On the agenda: Spartanburg County meeting — data center (Sep 22)

Spartanburg County
Planning & Development Department
AG E N D A
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 22, 2026
County Administration Building, County Council Chambers
4:30 p.m.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, notice of this meeting date, time, place, and agenda is
posted on the bulletin board at the entrance of the County Administration Building and sent to the
Spartanburg Herald Journal and to concerned citizens who request it.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing a special
accommodation to participate in the Board of Appeals proceedings should contact the Planning
and Development Department (596-3570) not later than three days prior to the proceedings.

1.

Call to Order

2.

Approval of Minutes for August 25, 2026 Meeting

3.

Unfinished Business

4.

New Business
A. Variance Request: (1 of 3)
Pentecostal Hispanic Ministries – 235 Forest Hill Rd., Spartanburg, SC 29303
Tax Map Number: 6-12-00-070.04
Variance to reduce Front Setback on a Minor Rd from 30 ft to 21 ft.
B. Variance Request: (2 of 3)
Pentecostal Hispanic Ministries – 235 Forest Hill Rd., Spartanburg, SC 29303
Tax Map Number: 6-12-00-070.04
Variance to reduce Side Setback from 15 ft to 2 ft.
C. Variance Request: (3 of 3)
Pentecostal Hispanic Ministries – 235 Forest Hill Rd., Spartanburg, SC 29303
Tax Map Number: 6-12-00-070.04
Variance to reduce Rear Setback for an Accessory Structure from 5 ft to 3 ft.

5.

Other Business
A. Proposed 2027 Meeting Calendar

6.

Adjourn

1

Spartanburg County

Planning and Development Department
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes
August 25, 2026
Members
Present:

Jack Gowan, Chairman
Angela Geter, Vice Chairman
Ray Crotts
Thomas Davies
Stephen Hammett
Erik Horton
James Langford
Stephen Wunder

Members
Absent:
Staff Present:

Jason Patrick
Todd Okolichany, Director
Laurie Oakman, Deputy Director
Ben Thomas, Development Manager
Tia Keitt, Zoning Team Lead
Cole Hair, Planner II
Juliet Hem, Development Coordinator II
John Harris, County Attorney
Kevin Stiens, Assistant County Administrator

NOTICE: Pursuant to Section 30-4-80 of the S.C. Code of Laws, written notice of its
regular meeting schedule was provided at the beginning of this calendar year via the
County website. In addition, the Agenda for this Meeting was posted on the bulletin
board at the entrance to the Administration Building as well as on the County's website
and was emailed to all persons, organizations, and news media requesting notice.
1. Call to Order
Chairman Jack Gowan called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM.

2

2. Approval of Minutes – July 28, 2026 Meeting
James Langford moved to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2026 BZA meeting. Erik Horton
seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 8 to 0.
3. Unfinished Business
A. Report of Nominating Committee and Election of Officers
Stephen Wunder presented the Nominating Committee’s report, nominating Thomas Davies to
continue as Secretary. Stephen Wunder made a motion to approve Thomas Davies as Secretary,
and Ray Crotts seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 8 to 0.
4. New Business
A. Appeal Request:
300 Jones Road Associates, LLC – 430 Jones Rd., Spartanburg, SC 29307
Tax Map Number: 3-08-00-085.00 & 3-08-00-085.01
Appeal to response for permit No. DEVELOPPER-0426-1075
Laurie Oakman was sworn and presented the following staff report:
APPEAL of STAFF DECISION
Staff Report
300 Jones Road Associates, LLC
Address
Factual Dates
Applicant
Map Number
Acreage
Staff

Meeting Date: August 25, 2026
430 Jones Road, Spartanburg
Ordinance
ULMO
Denial Letter Sent
06/26/2026
Appeal Application Received
07/02/2026
Deadline for Appeal
07/06/2026
Joseph E. Teichman, Managing Member and EVP of 300 Jones Road
Associates, LLC
3-08-00-085.00 and 3-08-00-085.01
151.67 acres
Laurie Oakman

Request:
The applicant, 300 Jones Road Associates, LLC, is appealing staff’s denial of the Development
Application (DEVELOPPER-0426-1075) for a project that consists of the development of an
approximately 200,000 SF industrial building and associated site infrastructure, including public
water connection for fire and domestic use, sanitary sewer pump station and force main connection
to public sewer, and drainage and stormwater management system, on the subject parcel.

