Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWN OF FORT MILL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING April 16, 2018 112 Confederate Street 6:00 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting: January 15, 2018 [Pages 2-5] PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. CASE # 2018-0314 Applicant is requesting a variance from the zoning Richard DeCristo ordinance to allow a reduction of the 15’ rear yard 1766 Still River Way setback requirement for principal uses. Tax Map # 020-25-01-094 [Pages 6-18] Zoning District: R-5 ADJOURN 1  MINUTES TOWN OF FORT MILL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS January 15, 2018 6:00 PM Present: Amber Bryant, Ryan Helms, Chairman Jim Thomas, Jody Stegall, Planning Director Chris Pettit Absent: Scott Couchenour, Becky Campbell, Terri Murray Guests: See attached sign-in sheet Acting-Chairman Thomas called the meeting to order at 6:26 pm and welcomed everyone in attendance. ELECTION OF CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR FOR 2018 Acting-Chairman Thomas called for nominations for the position of Chair. Mr. Thomas was nominated. There being no further nominations, Acting-Chairman Thomas called for a vote. Mr. Thomas was elected as Chair by a vote of 4-0. Chairman Thomas called for nominations for the position of Vice-Chair. Mr. Helms was nominated. There being no further nominations, Chairman Thomas called for a vote. Mr. Helms was elected as Vice-Chair by a vote of 4-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Thomas noted that the language used for the 109 East Leroy Street variance should be changed from “deck” to “front porch” in the minutes. Mr. Helms made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction as noted by Chairman Thomas. Ms. Bryant seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A) Variance request from Hiram and Amanda Matos – 111 East Gregg Street – Case # 2017-1329: Planning Director Pettit provided an overview of the staff report for the variance request, the purpose of which was to allow a reduction of the 10’ side yard setback requirement for a single-family house (principal use). Chairman Thomas opened the public hearing. Hiram Matos (applicant) spoke in favor of the request, detailing the topographical issues related to the property and the difficulties created in trying to build a single-family house on the lot. 2  Hynek Lettang spoke in favor of the request, noting the difficulties of the topography of lots throughout the neighborhood that are adjacent to the creek / drainage ditch that runs through the neighborhood. There being no further speakers, Chairman Thomas closed the public hearing. 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. Mr. Helms made a motion that there were extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The was approved by a vote of 4-0. 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. Bryant seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the application of the ordinance effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. Mr. Helms made a motion that the application of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. Ms. Bryant seconded the motion. The motion was approved 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. Bryant seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether or not to grant the variance. Mr. Helms made a motion to grant the variance request as presented. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. B) Variance request from John S. Ciufo – York Count Tax Map # 020-01-02-007 – Case # 2017-1367: Planning Director Pettit provided an overview of the staff report for the variance request, the purpose of which was to allow a reduction in the 35’ front yard setback requirement and the 10’ side yard setback requirement for a single-family house (principal use). Chairman Thomas opened the public hearing. Anthony Ciufo, father of the applicant, spoke in favor of the request, detailing the difficulties of the property relating to the variety of utility lines and associated easements running through the property. Mr. Ciufo noted that the house plan provided in the agenda 3  packet was carefully selected to fit on the property, however variances would still be required in order to fit the home on the lot due to the locations of the utility lines and easements. There being no further speakers, Chairman Thomas closed the public hearing. Discussions occurred related to not having the proposed home location shown on the provided survey of the property. Further discussions occurred related to the specific language that could be used should the variance be approved so as to require the home to be shifted as far back from the side and front property lines as possible. Mr. Helms made a motion to grant the variance request as presented, based upon the request meeting the required criteria per state law, with the following condition: 1. The single-family home shall be located on the site as far away as possible from the 8’ front and 5’ side yard setback lines that are established through the variance approval so as to bring the single-family home as close as possible to the standard setback lines. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:13 pm. Respectfully submitted, Chris Pettit, AICP Planning Director April 5, 2018 4 5  Town of Fort Mill Board of Zoning Appeals Item for Action Item #1 CASE # 2018-0314 Applicant is requesting a variance from the Richard DeCristo zoning ordinance to allow a reduction of the 15’ 1766 Still River Way rear yard setback requirement for principal uses. Tax Map # 020-25-01-094 [Pages 6-18] Zoning District: R-5 Background / Discussion The Town has received a variance request from Richard DeCristo for a proposed non-conformity related to the construction of a screened porch at 1766 Still River Way. The purpose of the request is to permit a reduction in the rear yard setback requirement from 15’ to 12.5’ in order to convert an existing 12’ x 20’ open-air deck into a covered, screened porch. The existing open-air deck is conforming, as open-air decks are required to meet accessory use setbacks. However, covered and/or enclosed porches are classified as a part of the principal structure and therefore are required to meet principal use setbacks. Article II, Section 23(4)(F)(2) of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance outlines the following setback requirement for principal uses: 2. For all other permitted uses within the R-5 district, the minimum rear yard setback shall be 15 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 April 5, 2018 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 York County Tax Map # 020-25-01-094 Zoning Map York County Tax Map # 020-25-01-094 Aerial Map 18