rock hill zoning board of appeals november 18, 2014

TO: Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals

FROM: Josh Reinhardt, Planner II

RE: Meeting Agenda

DATE: November 13, 2014

The Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 18, 2014, at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers at City Hall, 155 Johnston Street, to consider the following appeals. Please feel free to contact me regarding any item on the agenda. Thank you.

A G E N D A

Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals November 18, 2014

1. Call to Order

2. Approval of minutes of October 21, 2014 meeting.

3. Appeal No. Z-2014-14: Request by Dr. Eric Setzer for a Variance from the sign setback standards. The property is located at 770 Riverview Road and is zoned General Commercial (GC). Tax map number: 662-07-01-064.

4. Appeal No. Z-2014-15: Request by Mr. Willie B. McClurkin for a Variance from the size restrictions for an accessory structure. The property is located at 1045 Flint Hill Street and is zoned Single-Family Residential-5 (SF-5). Tax map number: 600-07-05-003.

5. Adopt meeting dates for 2015 calendar year

6. Other Business

7. Adjourn

Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda ItemsCity of Rock Hill, SCNovember 18, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals

¯ Map Not Drawn To Scale DR 11/10/14

3

4

Dave Lyle

Mt. Holly

McConnells

YorkMain

Old York

Celanese

Mt Gallant

Cherry I-77

Albright

Ande

rson

Heckle

India

Hook

Sutto

n

Hwy 2

1

Saluda

Ogden I-77

Anderson

Heckle

LegendRiverCity LimitsAgenda Item#

1 | P a g e

Zoning Board of Appeals City of Rock Hill, South Carolina October 21, 2014

A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, October 21, 2014, at 6:30 PM in Council Chambers at City Hall, 155 Johnston Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Crawford, Donovan Steltzner, Justin Smith, Keith Sutton, Michael Smith, Stacey Reeves, and John Antrim

STAFF PRESENT: Josh Reinhardt, Leah Youngblood, Janice Miller

Legal notice of the public hearing was published in The Herald, Saturday, October 4, 2014. Notice was posted on all property considered. Adjacent property owners and residents were notified in writing. 1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM. 2. Approval of minutes of September 16, 2014, meeting.

Mr. J. Smith made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Steltzner seconded the motion. Mr. M. Smith noted a correction on page two. The amended minutes were approved unanimously by a vote of 7-0.

3. Appeal No. Z-2014-11: Request by SCI Towers, LLC, for a Special Exception for a Communications Tower within the General Commercial (GC) zoning district. The property is located at 1100 Plaza Boulevard. Tax map number: 662-02-01-003.

Mr. Reinhardt presented the staff report.

Mr. Sutton asked about if the approval was for use by one company with four companies using the tower in the future. Mr. Reinhardt stated that this was correct, and noted that the Special Exception request was for the building of the original tower.

Mr. Antrim asked about construction of the tower and what would happen if the tower toppled. Mr. Reinhardt stated that this was covered under the City’s building code standards, but that his understanding was that the tower was designed to collapse upon itself in that event.

Mr. Antrim asked about radiation reporting. Mr. Reinhardt stated that this was under the direction of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).

Mr. J. Smith asked about the fencing requirements and if a 12’ chain link fence in the setback had a more stringent requirements. Mr. Reinhardt stated that a solid screen fence was required, noting that the cell tower approved near the airport had a chain link fence with anti-climbing devices attached and surrounded by a solid wood screen.

Mr. Johnathon Yates, 105 Broad Street, Charleston, SC, applicant’s representative,

2 | P a g e

provided in-depth information about the construction of the communications tower, noting specifically that the site was desirable due to its location behind a shopping center with a number of trees, and that it would serve an area that had limited call and data service for customers. He also noted that the tower would only be at 190’, which would eliminate the need for a navigation light at the top. In response to Mr. Antrim’s question about construction, he stated that the monopole configuration was designed so that in the event of a catastrophic wind, the top would fall over and could be replaced.