3

Background Information:
October 29, 2025, Thomas & Hutton requested a Zoning Verification Letter for 430 Jones
Road. The standard letter was completed and sent. The Zoning Verification Letter identifies the
property
information and
the
applicable ordinance,
but does
not identify specific
uses could locate on the property.
On April 28, 2026, Thomas & Hutton submitted a Development Application on behalf of 300
Jones Road Associates, LLC.
The Unified Land Management Ordinance (ULMO) in Section 1.01. Responsibility provides as
follows:
“It shall be the responsibility of an applicant to provide the required information to process
a permit application, secure or renew a license, and present facts about circumstances
which would justify a proposed change or modification to the terms and/or application of
this Ordinance.”
The application was reviewed for compliance with Section 1.06 and Table 2 of the ULMO that
governs submittal materials, plan completeness and compliance with site and design
standards. Section 1.06 provides Site plans must include: (1) location of all proposed structures,
including free standing signs, (2) required building setback lines, (3) required landscaping
and bufferyards, (4) required off-street parking. The note following Table 2 informs applicants to
obtain a checklist for projects from the Planning Department.
Planning staff completed the review and issued a denial letter on June 26, 2026. The application
was denied based on the following deficiencies with the site plan:

4

Staff also noted the following checklist deficiencies:

On June 26, 2026, staff sent a letter to Thomas & Hutton denying the application due to several
items of noncompliance with the ULMO and site plan checklist. On June 29, 2026, staff received
a letter and revised plans from Thomas & Hutton in response to the County’s denial letter.
On July 10, 2026, staff sent a follow up letter to Thomas & Hutton stating that since the prior
application (Developper-0426-1075) was denied, a new application was required. On June 22,
2026, Spartanburg County Council passed First Reading of an ordinance imposing a moratorium
on the acceptance, processing, or approval of development applications for new data centers, as
well as all other land use or development approvals for data centers. The moratorium is subject to
the Pending Ordinance Doctrine. Based on Planning Staff’s experience, staff determined the
application was for a data center, and in light of the Pending Ordinance Doctrine, Spartanburg
County Planning and Development could not accept applications for new data centers.
Staff Position:
S.C. Code §6-29-1150(A) provides staff with 60 days following receipt to review development
plans. The application was received on April 28, 2026. Following receipt of the application there
was a staffing change and the county experienced network issues which created a backlog in the
development review process in this and other projects. The county’s denial of this project was sent
on June 26, 2026, which was 59 days after receipt and in compliance with state law.
The applicant, Joseph E. Teichman, is appealing the decision by Planning Staff to deny the
Development Application. Upon review of the application, Planning Staff denied it based upon
failure to meet the requirements found in ULMO. The question before the Board of Zoning
Appeals is whether Planning Staff properly denied the application.
Conclusion:
Staff respectfully requests that the Board of Zoning Appeals uphold staff’s denial of the
Development Application. The application, as originally submitted, failed to meet multiple
requirements of the ULMO. Due to multiple deficiencies found in the application and site

5

plan, staff denied the submittal. Staff followed all required
and issued a timely denial in accordance with S.C. Code §6-29-1150(A).
Attachments:
1. 10-22-2025 Zoning Information Request Form (1) 3-08-00-085.00
2. 10-29-2025 Zoning Verification Letter 14.446 AC TRACT
3. 10-22-2025 Zoning Information Request Form (2) 3-08-00-085.01
4. 10-29-2025 Zoning Verification Letter 137.22 AC TRACT
5. 11-25-2025 Zoning Verification Letter
6. 04-28-2026 Application
7. 04-28-2026 Site Plan
8. 06-25-2026 Denial Letter
9. 06-29-2026 Thomas & Hutton Response Letter
10. 06-29-2026 Email from Thomas & Hutton
11. 06-29-2026 Revise Site Plan from Thomas & Hutton
12. 07-02-2026 Appeal Application
13. 07-02-2026 Appeal Application Cover Letter
14. EXHIBIT 1 - APPEAL APPLICATION - 430 JONES ROAD
15. EXHIBIT 2-A - APPEAL APPLICATION - 430 JONES ROAD
16. EXHIBIT 3-A - APPEAL APPLICATION - 430 JONES ROAD
17. EXHIBIT 3-B - APPEAL APPLICATION - 430 JONES ROAD
18. EXHIBIT 3-C - APPEAL APPLICATION - 430 JONES ROAD
19. EXHIBIT 3-D - APPEAL APPLICATION - 430 JONES ROAD
20. 07-10-2026 County’s Response Letter

