboring land uses and activities..." The illustrations provided in subsections (a) through (k) are specifically not exhaustive as is shown by reference to the statement "[s]uch uses and activities i. include but are not limited to the following examples ." Thus any activity, such as.that proposed by applicant, which has in common with those listed in subsections (a) through (k) the capacity to disturb existing uses, would come within the definition of a Class B Nuisance.l . .1 On this aspect of the matter, it seems to the proposed parking facility threatens precisely the harm,at which this. ordinance is directed, particularly (subsection i) which forbids any facility. "which results in the production of noise levels in excess of fifty-five (55) dBA measured at the property line.- A lsxcerpted from -a legal brief filed by the: law firm of Graber, Baldwin and Fairbanks before the 'few 'of Ripon sead Board of AdjustsIsnt'In Res Rose Hill Beach Club`Pesuit application, Rprili 18, 1986. single reasonably noisy automobile produces this loudness level at approximately'20 meters. The considerations of equity include but are not limited to illegal parking, increased traffic, noise, litter, trespassing, burglary, vanda;*sm, noxious fumes, etc., which are concomitant by products of the facility. Our historic neighborhood has a distinguished heritage of humanhood where we have welcomed anyone who is a good neighbor. This facility will not, nor will it ever be, a good neighbor. The least that can be done by you as duly empowered individuals sworn to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is to at least provide (1) rigorous police security for the owners and their property, (2) scientifically designed and aesthetically pleasing sound and security buffers, (3) lighting that dyes not pollute the light environment to the extent that violations of one of the nuisance ordinances are manifest, and (4) that you reconsider the magnitude of this proposed project in the context of its undeniable impact on our small community - r particularly in view of the established fact that all of our neighborhood's residents and other interested Island citizens adamantly oppose this project's magnitude. These feelings have been made patently 'clear to the.Town Council: in, the. past.. I would implore and further urge yoi,-lady and gentlemen, to be a good neighbor. dere our roles reversed' I could not 'act in. the.antithesis. can you? we :,11 see.. j .� 3 'ya ROM, I --0— ;1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EMPIRE ACOUSTICAL SYSTEMS January 15, 1993 Mr. Ed Drane Town of Hilton Head Island EXHIBIT 10 1 Town Center Court Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 Dear Mr. Drane: As per your conversation with my office, enclosed, please find a copy of our Product Manual. I will send a sample of our silent screen panel under separate cover. Thank you for your interest in Empire Acoustical System's (EAS) product line and the capabilities of our Company. EAS is a company that focuses on the custom engineering, fabrication and installation of acoustical enclosures, noise barriers and noise absorption wall mountings.' The an noise control products are fabricated from galvanized steel or similar metals which have two basic applications. The M-90 panel is used for wall absorption applications.. our Silent Screen panel is engineered for noise enclosures and wall barriers, where structural integrity, acoustical absorption and transmission values are of major concern. The EAS noise control systems are designed to Universal Building Codes (UBC) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. All acoustical test standards are certified by Riverbank Acoustical Laboratories. The ZRB custom engineered products are designed for airport, highway, industrial, military, utility, and commercial applications. They are especially suited for :harsh working environments. After you have had the opportunity to review this manual, please feel free to call my office with any questions you may have. We will be happy to discuss our `products, offer additional information, clarify any grey areas and assist you with your current projects. Tours very truly, Patrick: D.. McKeown V.P., General Manager 89 PARK AVENUE VYEW • MANWIRD. CH104490 U.SA o' -TK (4/9)692-0900 FAX (4/9)522-M7 , WORLDWIDE A001.1811CAL PRODUCTS , 8ERWCR r. n` EMPIRE ACOUSTICAL SYSTEMS January 15, 1993 Mr. Ed Drane Town of Hilton Head Island EXHIBIT 10 1 Town Center Court Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 Dear Mr. Drane: As per your conversation with my office, enclosed, please find a copy of our Product Manual. I will send a sample of our silent screen panel under separate cover. Thank you for your interest in Empire Acoustical System's (EAS) product line and the capabilities of our Company. EAS is a company that focuses on the custom engineering, fabrication and installation of acoustical enclosures, noise barriers and noise absorption wall mountings.' The an noise control products are fabricated from galvanized steel or similar metals which have two basic applications. The M-90 panel is used for wall absorption applications.. our Silent Screen panel is engineered for noise enclosures and wall barriers, where structural integrity, acoustical absorption and transmission values are of major concern. The EAS noise control systems are designed to Universal Building Codes (UBC) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. All acoustical test standards are certified by Riverbank Acoustical Laboratories. The ZRB custom engineered products are designed for airport, highway, industrial, military, utility, and commercial applications. They are especially suited for :harsh working environments. After you have had the opportunity to review this manual, please feel free to call my office with any questions you may have. We will be happy to discuss our `products, offer additional information, clarify any grey areas and assist you with your current projects. Tours very truly, Patrick: D.. McKeown V.P., General Manager 89 PARK AVENUE VYEW • MANWIRD. CH104490 U.SA o' -TK (4/9)692-0900 FAX (4/9)522-M7 , WORLDWIDE A001.1811CAL PRODUCTS , 8ERWCR r. d.3 A RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS • VISTA Panels When some degree of visibility is required for safety or monitoring Purposes, EAS Acoustical Panels can incorporate a high strength Lexan-type material which has a clarity rivaling glass, but is much stronger. VISTA panels also are abrasion and ultraviolet resistant Visa Panels VISTA panels are easily combined with mneral wool filled panels or double wall panels to solve a wide variety of sight and sound problems. Reflective Panels Silent Screen Reflective Panels are designed to provide sound transmission loss only. The panels consist of Interlocking sections, typically 12 inches wide, and can be mounted horizontally or vertically. Reflective panels provide a lightweight, aesthetically pleasing noise wall and acoustical barrier. • Acoustical Performance There are two properties which are used to measure the performance of acoustical panels. Sound absorption is the ability of a noise panel to internally dissipate (as heal) incident acoustical energy. This property is measured in terms of a sound absorption coefficient The higher the value of the coefficient, the more sound will be "absorbed," leaving leas to be transmitted or reflected. Theoretically, a coefficient value of 1.0 indicates that all Incident energy Is absorbed. Sound transmission loss is a i measure of the amount by which a i noise level is reduced as the noise ! "passes through" a panel or barrier. Transmission loss is measured in decibels, and a high transmission loss indicates that a panel will be able to block substantial amounts of noise. EAS panels have been tested in an independent acoustical laboratory.' Tire resuits of these tests are i available on request. Typical performance data for standard panels Is as follows: SYM Tar iii AHU 0MTW SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS RAL -719044 Cone, I STC 39 Panty "kh mawbft SOUND ABSORPTION PAL-AG74170 PCS NRC 1.0 Sound tansmis" lose testa were performed kr aOcordwice with ASTM430 Yid ASTM -E41& Sound elwo p*m Mels We peAormed in e000tdrloe YM ASTM -0423 and ASTM -E79& 1MMkAaaaalalLaYaalaiYa ��. • �� °.,: yv� }- it, r'S' ,; pE-S =711�� tt �}rm + ! a,l�is yai 130801EMP BuyLine 6739 Installation One of the major advantages of the EAS Silent Screen panels is their ease of handling and assembly. In contrast to many other acoustical panels, which are fabricated in ; heavy 2 -foot or 4 -foot widths, Silent Screen panels are standard 10 -inch and 12 -inch widths. These light- weight sections can be easily handled and installed by one or two people without special tools. { Insallation Many installations do not require fasteners between panel sectional All necessary trim pieces and hardware are included. When required, strrxtwel supports, framing and gfrts can also be designed and supplied, nSWBng In a complete turnkey kmtaNetoL .J 1 � r: 41--am7a LIGHTING• SYSTEMS DECASHIELD' 11 LUMINAI E EXHIBIT 11 NUT PLATE NUTS (VII -161 312 DIA I "OLE WASHERS T— .360.A NOTES 4 w FTIM- MIN SCREWl54.201 lost 2196 12101A •-327 SQUARE NOIE POLE • STUDS TUGS MOUNTING ARM BALLAST AND PHOTOMETRIC SILICTION It"BLI As am mms r"m union atavas WOO" 40 Sao Pqe 2W for MOWN um ma -w*m W& In N kil M m U-1 —m 7341 RIA K% KfA 250 25%400 Ifs 1 ws A A A A A A A A A A A A Im om w 7345 INA 7316 K% K% 474 250 400 1 W W W :—�A A A A A A A A A ffiAANOTE: A 7342 K% 0 K% M KIA 730 WA■NolAvo/a6b 40 Sao Pqe 2W for MOWN O ,1 • M Motion - BOA - 5-24-93 Bradley Beach Park A-5-93 Motion by Mr. Robinson I make a Motion that this Appeal be upheld that the decision of the Planning Commission be overturned as they erred in exceeding their authority and also not doing an adequate traffic investigation. Mr. Israel - Second Mr. Israel - I would like to add on my own account that I would like concrete assurance from the appropriate Town authorities that that lot will be staffed at all times that it is open. I think that it is not reasonable to impose a facility like this in an established community without that kind of security and that is exactly what is involved here. And also I would like a reconsideration by the Planning Commission of the location of those parking spots from the south to the north as we have been discussing, and if there is a good reason why it can't be done that is fine, but I have not heard any good reasons yet. Mr. Beil - Asked for a repeat of the Motion because it sounded to me like you were seconding the denial of the ----- Mr. Robinson - If I understand - Dr. Grant made an appeal to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission If we uphold the Appeal or approve the Appeal Chairwoman James - we are granting the Appeal Mr. Robinson - The appeal would be turned down Mr. Beil - Your second was subject to his -------- Mr. Israel - That is correct. Chairwoman James - You did not make those conditions. You were stating concerns. Mr. Israel - askada:Mr: Robinson if �he:'.acaept�d'.thise,4tno additional amendments - particuiarly�.ther�eecu'rity,:;one -- do you want them both or just the: security one? Mr. Robinson - The?ethat is the one I feel the strongest about. The other one I;think (can't hear) Mr. Israel - The'=mecurity-; maue ; ,tM,<stallinq ;ia pdrt o!^the ,,:Motion. The issue of moving some of the parking ;from .the south to the north to create a greater barrier is something that.I would personally appreciate them taking -a look at, but it is not part of the Motion. Chairwoman James - Any other comments! Mr. Israel - It is not part of the Motion. Mr. Riley - I did not hear all of Mr. Robinson's Motion. What are the reasons you feel the Planning Commission erred? Mr.`Robinson°=,Thats:.they.exceeded,their. authority on the provision-of-staffing and.that:,they had.not done.due,diligence ,witri.the investigation of.,traffic impact. Mr. Israel - Mine related to the security - what I wanted was more security. Mr. Robinson - Without proper documentation, I think if they had come forward with proper documentation from the Town saying that 1, the Town would stand behind it, then that would have been worth -. Chairwoman James - I think that there was appropriate documentation in here from Mr. Margotta stating what the practices of the other beach parks were and what the results of those were. Mr. Riley - We had stated in our presentation that we would man it from 8 to 5 and that would basically be in season, there is an.out of season area where the park is essentially open - we have patrol but we do not man our'parke during tha off season to the extent that we.do during the summer season. But I think there was a presentation as to what our prior practice had been and what -- From Audience - A Motion is on the floor. i I -Chairwoman James - Thank you sir, we are discussing the Motion which is appropriate before the vote. Mr. Robinson - Madam Chairwoman that is my concern there is no documentation as to what would happen with this particular project and no commitment from anyone that has substance. That is my.concern. It isnot that we couldn't get it its,that it is not here. Our duty is to judge on the basis of what we have been presented. 4 Chairwoman James - Ok - Ok. Alright lets call the question. Mr. Robinson - I am for the Motion Mr. Israel - For the Motion Mr. Rowan - For the Motion Mr. Boil - opposed Chairwoman Jamas .- Chair is Against the Motion Page2 11'Fi^' 1 a i Chairwoman James - I would like to state that I have attended all this Planning Commission meetings dealing with this. I have a lot more information through 6 1/2 hours of deliberation than the Board members. I truly feel that the Planning Commission did their best with the project, far better than any individual land owner would have done with the same project. We have a 3 to 2 Vote, we normally need 4 votes in order to overturn an Appeal. We still need 4 when we have 5 people? Mr. Brechko - Need 4 of the membership. Chairwoman James - Alright then - the Motion fails. Chairwoman James - There is no other business on the Agenda, Citizen Participation - we have no other requests from anyone to speak. Do I hear a Motion to Adjourn? Motion to Adjourn - Mr. Bail Second - Mr. Israel P:5-24MOTA.593 Chairwoman James - I would like to state that I have attended all the Planning Commission meetings dealing with this. I have a lot more information through 6 1/2 hours of deliberation than the. Board members. I truly feel that the Planning Commission did their best with the project, far better than any individual land owner would have done with the same project. We have a 3 to 2 Vote, we normally need 4 votes in order to overturn an Appeal. We still need 4 when we have 5 people? Mr. Brechko - Need 4 of the membership. Chairwoman James - alright then - the Motion fails. Chairwoman James - There is no other business on the agenda, Citizen Participation - we have no other requests from anyone to speak. Do I hear a Motion to adjourn? Motion to Adjourn - Mr. Beil second - Mr. Israel MINUTES TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR NESTING APRIL 26, 1993 t • • V-17-92 - Mr. Hugh Talcott, Current Planner, referred to the transcript from the 10/27/92 Board of Adjustment meeting regarding the Heritage Motors sign variance. He noted that the transcripts on page 2 stated, that the triangular point of the Heritage sign was at the right-of- way line. Mr. Talcott said that Staff maintained their previous recommendation that there were suitable locations within the front buffer meeting the setback, to place the sign. Staff does not agree that trees would prohibit the adequate visibility of a sign meeting the 10 foot setback. Chairwoman James suggested to Mr. Shutt that the Board did not need further information because of the lengthy discussion October 27. However, she opened the discussion for questions from the Board. Mr. Israel said consideration should only be given to substantial new evidence which was not considered at the time the Board made their decision. Mr. Beil asked Mr. Shutt if he disagreed with the Staff concerning placement of a sign within the trees at the front of the property. Mr. Shutt, owner of Heritage Motor Car Company, made the point that the minutes had quoted Mr. Talcott as saying that the previous sign structure point was on the right- of-way line and the structure was increased in size. He said,"this reader would infer that in fact the new point was over the line". Mr.. Shutt pointed out that there were no other signs along William Hilton Pkwy. which had been required to be placed behind trees. Mr. Shutt said to"be required to place a sign behind trees was a hardship to the dealership. He was concerned about the 100,000 visitors being able to locate the business. Mr. Shutt asked the Board to allow the sign to bs located in the original location just outside the tree line. Mr. Shutt said there was one other substantial change and that was that the Town wrote him a letter confirming what his attorney told him, of the previous meeting. He referred to the letter sent to his by .the Town's Code Enforcement officer, which stated,."the Board of Adjustment decided to extend an additional option to you of completing a Corridor Review Comittee application on your existing sign --". He said he ,complied with that BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page 2 • M letter and CRC approved the existing sign in its present location, and he felt that was a substantial change from the October 27 meeting. Chairwoman James explained to Mr. Shutt that the 1/13/93 letter was written months after the 10/27/92 Board decision, and he had received a certified letter stating the Board's decision. She told Mr. Shutt that if he had followed the order of the Board, the sign would not have existed when the Code Enforcement letter was received. Mr. Shutt said the letter from the Board was a request not an order, and the 1/13/93 letter confirmed what his attorney had told him had happened at the 10/27/92 meeting. Vice Chairman Brown said that a Town employee chose to put words in the mouth of the Board, because the 10/27/92 Motion was very clear. He said the Board's decision was based on the IMO, and the Board should not be asked to reverse their decision on something that a Town employee did. The Board does not employee anyone. Vice Chairman Brown said the Board should have had legal advice. Mr. Israel said a Town employee could not overrule a decision of the Board, so that would not constitute new evidence. Mr. Shutt questioned why the Board did not consider the CRC decision as substantive evidence. Chairwoman James explained that the CRC decision was only on aesthetics, CRC had no jurisdiction over setbacks. She said in some cases CRC approved aesthetics and the Board had not granted a Variance for placement of the sign. Mr. William Wakefield, owner of Heritage Motors property, said he had worked hard for four years to keep General Motors, from placing a garish sign on the property. He said the property design had won the 1981 American Builders award for the best design in the.U.s. Mr. Wakefield said a lot of thought and planning went into designing the building to go with the Hilton Head. environment. vice Chairman Brown asked if other Board:members would like to convent on whether they, had found, anything of substance to influence their decision. He said:.he.had not. BOA 4-26-93 Mtg: Page:3 Mr. Robinson said the purpose for deferral was that there had been some discussion at the 10/27/92 meeting whether the sign was in the right-of-way. He reviewed the verbatim transcript with a number of places where the sign location was discussed, and the final statement was that the sign was within inches one way or the other. He said his decision would have been affected if lie felt the sign was in the right-of-way as opposed to being behind the right-of-way. Mr. Robinson said he would have had more concern and felt strongly that the sign should have been removed. Mr. Israel said he had no other comments. Mr. Beil said the right-of-way was not as important as the hardship being created for the applicant. Staff said the sign could be placed elsewhere on the site, and the Applicant said the sign could not be placed without removing trees. Mr. Bail said it would be very difficult to move the sign and not remove trees, and he felt the crux of the situation was whether a hardship would be placed on the applicant by moving the sign. Mr. Miller said his position had not changed. Chairwoman James called for a Notion. The Board of Adiusteent Notion was to deny the reaueat to ayarturn the Boardfa 10/27/92 decision on V-17-92. The naw AUjn= showed the point of the Heritage Motor Car sign to be 114„ behind the Rigbt-of-Wny lina'and in the setback by B 2/30. The sign remained a nonconforming sign_ Movede Mr. Brown aSecond: Nr. iaraei Votes Mr. Robinson & Mr. Bail voted Against the Notion. Chairwoman James said the Notion to reconsider the 10/27/92 decision was denied. Applicant: Mr. S.H. Shutt, Heritage Motor Car Company Owner: Mr. William Wakefield Request: Variance V-4-93 ;Tabled from 3/22/93 Meeting:, For a Variance loan LHO Section 16-7-305(c) to allow expansion<of a -nonconforming site. Property'is'Herita-go Notor'Car Company, 460 Wiliian.Hilton Pkwy':,i is identified on - Beaufort Co— Tax.ilip /8, Parcel: 202. BOA 4-26-93.Ntq Page 4 . . r_ 8 • Mr. Hugh Talcott, explained that before the Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(c) could be considered by the Board a Special Exception approval had to be given by the Planning Commission and this was granted 3/3/93. He explained the expansions to the nonconforming site included enclosure of a car display area currently under roof, additional gravel parking for car display, and a covered service area. The proposed expansions all conform to buffer, setback and pervious surface requirements. Mr. Talcott said complete conformance with current LMO standards would necessitate removal of all parking and structures within the minimum fifty foot front buffer. However, removal of the first row of parking from the buffer would deprive the dealership of a reasonable display and it would be a hardship to require removal. The staff still recommended that the sign and the car display be removed from the front buffer. The current code does not allow structures in that front area. Mr. Shutt, Owner of Heritage Motor Company, said he did not have any additional information other than the narrative he provided. He would take questions from the Board. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Shutt if he was willing to go along with staff recommendations to remove the raised platform and cars from the buffer. Mr. Shutt said as he understood it the Staff had not asked that the display row of cars be removed and it would be an extreme hardship to the dealership to do so. In regard to the ramp, the Staff had consistently, persistently talked about its removal. This ramp was originally approved before the Incorporation of the Town, and no changes were made to the ramp and he proposed that it remain as it was approved by the County prior to the Town Incorporation. vice Chairman Brown said the Board agreed that the ramp had been approved and the Board had dealt with that before. staff agreed removal of the display row of parking would be a hardship. However, Staff said to bring the site more into conformance the ramp should be removed. BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page 5 1 • 11 Applicant: Mr. Cliff Loveland of Carter-Miot Engineering for Nations Bank Owner: Nations Bank Request: V-5-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be located less than the required ten foot setback from the right-of-way. The Sign is for Mid -Island Nations Bank, 862 William Hilton Pkwy., the property is identified as Parcel 153 on Beaufort County Tax Map N 11. Mr. Bill Lytle, Assistant Current Planner, addressed the Board. Mr. Lytle noted that the Variance request had been deferred from the BOA 3/22/93 meeting so, the Board could read a transcript to clarify the 6/22/92 proceedings concerning the Mid -Island sign and view the video tape of the sign location area. Mr. Lytle said that the transcript confirmed there was no action on the Mid -Island Bank sign at that meeting. Mr. Lytle said the Staff found nothing unusual or unique about the NationsBank site and that a hardship did not exist in locating the sign in conformance with the LMO. Because the four variance criteria had not been met the Staff recommended denial of the Variance. The Board viewed the video tape. Mr. Loveland presented additional photographs of the sign to the Board. Chairwoman James said the purpose of deferring the b Variance until the April 26 meeting,was so the Board could get a copy of the transcript to make sure that the Board settled any misunderstanding that came about as a result of the June 22, 1992 decision. she said the transcript was very clear on the decision that the Board made, and there was also discussion in the transcript about the Mid - Island site. Chairwoman James asked Mr. Loveland if he would like her to read the details from the transcript. Mr. Cliff Loveland of Carter -Biot told the Board he wanted to apologize for digressively going into the past, with •` regard to past commun4^ations and he agreed that there was a misunderstanding. He said he would just like to proceed. ' Mr. Loveland presented and explained photos and a plot plan which was prepared'a few'days prior." He hoped to i better present to the Board the line of sight and the 1: •i alignment with other businesses of the previously approved sign location. Mr. Loveland said the bank thought they j had approval to move the sign to the present location, however they would still like to keep the sign in the present location. BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page:'7: 4 �n .