Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA September 8, 2020 5:00 PM Town Hall (annex) – Council Chambers 200 S. Main Street I. Approval of minutes from July 14, 2020 (For below item, signs posted on property August 24, 2020 and ad on August 23, 2020 in Post & Courier) II. OLD BUSINESS: 1. No Old Business III. NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 232-07-01-004, 502 Eastover Circle zoned PUD – Planned Development District, owned by Ray and Nancy Hodges – variance request to increase the permitted impervious surface limit from 35% to 43%, Ordinance Section 2.10 2. TMS # 144-04-13-011, 321 Golf Road, zoned GR-2 – General Residential, owned by Michelle and Andrew Hicks – variance request to reduce the required front setback from 30 feet to 11 feet for the construction of an attached garage. Ordinance Section 2.7.3 A. IV. MISCELLANEOUS: None V. ADJOURN Posted September 1, 2020  Board of Zoning Appeals Tuesday, July 14, 2020 Council Chambers – 3rd Floor Town Hall Annex Building Members Present: Staff Present: Don Nye Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator Lionel Lawson Elise Richardson, Vice Chairman Items on the agenda: OLD BUSINESS: 1. None NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 232-07-03-033, 308 McDougal Circle, zoned PUD – Planned Development District, owned by Kristina Siddle – variance request to reduce the required front setback from 25 feet to 20 feet, Ordinance Sections 2.10 2. TMS # 379-00-00-273, 215 Brutus Lane, zoned PUD – Planned Development District, owned by Ralph and Suzanne Tileston – variance request to reduce the required rear setback from 10 feet to five (5) feet for the construction of a pergola . Ordinance Section 2.10. 3. TMS # 154-00-00-009, 0 Ladson Road, zoned UC-MX – Urban Corridor Mixed Use, owned by Tricoastal Properties II – variance request to increase the permitted sign height and size from six feet and 36 square feet to 14 feet and 67 square feet. Ordinance Section 10.4.2.A. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None The meeting was called to order at 5:14 PM by the Vice Chairman. Ms. Richardson asked for any comments or edits for the minutes from the June 9, 2020 meeting minutes. A motion was made by Mr. Nye to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lawson. The motion passed 3-0. Mr. Macholl explained that item number two under New Business had requested to be heard first. Mr. Nye mad a motion to amend the agenda to accommodate the applicant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lawson. The motion passed 3-0 OLD BUSINESS 1. None NEW BUSINESS 2. 215 Brutus Lane – The first item under New Business TMS # 379-00-00-273, 215 Brutus Lane, zoned PUD – Planned Development District, owned by Ralph and Suzanne Tileston – variance request to reduce the required rear setback from 10 feet to five (5) feet for the construction of a pergola . Ordinance Section 2.10. Mr. Macholl explained the request from the applicant. Mr. Tileston explained the need for the pergola in the rear yard. Mr. Macholl confirmed that another property in the neighborhood had previously received a variance for the reduction of the rear yard setback. The Board had no additional questions for the applicant. Mr. Nye made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lawson. The Vice chairman asked for the vote. The motion passed unanimously 3-0. 1. 308 McDougal – The second item under new business TMS # 232-07-03-033, 308 McDougal Circle, zoned PUD – Planned Development District, owned by Kristina Siddle – variance request to reduce the required front setback from 25 feet to 20 feet, Ordinance Sections 2.10. Mr. Macholl explained the request to the Board. Ms. Siddle presented to the board the design. There were no questions concerning the proposed project from the Board. Mr. Nye made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lawson. The Vice Chairman asked if there was any additional discussion. There being none the Vice Chairman asked for the vote. The motion passed 3-0. 3. 0 Ladson Road – The third item under new business TMS # 154-00-00-009, 0 Ladson Road, zoned UC-MX – Urban Corridor Mixed Use, owned by Tricoastal Properties II – variance request to increase the permitted sign height and size from six feet and 36 square feet to 14 feet and 67 square feet. Ordinance Section 10.4.2.A. Mr. Macholl presented the request to the Board. Ms. Richardson expressed a concern for the apparent excessive height of the proposed sign. Mr. Daniel Ben-Yesrial addressed the board. He explained that the request is intended to provide additional height to the sign to allow the high traffic volume of Ladson Road the ability to see the sign before it is too late to get over to be able to turn into the