6

procedural steps

Laurie Oakman, Deputy Director, presented the Board with Zoning Ordinance Information, Site
Plans, Street View Images, Aerial Images, and a timeline of the proposed project. Mrs. Oakman
explained that the site is located in the area of the County governed by the Unified Land
Management Ordinance (ULMO). Using the images and zoning information, she summarized the
staff report for the project.
Thomas Davies asked whether an applicant submitting a development application is required to
identify the proposed use, noting that in this case, the applicant did not identify the project as a
data center. Mrs. Oakman confirmed that was correct.
Chairman Jack Gowan asked for clarification regarding a zoning verification letter. Deputy
Director Laurie Oakman explained that the County receives these requests frequently, primarily
when a property is being purchased and the lender requests confirmation of the zoning or uses
permitted on the property. Because the County does not use traditional zoning, the letter references
the applicable ordinance and identifies the property owner and requirements that must be met, such
as setbacks and parking. Mrs. Oakman clarified that a zoning verification letter does not constitute
preliminary approval or confirm that a specific activity is permitted on the property.
Thomas Davies asked whether the Performance Zoning Ordinance (PZO) would have resolved the
matter, noting that the PZO identifies zones where certain activities can or cannot occur. Mrs.
Oakman explained that the PZO contains two zoning districts, the General District and the
Restricted District but does not specify uses by district. Instead, allowed uses are determined by
road classification.
Attorney John Harris clarified that in this case the subject property is not subject to the zoning
standards under the PZO but is instead governed by the ULMO. Mrs. Oakman confirmed this
statement.
Chairman Jack Gowan invited the Appellant to speak.
Attorney Sam Outten, representing 300 Jones Road Associates, LLC, was sworn. Mr. Outten
started off by requesting approval of the application, asserting that all items of noncompliance
identified by County staff were corrected within the 60-day statutory review period under S.C.
Code § 6-29-1150(A). He stated that the application was submitted on April 28, 2026, and
that the five items identified by staff in correspondence dated June 25, 2026, were remedied
by June 29, 2026, the 60th day of the review period. He characterized the June 25
correspondence as a conditional denial and argued that the application was compliant because
all deficiencies had been cured within the statutory period.
Attorney Sam Outten stated that the applicant made multiple attempts to communicate with
Planning staff during the review period, including telephone calls and visits to the Planning
office, but did not receive the list of deficiencies until June 26, 2026. He noted that the
applicant's engineers, Thomas & Hutton, submitted a response addressing all five items on
June 29, 2026, and that the County had not subsequently challenged that response.

7

Attorney Sam Outten also provided background regarding the property's prior approvals and
the applicant's understanding that a data center was a permitted use. Mr. Outten referenced a
2022 County incentive agreement identifying a data processing facility as the intended use,
an October 2025 letter from Laurie Oakman stating that the ULMO does not prohibit data
centers and that they are reviewed as industrial uses, and a zoning verification letter issued in
October 2025. He further stated that County staff met with the applicant in December 2025 to
review an initial site plan and indicated that there were no concerns and that permitting would
be straightforward.
Attorney Sam Outten argued that the Board's review should be limited to the grounds
identified in the June 25, 2026, correspondence and that additional grounds raised after that
date should not be considered. He maintained that the applicant had relied on representations
from County officials and has invested more than $28 million in the project. Mr. Outten
concluded that the project could generate significant tax revenue while having minimal
impacts on roads, schools, and other infrastructure.
Nick Etschied, CEO and co-founder of Lighthouse, Developer of the proposed project, was
sworn. Mr. Etschied explained that Lighthouse had conducted extensive due diligence before
selecting the Jones Road site and had consulted with local economic development and
planning officials. He described the property as a long-standing industrial site that had
previously housed a magazine printing facility and stated that the site had been identified for
data center development since at least 2022. Mr. Etschied emphasized the developers efforts
to be a responsible community partner, including investment in project design, anticipated
creation of approximately 50 full-time on-site jobs, use of local vendors and contractors, low
noise levels, and significant anticipated tax revenue.
Chairman Gowan asked whether Thomas & Hutton, the project's engineers, were not present
at the hearing. Attorney Sam Outten explained that a representative of Thomas & Hutton was
not in attendance. Mr. Outten continued that since he is representing 300 Jones Road
Associates and Thomas & Hutton has been hired by Jones Road Associates, he was
representing Thomas & Hutton as well.
Chairman Gowan asked whether the applicant had previously completed projects in
Spartanburg County. Nick Etschied confirmed that 300 Jones Road Associates had not
completed a prior project in the County.
Chairman Jack Gowan asked for clarification regarding the applicant's statement that
collaboration between Planning staff and developers during the 60-day review period was
customary and that normal collaboration had not been followed on this project. Attorney Sam
Outten explained that, based on his experience and that of Thomas & Hutton, developers and
Planning staff typically communicate and collaborate throughout the review process. He
stated that the applicant attempted to engage Planning staff by telephone and through visits to
the Planning office when it did not receive a response.
Nick Etschied explained that the County's Collaborative Development Review process
requires applicants to request meetings through the County's CSS portal. Chairman Jack