•.: ��111�� +,:17i 4 V"y f �•r/l�,�I.N _C�31� t' Nt*4 Sf 3�-0 t.I t 5 i'� i y5 +:t�.» '"Y. �..3 1 J' { } 4,a �}� -�r Ay�.'it yl ID�,t ,) �' + tfG �b v •'�1,I.•s��15 >tr .''W..7:i kk�<..'.{1. ,'in�!n�.l:.+S.:halo`u�dv:�..w. ",..:;4 f� . •.. h.t:.. �,�,j��;tx,, a�+�S i -r 5��a, . � y�'' p t; Y � ry, M1:��'. '�`-+�' L•Yq'. � :., d�i • • Mr. Israel asked Mr. Loveland why the sign had not been placed closer to the main building legally, rather than placing it on the property line. He said the main value of the sign was to place it advantageously for people driving south. Mr. Loveland said the submission of the plot plan by Ms. Sommerfeld had led to some misunderstanding due the location drawn on the plan. Mr. Israel asked if the sign could have been placed legally by the entrance, by moving it back about 10 feet, rather than the center of the lot. Mr. Loveland said no, because of a telephone service utility and parking area. He explained the size of the sign would obstruct that placement. Mr. Lytle said there were cutting and trimming regulations concerning native vegetation, so this could not be done to provide visibility for .the sign. He did not agree that the sign's size would obstruct placement by the entrance further back on the lot. Mr. Lytle said if the entire setback could not be met it would be very close. A. Mr. Robinson thought the sign could be moved back at least 6 feet. He questioned why Mr. Lytle would support moving the sign from the original location forward into the buffer area, and not from the present location by the entrance. Mr. Lytle said there were a number of oak trees that hindered the'view, the sign could.be.seen coming from the south, but not driving south.The corn'r location was visible traveling from the north and south, 'even with, j setback, trees were.not a`problem. Mr. Israel made a Motion to deny.the Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 on the grounds that thero.e►ss no demonstrated hardship and other conforming locations �. existed for sign placement.Second - Vice Chairman Brown. Discussion chairwoman James said•it appeared that.tha sign could'be a moved back fron the present location closer to`.the'10 foot setback. She asked Mr. Loveland if he would be willing to > • consider moving the sign back closer to the 10 .foot setback. • • , a HOI► 4-26-,93 Mtg . page'.: tw+� ,� '-tiCt 3 s'0; k , '�Y:rs, ¢,r • 1 CJI. Al . /Ry��C,1': r a T!I'F.YdASJ72 N/dA�n M Mr. Loveland agreed to consider moving the sign closer to the 10 foot setback, because the bank wanted to resolve the issue. He wanted to see the sign closer to where the customers turned into the bank. Mr. Israel said that a maximum setback from the right-of- way had been suggested and he was agreeable to amending the previous Motion. Mr. Robinson suggested the Motion be amended to grant a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a setback but that the setback not be less than 7 feet. Mr. Israel withdrew the previous Motion and Vice Chairman Brown agreed. Mr. Lytle asked the Board to make the Motion pending any unforseen underground utilities or obstructions. The Board of Adjustment Motion wee to grant a Variance from TRO Section 16-7-1030 to allow less than the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. but not less than 7 feet back from the right -of -wax, This Variance would be subject to review by the sign Administrator relative to Underground utilities that nay necessitate less setback. Moved: Mr. Robinson Second*, Mr. Israel Vote: 6-0-0 The Variance was granted. Citizen Participation A-4-93 - Mr. & Mrs. Nestor - Re: 7 & 7A Cassina Lane. Chairwoman James - Noted that Mr. Nestor was present and Mrs. Nestor had to leave but, there was nothing on the Agenda concerning the Appeal which was on the BOA 3/22/93 Agenda. However, to update the Hoard she said the owner of the property had applied for a'permit" for a pool and other improvements and the Nestorl's were concerned that the owners would not comply with 'the 'LMO. Chairwoman, James told Nr. Nestor that the Board could not handle anything concerning the Appeal today, because the Appeal had not been legally advertised for the 4/26/93 meeting and consequently could not be heard. Chairwoman James said the :`Staff was still working on the permits that had been issued and;they were aware of the Nestor's concerns.". She said it Mas the Statf•s responsibility, the Board could not help. BOA 4-26-93 Ntg., Page 9 • Mr. Nestor asked how they could get reconsidered. Chairwoman James said on 3/22/93 the Board overturned the Administrator's decision. She told Mr. Nestor if there were more concerns about the property he should talk with Mr. Tom Brechko, Chief of Planning, Mr. Steve Riley, Director of Community Development or Mr. Mike O'Neill, Town Manager. Chairwoman James said if there was anything the Board could do with the Appeal or if they had other business to bring before -the Board, not hesitate to do so. Mr. Robinson suggested that the Nestor's also speak with Mr. Frank Hodge. Mr. Nestor said he had spoken with Mr. Hodge without receiving any satisfaction. Mr. Nestor pursued --- (he was not at the microphone and his remarks could not be heard clearly). Chairwoman James told Mr. Nestor that the responsibilities of the Board were set forth by law and unfortunately the Board could not help in this situation. She suggested that Mr. Nestor discuss his concerns with Mr. Riley, Mr. Hodge or Mr. Brechko and if he received no satisfaction to speak with Mr. O'Neill. Chairwoman James called a break at 2:25 p.m. The Board reconvened at 2:35 p.m. VI. New Business Applicant: Ms. Paula Thurman, Broad Strokes One Stop Decorating Center Owner: Ms. Paula Thurman Request: V-7-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1012 to allow changes to a nonconforming sign other than refinishing the surface of the sign, so as to keep the sane appearance of the sign. Property is located at 26 Arrow Road and identified as Parcel 275 on Beaulfort Co. Tax Map 015. Mr. Bill -Lytle said the Broad Strokes sign was nonconforming, because it was in the right-of-way and had not been approved by the Corridor Review Committee. Recept alterations required the sign permit to.become void. Ks. Thurman requested a Variance from,LMO.Section 16-7-1012(a) to retain tha'sign in .the .present location with the.changes to the sign copy.and,colors. BOA 4-26-93 Mtq. Pager10 e • M Mr. Hugh Talcott, Current Planner, told the Board that the legal advertisement did not include a Variance from the setback, so a setback Variance could not be granted today. Mr. Israel suggested that the case be deferred to the May 24 meeting to allow for the proper advertisement. The Motion was Adopted. Applicant: Mr. Perry Wood for Greenwood Development Owner: Greenwood Development Corporation Request: V-10-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7- 483(c)(2) and 16-7-915(d) to allow a reduction in Buffer and Setback requirements adjacent to tidal wetlands. Longview Island is located in shelter Cove, and is identified as Parcel 28 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map / 12B. Mr. Hugh Talcott said Longview Island was an undeveloped tract in the Shelter Cove area of Palmetto Dunes. The Variance request was from LMO Section 16-7-483(c)(2) which requires a 20 foot minimum and 40 foot average buffer adjacent to the SC Coastal Council Critical Line adjacent to tidal wetlands. Mr. Talcott said in this case the intent of the ordinance would be not by allowing this buffer and setback because, this was a man made bulkhead versus the natural marsh with vegetation that the ordinance is intended to protect. The Applicant would meet all the buffers and setbacks along the naturally vegetated tidal wetlands, it was the area along the man made bulkhead where the setback and buffer variance was needed. He would provide some buffer and plant material subject to Corridor Review Committee review. ! The Staff recommended approval of the Variances from LMO 7 Sections 16-7-483(c)(2) and 16-7-951(d), because unique { conditions and hardships exist. The.intent of the IMO j will not be compromised since these variances are to preserve natural vegetation along the marsh, however in this case,.there is no marsh or existing vegetation along •� the bulkhead, and the Variances would allow more of.the significant vegetation on the interior of the property to BOA 4-26-93 Mtq. Page 12 L4 ?--..— 4� 'riWliYif�^ ••�� + S 5'(' .� r ..ix�� S 4 �tii'S nµ\Sf 1G-� 4 I� i{�i.,ifCK i, 4Je't• Y14 h(f }� 4 "•� ��t:ji�–t .if'P `+ +SK E 1 i 11;;6i� 4ilKiPs�+Yfi 1 K. '1H•.n�,i,�• +� �'...�':. hh .+fl Na qtr + @. _I4 . Y,i;. a J'o f i d r n u n u be retained. The vegetation proposed along the bulkhead would provide the visual buffer that is desirable and intended by the LMO. Mr. Perry Wood represented Greenwood Development Corp., he noted Mr. Chet Williams was also present. Mr. Wood thanked Mr. Riley, Mr. Brechko and Mr. Talcott for their assistance and guidance. Mr. Wood said Longview Island had extensive frontage along the bulkhead which had been cleared of vegetation and a heavy wooded interior with numerous live oak trees. He noted that the success of the project relied on preservation of as many trees and natural vegetation as possible. If the 25 foot minimum setbacks were adhered to, the drive and parking area would be moved into the forest necessitating the removal of many palm, oak and pine trees. If the 50 foot average setback was adhered to a gross amount of vegetation would be lost. Mr. Wood said the development concept for Longview Island Residential Village was best described as a low density, low profile retreat in the woods. Its priority is to preserve the natural character of the Island as much as possible. The private residential development consists of a maximum of 175 units to include: Main Lodge, Lodge Houses I & II, and Cottages. Recreational uses include: pool and amenities area, boardwalks, and fishing dock. Mr. Wood said the intent of the LHO sections from which Variances were requested, was to preserve the natural vegetation along the marsh for both aesthetic and environmental purposes, which does not apply in this case. Granting of the Variance would allow more preservation of the significant vegetation on the interior of the property. He said all of Longview�s natural marsh boundaries on the sound si" would be adhered to and in fact, they were in excess of the minimum and average setbacks. With an overall average for setbacks of 40 feet with the marsh and sound side in excess of 60 feet. Mr. Wood said at the request of Mr. Talcott, he not with Fire Marshall Padgett on the project for Fire Department preliminary approval and will continue to work with the Fire Department to receive approvals. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to gz nt ri from LMO Sections 16-7-493(c)(21'and 16-7-91!(P,2.11112! f •� reduction in buffer and setback 2- 14 adjacent to s tidal wetlands. to allow daveoc lment of Lomas.+ Island pursuant to plans presented at the April 26. 1993 Feat.nq,_ BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page 13 � ,�•�+m�.' .!1,;ui�,iFean��t-„.t`5 _r��ias e�{s s� �.i -.r... i �i ani�ma�isws.,.,k'1.n,h�`Y.%:�.a:..�t^��L�brW..vtC: 5. i i • Z 7. N 'W'CtF y e • M Moved: Mr. Robinson Second: Mr. Israel Vote: 6-0-0 Applicant: Town of Hilton Head Island Owner: The Grant Family Request: V-11-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7- 305(d) to relocate a nonconforming structure, a produce stand, further from U.S. 278 to better accommodate the Hilton Head Island Pathway. Mr. Hugh Talcott said the construction of the Island Pathway necessitated the moving of the Grant Family produce stand which had been in operation on their property at 651 William Hilton Pkwy. for over 30 years. The stand would be relocated further from the roadway, but without meeting the setback requirement. Mr. Talcott said this Variance was a result of the Town exercising power of eminent domain for the pathway easement. The LMO provided for special consideration of variances under these circumstances in Section 16-7- 307(b)(3). The original location proposed by the Staff which met the setback, was behind the other buildings and this proved to be a hardship for tae owner. The owner suggested an alternate location that would be approximately 35 feet from the street right-of-way. This location would allow safer use of the pathway without obstruction by produce stand customers. Mr. Talcott said since the Town was acting as Agent for the property owner, no recommendation would be made on the Variance. Mr. Robinson asked if the structure would conform to building codes. Mr. Talcott said the Inspections Department had been contacted and limited requirements apply due to the type of structure, but it would conform. Chairwoman Janes asked if the structure was being moved or rebuilt, and if the new location had adequate parking. Mr. Talcott said that was undetermined at this time, proposals had been submitted for rebuilding and moving. He said there would be enough room for customers to park between the stand and the.pathway. Mr. Israel asked if the owner was getting any financial assistance with the project. Page 14 • e • M Mr. Talcott said the Town was paying the expenses of the move to the new location. The Board of Adjustment granted a Variance from ISMO Section 16-7-305(d) to relocate the nonconforming produce stand closer to the required setback, in accordance with the site plan presented at the Acrd 26 1993 BOA meeting Moved: Mr. Robinson Second: vice Chairman Brown Vote: 6-0-0 The Variance was unanimously Adopted. Applicant: Ms. Fran Thresh for Grayco Auto Parts Owner: Mr. Sammy Gray Request: V-12-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030, to allow a sign to be located within the required 10 foot setback from the right-of- way. Sign and property are located at 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. & identified on Beaufort Co. Tax Map / 15, Parcel 253. Ms. Carol Krawczyk, Current Planner, addressed the Board. Grayco Auto Parts is located at 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. and the sign is within the road right-of-way between the two entrances to the site. on March 13 the sign was blown down and the owner decided to obtain a new sign due to the existing sign's condition and the change of business listings on the directional sign. Ms. Krawczyk said the Applicant pointed out that if the sign was moved back ten feet from the right-of-way line as required by the LMO, the sign could not be seen because of the Burger King sign, a telephone pole and front buffer landscaping. The Applicant requested the sign be placed at the property line for the best visual location. No. Krawczyk said Staff did not agree with the Applicant as to the hardship, because the site had two entrances,' the traffic is slowed to 35 m.p.h. in front of the Grayco site and there are at least three other businesses that share the inconvenience_ of the slight curve in the road in front of the property. Ms. Krawczyk said after addressing the variance criteria, Staff did not find that a hardship had been proven, with regard to setback or uniqueness. Staff recommended the Variance request from IMO Section 16-7-1030 be deniod.. Mr. Israel asked if the Applicant's proposed sign location was on the setback line. BOA A-26-93 Mtq. Page.15 r Ms. Krawczyk said that was correct, the Applicant felt this was the best location. Ms. Krawczyk said the Staff recommendation was ten feet behind the property line and the sign base was ten feet wide. Mr. Israel asked if the sign would have to be set back the width of the existing sign to be conforming. Ms. Krawczyk said that was correct. Ms. Fran Thresh represented the Owner of Grayco. 'Ms. Thresh said currently 50% of the existing sign was over the property line and because of the road curve, trees, telephone poles and Burger King sign, if the sign was moved back about 16 feet it could not be seen. She said even with two entrances the area was heavily congested and people do not have a lot of reaction time. No. Thresh said MrGray had driven down tate road to see if they could live with the ten foot setback, and he said the investment would not be justified without achieving the visib"Aty needed for the sign. The obstruction created by th(, .,irger King sign presented a hardship fo%, Grayco, becauLs it would not be brought into conformance anytime soon. k,> Thresh urged the Board to consider the Variance favornbly. Mr. Bail asked if the proposed location would be interfered with by vegetation. Ms. Thresh said there was.natural vegetation on the site and hours had been spent trying to find a location which could be seen by customers. Mr. Israel asked if the proposed sign was two-sided and legally conforming. No. Thresh said the sign was two-sided and CRC approved. Mr. Israol said he was not ready to make a judgement on where to move the sign for the best visibility, and he. would like to take another look at the site. No. Thresh suggested deferring the Variance and she would erect something on the site to show Cho, locations. Chairwoman James polled the Board and the decision was to proceed. A Motion was made by Mr. Boil to approve the Variance request from IM Section 16-71-1030 to allow the sign to be not closer than the property line,•as reflected.by the drawing presented with the Application. The Motion failed for a lack of a Second. Page 16 0; 0 M The Board of Adjustment motion was to defer the variance (V-12-93) to the May 24, 2993 meeting to enable the Board members to visit the site to view the visual aspects. in order to make a more certain determination, Motion: Mr. Israel Second: Mr. Brown Vote: 6-0-0 The Motion was unanimously Adopted. Applicant: Mrs. Barbara Hudson for Squire Pope Furniture Owner: Mrs. Barbara Hudson Request: V-13-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7- 1012(a) to allow changes to a nonconforming sign located at 67 Squire Pope Rd., identified on Beaufort County Tax Map 7, Parcel 2. Ms. Carol Krawczyk told the Board that Squire Pope Furniture and Benny Hudson Seafood share an entrance drive. The Squire Pope Furniture facade sign and store awnings were damaged during the March 13 storm. When Mrs. Hudson applied to CRC for approval of the sign and awning color change, she was informed by Staff that the sign was nonconforming and needed to be brought into conformance before it could be painted. The existing sign is too large (45.2 sq. ft.) and with reduced size letters (limit of 13.8 sq. ft. allowed on this building) Mrs. Hudson felt the sign could not be read from the road. Mo. Krawozyk said Mr. Hudson recently placed a free- standing sign on his site, and rather than add to the existing free-standing sign Mrs. Hudson decided to request a Variance to paint and repair her existing sign in the same colors as Mr. Hudson's sign. These colors were approved by the Corridor Review. Committee (CRC) at the 4/13/93 meeting. Mo. Krawczyk said Staff decided the four variance criteria had been not, and recommended that the Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1012(a) be granted. Mr. Israel commented that the design and subdued colors in the Benny Hudson sign were very attractive, and if the Squire Pope Furniture sign letters were brought into color conformance with the other sign it would be very pleasing. Chairwoman James asked if it was possible to have two free-standing signs on that parcel. Ms. Krawczyk said two free-standing signs were allowed but at present there did not seen to be a location where the sign could be placed. Page 17 . . . . . . . . . . . ............. s 11 Chairwoman James questioned the size of the letters in the current sign as to conformance. Mr. Bill Lytle, Assistant Current Planner, said the present sign was nonconforming to size. Chairwoman James said that there was a need for fairness and consistency. If the letters fell off, it was like a piece falling off the Hudsons directional sign. Ms. Krawczyk said the structure of the sign was not damaged, only two letters. She said Mr: Riley, Director of Community Development indicated in an earlier meeting, that two letters coming off of the sign was not considered structural damage. Chairwoman James said if this was a nonconforming sign and letters had fallen off, it should be looked at and brought into conformance, and she had a problem with the inconsistency in the law. Mr. Israel said the facade sign when softened would not be noticeable and was preferable to -a free-standing sign. Mr. Bill Lytle said Mrs. Hudson was aware the nonconforming status of the sign and that wu. 'zy a variance was sought. Mr. Lytle said Mrs. Hudsun wanted to keep thea sign until the new sign ordinance was adopted. one year following adoption of the new ordinanci3, this sign would have to be replaced. During that time -Mrs. Hudson would seek a new conforming sign. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to =prove the Variance from LKO Section 16-7-1012(al to allow changes in a nonconforming sign, Apnrovni via aranted on the basis that the Q= re Pone +rnitura sign would be replaced within a year, do after the now sign ordinance was aQtad, with a new Rion in conformance with the new ordinance. Moved: Vice Chairman Brown second* Mr. Robinson Vote: 4-2-0 Chairwoman James and Mr. Miller voted against the Motion. The Motion was adopted. Chairwoman James said she voted against the Notion because' it stated this -was a nonconforming sign. She said a sign was being repaired that was nonconforming, and the Board set a precedent in the past that could be compared to this .sign. She asked that the Staff make note of this an one of those inconsistencies that needed to be looked into. BOA.'4-26-93 Mtg.;.," Page ,18 1 • • M Applicant: Mr. James Hale for O & P Ltd/JHP Hotel Corp. Owner: O & P Ltd/JHP Hotel Corp. of Hilton Head Island Request: V-14-93 Variance from LMO Sections 16 -7 -842 - Buffers, and 16-7-850(g)- Parking Distance, and 16-7-820 - Open Space, to permit additional parking, or variance from Section 16-7-851 - Minimum parking spaces, at the Best Western/OceanWalk Development. The property is located at 36 South Forest Beach Dr. & is identified as Parcel 240 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map 018. Chairwoman James recused herself from the hearing citing a possible conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Brown conducted the remainder of the meeting. Kr. Hugh Talcott told the Board that the variance related to existing and proposed parking provisions at the Oceanwalk/Best Western development on South Forest Beach Drive. Mr. Talcott said the history of the Xanadu and Oceanwalk development dates prior to the Town"s Incorporation and the platted parcels of land for the buildings and parking were irregular in shape and included cross easements for different purposes. The last two buildings with a total of 72 units were built in 1990 and are the subject of this Variance. Mr. Talcott said the project was permitted based on a prior approval and the LKO parking regulations were not required. Current LKO standards require 121 spaces for the two buildings and 114 are provided. A recent court case ruling resulted in the loss of 23 parking spaces. The Applicant requested permission to replace these parking spaces in the 508rear access easement owned by the Applicant. Mr. Talcott said installation of parking and a drive aisle in this strip would allow only 5 foot buffers from adjacent properties and parking would exceed the minimum distance from the building it is to serve, thereby. the need fcT the Variances. Mr. Talcott said Staff found that a hardship existed regarding the buffer, because parking had to be provided and the rear easement was the only place available. Staff recommended parking within that easement, with minimum 5 foot buffers. The intent of the LMO would be mat if that buffer was substantially landscaped with as,much visual screen as possible. Staff recommended approval of a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-842 with landscaping. SOA 4-26-93 Ktq. Page; 19 i r: e e LA Mr. Talcott said the'Applicant also applied for a Variance from IMO Section 16-7-850(g) that required a parking distance standard of 500 feet. The IMO allowed parking 1000 feet away if shuttle service was provided. If the Applicant provided some type of shuttle service the intent of the ordinance would be met and a variance would not be needed. Staff found no hardship in requiring the development to provide this service to and from the rear parking area. The Applicant indicated before the meeting that shuttle service would be provided for guests, therefore the only variance needed was for the buffers which was previously recommended for approval. Mr. Israel asked if the proposed parking was L:zcated by the tennis facility and if any residential property was involved. Mr. Talcott said Forest Gardens was on the other side of the