Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board grants variance to allow four‑story hotel at 220 Austin Graybill Boulevard

North Augusta Board of Zoning Appeals · February 4, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance to allow a 4‑story, 50‑foot hotel at 220 Austin Graybill Boulevard after finding topographic constraints and franchise design requirements created practical hardships; approval included three staff‑recommended conditions and was unanimous.

The North Augusta Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously approved variance ZE25‑013 to allow a four‑story building up to 50 feet at 220 Austin Graybill Boulevard, permitting a hotel design that exceeds the 45‑foot height limit in the general commercial (GC) district.

Staff explained the request for RTR North Augusta LLC and said the Hilton franchise’s prototype and facade requirements make strict compliance difficult on the site's topography. Staff and the applicant described drainage features and steep elevation changes that limit buildable area and argued those constraints support the variance. Staff recommended three conditions: the variance apply only to the current construction, the building footprint be constructed as shown in the exhibits, and the height be limited to four stories or no more than 50 feet.

Harry McLennan, representing the developer, noted the project will be adjacent to an existing True hotel and said the board had previously approved a similar height variance for that property. McLennan said the new building may be slightly shorter depending on grading. Public commenter Michelle Wilson asked the applicant to adhere closely to height and aesthetic standards and questioned why builders could not meet parking‑lot and facade requirements like other projects.

Board members walked through the 10 statutory variance criteria and concluded the applicant demonstrated practical difficulty and that granting the height variance would not be substantially detrimental to surrounding properties. The motion to approve the variance with the three staff‑recommended conditions passed by unanimous raised hands.

Next steps: the project will proceed with engineering and planning reviews; staff noted that proposed west‑side trees identified on adjacent land cannot be required by condition because they lie off site.