Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA May 9, 2017 5:00 PM Town Hall (annex) – Training Room 200 S. Main Street I. Approval of minutes from March 14, 2017 meeting (For below item, signs posted on property April 21, 2017; and ad on April 23, 2017 in Post & Courier) II. OLD BUSINESS: III. NEW BUSINESS: A. TMS# 137-15-08-012, 304 Black Oak Boulevard, zoned PUD, Planned Development District, owned by Micah G. and Bonnie C. Miley - variance request for a reduction in the side setback of 3 feet for a total setback of 4.5 feet for an accessory structure from the ordinance minimum of 7.5 feet per Section 32-125. (Council District 3) IV. MISCELLANEOUS: V. ADJOURN Posted April 20, 2017  MINUTES TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS March 14, 2017 The Board of Zoning Appeals met in the Training Room at Town Hall on Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 5:00 PM. Present were Arthur DeHay, Vice Chairman; Lionel Lawson; Don Nye; and Elise Richardson. Staff present included Jessi Shuler, AICP, Zoning Administrator and Meredith Detsch, Town Planner. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Ms. Shuler. She asked for nominations for Chairman and Vice Chairman. Mr. Nye made a motion for Mr. DeHay to be Chairman and Mr. Tsukalas to be Vice Chairman, and Mr. Lawson seconded the motion. Ms. Shuler asked Mr. DeHay if he had any objections to serving as Chairman, and he asked if he could possibly remain Vice Chairman as he has some possible meeting conflicts throughout the year. Mr. Nye agreed to amend his motion to nominate Mr. Tsukalas as Chairman and Mr. DeHay as Vice Chairman, and Ms. Richardson seconded the amended motion. Ms. Shuler called for the vote, and the motion passed unanimously. As Mr. Tsukalas was absent from the meeting, Mr. DeHay took over as acting Chairman. He asked for any comments or edits for the minutes from the January 10, 2017 meeting. Mr. Nye made the motion for approval with Ms. Richardson seconding the motion. The motion carried unanimously approving the minutes as presented. OLD BUSINESS: There were no items under Old Business. NEW BUSINESS: The first item under new business was a variance request for TMS# 232-00-02-179 (to be annexed), 232-00-02- 167, 138-00-00-035, and 138-00-00-036 (to be annexed), Berlin G. Myers Parkway and E. 9th North Street, zoned B-3, General Business, owned by Marymeade Associates L.P. – variance requests for 0’ side setback/landscape border for County line/property line separating subject parcels, minimum lot frontage of 17 feet, irregular lot design, the depth of lot 2A to be over six times its width, and an increase in the impervious surface allowance on lots 1, 2A, and 2B for a total of 87.4%, 90.42%, and 82.79% respectively; ordinance requires 5’ side setback/landscape border for County line/property line separating subject parcels, minimum lot frontage of 50 feet, regular lot design, the depth of a lot to be no more than four times its width, and 80% impervious surface allowance per Sections 32-131, 32-321, and 32-323. Ms. Shuler introduced the request. Fiona Haulter with GBT Realty Corporation, the property owner, presented the requests. As the applicant had multiple requests, the Board asked Ms. Haulter to explain each one individually. Ms. Haulter explained that the first request was entirely due to the fact that the County/property line ran through the middle of the property and was a hardship because nothing could be done to change that fact. She explained further that the second request was due to the Retail A tenant requesting to have their own property for taxation purposes as they are a publicly held company, and the location of the County/property line once again causes a hardship as it forces them to create an irregular lot. Ms. Haulter stated that she felt they were still meeting the intent of the ordinance in regards to subdivision of the property because they are still developing and treating the property as a whole regardless of the County/property line. Mr. DeHay asked how the first request would affect the second and stated that he was concerned about any detrimental effect of allowing this subdivision if the tenant was to fail. Ms. Haulter explained that the granting of the first request would allow for the absence of a five foot setback/landscape border to carry over to the second request in addition to the irregular lot design. She also stated that if one of the major tenants failed, they would sell the property as a whole, and she explained that the property could always be recombined in the future. In reference to the third request, Ms. Haulter explained that the property had been set up for off-site detention, and that they will not own the detention parcel, but it will be under an easement to provide drainage and limit development in perpetuity. Mr. DeHay asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the detention and how that would be done. Ms. Haulter stated that her company would be responsible, and they would hire a management company. Mr. DeHay then asked whether there had been any discussion about using pervious parking to reduce the impervious surface percentage. Ms. Haulter stated that they did explore the option and used it sparingly, but that the cost for using it to meet the 80% did not fall within their budget for the project. Mr. Nye asked for clarification on how pervious parking would decrease the percentage, and Mr. DeHay explained that any parking that uses a pervious material does not count toward the impervious percentage. Ms. Haulter added that the water all falls to the back of the property, and stated that they do have some pervious material planned (16 parking spaces) and are currently looking at the cost of pervious pavement. Mr. Nye made a motion to approve the requests as stated based on the information given, and Mr. Lawson made a second. Mr. DeHay stated that he was still concerned about the impervious request and would like to know more and look at the possibility of increasing the amount of pervious area on the site because with all of the detention off site, the possibility of failure is greater (more infrastructure). The Board asked Ms. Haulter what the overall impervious percentage was at currently, and she stated that it was at approximately 86%. Ms. Shuler explained that the Board could still approve with conditions if they chose. The Board members discussed the percentage reduction that they felt would reduce any concerns. Following the discussion, Mr. Nye amended his motion to approve the first two requests as stated, but to require the overall impervious surface percentage on the site be reduced to 84%. Ms. Richardson seconded the amended motion, and the motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS: Ms. Shuler reminded the Board members about upcoming Webinar opportunities being hosted at the BCDCOG to fulfill their required yearly three hours of training. ADJOURN: Hearing no further business the meeting was adjourned at 5:27 PM with a motion by Mr. Nye and a second by Mr. Lawson. Respectfully Submitted, Jessi Shuler Zoning Administrator _______________________________________ Denis Tsukalas, Chairman; or, Arthur DeHay, Vice Chairman