tennis facility however, only the parking lot was close to the easement. Mr. Beil asked how many parking spaces the rear easement would provide. Mr. Talcott said it was suggested that only 23 spaces that. were lost as a result of the court ruling plus an additional 4 spaces be installed. Mr. Talcott said when the Applicant applied for development approval the Staff would make sure all the requirements were met. Mr. James Hale, representing O i P Ltd. told the Board that under previous approvals and review by the Planning commission, a condition was placed on the action which stated, that after one year if the Commission found that parking was inadequate, additional parking would be. required in a 5o* easement strip at the rear of the property. Mr. Hale said essentially this strip of easement was located between parking areas. . Mr. Hale said his client intended to provide the parking. shuttle service, so there would not be a problem with that requirement. Mr. Hale questioned the reference to the open Space Section in the meeting advertisement. Mr. Talcott said at the time the 'Notice was prepared for publication, Staff was notasure whether that Section would be required and wanted to advertise to`avoid :a problem. A Variance was not.required from open space standards. BOA 4-26-93 Mtg. Page 20 • • M MUTlaU(0) TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Bill Lytle, Assistant Current Planner RE: Request for Variance (#V -7A3) for May 24, 1993 Meeting DATE: May 14,1993 APPLICANT: Paula Thurman of Broad Strokes REQUEST: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030, to allow less than the required ben foot setback for a freestanding sign. Paula Thunman, owner of Broad Strokes Decorating and Remodeling Center, is requesting a ten foot variance from the setback requirement fora proposed new double sided, freestanding, I.D. sign at the 26 Arrow Road facility. Following is a review of the variance criteria as they relate to this application A. What extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to this property? This site was developed prior to the adoption of the current LMO standards. Because the building was placed so close to the road, the parking area is located on most of the remaining land. There is only 12 in lies between the edge of the concrete paving and the front property line. Any sign placed in this 12 inch wide strip would have to be parallel to the road. Since the road is only nineteen feet away, this would make the sign difficult to read until virtually abreast of it. There is a 5 foot wide piece of unpaved land m the west end of the property where the new sign is proposed to be placed. But even this location is not optimum as it is partially obscured by thick vegetation and a four foot diameter, power pole. A curve in the road when aprwading from the west also limits viewin& B. How wberoti? application of the Ordinance to this property cause an y • • 2. As cited above, the only location on the property where a double sided freestanding sign can be placed and meet the setback, would be obscured by vegetation and a large power pole. Facade signs are an option but since the building is so close to the tall vegetation of the adjoining property, motorists approaching from the west may not be able to see wall signs in a timely manner. If located within the 10 foot setback, a freestanding sign. could be seen by approaching motorists with sufficient time to slow and make the turn into the Broad Strokes property. C. How are these conditions peculiar to this property and not shared by neighboring properties? The neighboring property, Downtown Athletic Club, was developed in the same manner as the Broad Strokes property. It also has a nonconforming, { freestanding sign in the right of way. Unlike Broad Sttcdo, it has no other options for locating a freestanding sign (no unpaved land availeble).:This business is in the process of changing hands and the new owner i$ prepared to remove their nonconforming roadside sign in favor of facade signs. Since this property is located well away from the'curve in the toed, the power pole, and the vegetation, it does not have the visibility problems of the Broad Strokes building. t D. How would the variance not cause detriment to the public good or to the i purposes and intent of the ordinance A separation is required between roadways and signs so that the signs are not an obstacle for future bike paths and sidewalks However, no such improvements' are planned for Arrow Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • 1 After consideration, Staff feels thatsufficient hardship wrist. It appears that i the criteria which determines whether or not a variance should be grtu►ted has been demonstrated and that the variance from LMO Section 16!7--1000 be granted. y 7 jn r {f .l . iam • • M Application No.: V- I- g TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND ONE TOWN CENTER COURT HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC 29928 Planning Division Phone (803) 686-0904 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Instructions: Please TYPE of PRINT legibly. Attach additional sweets if needed. Note: Variances will not be granted for use or � density..,1 Project Name: DAW �TRe ES-! � �•Mp Zet✓•aTi:y '!e 7'- Tax Nap Numbar(s) IA' and Parcel(s).� 0/'S of project—.ct aie_ Location of Project: 2G "you .� project—. Base Zoning District(s) of Property: C -S Applicable Overlay Zoning District(s): Owner(s) of Recurl Applicant(s)* All Duly Authorized Agents* Name:/ 7fiut.�nA� Address: 41719f, 70A, Phones *LNO Section 16-7-603 requires applicants or the authorized agent to have a local mailing address and telephone number. Section Number(s) of the urdinance from which a variant*(@) is requested: Describe completely and specifically the requested variance: Explain briefly why the variance is requested: Attach the following items (s** LMO Section 16-7-672): 1. A narrative answering a7.1 of the following questions (criteria for granting the variance): A. Mhat extraordinary and pertain to this pseptnty (site, shape, topography)? H. Bow would the app ibis property cans* an unnecessary !, • • C. Bow to this PsoP*rty end not shared by P Los? D• d var t cause detriment to the public good or to the on and in the ordinance? a s.', "I- Wl--A • • MOTION 5-24-93 BOA Mtg. V-A�ff-93 BROAD Strokes Bill Lytle I would like to move that we approve a Variance from LHO Section 16-7-1030 to allow less than the 10 foot setback for a free- standing sign subject to the following two conditions: 1) that coordinated the sign's final position outside the right-of-waronflicts with a member of the Town Planning Staff; and 2) landscaping be adjusted to both landscape the sign and avoid with -stte lines of a sign of its present size. oved: Mr. Robinson _ Second: Mr. Israel NO further discussion Vote: Mr. Beil - In Favor of the Motion Mr. Rowan . - Favor Mr. Israel - Favor Mr. Robinson - Favor Chair James - In Favor of the Motion The following information from the tape preceded the Motion. Mr. Bill Lytle recommended approval of the Variance and asked if the variance was approved that the Board stipulate that a Planning Staff member assist in placement of the sign. Mr. Rowan - On the drawing it shows existing sign location and proposed location. Does this mean that there is a relocation of the sign in the photograph? Mr. Lytle - she is actually getting a new sign. Signs in photographs are the existing signs but she is getting a new sign and it will be located at the post location. r.. Mr. Israel - will it be the same sign as the one being relocated? Mr. Lytle - I have not seen the application for the new sign yet. �! I believe it will be very close. Mr. Israel - Diagram indicates that right behind the proposed location is a 31 high hedge, which means that the sign will have to be elevated considerably if it is to be seen coming from the ! other direction on Arrow Road. • Mr. Lytle - The LMO has sign height regulations, the bottom of that sign cannot be over 41 from the pavement and the top of the , sign cannot be more than 12' above the ground. CRC must approve the sign. - 1 cz, • f. f L MEMORANDUM TO. Board of Adjustn►ent FROM: Carol A. Krawczyk, Current Planner RE: Request for a Variance (V-12-93) for May 24, 1993 Meeting DATE: May 17,1993 r �i is � 1i { IAN , (t 4y � •: tt.; µ«dl � , ,x `. �� .:. �� ~ Vf S"r` ! l tier.•` 1kf p.-']y: ,E t jxt-1�U�� S tJ tii 4i, ?yg i t 'ril. + }. 1 • MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Carol A. Krawczyk, Current Planner RE: Request for Variance (#V-12-93) for April 26, 1993 Meeting DATE: April 16,1993 APPLICANT: Ms. Fran Thresh, from Speedi-Sign, for Grayed Auto REQUEST: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030, to allow less than the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. Grayco, Auto Parts is located at 1012 William Hilton Parkway, on the western side of the road. The existing Grayco sign is located within the road right-of-way, between , the two entrances to the site. During the March 13th, 1993, windstorm, the sign was blown down. Under Section 16-7-1012(a), such sign would be deemed abandoned if a variance were not applied for. The Owner had contracted with the Applicant's sign Company to design a new sign because of the condition of the existing sign and because business listings on the freestanding directional sign had changed. The Applicant had noted to Plarming Staff and the Corridor Review Committee that if the sign were set back ten feet from the rigi►t-of--way line as required in the Land Management Ordinance (IMO), then it would not be adequately seen because of Obstructions such as the Burger King sign on the adjacent property, a telephone pole and landscaping in the site's front buffer. William Hilton Parkway begins to curve at the Island Carwash, and continues to do so until after the Grayco site. Tnffic signage and the obstructions previously mentioned contribute to the poor visibility of signage ° in this area. The Applicant has met with Planning Staff on the Grayco site and has staked the location which she felt could be on the property and still be Keen so that people could use both driveways. This location is at the property line as indicated on the Applicant's site plan (See attached). Following is a review of the variance edieria as they slate to this application j • y A. What extraordinary and exceptional conditions pwain to this property? The propertyis located on a curve in the Parkway. Landscaping and signage in the right -of --way on both the subject property and land to the north obstruct the view. The property has two entrances, however, and if one misses the sign initially, there is f tiGa " tt�?,�yE' �r.•'!. t �v:... � '.„�+� r. � �"4z�.�v�""�.Y,q`�r�:,+°o. ti`3��;�'a�{t +,tw��Ja��a,, hi � t _ SSS � x/ v•l � 3 ��,''E � � a "�i,�''�ti�', 'i`��`�.t� ZI 5� -�.�Un`'�t'?w?.N:i.sc'�v,i.«,xL{l.'?#kP,;..i�.'..:��•�i�zyfiv°74��"r'�� e e 2. still the opportunity to enter the second driveway. B. How would the application of the Ordinance to this property cause an unnecessary hardship? Application of the ordinance would require the new sign to be set back on the property by ben feet. If this sign were,built, the sign would be obscured by landscaping and signage. The Applicant contends that this -would-be an ineffective sign. There would not be a hardship in this case, however, because the site has two driveways into the site off William Hilton Parkway. Traffic signs noting the existence of a traffic circle, coupled with the speed limit change from 45 to 35 m.p.h., help to slow traffic just before the Grayco site. Thus, if the sign were set back at the required distance and could not be seen immediately, one could still enter the second driveway without difficulty. C How are these conditions peculiar to this property and not shared by neighboring properties? At least three properties share the inconvenience of the curve along William Hilton Parkway, but only Grayco has two driveways. Where there may be some difficulty seeing the sign initially, the : econd driveway allows access to the site after one views the sign. D. How would the variance not muse detriment to the public good or to the purposes and intent of the ordinance? If the sign were to be located at the property line, but on the property, as the Applicant has proposed, there would be adequate room for a bicycle path/walkway either in front or behind the sign. By allowing signs to be placed as far forward on the property, however, we encourage the visibility problems along the roadwayif the Burger King sign on the adjacent property were setback the required distance, for example, some of Gmyco's problems m!At be solved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After addressing the four criteria required for variance consideration, Staff does not believe that the Applicant has adequately proved thtit the site is different from its neighbors, nor does there appear to be a hardship if the sip were placed with regard � ? to the required setback. Therefore, Staff reaomnumde that the request for a variance e from IMO Section 16-7-1030 be denied 1� 4L 1 1 ✓� '{, ➢ .�, �,t- { r Y J yy�y�� Xy i 1 i. 1 A �� rli �A � �rC 1� S �A:i 1 f 1 e � I � f �i 7 /` � , S +u}. ;?'.]' 453'.1j i'� i✓'�l'a,: 7. '� `�� A'"?�..��. •� T%S%.5. { �� i��• �,� �Y.4•iC' t xf:^.FSM 1 �� 3�2 y LS 4. i.... .�. �' :� �e }'., _� • 1 n 1't rdM3/1�7Jd ( 1 SIT. 0 r l y.• r ac''�'rl r, iY4i,a` ,� •oo =w.• It{e � ,,� L i• f`i / 0411 •• i.Yti J' }� �� 1 ' ` o �V f 'J• •. Y Ile ul M alae• �n'Y ,F wO �� i'� t ?.k'i M d, �dl�-1 rr1 w0 i ••. 11 �i� 1�5!". L �� a in r N SA •tµ r - N r1t dewy �. `O ,11-f i . ww 'a W NIS m �� if f CY tB 1•.r Y E u �•'!fr Q: t to p r t{� ^ v1 •y..l1 r � �1i�i a F �., V I N�V� / •, O , 32/ fj J t, j ,n } Application No.:_V__LL_A_S_ TOWN OF.HILTON HEAD ISLAND p� ONE TOWN CENTER COURT D Q V HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC 29928 Planning Division Phone (803) 686-0904 MAR 2 6 10 .10 ` APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Instructions: Please TYPE of PRINT legibly. Attach additional sheets if needed, Notes Variances will not be granted for use or density. Project Name: Tax Map, (a and Parcel(s) saf ject. Location of Project: Bass Zoning District(a) of Propertys APplicable Overlay Zoning District(s): Owner(s) of Record Applicant(s)* All Duly Authorized Agents* Name: JI Address: —1021 Phone: *LNO Section 16-7-603-�% requires applicants or the authorized ag*at to have a local mailing address and telephone -number. Section Nudser(s) OC the Ordinance from which a variances) is requested: lG 41-/0.30 A. THE LANDSCAPING INLCUDING TREES PROHIBITS VIEWING THE Y h Chairwoman James Mr. Shutt, when the Staff works with an Applicant they work very hard especially when they are dealing' i 2 N III By MAL MI LLARD hekl"Aff- Ml�r A last-ditch appeal to the town by residents of Bradley and Driessen Beeches to stop the expansion of a public park in their neighborhood failed Monday. The town Board of Adjustment, in a 3-2 vote, fell one vote short of the four needed to overturn an earlier Plan- ning Commission decision, paving the way for a greatly expanded beach -access park at the end of Bradley Beach Road. Board members James Robinson, Thomsa Israel, and George Rowan voted to overturn the Planning Commk- sion's approval of the town project, slated for completion in late July. Chairwoman Sue James and Peter Bell voted to stick with the commission's February decision. The town plans to expand the park from its current fit parking spaces to 212 spaces, and provide a bathhouse and dune walkover to the beach. To make the park a "good neighbor," the town Will erect sound -absorbing fences and expand vegetative buf- fers ubfers to abate noise, man the park daily to maintain secu- rity, prohibit parking on the roadside and erect a gate to keep cars out at night. Residents who live in the the quiet two-lane beach rad and those in the adjacent Driessen Beach community have vigorously fought the park's expansion, citing COO - cern over noise, crime, traffic congestion and a las in property value. "This facility will never be a gad neighbor," -said Driessen Beach Association member Wil Grant. The association appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the project, stating that the commission errem In it's recision "y ,wa -4-, , o ... •• s dents' concern. Disappointed by Monday's outcome, residents must now decide what to do next. Grant did not count out the possibility of taking the matter to court, but said the cat of doing so poses'a problem. "You need (big) money to go to court," said Grant,who filed the appeal and spoke on behalf of the anciciatiaa "But we're not giving up. We'll do what we have to do." Association president Martha Wilson said residents from Bradley Beach and Driessen Bach would have to meet todecide the next step. "My personal feeling is we have few alternatives left," • Ah • justments meeting. the Town Coundl to ask that security and traffic con- ewo arehenedmd, should. While the speller of molal discrimination has bobbed to the anrface Woulanally in the dbpute over expand - tog the park In the black neWdieehood, the only Incident Monday ane who Mack SWgktaa Bomb reddent John Macre told the aB,white appeals board that beach access pparks are behill womb tl wtweed plaoladom, daotim The town Is mandated to pnwride increased public beach acres in exchange for millions of state dollars it realved for a INC beach nowishmemt project. utast of the access, so for, is planned in black communities. None aro in private plantations, despite the fact that some plantation benefited from the nourishment Project, C*- piedned Moore. The whole thing comes down to — and I'm gobigtq'yy it on the line - plain segregation," Moore said. "AB xiu want todoistrample usand remove tam from this islam� ' The approximately 2a people in thro audionce, mo:d Ihemblack,applaudedMoore8commenfa. �* But It was Bradley and Drieseen Beach resideo<s'' Two Council representative, Henry Drieseea, who afro she said. One of those might be to take llroir amcarn kbkdn,wlwsddtirolaadtatiroparintotirotowa Woman charged in County attorney opines re f�t�l gtabbins says assessor's tag plan legal TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey K Ewing, lr. Mayor Henry D"earm• lr. Maya PrOTem May 26, 1993 Certified Mail Co WMm,bm P 345 026 246 a wgL.CorAkIr. Ms. Paula Thurman '144 Donna C. Main Broad Strokes TOM FORA DMOY G. PaWm P.O. Box 6287 Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 M1CMd G.ONdii Tom M•"K Re: V-7-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be located less than the required ten foot setback from_ the right-of-way. Property is located at 26 Arrow Road i identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort County Tax Map 015. This case was deferred from the April 26, 1993 Meeting. Dear Ms. Thurman: On Monday, May 24, 1993 the,ToMn of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard ycur..Appesl regarding the, Broad Strokes sign. The Board .of •Adjustment, granted a. Variance from LMO Section 16-1-1030, to all.ow less, ngthan'the 10 foot setback for a free-standis y with -the following provisions: 1) that the''sign .-I a ,6n outside._of,-.the right-of-way be coordinated. with. a,.Toimt�P,lanninq Staff member, and 2) that landscaping bs adjusted "in order.=to;.landscape the sign and avoid conflicts with si ht lines. Thw Motion was Adopted., Should there be any,qusdtions-plahserogntabt me at 686-0904. Sincerely litJA Bill Lytle Assistant rrent Planner cc: BOA Members. --'A& Steve Riley <s/sG Toa Brechko ✓ Greg DeLoach BOA File', ✓ Project File, BL:BJM (� �eC i TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Jr.Jr. gig May 26, 1993 Certified Mail Ca WM■mbn■ P 345 026 246 ' Fonkgn6n■n - - Ruu■RLCondU,Jr. Ms. Paula Thurman 13mmC'M'm" Tom Pspls Broad Strokes - D■athyapakin■ P.O. Box 6287 H lton Head Island, SC 29938 i'. Mlch■NC.ONN11 - TownM■n■ga Re: V-7-93 Variance from IMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be located less than the required ten foot setback from the right-of-way. Property is located at 26 Arrow Road & identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort County Tax Map #15. This case was deferred from the April 26, 1993 Meeting. I Dear Ms. Thurman: t. On Monday, May -24, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Appeal regarding the Broad strokes sign. r; The Board of Adjustment granted a Variance from.LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow less.than'the 10 foot setback for a free-standinq sign, with the -following provisions: 1) that the'.sign location outsidekof•;the right-of-way be coordinated: with, -a; Town: Planning Staff member, and 2) that landscapinq.be-adjusted`in order;td landscape the sign and avoid conflictl1l eight lines. The Motion was Adopted. t .. Should there be any questions please contact. me at 686-0904. Sincerely V W� 8 ill L le Yt Assistant rrent Planner cc: Bol►` Members Steve Riley 1 Tom Brechko �t • ' Greg DeLoach S BOA File • ,` Project File 4 BL: BM Ti, S R-11 May 27, 1993 Ms. Paula Thurman Broad Strokes P.O. Box 6287 Hilton Head Island, SC 29930 Certified Mail P 345 026 246 Re: V-7-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be located less than the required ten foot setback from the right-of-way. Property is located at 26 Arrow Road a identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort County Tax flap 015. This case was deferred from the April 26, 1993 Meeting. Dear No. Thurman: On Monday,. May 24, 1993 the, Town of Hilton Head Island Board of !` Adjustment heard your Appeal regardiq the Broad Strokes sign. t The Board of Adjustment granted a Variance from IMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow less than the, 10 foot setback for a free-standinq sign, with the following provisions: 1) that the sign location outside of the right-of-way be coordinated with a -Town Planning Staff member,,and 2) that landscaping be adjusted in order to"landscape the sign and avoid conflicts with sight lines.The Notion was Adopted. should there be any gaastions please contact me at 686-0904 ✓# Sincerely. M • MOTION 5-24-93 BOA Mtg. V-lZe93 BROAD Strokes Bill Lytle I would like to move that we approve a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow less than the 30 foot setback for a free- standing sign subject to the following two conditions: 1) that the sign's final position outside the right-of-way be coordinated with a member of the Town Planning Staff; and 2) that landscaping be adjusted to both landscape the sign and avoid conflicts with site lines of a sign of its present size. Moved: Mr. Robinson Second: Mr. Israel NO further discussion Vote: Mr. Beil - In Favor of the Motion Mr. Rowan - Favor Mr. Israel - Favor Mr. Robinson - Favor Chair James - In Favor of the Motion The following information from the tape preceded the Notion. Mr. Bill Lytle recommended approval of the Variance and asked if the variance was approved that the Board stipulate that a Planning Staff member assist in placement of the sign. Mr. Rowan - On the drawing it shows.existing sign location and proposed location. Does this mean that there is a relocation of the sign in the photograph? Mr. Lytle - She is actually getting a new sign. signs in photographs are the existing signs but she is getting a new sign and it will be located at the post location. Mr. Israel - Will it be the same sign as the one being relocated? Mr. Lytle - I have not seen the application for the new sign yet. •„ I believe it will be very close.. i Mr. Israel - Diagram indicates that right.behi,nd the proposed 7 location is a 3' high hedge, which means that the sign will have to be elevated considerably if it is to be seen coming from the other direction on Arrow Road. Mr. Lytle - The LN0 has sign heightregulations, the bottom of that sign cannot be over 4' from the pavement and the top of the sign cannot be more than 120 above the ground.' CRC must approve the sign. 1 i 1 • Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. Mayor Mayo PPrroTTern J` May 26, 1993 CoundB Members ? Frank Brafman I RussegL.Condit,Jr, Dr. Wil Grant Donna C. Martin Tompvlaa • 104 Valley Court Dorothy G.Perkim Statesboro, Georgia 30458 Certified Mail P 345 026 289 MLah.ei G.ow.iu Re: A-5-93 Appeal of the March 3, 1993 Planning Commission Town Manager decision to approve expansion of publicbeach access at Bradley Beach, Hilton Head Island. Dear Dr. Grant: f On Monday, May 24, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of t Adjustment heard your Appeal concerning the Planning Commission decision regarding Bradley Beach access. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to uphold the Appeal by the. Appellant, and .to :overturn the decision of the. Planning Commission, on the' basis` that the Planning Commission .erred.,in the decision 'by::'exceeding their authority on the provision- of security staffing and also, by not requiring due diligence with the investigation of traffic impact on the project. The Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure require a majority vote of 4, membersto overturn,a Planninq'Comaission decision t therefore, the Motion 'failed. 