Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular MeetingFort Mill, SC · June 18, 2018
Minutes
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
June 18, 2018
6:00 PM
Present: Amber Bryant, Scott Couchenour, Ryan Helms, Chairman Jim Thomas, Becky
Campbell, Terri Murray, Planning Director Chris Pettit, Assistant Planner Nick
Cauthen
Absent: Jody Stegall
Guests: Andy Agrawal (Applicant)
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 April 16, 2018 meeting as submitted
by staff. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A) Variance request from Andy and Kate Agrawal – 534 Quaker Meadows Lane – Case
# 2018-524: Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the variance request,
the purpose of which was to allow a 3’ reduction in the minimum 5’ side yard setback
requirement. Mr. Cauthen noted that the request was related to the construction a free-
standing pergola over an existing pool deck in the Springfield subdivision. It was also noted
that the applicant had received HOA approval and the adjacent neighbor’s approval for the
addition of the structure.
Chairman Thomas asked the applicant to detail the reasons for his request. Mr. Agrawal
stated that the pergola was being constructed to provide shade for his mother-in-law
because the surface of the pool deck gets very hot and the sun makes the area unusable
during certain times of the day. The back of the yard has severe topographic issues
prohibiting the placement of any structures.
Chairman Thomas asked if the roof of the deck was solid? Mr. Agrawal stated that it was
not but could be adjusted for a solid affect.
The Board questioned what the hatched area on the site plan represented? Staff noted that
the hatched area was the proposed location of the pergola and not the existing deck. The
Board stated that the existing deck did not appear to meet the setbacks on the site plan.
Staff stated that the setbacks on the site plan were noted as 10 feet and the correct setback
distance for the deck is 5 feet.
2
Ms. Murray asked if the 5’ setback requirement was a town requirement or a Springfield
subdivision requirement? Staff noted that the Springfield development conditions are part
of the Town of Fort Mill Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Murray voiced concerns as to whether or
not the HOA was aware of the setback encroachment of the proposed pergola because the
approval letter submitted was the only document provided by the applicant. Mr. Agrawal
said they were aware and the approval was for the same location as shown on the site plan
submitted for the variance request.
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. Ms. Campbell seconded the motion. The motion passed
by a vote of 4-2 with Mr. Couchenour and Mr. Helms opposed.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the conditions apply to other property in the
vicinity. Ms. Murray made a motion that the conditions do not generally apply to other
property in the vicinity. Ms. Bryant seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of
4-2 with Mr. Couchenour and 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 asked why the pergola cannot be located in another area? The applicant
responded that the pergola could not be structurally supported on top of the existing deck,
which requires the posts to be in an area that encroaches into the setback. Mr. Couchenour
along with Mr. Helms stated that it was possible for it to be secured by other means or to
be placed in another area but it was just not the most cost-effective option.
Ms. Campbell made a motion that the application of the ordinance would effectively
prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. Ms. Murray seconded the
motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-2 with Mr. Couchenour and Mr. Helms opposed.
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. Bryant 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 4-2 with Mr. Couchenour and Mr. Helms opposed.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether or not to grant the variance. Ms. Murray made
a motion to grant a 3 ft. side setback variance for the pergola. Ms. Campbell seconded the
motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-2 with Mr. Couchenour and Mr. Helms opposed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
3
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Cauthen
Planning Department
June 20, 2018
4
5
Agenda
TOWN OF FORT MILL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
June 18, 2018
112 Confederate Street
6:00 PM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting: April 16, 2018 [Pages 2-4]
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. CASE # 2018-524 Applicant is requesting a variance from the zoning
Andy & Kate Agrawal ordinance to allow a reduction of the 5’ side yard
534 Quaker Meadows Lane setback requirement.
Tax Map # 020-21-01-098 [Pages 5-20]
Zoning District: PND
ADJOURN
The following press was notified of the meeting by email or fax in accordance of the Freedom of Information Act: The
Herald; CN2; WRHI; Fort Mill Times and WBTV. The agenda was also posted at the entrance to Town Hall the required
length of time and on the Town website.
