Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA August 9, 2022 5:00 PM Town Hall (annex) – Council Chambers 200 S. Main Street I. Approval of minutes from June 14, 2022 II. OLD BUSINESS: 1. No Old Business III. NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 137-02-13-005, 713 W. Carolina Avenue, zoned GR-2 General Residential, owned by Gary and Rebecca English – Variance request to reduce the required side setback for an accessory structure from 10 feet to five feet for a greenhouse. Ordinance Section 2.7.4 B. (District 2) 2. TMS # 137-02-08-004, 506 W. 1st North Street, zoned GR-2 General Residential owned by Wendell and Angela Bailey – Variance request to reduce the required side setback for a building addition from 15 feet to 11 feet. Ordinance Section 2.7.3 B (District 1) IV. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None V. ADJOURN Posted August 2, 2022  Board of Zoning Appeals Tuesday, June 14, 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 John Thurmes John Witherspoon Items on the agenda: MINUTES: 1. Approval of minutes from May 10, 2022 OLD BUSINESS: 1. No Old Business NEW BUSINESS: 1. TMS # 388-00-00-513, 116 Wynfield Forest Drive, zoned PUD Planned Unit Development owned by Jimmie and Jacquenette Lawrence – Variance request to increase the maximum impervious surface from 40% to 42% and a variance to increase the permitted driveway width from 16.3’ to 27’. Ordinance Section 2.10. (District 2) 2. TMS # 153-05-00-027, 111 Jedi Lane, zoned N-R Neighborhood Residential owned by John Barrineau – Variance request to allow parking located in the front yard. Ordinance Section 2.5.6.A (District 5) MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None The meeting was called to order at 5:02 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. Nye made a motion to approve the May 10, 2022 Minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thurmes. The motion was approved 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 1. No Old Business NEW BUSINESS 1. 116 Wynfield Forest Drive – TMS # 388-00-00-513, 116 Wynfield Forest Drive, zoned PUD Planned Unit Development owned by Jimmie and Jacquenette Lawrence – Variance request to increase the maximum impervious surface from 40% to 42% and a variance to increase the permitted driveway width from 16.3’ to 27’. Ordinance Section 2.10. Mr. Macholl introduced the request and explained the situation. Mr. Jimmie Lawrence came to the podium and explained that the plan was not to exceed lot coverage. Originally thought of just removing the paving, but Mr. Macholl proposed applying for the variance in the chance that it may be permitted to stay. He said that if the Board determines that he needs to remove paving he will. Mr. Thurmes asked if the paving had been approved by the Home Owners Association. Mr. Lawrence confirmed that yes it was HOA approved. He pointed out that other properties were in a similar situation and that he was unaware of other variances for their basketball courts in their backyards. Mr. Thurmes explained that the Board cannot approve a Variance just because they feel that it is ok. He pointed out the four criteria and said that he did not see how all four criteria were met in this situation. Mr. Witherspoon agreed, and pointed out that the Board had no knowledge of those other properties. Mr. Thurmes pointed out that those other properties had probably not applied for permits. Mr. Tsukalas asked if the applicant had more vehicles than the three shown in the pictures. Mr. Lawrence confirmed that he had four vehicles at the property. He explained that the exiting driveways are too small, and there are too many cars on the streets. This has resulted in accidents and hit and runs throughout the neighborhood. Mr. Macholl explained the overall width of the drive, and the engineering requirement and recommended condition of approval. He also explained how the applicant could come into compliance with the 40% lot coverage limit, by removing some paving from the rear patio. Mr. Macholl explained the driveway width requirement of the UDO. Mr. Lawrence explained that he works out in Mt. Pleasant, and that he just wants this issue to be over. He asked how this is made fair. He said that he felt other properties had more lot coverage than his property, and that his situation does not endanger anyone or anything, but that he will do what he is told. Mr. Tsukalas made a motion to Approve with the staff condition to trim back the patio to meet the 40% lot coverage limit and meet the Engineering condition. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nye. The Chairman called for further discussion. Mr. Tsukalas explained how the applicant can meet the requirements of the proposed conditions. Mr. Macholl clarified the motion. Mr. Thurmes still did not see how this request met the four mandated criteria. Mr. Macholl read the four criteria. Mr. Macholl explained to the applicant that the Burden of Proof is upon the applicant to show that there is a hardship. 