Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA January 11, 2022 5:00 PM Town Hall (annex) – Council Chambers 200 S. Main Street I. Approval of minutes from November 12, 2019 (For below item, signs posted on property December 23, 2020 and ad on December 27, 2020 in Post & Courier) II. OLD BUSINESS: 1. No Old Business III. NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 129-06-16-014, 323 Renau Boulevard, zoned PUD Planned Development District, owned by Frances Jean Pinion – Variance request to increase the permitted maximum lot coverage from 35% to 37% for the construction of a patio with cover and driveway expansion; decrease the side setback for an accessory structure from five feet to one foot; increase from a maximum 20 foot wide driveway to a 32 foot wide driveway; and increase the maximum lot width allowance for the driveway from 33% to 43% lot width. Ordinance Sections 2.10; 7.7.1.B.1 IV. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. Election of Officers V. ADJOURN Posted January 4, 2022  Board of Zoning Appeals Tuesday, December 14, 2021 Council Chambers – 3rd Floor Summerville Town Hall Members Present: Staff Present: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator Don Nye, Vice Chairman - Absent Lionel Lawson John Thurmes John Witherspoon Items on the agenda: MINUTES: Approval of minutes from November 9, 2021 OLD BUSINESS: 1. None NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 144-04-07-007, 112 Mary Street, zoned GR-5 – General Residential, owned by Tess Graham. – Special Exception request to allow the operation of a Short Term Rental. Ordinance Section 3.4.3. 2. TMS #130-15-11-003, 202 W. 6th North Street, zoned N-MX – Neighborhood Mixed Use, Owned by Al C. Browder and Kelly J. Browder – Variance request to allow parking to be constructed in the front yard. Ordinance Section 2.5.6 A. 3. TMS #145-00-00-014, Corner of Gahagan Road and Garbon Drive, zoned N-R – Neighborhood Residential, Owned by Rolina Homes, LLC. – Variance request to reduce the front setback from 10 feet to eight feet for the buildings fronting Gahagan Road, and reduce the rear setback from 20 feet to six feet for lots 1-6; from 20 feet to 15 feet for lots 7-9; from 20 feet to seven feet for lot 10; from 20 feet to seven feet for lots 11-20. Ordinance Sections 2.5.3 A and 2.5.3 D. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by the Chairman. The Chairman asked for consideration of the minutes in the packet, hearing no corrections or edits he called for a motion. Mr. Thurmes made a motion to approve the November 9, 2021 Minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Witherspoon. The motion was approved 4-0. OLD BUSINESS 1. None NEW BUSINESS 1. 112 Mary Street – The first item under New Business, TMS # 144-04-07-007, 112 Mary Street, zoned GR-5 – General Residential, owned by Tess Graham. – Special Exception request to allow the operation of a Short Term Rental. Ordinance Section 3.4.3. Mr. Macholl introduced the requested Special Exception and the requirements of the Ordinance. The applicant, was not present to discuss the proposed request with the Board. Ms. Mary Stewart of 111 Mary Street came to the podium to express concerns about the request, and stated that she did not feel that this use was compatible with the location on Mary Street, she also expressed a concern about the impact a Short Term Rental may have on the adjacent property values. Ms. Stewart also asked for clarification on the requirements concerning the residency requirement and if the owner had to be present as stated in the ordinance. Mr. Macholl confirmed that the requirement would apply to this location and request. Ms. Linda Bosley of 113 Mary Street also expressed concerns about the proposed use of the property for a Short Term Rental. The Chairman asked if there were any comments or questions. Hearing none he called for a motion. Mr. Thurmes made a motion to approve. The motion was seconded by Mr. Witherspoon. The Chairman asked for further discussion. Mr. Lawson stated that he went by the property to take a look and based on the concerns raised by the neighbors, he did not feel he could support the request. Mr. Thurmes stated that he would have preferred to hear from the applicant. He thought that if it were just one room that it would not be of great concern. He did consider that this could be a risk to the neighborhood. Ms. Stewart asked if she could add to the discussion. The Chairman allowed the additional information. She stated that she had spoken to the applicant and that she had indicated that because the applicant travelled a lot, she was looking for a way to make money off of her home while she was not there. Mr. Witherspoon confirmed that they would need to meet the requirements. Mr. Macholl stated that he would need to speak further with the applicant and make sure that they understood the requirements. Mr. Tsukalas expressed a concern for additional traffic on the already busy and narrow street. Hearing no further discussion the Chairman called for the vote. The vote ended 2-2. Without three votes the motion to approve cannot pass. Mr. Macholl confirmed that the motion failed and the Special Exception could not be approved without three votes to approve. He asked if the Chairman wanted to address the Special Exception Criteria. The Chairman said he would read the criteria. Section 13.10.4 establishes the criteria that the BZA is required to evaluate the application. The following are the criteria: 1. Whether the proposed use is compatible with existing land uses in the surrounding area; Mr. Tsukalas stated that the proposed use is not compatible with the land uses in the surrounding area due to the narrow Right of Way and the busy nature of the street. 