8

Gowan noted that the applicant had not scheduled a Collaborative Development Review
Meeting and thus did not follow that specific procedure. Attorney Sam Outten acknowledged
the formal procedure but reiterated that the applicant's understanding, based on its experience
and information available on the County's website, was that collaboration typically occurred
throughout the review process.
Nick Etschied further stated that the applicant had met in person with Planning staff and
Thomas & Hutton in December 2025 through a meeting arranged by the project engineers.
Attorney Sam Outten confirmed that this meeting was referenced in the applicant's
presentation.
Chairman Jack Gowan then questioned the applicant's substantial expenditures on the project
prior to receiving final approval. Nick Etschied stated that such expenditures are customary
when the developer has received assurances from local officials and is comfortable proceeding
based on those representations. He explained that the expenditures included payments to Duke
Energy to maintain the project's position in the queue, acquisition of the property, and
preparation of the plans necessary for the Planning review.
Vice Chairman, Angela Geter asked about the December 2025 meeting referenced by the
appellant. Attorney Sam Outten clarified that the meeting occurred on December 16, 2025, and
was attended by representatives of Jones Road Associates, Laurie Oakman, Joshua Rowland, and
Ben Thomas. He stated that the purpose of the meeting was to review the initial site plan and that
the applicant was advised that staff had no concerns and that permitting would be straightforward.
Vice Chairman, Angela Geter asked whether those statements were documented in writing.
Attorney Sam Outten stated that he did not have written confirmation of the meeting's outcome
and that the statements were made orally. He also referenced an October 21, 2025, letter from
Mrs. Laurie Oakman stating that the ULMO does not prohibit data centers and that such facilities
are reviewed as industrial uses. He noted that the letter was included in the materials submitted
to the Board.
Chairman Jack Gowan asked if there were any additional questions. There being none, he thanked
Attorney Sam Outten and stated that the Board would proceed with deliberations amongst
themselves.
Vice Chairman, Angela Geter asked Laurie Oakman to clarify the reference in the October 2025
letter to the property being reviewed as a heavy industrial use. Deputy Director, Laurie Oakman
explained that the ULMO was adopted in 1999 and does not specifically identify data centers as
a use. Therefore, data centers are categorized as industrial for purposes of determining applicable
requirements such as setbacks, parking, and buffers. She noted that the ULMO contains an “All
Other Activities” category for uses that are not specifically listed.
Vice Chairman, Angela Geter asked whether the October 2025 correspondence constituted an
approval or denial of a data center. Deputy Director Laurie Oakman clarified that it did not. Mrs.
Oakman explained that the applicant presented materials identifying the project as a data center
during a December 2025 meeting with Planning staff. However, the subsequent April 2026

9

application described the proposed project as a 200,000-square-foot industrial building and did
not specifically identify it as a data center.
Ray Crotts asked Attorney John Harris to explain the pending-ordinance doctrine. Attorney John
Harris stated that the doctrine allows an ordinance to become effective upon first reading, even
before completion of the full legislative process. He explained that the doctrine was invoked in
connection with the County Council's proposed moratorium. Mr. Crotts confirmed that the first
reading occurred before staff issued the initial correspondence regarding deficiencies.
Chairman Jack Gowan asked how long the pending-ordinance doctrine remains effective
following first reading. Attorney John Harris explained that County Council had subsequently
held second reading and a public hearing, with third reading scheduled for September 21, 2026.
He clarified that the pending-ordinance doctrine differs from an emergency ordinance. An
emergency ordinance may become effective upon a single reading for a limited period, while the
pending-ordinance doctrine allows the moratorium to become effective upon first reading while
the ordinance proceeds through the remaining legislative process.
Stephen Wunder asked whether the items identified in the June 26, 2026, denial correspondence
were automatically approved once addressed by the applicant. Deputy Director Laurie Oakman
clarified that they were not. She stated that the letter expressly denied the application; therefore,
there was no active application for the applicant to continue modifying, and a new application
would have been required.
Erik Horton asked whether the 60-day statutory review period resets when revised plans are
submitted. Attorney John Harris explained that, in this case, the 60-day period applied to the
April 28, 2026 application. Mr. Harris continued that staff issued their comments on the 59th
day, and those comments were included in the denial. Mr. Harris concluded that once the
application was denied, the application no longer remained active, and a new application would
have been required to proceed.
Erik Horton also asked whether multiple rounds of comments are typical during the development
review process. Deputy Director Laurie Oakman stated that multiple rounds of comments are
common, depending on whether comments from prior reviews have been addressed.
Stephen Wunder asked Attorney John Harris to clarify the relationship between the appellant's
argument concerning after-the-fact legislation and the pending moratorium. Attorney John Harris
explained that the application had already been denied and that the pending-ordinance doctrine
was not the basis for the denial. Rather, the doctrine was cited by staff to explain why a new
application could not be accepted while the moratorium was in effect.
Ray Crotts confirmed that the project was denied first and that the pending-ordinance doctrine
subsequently prevented submission of a new application. Attorney John Harris confirmed.
Chairman Jack Gowan asked about the relationship between state law and the pending-ordinance
doctrine, particularly regarding the duration of an ordinance following first reading. Attorney
John Harris clarified that the 60-day limitation referenced by Chairman Jack Gowan applies to
emergency ordinances, not to the pending-ordinance doctrine. He explained that the County's