site. He also addressed that there is an existing bill board ono the property that will effectively overshadow the smaller signage. He pointed out that there are other signs in the corridor that are as tall as the proposed signage. He told the board that it was his opinion that the UC-MX zoning requirements for signs was more appropriate for dense urban style development areas, than this more suburban style corridor. Mr. Macholl addressed the concerns present by the applicant and tried to explain the intent of the zoning and that this would be out of character with the intent of the zoning in this corridor. The town had chosen to try to force change to this corridor by defining how it should be built, including the signage. Mr. Macholl also explained that the bill board was not as tall as described by the applicant, and that a shorter sign would also be seen easier under the existing bill board that is to remain on the property. Mr. Macholl suggested moving the proposed location for the sign closer to the Ladson Road entrance to allow for visibility around the bill board. Mr. Macholl suggested that the board could not just deny the application but approve with conditions, and set the parameters of the proposed sign. Ms. Richardson asked for a motion concerning the case, proposing a sign not to exceed eight feet tall and 50 square feet. Mr. Ben- Yesreal asked for the board to consider a proposed height of 12 feet. Stating it would still be small in the corridor. Mr. Nye asked if it would be a 12 foot sign on a two foot base. Mr. Ben-Yesreal explained that the base is important to the structure. Mr. Macholl explained that the ordinance actually required that the bottom of the sign start no less than two feet above the ground. Mr. Ben- Yesreal stated that Parkers would be willing to have the two foot base and limit the box size to 10 feet for an overall height of 12 feet. Ms. Richardson suggested tabling the case to the next meeting. Mr. Lawson suggested a two foot base, 10 foot cabinet for a total height of 12 feet and a 50 square foot sign face. Mr. Lawson made a motion to approve a variance with the condition that the sign have a two foot base, a 10 foot cabinet not to exceed an overall height of 12 feet, and 50 square feet of sign face. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nye. The Vice Chairman asked if there was any additional discussion. There being none the Chairman asked for the vote. The motion passed 2-1, with Ms. Richardson Opposed. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:52 PM on a motion by Mr. Lawson and a second by Mr. Nye. The motion passed unanimously 3-0 Respectfully Submitted, Date: ________________ Tim Macholl Zoning Administrator Approved: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman _____________________________________; or, Elise Richardson, Vice Chairman ______________________________________ 2  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS#232-07-01-004 502 Eastover Circle, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS March 10, 2020 Request: Variance request to increase the permitted impervious surface from 35% to 43% Property Zoning: PUD – Planned Development District Surrounding Zoning: North: PUD – Planned Development District South: PUD – Planned Development District East: PUD – Planned Development District West: PUD – Planned Development District Ordinance requires: Ordinance Section 2.10 Background: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow for the construction of a new screened porch on the rear of the house. 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 exist on the property. At this time there is just more coverage on the property than is permitted, which existed prior to the passage of the ordinance. The area being covered was a patio that has existed for years. The applicant has removed some of the lot coverage to actually maintain coverage levels even with the addition of the screened in porch. b. Other property in the area probably have similar situations c. Utilization of the property is not eliminated but will be only slightly diminished if the homeowners are not able to build a screened in porch. d. Detriment will not be caused to other properties by the issuance of this variance on this property.  