'The'Vote.was 3-2-0: -i should you have any questions, please„ contact SteveRiley, i., Director of Community.Developaent, at842-8900. ;. Sincerely, Ed Drane Urban Designer cc: : BOA Members.. Steve Riley Toa Brechko Greq DeLoach Mark Moore { BOA File Project File:; EW BJM L r ri 1 i , l j May 27, 1993 Certified Mail P 345 026 289 r Dr. Wil Grant i 104 Valley Court f Statesboro, Georgia 30458 Re: A-5-93 Appeal of the March 3, 1993 Planning Commission decision to approve expansion of public beach access at Bradley Beach, Hilton Head Island. € Dear Dr. Grant: $ On Monday, May'24, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Appeal concerning Bradley Beach public access expansion. The Board of Adjustment'Motion:was t S sincerely, �3 ry 8d Drane iUrben Designer cc: BOA Members, 1 Steve Riley :F Greg DeLoach Toa:Brechko.re � h -Marg Moore1 4. BOA File ��; tsA t'S i5r r s a Project File lsti rt kt9 1 t. }� �� {aY ,ervS Rr! J t�� Ire At ^ 8D' P:NOT ACT.93\BradlBch.NOA Si�S i .:.: _ .• .. .,,.. . .. .., .e....: .1.... ..," , -G. ;, .�, �., •,.--.,,..:,ri..R-..moi„� SS, r,. _, i.-:. : ,..f�rY.:? �YS7i's... ..�, 1.,.. h't...'.. e. 1.: ---'--------- ) oj .irJ F t 'r n r w a t r ',l l A d�K1i Y i5d ,; .I ) 1 ` •iS I /�� ., ,, ' ', 1'J In+�,,Y,�l al j,P'S�a r�iS ryk)r f �a AT PAIM Y Hr `ter uxlcalkr krru.:.rrircaP,„gy,,,,p �. NS P �• I ' ! , U re^Y ��iji fY�i ,��.} } t f li+, rl.. a �t; a{ 'l,� J1 • f f�7 � P4Y1 4 ��, xi 0.w7grp�.��r��j, i fSS'4r'4 jf }�1 � fd`3 y 1 � a � M r>•rx�"�r 7{n � - L t ", n ? R"r^y'� , s��y�,�'Y(aj,,� 4 71 7 �1 tr °Ir jr } tl r,^� a -' °- �. I if•I �' alai }r��, s 1 � y;'.I s dt � �� r � � 4 <�$ Motion - BOA - 5-24-93 Bradley Beach Park A-5-93 Motion by Mr. Robinson I make a Motion that this Appeal; be upheld that the 'decision of the Planning Commission be overturned as. they erred in exceeding their authority and also not doing an adequato traffic investigation. Mr. Israel - Second Mr. Israel - I would like to add on my own account that I would like concrete assurance from the appropriate Town authorities that that lot will be staffed at all times that it is open. I think that it is not reasonable to impose a facility like this in an established ^community without that kind of security and that is exactly what is involved here. And also I would like a reconsideration by the Planning Commission of the location of those parking spots from the south to the north as we have been discussing, and if there is a good reason why it can't be done that is fine, but I have not heard any good reasons yet. Mr. Beil - Asked for a repeat of the Motion because it sounded to me like you were seconding the denial of the ----- Mr. Robinson - If I understand - Dr. Grant made an appeal to overturn the decision.of the Planning Commission If we uphold the Appeal or approve the Appeal Chairwoman James - we are granting the Appeal Mr. Robinson - The appeal would be turned down Mr. Beil - Your second was subject to his------- Mr. Israel - That is correct. r Chairwoman James - You did not make those conditions. You were stating concerns. Mr. Israel - asked, Mr Robinson ifhet_-----e&,thew,3,two additional- ewendmsnts particylgr]ythe,«security one -- do you want them both or Just the'eecurity one?. Mr. Robinson The aeourity,one the most that is the one I feel i3 the strongest 'about:`The 'other one I think,(can't ,hear) �i Mr. Israel The,security,;;issue-^theFetm!lingr+is partaoF:fi-thr Aotion. The issue 'of moving some of Ui, parking from the south to the north to create a greater barrier is something.that I would.personally appreciate them taking a look'-at,':but it is not part of the.Motion. h ' •'r" s_''4v},Wi-SUi1�FYs��i"a ��2a �Fi��'_. ?� ,M4&.`4 OW Chairwoman James - Any other comments? Mr. Israel - It is not part of the Motion. Mr. Riley - I did not hear all of Mr. Robinson's Motion. What are the reasons you feel the Planning Commission erred? Mr. -Robinson That,they<exceeded,their,-authority.,;on,the provision -of,staffing,,and,that,.they,had not -done` dub' diligence it wh.the-investigation of, traff,ic-impact. Mr. Israel - Mine related to the security - what I wanted was more security. Mr. Robinson - Without proper documentation, I think if they had come forward with proper documentation from the Town saying that the Town would stand behind.it, then that would have been worth - Chairwoman James - I think that there was appropriate documentation in here from Mr. Margotta stating what the practices of the other beach parks were and what the results of those were. - Mr. Riley - We had stated in our presentation that we would man it from e.to 5 and that would basically be in season, there is an out of season area where the park is essentially open - we have patrol but we do not man our parks during the off season to the extent that we do during the summer season. But I think there was a presentation as to what our prick practice had been and what From Audience - A Motion is on the floor. Chairwoman James - Thank you sir, we are discussing the Motion which is appropriate before the vote. Mr. Robinson - Madam Chairwoman that is my concern thereisno documentation as to what would happen with this particular project and no commitment from anyone that -has substance. That is my concern. It is not that we couldn"t get it its that it is not here. Our duty is to judge on.the basis of what we have been presented. Chairwoman James.- Ok.- Ok. Alright, lets call the question. Mr. Robinson I am for the Motion Mr. Israel - For. the Motion Mr. Rovan - For the Motion Mr. Boil opposed Chairwoman James - Chair'ia Against the Motion.. Page 2 secona - mr. israet P:5-24MOTA.593 j The B�d of Adjustment Motion was to Lohold the 1102gal by the Anoellsont. and to overtLrn the -decision of the Pia n�na Commissionon the basis that the Plennina Commission a red in the �' i' <. , . r �'t ��.',i ti May 26, 1993 Certified Mail P345 026 247 Ms. Fran Thresh = "- Speedi Sign 180 Triangle Square Hilton Head Island, SC 29926 i' Re: V-12-93 Variance from U40 Section 16-7-1030, to allow a sign to be located within the ,required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. Sign ,and property are located at (; 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. & identified on Beaufort County Tax Map J 15, Parcel 253. Dear Ms. Thresh: On Monday, May 24, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of -.Adjustment heard your,Variance request, deferred from the April 26, 1993 meeting, concerning the`Grayco.Auto Parts sign. The Motion of the Board of Adjustment was i yIk Sincerely, " s' Carol A..Krawcayk Current Planner _ cc: BOA Members F ; S' , •� Stave Riley $: Tom Brechko i Greg .DeLoach i. Sammy.Grey l BOAFile i p Project File b ala :_ '�tUf• Syr"" j"tx' 37� k >,Tr jY' �• a P:NOT-ACT.93 GRAYCO-2.NOA ��'• { �� u•ftY' Y 41'tC(LY-i 't h' lik4i�•��rj�K3f�>Y1�i j .+j i..+ae � 1 3,i�'9 M. lggil 1! MOTION - 5-24-93 BOA Mtg. V-12-93 GRAYCO Carol Krawczyk I move to approve the Variance request„from , I= Section 16-7-1030 to allow the sign to be.not.cloeer than the property line as reflected by„the drawing that wa3 presented with the Application, which,,would move it out of the right-of-way but put it right at the"property line. Chairwoman James - Do I hear a second. Mr. Rowan - Second Mr. Rowan - Peter you mentioned property and right-of-way line, got two lines here. You've got the property line which is out further than the right-of-way line. Mr. Beil - That is what has me confused - I'm reading this as the property line as being that line on which the proposed new sign location would be fronting on. Mr. Rowan — That the sign be no further forward than the right- of-way line which is also the property line. Chairwoman James - so the property line 6 right-of-way are the same. Discussion back & forth about how far back the sign will be moved. Carol Krawczyk - so we are moving the sign on to the property line as opposed to 10' back on the property. Chairwoman James - So you are telling us that it will be going from this little stake (Carol which is the property line) is where it would be moved to. More discussion of where the sign would be located. Chairwoman James - This drawing is totally wrong. Jim what do you have? Mr. Robinson - I have a little drawing that I think is more accurate. More location discussion. Chairwoman James - Ok we.have a Motion on the Table to allow the sign to be not closer than the property line as, reflected in the drawing - don't know if we want to say as reflected in the drawing because the drawing is wrong. Mr. Beil - I vould`llihs to amend my Motian to4is[egard any comment in regard to it seems like it in very inaeeursts-n§� u`� lnav ,,, R .. i • Chairwoman James - Ok then the Motion would be to allow the Variance ----- to approve the Variance to allow the sign to be not closer than the property line. Correct? Does the seconder approve of the amended motion? Mr. Rowan - yes. Mr. Robinson - I am having a great deal of problem with approving this with no setback at all. Peter mentioned Burger King sign - - no setback at all, eventually we will look at the Burger King sign and when we do, if we have approved this one it will make moving that one back much harder. etc., etc. I feel like they could move back somewhere in the area of those placards and we would have a compromise that would work for the owner and also make our job easier in the future when we do come up against the Burger King sign. I just feel like we have got to start moving back. Mr. Israel - Do you want to make a substitute Motion? Mr. Robinson - I would if that is in order. Chairwoman James- We have a Motion on the floor - we need to either vote on the Motion or withdraw the Notion for further discussion. Mr. Israel - I'm sorry a substitute motion can be made I believe. Chairwoman James - If the original motion maker agrees. Mr. Israel - No I don't think so. Chairwoman James - I donft have Roberts Rules with me today. Mr. Beil - Can i withdraw my Motion and make a new Motion? Chairwoman James - I don't see a problem with that. Mr. Beil - I will withdraw my motion and make a new motion. Chairwoman James - Does the seconder agree. Mr. Rowan - I agree. Mr...eei1 i wa11d lige to aske ,Motion to approve the Variance raquest tram LID Section ib-7-10�0'to allow the sign'to be, not- ", cloverAhen 30 ' from the` property' line ' alsaeinq`OWio=ly; within the proparty linsas'opposeeto:-.beyond the �iu!/ proP!rty"'1ins. Mr. r, ieobinmon ->�L: il; aeoa�ds.tbat. Chairwoman James - Any further.discussion. Page 2. O 0 4 v ( ` Miiowan VIsra vo d AgaiAst�the Motic)k_ Tb"otEpn w ted. Appellant: Dr. Wil Grant Owner: Town of Hilton Head Island Request: A-5-93 Appeal of the March 3, 1993 Planning Commission decision to approve expansion of Public Beach Access at Bradley Beach. Mr. Ec� Drane, Urban Designer, addressed the Bradley Beach Appeal. He said the project was at the end of Bradley. Beach Road, on approximately 14.57 acres of land that is either owned by the Town of Hilton Head or -leased from the County. It is the current site of a 51 parking space beach access. Mr. Drane said the Phase I proposal for the project would increase tt11}}@@,,f�ar in es to a total of 212, however there was iie:area76rr` potential parking ex was not part of this proct. p g pansion.wl�ietrTi.rs"+a. The site is zoned RD -2, Resort Development, which allowed public beach facilities as a by -right use. The adjacent property is z ned RD -2 and R -B, Residential Moderate Density, whIN contains multi -family and single family residential development. 1 w a IMtiT'k0j On October 9, 1992 the concept plan was presente4kat Town. Hnll) aM attended by 20 residents of the Bradley Beach community. The main concerns of the residents were traffic, noise and security. Mr. Drane said after refinements to the plan the Planning Commission held a publ c bearing on December 16, 1992. Residents of the area -expressed concerns about traffic, noise and security, ' the Planning Commission denied approval based on ten points. Mr. Drane said the staff held another meeting with residents on Sunday, January 31, 1993 at which time each of the 10 items from the.Planning Commission and possible solutions were discussed. Plans for the project were once again revised and presented to the Planning Co esion for. reconsideration on February 3, 1993. Residents. esented lengthy commentary at that, hearing. 'The Planning Commission voted 8-1-0 to grant public project approval with 3 conditions: 1) the park would be staffed during all, operating hours; 2) confirmation of adequate funding from. BOA 5-24-93 Ktq. Page 4 IN � '� i �S p..;ny��r4-e *i^ �•'W g , , Y�3rS +..� ��, y ��E i e • M the Town Staff or Council, prior to commencing Park project; 3) the sound and security fence would be located away from the property line as appropriate, to be as unobtrusive as possible from nearby residents homes. Subsequent to Planning Commission -approval the Corridor Review Committee approved the projebt April 13, 1993. Mr. Drane said the Staff would not make a recommendation on the Appeal, the appellant asked that the Board make a decision whether or not the Planning Commission erred in granting approval based on the information that was presented. Mr. Israel asked if there would be parking and beach access on the north side of Bradley Beach Road. Mr. Drane said no, there was no access to the beach in that area. He said the proposed fence was to keep people from using the private lots when coming and going to the beach. Mr. Israel asked about the parcel adjoining the Boardwalk that the Town proposed to purchase. Mr. Drane said the Town legal staff was currently closing on the first lot in the subdivision to use as a buffer. Mr. Robinson asked whether setbacks and buffers, where motorists turn off Bradley Beach Road to access parking, conformed to the IMO. He said if some parking spaces were removed the road could be placed farther away from homes. Mr. Drane said the setback was 20 feet, and it was measured to the parking spaces, plans were made to use the existing streeture Ltb the culverts Am pleas and the LMO allowed drive accesses in the buffer. Mr. Israel asked if the row of parking closest to the homes in Phase I, could be moved to the west closer to the beach. Mr. Drane said in this area it would create a deadend parking bay which was not a good idea,.and when developing parking the area was selected which&W most advantageous for the users to reach the beach. Sd,,the area closest to the boardwalk and bath house was chosen. i Mr. Israel said there would be less.impact on the community if the parking was extended westward. Chairwoman James asked the distance between the.closest parking space and the nearest house. Page 5 • 1; 1 1 iY f! P _• STtY \ t l t',- . \ 1! 1 4 I Fi �! � R'!j' G ! h� f � "{'}M iy\�e .f` t•{.d vt � � '�R.3�S 7. y+5�lJ^j�YN11414 'MAW`tf;Y•t �.:9N: . 1.,4J4a.ltS 1. ,1++' x14+ 7t• 1i97i A n.�tbrt o-.fi :r1 _ e Mr. Drano said it was 60 feet between the property line and the first parking spaces and the LMP only requires 20 feet. He noted the area was thick with growth and when 5 feet into the woods the house was still not visible. Mr. Drane showed slides of the area to the Board. Mr. Robinson asked if an estimate of trip generation was provided and how many trips would be generated. Mr. Drane said a trip study was not thine, y Field and eeli"Y teat -C-4- deen Net all the-%V&Z" ad threughoub the day. Engineering looked at the use based on the use at Folly Beach and determined that Bradl�eyy, each Road could handle this phase,; of th��p�ojject withrBW4 � two minor improvements. These were:.'� V4*n lane from U.S. 278 = thean the pavement needed to be cleaned off and shoulder work done to allow room for walking. Mr. Robinson said the highway between Folly Field Road and Palmetto Dunes was the busiest highway in the County. He was concerned that a High Traffic SpecialException had not been done at this extremely busy area. Mr. Bell was concerned with the security of the park. Chairwoman James explained that the Planning Commission stipulation was for the Park be staffed during all the hours that it was open. Mr. Israel asked if the Town was bound by all the stipulations placed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Riley, Director of Community Development, said he was not sure that the Planning Commission had the authority to make that provision, that he would pursue that with the legal department. Dr. Wil Grant, resident of Bradley Beach addressed the Board representing the Driessen Beach Association. Dr. .Grant said he had been all over the world and it didn't get much better than Hilton Head. Dr. Grant felt the .slides were slightly distorted with respect to depth and offered.to personally show the Board the area. Dr. Grant said he did not want a public park as a neighbor," but given the progress of the matter, asked the Board to consider carefully the security; illegal parking,. BOA 5-24-93'Mtg: Page 6 increased traffic, noise, litter, trespassing, burglary, vandalism, noxious fumes, etc. which are concomitant by- products of the facility. Dr. Grant stated that this facility will not nor wil+-It-ever beka good neighbor. Dr. Grant read his statement to the'Board which in its entirety has been attached to these minutes. Chairwoman James said she had a privilege that the other Board mefters _did not have, to be able to attend all Planning 05 Ve'etings, and she had obtained information that was not available in the information given to the Board. Chairwoman James asked Dr. Grant what organization",. he represented and how many property owners were in the organization. Dr. Grant said he was speaking for the President and Members of the Driessen Beach Association. Dr. Grant said the certified mailing list included 37 property owners in the immediate area, but there were 87 families that would affected by this beach parking facility. Chairwoman James recognized Mr. Riley pertaining to the earlier question about Planning Commission authority. Mr. Riley said he had talked with the Town Attorney Curtis Coltrane, and the Planning Commission had the authority to look at the location, character and extent of the project. The Town's view was that the Planning Commission*s authority did not extend to staffing and operating hours, and he did not think the Planning'Commission had the authority to put that provision on the approval. Mr. Riley reminded the Board that their consideration of the Appeal was to determine whether the Planning Commission erred in their decision. Chairwoman James commended Dr. Grant for his presentation particularly with the potentially emotional situation being discussed. She said an important point to bring out was that the land was already 4202J=9Mfi=md RD-2, and an example of RD-2 was the Admiral*s Row project. When considering the density afi=soninq that could be put on the land, if it were not used for a beach park, meant the area could end up with a hotel with as many90 rooms. A park seemed like a to a-IRD-2 good alternative, by-right uses, especially when the very best was being. done to maintain a large percentage:of the-land and preserve the natural landscaping. Chairwoman James said that Dr'. Grant made,the statement that "you don't want the. Botch, Park there at but :11", every land owner had aright to the use of 'their land. Page 7 • Chairwoman James asked Dr. Grant if he wouldn't prefer a beach park as opposed to a large project like a hotel. Dr. Grant said yes personally, he did say that he did not want the proposed parking facility there at all, period. He explained that he said, given thb progress to date --- he could accept an expansion of the 51 space parking area, noting that he did not go into detail, but the alternative was much worse. He was stunned that literally almost anything could go on that piece of property.. Dr. Grant said if the intent of the question was the lessor of two evils, he would yield to that analysis.- He said there was still concern for the security of the area, even with the lessor of two evils. Dr. Grant said the first row of parking was objectionably close to the two nearest houses, when there were alternative locations. Chairwoman James explained the design for the use of the land was to direct people on a quick route to and from the beach to keep them from being on homeowners property'. Dr. Grant said it would be convenient for the, people going to the beach, but inconvenient to the property owner to have a parking row almost within eyesight of their home. Mr. Israel asked what problems existed to hinder moving parking spaces to the west and north, to eliminate the first row or two of parking. Mr. Riley said.the original plans for that area on the north side of Bradley Beach Road was to place metered parking rather than an attended lot. That operation may be changed and may facilitate something such as moving the spaces, Mr. Bob Moore, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said there was a fundamental issue of zoning that; the. Planning d Commission addressed and the Board should address when hearing this Appeal. Mr. Moore explained that the RD -2 zoning would allow a private property owner to 'develop a beach parking facility without Public Project Review or Planning Commission approval. The beach facility under those circumstances would meet the IMO requirements if it provided a 20.foot,.buffer from the closest 'parking place' 1 to the property; line. Up to 50% of the property could be paved with an estimated 2000 parking places on.a 15 acre area. BOA 5-24-93 Mtg. Page, 8 1w 0'.f{, r N Mr. Moore said the LMO required the Town to have a Public Project Review to deal with location, character and extent. He said the Planning Commission believed the Town should be a good neighbor. The original proposal was rejected by the Planning Commission because adequate consideration had not been given in`10 areas. The Town's response to those.10 points convinced eight of the nine members who recognized the many by -right zoning uses of the RD -2 zone. The Planning Commission felt the project had been appropriately down -scaled to be a good neighbor. Mr. Moore said the Planning Commission made no commitment or held no further discussion of future -development of the property. Mr. Moore said no relief was in sight for Bradley Beach Road access except the Cross -Island Expressway. The estimated 500 cars per day with 212 parking spaces, was classified by staff at being light. Mr. Moore said no parking on Bradley Beach Road was preferred by the property owners, therefore no parking signs would be placed the length of the road also, a shoulder would be developed for pedestrian use. Mr. Moore said the Commission was concerned about the 4ure,nS�Rr4L bolding- eats at the entrance to Bradley Beach Road from the north, but the TPwnn�inae believed, based on 500 cars per day, the Aoi�iiu�-sdLa�-wese adequate. if a demonstrated need was shown„ space was available to expand the holding spots. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Moore how rigorous the Planning Commission was in looking into the 500 car count given by. the Town Engineer. Mr. Moore said the Commission was not rigorous, they accepted the number at face value. He said the National Federal Standards considered up to 4000 trips "a 'day would be within the carrying capacity of the existing road. Mr. Robinson said from Bradley Beach Road/U8 278 { intersectionto Queens Folly Road ;was the busiest road in Beaufort County. Mr. Israel said the Planning Commission ,did a fine job while being thorough and fair. He'.was concerned about the provisions placed by the Commission and.'whether, the Town would carry them out. The staffing of :the Park until e • p.m. was critical. Also, whether consideration would be given to moving some of the parking to the, north and of the parking area. BOA 5-24-93 Mtg: Page 9 r� F 7! til ]ja P'� arty i �`'� " 4i"Y "i i ''�i ��vryr. 7';�yq'� _�(}{�{{}� 7`dr, '',� r�i1F2 +`' tuT+ iyy� • µ,:yl }iYj.i lih o"nK117 a �U � ` �n :fh !' 14111 M �!''{aL .. '&fih.Tn:S'tS}1� �� itiM� �r .'i•.- I rL6, ty� 1 r, le`_� A AX. t .k 1 . ,. d • Mr. Moore said other alternatives were considered. The Planning Commission accepted the Staff recommendation to place the 212 parking spaces close to the beach for the convenience of people using the parking, while providing a minimum 50 foot buffer on Town property. The conclusion was that a 50 foot buffer was adequate and there was no advantage of moving parking to another location. Mrs. Chris Szuberla, resident of Bradley Beach, expressed concerns about thousands of people gaining access to the Bradley Beach residential area and the many nuisances which would accompany these people. She urged the Board of Adjustment members to vote no on the Public Beach Access. Mrs. Szuberla's statement is attached for the record. Mrs. Martha Wilson, President the Driessen•Beach Association told the Board that she concurred with Dr. Grant's statement. Mrs. Wilson listed the following concerns: inadequacy of the Security Plan - one attendant for 800 to 900 people would be inadequate to maintain the atmosphere the Town would want to maintain. Also, the inadequacy of Bradley Beach Road - a 20 foot wide road could not adequately handle that ,ouch traffic, especially with a bottleneck.at one end. Mrs. Wilson said the present parking was underutilized because facilities were not available, when it becomes known that facilities are available, organizations will rent buses to take large numbers of people on beach outings. Mrs. Wilson said these points should be taken into consideration while plans are be formed. -AJb Mr. John Moore, Member of the Singleton Beach Association, explained that he was working with the Bradley Beach group, because he did not want to see the same problems move to the Singleton Beach area. He said the Town accepted Federal money for beach renourishment thereby accepting public beach access, and the beach access was being forced on the black community. �i Mr`&-hoore said with the existing situation of Bradley Beach Road the added traffic would cause a "death.trap". He said a realistic figure of occupants per car going to the beach would be 4, which would.increase the actual number over the Town's figures. He expressed many serious security problems for residents of the area. J1G-�oore +be said people who do not wn operty on Bradley Beach •� should not be allowedkl the black community ))) was carrying the burden for the whole Island.in-the �2 placement of the public beach parks..