Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWN OF FORT MILL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING January 15, 2018 112 Confederate Street 6:00 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ELECTION OF CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR FOR 2018 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting: November 20, 2017 [Pages 2-5] PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. CASE # 2017-1329 Applicant is requesting a variance from the zoning Hiram and Amanda Matos ordinance to allow a reduction of the 10’ side yard 111 East Gregg Street setback requirement for principal uses. Tax Map # 020-04-19-014 [Pages 6-16] Zoning District: R-15 2. CASE # 2017-1367 Applicant is requesting a variance from the zoning John S. Ciufo ordinance to allow a reduction in the 35’ front yard Morgan / Jackson Street setback and the 10’ side yard setback requirements Tax Map # 020-01-02-007 for principal uses. [Pages 17-29] Zoning District: R-10 ITEMS FOR INFORMATION / DISCUSSION 1. 2018 Meeting Dates ADJOURN 1  MINUTES TOWN OF FORT MILL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS November 20, 2017 6:00 PM Present: Amber Bryant (Case # 2017-1170), Scott Couchenour, Ryan Helms, Chairman Jim Thomas, Becky Campbell, Terri Murray, Assistant Planner Diane Dil, Assistant Planner Nick Cauthen Absent: Jody Stegall, Amber Bryant (Case # 2017-1169) Guests: Kathleen Brown (Applicant), Brian Macuga (Applicant), Jane Hefner (Resident), William Vanq (Resident), Chris Pettit Chairman Thomas called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Couchenour made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 24, 2017 special meeting as submitted by staff. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5- 0. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A) Variance request from Victoria Susan Carroll – 109 East Leroy Street – Case # 2017- 1169: Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the variance request, the purpose of which was to allow a reduction in the minimum 35’ front yard setback requirement for principal uses. Mr. Cauthen noted that the request was related to a newly constructed, covered wood deck on the front of a new home. It was also stated that town staff issued zoning and building permits for construction of the single family home in May 2017. Based on the plans submitted, the house was found to meet the front setback requirement. However, the deck was not included on the approved site plan. Mr. Cauthen explained that the variance request is to allow the covered wood deck to encroach 2.13 ft. into the required 35 ft. front yard setback along E. Leroy Street. Chairman Thomas requested that the application be changed to be in the name of the general contractor, Mr. Brian Macuga, instead of Victoria Susan Caroll since his signature is on the application. Mr. Couchenour recused himself due to prior and future business dealings with Pittman Surveying. Chairman Thomas opened the public hearing. Brian Macuga, general contractor and applicant, explained the situation regarding the mistake and passed out his explanation to the board members (See attachment). Mr. Thomas questioned staff and Mr. Macuga as to whether additional variance is needed in order to accommodate steps to the front deck. Staff responded that steps do not count towards principal front setback requirements. 2  Mr. Thomas asked if the deck was included on the plan that was submitted to the town. Staff responded by saying that the survey plan that was approved did not include the deck. Discussions occurred related to the usability of the deck if the setback was met and Mr. Macuga explained that it would be very cramped and would barely have room for a chair without the additional 2.13 ft. It was also noted by Mr. Thomas that this is the closest house to the road on East Leroy Street. There being no further speakers, Chairman Thomas closed the public hearing. Ms. Murray asked if it could be moved back. Mr. Macuga responded that it could have but the property owner wanted a larger backyard. Mr. Thomas called for voting on the four criteria required in granting a variance, specific to the applicant’s request. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether or not there were extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. Ms. Murray made a motion that there were extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. Mr. Helms seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the conditions apply to other property in the vicinity. Ms. Campbell made a motion that the conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. Ms. Murray seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 3-1 with Mr. Helms opposed. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the application of the ordinance effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. Ms. Murray made a motion that the application of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. Mr. Helms seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the authorization of a variance would be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good, and whether the character of the district would be harmed by the granting of the variance. Mr. Helms made a motion that the authorization of a variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good, and that the character of the district would not be harmed by the granting of the variance. Ms. Murray seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether or not to grant the variance and stated that he believed an additional 5 ft. for the steps should be included if a motion to approve was made. Ms. Campbell made a motion to grant a 7.13 ft. front setback variance for the porch and steps. Ms. Murray seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Ms. Bryant joined the meeting and Mr. Couchenour rejoined the meeting prior to the discussion of Public Hearing Item #2. 