Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular MeetingFort Mill, SC · October 15, 2018
Minutes
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
October 15, 2018
6:00 PM
Present: Amber Bryant, Scott Couchenour, Ryan Helms, Chairman Jim Thomas, Becky
Campbell, Jody Stegall, Planning Director Chris Pettit, Assistant Planner Nick
Cauthen
Absent: Terri Murray
Guests: Joseph Bates (Applicant), Victoria Bates (Applicant), Hiram Matos (Applicant),
Carol Mason McMeekin, Winni Evans, Krista Huff, Mark Kerr, Will Howle,
Carolyn Blair, Paula Sparks, John Somjak
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 August 20, 2018 meeting as
submitted by staff. Mr. Helms seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A) Variance request from Joseph and Victoria Bates – 102 Brickyard Road – Case #
2018-1039: Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the variance request,
the purpose of which was to allow a pool in front of the principal structure. Mr. Cauthen
noted that according to the applicant the orientation of their corner lot and the woods behind
the home made it very difficult to place the pool in any other location than between the
home and Brickyard Road.
Chairman Thomas asked the applicant to detail the reasons for the request. Mr. Bates stated
there were only 2 homes on his side of Brickyard Road and he was the owner of both. The
pool would tie into the side of the home and would be the ideal spot to entertain and keep
an eye on his children for many years to come. Ms. Bates also mentioned that it was not
ideal to cut trees behind the home in order to build a pool and this would prevent the pool
from being connected to the home.
Mr. Helms asked if the driveway circled around the back of the home and the applicant
responded that yes it did.
Chairman Thomas asked if the woods were on grade? The applicant responded that the
majority of the wooded area could probably be built upon but removing the trees to place
a pool in the middle of woods was not desired.
Mr. Stegall asked if trees would be planted as depicted in the packet provided? The
applicant responded that yes trees had already been planted and the goal would be to add
more and to make the pool area completely hidden from Brickyard Road.
Mr. Stegall asked why the pool could not be built between the house and Spratt Street?
The applicant responded that they considered the Spratt Street side to be the front of their
home considering it is where the front door and porch are located.
Chairman Thomas opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and invited anyone to
speak in favor of the variance.
Mr. Somjak spoke in favor of the request.
Ms. McMeekin also spoke in favor of the request.
Chairman Thomas closed the public hearing. There were no speakers against the 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. 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 motion passed
by a vote of 6-0.
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. Mr. Stegall seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of
6-0.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether the application of the ordinance effectively
prohibits or unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. Mr. Couchenour 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 3-3 with Mr. Helms, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Stegall 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. Mr. Couchenour 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 passed by
a vote of 6-0.
Mr. Thomas called for a motion on whether or not to grant the variance. Mr. Couchenour
made a motion to grant the variance in order to allow a pool in front of the principal
structure. Ms. Bryant seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 3-3 with Mr.
Helms, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Stegall opposed.
B) Variance request from Hiram Matos – 111 E. Gregg Street – Case # 2018-1040:
Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the variance request, the purpose
of which was to allow a 15’ reduction in the minimum 35’ front yard setback requirement
due to topographic issues. Mr. Cauthen noted that a variance had previously been granted
in January of 2018 in order to reduce the site setback requirement from 10’ to 5’.
Chairman Thomas asked the applicant to detail the reasons for the request. Mr. Matos said
there was confusion as to the location of the property line. It was originally thought that
setback distances were measured from edge of curb and not edge of right-of-way. Without
the variance the garage would have to sit back in a very low area which may create
foundation issues depending on the soil in that area. The applicant stated that only 2 feet
of the original variance was needed and that he hoped this would lead to some additional
leeway in regards to this request. The applicant continued by explaining pictures showing
the nature of the property which also included a stake showing the location of the garage
if the variance was not granted.
Chairman Thomas asked if it was possible to grade further back or to build a basement?
The applicant responded that there was a slope followed by a steep drop off making it very
difficult.
Mr. Thomas asked staff how close to the creek could the property be graded and filled?
Staff responded that the Stormwater department would have to review any changes to the
original approved plan.
Ms. Campbell asked if the drainage area of the creek has increased in size due to the erosion
of the slope? Mr. Matos responded that he did not know because he does not currently
reside on the property but to his knowledge it has not. He also mentioned that the creek
was on the adjacent property but there was a curve in the creek near the rear portion of his
lot that created the issue of needing the variance.
Mr. Stegall asked staff the distance from the street of other homes on the same side of
Gregg Street in the area? Staff responded that there is an average setback clause within the
zoning ordinance, but it would not apply to this property because the existing homes along
Gregg Street meet the 35 ft. setback requirement.
Chairman Thomas stated that he would like a grading report on the property in order to see
the buildable area of the lot. Staff noted that the plan with the house setback 35 ft. from the
front property line was approved so anything closer should also be okay from a grading
perspective.
Chairman Thomas opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and invited anyone to
speak in favor of the variance.
Mr. Somjak spoke in favor of the variance citing that in his opinion it will not detract from
the neighborhood and if anything will increase the property values.