Mr. Antrim asked for a comparison of the height of other towers in the area. Mr. Yates stated that if a particular tower doesn’t have a light at the top, it was under 200’.

Mr. Crawford asked about the process for determining the need for a tower. Mr. Yates stated that radio frequency engineers performed studies of usage and were able to pinpoint areas in need of additional service.

Mr. J. Smith asked about the monopole located on Mt. Gallant by the Nishie G’s Restaurant. Mr. Reinhardt stated that it was about 100’, and the one located at the country club was around 140’.

There were no questions or comments from the audience.

Mr. Crawford closed the floor for Board discussion.

Mr. J. Smith presented the motion to approve the Special Exception request as submitted, and Mr. Steltzner seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 7-0. Mr. J. Smith presented the findings, noting that the Board agreed with the findings as detailed in the staff report.

4. Appeal No. Z-2014-12: Request by the Upper Palmetto YMCA Association for a Special Exception to operate an Indoor Recreation area within the Neighborhood Office (NO) zoning district. The property is located at 375 Charlotte Avenue. Tax map number: 629-07-02-021.

Mr. M. Smith recused himself from the item as his wife is an employee of the YMCA.

Mr. Reinhardt presented the staff report.

Mr. Antrim noted that the area was a neighborhood and that the buses stored there were an eyesore. He asked about ordinances about vehicle storage in that area. Mr. Reinhardt stated that the YMCA buses had been stored at that location for a number of years, and that this use was probably grandfathered in.

Mr. Antrim asked if the number of buses store on the site would be reduced. Mr. Reinhardt stated that they would have to in order to use the facility as proposed.

Mr. J. Smith asked if the buses were used. Mr. Reinhardt stated that it was an active parking lot and that this was not a long term storage for the buses.

Ms. Reeves asked if parking would be available for those using the facility. Mr. Reinhardt stated that there would be.

Mr. Crawford asked if there was a crosswalk. Mr. Reinhardt indicated the crosswalk located at Union & Charlotte.

3 | P a g e

Mr. J. Smith asked if the crosswalk was sufficient. Mr. Reinhardt stated that staff did not foresee an increase in pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Chet Tucker, 960 Beverly Drive, applicant, provided information about the new use of the facility, noting that as “Crossfit” type workouts had become more popular, the YMCA needed to take advantage of this trend. He noted that the main Charlotte Avenue YMCA facility did not have a large weight room and that this location would also allow for an indoor power lifting area with the parking lot being used for other types of workouts. He also noted that the minibuses were used daily with afterschool program pickup, and that the larger buses were used mainly during the summer.

Mr. J. Smith asked if any additional structures would be built. Mr. Tucker stated that there would not be.

Mr. J. Smith asked about activity in the parking lot. Mr. Tucker stated that the equipment would remain inside along with most of the activity, but that some activities could take place outside.

Mr. Crawford asked about the times of operation. Mr. Tucker stated that the YMCA was open from 6AM until 9:30PM, but that they had not determined the hours for this operation. He stated that the facility would be staffed when open.

Mr. J. Smith asked about the parking of the buses. Mr. Tucker stated that the minibuses would remain at that location and the larger buses would probably be parked at the corporate office.

Mr. Crawford asked about noise levels. Mr. Tucker stated that normal gym sounds would be heard, such as yelling, grunting, and the dropping of weights. Mr. Reinhardt noted that the noise level would probably be less than those using the outdoor pool.

Mr. J. Smith asked about parking standards. Mr. Reinhardt stated that they would have to meet those standards, and that it would be minimal due to the size of the building.

There were no questions or comments from the audience.


Mr. Crawford presented the motion to approve the Special Exception request as submitted, and Mr. Suttonr seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Crawford presented the findings, noting that the Board agreed with the findings as detailed in the staff report.

5. Appeal No. Z-2014-13: Request by New Covenant Assembly for a Special Exception to operate a Youth Club Facility within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single-Family Residential-5 (SF-5) zoning districts. The property is located at 850 & 860 Carolina Avenue. Tax map number: 600-02-03-006 & -007.