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. Mr. Thurmes stated that the layout of the streets and small driveways contribute to a need for a wider driveway b. Other property. Extraordinary conditions generally do not apply to other property in the vicinity. Mr. Lawson said that other property in the area do have similar lot shapes and sizes, but every property has unique circumstances. 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. Nye said that the Utilization of the property is not eliminated due to the lot coverage limit, but personal property may be negatively impacted due to the lack of parking. 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. Thurmes stated Detriment may be caused to other properties by the issuance of this variance on this property. The overall development was engineered to allow for each lot to have up to 40% lot coverage. With the approval of a variance at this location it will contribute to overburdening the as built stormwater detention for the overall development and may contribute to the flooding of other properties within the neighborhood and other areas in Town. The expansion of the driveway will result in fewer parked vehicles in the streets which will be beneficial to other properties in the neighborhood Mr. Lawson objected to the nature of the arbitrary lot coverage number. Mr. Macholl explained the engineering process, and how the stormwater design is reviewed and approved. Mr. Lawson felt that there was an undue hardship being placed on the applicant to tear out the work completed. Hearing no further discussion, the Chairman called for the vote. The motion was approved 3-2 with Mr. Thurmes and Mr. Witherspoon voting against. Mr. Lawrence asked what the penalty might be if he did not meet the conditions of the approval. Mr. Macholl explained that a citation for up to $1050.50 can be issued for each day that the violation remains on the property, but that the Town can and will continue to work with the applicant to address the issue without the need for citations and fines. Mr. Lawrence stressed that it is important to be fair throughout the entire neighborhood. 2. 111 Jedi Lane – The second item under New Business was a variance application for TMS # 153-05-00-027, 111 Jedi Lane, zoned N-R Neighborhood Residential owned by John Barrineau – Variance request to allow parking located in the front yard. Ordinance Section 2.5.6.A. Mr. Macholl introduced the project and read the staff report. He explained that staff felt that there is a hardship present on the property, and that all four criteria are met. Mr. Thurmes asked if a condition is required like prior similar 2 requests. Mr. Macholl explained that the other instances were for commercial uses, and that they were reusing existing structures. In this instance, it is the redevelopment of the property, in a residential neighborhood. He explained to mee the requirement of parking in the rear it would result in extensive paving which is not to the benefit of the neighborhood. He explained that staff felt this is an appropriate request for a variance because of the nature of the existing front driveways for the other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Tsukalas asked about the proposed layout of the development. Mr. Macholl explained that to meet the requirement, the building would need to move forward to the setback line, and the entire backyard would be paved. Mr. Tsukalas asked about the number of units. Mr. Macholl confirmed it was a four-unit townhouse. Mr. Witherspoon asked if the Board had to consider the parking pad construction material. Mr. Macholl explained that with the zoning, the overall development parcel was considered and they did not rise to the 40% lot coverage limit. Mr. Nye asked if the permit for the building had been approved yet, and Mr. Macholl explained that it has not been applied for yet. He explained that the applicant has continued to work with staff for the best outcome. Mr. Nye asked if the Building Department would have issues approving it. Mr. Macholl felt that there should be not issues. Mr. Tsukalas asked about the mix of housing in the neighborhood. He asked if the other trailers were going to be removed. Ms. Sharee Mason explained they were only developing only this one parcel. Mr. Nye did not see the problem all of the other parking was located in the front yard; the question was the parking location not the number of units. Mr. Thurmes made a motion to Approve the variance for 111 Jedi Lane. Mr. Nye seconded the motion. The Chairman asked for further discussion. 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. Extraordinary conditions do exist on the property. The shape of the lot is long and narrow. With proper site layout this leaves little to no room for a maneuvering lane and parking depth to meet the requirements of the ordinance. b. Other property. Extraordinary conditions generally do not apply to other property in the vicinity. Other property in the area do have similar lot shapes and sizes. These lots though are already developed and all have parking located in the front yards. 