10

moratorium became effective upon first reading under the pending-ordinance doctrine and must
proceed through the required readings and public hearing for the moratorium to remain in effect
for the duration established by County Council. He noted that first reading occurred on June 22,
2026, and that second reading and the public hearing had already occurred.
Ray Crotts asked whether the applicant could submit a new application if the moratorium was
lifted. Attorney John Harris confirmed that Lighthouse could submit a new application once the
moratorium ended or otherwise became inapplicable.
Chairman Jack Gowan confirmed with Deputy Director Laurie Oakman that the June 26, 2026
letter was the same letter that identified the deficiencies. Deputy Director Laurie Oakman
confirmed that it was and reiterated that the letter expressly stated that the application had been
denied.
Chairman Jack Gowan stated that, based on the clarification from staff, the deficiencies listed in
the denial letter were not presented as a request for corrections to the existing application but
rather explained the reasons for the denial. He noted that the applicant would have needed to
submit a new application after the denial.
Ray Crotts agreed, stating that he had initially interpreted the correspondence as a request to
correct missing items but, after the discussion, understood that it constituted a denial requiring a
new application.
The Board also discussed the timing of the denial and communications between the applicant and
Planning staff. Erik Horton noted that based on his experience as a civil engineer, comments or
decisions being issued near the end of a statutory review period are not necessarily unusual.
Vice Chairman Angela Geter asked whether the denial was related to the proposed project being
a data center. Deputy Director Laurie Oakman confirmed that the denial was based on the
identified items of noncompliance, not on the fact that the proposed use was a data center. Mrs.
Geter summarized her understanding that the same deficiencies would have resulted in denial
regardless of the specific proposed use, and Mrs. Oakman confirmed that interpretation.
Thomas Davies made a motion to uphold the staff’s decision regarding the denial of the
Development Application as the originally submitted application failed to meet multiple
requirements of the ULMO and due to deficiencies found in the application. James Langford
seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 8 to 0.
5. Other Business - None
6. Adjourn
Thomas Davies moved to adjourn the meeting. James Langford seconded the motion. The motion
carried with a unanimous vote of 8 to 0. Meeting adjourned at 5:19 PM.

11

SPARTANBURG COUNTY
Planning & Development Department

Board of Zoning Appeals
Variance Request 1 of 3
Staff Report
Pentecostal Hispanic Ministries

Address

Factual Dates

Meeting Date: September 22nd, 2026
235 Forest Hills Rd
Spartanburg, SC 29303
Variance Application Received
Deadline for Variance
Public Notice
Adjoining Property Owner Notification
Variance Signs Posted on Property

Applicant

Tiffany Espinal

Applicant Title

Applicant

Map Numbers

6-12-00-070.04

Acreage

2.00 acres

Staff

Cole Hair

ULMO

Ordinance
07/28/2026
08/25/2026
09/06/2026
09/06/2026

09/04/2026

Request:
Variance # 1 - The applicant is requesting to reduce the Front Setback requirements as per Unified Land
Management Ordinance (ULMO) Section 2.02-1 Table 3b “Commercial & All Other Uses – Setbacks and
Other Requirements”.
Type

Required
Setback

Proposed
Setback

Variance

Front Setback (along Forest Hills
Road)

30 ft.

21 ft.

9 ft

Background Information:
Pentecostal Hispanic Ministries has owned the subject property for approximately 23 years. According to the
Tax Accessors records, an automotive garage/shop was built in 1983. Spartanburg County records show an
office addition was permitted on the front of the building in November of 1990. According to Google satellite
imagery a detached accessory building was constructed on the property prior to 2008, and a covered picnic

