Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA August 13, 2019 5:00 PM Town Hall (annex) – Training Room 200 S. Main Street I. Approval of minutes from June 11, 2019 and July 9, 2019 (For below item, signs posted on property August 2, 2019 and ad on July 28, 2019 in Post & Courier) II. OLD BUSINESS: 1. No Old Business III. NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 130-11-00-053, 106 Kahlers Way, zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, owned by Vitor Estanqueiro & Paula Graca – variance request to reduce the required rear yard setback from five feet to one foot and to increase the permitted impervious surface from 35% to 38.5%, Ordinance Section 32-123(e)(5) and 32-123(h)(2). IV. MISCELLANEOUS: V. ADJOURN Posted August 6, 2019  MINUTES TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS June 11, 2019 The Board of Zoning Appeals met in the Training Room at Town Hall on Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 5:00 PM. Present were Denis Tsukalas, Chairman; Don Nye, Elise Richardson and Scott Riddell. Staff present included Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator and Jessi Shuler, Director of Planning. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Mr. Denis Tsukalas. Mr. Tsukalas asked for any comments or edits for the minutes from the November 13, 2018 meeting. Ms. Richardson made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nye. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Tsukalas asked for any comments or edits for the minutes from the May 14, 2019 meeting. A motion was made by Mr. Riddell to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lawson. The motion passed 3-1. OLD BUSINESS: The first item under Old Business was TMS # 137-14-09-029, 103 Graham Lane, zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, owned by Summerville Commissioners of Public Works – Special Exception request to allow the construction of a 190 foot telecommunication monopole, Ordinance Section 32-211(4)(b)(2). Mr. Macholl introduced the Special Exception request and explained that the BZA is tasked with determining whether the applicant has met the requirements set forth in the Town’s Ordinance for the issuance of a Special Use Permit. He specifically pointed out that the Ordinance requires that in the case of a Special Exception request there is not a variance reducing the required separation. That required separation does not apply due to the zoning of the property. Because this does not apply, it is the board’s responsibility to determine whether to issue the Special Exception based on the requirements of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Macholl also pointed out that there was additional information provided by the applicant to staff prior to the meeting that applies to the case before them, including a new site plan, as well as some case law regarding the appropriate process for the Board to use in making their decision. Mr. Macholl also provided additional information regarding changes to the proposed plan. The height of the tower had been reduced from 190’ to 170’. The applicants also are in position to purchase the lot located at the corner of Graham Lane and Richland Street to provide additional buffer around the base of the existing water tank. Mr. Riddell made a motion to disregard all of the late submitted documents and not include them in the decision process. Mr. Tsukalas asked for a second. There was no second and he pointed out that there cannot be any discussion on the motion without a second because the motion would die. For the purposes of discussion, Mr. Tsukalas seconded the motion and asked for discussion. Mr. Riddell pointed out that this was only the second time that a Special Exception request had been made for a telecommunication tower in the Town of Summerville. He expressed a concern for how this was being handled. He wanted to make sure that the right decision was made and without time to read the submitted documents and be able to evaluate them appropriately he didn’t feel that these should be included in the discussion of the proposed request. Mr. Tsukalas asked Mr. Riddell to restate his motion to clarify exactly what he wanted. Mr. Riddell made a motion to exclude all documents that were submitted late. Mr. Tsukalas seconded the motion and the motion passed 3-1 with Mr. Nye in opposition. Mr. Macholl read the required Special Use Requirements into the record. Mr. Riddell asked if the Town Engineer had reviewed the application. Mr. Macholl explained that the Town Engineer is not qualified to review the structural plans for the tower, they are Civil Engineers not Structural engineers. Mr. Jonathan Yates presented for the applicants. He recapped that they had applied last month for an identical request at the Graham Lane location that had been approved for the property off of Judith Drive two months ago. Summerville CPW had taken the time since the last meeting to meet with Mr. Ron Boller and the other neighbors and had tried to work out the issues and try to make this proposal work. He explained that the antennas have been on the tank for twenty years and that at this time they are causing more problems for the tank than they are worth. To make this work they had worked with the carriers to get the proposed tower