3 B) Variance request from Kathleen Brown – 213 Skipper Street – Case # 2017-1170: Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the variance request, the purpose of which was to allow the finished side of a wooden fence to face inward toward the property rather than outward. Mr. Cauthen noted that upon inspection, it was determined that the panels on the right side, left side, and rear of the property had been installed so that the finished side faced inward. The section between the house and the left side of the property had been installed correctly; however, the panels on the other three sides would need to be flipped in order to conform with the zoning ordinance. A note that the finished sides of fences must face outwards was included on the approved zoning permit for the fence. Mr. Cauthen concluded by saying that the variance request is to allow the fence to remain as currently installed with the finished side facing inward on three sides. Chairman Thomas opened the public hearing. Kathleen Brown, homeowner and applicant, stated that other homes in the neighborhood have similar fences facing inward and that pickets could not be attached to the correct side due to a cinderblock wall located adjacent to her property. Ms. Brown continued by saying that the fence posts were installed while she was away from home and the fence company will not cooperate with her beyond a variance request. William Vanq, neighbor of applicant, stated that he was okay with the visual aspect of the fence but was concerned that the fence may be encroaching upon his property line. Chairman Thomas responded that a surveyor would have to be hired at Mr. Vanq’s expense in order to dispute the location of the fence. Jane Hefner, neighbor of applicant, stated that she was against the variance and did not like the view of the unfinished side from her backyard. Ms. Brown countered by saying she was doing the neighborhood a service by adding the fence and one of the reasons for the addition of the fence was to hide the rubbish in Ms. Hefner’s backyard. Discussions occurred related to solutions to the current problem. The suggestion to move the fence in was proposed, but Ms. Brown stated that the fence would have to be moved in three feet to conform with the ordinance due to the fence support requirements. This would severely inhibit her yard space including the removing the ability to open the back door of her shed. Mr. Helms mentioned that he lives on the same street and that his fence also faces inward which was verbally approved by a former code enforcement officer that is no longer with the town. Chairman Thomas noted that the former code enforcement officer retired and that he would have had no authority to approve any variation from the requirements of the zoning ordinance. There being no further speakers, Chairman Thomas closed the public hearing. Mr. Couchenour stated that he liked the idea of adding another wood layer to the backside of the fence. Ms. Murray pointed out that the fence company said they would not do this. Mr. Couchenour countered by saying that there are other fence companies. 4  Mr. Thomas called for voting on the four criteria required in granting a variance, specific to the applicant’s request. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether or not there were extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. Ms. Campbell made a motion that there were extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. Mr. Helms seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 3-3 with Mr. Couchenour, Mr. Thomas, and Ms. Bryant opposed. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the conditions apply to other property in the vicinity. Mr. Helms made a motion that the conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-2 with Mr. Couchenour and Mr. Thomas opposed. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the application of the ordinance effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. Ms. Murray made a motion that the application of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 2-4 with only Ms. Campbell and Ms. Murray in favor. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the authorization of a variance would be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good, and whether the character of the district would be harmed by the granting of the variance. Ms. Campbell made a motion that the authorization of a variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good, and that the character of the district would not be harmed by the granting of the variance. Ms. Bryant seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 2-3 with Mr. Couchenour, Chairman Thomas, and Mr. Helms opposed. Ms. Murray abstained. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether or not to grant the variance. Mr. Thomas stated that if a board member voted no for any of the four conditions that they could not vote yes for the overall decision. Mr. Couchenour made a motion to deny the variance. The motion failed for lack of a second. Ms. Murray made a motion to grant the variance with the condition to add a wood layer to the backside of the fence so that it would have 2 finished sides. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Couchenour once again made a motion to deny the variance request. Ms. Murray seconded the request. The motion to deny passed by a vote of 4-2 with Ms. Murray and Mr. Helms opposed. Assistant Planner Dil formally introduced newly hired Assistant Planner Nick Cauthen to the board. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nick Cauthen Planning Department November 29, 2017 5  Town of Fort Mill Board of Zoning Appeals Item for Action Item #1 CASE # 2017-1329 Applicant is requesting a variance from the Hiram and Amanda Matos zoning ordinance to allow a reduction of the 10’ 111 East Gregg Street side yard setback requirement for principal uses. Tax Map # 020-04-19-014 [Pages 6-16] Zoning District: R-15 Background / Discussion The Town has received a variance request from Hiram and Amanda Matos for a proposed non- conformity related to the construction of a single-family house (a “principal use”) at 111 East Gregg Street. The purpose of the request is to permit a reduction in the side yard setback requirement from 10’ to 5’ for the principal structure. The east side of the property slopes down causing the applicant to request a variance on the west side of the property closest to 103 East Gregg Street. A letter from the owner of 103 East Gregg Street is attached within this packet giving consent to the applicant for this variance request. Article II, Section 1(5)(E) of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance outlines the following setback requirement for principal structures: E) Minimum side yard: R-15 – Principal structure ten feet with accessory uses being five feet. Pursuant to Section 6-29-800(A)(2) of the SC Code of Laws, the Board of Zoning Appeals has the power to: Hear and decide appeals for variance from the requirements of the zoning ordinance when strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. A variance may be granted in an individual case of unnecessary hardship if the