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. Utilization of the property is could be eliminated with the application of this requirement. It would result in extensive paving, possibly leading to lot coverage issues, as well as a functional loss of yard space for future residents 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. Detriment would not be caused to other properties directly adjacent due to the existence of front yard parking in the current neighborhood. Hearing no further discussion, the Chairman called for the vote. The motion was approved 4-1 with Mr. Tsukalas voting against. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. None 3 ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:46 PM by the Chairman. Respectfully Submitted, Date: ________________ Tim Macholl Zoning Administrator Approved: Denis Tsukalas, Chairman _____________________________________; or, Don Nye, Vice Chairman ______________________________________ 4  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS #137-02-13-005 713 W. Carolina Avenue, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS August 9, 2022 Request: Variance request to reduce the required side setback for an accessory structure from 10 feet to five feet. Property Zoning: GR-2 General Residential Surrounding Zoning: North: GR-2 General Residential South: GR-2 General Residential East: GR-2 General Residential West: GR-2 General Residential Ordinance requires: Ordinance Section 2.7.4 B – Accessory Building Placement – Side Setback – Interior 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 reduction was brought to the attention of Town Staff by an anonymous complaint. The shed was constructed without a permit, or BAR approval. The BAR will review the application at their 8/2/2022 meeting. 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. The shape of the lot is rectangular and is has 0.386 acres (16,814 sf). b. Other property in the area do have similar lot shapes and sizes. c. Utilization of the property could be diminished but will not be eliminated by placing the shed at the required 10 foot setback from the side property line. d. Detriment would not be caused to other properties by allowing this shed to remain in the location it is currently in already. Subject Property Statement of property owner, Gary English, addressing the State mandated criteria. (a) Extraordinary Conditions: Other corner lot is usually swampy- see photo attached. (b) Other Property: My lot is a focal point for drainage from other properties surrounding me. (c) Utilization: In addition to (a) and (b) the current location of the greenhouse allows for maximum utilization for recreation, gardening and play area for children. This location allows for maximum use of southern exposure for plants housed in the greenhouse. I assembled the greenhouse and to now be forced to move it five feet would exacerbate an existing disc condition with my neck for which I am receiving medical care. (d) Detriment: As can be seen from the letters from my neighbors who will be most affected by placement of the greenhouse have no objection to the current placement and therefore will not be a detriment to the neighborhood or the public good. Certainly the character of the district will be harmed by granting the variance. s/ Gary English July 18, 2022 713 W. Carolina Av – Flooding, Garage and Yard Rear of Greenhouse Rear of Greenhouse Greenhouse – Side 102 S Palmetto – 1 102 S Palmetto – 2 112 S. Walnut 502 S. Doty 627 W. Richardson – 2 627 W Richardson – 1  VARIANCE REQUEST TMS #137-02-08-004 506 W. 1st North Street, Summerville, SC STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS August 9, 2022 Request: Variance request to reduce the required side setback for a building addition from 15 feet to 11 feet Property Zoning: GR-2 General Residential Surrounding Zoning: North: GR-5 General Residential South: GR-2 General Residential East: GR-2 General Residential West: GR-2 General Residential Ordinance requires: Ordinance Section 2.7.3 B Side Setback 15 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 a building permit. Staff feels that the applicant does meet all four criteria, and that a hardship is present. a. Extraordinary conditions do exist on the property. The existing structure, built prior to zoning, was constructed relatively close to the property line. Balancing the architecture of the building will result in the encroachment into the setback b. Other property in the area do not have similar lot shapes and sizes. c. Utilization of the property is not eliminated due the setbacks, but it is severely limited for the intended use and would substantially alter the proposed design of the structure. d. Detriment will not be caused to other properties by