2. Whether the proposed site plan, circulation plan, and schematic architectural designs are harmonious with the character of the surrounding area; Mr. Tsukalas and Mr. Thurmes felt that this is not compatible and that the above reason was adequate to address denying the request. Mr. Macholl asked if they needed to finish addressing the criteria, and the Board felt that because of the lack of votes, and not meeting the first two criteria, it was not necessary to finish reading the six criteria. 2. 202 W. 6th North Street – The second item under new business, TMS #130-15-11-003, 202 W. 6th North Street, zoned N- MX – Neighborhood Mixed Use, Owned by Al C. Browder and Kelly J. Browder – Variance request to allow parking to be constructed in the front yard. Mr. Macholl introduced the project and read the staff report, recommending that if the Board approved the variance to allow parking in the front yard, that the following conditions be added: 1. That the Variance will cease to apply upon the complete redevelopment of the property for a new commercial development. 2. The parking will be screened according to Section 8.5.2 The Chairman asked if the applicant was present and wanted to address the Board. Mr. Michael Browder stated from the audience that he did not feel the need to add anything to the staff report. Mr. Tsukalas asked what type of business would be using the property. Mr. Browder stated it would be a law firm. Mr. Lawson asked what type of parking surface would be installed. Mr. Browder said they intended to use gravel. Mr. Thurmes made a motion to approve. The motion was seconded by Mr. Witherspoon. The Chairman asked for further discussion. Mr. Thurmes said that he felt that this has been done before and that with the conditions it would need to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Witherspoon agreed that it should be approved with the suggested conditions and asked if the motion should be amended to include the conditions. Mr. Thurmes agreed and amended his original motion to include staff’s recommended conditions. Mr. Tsukalas pointed out that the whole neighborhood was annexed years ago and given business zoning. Hearing no further discussion the Chairman called for the vote. The motion to Approve with the stated conditions passed 4-0. 3. Gahagan and Garbon – The third item under new business, TMS #145-00-00-014, Corner of Gahagan Road and Garbon Drive, zoned N-R – Neighborhood Residential, Owned by Rolina Homes, LLC. – Variance request to reduce the front setback from 10 feet to eight feet for the buildings fronting Gahagan Road, and reduce the rear setback from 20 feet to six feet for lots 1-6; from 20 feet to 15 feet for lots 7-9; from 20 feet to seven feet for lot 10; from 20 feet to seven feet for lots 11-20. Ordinance Sections 2.5.3 A and 2.5.3 D. Mr. Macholl read the staff report into the record and explained that due to changes in the ordinance during, and after the review and approval process, the need for variances arose. He also pointed out that the staff had determined that the rear 2 parking would actually qualify as an alley and would therefore negate the need for the rear setback variances. Mr. Elliott Locklair confirmed the description as presented by Mr. Macholl, and explained how this was a unique situation. Mr. Witherspoon made a motion to approve. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tsukalas. The Chairman asked for further discussion. Mr. Tsukalas stated that he felt that the applicant had done everything right through the process, but the requirements kept changing on them. The process is difficult enough without it all of a sudden getting changed. Hearing no further discussion the Chairman called for the vote. The motion to Approve passed 4-0. Mr. Macholl asked the Board to address the criteria. 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. Mr. Thurmes stated that the extraordinary conditions are that the zoning requirements got changed. b. Other property. Extraordinary conditions generally do not apply to other property in the vicinity. The Board agreed that this would 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. Mr. Witherspoon stated that the project was previously approved and the changes would inappropriately restrict the development. 