Ms. Youngblood presented the staff report.

4 | P a g e

Mr. Steltzner asked if the applicant’s would have to request a Special Exception if the proposed use was a church. Ms. Youngblood stated that a church could not locate there as this was not an arterial street.

Mr. Steltzner asked how the proposed Youth Facility use was different from a church. Ms. Youngblood stated that this was a church activity, that the facility would not be used for church services.

Mr. Sutton asked for specifics on the portions of the building that would be demolished. Ms. Youngblood stated that it was still very early in the process, and that the Special Exception request was the first step. She noted that the current plan was to lose both sides of the building, keeping the center area.

Mr. Antrim noted the number of parking spaces included, asking if some spaces would be used as overflow for the church. Ms. Youngblood stated that the parking configuration would be evaluated as more final plans were submitted further along in the process.

Mr. Crawford asked if there were a maximum number of parking spaces in the code. Ms. Youngblood stated that there was. Mr. Reinhardt noted that occupant load determined the number of spaces.

Mr. J. Smith asked if this was a demolition or rehabilitation. Ms. Youngblood stated it was their choice.

Pastor George Gadson, 232 Osprey Lane, Hopkins, SC, applicant, provided information about the needs of the community to provide a facility for young people. He stated statistics about youth growing up without a stable home life and noted that the church wanted to help provide a stable environment for these children.

Ms. Reeves asked how children would be brought to the facility. Pastor Gadson stated that they planned to do afterschool pickup.

Ms. Reeves asked the ages of the children. Pastor Gadson stated junior high to elementary ages.

Mr. M. Smith asked if the program was similar to the Emmett Scott facility. Mr. Gadson stated that this was a possibility and that he was looking to partner with other organizations in the community to share services.

Mr. Antrim asked if the church was planning on serving the immediate area or a larger one. Mr. Gadson stated that at first, they wanted to serve the local community.

Mr. J. Smith asked about the house located next door. Ms. Youngblood stated that it had burned down. Mr. Gadson noted that the church had purchased that property as well.

Mr. Crawford asked what would be included in the facility. Mr. Gadson noted plans for a library, cafeteria, multipurpose center area, and classrooms.

Mr. Crawford asked if they would demolish this building. Mr. Gadson stated that the contractor felt this building could be salvaged, and that the size of the facility would be 80’ x 90’.

5 | P a g e

Mr. Crawford asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Gadson stated after school but that initially demands would determine the hours.

Ms. Katie Bright, 2920 Sims Road, spoke in favor of the request, noting that as a bus driver, many times she would be the first and last person that would give a child a word of encouragement each day. She stated that the children needed a place to go where people cared.

Mr. Claudius Watts, 861 Carolina Avenue, spoke in favor of the request, noting that he was a former police officer and would provide assistance to the pastor as needed at the facility.

Pastor C.T. Kirk, 213 Albright Road, spoke in favor of the request, adding that he was a board member of the Emmett Scott facility. He stated that New Covenant Assembly was planning on offering these services for free because many of the families needing these types of care were unable to afford it. He also noted that this area needed a place for children to go to and that it would provide support to the community.

Mr. J. Smith asked how the Emmett Scott facility was staffed. Pastor Kirk stated that the City provided staff.

Mr. James Stover, 704 Post Lane, spoke in favor of the request and stated that it was sad to see kids with needs unmet, that this facility would provide an opportunity they would not otherwise get.


Mr. M. Smith presented the motion to approve the Special Exception request as submitted, and Mr. J. Smith seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 7-0. Mr. M. Smith presented the findings, noting that the Board agreed with the findings as detailed in the staff report.

6. Other Business

a. Draft meeting dates for 2015 calendar year. Mr. Reinhardt asked that the Board look at the dates presented and that it

would be finalized at the next meeting.

b. Discussion on meeting times. There was brief discussion about moving the meeting time from 6:30 PM to

6:00 PM. It was decided that since some members had to travel from Charlotte, the meeting time would remain at 6:30 PM.

c. Christmas dinner. The Board was asked to think of a place for the annual Christmas dinner. It

was noted that the dinner had been held on the regular meeting night and that staff would know of any December applications prior to the November meeting.