the issuance of this variance on this property. Subject Property  WENDELL BAILEY, PE 205 Bayberry Run, Summerville, SC · 843-534-6821 Email · wbailey5@sc.rr.com Town of Summerville Zoning and Planning Board of Zoning Appeals 200 S. Main Street Summerville, SC 29483 RE: 506 W. 1St N Street variance request DEAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS, Please consider the following criteria in consideration of our request for a side setback variance for the property located at 506 W. 1st N. Street, Summerville, SC 29483. The current setback is 15’-0” and the request is for a variance of 10’-0” set back. This would provide nearly 2’-0 of buffer between the proposed addition and the new setback. If 10’-0” is unable to be approved, then a variance to a setback of 12’-0” would still allow the addition to be built. A local architect has been hired to review and consider all options for additional square footage prior to submitting this request for variance. The option being proposed is, in both the architect’s and our opinion, the best option to keep the exterior look of the home in complete balance with the neighborhood, while providing the most efficient use of the home without creating a financial hardship. Your kind consideration of the following is appreciated. • Extraordinary conditions: The choice to add an addition to the side of the home, along the south-east side was based on a number of reasons. The current layout as proposed, was developed through the consultation of an architect considering the best usage of the existing property, maintaining symmetry about the front elevation with minimal changes to the exterior architectural features. Because of the relatively small square footage of the home (less than 1000 square feet), there is a need to add additional square footage for additional bathroom and closet space. The addition adds approximately 200 square feet, which is minimal as it relates to both bath and closet space. Attempts to keep the addition within the setback, proves to be inefficient for use as well as significantly more expensive. With the existing roof line, trying to maintain a layout that was within the existing setback, made tie in of the new roof both visually unappealing as well as expensive due to major reframing of the roof. The existing space had a very small bathroom just off the rear kitchen that was extremely narrow and did not meet code requirements for clearances at fixtures.  My wife and I are approaching retirement age and considerations for aging in place were also taken into great consideration by the architect in developing the planned layout. Consideration was given to adding the additional space at the rear of the home; however, this would have required the removal of an existing rear porch, adding to the already high anticipated construction costs. All options to add additional square footage have been considered and have been found to be extremely cost prohibitive and would drive the cost of additions to be financially infeasible compared to an anticipated, renovated value of the property. This would create an extreme hardship to us as owners. An addition on the front, other than the proposed new, front porch would have required a complete rework of the existing floor plan and would have eliminated the option of a front porch. The new front porch is designed to fit within the character of many of the existing homes in the neighborhood. The front porch encourages one to sit and speak to neighbors as they take their morning and evening walks, taking us back to the hometown feel that was intended for Summerville. • Other Property: The adjacent property along the south-east boundary (TMS# 137-02- 08-003) owned by James W. Simmons, (adjacent to the variance request) currently has an old, unoccupied commercial building. There is also an old, rear entrance drive that allows access from West 1st, North Street, to the rear of the property (TMS#137- 02-08-002) that faces W. Luke Avenue. A variance would have no impact on use of this access drive. A variance to the current setback as requested, would have no negative impact to the property to the south-east both from a usage nor from an aesthetic standpoint and the addition as proposed would only improve the aesthetics of the location. There are abundant trees and shrubs along that border that act as a buffer between the two properties as well. • Utilization: Without a variance to the setback, the ability to add an addition that is both cost efficient and visibly appealing to the neighborhood would not be possible. As mentioned above, any addition that is within the current setback would have to be narrower and pushed deeper towards the rear of the home. This would not only be a costly option as reframing of the entire roof would be required to avoid an unsightly roof line. Reframing and changing the roofline would lead to an unbalanced look, lacking visual symmetry and would not fit with the style and look