board makes and explains in writing the following findings: (a) there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property; (b) these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity; (c) because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property; and 6  (d) the authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. (i) The board may not grant a variance, the effect of which would be to allow the establishment of a use not otherwise permitted in a zoning district, to extend physically a nonconforming use of land or to change the zoning district boundaries shown on the official zoning map. The fact that property may be utilized more profitably, if a variance is granted, may not be considered grounds for a variance. Other requirements may be prescribed by the zoning ordinance. A local governing body by ordinance may permit or preclude the granting of a variance for a use of land, a building, or a structure that is prohibited in a given district, and if it does permit a variance, the governing body may require the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the local adjustment board members present and voting. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the local governing body may overrule the decision of the local board of adjustment concerning a use variance. (ii) In granting a variance, the board may attach to it such conditions regarding the location, character, or other features of the proposed building, structure, or use as the board may consider advisable to protect established property values in the surrounding area or to promote the public health, safety, or general welfare. Submitted by: Nick Cauthen Assistant Planner January 5, 2018 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 York County Tax Map # 020-04-19-014 Zoning Map York County Tax Map # 020-04-19-014 Aerial Map 16  Town of Fort Mill Board of Zoning Appeals Item for Action Item #2 CASE # 2017-1367 Applicant is requesting a variance from the John S. Ciufo zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in the 35’ Morgan / Jackson Street front yard setback and the 10’ side yard setback Tax Map # 020-01-02-007 requirements for principal uses. [Pages 17-29] Zoning District: R-10 Background / Discussion The Town has received a variance request from Mr. John S. Ciufo for a proposed non-conformity related to the construction of a single-family house (a “principal use”) located between Morgan Street and Jackson Street, approximately 250 feet west of Self Street. The purpose of the request is to permit a reduction in the front yard setback requirement from 35’ to 8’ and a reduction in the side yard setback requirement form 10’ to 5’. Without a variance, a 15’ front yard setback is applied to this lot per the Town’s Zoning Ordinance based on the average setback observed on Morgan Street. The majority of the lot is unbuildable due to multiple utility easements along with an overhead power line right-of-way located on the property. Area “A” on the survey is where the applicant intends to build and it only consists of 765 square feet within the current setbacks. Article II, Section 2(5)(D/E) of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance outlines the following setback requirement for principal structures: D) Minimum front yard depth measured from the nearest right-of-way line: R-10—35 feet. For exceptions to this requirement, see article I, section 7, subsection E. E) Minimum side yard: R-10 Principal structure is ten feet with accessory uses being five feet. Article I, Section 7(E) of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance outlines the following front yard requirement exceptions: F) Front yard requirements: Where lots comprising forty percent or more of the frontage on one side of a street between two street intersections in any district are improved with buildings that have observed an average front yard line with a variation in depth of not more than six feet, then the average front yard so established may be observed; provided, that this regulation shall not be interpreted as requiring a front yard of more than that which would be normally required by the terms of this ordinance for the district in which the lot is situated. In such cases, the setback on such a lot may be less than the required setback but not less than the average of the existing setbacks on the developed lots. 17 Pursuant to Section 6-29-800(A)(2) of the SC Code of Laws, the Board of Zoning Appeals has the power to: Hear and decide appeals for variance from the requirements of the zoning ordinance when strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. A variance may be granted in an individual case of unnecessary hardship if the board makes and explains in writing the following findings: (a) there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property; (b) these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity; (c) because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property; and (d) the authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. (i) The board may not grant a variance, the effect of which would be to allow the establishment of a use not otherwise permitted in a zoning district, to extend physically a nonconforming use of land or to change the zoning district boundaries shown on the official zoning map. The fact that property may be utilized more profitably, if a variance is granted, may not be considered grounds for a variance. Other requirements may be prescribed by the zoning ordinance. A local governing body by ordinance may permit or preclude the granting of a variance for a use of land, a building, or a structure that is prohibited in a given district, and if it does permit a variance, the governing body may require the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the local adjustment board members present and voting. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the local governing body may overrule the decision of the local board of adjustment concerning a use variance. (ii) In granting a variance, the board may attach to it such conditions regarding the location, character, or other features of the proposed building, structure, or use as the board may consider advisable to protect established property values in the surrounding area or to promote the public health, safety, or general welfare. Submitted by: Nick Cauthen Assistant Planner January 5, 2018 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 York County Tax Map # 020-01-02-007 Zoning Map York County Tax Map # 020-01-02-007 Aerial Map 29