Dorchester County BZA denies Novant Health request to reduce visual buffer for Summers Corner emergency department

The Dorchester County Board of Zoning Appeals denied on Aug. 27 a variance request from Novant Health to reduce the minimum visual buffer (MVB) required in the county’s Transitional Overlay District (TOD) for a proposed freestanding emergency department and medical office building on Beach Hill Road in the Summers Corner neighborhood.

The variance would have reduced required canopy and understory plantings beyond bonus-density reductions already approved during site development review. Planning staff recommended denial after concluding the application did not meet the ordinance’s variance standards. Board member Skillman moved to deny and the motion carried by voice vote; the board chair said, “The ayes have it.”

Why it matters: The MVB is intended to enhance visual character along major corridors in Dorchester County’s TOD. Novant and its development team argued that greater visibility of the emergency department is a public-safety benefit — “minutes really matter, seconds matter when your health is at risk,” said Kirsten Royster, Novant Health’s Charleston market president — and that ambulatory emergency facilities are a different building type than what the overlay envisioned when it was adopted in the 1990s.

Staff findings and legal standard

Planning staff reviewed the request against the variance standards in the county ordinance and recommended denial. In presenting the staff analysis, the planning representative said, “staff finds that the application does not meet the requirements for a variance and therefore recommends denial of the request.” Staff noted that the TOD and its MVB have been in place since the 1990s and that the MVB’s intent is to enhance, not to obscure, the visual character of major corridors. The staff report cited specific ordinance sections referenced in the packet (section 11.27 and the bonus reductions in section 11.2.7.H, and the variance findings required under section 14.4.0.4 and ordinance O-413 as included in the staff packet).

Applicant presentation and evidence

Novant Health’s team — represented at the meeting by Kirsten Royster and by Matt Dabrowski of Census 1 (site developer) — said the proposal is part of a broader ambulatory-care strategy intended to put emergency services closer to where people live and shop. Royster said the system’s move into the Lowcountry and Summers Corner is intended to make emergency care more convenient and recognizable over time. Dabrowski and the development team showed conceptual elevations and streetscape images and said they had already obtained the available bonus-density reductions through site plan review and were asking for an additional reduction (applicants described the extra reduction as bringing the total reduction sought up to 85 percent in the MVB area).

The developer presented examples of other emergency and public-safety facilities in the region to show precedent for more-exposed building frontages. County staff clarified during the hearing that some of those examples were outside the TOD or were legal nonconforming with respect to the overlay, and therefore not direct, ordinance-level precedents inside the TOD.

Landscape and visibility discussion

Landscape architect Garrus Killingsworth described the proposed plant palette and tradeoffs. He said the team avoided slow-growing, dense live oaks and proposed longleaf pine and other species that maintain vertical sightlines; he added that understory species commonly mature to about 20 feet in height and can obscure midline signage over time. “Understories are Saltzer Magnolia, Serviceberry, and Yaupon Holly,” Killingsworth said, noting Yaupon Holly is the only evergreen among those examples and that understory plants are typically installed at about 7 feet at planting.

The board and applicant discussed how plant maturity, signage placement, existing easements, and the overlay’s tiered buffer determine where freestanding signs and directional signage may be placed. County staff said signs may be allowed within the MVB but not within right-of-way or over easements; the applicant said final sign locations would be addressed in a later sign-permit application.

Quantitative detail presented to the board

During the hearing the chair summarized the numeric effect of the reductions the applicant requested: canopy-tree requirements were described as moving from 41 (full requirement) to 23 (with the 45% bonus reduction already approved) and down to 6 if the board approved the additional reduction requested; understory counts were described as 31 required, 17 with the 45% reduction and 5 with the further reduction. The chair and staff stressed those figures reflect the ordinance’s counting method and the applicant’s proposed mitigation; the planning staff and board discussed whether trimming, species selection, or other conditions could address visibility concerns over the building’s lifecycle.

Board action and rationale

Board member Skillman moved to deny the variance, saying other properties in the area had adhered to the TOD guidelines and that the request was primarily a visual preference rather than a use restriction. The motion to deny carried on a voice vote; the chair announced, “The ayes have it.” Planning staff had recommended denial based on the ordinance’s variance criteria.

What the decision does and does not do

The board’s denial leaves the applicant able to proceed under the previously approved site development plan and the bonus reductions already granted through that review. County staff said the denial does not prevent Novant from developing the property for its intended medical purpose under the existing approvals; Novant representatives said they remain committed to serving the community and will continue to refine the design and signage plans.

Next steps

The applicant may revise the landscape and signage approach and may return with a new variance request or pursue other administrative options. The board did not attach conditional approval in this hearing; staff recommended denial and the board voted to deny.