of surrounding neighborhood homes. As already mentioned, building off the back is not an option without major demolition of an existing porch as well as a complete reconfiguring of existing floor plan to accommodate the needed bathroom square footage. Again, this floor plan optimizes the ability to age in place and the intent of owner usage is a retirement home. • Detriment: Authorizing this request for variance in no way creates a detriment of any sort to the adjacent properties nor does it take away from the public good, both from an individual or collective standpoint. Essentially there is only one parcel along this easement and as mentioned above, there is ample tree and shrub buffer. There is an access drive that granting the request for variance will have absolutely no negative affect on, either for usage or aesthetically. This well thought out; well planned addition that encroaches very minimally into the easement, only adds to the charm, character, and appeal to the district and area in which it is located. We have had 2  conversations along the way with several of the residences telling of our intentions to renovate the property in question and have only been met with encouragement and excitement. Thank you again for your kind consideration of the requested variance. I have been resident of the town of Summerville since 1977, when I moved here as a high school student with my parents. My wife and I have been married since 1982 and have lived and raised our two children here in this lovely community we call home. Our children intend to do as we have, and eventually raise their families here too. We take great pride in doing our part to keep this town of ours one of the most desirable places to live in the country. My wife is a master gardener and has full intentions of turning it into and maintaining it as a beautifully landscaped property. She and my daughter both are members of the Flowertown Garden club, and my daughter is pursuing purchasing the property on the opposing side of our lot. I say all this to hopefully express to the committee how it is only our intent to do our part to improve and beautify the neighborhood and the Town of Summerville. Please allow us to begin to accomplish this by granting this variance and allowing us to renovate this great little home, restoring it to a condition that I am sure the original builder and owner would be proud of today. Thank you Wendell Wendell Bailey, PE 205 Bayberry Run Summerville, SC 29485 843-534-6821 Wbailey5@sc.rr.com 3 VARIANCE SUBMISSION DATE: ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN PLANNING PROJECT #: DRAWN BY: REVISIONS: CHECKED BY: HOUSE RENOVATION SURVEY BAILEY RESIDENCE A0.2 506 W. 1ST NORTH STREET 6.29.22 SUMMERVILLE, SC 29485 LEANTOO STUDIOS LLC 21.007.01 KLA 419 SUMTER AVENUE SUMMERVILLE SC 29483 KLA 843.696.3037  PERVIOUS VS. IMPERVIOUS 12,632.4 SF /0.29 ACRES EXISTING SITE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 30% MAX. COVERAGE = 3,789.72 SF 1. PATCH ROOF SHEATHING AT ALL ABANDONED PENETRATIONS 2. FLASH ALL NEW ROOF PENETRATIONS 0 SF CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 0 SF WALKWAY 1,760 SF HOUSE 1,760 SF (14% IMPERVIOUS) 6.29.22 12,632.4 SF SITE 1,760 SF IMPERVIOUS 10,872.4 SF PERVIOUS 419 SUMTER AVENUE SUMMERVILLE SC 29483 PLANNING -002 TMS# 137-02-08 o o 1" nt INTERIOR DESIGN pe CONSTRUCTION NOTES: PLANS nd pf N 57°20'11" W 63 .54' LEANTOO STUDIOS LLC "W BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING ON FACE OF CMU; TYPICAL THROUGHOUT 2-08-009 '18 BRICK INFILL TO MATCH EXISTING BRICK; PROVIDE SCREENED VENT OPENINGS TO MATCH 44 843.696.3037 EXISTING; TYPICAL THROUGHOUT 8° 0 04 TMS# 137-0 7 - 02 - 0 8 - S8 TMS# 13 1 X 6 HORIZONTAL LATTICE INFILL ON PORCH; PTD; 25'-0" EL L B . JR . & .49 2 ARCHITECTURE WEND STEPS IN BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING ivan A5.1 ILEY onica O'Sull 39 A -0" 25' EL A S . B NEW ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF OVER WATER PROOF MEMBRANE ON ' ANG EXISTING ROOF SHEATHING 0.29 ACRES David & Ver NEW ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF OVER WATER PROOF MEMBRANE ON NEW ROOF SHEATHING AND STRUCTURE N 30°44'03" NEW ROOF PLAN 2 SCALE: 1/8 = 1'-0" S 34°59'51" W 106.99' E 128.04' 12'-13 8" on s James W. Simm 27'-91 2" 4'-4" 15'-0" 10'-0" HOUSE RENOVATION 15'-0" 6'-3" 30'-0" 16'-01 2" BAILEY RESIDENCE 1'-8" 6'-0" 1'-4" 5'-81 2" 1'-4" 1'-8" 506 W. 1ST NORTH STREET 04.99' S 57°52'10" E 1 4'-8" 14'-0" 1'-4" 13'-4" SUMMERVILLE, SC 29485 15'-81 2" 4'-8" ory St. ±158' to N. Hick 1'-8" 2" ' R/W ( S -1 8 -1 8 8 ) LEGEND T N. S T RE ET - 100 W. 1S 10'-3" 2'-0" 5'-11" NEW REVISIONS: 2'-8" 5'-0" 2'-8" EXISTING 2'-4" DEMO 1'-6" 7'-4" 1'-6" 2'-4" 6'-4" 10'-4" 6'-4" 2'-4" DATE: 6.29.22 PROJECT #: 21.007.01 27'-8" SITE PLAN DRAWN BY: KLA 3 SCALE: 1/16 = 1'-0" CHECKED BY: KLA NEW FOUNDATION, 1 NEW FOUNDATION PLAN ROOF & SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8 = 1'-0" A2.0 VARIANCE SUBMISSION