` BOA 5-24-93 Mtg. Page 10 a'/ • v ikrai'Y.r"�rf�eim.tk„va;ck' •752S.i�..:.t�i�(v r�af\i��^r�,st��_ ZIMs ft 2 i q�r�y,AfJt.r"�;�Y""i�',„N� .1Men ?Cai'aY Wdxt.uikttl:-w e • M Chairwoman James stated:" that as the Chairwoman of the Board of Adjustment, former Town Council member, and a 16 - year resident, I am very pleased to say that I feel that this Town has bent over backward and has tried very hard to be fair in every single instance they could. I am very disappointed that some people are trying to make this a black/white issue, because it is not. The Town of Hilton Head Island bought some land - they are land owners and they have the same right that you. and I have when we own land, to put something on our land. We have,a law that states what the zoning is for each piece of land on this Island. The land that they bought has by -right uses listed in the Land Management Ordinance. As was stated earlier, if you or I owned that land and we dccided that we wanted to put in a beach park, we could do it without getting any kind of approval at all. It states in the LMO under the RD -2 District, that institutional and public buildings and uses including public beach facilities are permitted. So, ladies and gentlemen I would hope that all of you would realize that this Board of Adjustment, that I have worked with for a number of years, has tried very hard to be fair. We have tried to be fair to the Planning Commission, Town Administrator and Appellant when we have to look at an Appeal. We have tried to be fair to the Applicants when we have looked at a Variance. I assure you that those of us that are here today will look at this from a very fair point of view and will not look at it as a black and white issue." Mr. Beil said the Boardfs duty was to review the Appeal and decide if the Planning Commission erred in their judgement. He said grounds for the Appeal by Dr. Grant was that the 10 points had not been addressed to his satisfaction and it was up to the Board to study those grounds and decide whether the Commission erred in their decision. Mr. Israel asked if the Town had the authority to follow a through on the security question of staffing the park. Mr. Robinson said he was concerned the Planning Commission had required conditions beyond their authority without documentation or support from the Town. Secondly, the Planning Commission had not shown due diligence by j {if requiring an accurate count of traffic generation. The • 212 spaces, would generate 424 trips.a day. Mr. Robinson said this count should have been done diligently and the 111 , 1 purpose of a public hearinq was to go beyond what was a required of a private developer. BOA 5-24,-93 Mtg. Pade 11 �� c> S3" v • • Mr. Riley explained that the traffic impact study requirement had been dropped from the LMO and the interim traffic ordinance was in effect. A traffic count focused on the peak weekday hour and most beach traffic was clepred out before the peak hour.. Mr. Riley said s were expected on some weekends, but, not on a regular basis. Mr. Robinson said there was no evidence that a traffic study had been done and he thought it should,be done. Mr. Israel asked Staff if consideration -could still be given to shifting some of the parking spaces to the north:: area, to provide a greater barrier in Phase I from the residences to the south. Mr. Drane said he was willing to looat an alternative. The Planning Commission may have tol' onsider the Public Project Review in order to make a change. Also, that particular location was not chosen for Phase I because there was a lot of drainage control structures in that area that would need to be relocated. Mr. Rowan said until the Town gave an indication of what they would do to fulfill the security staffing situation he was not ready to act on this matter. Chairwoman James said staffing was a budget item. The Town Council would decide whether or not personnel would be placed in the budget. Mr. Riley said in talking with the Town Attorney, it was decided that it was inappropriate for the Planning Commission to propose that stipulation. He said it was inappropriate and problematic for the Board to delay action on the Appeal with relation to that provision. The Motion of the Board of Adiuustment was to uphold the Appeal by the Appellant. and to ovs_rh_nrn the decision of the Pls*+ninQ Goafinsion, on the basis ttiat the Planning Cosaission erred in the decisionby exceeding their authority on the provision of security staffing and also, by not re irinq due diligence with the investigation of traffic imcect on the project. Moveds Mr. Robinson Second: Mr. Israel Discussion Mr. Israel said assurance was needed.from the appropriate Town authorities, to confirm the lot would be staffed during all operational hours. He said it was not Page 12 Votes 3-2-0 Chairwoman. James and Mr. Boil voted against the Motion. The Motion failed. A majority vote of 4 members was needed to overturn a Planning Commission decision._' 'VI. Citizen Partio tion Citizen, participation was heard during the .Bradley Beach Appeal. VII. ' r Adjournment A Motion Meeting N4tiQIIi S�oond• , to Adjourn the B/24f93 Beard oP AAj+a n at'5:35 P:M. Mi. ° Bail Mr"iara6l, Vote= Respectfully Subitted, ; Billie J Marlow, Secretary f J BOA 4 93 Page,13 J F 1 'F1 t e M V. New Business Applicant: Ms. Paula Thurman, Broad Strokes Decorating Owner: Ms. Paula Thurman Request: V-7-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be located less than the required ten foot setback from the right-of-way. Property is located at 26 Arrow Road & is identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map #15. Mr. Bill Lytle, Assistant Current Planner noted that this Variance had been deferred from the 4/26/93 Board Meeting. In the interim the proper legal advertising was fulfilled. The Staff recommended approval of a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 with the provision that a Staff member assist the placement of the sign. Mr. Rowan asked for clarification of the site drawing as to the sign relocation. Mr. Lytle explained that the Applicant was actually in the process with CRC to get approval of a new sign to be erected on the site. Mr. Israel asked the size of the new sign. He noted that the drawing showed a three foot hedge which would necessitate an elevated sign. Also, the sign would still be obstructed approaching from the curve on Arrow Road. Ms. Thurman, Owner of Broad Strokes Decorating, said the oleanders would be moved to allow placement of the sign. Chairwoman James asked Ms. Thurman if an application had been made to CRC and how the new sign size compared to.the existing sign. F Ms. Thurman said application had been made to CRC and the r new sign would be approximately the same size as the current sign. i �! F } The Board of Adjustment moved to grant a Variance from Igo Section 16-7-1030 to allow leas than the lO foot setback for a free-standing sign. with the following provisions: l i 11 that the sign location outside of the right-of-way be coordinated with a To Plnnn ng 4taff member. and 21 tha landscaping be adjusted in order to 14noscape the si and f e+ avoid conflicts with sight lines. Notion*, Mr. Robinson Second: Mr. Israel vote: 5-0-0 The Motion was ungpimously Adopted. Page 2 Applicant: Ms. Fran Thresh for Grayco Auto Parts Owner: Mr. Sammy Gray Request: V-12-93 - Variance from LMO Section 16-7- 1030, to allow a sign to be located within the required 10 foot setback from the right- of-way. Sign and property are located at 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. 6 identified on Beaufort County Tax Map # 15, Parcel 253. Ms. Carol Krawczyk, Current Planner, explained that this Variance was deferred from the 4/26/93 meeting in-erder--*A&4d shat the Board members sent visit the Grayco site and make a more certain determination. L Board Members discussed e ph�d drawings of the site as to the location and legal placement of the sign with regard to the property and size of the sign. Ms. Krawczyk said the Applicant failed to prove a hardship because there were two entrances to the site. The Staff recommendation was to deny the Variance re4uest from LMO Section 16-7-1030. �. Chairwoman James questioned the abundant landscaping in the area which would obstruct the sign. She felt that 4054,ys► ^ 1%,6f .location in that busy area could become a safety hazard. Mr. Bail said the 35 mph speed limit was not a factor in locating the sign because the area was so busy. er use Mr. Israel and Mr. Robinson werethat t location of the sign was rat the problem, but vas the multitude of information on the sign which made the sign so hard to read. Ms. Krawczyk showed the Board a photo of a smaller new sign which was recently approved by the CRC to replace the existing sign. Mr. Israel said if the new sign was placed legally it would be visible. •a Mr. Boil made a Motion which was seconded, by Mr. Rowan. After discussion as to the location of the property line and other factors the Motion was withdrawn by Mr. Beil and the following Motion was Adopted. The Board of Adjustment Variance from LMO tt� •1 granted a section 16-7-1030 to allow the Graygo sign to be erA�tea not closer than 5 feat Eros tha pro�rty line. 7 . { i BOA 5-24-93 Mtq. ` " r , Page 3 _ f z , f. 1{ :a .. e 10; en" innnAuspn Alk t""V—wh AN VIV,1. t 11 f. F .i lti t 1 t 1 >• _ _I ni 1 .r F] >1=7-a • If - I I co - i t � Y ' S d I�1 A I 1 r i _i r � i i, t vi � i 1 ➢ '� i � - . +':' �f i'if rJ �f iS ' r 1 l,11 N, >1•f V jG x,41 t2 %1� C 2 . J. g7 ,ei �,c L .,1, �� tr•�h,4.,�,.., ,_r�...t.�1.Y.:� t.`'ts�,!v. �k ha„�z�..�..5.i,a �, ^ a.,.h:Ugh+1�i,�t.��i��`".xt.lrel..£i,:� Q&?_Sw.TM2 • m I 1; n I�� 1 t'• � �' r �tif1 f t - I I ��s 1r�./4.4, .�'/�1.t yi ,,�.v1 .,4 V i i :�? .1�. .a• .. _ ... ., 7F.l ' i„n ti:..f.%3.f .,. !.1:. ..1_l...ann. .,. a X-...,. .. ... I 0 0 a m -.0 mi I C-n=Lwo 0 I�ZM,'O 0 a (IM-Mim-i • C11mrUMM 0 go I 12, I (1-T=,M mul.Manm lZ?l1.17Z"17M..*_1 0 .0e 2 0 A��' 5, .1, _5 Nwt Q1,11mmummi 1. I Ili MIM. IMM 0 't4: � �- L � ri III _. � .., �777_ 71 W 46 ""'T39", -"f; _32, mI . lM:llL'l-j= YINZICM • r i i I � r f h P1 r trrz r� ��tirsl'ti Til L ��f7? a�?' M, I =-ulli2a • ■ , il--I' t also; i /l Ll 1-1 1 1 1_ 1-1 1 1 0-1 _1 1-1 1 1 Cl r;, F) 11 I1-1 -1 111 11-11- 1-1 11=1 1 I_I l l l! 1 1 1..D 1 1 1 I 1 ►iI-)►iD 111110 In 1�i�i 1 1U1 1L Ll Li1-1 _i 1-1 1 ii i 1 1 ~Ill =1 1-11-11-1 1= 1-1 1 1 1 1 1 1111111 111111_1 11 1 1 1 ai 1111111 11111101 11 I_II1 ir►_rir►_ i►iri►_r it ►_r ► i r► rF7 _r 1-1 i r► -r►= 1-1 J _r i ri 1-1 L iri ri r _► 1-1 r -1 ►-I ► ►r- ► 3 1-11-11-1 ►_ ► 1 _► 1-1 L1Ll L 1 I Ll1 1 _I 1 1 1 1 #-1 3 1-1 I I 1-1 1= 1-1 1 1= 11 1 U-1-1 L 1 11 11 1 _I Li I _I 1 -) _ - - _ _ w 1 11 II I _I - 1 11 II Ic I I I _ � Ll Ll Ll E Ll Ll 1 1 _I Ll I _I -1 LI 1iLI L iiLI LI _1 LI i --T(1 1 1 1 1-11-1 3 1-11-1 1-1 c 1= 1 Ll Ll Ll l_ 1-11-1 1 1 _I 1 1 1_I 1 W 1-1 1 1 1 1 _1 ,1 1 1 1 1-11- 1 1 1 1_ III LI 1 1 LI 1 1 1ld 1-1,3 1 I I _I 1 K 1 1 1-l' 1 1_I 1 1 1 1 1-11- _ 1 1 1 1_ 1-1 1-1 11111 Ll LlLl _I 11 1_I 71 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1= 1 1 I1- 1 1111111_ 111111_1 11 111 1 1 i iii i 1-1 i I► r ►_ 11 1 ►= i U i I Ui Ll 1 - iii _► i ► ►Ll L 1 11 11 1 1 1 11 11 II_ Ll Ll Ll 1_ Ll Ll Ll _1 Ll I l l _I 111111 1 1111111= 11 11=11 1111111_ 111111_1 11 111 I Ll 11U1 111111_1 11 111 f 111111 1 1111111= 11 1C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1_ 1 1 •LI 1 1 _I 1 1 1 1 1/ 1 111111 1 1111111= 11 11=11 ft. . 11-1 �:l f -I I c 0 1-11-1 L Ll U 1-1 U 11-1 Li laz=mlil i NOTS. CE PU.Ll_.SC HFAR_Z'IVG The Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment Meeting will convene in Regular Session, Monday, April 26, 1993, 1:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Ong Town, Center Court, William Hilton Parkway, Hilton Head Island, SC. Billie J Marlow, Secretary AGENDA BOARD OF ADJ'._lSTMENT REGULAR M.?:.'BTT.. NG APRSL 2 6 � 2..9 9 .3 1= 00 P_M_ I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OzT AGENDA IV. APPRO17AL OF MINUT2' March 22, 1993 Meeting V. OLD BUSINESS Applicant: Mr. E. H. Shutt, Heritage Motor Car Company Owner: Mr. Wakefield Request: Reconsideration of a previous decision by the Board of Adjustment at the 10/27/92 Meeting concerning Variance V-17-92, to deny requested Variance from sign setback. Property is located at 460 William Hilton Pkwy. and is identified as Parcel 202 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map #8. Applicant: Mr. E. H. Shutt, Heritage Motor Car Company Owner: Mr. Wakefield Request: Variance V-4-93 Tabled from 3/22/93 Meeting. For a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(c) to allow expansion of a nonconforming site. Property is Heritage Motor Car Co., 460 William Pkwy. & is identified on Beaufort Co. Tax Map #8, Parcel 202. Appli. #: V-4-93 BOA Agenda 4/26/93 Page 2 Old Businecs continued Applicant: Mr. Cliff Loveland of Carter-Moit Engineering for Nations Bank Owner: Nations Bank Request: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be located less than the required ten foot setback from the right-of- way. The Sign is for Mid -Island Nations Bank, 862 William Hilton Pkwy., the property is identified as Parcel 153 on Beaufort County Tax Map # 11. Appli. #: V-5-93 VI. NEW BUSINESS Applicant: Paula Thurman, Broad Strokes One Stop Decorating Center Owner: Paula Thurman Request: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1012 to allow changes to a nonconforming sign other than refinishing the surface of the sign, so as to keep the same appearance of the sign. Property is located at 26 Arrow Road and identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map #15. Appli. #: V-7-93 Applicant: Mr. Perry Wood for Greenwood Development Corp. Owner: Greenwood Development Corporation Request: Variance from LMO Section 16•-7-483(c)(2) and 16-7-915(d) to allow a rdduction in Buffer and Setback requirements adjacent to tidal wetlands. Property is known as Longview Island and is located in Shelter Cove, Palmetto Dunes and is identified as Parcel 28 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map # 12B. Appli. #: V-10-93 Applicant: Town of Hilton Head Island Owner: The Grant Family Request: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(d) to relocate a nonconforming structure, a produce stand, further from U.S. 278 to better accommodate the Hilton Head Island Pathway. Appli. #: V-11-93 BOA 4/26,193 Agenda .mage 3 Applicant: Ms. Fran Thresh for Grayco Auto Parts Owner: Mr. Sammy Gray Request: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030, to allow a sign to be located within the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. Sign and property are locatod at 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. & identified on Beaufort Co. Tax Map # 15, Parcel 253. Appli. #: V-12-93 Applicant: Mrs. Barbara Hudson for Squire Pope Furniture Owner: Mrs. Barbara Hudson Request: Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1012(x) to allow changes to a nonconforming sign located at 67 Squire Pope Rd., identified on Beaufort Co. Tax Map # 7, Parcel 2. Appli.#: V-13-93 Applicant: Mr. Tames Hale for O & P Ltd./JHP Hovel Corp. of Hilton Head Owner: O & P Ltd./JHP Hotel Corp. of HHI Request: Variance from Lh?O Sections 16-7-842, Buffers, and 16-7-850, Parking distance requirements, and Section 16-7-820, Open Space, to permit additional parking, or Variance from Section 16-7-851, Minimum parking spaces, at the Best Western Ocean Walk Development. Property is located at 36 South Forest Beach Dr. & is identified as Parcel 240 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map # 18. Appli. P V-14-93 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ADJOURNMENT z J t DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO: Chairman, Members of the Committee, and Committee Clerk FROM: DATE. t1- 1(,- R3 SUBJECT: Potential Conflict of Interest SUBTECT MATTER OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: �i v.;✓ ._ .a,C' ,'.c -.-r r� 1�.� ti( Oyu« . NOTE: A Town of 11111ton Head Island Resolution, dated July, 1991, requires that persons claiming a potential conflict of interest must "absent themselves from the regulatory body," in other words, temporarily leave the dais. TRANSCRIPTION - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING 6-22-92 Nations Bank Pineland Mall V-8-92 Request for a Variance from LMO Sections 16-7-1012(a) to allow a new sign face on a nonconforming, off -premise sign, or from LMO Section 16-7-1030, to allow less than the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. Property is located in Pineland Mall Office Bldg., the former C& S Bank location, and is identified as Parcel 247 on Beaufort County Tax Map #8. Mr. Hugh Talcott, Current Planner. This is the proposed sign for the Nations Bank at the former C & S location at Pineland Mill Shops on U.S. 278. They are requesting a variance from LMO 16-7- 1012(a) to put a new sign in the same location as the C & S sign. The C & S sign is an off -premise sign that does not have a setback, it is set right on the right-of-way line of U.S. 278. The bank is located on a separate parcel from Pineland Mill Shops so therefore they are permitted to have their own free standing sign. The existing location is best for visibility both directions along the roadway. In order to put the sign on the parcel that the bank is on there are some landscaping considerations that would obstruct some of the visibility. However Staff feels that this on-site location could be worked out so the sign could be on the property, however a reduction in the setback may be desirable or may be required in order to have visibility for the sign. We therefore recommend that until the on-site location can be investigated to determine how much of the setback applies here, it would be necessary that a Variance not be granted as requested to permit an off -premise sign. We have some photographs of the property and the area in the front that which will show the possibilities of the locations. Page 1 ,�_,� Chairman Stone - What supposedly is going to happen while this matter is referred or tabled? Mr. Talcott - The Staff and the Applicant will look into the exact Variance from setback that will be necessary to locate the sign where it is visible on the site. Chairman Stone - So, it is the request of the Staff that we not decide this today and give the Staff and the Applicant the opportunity to see if this can be located on a site that would work. Mr. Talcott - Unless it•.could be determined today just where -- the other Staff members who were involved with the problem were not able to determine just where the sign should be located and how much of a Variance and a setback would be necessary. Chairman Stone - Anything else of Hugh at this point? Vice Chairwoman James - In reading the recommendation I am having a problem understanding why we are expecting the Applicant to go ask favors to change things and why we are putting the Applicant at the mercy of other people who they have no control over and have no reason to help them? I don't understand that. I'd like to know what the reason is? Mr. Talcott - I did not do this writeup, I'm not sure what you are referring to - which page? Vice Chairwoman James - Staff recommends that the Variance from 1 t` Section 16-7-1030 be tabled until the Applicant can explore options of landscape mitigation -- selecting new planting on site and working with the Oaks to thin their shrubbery and look at the t alternative designs and locations on site which will provide r adequate visibility and identification. The pampas grass is all ',•i, grown up and the electrical boxes and so forth are not on their y �t, :! property, they have no control over that. ra �`� Page 2 Mr. Talcott - I believe the pampas grass and the electrical boxes ara right along the right-of-way on the C & S parcel. I can show you the photographs. Vice Chairwoman James - But how are they going to convince the people at the Oaks that they should change their landscaping? Chairman Stone - Maybe we ought to wait -- (can't hear on tape). Mr. Tom Brechko, Chief of Planning - If I may answer that - the suggestion of Staff is to give a little more time to work out these issues of the landscaping problems to see if they can be addressed. We feel that in the case of the pampas grass around the power boxes, that removal and replacement by some other type of shrubbery that is adequate enough to cover the box, but not the type that is high enough to obstruct some of the view. By doing that and possibly putting the sign on a raised base that meets the code as far as being -- you can go up to four feet to the base of the sign face itself, that from that side the sign actually may be visible by changing some of the vegetation. Now, the side at the Oaks we don't know if it would be something that they would be agreeable to removing or thinning out some of the buffer that they have in front of their property. Actually, I believe that some of that is in the right-of-way. Until we work it out with them, we don't know if it is possible and if it is not then that may affect the degree of setback that is needed. 