Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA May 18, 2021 5:00 PM Town Hall (annex) – Council Chambers 200 S. Main Street I. None (For below item, signs posted on property May 3, 2021 and ad on May 2, 2021 in Post & Courier) II. OLD BUSINESS: 1. No Old Business III. NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 137-14-06-001, 803 S. Main Street, zoned GR-2 – General Residential, owned by Nathaniel and Mary Rice – variance request to reduce the side setback from 10 feet to 2 feet for an accessory structure. Ordinance Section 2.7.4.B. IV. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None V. ADJOURN Posted May 11, 2021  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS #137-14-06-001 803 S. Main Street, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS May 18, 2021 Request: Variance request to reduce the side setback from 10 feet to 2 feet for an accessory structure Property Zoning: GR-2 General Residential Surrounding Zoning: North: GR-2 General Residential South: PL Public Land East: GR-2 General Residential West: PL Public Land Ordinance requires: Ordinance Section 2.7.4.B 10 feet 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 prior to application for building permit a. Extraordinary conditions do not exist based upon the size of the property. The cabana could potentially be moved to meet the required setback. b. Other property in the area do have similar lot shapes and sizes. c. Utilization of the property will not be reduced or eliminated due the required setback being met. There are other locations on the property that will be away from the tree that they are trying to preserve and protect while still meeting the required setback. d. Detriment will not be caused to other properties by the issuance of this variance on this property.  803 S. Main Street Pool Cabana Variance Request We are requesting a variance to the current setback requirements to accommodate a pool cabana. It is our understanding that the current setback from our property line that runs along the right side of our property, between us and the DD2 Fine Arts Building is 10 feet. We are requesting a 2-foot setback, where the back side of the cabana will begin. The proposed measurements of the cabana are 20-feet wide and 15 feet deep. (Conceptual photo included in attachment-actual drawings will be obtained and submitted if our request is approved) Our custom, freeform, inground pool is being installed in the back right section of the property, outside of the drip line of the historic oak tree. This is to preserve the root system and to protect the tree. We are also requesting the variance to keep the cabana for encroaching the grand oak. Placing the cabana as close to our privacy fence line as possible will: 1) Help avoid conditions that make it difficult or impossible to make feasible use of the property. (Protection of the historic Oak tree) 2) Will not affect the DD2 building next door-district offices. 3) Not granting the variance will unreasonably restrict the utilization of our property. There is no other place for the cabana to be built with the configuration of our deck and pool. And we don’t want a 10-foot gap between the back of the cabana and privacy fence. 4) Granting this variance would not be a detriment to adjacent property or public good and the character of the district will not be harmed. The cabana will be designed to fit into the historic district and compliment the historic nature of our home. I have included several attachments for your review. Please let us know if you need anything else preliminarily. Nathaniel & Mary Rice, 843.709.9100