Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richland County zoning board denies variance to cut parking for 300-unit apartment project
Summary
The Richland County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4-1 to deny a developer request to reduce required off‑street parking from 600 to 500 spaces for a proposed 300‑unit multifamily complex at 2015 Blythewood Crossing Lane, after staff concluded variance standards were not met.
The Richland County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4-1 to deny a variance request that would have reduced required off‑street parking for a proposed 300‑unit apartment complex at 2015 Blythewood Crossing Lane.
The vote came after county staff recommended denial, concluding the applicant had not shown the extraordinary and exceptional conditions required for a variance under the Richland County Land Development Code. Board members Lawson Hauser, Alderman, Johnson and Fulmer voted to deny; Member Reese voted no.
Staff summary and recommendation
Mister Price, the Richland County zoning administrator, told the board the parcel is about a 30.33‑acre undeveloped tract and that, under Table 26‑5.2(d)(1) of the Richland County Land Development Code, multifamily dwellings require two off‑street parking spaces per unit. "Based on this requirement, the proposed development will require 600 off‑street parking spaces," Price said, and staff recommended disapproval because the applicant had not met all variance criteria.
Applicant arguments
Layton Lord, attorney for the developer, said the applicant sought a reduction to 500 spaces (about 1.67 spaces per unit) because roughly half the site is wetlands and the property is constrained by I‑77 and Wilson Boulevard. "We disagree with staff on that. . . . This project meets all the requirements that Richland County has for this project. The only requirement we need a variance from is on‑site parking," Lord said, adding the project is intended as workforce housing near a major economic development area.
The applicant's engineer presented comparative data from other developments. The packet included a local example, Colonel Bluffs Apartments (288 units, 478 parking spaces, about 1.66 spaces per unit), and outside studies reporting peak parking utilization below total available spaces (a Charlotte study cited about 83% peak utilization). The applicant said wetlands have been delineated and that filling wetlands would be costly and delay the project; they also offered during discussion to add 25 more parking spaces if the board sought a larger buffer.
Key points raised by board members and staff
Board members questioned whether a variance or a text amendment to the Land Development Code was the appropriate remedy. Several members said a countywide change to the code would be the longer‑term approach but acknowledged that a variance applies to the parcel if extraordinary and exceptional conditions unique to the property can be shown.
The record includes a county staff GIS note that bus stops and routes run along Carolina Pines Drive and that Comet transit has discussed extending service into Blythewood, which the applicant cited when discussing alternative access and transit options.
Vote and next steps
A motion to deny the variance (case ZV25‑002) carried 4‑1. The board record shows the motion passed with Johnson, Lawson Hauser, Alderman and Fulmer voting in favor and Reese voting against. The board did not adopt any conditions or alternate parking totals during the meeting; staff noted that any change to the advertised request would require readvertisement.
Procedural and appeal information
Price reminded attendees that decisions of the board become final after the minutes are approved (typically the next scheduled meeting) and that a person with a substantial interest may appeal to the circuit court within 30 days after the decision has been mailed. The applicant may choose to revise the proposal, pursue a code text amendment through the formal county process, or appeal the board decision.
Less critical details
The applicant and its representatives said they believed the requested parking ratio would avoid unnecessary wetland filling, preserve green space and permit the planned density of workforce housing; staff and several board members remained unconvinced the legal variance standard had been met. No formal alternative (such as a reduced unit count) was approved by the board during the hearing.
