Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular MeetingFort Mill, SC · August 20, 2018
Minutes
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
August 20, 2018
6:00 PM
Present: Amber Bryant, Scott Couchenour, Jody Stegall, Chairman Jim Thomas, Terri
Murray, Assistant Planner Nick Cauthen
Absent: Ryan Helms, Becky Campbell
Guests: Bruce Blackmon (Applicant), Frank DeSimone (Builder), Crystal Durr (Adjacent
Property Owner)
Chairman Thomas called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Thomas asked to add an HOA approval letter provided at the meeting by the applicant
as an addendum to the June 18, 2018 minutes. Mr. Couchenour made a motion to approve the
minutes of the June 18, 2018 meeting with the amendment proposed 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 Aircomm, LTD. – 203/205 Makayla Court – Case # 2018-858:
Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the variance request, the purpose
of which was to allow a reduction in the side yard setback requirement from 10’ to 9.5’
and from 10’ to 6’ for the principal structure. It was also noted that the request included a
reduction in the rear yard setback from 35’ to 5’. Mr. Cauthen detailed that Huntington
Place subdivision was developed under York County regulations and annexed into the
Town in October of 2016, the use is allowed but there was no similar Town zoning district
in regards to setbacks.
Chairman Thomas invited Ms. Durr to speak regarding her opposition to the variance
request. Ms. Durr stated that she lived directly beside the subject lot and that reducing the
side setback would reduce her property value. She continued by saying the owners have let
the lot grow up and she felt there was ample room to build further away from her existing
home since the cul-de-sac was currently vacant.
Chairman Thomas asked the applicant to come to the podium and explain why a variance
was required. Mr. Blackmon stated that they had developed many of the lots on the street
and with this property being in a cul-de-sac and under Town zoning a variance was
required. The Board asked the applicant if the lot could be shifted away from Ms. Durr’s
residence and the response was that there is a drainage area preventing the lot lines from
shifting over anymore but that the proposed structure would be moved over as far as the
board would allow on the existing lot.
2
Staff noted that going any closer than 5 feet to the side property line can have building and
fire code implications, but it was confirmed by the applicant that to the left of the subject
lot there is a drainage area and no more lots platted to be developed. Ms. Durr requested
the structure be granted a variance to allow it to be shifted over as far as possible from her
property. The applicant had no issues with this.
The Board deliberated on the allowable distance from each property line. It was determined
that 15’ from Ms. Durr’s property line and 2’ from the opposite property line would be the
best course of action to appease both sides.
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. Ms. Bryant seconded the motion. The motion passed
by a vote of 5-0.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the conditions apply to other property in the
vicinity. Mr. Couchenour made a motion that the conditions do not generally apply to other
property in the vicinity. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of
5-0.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the application of the ordinance effectively
prohibits or unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. Mr. Stegall 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 5-0.
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. Stegall 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 continued by making a motion to grant the
variance to allow the home to be no closer than 2’ from the left property line (facing the
lot from Makayla Court), 15’ from the right property line, and 5’ from the rear property
line. Mr. Couchenour seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether or not to grant the variance. Mr. Couchenour
made a motion to grant the variances for the proposed duplex/townhome. Mr. Stegall
seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
3
Nick Cauthen
Planning Department
August 23, 2018
\
4
Agenda
TOWN OF FORT MILL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
August 20, 2018
112 Confederate Street
6:00 PM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting: June 18, 2018 [Pages 2-4]
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. CASE # 2018-858 Applicant is requesting a variance from the zoning
Aircomm, LTD. ordinance to allow a reduction in the 10’ side yard
203/205 Makayla Court and 35’ rear yard setback requirement.
Tax Map # 020-26-02-170, [Pages 6-14]
020-26-02-169
Zoning District: GR-A
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
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
Town of Fort Mill
Board of Zoning Appeals
Item for Action
Item #1 CASE # 2018-858 Applicant is requesting a variance from the
Aircomm, LTD. zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in the 10’
203/205 Makayla Court side yard and 35’ rear yard setback requirement.
Tax Map # 020-26-02-170, [Pages 6-14]
020-26-02-169
Zoning District: GR-A
Background / Discussion
The Town has received a variance request from Aircomm, LTD. for a proposed non-conformity
related to the construction of a duplex/townhome (a “principal use”) at 203/205 Makayla Court.
The purpose of the request is to permit a reduction in the side yard setback requirement from 10’
to 9.5’ and from 10’ to 6’ for the principal structure. A reduction in the rear yard setback from 35’
to 5’ is also being requested.
Article II, Section 4(6) of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance outlines the following requirements:
6. Other requirements: Unless otherwise specified elsewhere in this ordinance, uses
permitted in GR-A zoning districts shall be required to conform to the standards
set forth for such uses under the provisions of article 2, section 2, subsection 5.
Article II, Section 2(5)(E) of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance outlines the following setback
requirement for principal structures:
E. Minimum side yard: R-10-Principal structure is 10 feet.
F. Minimum rear yard: R-10-Principal structure is 35 feet.
Huntington Place was annexed into the Town in October of 2016. The request is intended to allow
for the development of the subject lots to be consistent with the existing development. The existing
lots in the subdivision were developed using similar setbacks to those requested.
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:
6
(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
August 13, 2018
7
8
9
10
11
12
Above is existing neighboring unit. (Proposed for this lot.)
P
13
York County Tax Map # 020-26-02-170, 020-26-02-169
Aerial / Zoning Map
14
Get email alerts for Fort Mill
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.