TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 25, 2016 MINUTES

Transcription

1 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 25, 2016 MINUTES Present: Staff: Mason Smith, Chair, Barbara Wagner, Glyn Cowden, Joseph Belton, Mark Lamb, Saila Milja-Smyly. Kelly Cousino, Michele Canon, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm and reviewed the procedures with the public. He administered the oath to those speaking. 1. Public Comments There being no public comment, Mr. Smith continued with the agenda. 2. Approval of Minutes Mark Lamb moved for approval of the minutes. Barbara Wagner seconded the motion. All in favor. 3. Correspondence No correspondence 4. New Business A. V-14-16, 1122 Snapdragon Court, TMS # , Request approval of a variance to allow an addition to encroach 3 into the required 20 rear yard setback and to exceed the 50% allowed building coverage by.2% Ms. Canon reviewed the request with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Lamb asked if there was a setback variance in Ms. Canon answered that staff could not determine that a variance was received or how a CO was issued. Ms. Wagner asked if there are any additional photos. Ms. Canon reviewed the site plan with the Board.

2 Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Joel Adrian, representative for the owner, reviewed the request with the Board. Ms. Wagner asked if the neighbor to the rear is opposed to the request. Mr. Adrian answered in the negative. Mr. Lamb asked if this would be a rental unit. Mr. Adrian answered in the negative and stated that the home will be owner occupied. There being no comments, Mr. Smith closed the public comment. Mr. Smith stated that the home is already non-conforming and suggested that extending the additional area would not be detrimental. Ms. Milja-Smyly asked if the request is for approval for the additional three feet. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. Cowden asked if approval would prevent any future issues. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mark Lamb moved for approval of lot coverage overage by 0.2% and 3 feet encroachment into rear yard setback for the addition based on the application and staff report, the applicant has met all criteria, with extraordinary conditions because there is an existing encroachment into the setback; no other properties are in violation of setback; denial of the request could unreasonably restrict utilization of the property; no detriment to adjacent area as HOA and neighbors are satisfied with the request; further to include approval of the existing encroachment into the setback of the original structure. Barbara Wagner seconded the motion. All in favor. 5. Approval of Final Orders The Board signed final orders for the following cases: V V V-12-16

3 Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2016 Page 3 of 3 V There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:29 pm. Submitted by, J. Thomas April 28, 2016

4 AGENDA ITEM Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Report Case Number V Snapdragon Court For reference, the Zoning Code is available online. Request approval of a variance to allow a proposed addition to a residence to encroach approximately 3 feet into the 20 foot rear yard setback required by Zoning Code Section (C) (2); also request approval of a variance to exceed the 50 percent maximum allowed building coverage by.2 percent. Subject property is an approximately 0.11 acre parcel of land; zoned R-4, Medium Density Residential District; located at 1122 Snapdragon Court in Snee Farm Gardens; identified by TMS No ; and depicted as Lot 1 on a plat recorded in the Charleston County RMC office in Plat Book AT, Page 31. RELEVANT ZONING CODE SECTIONS (C) (2) Lot, yard, height, and coverage requirements (A) (2) Powers of the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding variance requests Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Report V Page 1 of 2

5 SUBJECT PARCEL Property Owner TMS Number Zoning Approximate Acreage Scott A. Konersmann R-4, Medium Density Residential 0.11 acres BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant Property Location Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Designation Joel Adrian, Studio 291 LLC 1122 Snapdragon Court / Snee Farm Gardens Medium Density Neighborhood STAFF COMMENTS states [the Board has the following powers]: To hear and decide appeals for variance from the requirements of the zoning ordinance when strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. A variance may be granted in an individual case of unnecessary hardship, if the Board makes and explains, in writing, the following findings: (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional circumstances pertaining to the particular piece of property; (b) These conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity; (c) Because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property; (d) Authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. 2. Per Zoning Code Section (C), the minimum yard requirements for R-4 zoning are as follows: Front 4 feet Rear 20 feet Side 5 feet 3. The subject parcel is a corner lot where the residence was constructed in 1981 and currently encroaches in its entirety (38.4 linear feet) approximately 3 feet into the required 20 foot rear yard setback. The house is only considered nonconforming if it was legally built, as issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Town does not legalize any setback encroachment; only the Board of Zoning Appeals has this authority. Since Staff cannot determine how the existing setback encroachment occurred, the Applicant was encouraged to include the existing encroachment into the variance request. 4. The application proposes an addition to the existing residence that will also encroach 3 feet into the required 20 foot rear yard setback for an additional 16 linear feet. 5. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting relief from the 50 percent maximum allowed building coverage to allow approximately 50.2% coverage of the lot. 6. Please see applicant s submittal for justification of the approval sought. Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Report V Page 2 of 2