The Town of Fort Mill is committed to assuring accessibility with reasonable accommodation, of Town services and
facilities for all individuals, in compliance with federal law. Please contact the Town Manager’s Office at 803-547-2116 if
you need assistance.
1
TOWN OF FORT MILL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
April 16, 2018
6:00 PM
Present: Amber Bryant, Scott Couchenour, Ryan Helms, Chairman Jim Thomas, Becky
Campbell, Terri Murray, Jody Stegall, Planning Director Chris Pettit, Assistant Planner
Nick Cauthen
Absent: None
Guests: Richard DeCristo (Applicant)
Chairman Thomas called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Helms made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 15, 2018 meeting as submitted by
staff. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A) Variance request from Richard DeCristo – 1766 Still River Way – Case # 2018-0314:
Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the variance request, the purpose of
which was to allow a 2.5’ reduction in the minimum 15’ rear yard setback requirement for
principal uses. Mr. Cauthen noted that the request was related to converting an existing open-
air deck into a covered, screened porch. It was explained that open air decks are only required
to meet accessory use setbacks, while enclosed porches are classified as a part of the principal
structure and therefore are required to meet principal use setbacks.
Mr. Stegall asked if other permits had been granted in the immediate area for similar structures.
Staff responded that four such permits had been granted and that all met the principal setback
requirements. Mr. DeCristo stated that his house had an unusually small rear yard due to a steep
drop off into a wooded ravine behind his home. The applicant also said that his deck was
becoming almost unusable because of the high volume of insects in his yard due to the close
proximity of the woods.
Chairman Thomas asked how the bottom of the deck would be sealed. Mr. DeCristo stated that
the contractor was going to net the bottom to limit the number of insects from entering. Mr.
DeCristo continued by saying that he had chosen the gable option structure and the shingled
roof would match the existing shingles on the home.
Ms. Murray asked if the enclosed structure would increase the footprint of the existing deck.
Mr. DeCristo confirmed that the proposed structure would not extend beyond the confines of
the existing deck.
2
Mr. Couchenour asked for clarification regarding the open space behind the home and Mr.
Stegall asked who owned the open space. Staff stated that the home owner does not own the
open space and that MI Homes is currently the owner of the area behind the subject property.
Staff further explained that typically the HOA assumes ownership of the open space after
development is complete.
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. Stegall made a
motion that there were extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular
piece of property. Mr. Couchenour seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
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. Murray seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the application of the ordinance effectively prohibits
or unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. Ms. Bryant made a motion that the
application of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization
of the property. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
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. 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. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether or not to grant the variance. Mr. Helms made a
motion to grant a 2.5 ft. rear setback variance for the enclosed screen porch on top of the existing
wood deck. Ms. Murray seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Cauthen
Planning Department
April 19, 2018
3
4
Town of Fort Mill
Board of Zoning Appeals
Item for Action
Item #1 CASE # 2018-524 Applicant is requesting a variance from the
Andy & Kate Agrawal zoning ordinance to allow a reduction of the 5’
534 Quaker Meadows Lane side yard setback requirement.
Tax Map # 020-21-01-098 [Pages 5-20]
Zoning District: PND
Background / Discussion
The Town has received a variance request from Andy and Kate Agrawal for a proposed non-conformity
related to the construction of a pergola at 534 Quaker Meadows Lane.
The purpose of the request is to permit a reduction in the side yard setback requirement from 5’ to 2’
in order to install a freestanding pergola over an existing pool deck. The intrusion into the setback area
would consist of 3-4 support posts whose dimensions are 4”x4”.
The Springfield PND Development Conditions of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance outlines the following
setback requirements:
19(D). Single-family Detached Development, minimum side yard setback is 5 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
(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.
5
(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
June 11, 2018
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
York County Tax Map # 020-21-01-098
Zoning Map
York County Tax Map # 020-21-01-098
Aerial Map
20
Get email alerts for Fort Mill
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.