Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anderson BZA rules Limited Office and Neighborhood Commercial not "substantially similar," allowing quicker reapplication for 307 Concord Road
Summary
The Anderson City Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3-2 that Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Limited Office (LO) zoning are not substantially similar under Section 14.2 of the zoning ordinance, clearing the way for the owner of 307 Concord Road to seek LO rezoning without waiting the city's one-year reconsideration period following a prior denial.
At a January meeting, the Anderson City Board of Zoning Appeals ruled that Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Limited Office (LO) zoning classifications are not "substantially similar" under Section 14.2 of the City of Anderson zoning ordinance, a decision that allows the owner of 307 Concord Road to reapply for LO sooner than the one-year waiting period the city staff had said applied.
City planning staff read the relevant ordinance to the board, quoting the regulation that "whenever a petition requesting an amendment, supplement, or change has been denied by the city council, such petition or 1 substantially similar shall not be reconsidered sooner than 1 year after the previous denial." Staff told members the city viewed NC and LO as "substantially similar" because both are commercial in nature and share some permitted uses; the property's previous rezoning request to NC was denied by City Council on Aug. 12, 2024.
Barry Rhodes, who said the property at 307 Concord Road is titled in his mother's name, told the board the family sought to lease two front offices to generate modest rental income. "All we're trying to do is get a little bit of rental income on those front 2 offices," Rhodes said, adding the family has been long-time neighborhood residents and did not intend to disrupt the area.
Board members debated whether the presence or absence of restaurant uses in LO (which does not permit restaurants) versus NC (which does) made the districts substantially different. Several members said the practical differences in permitted uses, particularly that LO would not allow restaurants such as the coffee truck the applicant had proposed under NC, supported finding the districts not substantially similar. One member voiced concern about setting a precedent for frequent reapplications but noted the current timeline to a possible completed rezoning if applied for immediately would be only a few months.
On the motion to find NC and LO not substantially similar, the board voted 3-2. The chair cast the deciding vote as allowed under the board's procedures. With that ruling, the staff said the city would proceed under the board's interpretation and handle any reapplication for LO accordingly.
The applicant may now seek LO rezoning for 307 Concord Road; the transcript indicates staff would manage any subsequent application and the standard planning and council review process would apply.
