Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA March 9, 2021 5:00 PM Town Hall (annex) – Council Chambers or Zoom Virtual Meeting 200 S. Main Street I. Approval of minutes from February 9, 2021 (For below item, signs posted on property February 22, 2021 and ad on February 21, 2021 in Post & Courier) II. OLD BUSINESS: 1. No Old Business III. NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 129-10-11-003, 105 Pine Valley Drive, zoned PUD – Planned Development District, owned by Russell and Ann Deuell – variance request to increase the permitted lot coverage limit from 35% to 41.8% for the addition of a back patio. Ordinance Section 2.10. IV. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. Discussion of the UDO V. ADJOURN Posted March 2, 2021  Board of Zoning Appeals Tuesday, February 9, 2021 Zoom Virtual Meeting App Members Present: Staff Present: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator Don Nye Lionel Lawson John Thurmes John Witherspoon Items on the agenda: OLD BUSINESS: 1. None NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 388-00-00-563, 161 Alpine Road, zoned PUD – Planned Development District, owned by Donna Brusky and Brenda Marsiglia – variance request to reduce the required rear setback for an accessory structure from 5 feet to 1 foot. Ordinance Section 2.10. 2. TMS # 154-13-07-002, 4306 Ladson Road, zoned UC-MX – Urban Corridor Mixed Use, owned by Speedway LLC – variance request to allow a digital price sign on the gas canopy. Ordinance Section 3.4.8 B 2. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by the Chairman. Mr. Tsukalas asked for any comments or edits for the minutes from the January 12, 2021 meeting minutes. A motion was made by Mr. Nye to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Witherspoon. The motion passed 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 1. None NEW BUSINESS 1. 161 Alpine Road – The first item under New Business TMS # 388-00-00-563, 161 Alpine Road, zoned PUD – Planned Development District, owned by Donna Brusky and Brenda Marsiglia – variance request to reduce the required rear setback for an accessory structure from 5 feet to 1 foot. Ordinance Section 2.10. Mr. Macholl explained the request from the applicant. He explained that the applicant had built the shed without a permit and had determined that he needed to get the appropriate permit. Upon review it was determined that he did not meet setback requirements. Ms. Brenda Marsiglia addressed the Board, and expressed confusion for the need for the variance. She pointed out that the tree in the picture behind the shed was on her property. If that tree was on her property, and then the fence, and then the shed, how was the shed not meeting the required 5 foot setback? Mr. Macholl pointed out that staff cannot come out to the property and locate property lines and locations. It is the property owner’s responsibility to provide staff with the information to be able to approve or send to the Board for a variance. Based on the plot provided it appears that there is a need for a variance. Mr. Thurmes asked who supplied the drawing. I was explained that the plot was provided and staff added the red layout. The applicant and the board tried to establish the location of the existing shed. Mr. Lawson asked if the shed was on a slab or up on blocks. Ms. Marsiglia confirmed that it was not built on a slab. Mr. Thurmes made a motion to approve the request with the condition that the shed be no closer to the property line than its current location. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nye. The Chairman asked for any further discussion. Mr. Thurmes pointed out that this request does not meet the hardship requirements. This condition is existing and given the situation he intends to vote for the variance, but wanted to point out that this seems closer to compliance than it appears in the application. Mr. Tsukalas asked if there was any further discussion. There being no further discussion he called for the vote. The motion carried unanimously 5-0. 2. 4306 Ladson Road – The second item under New Business was TMS # 154-13-07-002, 4306 Ladson Road, zoned UC- MX – Urban Corridor Mixed Use, owned by Speedway LLC – variance request to allow a digital price sign on the gas canopy. Ordinance Section 3.4.8 B 2. Mr. Macholl explained the request to the Board. Giving the section of the ordinance and explaining that even though this was developed under the old ordinance, because it is complete and they are proposing changes, it is subject to the requirements of the current sign requirements. Mr. Michael Pitts addressed the board. He explained that with the redevelopment of the site the addition of the price changer to the canopy would help drive sales. Sales for this location are down from the projections, and they are trying to fix the lost sales issue. The price changer will help capture new customers. Ms. Meghan Smith helped explain that calculations for fuel volumes are based on the entire company. The price will drive customers, it will help lure customers. Mr. Thurmes asked about the internal illumination restriction. Mr. Macholl explained that the variance would allow for this proposed signage if approved. Mr. Thurmes said that he drove the corridor and that this