Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA February 8, 2022 5:00 PM Town Hall (annex) – Council Chambers 200 S. Main Street I. Approval of minutes from January 11, 2022 II. OLD 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 III. NEW BUSINESS: 1. No New Business IV. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None V. ADJOURN Posted February 2, 2022  Board of Zoning Appeals Tuesday, January 11, 2022 Council Chambers – 3rd Floor Summerville Town Hall Members Present: Staff Present: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator Don Nye, Vice Chairman Lionel Lawson - Absent John Thurmes John Witherspoon Items on the agenda: MINUTES: Approval of minutes from December 14, 2021 OLD BUSINESS: 1. No Old Business 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 MISCELLANEOUS: 1. Election of Officers The meeting was called to order at 5:01 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 December 14, 2021 Minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Witherspoon. The motion was approved 3-1 with Mr. Nye abstaining due to being absent from that meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1. None NEW BUSINESS 1. 323 Renau Boulevard – The first item under New Business, 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. Mr. Macholl introduced the request and explained the situation. He explained that this is an after the fact variance request, work was started prior to application for a permit, and the issues would have been addressed at the time of application if an application had been submitted. Mr. Terry Conlin of Express Sunrooms addressed the request, he explained that unfortunately due to the different requirements in the various jurisdictions that they work in, they were unaware of the need for a permit for the paving. He explained that other jurisdictions view pavers and their permeability differently. He said that he was unaware of the driveway limits, and he felt that there would be very little negative impact due to the existing undeveloped HOA property right next door. Mr. Thurmes asked what type of base these were on. Mr. Conlin said an ROC crushed limestone base. It is not mortar set, and has gaps between bricks. Mr. Tsukalas pointed out in the pictures there is a concrete edge. Mr. Conlin agreed that it was there and said that it is used merely to hold the bricks in place. Mr. Conlin and the board discussed how other jurisdictions handle lot coverage. The Board expressed a desire to have staff look into addressing this situation due to the high number of applications for lot coverage variances. Mr. Macholl said that he would look into this and bring back a recommendation. Mrs. Pinion the property owner addressed the Board and explained that the HOA property next door drops tons of pine needles and that they chose the travertine deck instead of poured concrete. The HOA had approved all of the proposed improvements. Mr. Witherspoon asked if the driveway could be converted to gravel. Mr. Macholl said it could, but it would still have the same width issue. Mrs. Pinion said that they had spent $15,000 on the driveway and they get constant compliments from the neighbors on it. The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Board concerning the application. Ms. Nancy Armstrong of 113 Lacosta Way addressed the Board and explained her support for the applicant’s request. She felt that the driveway issue helped mitigate safety concerns by moving cars off the street. Mr. Thurmes asked if the Engineering Department would be able to review this would it have been under 35%. Mr. Macholl said that he thought with proper details it may be able to meet or come in below the 35%. Mr. Conlin told the Board that the Isle of Palms accepts pervious pavers and counts them at 50%, and that Sullivan’s Island counts them at 100% pervious. The Board discussed the request. Mr. Thurmes expressed concerns about the lot coverage issue and felt that there were extenuating circumstances, but that he was OK with the setback and driveway. Mr. Witherspoon agreed. Mr. Nye expressed support for all of the requests. The Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Nye made a motion to approve. Hearing no Second the motion failed. The Chairman asked for further a different motion. Mr. Thurmes made a motion to Approve the Setback and Driveway Width request, but defer the lot coverage request. Mr. Witherspoon seconded the motion. Mr. Tsukalas said that he thought that the board should table the whole thing, and that the Board should look at the everything together. He said that he felt that the lot coverage issue is a big deal and that the Engineering Department should weigh in on the situation. 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 need at least 3 votes to be able to pass. The Chairman called for an alternative motion. Mr. Tsukalas made a motion to defer and allow the Engineering Department a chance to weigh in. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thurmes. There being no further discussion the Chairman called for the vote. The Motion to defer was approved 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. Election of Officers – Mr. Macholl said that at this time the Board can make nominations for new officers, or they can make a motion to maintain the existing situation. Mr. Witherspoon made a motion to maintain the existing officers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thurmes. The Chairman asked for further discussion, hearing none he called for the vote. The Motion passed 4-0 to maintain the existing officers, Mr. Tsukalas as Charmain, and Mr. Nye as Vice Chairman. ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:41 PM by the Chairman. Respectfully Submitted, Date: ________________ Tim Macholl Zoning Administrator Approved: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman _____________________________________; or, Don Nye, Vice Chairman ______________________________________ 2  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS #129-06-16-014 323 Renau Boulevard, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 8, 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. Subsequent to the conclusion of the last meeting, staff has had discussion concerning how to handle lot coverage. We have determined that it would be best to adopt and amend the Town’s Stormwater Manual and to include language that will guide homeowners and contractors on proper installation of pervious pavers to meet the Town’s lot coverage limits. The recommendation would provide for reduced impervious surface area attributed to paving if the installation is completed properly coupled with mitigation to offset the stormwater runoff from the excess lot coverage. Based on the recommended language, the requested lot coverage variance would not be necessary. The evaluation of the variance request remains the same. It is staff’s position that the only hardship present is the fact that the work was completed without a permit. If the Board identifies a hardship and finds that a variance of the lot coverage, driveway width, and side setback for an accessory structure is warranted staff strongly recommends the following condition be added to the approval. 1. That the applicant and owner of the property work with the Engineering Department to implement appropriate mitigation to offset the stormwater runoff from the excess lot coverage. 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.