Ms. Matos stated that permits had already been granted and that she and her husband Mr.
Matos had already closed on the loan for the house.
Ms. Somjak stated that the surveyor was extremely concerned with the drop-off of the lot
and the trouble that could cause with the construction of a home.
Chairman Thomas invited anyone in attendance who was against the variance to speak.
Ms. McMeekin provided a petition (attached) with 31 signatures against the variance and
stated that she was against the variance. She also stated that she was not happy that a very
old tree was cut down in order to build on the lot.
Ms. Evans stated that she thought moving the house forward would look completely out of
place.
Ms. Huff stated that from her sunroom the proposed home would stick out creating a bad
look for the neighborhood.
Ms. Sparks stated that she was against the variance because it would create a home out of
place.
Mr. Kerr was against the variance due to the speed of traffic along Gregg Street and the
potential safety concerns that a new home could cause regarding this.
Mr. Howell stated that he lived directly beside the subject property and that it would be
much closer to the road than his current home on the corner.
Ms. Blair stated that a home closer to the road creates parking issues because the driveway
is typically shorter. She continued by saying this inevitably leads to parking on the street
and can cause unsafe conditions especially in close proximity to an intersection.
Chairman Thomas closed the public portion of the meeting.
The applicant requested that the case be deferred. Mr. Thomas called for a motion on
whether or not to grant deferment of the variance request. Mr. Helms made a motion to
defer the variance request. Mr. Couchenour seconded the motion. The motion passed by a
vote of 6-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Cauthen
Planning Department
October 16, 2018
\
Agenda
TOWN OF FORT MILL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
October 15, 2018
112 Confederate Street
6:00 PM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting: August 20, 2018 [Pages 2-4]
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. CASE # 2018-1039 Applicant is requesting a variance from the zoning
Joseph and Victoria Bates ordinance to allow a pool in front of a principal
102 Brickyard Road structure.
Tax Map # 020-01-21-013 [Pages 5-30]
Zoning District: R-15
2. CASE # 2018-1040 Applicant is requesting a variance from the zoning
Hiram Matos ordinance to allow a reduction in the 35’ front yard
111 E. Gregg Street setback requirement for principal structures.
Tax Map # 020-04-19-014 [Pages 31-43]
Zoning District: R-15
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
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
Town of Fort Mill
Board of Zoning Appeals
Item for Action
Item #1 CASE # 2018-1039 Applicant is requesting a variance from the
Joseph and Victoria Bates zoning ordinance to allow a pool in front of a
102 Brickyard Road principal structure.
Tax Map # 020-01-21-013 [Pages 5-30]
Zoning District: R-15
Background / Discussion
The Town has received a variance request from Joseph and Victoria Bates for a proposed non-
conformity related to the installation of a pool (an “accessory use”) at 102 Brickyard Road.
The request is to allow a pool in front of a primary residence. Under the town’s zoning code,
certain accessory uses shall not be permitted in front of primary structures.
Specifically, Article I, Section 7(G)(2) of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance restricts the following
accessory uses in front of principal structures:
The following customary accessory uses must not be in front of the principal structure on
a lot:
(A) Unattached private garages or carports,
(B) Shed or tool room for the storage of equipment used in grounds or building
maintenance,
(C) Children's playhouse and play equipment,
(D) Private kennel for family pets, provided they are of the type authorized by town
Ordinance,
(E) Private swimming pool and bath house or cabana
(F) Structures designed and used for purposes of shelter in the event of man-made or
natural catastrophes,
(G) Noncommercial flower, ornamental shrub, or vegetable garden greenhouse or slat
house not over eight feet in height.
The petitioner has stated that due to the orientation of their corner lot and the proximity of woods
and location of the driveway behind the home, this is the only feasible area a pool can be placed
on the lot.
Pursuant to Section 6-29-800(A)(2) of the SC Code of Laws, the Board of Zoning Appeals has the
power to:
5
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
October 5, 2018
6
York County Tax Map # 020-01-21-013
Zoning Map
York County Tax Map # 020-01-21-013
Aerial Map
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Town of Fort Mill
Board of Zoning Appeals
Item for Action
Item #1 CASE # 2018-1040 Applicant is requesting a variance from the
Hiram Matos zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in the 35’
111 E. Gregg Street front yard setback requirement for principal
Tax Map # 020-04-19-014 structures.
Zoning District: R-15 [Pages 31-43]
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 front yard setback requirement from 35’
to 20’ for the principal structure. The east and north side of the property slopes down causing the
applicant to request a variance. A variance was previously granted for this property on January 15,
2018. The variance reduced the side setback from 10’ to 5’ on the west side of the property due to
topographic issues.
Article II, Section 1(5)(D) of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance outlines the following setback
requirement for principal structures:
D) Minimum front yard depth measured from the nearest street right-of-way line: R-15—
35 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
31
(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
October 5, 2018
32
York County Tax Map # 020-04-19-014
Zoning Map
York County Tax Map # 020-04-19-014
Aerial Map
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Get email alerts for Fort Mill
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.