5. Adjourn.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals

Z-2014-14Meeting Date: November 18, 2014

Application by Dr. Eric Setzer for a Variance from the sign setback standards. The subject property is located at 770 Riverview Road and is zoned General Commercial (GC).

E

SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION

ProposedLocation

Case No. Z-2014-14 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals

Meeting Date: November 18, 2014

Location: 770 Riverview Road Request: Variance from setback requirements for an

interstate frontage sign. Tax Map Number: 662-07-01-064 Zoning District: General Commercial (GC) Applicant and Owner: Jonathan Eric Setzer 4040 Elks Park Road Rock Hill, SC

Background Dr. Eric Setzer is in the process of opening a veterinary clinic at 770 Riverview Road. As part of the approval process, he came before the ZBA earlier in March of this year (Case # Z-2014-05) and was granted a Special Exception to establish the use and to locate his outdoor kennels within 80 feet of property lines.

Now Dr. Setzer is requesting a variance to install an interstate sign on his property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires interstate frontage signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from all property lines. Dr. Setzer is requesting a 10-foot variance so that he may place the sign on the property line.

Site Description

The property is generally located on Riverview Road, between Cherry Road and Eden Terrace. The property is surrounded by a Planned Unit Development and General Commercial zoning districts. Nearby uses include various commercial and industrial uses, such as automobile repair and servicing centers, a bar/nightclub, and a recreational vehicle/travel trailer rental and sales use, as well as undeveloped land that is zoned General Commercial, and multi-family residential.

Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals Z-2014-14 Page 2

Relation to Zoning Ordinance

6-900(H) Specifications for Signs in Business Zoning Districts

Existing Zoning District Summary

GC, General Commercial The GC district is established as a commercial district applied to lands being used for commercial uses which do not readily fit in to one (1) of the three (3) other commercial districts. The GC district provides opportunities to integrate residential with retail and office use, subject to design standards. It is the intent of this Ordinance the GC district be phased out over time by not allowing new rezonings to the GC district.


Analysis of Request for Variance 2-300 (E) (4) Variance Standards (a) Findings A Variance Permit shall be approved only upon a finding, made in writing, that the applicant demonstrates that all of the following standards are met:

1. Extraordinary and Exceptional Conditions

There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of land.

The property is comparable in size to other properties along Riverview Road with Interstate frontage. The applicant feels that if the sign were required to meet setbacks (in his desired location), then an existing storm drain pipe may be affected. The applicant also feels that having the sign meet the required setback would reduce the visibility of his sign due to the existing trees.

2. Unique Conditions

These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The subject site was developed more recently than other adjacent sites along Riverview Road. Also, some of the sites along Riverview Road are still located in the County. These two factors would lead to the site having increased landscaping requirements when compared to other sites in the vicinity.

3. Strict Application Deprives Use

Because of the conditions, the application of this Ordinance to the land would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the land. Since an interstate frontage sign is currently allowed, and the use has been approved be staff as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals, the granting of the variance would not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property.

4. Not Detrimental

The authorization of the Variance Permit will not result in substantial detriment to adjacent land, or to the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance.


The granting of the variance to allow for the proposed sign to be located on the interstate right-of-way should not harm the value of the neighboring properties.

(b) Not Grounds for Variance

The following do not constitute grounds for a Variance Permit:

1. Property Could Be Utilized More Profitably The fact that land may be utilized more profitably should a Variance permit be granted.

The location of the sign, whether on or set back from the property line, would not increase the profitability of the land.

(c) Prohibitions

No Variance Permit shall be granted to:

1. Allow a use not permitted by right, Conditional Use Permit, or by Special Exception Permit in the district in which the land subject to the Variance Permit is located.

Veterinary clinics are an allowed use in this district via special exception approval, which was granted by the ZBA in March 2014.