'may If they can remove some, it may not require as much of a t variance, we need to look at it, if they won't agree to move it fi then that is something to consider under the Variance request. Chairman Stone - Is somebody here for the Applicant today? We y.ta I can ask him some of those questions right now. Mr. Brechko - It is not safe to grant a Variance or something y� that is actually a condition that they have to work this out with Page 3 them. If it can be worked out that is something that is considered when you look at the Variance request and the degree of Variance. Mr. Rowan - Is it a power company box? Mr. Brechko - It is a power company box that is there. I don't think the power company dictates the type of vegetation, they would have to be consulted as to whether or not the vegetation would interfere with their cables. But it is something that you could probably change the type of plant materials there by the buffer and it wouldn't be at height to interfere. Mr. Talcott - and that pampas grass is on the property of the C & S Bank --(can't understand) -- Chairman Stone - Thank you. Mr. Rogers. Mr. David Rogers - Mr. Chairman my name is David Rogers and also with me is Mr. Cliff Loveland of Carter-Moit who represents ( Nations Bank. Chairman Stone - Are you an employee or agent of behalf of Nations Bank? Do you have a position at Nations Bank. Mr. Rogers - No I do not. I work for a graphics corporation here on the island, the fabricator of the signs. Chairman Stone - And you Sir are with Carter? Mr. Loveland - Carter-Moit Engineering, we were contracted to manage the entire Hilton Head signs conversion and change over. { ^� .I Chairman Stone - You heard Mr. Talcott and Mr. Brechko testify here just a moment ago, with the recommendation that Staff be i� given an opportunity to see if there is a way that this can be accommodated by cutting back some of the foliage and so forth and "'y!I determining what if any is the Variance they think is necessary. Can you answer any of the issues that they have raised here j today? Page 4 � �r Mr. Cliff Loveland - Sure, but before I answer that I would like to refer to the primary issue that we -- in deference to the Staff's recommendation we have the --can't understand --in place where the existing one is. I don't think it has been totally negated yet, so I will address the pampas grass issue and I'd also like to address the letter that was written to David Rogers for this meeting. I will reference it by saying that the existing sign there to replace that would not increase the proliferation of signage, when in fact we are just replacing -- we are not adding to that particular parcel. That parcel is also owned by --- Chairman Stone - But you acknowledge that the sign you are seeking to replace is a nonconforming sign and you are replacing it with a nonconforming sign, is that not so? Mr. Loveland - That is what we are asking the Variance for, that is correct. Chairman Stone - I mean that it is nonconforming the way you have proposed it. It is not in compliance with the LMO is that right? Mr. Loveland - That is correct. I thought that was the purpose for this Variance meeting was for us to obtain a variance for that particular sign. Again, as to the proliferation of signage, the Pineland Mill Shops sign is an entirely different parcel at least 200 feet away. I don't believe that in this particular case that asking for the Variance of the -- replacing the C & S sign would cause that type of proliferation as put. Vice Chairwoman James - I don't think we have a copy of that. Mr. Loveland - The memorandum? He also stated in the letter that what we were replacing is -- Page 3 - that w2 are not really proposing to paint the sign but construct a much larger sign in the same location, that is not a statement of fact as well. The signs that we have proposed and got aesthetically approved by CRC Page 5 is less in square footage than the existing sign. Not only is it less the graphic display surface area of the existing C & S sign is about 20 square feet. The graphic display surface area of the Nations Bank proposed and approved sign is approximately 5 square feet. So we have quite a bit of difference in terms of graphic display surface area. So the two issues of -- can't understand - - of signage within a common parcel, the other issue is obviously the display surface area and what we are trying to attract and that is the consumer on the road. That is why we are trying to get best placement for this particular sign, it is close to the entry way, you won't incur traffic hazards and that it is not only identification but as a directory. In terms of a directional type of sign where people readily recognize -the entrance along with the placement of the sign. If we were to place it as what is considered as Proposal B, it is quite a ways away from the entry you have got people passing the entry before they can appreciate where it is -- cant' understand. So that first and foremost is what we are trying to obtain. Certainly better visibility and there is a bermed'area on that particular parcel where the C & S sign is as well, that increases the height and visibility, it is a natural berm. Across the entryway is flat and has less visibility. We also, - when we came here initially two months ago to begin meetings on this particular merger, we were informed by the Staff in a meeting, that when we proposed the placement it should be for our primary option and that is what we are here for a Variance for. The secondary option should be what is within compliance of the existing a.'rl ordinance, therefore that is why we proposed the B option which is within the ordinance on the existing Nations Bank parcel and setback ten feet. I think better informed, we would have y�M.,41 proposed Option B to get the setback Variance so we could put the Page 6 sign at the right-of-way within the Nations Bank parcel. Two options are acceptable to Nations Bank, if we can get the Variance for the setback to be at the right-of-way. I think we would obviously like to be able to walk away - be able to place our sign --garbled -- for this particular site. Have we got maps for the Option B placement? The existing right-of-way is nine feet from the curbing on either side of the parkway the -- garbled- that is currently there is based where that meets the 9 foot setback on the curbing is where the right-of-way begins for the highway. What we are proposing as an alternative to Option B in terms of placement on the Nations Bank parcel is to have the leading edge of the sign 9 feet from the curbing which is at the same point as the highway right-of-way. Chairman Stone - To begin with you have a nonconformity as to the location with one sign. Is that correct? ( Mr. Loveland - That is correct. Chairman Stone - And you are proposing that to be an off -premise sign, right? Mr. Loveland - Yes sir, and we also have --garbled-- have a caveat that if he is required to bring his sign into conformance at some point in the future we would have to remove that sign, so that we don't increase the proliferation of signs on the parcel. Chairman Stone - Pardon me, what did you say the stipulations - ` from land rule were what? Mr. Loveland - If he at some point with the passing of the new ii ordinance, which he is familiar with, have to bring his existing Pineland Mill sign into compliance, which brings it into a different area of that particular parcel, which may be encroaching upon the existing C & S or proposed Nations Bank " sign. Then we will be required to remove our sign and bring it into compliance ourselves. Page 7 Chairman Stone - So, if it causes him a problem you would be 1 required to keep the sign. Mr. Loveland - That is right, he has the primary option for placement, we have a secondary option agreement for Nations Bank. Chairman Stone - Starting with an off -premise sign and you are proposing to replace the existing sign with the new sign at the Nations 24-hour Bank, is that correct? Is that the sign that you are saying is within the parameters allowed within the LMO as far as --can't hear -- is concerned? Mr. Loveland - That is correct. Chairman Stone - Is the existing sign within the LMO? Mr. Loveland - I'm supposed to be allowed 40 square feet for that particular parcel, our official proposal for CRC aesthetics approval was a 32 foot sign, they felt that was to large and they reduced it to a 20.6 square foot sign and that is smaller than the existing C & S sign. Chairman Stone - What I am looking at here is a sketch that is 7 feet linearly by 61/4 feet. Mr. Loveland - That has been adjusted since the CRC meeting to meet their requirements. Chairman Stone - What is it now? Is it now 716" in width and a height of 913/16" Mr. Kilgore - While we are looking - what sign is currently on that site? Mr. Loveland - As of today we have replaced the C & S sign with a temporary Nations Bank sign in compliance with the code of 20 square feet. Chairman Stone - While we are doing that - I would like to ask r you another question. The off -premise location of the sign is at f• �� the right-of-way, is that right? Page 8 Mr. Loveland - It would be setting at the right-of-way line, at the property line, yes sir. Chairman Stone - On property owned by the landlord. Mr. Loveland - That is correct, yes sir. Chairman Stone - He has given his ok subject to the condition that it does not adversely affect the existing sign he has for the property right now, is that right? Mr. Loveland - Yes, also any future ordinance that he may be required to comply with that would obstruct that. Chairman Stone - And if he has to move as a result of some decision then he has the right to go to you and ask you to remove your sign to another location. Mr. Loveland - That is correct. Mr. Israel - I am confused about location. You had proposed Option B as an alternative location --? ( Mr. Loveland - We proposed B as given guidance by the Town Staff, as the other location that would be within the existing codes and in compliance. That wasn't our secondary option, that is how we were asked to propose that option. Mr. Israel - Then let me ask Staff - I thought you were talking about the alternative location he preferred much closer to the entranceway. This location B that is shown on this little map here looks like it is considerably north of where I thought you were talking about. Those utility boxes are a ways down the -- Mr. Talcott - I don't recall that Staff proposed any certain location on the parcel, perhaps the proposed Option B location but, not at the 10 foot setback. Perhaps 5 or 4 feet would be visible, that may be more visible than directly ---can't hear ---- to the driveway. We didn't propose a direct location just that it be on the property not off -premise. Page 9 Mr. Israel - Could location B be on the other side of the utility service boxes closer to the entranceway? Mr. Talcott - That depends on how the sight triangle visibility for the curb cut worked out. There may be a sight visibility problem there. Mr. Israel - Assuming that the ---can't hear----- pampas grass could be done away with and that ---- Mr. Talcott - And assuming that it didn't obstruct the visibility of motorists at the corner of that drive. Mr. Loveland - I was here on the site finding the setback - I haven't done a specific measurement, but I am quite certain the placement of the utility boxes are either going to be at that or in that triangle, so therefore placement of the sign - we would not be able to place our sign in between the utility boxes and the entryway it would have to be on the other side. At the right- of-way we were to place it anywhere close to the utility boxes basically your obstructions would be the utility boxes themselves without any pampas grass or any other cover for that particular utility area. Mr. Israel - Are the utility boxes that tall? Mr. Loveland - They are quite tall as a matter of fact, if you look at one of the pictures with the Pampas grass that doesn't sufficiently hide the boxes. Chairman Stone - Well, getting back to what Staff initially suggested when they opened this item on the Agenda. It seems to me that there are some things to talk about with Staff and with your people, and see where is the best location to meet your needs and at the same time do as little violence as possible to the requirements of the sign ordinance. Do you have any problem meeting with them and defer action on this as they are requesting Page 10 until such time as the two of you have the opportunity to get together? Mr. Loveland - We did take that opportunity last week with a Bank Executive Officer, Richard Rabb, from the old NC & B and Nations Bank went to the site to review with Bill Lytle possible placements. The placement that was suggested by Bill Lytle I believe, and this is getting second-hand information through me, was reversed after everyone had disbanded from the site, there was a placement not only at the Pineland Mall that was recommended, but also another placement at the Mid -Point or Mid - Island location. Where we were requesting similar variance of replacing the existing sign. Those particular spot placements were reviewed with David Rogers, here, and also Richard Rabb and Bill Lytle, were reversed after the fact. Chairman Stone - Who reversed them? Did the Town reverse them? Mr. Loveland - Well, apparently we received a call after everyone had been away from the site, David Rogers (correct me if I am wrong) stated that where Staff had recommended placement for what was considered temporary signs, and again temporary signs was another issue I have with CRC, but that is neither here nor there, that was reversed. So we thought we had placement already approved everybody went home, and we got a call about a hour later that this placement was not approved and we had to go through this ----- Chairman Stone - Let's see if we can straighten this out right now. Is there a problem here that can't be resolved - are you telling us that you thought you had a deal and the deal was reversed and now you want a decision on the spot. Is that what you are saying at this point? Mr. Loveland - Right. This is for temporary placement until the meeting that the Staff allowed - that was the issue that we had Page 11 before - Ok? But that temporary placement we felt, was also was the placement that we were trying to get through purposes of the Variance, other than the existing sign at the Pineland Mill location. This is confusing issues here - we haven't seen eye to eye from --- Chairman Stone - With all due respect it seems to be very confusing. Let me just ask - is there still a possibility of working this out or not? Mr. Bill Lytle, Sign Administrator - Not as far as I am concerned. I have to go by what the ordinance says. Chairman Stone - You don't think there is a possibility of working it out? Mr. Lytle - Not as the ordinance reads. Are you talking about the permanent signs? Vice Chairwoman James - Now wait a minute - when you all met and this gentleman walked away from the meeting along with an executive officer of the bank and they thought that they had an understanding of the placement of the signs -- Mr. Lytle - Excuse me - I'm sorry, when we met out there I showed them where the signs could be put as per the LMO. Then I was informed by David's boss that he had received word from the Town of Hilton Head, that they could put the signs on top of the old former bases, off -premise in the right-of-way bases. I disagreed with him on that and he and I had a very heated argument about that out there. He informed me that he had gotten a phone call from a certain member of the Town, authorizing him to put the Y;I temporary signs on those existing bases, I told him I would get �,i back to Town Hall, and I would research that, and I would see if •,�;' it was true and if it was true, I had no authority to deny it. I r.:(q�� said if it wasn't true you can not put them on the bases. / c Page 12 Chairman Stone - Without a temporary permit. Mr. Lytle - They are temporary signs. When I got back to Town Hall I found out, indeed no such permission had been issued. Mr. Loveland - This is a conversation that I wasn't aware of between David Roger's boss and Bill Lytle. And anyway, resolving the issue I think there is something that we can resolve between the Town Staff and Nations Bank, certainly as to the placement of signs. Option B would be acceptable as the setback of the right- of-way, it is just a matter of us coming to mind, we have done everything that we can to make things work for the Town of Hilton Head relative to aesthetics issues. I have spent a lot of research and time to make that work we even had --garbled-- time at the meeting to reduce signage and colors -- Chairman Stone - I hear you, I hear you - ok? Hugh did you want to say something. Can you bring some light to bare? Mr. Talcott - I am not very familiar with all the discussion, but in talking to Shannon and realizing that he is agreeable to Option B, in a sense that the sign be on the property, subject to his setback he is agreeable to the Administrator, we figured the variance can be granted for reduction in setback subject to the Administrator's approval. Vice Chairwoman James - Can we move on that? Chairman Stone - Why don't we do something similar to what we did in the last case. It seems as though they are agreeable to working this out, it seems as they basically have an agreement on where the thing ought to be and it is just a question of effectuating. So, I think what we ought to do is to make a Motion to defer this for thirty days. Is that soon enough - you've got your temporary signs don't you? Mr. Loveland - We'll need an extension. Page 13 Chairman Stone - Alright we'll do the same thing. Mr. Talcott - Grant a Variance for reduction in setback subject to Administrative approval of the actual distance of that setback and that would let the Applicant and the Administrator work out that. Chairman Stone - Is that acceptable to you? Mr. Loveland - That is fine. Mr. Talcott - It may turn out to be one foot or two feet we can work that out. Ms. S. Stone, Manager of Current Planning - I think that may be preferable so that we can resolve the temporary sign issue to everyones satisfaction by getting a permanent sign in place. Chairman Stone - Alright - ok. Mr. Loveland - May I add one more thing - in regard to Mid -Point location, which isn't on the Agenda here, but should have been in my mind, because they could also administratively approve the location for the Mid -Point location, and when it came past time being able to apply for this Variance meeting, we found out that that wasn't the case. Now we have a temporary sign there that we will not be able to address before you until the July docket. And in which case we are going to run into the same situation - Chairman Stone - I have a feeling that the Staff is going to be very cooperative and work this out. Mr. Loveland - I would like for them to be able to administratively approve placement of Mid -Point as well, without going through the proceedings. Chairman Stone - We can not decide anything that is not before us on the Agenda, but I think you are going to find them very cooperative on that. Shannon do you have something else to say here. Page 14 Ms. S. Stone - I just wanted to say that, that Mid -Point location has not been advertised for a Variance and my understanding is, that you could not make a determination one way or another on that one today. Chairman Stone - And we are not going to! I will entertain a Motion that the Variance be granted subject to the required setback location to be worked out between the Staff and the Applicant - subject to the Staff's approval with regard to how far back the setback will be eased. Vice Chairwoman James - Shannon help me with this if I don't get it correct. I make a Motion that we approve a Variance for the reduction of the setback for the si n at Nations Bank from LMO Section 16-7-1030 sub'ect to the Droval of the Administrator is there anything else I need? Ms. S. Stone - It is for an on site sign. Chairman Stone - Put in there at site location B? Ms. S. Stone - B shows a proposed location that would meet the 10 foot setback and we realize that can't meet that to have sufficient visibility so, that site plan should not be included in any motion you make. Chairman stone - This is specific enough for your purposes though? Ms. Stone - Yes Chairman Stone - is there a second to this Motion? Mr. Kilgore - Second Mr. Loveland - The temporary extension? Chairman Stone - You do not need an extension now. Vote on the Motion: 6-0-0 Passed unanimously. RespectfullyQ�yys/utbm'it��ed, $i le (/ Mdriow; 'Secretary Page 15 TRANSCRIPTION - BOARD Or ADJUSTMENT MEETING 10/27/92 Heritage Motor Car Company V-17-92 Request for a Variance (V-17-92) from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to permit a sign within the required setback from William Hilton Pkwy. for Heritage Motors Dealership, located adjacent to Port Royal Plaza. The property is identified as Parcel 202 on Beaufort County Tax Map #S. Mr. Hugh Talcott, Current Planner - I would like to start by passing around the original photographs that were in the packet, that were very hard to read. The top 2 photographs are the applicable sign the top one being the new structure, the bottom the old. Mr. Israel - Being the new structure? Mr. Talcott - Yes, the new railroad ties there -- Mr. Bowan - Better do a drive-by. What is new and what is old? Mr. Israel - Is the structure itself new? Is that what you are I talking about? Mr. Talcott - This was the old sign Everybody talking at once - can't understand Mr. Israel - Is that the same structure that is built up higher? Mr. Talcott - Higher and larger. Mr. Talcott - This is a Variance from 16-7-1030 to allow a sign in the Setback. The sign administrator noticed this sign and the railroad tie structure that serves as its base being reconstructed,so these photographs were taken in the process. The ordinance requires that any nonconforming sign can not be replaced except in conformance with the chapter of the LMO. This sign was clearly replaced the railroad ties needed repair they were replaced with larger railroad ties and larger base. The base now extends to the corners of the car display area. The car display area is permitted, so that could remain. We are recommending that that sign that was replaced without permits not be allowed to continue where it is. The letter in the packet Page 1 from Bill Lytle outlines his interpretation of the ordinance and requested that they apply for a variance from this section for the setbacks,which they did. However, an application was not filed for a CRC variance from their approval,so if the variance were granted to replace this sign within the setback they would still be subject to CRC review. As I have noted,the old letters were removed from the rotting railroad ties and placed on the new structure. The Applicant does have an alternative to remove this and place a sign on the property meeting the setback that would perhaps even give more exposure to the business there. This structure that would be an obstacle in the setback for any future bike path and it is very close, it is right on the right-of-way. Thank you. Mr. Israel - The structure is? Mr. Talcott - The nose -- The point of that structure is right on the right-of-way line. Yes sir. Mr. Miller - Where would a conforming sign location be? Mr. Talcott - 10' feet back from the line. Mr. Beil - Are these trees and so forth that set in there, aren't they all in the way or not? Mr. Talcott - I'm sure there is adequate space within the 29 foot buffer across the whole frontage of the property to -- Mr. Beil - Despite those trees? Mr. Talcott - Oh sure, yes sir. Mr. Miller - In other words it would be from that right-of-way line 10 feet? Mr. Talcott - Yes. Mr. Miller - And basically it could be located anywhere in that whole buffer? Mr. Talcott - The whole frontage. IyI Mr. Israel - This is 'my day to get confused Hugh. Sorry about that. When they rebuilt the structure did they extend it out toward the right-of-way? Mr. Talcott - We did not measure it. I did not go out and ,a+ measure it and it is certainly larger than before it is wider, it _,"° page 2 is a wider space,its larger than it was, but I do not know if it extends farther into the right-of-way or not. Mr. Israel - Well since they rebuilt a nonconforming structure, they should not have done that. Mr. Talcott - That is correct. Mr. Israel - So what do you want them to do about the structure? Mr. Talcott - We are recommending -- that the structure is part of the sign that is the sign base that they remove that and apply for a conforming sign elsewhere in the buffer meeting the setback. Mr. Israel - So on this photograph - would you have them square that off and take the point off? Or what? Mr. Talcott - The car display area has been permitted,that was on the approved plan for that development with a square front. Mr. Israel - Ok. So you want them to cut that to square it back and to relocate the sign. Mr. Talcott - It could be this type of sign perhaps if CRC would approve it or some other sign perhaps, even a larger sign. Chairwoman James - Hugh, if they cut off the point - you said that the point was what was encroaching on the buffer - right? Mr. Talcott - Yes. Chairwoman James - Alright. By how much - how many feet or inches? Mr. Talcott - The point previously was right on the right-of-way line and it is at least that large now. Vice Chairman Brown - So you are saying that you would take off that whole triangle there. Mr. Talcott - Yes. And the structure for the car display still would not conform to the current buffers and setbacks but,that was on the approved plan for the development and can remain and it was not altered. Chairwcnan James - So basically what you are saying is,if they were to take the lettering for Heritage Motor Car Company and put it on the stand where the vehicle display is - that possibly something like that would be approved for a sign. Page 3 Mr. Talcott - Yes,that would meet the setback, sure. I don't know if that would be the best for them for exposure. Chairwoman James - Right. Mr. Beil - It wouldn't be practical you could only see it from the front and not from the sides, I don't think. Chairwoman James - ok, any further information that you would like to give us? George - I'm sorry. Mr. Rowan - The old sign and structure - if they chose to .,,ut that back just the way it was before - could they do that now? Mr. Talcott - No sir. Not now that they have removed it. Nonconforming and not to be replaced and it has been replaced. Mr. Rowan - There has been reference to the point of the base where it comes into the right-of-way, has that been -- I guess you spoke to that - that it is actually on the right-of-way the point? Mr. Talcott - Yes. Mr. Rowan - So the new one is on the right-of-way also? Mr. Talcott - It may encroach farther into the right-of-way but it is about the same. Mr. Rowan - You know - give or take a couple inches. Mr. Talcott - Yes. Mr. Rowan - So what you are saying is that this should be brought back to the line which was the line approved by the County when they had it laid out. Mr. Talcott - Which was not the sign it was the car display. Mr. Rowan - Did the County approve that elevated --? Mr. Talcott - Yes that has been approved and that can remain. Mr. Rowan - So all they have to do now is to go back to that li location and square it off there. Mr. Talcott - Yes sir. Mr. Beil - We assume then that the County approved the sign originally or --? Mr. Talcott - We have no record of that sign being approved. ;.t•; Mr.. Beit - So what you are saying now is)that never -the -less it ►� is an abandoned use of a nonconforming sign anyway, if it is abandoned then we have a right to tell them to take it down. '� Page 4 Mr. Talcott - Yes. The ordinance says it shall not be removed or replaced and that is clearly what has taken place. If they get a Variance from the setback and get CRC approval they could leave it where it is. We think they should meet the setback and provide a new sign. Chairwoman James - Ok. Any other questions of Hugh? Mr. Beil - Setback from the right-of-way is how much? Mr. Talcott - 10 feet. Mr. Israel - That triangle thing looks like, unless angles are deceiving, that it extends out beyond that original squared off face by 3 or 4 feet. Mr. Talcott - Well it certainly is larger than the original one. Mr. Israel - We are not talking a matter of inches now, that extension, that is a matter of some feet. Ok I just wanted to --- Mr. Beil - Well it extends right to that drainage ditch, I checked it out before, there is a drainage ditch in front and it extends right over to that. Mr. Israel - Yes. It is clearly shown on this. r' Mr. Rowan - If they set that back to the line that was given before they could put their sign across that. Mr. Talcott - They could put it across the front face of the car display, either side of