height reduced from 190’ to 170’ still with the additional spaces for future carriers. CPW will remove the existing chain link fencing around the compound. This will be replaced with a 60’X60’ fenced in area around the base of the proposed tower, as well as an 80’X80’ fenced in area around the base of the existing water tower. The area will be heavily landscaped to provide a visual buffer, with live oaks, cypress and azaleas. Mr. Yates told the board that at this time CPW was under contract to purchase the property at the corner, and they were planning on using that property to provide additional space for buffering landscaping. There were also discussions about the possibility of developing the property for a park, but the residents had expressed concerns and preferred a passive park. Mr. Yates pointed out that South Carolina law provided little discretion in the decision making process for a Special Exception. Mr. Bob Hill presented to the board the results of their efforts to locate an alternative location for the proposed tower. He stated that they had tried to contact the school board about school district property, but had not received a call back. They had reached out to SCANA about the substation property on Berlin G Myers Parkway and were told no. He pointed out that a number of the proposed locations provided by Mr. Boller are just too far away to provide the needed coverage in the area. He stated that he had been out to the property 2-3 times and had observed that the fence around the property was old and rusty and that there was no landscaping to provide any screening. He had met with a couple of the adjacent neighbors to discuss the project. What they are proposing is that instead of a six foot chain-link fence they would use wood fence around both tower bases. In a couple of years the proposed landscaping will mature and provide better screening for the neighborhood. Mr. Hill pointed out that there is a long history of putting water tanks in residential areas, and a long history of putting cell towers on those properties as well. Mr. Yates addressed the board, pointing out that Mr. Macholl had explained the request and the required criteria for the decision. He asked if the board would like to turn over the discussion to the public to allow them to address any concerns. Mr. Tsukalas asked if the tower engineer was available to answer questions about the drop zone, he wanted to know how the top of the tower remained attached to the base. Mr. Ron Glover came to the table to discuss the design. He explained that towers are over engineered and are designed to yield at the attachment point during a catastrophic event. He explained that the exterior tubular structure is designed to bend or break at the flange, and working as a team the cabling that runs up through the interior of the tower then control the fall. Mr. Riddell asked Mr. Glover what his relationship was to the applicant. He explained that he is a consultant. He reviewed the fall zone letter. He also gave his qualifications and stated that he is the Code Chair of the TIA Code for the design of Telecommunication Towers. Mr. Riddell asked if any other codes apply. Mr. Glover explained that the International Building Code (IBC) 2015 edition would apply and by reference ANSI 222 and the TIA. Mr. Riddell asked if the plans presented met all of the applicable codes. Mr. Glover stated yes. Mr. Riddell said that he had specific questions about examples in the report. Mr. Glover responded that all of the examples are referenced in the report, and that this design is consistent with the industry standard. Mr. Hill stated that after the Zoning Approval, there is additional information that that could potentially exclude the site from being built, but that rarely happens. Mr. Ron Boller of 105 Graham Lane addressed the board. He explained that he lives directly next door and has opposed the tower from the beginning. He directed a question to Mr. Yates and asked if the proposed tower at 190’ was dead. Mr. Yates responded yes they had agreed to lower the height to 170’. Mr. Boller stated that he had asked certain questions and had received adequate clarification on those questions from the applicant. He pointed out that he had not had a chance to review the revised proposal for the 170’ tall tower. But that his questions had been addressed by the engineer of record. He pointed out that the required boundary survey had been completed, and that it showed that the property was smaller than originally thought. He stated that he had sat down with his family to discuss the beautification package and he felt that this was a much better proposal than the last plan. Mr. Boller stated that he had spoken with other neighbors who had also objected to the proposed tower. He said that the proposed compromises were better than the alternative if the tower was going to happen. He stated that overall he is not opposed to the tower per se, but does it need to be at this location. With the compromises and the beautification package he can learn to accept the situation. Mr. Tsukalas asked Mr. Boller if he was more comfortable with the proposal. Mr. Boller responded that yes it was better, but if it were up to him there would be no new tower and no water tower. Mr. John Pontieri addressed the