12

structure addition was constructed prior to September 2010 without permits. In November 2025, Spartanburg
County Building Codes department found the property in violation for the enclosure of the pre-2010 picnic
shelter without permits. As part of the review process, it was determined that the accessory building and
enclosed picnic addition on the property did not meet the front, side, and rear setbacks.
The applicant has noted that these structures are improvements to the property and serve as a place of ministry
for the church. Additionally, the applicant states, since the improvements have already been constructed, a
relocation of those buildings would create a hardship for the church.
Four Criteria for Granting a Variance
The Board may grant a variance for an unnecessary hardship if it makes and explains in writing all of the
following findings. The fact that property may be utilized more profitably, if a variance is granted, may
not be considered grounds for a variance.
1. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of
property.
Staff Analysis:
The subject property is an institutional use consisting of approximately 2.0 acres. The location of the
church is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses. The 1990 expansion was permitted prior to
the current standards outlined in the Unified Land Management Ordinance making the building an
existing nonconformity. However, if the applicant went through the proper permitting processes, the
pre-2010 covered picnic structure addition could have been added while meeting front and side setback
requirements.
2. These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity.
Staff Analysis:
Adjacent lots consist predominantly of commercial and industrial uses that were developed and
constructed approximately between 1980 and 1999 predating the current ULMO. Although, this is an
institutional use, the Unified Land Management Ordinance requires a 30’ front setback for all
nonresidential uses. While the 1990 building is an existing nonconformity, the pre-2010 covered picnic
expansion is subject to the setbacks outlined in the ULMO.
3. Because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to this particular piece of
property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the
property.
Staff Analysis:
The setback requirements for a non-residential use were established in the Development Standards
Ordinance adopted by Spartanburg County Council in July 1991. Since the lot size is 2.0 acres; there
is ample space for additional expansion to the existing structure that would meet the setback
requirements of the Unified Land Management Ordinance (ULMO.)
4. The authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or
to the public good, and the character of the area will not be harmed by the granting of the
variance.

13

Staff Analysis:
Abutting properties are Industrial and Commercial uses; it is staffs' evaluation that this variance
would not be a detriment to adjacent property or to the public good.
Attachments:

1. Aerial Maps from GIS
2. Variance Application
3. Survey
4. Street views and images of Subject property

14

SPARTANBURG COUNTY
Planning & Development Department

Board of Zoning Appeals
Variance Request 2 of 3
Staff Report
Pentecostal Hispanic Ministries

Address

Factual Dates

Meeting Date: September 22nd, 2026
235 Forest Hills Rd
Spartanburg, SC 29303
Variance Application Received
Deadline for Variance
Public Notice
Adjoining Property Owner Notification
Variance Signs Posted on Property

Applicant

Tiffany Espinal

Applicant Title

Applicant

Map Numbers

6-12-00-070.04

Acreage

2.00 acres

Staff

Cole Hair

ULMO

Ordinance
07/28/2026
08/25/2026
09/06/2026
09/06/2026

09/04/2026

Request:
Variance # 2 - The applicant is requesting to reduce the Side Setback requirements as per Unified Land
Management Ordinance (ULMO) Section 2.02-1 Table 3b “Commercial & All Other Uses – Setbacks and
Other Requirements”.
Type

Required
Setback

Proposed
Setback

Variance

Side Setback

15 ft.

2 ft.

13 ft

Background Information:
Pentecostal Hispanic Ministries has owned the subject property for approximately 23 years. According to the
Tax Accessors records, an automotive garage/shop was built in 1983. Spartanburg County records show an
office addition was permitted on the front of the building in November of 1990. According to Google satellite
imagery a detached accessory building was constructed on the property prior to 2008, and a covered picnic

15

structure addition was constructed prior to September 2010 without permits. In November 2025, Spartanburg
County Building Codes department found the property in violation for the enclosure of the pre-2010 picnic
shelter without permits. As part of the review process, it was determined that the accessory building and
enclosed picnic addition on the property did not meet the front, side, and rear setbacks.
The applicant has noted that these structures are improvements to the property and serve as a place of ministry
for the church. Additionally, the applicant states, since the improvements have already been constructed, a
relocation of those buildings would create a hardship for the church.
Four Criteria for Granting a Variance
The Board may grant a variance for an unnecessary hardship if it makes and explains in writing all of the
following findings. The fact that property may be utilized more profitably, if a variance is granted, may
not be considered grounds for a variance.
1. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of
property.
Staff Analysis:
The subject property is an institutional use consisting of approximately 2.0 acres. The location of the
church is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses. The 1990 expansion was permitted prior to
the current standards outlined in the Unified Land Management Ordinance making the building an
existing nonconformity. However, if the applicant went through the proper permitting processes, the
pre-2010 covered picnic structure addition could have been added while meeting front and side setback
requirements.
2. These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity.
Staff Analysis:
Adjacent lots consist predominantly of commercial and industrial uses that were developed and
constructed approximately between 1980 and 1999 predating the current ULMO. Although, this is an
institutional use, the Unified Land Management Ordinance requires a 15’ front setback for all
nonresidential uses. While the 1990 building is an existing nonconformity, the pre-2010 covered picnic
expansion is subject to the setbacks outlined in the ULMO.
3. Because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to this particular piece of
property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the
property.
Staff Analysis:
The setback requirements for a non-residential use were established in the Development Standards
Ordinance adopted by Spartanburg County Council in July 1991. Since the lot size is 2.0 acres; there
is ample space for additional expansion to the existing structure that would meet the setback
requirements of the Unified Land Management Ordinance (ULMO.)
4. The authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or
to the public good, and the character of the area will not be harmed by the granting of the
variance.