2. Extend physically a nonconforming use of land.

The use is allowed and is not considered nonconforming. 3. Change the zone district boundaries on the Official Zone District

Map.

The zoning of the parcel will remain General Commercial (GC).

Public Involvement

The following public notification actions have been taken:

October 31: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property.

October 31: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property.

November 1: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in The Herald.

Public Feedback None received.


Attachments

Application and supporting documents from applicant Zoning Map

Staff Contact: Josh Reinhardt, Planner II [email protected] 803.326.2456

RIVERVIEW RD

SB INTERSTATE 77

NB INTERSTATE 77 CORPORATE BLVD

EDEN TER

I-77 NB COLL ON 82

I-77 SB ON 82A RAMP

G CG C

P U DP U D

Zoning DataProposed:Variance

ÊPlanning &

Development DepartmentCity of Rock Hill

0 260130Feet

Z-2014-14Outside City

Legend

Area of Interest

GeneralCommercial (GC)

Outside CityOutside City

Planned UnitDevelopment (PUD)

Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals

Z-2014-15Meeting Date: November 18, 2014

Application by Mr. Willie B. McClurkin for a Variance from the size restrictions for an accessory structure. The subject property is located at 1045 Flint Hill Street and is zoned Single-Family

Residential-5 (SF-5).

E

SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION

ProposedLocation

Case No. Z-2014-15 Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals

Meeting Date: November 18, 2014

Location: 1045 Flint Hill Street Request: Variance from accessory structure size

requirements Tax Map Number: 600-07-05-003 Zoning District: Single Family-5 (SF-5) Applicant and Owner: Willie B. McClurkin 1045 Flint Hill Street Rock Hill, SC

Background Willie McClurkin owns a single-family home at 1045 Flint Hill Street. He is requesting to construct a 1,024-square-foot, two-car garage for vehicles, tools, and yard equipment. This garage would replace the existing small storage shed on the property. The Zoning Ordinance allows accessory structures, including garages, to be up to 600 square feet or 30% of the size of the principal structure. The principal structure is roughly 1,800 square feet. Therefore, Mr. McClurkin is requesting a variance of 424 square feet from the accessory structure size requirement.

Site Description

The property is located midblock on the southern side of Flint Hill Street. The property is surrounded by single-family residential uses in the Single-Family-5 (SF-5) zoning district.

Relation to Zoning Ordinance

4-400 (B)(5)(c): Size of Accessory Buildings For accessory structures accessory to residential units, the combined floor area of all detached accessory structures shall occupy no more than thirty percent (30%) of the floor area of the principal structure or six hundred (600) square feet, whichever is greater.


Existing Zoning District Summary SF-5, Single-Family 5 The SF-5 district is established as a district in which the principal use of land is single-family detached dwellings, with two- to four-family dwellings permitted as special exception uses. The regulations of this district are intended to encourage diverse functioning neighborhoods which include various types of residential development, limited neighborhood-serving non-residential uses, and customary complementary uses. Complementary uses customarily found in residential zone districts, such as community facilities, religious institutions, parks and playgrounds, elementary schools, and middle schools are also allowed. The minimum lot area for development is seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet and the maximum residential density allowed is five (5) units per acre. Upper story dwellings over a street-level non-residential use may be included at densities of eight (8) units an acre. Analysis of Request for Variance 2-300 (E) (4) Variance Standards (a) Findings A Variance Permit shall be approved only upon a finding, made in writing, that the applicant demonstrates that all of the following standards are met:

1. Extraordinary and Exceptional Conditions

There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of land.

Mr. McClurkin is requesting the additional space in order to store a classic vehicle, lawn mower, yard tools, pressure washer and his wife’s vehicle. These large items are either currently stored outdoors on the property or at a family member’s home. Mr. McClurkin has made some exterior improvements to the property and does not wish to eliminate those in order to attach the garage.

2. Unique Conditions

These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. Generally, other properties in the vicinity are not as large as the subject property. Because of the larger size of the yard, the applicant requires more outdoor equipment to keep the property properly maintained and needs the additional space to store his equipment.


