Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA May 11, 2021 5:00 PM Town Hall (annex) – Council Chambers 200 S. Main Street I. Approval of minutes from April 13, 2021 (For below item, signs posted on property April 26, 2021 and ad on April 25, 2021 in Post & Courier) II. OLD BUSINESS: 1. No Old Business III. NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 136-16-03-011, 0 Vardon Drive, zoned GR-5 – General Residential, owned by Randolph Lemon – variance request to reduce the front setback from 25 feet to 20 feet and reduce the rear setback from 25 feet to 11 feet. Ordinance Section 2.7.3 A and 2.7.3 D. IV. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None V. ADJOURN Posted May 4, 2021  Board of Zoning Appeals Tuesday, April 13, 2021 Council Chambers – 3rd Floor Summerville Town Hall Members Present: Staff Present: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator Don Nye, Vice Chairman Lionel Lawson John Thurmes John Witherspoon Items on the agenda: OLD BUSINESS: 1. None NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 130-15-04-002, 602 W. 5 th North Street, zoned N-MX – Neighborhood Mixed Use, owned by MFD Rental Properties, Inc. – variance request to allow staff parking to be constructed in the front yard. Ordinance Section 2.5.6 A. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None The meeting was called to order at 5:03 PM by the Chairman. Mr. Tsukalas asked for any comments or edits for the minutes from the March 9, 2021 meeting minutes. A motion was made by Mr. Thurmes to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nye. The motion passed 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 1. None NEW BUSINESS 1. 602 W. 5th North Street – The first item under New Business TMS # 130-15-04-002, 602 W. 5th North Street, zoned N-MX – Neighborhood Mixed Use, owned by MFD Rental Properties, Inc. – variance request to allow staff parking to be constructed in the front yard. Ordinance Section 2.5.6 A. Mr. Macholl explained the request from the applicant. He explained that the applicant had gone through the appropriate process to change the use of the property from residential to commercial and gained approval for the parking in the rear. The applicant though started work on the parking in the front yard without gaining approval from the planning department. The property is zoned N-MX and parking is not permitted in the front yard. He also explained that the front yard is really the only location for the parking to go without removing the existing garage and shed, which are being used by the business. Ms. Mary Williams addressed the Board and explained that her services are one employee to one customer and that the parking available is not adequate for the business. There is not safe or viable on street parking for clients and staff to use. The yard is wet and can’t be parked on. She presented that there is an existing driveway on that side and it would be limited to employees only. Mr. Thurmes asked about other locations for parking. Mr. Macholl showed pictures of the property and showed the existing constraints. Mr. Nye asked where customers parked. Ms. Williams responded in the Palmetto Street parking. Mr. Tsukalas asked if it would be possible to build a drive around the back. Mr. Macholl explained that buffers would prevent this. Mr. Thurmes asked if the variance could be limited to just the applicant. Mr. Macholl explained that it has been done in the past, but a variance is a legal change to the zoning requirements for the property and it typically runs with the property. Variance approvals can be limited with conditions. Mr. Tsukalas asked if the Town had approved the tree removal, where would that parking have been built. Mr. Enoch Dickerson addressed the question, stating that it would have been moved where the tree was, but the removal was denied. The parking location was chosen because it was the safest location that was big enough to provide the maneuverability. Mr. Thurmes asked if it was possible to condition the approval to parking for employees only. Mr. Macholl confirmed that it was possible, he added that the Board could also limit the number of parking spaces built. Mr. Tsukalas expressed a concern for the safety of those using the lot. Ms. Williams stated that the employees would chain off the drive after they had arrived and unchain it to leave. Mr. Thurmes made a motion for Conditional Approval, with the following conditions: 1. The parking be limited to employees only; 2. That a maximum of 6 parking spaces can be constructed in the front yard. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nye. The Chairman asked for any further discussion. There being no further discussion he called for the vote. The motion was approved 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:31 PM on a motion by Mr. Nye 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 ______________________________________ 2  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS #136-16-03-011 0 Vardon Drive, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 9, 2021 Request: Variance request to reduce the front setback from 25 feet to 20 feet and reduce the rear setback from 25 feet to 11 feet. Ordinance Section 2.7.3 A and 2.7.3 D Property Zoning: GR-5 General Residential Surrounding Zoning: North: GR-5 General Residential South: GR-5 General Residential East: GR-2 General Residential West: GR-5 General Residential Ordinance requires: Ordinance Section 2.7.3 A and 2.7.3 D – Front: 25, Rear: 25 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 by the applicant prior to application for building permit a. Extraordinary conditions do exist based upon the shape of the property. There is no way with the existing shape and easements on the property that a house would be able to meet both front and rear setbacks. b. Other property in the area do not have similar lot shapes. c. Utilization of the property is eliminated due the existing setbacks and easements. d. Detriment will not be caused to other properties by the issuance of this variance on this property.  LJH LAND SURVEYING, LLC 1544 INLAND AVE. CHARLESTON, SC 29412 (843) 460-5569 ljhunt80@hotmail.com C A R O T H L U S O I N LJH LAND A SURVEYING, LLC Y CER RIT No. C06533 TI HO T FI E OF AU CA T 0 20' 40' PROJECT NAME: T.M.S.# 136-16-03-011.000 COREY WOODS SUMMERVILLE,SC 29483 SHEET TITLE: PROPOSED LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.: DWG BY: CHKD BY: 21-001 LJH LJH DATE: SCALE: 4/16/2021 1" = 40' SHEET: REVISION: 1 OF 1