site is very visible from both directions, he felt that it was more visible than others. Mr. Lawson added that he was not able to see the sign until the last minute while driving down Ladson Road. Mr. Macholl addressed the Board and pointed out that at the time of Design Review he had advised the applicant to move the Midland Drive sign to the corner to better capture views from both directions. They created their own signage issue and are now asking for relief. Mr. Pitts, agree with Mr. Macholl. Mr. Tsukalas pointed out that it would be possible to trim the trees up and the shrubs down to create a better view of the existing signs. Mr. Pitts agreed that they would be able to do that as the materials on-site matured. Mr. Tsukalas pointed out that it can be done now, and that a corner sign would help. Mr. Witherspoon pointed out that the canopy sign would only capture the Ladson Road traffic, and really only that traffic driving towards Dorchester Road. Mr. Pitts agreed that this was correct. Ms. Smith felt that the timing of traffic through the intersection was a safety issue for motorists in the far lane, they would not have time to get over and safely enter the site. Mr. Lawson asked if the canopy signs really help. Mr. Pitts stated that yes, that is why Murphy Oil, Costco, Bj’s do it, and it has been shown to improve sales at those locations. Ms. Smith said that the canopy price changer helps lure impulse buys, and troubled sign locations. Mr. Tsukalas asked if there were any other questions, and for a motion. Mr. Nye made a motion to approve. The Motion was seconded by Mr. Lawson. Mr. Tsukalas asked if there was any further discussion. Mr. Thurmes argued that the ordinance represents the will of the residents of the Town of Summerville. He pointed out that our opinions should not override the will of the Town, and it should be based on the allowances provided. He did not believe that there were any extraordinary conditions to allow this variance to be approved. The second point that he made was that the ordinance does not allow for this type of sign. Where do we draw the line? If we approve this variance any location within the corridor would be eligible for this sign. The visibility for the gas station is already good, how would we be justified in denying the request for others. Mr. Witherspoon agreed that this request did not meet the criteria for approval. Mr. Tsukalas also agreed, he felt that the better option would be to move the monument sign. Mr. Lawson asked if the store was not meeting expectations would it be shut down. Mr. Thurmes pointed out that this is only a two month sample, and asked if the projections were reasonable assumptions. Mr. Tsukalas asked for the vote. The motion was denied 2-3, with Mr. Thurmes, Mr. Witherspoon, and Mr. Tsukalas voting against approval for the variance. Mr. Pitts asked if they would be permitted to come back. Mr. Macholl explained that they would have to wait at least a year to bring back the same request. 2 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. Witherspoon. The motion passed unanimously 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Date: ________________ Tim Macholl Zoning Administrator Approved: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman _____________________________________; or, Don Nye, Vice Chairman ______________________________________ 3  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS#129-10-11-003 105 Pine Valley Drive, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS March 9, 2021 Request: Variance request to increase the permitted impervious surface from 35% to 41.8% 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 patio and cover at 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. It would be possible to reduce the lot coverage through the removal of some paving. b. Other property in the area 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 the covered patio. d. Detriment could potentially be caused to other properties by the issuance of this variance on this property. By permitting lot coverage variances the Town will be contributing to the worsening of a lot coverage issue. Lot coverage contributes to the increase of runoff from properties and the speed at which that water runs off. This exacerbates the flooding issues that are existing throughout the area. Though there may not be “flooding issues” on this property, by continuing to approve lot coverage increases it affects the overall area. (a) Extraordinary Conditions: None. (b) Other Property: None. (c) Utilization:  The house set back was required to align with other houses on the street, making our driveway longer.  The overall size of our house is small compared to the houses on either side. The footprint is larger because it is one level and built for ADA compliance as we age.  The addition of a covered porch would allow us to sit outside more and enjoy the beauty of Summerville with our wooded lot and golf course view. o As part of this renovation, we plan to double the amount of grass in our back yard. This should help with absorption of run-off. (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. We have obtained verbal agreement from our neighbors on both sides of the property that they have no objection to this variance.