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. Mr. Tsukalas stated that the approval would not have a detrimental effect on adjacent properties. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:03 PM on a motion by Mr. Witherspoon and a second by Mr. Tsukalas. The motion passed unanimously 4-0. Respectfully Submitted, Date: ________________ Tim Macholl Zoning Administrator Approved: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman _____________________________________; or, Don Nye, Vice Chairman ______________________________________ 3  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS #129-06-16-014 323 Renau Boulevard, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS January 11, 2022 Request: Variance request to increase the permitted maximum lot coverage from 35% to 37% for the construction of a patio with cover and driveway expansion; decrease the side setback for an accessory structure from five feet to one foot; increase from a maximum 20 foot wide driveway to a 32 foot wide driveway; and increase the maximum lot width allowance for the driveway from 33% to 43% lot width. Ordinance Sections 2.10; 7.7.1.B.1 Property Zoning: PUD Planned Unit Development – Pine Forest Country Club – Linkside Village Phase IX Surrounding Zoning: North: PUD Planned Unit Development South: PUD Planned Unit Development East: PUD Planned Unit Development West: PUD Planned Unit Development Ordinance requires: Ordinance Section 2.10 Lot coverage 35%; Side Setback – Accessory Structure – five (5) feet; Ordinance Section 7.7.1.B.1 driveway width limited to 1/3 of lot frontage 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 lot coverage variance was determined at the time of application for building permit. The work was started prior to application for a permit. If work permit applications had been reviewed as presented, revisions would have been required to meet the lot coverage, setback and driveway width requirements. 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. This is a lot that is similar in shape and size as others within the subdivision. b. Other property in the area do have similar lot shapes and sizes, with similarly sized homes on the properties. c. Utilization of the property is reduced but not eliminated due to lot coverage. Unfortunately no detached structure contributing to lot coverage would be able to be added without a variance. Due to the house being set directly on the front setback the driveway width could negatively impact the utilization of the property. The driveway is not deep enough to park more than one car deep. The setback reduction would have little to no impact on the utilization of the property, it could and should have been constructed in a different location. d. Detriment could 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. It is unlikely that the issuance of the setback and driveway width variances will have any negative impact on other properties in the area. 2  Express Sunrooms of Charleston 187 Farmington Road Summerville, SC 29486 (843) 501-0036 Town of Summerville Board of Zoning Appeals 200 S. Main Street Summerville, SC 29483 RE: Variance Statement for 323 Renau Blvd To Whom It May Concern: The property owner at 323 Renau Blvd. Summerville, SC 29485 is seeking a variance for two projects. The property owner has a unique property location as it is a corner lot with a parcel of land on the right and rear of the property that is owned by the HOA. Project #1 is a 12 x 12 travertine patio located in the rear yard with a 12 x 12 freestanding patio cover. The patio cover is classified as an accessory structure because it is not attached to the home. The cover will provide sun protection and allow the homeowner to utilize the back yard. Travertine pavers are generally considered 50% permeable due to the sand application in the joint lines and the base material used. The homeowner has no house on the right side or the rear property line only HOA common area. The HOA has already approved the patio cover and travertine patio to be built in this location as it will have no effect on the neighboring common area. We are asking for a variance from Town of Summerville to allow the patio cover to partially encroach within the 5’ set back of the right side. Project #2 is to widen the driveway 12’ on the right side with pavers and install a 3x33 paver walkway, as pavers are generally considered more permeable than concrete. There is no home on the right or rear side of the property. There is a parcel of land owned by the HOA. The HOA has already approved the driveway as it would have no effect on that parcel. This lot is unique in that it is a corner lot with the HOA property on the right side. Because the HOA parcel will never have any structure built on it limiting this property owners coverage to 35% is not necessary. We are asking for a variance to allow the driveway extension, walkway, and patio cover over paver patio. Sincerely, Michael Gregory Express Sunrooms of Charleston Encls: HOA approval letter, ARB approval of side encroachment, location photo.