board, stating that he was in favor of the tower. He felt that the loss of this location would be dangerous for public safety reasons. Mr. Benjamin Little addressed the board, stating that he is a representative of Sprint. He pointed out that this location is a main hub for communications and that the loss of this location would be detrimental to service and customers. Ms. Robin Monnet stated that she is a citizen of Summerville and that she is in sales and she relies on service in this area. She also pointed out that McKissick Field is in the area and that coverage is very important for public safety. She stated that losing cell service would be devastating to her business. Ms. Belinda Harper stated that she is an employee of SCPW, but that she is a resident of Summerville and that she supports the cell tower at this location. Ms. Beverly Grooms addressed the board, she stated that she lives adjacent to the tower property and that many things relating to the tower concern her. Specifically, she is concerned about during and after construction, how will storm water be handled. Mr. Glover responded that they will do their best to address runoff appropriately. Mr. Chris Kahler then addressed the board. He explained that this all started with the antennas. The tower is on annual maintenance and that the tank really needs to be resurfaced. He explained that it would be counterproductive to spend $200,000 to resurface the tank then have to have that new surface be possibly damaged during the reinstallation of the antennas to the tank. Mr. Kahler asked for consideration of this issue and respectfully asked the board for approval of the proposal. Mr. Nye made a motion for approval. The motion was seconded by Ms. Richardson and Mr. Tsukalas asked for any further discussion. Mr. Riddell opened the discussion asking about some of the criteria in the Town’s ordinance that he didn’t feel had been addressed, specifically about the attempts for colocation and the required documentation. Mr. Yates addressed this by pointing out that this was discussed in the project narrative submitted. He explained that this is an existing colocation on the existing tower, this is by no means a new location. Mr. Riddell asked if it were feasible to leave the antennas on the water tank. Mr. Yates responded that Mr. Kahler had pointed out that it was feasible to put them back on the tank, but it was not what is best for the tank or for the carriers. The tank was never designed for this use, it may have been ok back in 1997 or 1998, but it is no longer a good idea. Mr. Riddell asked what the minimum caliper size is for the proposed landscaping. Mr. Yates stated that all landscaping would meet the Town’s standard. Mr. Riddell started to ask an additional question about the possibility of disguising the tower, but Mr. Tsukalas interrupted and stated that in his experience the Town will ensure that all of the requirements will be met. Ms. Shuler pointed out that disguising the tower would be at the board’s discretion. Mr. Tsukalas asked for a vote on the previous motion to approve. The motion passed 3-1 with Mr. Riddell opposed. NEW BUSINESS: There were no items under new business. MISCELLANEOUS: There were no miscellaneous items. ADJOURN: Hearing no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:28 PM with a motion by Mr. Nye and a second by Mr. Riddell. The motion passed unanimously 4-0. Respectfully Submitted, Tim Macholl Zoning Administrator _______________________________________ Denis Tsukalas, Chairman; or, Elise Richardson, Vice Chairman  Board of Zoning Appeals Tuesday, July 9, 2019 Summerville Municipal Complex –Annex Building Training Room Members Present: Staff Present: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator Elise Richardson, Vice Chairman - Absent Don Nye Lionel Lawson Scott Riddell Items on the agenda: OLD BUSINESS: 1. None NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 137-04-02-004, 709 N. Magnolia Street, zoned B-3 General Business, owned by Classic Construction of Summerville, LLC. – variance request to eliminate the required Class 2 use buffer, Ordinance Section 32-322. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Mr. Denis Tsukalas. Mr. Tsukalas asked for any comments or edits for the minutes from the June 11, 2019 meeting minutes. Mr. Macholl apologized for the typos in the set of minutes that went out and suggested that the minutes could be tabled to allow for edits to be fully completed to the next meeting. A motion was made by Mr. Nye to table the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lawson. The motion passed 4-0. OLD BUSINESS 1. None NEW BUSINESS 1. 