We recently contracted with a builder to build a small sunroom addition on the back of our house, a 12 x 12 structure. I was notified by the builder that the permitting office denied the approval saying that our impervious surfaces were already at 44% when the limit was supposed to be 35%. I am writing to request consideration for a variance and thus allow our planned sunroom to continue. Allow me to share my reasoning. My wife, Nancy, and I recently returned to this area after having raised our family in Moncks Corner where we lived and practiced medicine for 23 years. We left seven years ago after being recruited to work with USC. I have recently retired and my wife is doing some work part- time with telemedicine. We have taken “downsizing” very seriously such that our current home will be our retirement home, i.e. this is it for us!! We returned to the area primarily as 4 of our 5 children are now living nearby and we now have five grandchildren that we are eager to enjoy our time with. Indeed, we are very happy here in Summerville! After conducting a recent formal survey, I’ve done the math and the difference between the 44% we have now vs the recommended 35% is a little over 900 sq ft. Before the impervious concern was even an issue we were forward thinking about maintaining green spaces and so 2 months ago we made a contract to remove existing concrete (to add permeable green space). What we plan to remove would total about 210 sq ft which actually would reduce my existing percentage to less than 42%. Since the sunroom addition is only 144 sq ft, taking out the concrete and adding the sunroom mathematically would actually improve our percentage to 43% overall. Furthermore, after obtaining the formal survey we determined that there is an additional 8-9 feet of yard extending past our lot lines at the back of the house that I maintain (inside my fence). I’m told that the builder of this neighborhood constructed the fences along the road for all the lots and essentially added that space to everyone’s lots. But it’s not considered in the square footage of my lot according to the survey. However, since I maintain and utilize that space, which is pervious, it seems reasonable to also consider that additional permeable space which is about 930 sq ft. That plus the 210 sq ft I’m already adding to permeable space would actually lower our percentage to less than 33%. If we then add back in the requested 144 sq ft for the sunroom, my new total is 34%. Neither of our neighbors will be negatively impacted should we be granted this variance. Additionally, our lot backs up to South Pointe Blvd. where there is an additional green space between our fence and the road so there would be no impact on any other lot. We are respectfully requesting a variance and thank you in advance for your consideration. I assure you we are cognizant of the need to maintain permeable, “pervious” areas as the neighborhood grows. Thank you, Ray Hodges, M.D. and Nancy Hoevenaar, M.D. 502 Eastover Cirlce 502 Eastover Cirlce  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS#144-04-13-011 321 Golf Road, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS September 8, 2020 Request: Variance request to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 11 feet for a garage Property Zoning: GR-2 General Residential Surrounding Zoning: North: GR-2 General Residential South: GR-5 General Residential East: GR-2 General Residential West: N-R Neighborhood Residential Ordinance requires: Ordinance Section 2.7.3 A – 30 foot Front Setback 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. Background: The need for a setback variance was determined at the time of application for building permit a. Extraordinary conditions do exist on the property that prevents or unreasonably restricts the use of the property b. Other property in the area do not have similar issues c. Utilization of the property is reduced but not eliminated due to the position of the house on the property preventing the construction of the garage. d. Detriment will not be caused to other properties by the issuance of this variance on this property. To whom it may concern Statement of property owner Andrew & Michelle Hicks addressing the State mandated criteria; (a) Extraordinary Conditions: There is a sewer line and couple of trees that runs alongside the east side of the property which makes it difficult to access the back of the property to put a garage. (b) Other Property: The garage addition will not affect the adjacent apartment complex due to a dense tree line that runs the entire west side of the property line (c) Utilization: Due to these conditions we would be limited on putting a garage only in the far back of the property. There is a drainage line in the middle of the property and noticed we had some flooding issues arise during that last storm. (d) Detriment: The garage addition will not be detrimental to the adjacent properties but add a more custom home appeal and improve home valuations in the area. We feel it will blend in better with the home styles that are being built. Thank You for your consideration in this matter. Andrew & Michelle Hicks 321 Golf rd. Summerville SC 29483 603-915-0269 andyhicks603@gmail.com