3. Strict Application Deprives Use

Because of the conditions, the application of this Ordinance to the land would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the land.

The limitation in size for an accessory structure would cause some of the property owners’ belongings to remain outside and in view of the public. The owners are requesting the variance in order to secure their belongings in an area that is convenient to them but that is hidden from public view.

4. Not Detrimental

The authorization of the Variance Permit will not result in substantial detriment to adjacent land, or to the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance.

If Mr. McClurkin is able to build this garage in order to house these items that are currently located outside or on other property, they would lessen the potential for crime in their neighborhood and improve the aesthetics of their property. The proposed detached garage would still be required to meet setbacks and other accessory structure requirements, so any possible negative impacts of the structure on the neighborhood would be minimal.

(b) Not Grounds for Variance

The following do not constitute grounds for a Variance Permit:

1. Property Could Be Utilized More Profitably The fact that land may be utilized more profitably should a Variance permit be granted.

This owner-occupied, single-family home is not intended to be used for profit. While the larger detached garage may increase the value of the home upon future resale in a very limited amount, the intent of the owners is simply to obtain a larger space to house items currently scattered outside the property in a convenient, hidden space.

(c) Prohibitions

No Variance Permit shall be granted to: 1. Allow a use not permitted by right, Conditional Use Permit, or by

Special Exception Permit in the district in which the land subject to the Variance Permit is located.


The use of the property as a single-family residence is allowed in the zoning district, and detached garages are allowed in residential zoning districts as an accessory structure. Therefore, if the variance were granted, it would not permit a use that is not already allowed by right.

2. Extend physically a nonconforming use of land.

Because the use of the land as a single-family residence is a conforming use, the detached garage would not in any way physically extend a nonconforming use of land.

3. Change the zone district boundaries on the Official Zone District

Map.

If granted, the variance would not change the zoning district boundaries. The property would retain its current SF-5 zoning district whether the variance is granted or not.

Public Involvement

The following public notification actions have been taken:

October 31: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property.

November 1: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in The Herald.

October 31: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property.

Public Feedback Staff received some phone calls from adjacent property owners inquiring about the variance request, but no one expressed concerns over the request.

Attachments

Application and supporting documents from applicant Zoning Map

Staff Contact: Josh Reinhardt, Planner II [email protected] 803.326.2456

FLINT HILL ST

FRANK ST

CAROLINA AVENUE EXT

CYPRESS ST

ALBERTA CT

S F - 5S F - 5

S F - 4S F - 4

Zoning DataProposed:Variance

ÊPlanning &

Development DepartmentCity of Rock Hill

0 15075Feet

Z-2014-15Legend

Area of Interest

Single-Family-5 (SF-5)

Single-Family-4 (SF-4)

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

155 JOHNSTON STREET, P.O. BOX 11706 ROCK HILL, SC 29731-1706, 803/329.7080

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Josh Reinhardt RE: Regular Meetings for 2015 DATE: November 18, 2014 Following is a schedule of proposed meeting dates for the 2015 calendar year. In 2015 the ZBA will continue to meet on the 3rd Tuesday of the month. An alternative meeting date (in parentheses below) of the following Tuesday will be advertised if the originally scheduled meeting date has to be postponed due to unforeseen circumstances. We will ask you to adopt the calendar at your November 18, 2014 meeting. Thank you.

January 20, 2015 – Day after MLK Jr. Day (Jan. 27)

February 17, 2015 (Feb. 24)

March 17, 2015 (March 24)

April 21, 2015 (April 28)

May 19, 2015 (May 26 – Day after Memorial Day)

June 16, 2015 (June 23)

July 21, 2015 – Election of Officers (July 28)

August 18, 2015 (Aug. 25)

September 15, 2015 (Sept. 22)

October 20, 2015 (Oct. 27)

November 17, 2015 (Nov. 24 – Week of Thanksgiving)

December 15, 2015 (Dec. 22 – Week of Christmas)

rock hill zoning board of appeals november 18, 2014

Documents