the car display, subject to CRC approval. Chairwoman James - Any other questions of Hugh? Thank you Hugh. Terry. Mr. Terry Finger - Representing Heritage Motor Car Company. Thank you I'll try not to - the last sign discussion with (can't understand) I'll try to stay away from that. Not that I understand this that greatly. If you look at the purposes of the sign ordinance it says, nonconforming signs can be repaired, repainted as long as you keep the original appearance. That is the purpose. If you look at the enabling legislation if you look at the first section, section 1002, it says leave it with the same appearance. If you look at 1022 and 1012 it says you can repair and replace nonconforming signs as long as the overall appearance remains the same. What we have here clearly is, a Page 5 sign which appears exactly the same as it did in 1981. The staff has indicated they were unable to find any type of sign permit. Attached to my Variance Application is the sign permit from Beaufort County that the owner provided to me, when I ask him to provide me the overall sign permits, I believe September of 1981. Chairwoman Jaines - We do not have a copy of your sign permit. Mr. Finger - I'm sorry it was attached to my Variance Application, I have a copy I'll pass it around if you need it. Mr. Finger - It is Permit 2252, signed by W.B. Vanness, on November 30, 1981. Chairwoman James - Would you like to share that with us? You could give that to us and we could pass it among the Board members and that would be helpful. Mr. Finger - This is the document provided to me by Bill Wakefield when I asked him to send me down the sign permits. He indicated to me that that was a comprehensive permit for the signs that were done back then. I also have to hand around a copy of a trade publication in 1987 showing both the front of Heritage and most importantly on the second page how the sign looked in 1987. I have looked briefly in the Beaufort County records to see if there are any sign permits back in this time, and the state of the records are just not adequate to tell whether there were or was not. All I can represent to the Board, is that the document that Madam Chairwoman has in her hands now is what was presented to me by Bill Wakefield, the owner of the property, when I asked him to send me down all the sign permits. Whether it specifically deals with this sign - he tells me it was a comprehensive permit for a lot of the signs that were on the property. Chairwoman James - I have concern about this Mr. Finger. This permit says that it is an on -premise sign, illuminated, the face of it is white sheet metal, with an I-beam frame with a metal support, with the lower edge at grade and the upper edge at 10'1 7/8" and it is a 30' square sign. I am wondering if this wasn't a sign that was on the building? Page 6 Mr. Finger - All I can represent to you Madam Chairwoman is that is the only sign permit that my client was able to find in all his records. We were unable to find one in Beaufort County. He indicated to me, and I cannot represent for a fact, that that was a global permit for all the signs that were there. All I can say is that is what he has told me and of course I was not involved in 1981 at any time. But again,if you go to the intent of the sign ordinance, I don't think that the point of this sign is any different now than it was. In looking at it this morning it appeared as though, if it hit the right-of-way,it was only by an inch or so, It appeared to be located on the property to me. Under section 1012 and 1022 we have a right to repaint, replace nonconforming signs as long as the appearance remains the same. It is our position that the appearance does remain the same. Making him take that point away and trying to put Heritage Motor Car Company on the side or on the frontito me is going to create a problem with people being able to see it and read it. If the purposes of this sign ordinance is to promote the safety of persons and not create traffic hazards, etc. the best way for them to do it is exactly the way it is. If you are going to make them move it into other areas you can see from the last variance request we had is that we have nothing but trees along this front sideland trying to put a sign that would identify a business among all these trees is Just something that is not practical or necessary. Mr. Finger continues - We have not applied for CRC review because we wanted to see what you all were going to do. If you were going to go for it there was no sense of us spinning our wheels with CRC. That seems to be practical sense to me, you said we should have done it. I disagree. That is really all we have)the Staff- memo that you had passed out to you)states.on page 2, that maintenance of a sign structure is permitted. If the railroad ties had gotten old we were entitled -`,o replace them under the Staff's own analysis. Again this memo says, maintenance of the sign and the sign structure is permitted on a nonconforming sign. Page 7 My client's position is that is all he has done. That sign has been there in continuous use since 1981 and he would like to leave it there. We would ask that you all favorably act on this Variance. Thank you. Chairwoman James - Anyone have any questions of Terry Finger? Mr. Beil - Just a comment 1012 actually says, that a nonconforming sign may be maintained only by painting or refinishing, it doesn't deal with replacing. It just says painting or refinishing. Mr. Finger - I believe 1022 goes on further than that. 1012 deals with the sign structure, there would be no need to mention sign structure if all you could do was paint the sign. Mr. Beil - Well, the only mention they have is that any structural or other substantive maintenance to a nonconforming sign shall be deemed abandonment. Mr. Finger - But, my response back to you Sir, is that in Section 1012 there would be no need for there to be the words sign face or sign structure, if the only thing that you could do was paint the sign face. There would be no need to have the word sign structure included in there and the bottom line of 1012 and 1022 is that the appearance has to be the same. And it says the painting or 1022 I'm looking at now says the painting or refinishing of the surface of a sign face or sign structure. I believe that under this ordinance we would have a right to replace rotted railroad ties, because it is part of the surface of the sian structure and that is part of refinishing the sign structure. I think if a sign is attached to railroad ties and that sign continues in existence and the railroad ties need to be replaced I think it is ludicrous to say,if you replace the railroad ties the whole sign is gone. I don't think that is the intent of our ordinance, is what I am saying. Mr. Beil - Except there were two additional ties put -- Mr. Finger - I think if you count the ties, I counted four and both the before and after signs. Chairwoman James - Is the new sign higher than the old sign? Page 8 I Mr. Finger - The old sign, if you look on this picture in 1987 it is at the same level at the top and that appears to be exactly the same as the before and after pictures. I don't see those (can't understand Mr. Finger not at microphone). Chairwoman James - Where are the pictures that were being passed around here? Mr. Finger - It appears that the only change that there was is that it is a little bit wider. Vice Chairman Brown - Dir. Finger you talked about replacing those ties. If you read 1012 and go further it says, that if the nonconforming sign has become dilapidated or structurally unsound such sign shall be moved within 20 days. It seems to me if the ties go you do not have the right to replace those. Mr. Finger - That portion of the ordinance in my understanding, is if the sign is so old that it is in danger of harming someone, if it is suspended from a building or something like that, then perhaps you don't have the right, but there would be no reason to include in 1012 or 1022, sign structure, if you couldn't do anything to a sign structure to keep your sign in place. Mr. Israel. - I think the Board took the opposite view on a recent sign decision, the one that was blown down. Vice Chairman Brown - Definitely, the case on the Hudson sign. Mr. Israel - Madam Chairwoman, I am really puzzled and I think maybe George is too. My question is why isn't this a Variance request for that triangular structure rather than -- we wouldn't even have to be dealing with the sign, if the Variance request was for the structure. I think we are dealing with the wrong piece of property. {� Chairwoman James - I think the reason that it is not a Variance 1 for that is, because of the fact that the sign was reconstructed ' differently than the previous one. Which means that there is now another nonconforming structure on the site. They didn't go for a sign permit, which is illegal and I mean, that you need to have ;•. `��• a sign permit. They didn't go before the CRC for a pproval and f because it is in existence now on that site, we need to address y,.o-•j that particular sign. Is that correct, Hugh? Page 9 Mr. Talcott - Yes, we are considering the triangle as the sign base. Mr. Israel - Oh,so you are considering this a package in other words? If we deny the Variance they are going to have to remove that sign base,which is the triangle too, is that your interpretation? Chairwoman James S Mr. Rowan - Yes. Mr. Israel - Oh! Chairwoman James - And then they will have to go before the CRC for an approval to put the lettering back on it or not? If they remove the point of that triangle, and want to take -the lettering and put the lettering back up on the flat part,can they go ahead and do that or do they need to go before the CRC? Mr. Talcott - They have to get CRC approval for that. Chairwoman James - Ok. Does everybody understand where we are? They don't get any easier do they? Mr. Israel - When it comes to signs - no. Mr. Rowan - As I understand it -- what confused Tom and I,they talk about the structure and you think of a sign structure as something on a post, etc., but this is nothing but an extension of the construction of this base the V coming out,or point coming out,and they used that to mount their lettering to get the visual affect on the side as opposed to having it flat. Coming off that V, it comes off the square and I presume the square was what was approved by the County and that the Agency then extended that out to a V in order to accommodate the letters. Mr. Finger - It is my understanding that when the original,and I F `" use "car ramp",and that is what I have been calling it and I I1 don't know whether that is the right terminology or not, but the car ramp is clearly shown on the 1980 approved County plan. It is my understanding that the car ramp was built, that triangle was also installed and the sign face was installed at that time. So that car ramp and that sign has been there since 1980 or 1981 when the dealership opened. Chairwoman James - Was that triangle considered a part of the 1 "car ramp"? Page 10 Mr. Finger - I would like to Bay yes, but I don't know. It would be in my clien't's benefit to say yes, but I wasn't there and the County records do not show,and I do not intend to mislead the Board. Chairwoman James - It is not showing on this plan it is showing flat -- Mr. Rowan - Has there been a survey to indicate this V on the plan? We have a plan which was the County plan, but we do not have a recent survey that shows the actual location of this V. Mr. Finger - There is no site plan that is yet in existence. Part of the work the surveying consultant has done is an attempt to locate edges of the pavement and things like that. Mr. Rowan - That would answer all the questions you know. Mr. Finger - In looking at the line this morning when I was there, it appears that the V is either on the line or within an inch or two either way - of the property line. Mr. Beil - But whether we are dealing with this sign or we are dealing with an entirely new sign, I think what we are considering at this moment is a Variance from 1030 which is really a variance from the Setback requirements, which assumes, I guess it assumes, that the existing sign has been abandoned because it's nonconforming use situation, that's been determined that its an abandoned sign. Now we have to deal with it and whether we are dealing with a new sign or dealing with the existing sign,we still have to consider a variance based on the Setback requirements. So, if we figure that you can't put a sign any place else on the property and it would be an extreme hardship for ;,ou not to be able to show your Agency on 278 because of the trees or whatever. Then we might favorably consider a Setback Variance. I think that is where we are at. Mr. Finger - I agree 100%. I think it is a two-step analysis the first step being, was there an abandonment of a prior nonconforming sign? Mr. Beil - I don't think we have to determine that, because I think that is not what is before us - is it? Page 11 Mr. Finger - If this Board finds that what we did was nothing more than what is allowed under 1012 and 1022 then there is no need for a Variance. If the Board finds that what was done to the sign is outside of 1012 and 1022, you then have a right to grant a Variance to let that sign stay where it is within the setback and within the buffer. What the Town required us to do was file a Variance Application asking for the sign as it exists to remain in the buffer. our initial position was we didn't do anything outside of 1012 & 1022, but if you think we did we will come before the Board and we will ask for permission by way of a Variance to leave the sign as it is located, because it is in the same place as 1981 and it is the same letters. Chairwoman James - i would like a clarification from Hugh. The Variance is for Section 16-7-1030, Allowing a sign in the required front Setback. In reading Section 16-7-1030 it says, "all signs shall be required to be setback at least 10 feet from the street right-of-way". Where does this sign stand as far as the street right-of-way is concerned? Mr. Talcott - It is on the right-of-way, the nose of the sign is on the right-of-way so there is no Setback. Chairwoman James - Should the occasion come about in the future where bikepaths go down that side of the street - what would have to happen to that structure? Mr. Talcott - It would be in the way or we would have to put a large culvert in the ditch in front of it. Chairwoman James - Thank you. Mr. Finger - I don't have the authority for my client, but I am certain that he would be willing to relocate that sign if it was left where it is now, in the even that any bikepath went down that side in the future and that sign needed to be relocated. I would be happy to make that a condition of any Variance. Chairwoman James - We can't permit Variances with conditions, but you are saying that should the time come that where bikepaths were to go down that side of the road that you feel sure that the / owner would make allowances for that and would move the sign to 1 permit that? Page 12 N Mr. Finger - Based on my relatively short history with Mr. Shutt, which has been about 6 weeks, I have found him to be as accommodating as any client that I have ever dealt with vis-a-vis the Town. That was his initial reaction on the other thing - 11If they don't like what I am doing, I'll do it the way they want." That appears to be his corporate attitude. I don't have any problem, I'd be the only one that could object to a Variance being granted with conditions and if I don't object)I don't see why you can't have that placed as a condition. Chairwoman James - The only concern that we have is that your are representing Mr. Shutt and we don't know how long Mr. Shutt is going to own the dealership. So -- Mr. Finger - The dealership is Heritage Motors and he is the stock holder. Mr. Rowan - An academic question,if your extension there does not protrude into the right-of-way and they wanted to put a bikepath down there why should the Agency be concerned, why should we be concerned about a location for the bikepath. They would have to get -- like some people who I know,they had to condemn to get their bikepath located. Do you see where I am coming from? Vice Chairman Brown - It does protrude though doesn't it? Chairwoman James - It is protruding into the right-of-way correct? Mr. Finger - It does not protrude into the right-of-way. Chairwoman James - I asked the specific question, I think -- Mr. Rowan - Is it in the right -of -waves Mr. Talcott - As Terry and I mentioned the nose of it is right on the right-of-way,whethe'r a few inches across or a few inches back, in essence it is not inside the right-of-way. Mr. Rowan - That is what I mean)ifyou are coming out with the bikepath they have to get permission from the owners to use their ground for a path. Mr. Talcott - Certainly. Mr. Finger - I think if there were any future bikepaths put along there the only way to do it woiAd be to pipe it - there is a �' Page 13 twelve foot drainage ditch along there and I'm not an engineer and I don't know what the cost is but,that is the only practical way of doing something like that. Chairwoman James - Ok any further questions of Terry or Hugh? I think we have beaten this one to death. Mr. Rowan - The only comment I would like to make is that I would like to see a site plan. Mr. Finger - If this Board feels that this should be -tabled at this pointtI would be happy to ask Surveying consultants to expedite that. Mr. Rowan - I'd like to know what we are dealing with because we are talking about maybe in the right-of-way, maybe not in the right-of-way. Maybe the deed that he has got out there only -- maybe the line which the County permitted him to go, we don't know. Chairwoman James - What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Israel - Well, I don't know, the thing that gets to me is that the only site plan we have does not show that triangular extension. Which indicates to me that sometime after the site plan was prepared that was placed there and placed there improperly, and now they have further altered it. I think it is sort of a clear cut case to me, I would just as soon get rid of it today, I don't know whether a site plan would really help. Mr. Rowan - I agree with Tom in that respectlif the Agency put that sign in you know, going beyond what they were approved then they were in violation back in 1981. We don't know that. Vice Chairman Brown - I think we might as well dispose of it today. Mr. Beil - The only thing that concerns me is that originally you had mentioned the fact that that was pretty much the only place that the Agency could put a sign, that could be looked at from 278, but then later on you just said if we asked he would move it. I don't know - where would he move it then? I'm concerned > iy, •� about taking away from the Agency the only spot that they can put 5 a sign on 278 that can be seen from north and south traffic, i. �1 Page 14 which could be considered a hardship then, but if there are other places then you could conform by putting it at 10 foot setback within the buffer area. Mr. Finger - For my view of the property this morning with Mr. Shutt any relocation of that sign would necessarily involve some trees along the front, having to be requested to come down. That is why he is -- although nothing would suit Mr. Shutt more than having a bunch of trees taken down, because he is spending $1000 a month just washing cars. He has to wash every car once a week and he says he spends about a $1000 a minth in acorn dings and branches coming down on that very heavily treed site. He's love to take all the trees down but he realizes that will never happen. Relocating the sign would involve some tree problems along the front side. Putting it over at the main sign over past Pizza Hut and on that main sign for Wal-Mart and all that would have no value to the Agency. Mr. Miller - I think that this case is very consistent with the last one that we dealt with, with Hudsons. Chairwoman James - Who is prepared to make a Motion? Vice Chairman Brown - I move that we deny the Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a sign in the required front Setback and further that the Applicant remove not only the sign but also the sign structure, which is that triangle. Mr. Israel - I'll second the Motion. Chairwoman James - Ok any discussion? Would you care to add some information as to why we you feel that we should be denying the Variance? Such as not meeting the criteria? Vice Chairman Brown - Well, on the site plan that we have available it shows that that sign structure, the triangle was not %+ included in that site plan. Therefore, the sign whenever it was e placed was done so illegally. Chairwoman James - Ok. Any further information to go into the Motion? Mr. Rowan - I just want to make this one comment - I may not be in order, but I'll make it. That sign - I've gone up there a 1000 Page 15 times in the last 13 years well, since 1981, and to me it is not a very grabbing sign. I think this may be a golden opportunity to improve on that by doing something else. This is only an observation by me as a traveller going up and down. From that point I don't think there is a great hardship to relocate the sign. Mr. Israel - I don't see any hardship at all. The fact that that car is setting out there at an angle is the best advertisement, plus all the BMW's that are parked along the frontage there. I think the sign is kind of irrelevant, but that is really not my business though. I would have no trouble to recondiser the whole case at some future time if they can demonstrate a true hardship, which they have not done to my satisfaction. At least on this one, if we want to make this one without prejudice to them coming back to use at some future time with a request for a Variance for a sign in another location. I for one, would be willing to consider that on its merits, but I think if we have any allegiance to the LMO at all, I think we need to deny this particular Variance request. Chairwoman James - Any other comments? Mr. Finger - If we take the letter off we don't have a sign anymore and I don't think the Board can force the Agency to take away that triangle, I mean if he wants to landscape the top of the triangle or do something like that we don't have a sign anymore, so all I'm saying is that if you want him to take the sign down it is not a sign anymore and I don't see how you all can make him take the triangle away. I'm not saying - maybe he will I don't know. I don't think that is an appropriate part of the Motion. Vice Chairman Brown - I would say that is part of the sign structure and when you say take the sign down you take the structure with it. Mr. Finger - I understand your position. I just wanted to put mine on the record. Page 16 Chairwoman James - I think we have had enough discussion and we Will go ahead and call the Question. Tom. Mr. Israel - For the Motion Mr. Rowan - For Mr. Brown - For the Motion Mr. Beil - Opposed Mr. Miller - For the Motion Chairwoman James - Chair is for the Motion Vote - 5-1-0 Mr. Robinson was absent. Respectfully /S�ubmi, ptted Billie t. Marlow, Secretary Page 17 .1 rH�f� r•a • •y'�4 f i h AFF'-1�-i�93 08: FFOP1 HUGHES WIETEBS F.A. TO I'1L1l3zlks & WIETLFS, ATTORNEYS AT LA CC\\A7C M nVGI'EE TM[ C♦AP[HCCV 01—C-0 G WCn ARDSON \\•ETERS 'ILL -GE AT N'EAFCDD .0111 1\' F.1NOG. ,:P.•1 HOLT ^t u cc D-- GOC' EYUL�AM M r0-Ir5 nP1cM ". ., YiiLTON Ii L.1D ISL.,ND. SOUTH tM.ROLIN # "113A .IA raE.S 1. D1.0 110DER7 J. AAUNDE1L1 TELE—ONE (ao3) 765.0010 MAP' n. MONv1tc 10001-6'+'050G 1 .ao . rreuoeP or •,coma nen April 12, 1993 . eso n ncnucP or �mrau. n.t � n�50 A nCr+ti[4 t;t FOPfn CAF.]F1FA M1FF VIA FACSIMILE l'RANSMIS$ION Ms. sue James %' — 6 Chairman Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment 1 Chamber of Commerce Drive Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 Re; Appeal of McKibben Firestone Dear Chairman James: Late last week I was contacted by both Louis McKibben, Jr. and Don M. Guscio concerning an appeal that Mr. Guscio had filed on behalf of McKibben Firestone to the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). This appeal seeks to overturn a decision of the Town of Hilton Head Planning Commission regarding the rejection of a special exception request to allow truck rentals within Mr. McKibben's existing business located at the corner of Pope Avenue and New Orleans (load. I was informed on Friday that this appeal has been placed upon the Board's agenda for its April 26, 1993 meeting. According to my conversations with Messrs. McKibben and Guscio, an appeal form was filed with no supporting documentation, Under the Board's rules and regulations, the appellant must ( submit any supplemental documentation at least 10 days prior to the applicable Board meeting, In the current situation, this means that the appellant must submit such supplemental documentation on or before April 16, 1993. 