16

Staff Analysis:
Abutting properties are Industrial and Commercial uses; it is staffs' evaluation that this variance
would not be a detriment to adjacent property or to the public good.
Attachments:
1. Aerial Maps from GIS
2. Variance Application
3. Survey
4. Street views and images of Subject property

17

SPARTANBURG COUNTY
Planning & Development Department

Board of Zoning Appeals
Variance Request 3 of 3
Staff Report
Pentecostal Hispanic Ministries

Address

Factual Dates

Meeting Date: September 22nd, 2026
235 Forest Hills Rd
Spartanburg, SC 29303
Variance Application Received
Deadline for Variance
Public Notice
Adjoining Property Owner Notification
Variance Signs Posted on Property

Applicant

Tiffany Espinal

Applicant Title

Applicant

Map Numbers

6-12-00-070.04

Acreage

2.00 acres

Staff

Cole Hair

ULMO

Ordinance
07/28/2026
08/25/2026
09/06/2026
09/06/2026

09/04/2026

Request:
Variance # 3 - The applicant is requesting to reduce the Rear Setback requirements as per Unified Land
Management Ordinance (ULMO) Section 2.02-1 Table 3b “Commercial & All Other Uses – Setbacks and
Other Requirements”.
Type

Required
Setback

Proposed
Setback

Variance

Rear Setback (Accessory
Buildings/Uses - NonResidential)

5 ft.

3 ft.

2 ft

Background Information:
Pentecostal Hispanic Ministries has owned the subject property for approximately 23 years. According to the
Tax Accessors records, an automotive garage/shop was built in 1983. Spartanburg County records show an
office addition was permitted on the front of the building in November of 1990. According to Google satellite
imagery a detached accessory building was constructed on the property prior to 2008, and a covered picnic

18

structure addition was constructed prior to September 2010 without permits. In November 2025, Spartanburg
County Building Codes department found the property in violation for the enclosure of the pre-2010 picnic
shelter without permits. As part of the review process, it was determined that the accessory building and
enclosed picnic addition on the property did not meet the front, side, and rear setbacks.
The applicant has noted that these structures are improvements to the property and serve as a place of ministry
for the church. Additionally, the applicant states, since the improvements have already been constructed, a
relocation of those buildings would create a hardship for the church.
Four Criteria for Granting a Variance
The Board may grant a variance for an unnecessary hardship if it makes and explains in writing all of the
following findings. The fact that property may be utilized more profitably, if a variance is granted, may
not be considered grounds for a variance.
1. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of
property.
Staff Analysis:
The subject property is an institutional use consisting of approximately 2.0 acres. The location of the
church is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses. However, if the applicant went through the
proper permitting processes, the pre-2008 accessory building could have met the 5’ rear setback
requirement.
2. These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity.
Staff Analysis:
Adjacent lots consist predominantly of commercial and industrial uses that were developed and
constructed approximately between 1980 and 1999 predating the current ULMO. Although, this is an
institutional use, the Unified Land Management Ordinance requires a 5’ rear setback for all accessory
buildings and nonresidential uses. The pre-2008 accessory structure is subject to the setbacks outlined
in the ULMO.
3. Because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to this particular piece of
property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the
property.
Staff Analysis:
The setback requirements for an Accessory Building/Uses - Non-Residential were established in the
Unified Land Management Ordinance adopted by Spartanburg County Council in 1999. Since the lot
size is 2.0 acres; there is ample space for accessory uses that would meet the Unified Land
Management Ordinance (ULMO.)
4. The authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or
to the public good, and the character of the area will not be harmed by the granting of the
variance.

19

Staff Analysis:
Abutting properties are Industrial and Commercial uses; it is staffs' evaluation that this variance
would not be a detriment to adjacent property or to the public good.
Attachments:
1. Aerial Maps from GIS
2. Variance Application
3. Survey
4. Street views and images of Subject property

20

21

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

NOTES:
1. THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL ROAD RIGHTS OF
WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS.
2. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATES DETERMINED UTILIZING
SOUTH CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY REAL TIME NETWORK.
3. IPS 5/8" REBAR WITH CAP INSCRIBED "CANNON-DAVENPORT".
4. THIS PLAT REPRESENTS A SURVEY OF AN EXISTING PARCEL.
5. NO WATER COURSES OR PONDS WERE LOCATED OTHER THAN THOSE
SHOWN ON THIS PLAT OF SURVEY.
6. ACREAGE INCLUDES UTILITY EASEMENTS / RIGHTS OF WAY.
7. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE X PER FEMA FEDERAL
INSURANCE RATE MAP 45083C0232D DATED 6 JANUARY 2011.
8. MINIMUM SPACING BETWEEN EXISTING STRUCTURES AND ANY NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED STRUCTURES IS A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET.
9. NO DESIGNATED OFF STREET PARKING SERVES THIS PROPERTY.
10. BOUNDARY AND ALL IMPROVEMENTS SURVEYED ON 30 MARCH 2026.