709 N. Magnolia Street – The first item under New Business TMS # 137-04-02-004, 709 N. Magnolia Street, zoned B-3 General Business, owned by Classic Construction of Summerville, LLC. – variance request to eliminate the required Class 2 use buffer, Ordinance Section 32-322. Mr. Macholl read the request into the record. He explained that the property had historically been a residential property, and that the current zoning is B-3. Upon a change of use the new use is required to meet the commercial zoning requirements. This includes the addition of use buffers between the new commercial use and the existing residential neighbors. He explained that due to the fact that the existing structure was built at its current location there is not enough room to fit a use buffer on either side. The variance requested would eliminate the required Class 2, 15 landscaped buffer on both the north and south sides of the house. This will allow the applicant to install a drive aisle and parking lot in the rear of the property. Mr. Riddell asked about the existing conditions, and Mr. Macholl responded that the property would be grandfathered in, but the use buffers would not be able to be installed. Mr. Tsukalas explained to the board that when this area was annexed by the town the owners asked for the B-3 zoning in anticipation that the area would eventually change over to a commercial neighborhood. He also pointed out that this is happening now. Mr. Nye made a motion to approve as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Riddell. The motion passed unanimously 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 PM on a motion by Mr. Nye and a second by Mr. Riddell. The motion passed unanimously 4-0 Respectfully Submitted, Date: ________________ Tim Macholl Zoning Administrator Approved: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman _____________________________________; or, Elise Richardson, Vice Chairman ______________________________________ 2  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS#130-11-00-053 106 Kahlers Way, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS August 13, 2019 Request: Variance request to reduce the required rear yard setback from five feet to one foot and to increase the permitted impervious surface from 35% to 38.5% Property Zoning: R-2 Single Family Residential Surrounding Zoning: North: R-2 Single Family Residential South: R-2 Single Family Residential East: R-1 Single Family Residential West: R-2 Single Family Residential Ordinance requires: Ordinance Section 32-123(e)(5) - Five (5) feet; and 32-123(h)(2) - 35% Background: The owner of the property is seeking to construct a shed on the property. Response: In order for a variance to be issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals, an applicant is required to show that all four of the conditions listed below have been met and an unnecessary hardship must be shown. (b) Variances. The board has the power to hear and decide requests for variances when strict application of this chapter's provisions would cause an unnecessary hardship. (1) The following standards must apply for finding an unnecessary hardship: a. Extraordinary conditions. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property, which could exist due to topography, street widening or other conditions which make it difficult or impossible to make an economically feasible use of the property. b. Other property. Extraordinary conditions generally do not apply to other property in the vicinity. c. Utilization. Because of these extraordinary conditions, the application of this chapter's provisions to a particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. d. Detriment. The authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by granting of the variance. Staff feels that the applicant does not meet all four criteria, and that a hardship is not present. a. Extraordinary conditions do not exist on the property. There is adequate room for the shed to be moved forward to meet the required five foot setback from the rear property line. The additional impervious surface can be mitigated by reducing the size of the proposed shed. b. Other property in the area have this same condition, as can be seen on the supplied plat. Lots 2, 3, 8, and 9 are the same size and dimensions all with similar restrictions and easements. c. Utilization of the property is not eliminated due to moving the shed to a different location to meet the setback requirements. d. Detriment will not be caused to other properties by the issuance of this variance on this property.  Town of Summerville Information Lookup 130-07-07-004.000 130-07-08-019.000  106 KAHLERS WAY   130-07-07-005.000 130-07-07-009.000 130-11-08-017.000 + 130-07-07-006.000 130-07-07-007.000 130-07-07-008.000 − 130-11-08-015.000 130-00-00-032.000 130-11-08-014.000 130-11-08-021.000 130-00-00-031.000 130-11-08-013.000 130-11-08-012.000 130-11-08-010.000 130-11-09-009.000 130-11-08-019.000 130-11-08-022.000 130-11-08-020.000 130-11-08-009.000 130-11-08-023.000 130-11-07-005.000 999-00-00-001.000 130-11-09-007.000 130-11-07-006.000 130-11-07-007.000 130-11-07-008.000 130-11-08-008.000 130-11-00-053.000 130-11-09-006.000 130-11-00-055.000 130-11-07-009.000 130-11-08-007.000 130-11-09-005.000 130-11-08-006.000 130-11-07-010.000 130-11-00-049.000 130-11-00-048.000 130-11-00-047.000 130-11-08-005.000 130-11-00-050.000 130-11-00-051.000 130-11-09-003.000 130-11-07-022.000 130-11-07-023.000 130-11-08-004.000 130-11-07-024.000 130-11-00-001.000 130-11-00-003.000 Basemap 130-11-08-003.000 Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS Town of Summerville Information Lookup 130-11-08-010.000  106 KAHLERS WAY   130-11-08-019.000 130-11-08-022.000 + − 130-11-08-021.000 130-11-08-020.000 130-11-08-009.000 130-11-08-023.000 999-00-00-001.000 130-11-08-008.000 130-11-00-055.000 130-11-00-056.000 130-11-08-007.000 130-11-08-006.000 130-11-00-049.000 Basemap DigitalGlobe, Microsoft