1 I have obligated myself to help in the setup and operation of the Island School Council's concession stand at the Heritage Golf Tournament during the current week. Our client ties indicated that his truck rental operations represent a significant portion L fj of his business, and he wishes to strongly pursue his appeal. On behalf of the appellant, we hereby request that the hearing of this appeal be rescheduled for the next regularly scheduled Board meeting in May In order to provide me sufficient time to prepare supplemental information which can be submitted to the Board for Its ? review. Mr. Guscio has informed me that the Town staff wants to resolve the issue { , ! of truck rentals on this site as soon as possible, and in an effort to address the desires r of the staff, this request for a rescheduling of the appeal is made under the stipulation that no additional requests for rescheduling or extensions will be made. a Ms. Sue James April 12, 1993 Papp 2 Please contact one regarding this request for the rescheduling of the above- referenced appeal. Thank you for all you time and consideration regarding these matters. With warmest personal regards, 1 am, Yours very truly, HUGHES & WIETERS, P.A. William M. Foiles WMF:bab cc: Stephen G. Riley, AICP Director of Community Development Ms. Carol Krawczyk, Current Planner I rr� I as Hi'E—I_-1 9 08: 17 FPOtI HUGHES IdIETEFS P,q, TO 8.1-277-28 P.001. 003 HUGHES & Wl ETERS• P.A. [OWAPC M HUGHES • TOPIC -S AY 1AI1 J. PIC—A0$C1 WICTCPS TnE CLARCNCCN BUIL711C. JOHN W. -11CP, JP.•T y1LLA4r AT NExrC4C WILLIAM M. rCILES POST Orr ICE CRAWCP 30eT EHRICK K. MAIOMT, JR. ZXMTON is�-AD ZSI..1 �7�, SOUTH CAROZnZA _903,3 JA -CS F. RCRL' RORCRT APUNDELLO MARY K. MONVILLC r ( : {607) 7ei$•BOJC T ALSO A MC -OC. Or CCCA'CIA 0 :1-.0 AP ;��._ ; (� `1 J 111 •IB07�7B$•7$OB • AL:OA MC—Or VIPOINIA 3AP I /�A.� l//(I�'1 ALSOA ME.—Or NOR -1--19A OAP J i/ PLEASE DELIVER THESE TELECOPIED PAGE, /JILt'•/-.y DATE: ' a TO:� J(L,,NC .) TELECOPYNO, TO: ` iCUA K��I=- __— TELECOPY NO, q TO: TELECOPY NO, TELECOPY NO RE SENDER `, :.>. NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: �— ,•i „' BILLING REF, NO.: y If you do not receive an of thesepage' a es properly, y Y P 9 P P y, Please contact the "Sender" at (803) 785-8040, Our facsimile machine is a Panafax OF -766 and our fax phone number is (803) 785-3506. W IiCl�11ES tC ATTOFNC.'G AT 4. 1 CD,YAgC M nL'GnC�. _. PIC111gDS01; 1\ICTr N£ T'IE G.ARLNDC'% 50'6L; '.0 10'1111\ nrINOR, SIR •1 %11LAGE •TNEVrpgD AILL,AM M rCILVS 11:15T clllct uR•WrR Gce' CH.ICR n, —GnT. JR ti LLTO1 Rr,LD IST—ILND, SOUTH CAROLINA. =0A?9 JA'rC, 1 9.RL• ROBE f.i J ARu 11DELL1 MART N. MONVILLC TELE«O'.E iP_r, J' 7S9 bOaG TE-to--leOJ 'e. 3C.06 .Lsa . r.c"acR or awnm. o•« April 12, 1993 ' •Lso \ntuatR or vlRa�uu p•e VIA FACSIMILE 'fRANSMISSIUN Ms. Sue James Chairman Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment 1 Chamber of Commerce Drive Hilton Flead Island, SC 29928 Re: Appeal of McKibben Firestone Dear Chairman James: Late last week I was contacted by both Louis McKibben, Jr. and Don M. Guscio concerning an appeal that Mr. Guscio had filed on behalf of McKibben Firestone to the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). This appeal seeks to overturn a decision of the Town of Hilton Head Planning Commission regarding the rejection of a special exception request to allow truck rentals within Mr. McKibben's existing business located at the corner of Pope Avenue and New Orleans Road. I was Informed on Friday that this appeal has been placed upon the Board's agenda for its April 26, 1993 meeting. According to my conversations with Messrs. McKibben and Guscio, an appeal form was filed with no supporting documentation, Under the Board's rules and regulations, the appellant must submit any supplemental documentation at least 10 days prior to the applicable Board meeting, In the current situation, this means that the appellant must submit such supplemental documentation on or before April 16, 1993. I have obligated myself to help in the sat up and operation of the Island School Council's concession stand at the Heritage Golf Tournament during the current week. Our client has Indicated that his truck rental operations represent a significant portion of his business, and he wishes to strongly pursue his appeal. On behalf of the appellant, we hereby request that the hearing of this appeal be rescheduled for the next regularly scheduled Board meeting in May in order to provide me sufficient time to prepare supplemental information which can be submitted to the Board for Its review. Mr. Guscio has informed me that the Town staff wants to resolve the issue of truck rentals on this site as soon as possible, and in an effort to address the desires of the staff, this request for a rescheduling of the appeal is made under the stipulation that no additional requests for rescheduling or extensions will be made. xs.aUL, James Aptil 12. 19-03 --.- Please contact ins regaiding this request for , the tescheduling of the above - referenced appeal. Thank you for all you time and xmpunopvnn movminn tmmo matters. ` With warmest personal regards. /mv. ,vmovery truly, HUGHES mw/oERS. p.a. 4 William M. Foiles wMF'bao cc: Stephen G, Riley, xmp Director ofnnmm Ms. Carol mawpzv:'Current Planner ` } ' ! � \ ' -------------------------------------------------i TOTAL P.033 | � * r.w1 * | * TmoxsAnTzox ncpoeT * � opn-12-93 wow v 13 * ' * o*rc START nswucx nx TIws pAcso woTc * * * * APR -12 9:/1 awa 785 350* /`no" n ox * * * :4, :4,�� '��—�-------------_-----------------_--------_-----'�� .a. 13 IitiGEiES �L ��TTETEFS, P.A. ATTO RN[•S AT L A.\ EJN.ARp M HUGHES -ME CLAKC�QCN Ci L�LC�NG %!LLAGC AT ME.- rFC'G JOrn N'. MiNCR. „a,•T RCST omcf CRAwCR 6047 w ILUTAM M. rCiLES EMRiCK K MAi647. JR. Idi[-Tom I-iI- D ISA\D. SOVT 1 C.ai2OU A �M31 UAMCSr BERL• CC6ERT.. ARUNOELL" ....E (8041765.00-0 MARY K. M0111LLE ALSO A MCMSCr C' .CCRQM Swv "So w rCM.E. of V.Ao.wiA 3AA ALSO A MCMBCV Qr wCMT^ �Av�LiVw OAA PLEASE DELIVER THESE TELECOPIED PAGES IMMEDIATELY DATE: -A 1 a TO:-��_-� A- •-••- TELECOPY N0, — TO: CVS �� TELECOPY NO,_B_V �� TELECOPY NO TO:— TELECOPY NO, RE: SENDERF-'�'_.,_S-- NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW:~ BILLING REF, NO.: If you do not receive any of these pages properly, please contact the "Sender" at (803) 785-8040, Our facsimile machine is a Panafax OF -766 and our fax phone numbor is (803)785-3506. �v TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Town Staff has received your request to reschedule the subject appeal to the Board of Adjustment until the May 24, 1993, meeting. When Mr. Don Guscio, agent for Louis McKibben, Jr., submitted his application for an appeal on March 12, 1993, Planning Staff notified Mr. Guscio that the application did not specifically address the grounds of the appeal, nor was there any other supporting doctunentation outside of what Staff had in the special exception files. No additional information has yet been submitted. Mr. McKibben's application for a special exception had been in response to a Town code violation notice, dated December 16, 1992, that the truck rental business was conducted without Town approvals. Planning Staff would very much like to resolve this matter in a more timely fashion. You indicate in your letter to Sue James that "this request for a rescheduling of the appeal is made under the stipulation that no additional requests for rescheduling or extensions will be made." Under this stipulation, Planning Staff will place your request for an appeal on the May 24, 1993 agenda instead of April 26, 1993. Under Section 16-7-678 (4) of the Land Management Ordinance, an application April 12, 1993 1 N—V W. [i,v,nF Ir. regularly scheduled BOA meeting in order for the application to be reviewed alaynr nenryD—en,Jr. Mr. William M. Foiles Mayor ProTem Hughes & Wieters, P. A. .ur C.—INI b— P. O. Drawer 6068 Pmnxuraa„an Hilton IIead Island, South Carolina 29938 I;mx•L' L. Condit lr. D"nna c a+ r n Re: Appeal of McKibben Firestone Special Exception PP P P u°r°myc..rerwnY M "m,.) c. o.em Dear Mr. Foiles, Town Staff has received your request to reschedule the subject appeal to the Board of Adjustment until the May 24, 1993, meeting. When Mr. Don Guscio, agent for Louis McKibben, Jr., submitted his application for an appeal on March 12, 1993, Planning Staff notified Mr. Guscio that the application did not specifically address the grounds of the appeal, nor was there any other supporting doctunentation outside of what Staff had in the special exception files. No additional information has yet been submitted. Mr. McKibben's application for a special exception had been in response to a Town code violation notice, dated December 16, 1992, that the truck rental business was conducted without Town approvals. Planning Staff would very much like to resolve this matter in a more timely fashion. You indicate in your letter to Sue James that "this request for a rescheduling of the appeal is made under the stipulation that no additional requests for rescheduling or extensions will be made." Under this stipulation, Planning Staff will place your request for an appeal on the May 24, 1993 agenda instead of April 26, 1993. Under Section 16-7-678 (4) of the Land Management Ordinance, an application shall be substantially complete not less than twenty-one days prior to a regularly scheduled BOA meeting in order for the application to be reviewed by the BOA. The ten day submission date prior to the BOA meeting is for additional information to be included in the record of the BOA, but not ” r required for application completeness. Information received after that time �� shall be considered only at the discretion of the BOA. iI. 1 Page 2 1 McKibben Appeal Letter to William M. Pones If you have any questions concerning this appeal, please call me at 656-0904. Sincerely, /t L��G�'% �G Carol A. Krawczyk Current Planner CC: Sue James, Chairman, BOA Steve Riley, Director of Community Development Thomas Brecliko, CI -def of Planning Barbara Barrett, Code Enforcement Officer i 1 TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton I-Iead Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Pax &12-7728 Harvey W.1;-nr Ir. April 12, 1993 Mayor 11—y Dri—, Ir. MaynrMr. Gregory Wynn C-61Member c/o The Dunes Horizontal Property Regime Frank Braman P. O. Box 6476 K-61 Donna I -Elton Head Island, SC 29938 —c.c. nlan� Tom IbaFl,, UnmOp• C. Fmkins Re: Request for Variance V �Ba„d r: aN A T.—nlanagcr Dear Mr. Wynn, We reviewed your request for a variance to allow mailboxes for the Dunes to remain in the property buffer during the Board of Adjustment agenda review session last Thursday. During that meeting, it was decided that since you had the Postal Service's approval for location, no variance was necessary. I am enclosing a form for refund of fee.,. Please submit it to the Hilton Head Island business office in the Town Hall for your refund. If you have any further questions, please call me at 686-0904. 6erely, Carol A. Zrawfczyk Current Planner CC: Sue James, Chairperson, BOA Steve Riley, Director of Community Development Thomas Brechko, Chief of Planning Barbara Barrett, Code Enforcement Officer a r TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. Mayor henry Ddeaaen, Jr. April 30, 1993 Certified Mail Mayor ProTem P 345 026 259 Council Member Prank Erafman RuneEL.Condil.Jr• Mr. E. H. Shutt Donna C.Manin Heritage Motor Car Company Tom Paeplea Domd,y C. IMAs P.O. BOX 22889 Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 Michael C.ONNR Tuwn Manager Re: Reconsideration of a previous decision by the Board of Adjustment at the October 27, 1992 Meeting concerning Variance V-17-92, to deny requested Variance from sign setback. Property is located at 460 William Hilton Pkwy. and is identified as Parcel 202 on Beaufort Co. Tax Map /s. Dear Mr. Shutt: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Reconsideration request regarding the Boards 10/27/92 decision. The Board of Adjustment.Motion was to deny the request to overturn the Boardfs 10/27/92 decision on V-17-92. The new survey showed the point of the sign to be 1' 4" behind the Right -of -Way line and in, the Setback by 8 2/3'. The sign remained a nonconforming -sign., The Motion was adopted. A copy of the Board of Adjustment Notice of Action letter from October 27, 1992 meeting As.�enelosed. Because this earlier action was affirmed;'` thisprevious decision must be complied with. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. sincerely, /�' / p %oers Pam 1800. JWW 1861 09, ify Huh P. Taicott i R e Current Plannerz9�Q G� d cc: BOA Members Steve Riley �. d `_ 1 1e Tom Brechko as' a 1. �: ;roo Greg DeLoach ` ` T ir BOA File N M � Project File ,a � f HPT: WN TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 I Iarvey W. lis,ing Jr. Mayor I terry Nm", Jn M,y.,Mayor ProTcm P,.T, eR October 30, 1992 Certified Mail P 249 335 276 Frank Rrafman Russell L. Condit , Jr. DOOM C. Manu, romreeple.. Mr. Terry Finger P.O. Drawer 5280 Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 1 nwn \Ianag,•r . Re: V-17-92 - Variance from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to permit a sign within the required setback from William Hilton Pkwy. for Heritage Motors Dealership, located adjacent to Port Royal Plaza. Dear Mr. Finger: On Tuesday, October 27, 1992 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request regarding the // Heritage Motors Company sign. L.. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to deny the Variance from LMO 16-7-1030 to allow a sign in them required front setback. The Board found no permits had been issued for the sign and that a hardship did not exist, because a new relocated sign could .provide more exposure for the business. Further the Board of Adjustment requested the Applicant to remove the sign and the triangle sign structure. The Motion was adopted. If you should need any further information please contact me at 686-0904. Sincerely, Hfigh P. Talcott i Current Planner Ps Pone no, JwnQQIfa . 'V9*pp raaa u,a �re,a r cc: BOA ![embers R L R '■ Steve Riley Tom Brechko ' Z N Greg DeLoach ,4'"� r Heritage Motors t° � " .a �' � i� � .° BOA File ✓ r ,� W Project File i HPT:BJFI TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing, Jr. may., flenry Ddeaaen. Jr. Certified Mail Mayor ProTem April 28, 1993 P 345 026 261 Coundl Member Prank Brfman Russell L. Condit. Jr. Donna C. Martin Mr. E: H. Shutt Tom P.71' Dorothy G. Paw. Heritage Motor Car Company P.O. Box 22889 Michael —Go Nri H Hilton Head Island, SC 29925 Town Manager Re: V-4-93 Variance request Tabled from the 3/22/93 Meeting. For a allow expansion rofnaefrom 0Section ic nonconforming site Property is to Motor. Car Company# 0 William identified on Beaufort Hilton fortCounty Tax Map/8, Parcel d is 202 Dear Mr. Shutt: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request for the above referenced l property. The Board of Adjustment granted a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(c) to allow expansion of a nonconforming site, subject to the additional landscaping agreed upon by the Applicant. If you have any questions please contact me at 686-0904. Sincerely, �T� Huh )P Talcott PS Form 3800, Jur$ 1991 Current Planner a ¢ = s e g cc: BOA Members Steve Riley sae e g ! Tom Brechko g a 8 Greg DeLoach BOA File i a Project File r �+ blip _ ' 3 N ec j HPT:BJM - y` \NwS\ 0 ar .u' � • 1 ru r M ho TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 �• 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing. Jr. . Mayor fImryDrie 'Jr. Mayor FroTem April 28, 1993 Certified Nail comdlMmbm P 345 026 260 Frank Brafman R..eB L.condB.►r. Donnac.Manln Hr. Cliff Loveland - -' To myc��+rmm Carter-Miot Engineering 1829 Shop Road Mkha.I c. oNelu Columbia, SC 29201 Town Manager Re: V-5-93 deferred from 3/22/93 Board of Adjustment Meeting. Variance request from LMO Section 16-7-1030 to allow a free-standing sign to be located less than the required ten foot setback from the right-of-way. The sign is for Mid - Island Nations Bank, 862 William Hilton Pkwy., the property is identified as Parcel 153 on Beaufort County Tax Map /11. Dear Mr. Loveland: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard the Variance request concerning the above referenced sign at the Mid -Island Nations Bank. V-5-93 was _ previously deferred in order that the Board could read the 6/22/92 meeting transcript and view the Nations Bank sign video. The Board of Adjustment granted a Variance from LHO Section 16-7-1030 to allow less than'the required 10 foot setback from the right-oP-way, but not 'less than 7 feet back from the right-of-way. This Variance would be subject to review by the Administrator relative to underground utilities that may necessitate less setback. The Motion was Adopted. Sincer�y • Bill Lyt a Ps Form 3800, Jun. 1Ye1 .' 'wO rt ! Assistan Current Plann� 7 8 N y :i cc: BOA Members g .. i <c 4 ia Steve Riley # p a Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach' Hugh Talcott a N BOA File o♦, Js. .. ti Project File _ CBL: BJM ti� ~ p \ 3 Asa TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head bland, S.C. 29928 t $03/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 limey W. EwlnB. Jr Mayor llcnryDrle n, fir. Mayor PmTem CoundiMembers April 28, 1993 Certified Mail Frank Brahman P 345 026 262 Russett L. Condit, Jr. Danns C. Martin - .Tom Paepl® Dorothy G. Perkins Ms. Paula Thurman Broad Strokes Michael c. owiu P.O. Box 6287 Tawe Man■Bar Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Re: V-7-93 Variance from IMO Section 16-7-1012 to allow changes to a nonconforming sign other than refinishing the surface of the sign, so as to keep the same appearance of the sign. Property is located at 26 Arrow Road and identified as Parcel 275 on Beaufort County Tax Map #15. Dear Ms. Thurman: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request regarding the above referenced sign.. The Motion of the Board of Adjustment was to defer Broad Strokes Variance request until the May 24, 1993 meeting, to allow time for appropriate advertising and consideration of a Setback Variance. If you have any. questions please contact as at 686-0904. Sin(c�efrrel , PS Foam 3800 JwleAN1 Bill Lytl 121'. leL u C TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND C One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 ic May -" W, Ewing, )r HenryDdeaaen, Jr. Mryor PmTem Mr. Gregory Wynn C/o The Dunes Horizontal Property Regime P. O. Box 6476 Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Re: Request for Variance V-8-93 Dear Mr. Wynn, We reviewed your request for a variance to allow mailboxes for the Dunes to remain in the property buffer during the Board of Adjustment agenda review session last Thursday. During that meeting, it was decided that since you had the Postal Service's approval for location, no variance was necessary. I am enclosing a form for refund of fees. Please submit it to the Hilton Head Island business office in the Town Hall for your refund. If you have any further questions, please call me at 686-0904. rely, CamI A. Krawczyk Current Planner CC: Sue James, Chairperson, BOA Steve Rileyr Director of Community. Development Thomas Brechko, Chief of Planting Barbara Barrett, Codet pfficer Caundl Member Frank Bralman RumU L Condit, Jr. Donna C. Martin Tom Peeples Dntoihy C. Perklm Michael G, dWeIB Tawn Manager April 12, 1993 f a TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 ( 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Rwing.Jr. Mayer Certified Mail HenryMessenjr• Mayor PmTem April 29, 1993 P 345 026 263 Coundl Members Frank graftran Russell L. Condit, Jr. _ Donna C. Martin Mr. Perry Wood Tom "I" DoramyG.Perklrs Wood & Partners, Inc. P.O. Box 7427 Michael G. O'NeN Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Town Manager Re: V-10-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-483(c)(2) and 16-7- 915(d) to allow a reduction in Buffer and Setback requirements adjacent to tidal wetlands. Property is known as Longview Island and is located in shelter Cove# Palmetto Dunes and is identified as Parcel 28 on Beaufort County Tax Map N 12B. Dear Mr. Wood: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request concerning _ Longview Island. The Motion of the Board of Adjustment was to grant a Variance from LMO Sections 16-7-483(c)(2) and 16-7-915(d) for a reduction in buffer and setback requirements adjacent to tidal. wetlands#' to allow development of Longview Island to plans presented at the 4/26/93 BOA meeting. The pursuant Motion was Adopted. I£ you have any questions please call ■e: at 686-0904. sincerely, PS Form 3800, Juni IYYi N Talcott Hugh P. Planner Current )' cc: BOA Members << + Steve Riley r e ., ru 4 Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach a N n+ s or Charles Pigq a► M fit; �. Ar PrA Fil o jecteFile ft? it HPT: BJM e TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Pax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing. Jr. Mayor Henry Dd—m,1 . Mayor PmTem April 29, 1993 Certified Mail P 345 026 264 Coundi Member Frank Wman R.—U L. CondR,lr. - DonnaC.Mariin The Grant Family TomGi oroP.W. c/o Ms. Janie J. Grant 651 U.S. 278 MirhaciaoNeig Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 Town Manager Re: V-11-93 Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(d) to relocate a nonconforming structure, a produce stand, further from the Hilton Head Island U.S. 278 to better accommodate Pathway. Dear Ms. Grant: on Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request to move your produce stand. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to grant a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-305(d) to relocate the nonconforming to the required setback, in accordance produce stand closer the 4/26/93 BOA meeting. with the site plan presented .at If you have any questions. please call me at 686-0904. Sincer/e�ly # P. Talcott &igh current Planner Ps Form 3900, June 1991 o cc: BOA Members Steve Riley $ Tom Brechko Greg DeLoach I e W Hugh Talcott , ' .`• BOA File 141L!p ' " ` ' o Project File HPT:BJM �� i '� IU 61 9 C TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8300 Fax 842-7728 I larvey W. Ewing. Jr. Mayor I lenry Drleasen, Jr. MayorPwTem April 29, 1993 Coundl Members Frank Bradman Russell L. Condit' Jr. Donna C.Ms. Fran Thresh Tom Peeples n Doro,hyc.Nrkam Speedi Sign 180 Triangle Square Michaelaoweiu Hilton Head Island, SC 29926 Town Manager Certified Mail P 345 026 265 Re: V-12-93 Variance from I.MO Section 16-7-1030, to allow a sign to be located within the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. sign and property are located at 1012 William Hilton Pkwy. & identified on Beaufort County Tax Map # 15, Parcel 253. Dear Ms. Thresh: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request for the above referenced sign. The Board of Adjustment Motion was to defer the Variance (V-12-93) to the May 24, 1993 meeting to enable Board members to visit the site to view the visual aspects. in order to make a more certain determination. The Motion was Adopted. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 686-0904. n erely, arol A. Krawczyk Current Planner cc: BOA Members P8 Pam 3lOO, .ham 1tN1' Steve Riley Tom Brechko W N Greg DeLoach Sammy Gray BOA File Project File CAK:BJM :ru r N r,s TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND r One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Bwing, Jr. Mayor I'll lenry Nd n, Jr. MayorlYoTem April 29, 1993 Certified Mail Co dl Members P 345 026 266 Prank Bralman Russell L. Condit, Jr. V—C. Marlin Mrs. Barbara Hudson - Tom Peeples oorathyQPerm. Squire Pope Furniture 67 Squire Pope Road Mi:haelco'Nclu Hilton Head Island, SC 29926 Town Manager Re: V-13-93 Variance from LHO Section 16-7-1012(x) to allow changes to a nonconforming sign located at 67 Squire Pope Road, identified on Beaufort County Tax Map # 7, Parcel 2. Dear Mrs. Hudson: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your variance request to change the Squire Pope Furniture sign. t The Motion of the Board of Adjustment was to approve the Variance from IMO Section 16-7-1012(x) to allow changes in a nonconforming sign. Approval was granted on the basis that the Squire Pope Furniture sign will be replaced within a year after the new sign ordinance is adopted, with a new sign in conformance with"the new ordinance. The Motion was Adopted. If you have any questions please call me at 686-0904. Sin erely, Ci Carol A. Krawczyk Current Planner IS Form 3800, .Jwo, 991 l cc: BOA Members Steve Riley d Tom Brechko w } Greg DeLoach r BOA File 3. Project File1� '' x, V CAK:BJM = '. i, M N as r• ;t era TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 803/842-8900 Fax 842-7728 Harvey W. Ewing. Jr. Mayor 11my Dri—n, ft. Mayor ProTem Council Members April 28, 1993 Certified Mail P 345 026 267 Frank Braman R-11 L. Condit, Jr. Donna C. Manin Tom Peeples Dorothy G. Perkim Mr. James O. Hale O & P, Ltd. Michael G.o.%wu P.O. Box 6748 Town Manager Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Re: V-14-93 Variance from LMO Sections 16-7-842, Buffers, at the Best IVestern Ocean Walk development. Property is located at 36 South Forest Beach Drive & is identified as Parcel 240 on Beaufort County Tax Map ! 18. Dear Mr. Hale: On Monday, April 26, 1993 the Town of Hilton Head Island Board of Adjustment heard your Variance request for the Best Western Ocean Walk development. The Board of Adjustment approved a Variance from LMO Section 16-7-842, Buffers. The Applicant withdrew the Variance request from LMO.Section 16-7-850(g) because he acknowledged that shuttle - service would be provided for customers. The Motion was Adopted. if you have any questions please.contact me at 686-0904. Sincerely, Hugh P. Talcott Ps Fwm 3600, Jun. 1091 Current Planner 1 - a - ! o Up.W cc: BOA Members +z � ,' $ fr s � ! Steve Riley Tom Brechko r"403egi� W Greg DeLoach}'5,uri