Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conway board denies variance for 706 Highway 544, citing precedent and prior noncompliance
Summary
The Conway Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny a variance that would have allowed the REN leasing office at 706 Highway 544 to continue operating without required site upgrades, after debating whether an upcoming Coastal Carolina University pedestrian bridge creates an extraordinary hardship.
The Conway Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny a variance request for 706 Highway 544 on March 26, 2026, concluding that the applicant had not shown the extraordinary, site-specific conditions the board requires.
City staff told the board the parcel was annexed and rezoned in 2017 and that the record showed the structure was listed as vacant at annexation; staff said the current leasing office was established without Conway approval, lacked a business license and had unpermitted additions and outstanding site-improvement deficiencies. Staff noted that, under the Unified Development Ordinance, a structure qualifies for legal nonconforming protections only if it was legally in existence prior to annexation.
The applicant’s representative, O’Brien Martin, disputed the staff timeline and urged a conditional variance. “This building…has been continuously occupied. It has been continuously used as a commercial office building…for 30 plus years,” Martin told the board, and argued that Coastal Carolina University’s planned pedestrian bridge — for which he said funding has been secured — will significantly affect access and make it wasteful to force the owner to complete large site improvements now. Martin asked the board to allow the office to remain until the bridge is built, with full compliance required afterward.
Board members pressed both sides on timing and precedent. Staff said the bridge was only at a “motion to negotiate” stage and that approved plans and state clearances could take additional time. One member noted the city had set conditions last year and the applicants had not completed required work; another warned that granting an open-ended, conditional variance in the fast-growing 501/544 corridor could encourage similar requests from other property owners.
After discussion, a board member moved to deny the variance request, saying the parcel did not meet the criteria for extraordinary or exceptional conditions unique to it and that granting the variance could harm the district by setting an unwanted precedent. The motion was seconded and approved.
The board chair noted the denial was not the applicants’ only option and that other administrative or legal avenues remain available. The board record shows the city will still require the property owner to pursue the applicable site-plan approvals and business license if they wish to continue operating commercially.
What happens next: the denial stands as the board’s action on the variance request; the applicants may pursue other remedies or resubmit with additional information about their timeline and site plans.