SITE

GV

Y

S
D

NAIL
FOUND

IPF 5/8"
REBAR

22.5’

Y

CHURCH
SIGN

EXISTING FIRE
HYDRANT

IPF 1/2"
HEX HEAD
BOLT
IPF 1/2"
REBAR
CHURCH BUILDING
4940 SQUARE FEET

PIERRET NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION
DB 72W @ 154
PB 107 @ 343
PARCEL ID
#6-12-00-070.06
COMMERCIAL

BROKEN
ASPHALT &
GRAVEL

SHANTILATA VERMA
DB 111Q @ 810
PB 91 @ 33
PARCEL ID
#6-12-00-070.08
RESIDENTIAL

PIERRET INVESTMENT CORP
DB 55N @ 149
PB 107 @ 343
PARCEL ID
#6-12-00-067.06
COMMERCIAL

LOT A-1
2.00 AC
PARCEL ID
#6-12-00-070.04

STORAGE BUILDING
1106 SQUARE FEET

MAGNAIL WITH
WASHER SET
IN CONCRETE

IPF 1/2"
REBAR

DURHAM LLC
DB 115P @ 75
PB 72 @ 733
PARCEL ID
#6-12-00-069.04
COMMERCIAL

CONTROL CORNER
PATRICIA L. BOYLE
DB 128H @ 1
PB 83 @ 999
PARCEL ID
#6-12-00-067.04
COMMERCIAL

DESCRIPTION: IPF 1 1/4" ANGLE IRON
SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE
COORDINATES

60

120

LAND
SURVEYOR

C

LAND
SURVEYOR

IN FEET
1 inch =

ft.

NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER / DEVELOPER:
TIFFANY ESPINAL
408 MT ZION ROAD
SPARTANBURG, SC 29303
2.00 ACRES

I HEREBY STATE THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THE SURVEY SHOWN HEREIN WAS MADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINIMUM STANDARDS MANUAL FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING IN SOUTH
CAROLINA, AND MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CLASS B SURVEY AS SPECIFIED THEREIN.

GRAPHIC SCALE
30

IGLESIA PENTECOSTAL HISPANA
CHURCH IMPROVEMENTS

HORIZONTAL: [NAD 83 2011 iFEET ]

C

15

PROJECT NAME:

NUMBER OF ACRES:

NORTHING = 1,145,047.12
EASTING = 1,700,215.38

30

TITLE BLOCK ADDENDUM

30

45

46

2027 Spartanburg County Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Dates
January 2027
S

M

T

5

W

6

February 2027

T

S

1

2

8

9

S

T

W

T

F

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11 12 13

4

10

11 12

13 14

15 16

14 15 16

17 18

17

18

19

20 21

22 23

21 22 23

24

24

25 26

28 29

30

7

M

3

27

7

F

March 2027

19 20

25 26

27

28

S

7

April 2027

M

T

W

T

F

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10 11 12

13

14 15 16

17 18

21 22 23

24

28

31

29 30

19 20

25 26

27

S

4

M

5

T

6

W

7

T

F

S

1

2

3

8

9

10

11 12 13

14 15

16 17

18 19 20

21 22 23

25 26 27

28

24

29 30

31

May 2027
S

M

T

W

June 2027

T

F

S

S

M

1
2

3

4

5

6

9

10

11 12

16

17 18

19 20

23

24 25

26

30

31

7

M

T

7

T

W

T

F

S

1

2

3

4

5

8

S

M

T

W

August 2027

T

F

S

S

M

T

W

T

F

S

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

8

9

10 11 12

15 16 17

15

16 17 18

8

6

7

9

10 11 12

4

5

13 14 15

13

14 15 16

17 18 19

11

12 13 14

24 25

18 19 20

21 22 23

24

22 23 24

25 26 27

28

31

29 30 31

21 22

27 28

29

20 21 22

23

27 28 29

30

September 2027
S

July 2027

26

October 2027

W

T

F

S

1

2

3

4

8

9

10

11

S

4

T

5

W

6

T

7

7

29 30

November 2027
F

S

1

2

8

9

S

W

T

F

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10 11

12

13

5

18 19

12

13 14

15 16

17 18

10 11 12

13 14

15 16

14 15 16

17

19

20 21

22 23

24 25

17 18 19

20 21

22 23

21 22 23

24 25

26

27 28

29

24 25 26

27

28 29

30

7

T

6

28 29 30

31
Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting

County Holiday

47

25

13 14

19 20 21
26 27

28

December 2027

M

5

30

3

M

6

26

S

M

W

T

F

S

1

2

3

4

7

8

9

10

11

20

12 13 14

15

16 17

18

27

19

22 23 24

25

6

T

20 21

26 27

28

29

30 31