Spartanburg County Planning and Development Department MINUTES Unified Land Management Board of Appeals July 28, 2015 Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Marion Gramling, Chairman Angela Viney, Vice Chair Michael Padgett Jack Gowan, Jr. Thomas Davies Kae Fleming Jason Patrick Louise Rakes Heath Strawn. Bob Harkrader, Director of Planning & Development Joan Holliday, Deputy Director Planning & Development John Harris, Senior Deputy County Attorney Laurie Horton, Code Enforcement Officer Kelli McCormick, Senior Planner Joshua Henderson, Senior Planner Jerry Glover, Director of Building & Fire Codes Gary Splawn, Permits Administrator Tracy Christian, Planning Technician 1
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Call to Order Angela Viney, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Ms. Viney stated that all staff present from the County would be sworn in together so they would all be able to speak during the meeting and not require swearing in individually. Ms. Viney then called the following names and they were sworn in: Jerry Glover, Bob Harkrader, Kelli McCormick, Laurie Horton, Josh Henderson and Joan Holliday. 14. Approval of Minutes of May 26, 2015 Tom Davies made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Heath Strawn seconded the motion. The vote carried 7-0. Marion Gramling and Louise Rakes were absent from the vote. 15. Unfinished Business a. None 4. New Business a. Amelia s Home and Garden 135 South Blackstock Road, Spartanburg Laurie Horton presented the following Staff Report: 1. Factual Dates a. Land Development Application received 04/21/2015 b. Variance Application received 05/19/2015 c. Public Notice Herald Journal 06/07/2015 d. Variance Sign Posted on Property 06/10/2015 e. Adjoining Property owners notified 06/10/2015 f. Board of Appeals Hearing 06/23/2015 2. Background Information 2
James and Amelia Toney, property owners, filed a Land Development Application to open Amelia s Home and Garden located at 135 South Blackstock Road, Spartanburg. The original home on the site was constructed in 1930. In 2014, residential permits to construct an addition to the home and a detached garage were obtained and construction began in December. On April 21, 2015, a commercial Land Development application was filed. It was determined at that time a variance would be required for the garage. This is due to the fact that when the building was constructed, it was done so under a residential permit with required setbacks of 5 on the sides and rear. Section 3.21 of the Unified Land Management Ordinance requires non-residential accessory buildings to observe the setbacks of the principal use when located contiguous to a residential use. According to the Assessor s records, one property to the north fronting Willis Road, one to the east fronting Willis Road, and the property to the south on South Blackstock Road are all residential land uses. Therefore, the setbacks for the garage shall be 20 for the rear and 15 for the side as listed in Section 2.02-1 Dimensional Standards, Table 3b Commercial & All Other Uses Setbacks and Other Requirements of the ULMO. Mr. and Mrs. Toney are seeking a variance to reduce the required setbacks to 14.4 feet from 20 feet along the rear lot line and to reduce the required setbacks to 13.8 feet from 15 feet along the Southern side lot line, as required in Article 3.21 Accessory Building and Uses/Non Residential and Section 2.02-1 Dimensional Standards, Table 3b Commercial & All Other Uses Setbacks and Other Requirements. 3. Staff Recommendation The request for a setback reduction to 14.4 feet from 20 feet along the rear lot line and to 13.8 feet from 15 feet along the Southern side lot line does not meet the four criteria for granting a variance as set forth in Section 5.02-2(2) of the ULMO and the SC Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act (SC Code of Laws, Title 6, Chapter 29). a) Extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. The variance request does not meet this criteria. This property does not have any extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to it. There is adequate space on this property for the garage to have been located within the commercial setback area if the intent was to immediately convert the structure from residential to commercial. b) Conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The variance request does not meet this criteria. There are no conditions that apply to this property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity. c) Effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The variance request does not meet this criteria. The strict application of a 15-foot side yard setback and a 20-foot rear yard setback does not inhibit all use of this property. d) No substantial detriment to adjacent property or public good and character of area not harmed. The variance request does not meet this criteria. There is potential for detriment to the adjacent residential properties if commercial activity encroaches into the setbacks. 3
Staff recommends this variance be denied. Tom Davies asked if this variance would be necessary if it were residential use. Ms Horton said it would not be necessary. Mike Padgett asked if there was ever a business in this residential structure. Ms. Horton said no. Angela Viney opened the public hearing. James Toney, property owner, was sworn in. Mr. Toney said he and his wife own the property and when they first had an engineer to draw up the plans and hired a contractor to build the garage, they were under the impression everything was okay as submitted. Mr. Toney said they began to put their merchandise in the building for storage. Mr. Toney said he did not know that the building of the garage would put them in a position of non compliance. He has had no complaints from the neighbors and he said he in no way intentionally set out to break any rules or regulations. Ms. Viney asked Mr. Toney how long has he lived in the home. Mr. Toney said that he was raised in Spartanburg and he and his wife brought the house as a rental property. He stated they decided to convert this property to commercial when they retired and have invested a significant amount of money in this property. Ms. Viney asked Mr. Toney if the application for the garage was residential. Mr. Toney stated that it was because their contractor stated it would be easier for storm water and permitting. Jack Gowan asked if the house was the original intention with the additions to the home. Mr. Toney said their intention originally was for a commercial use, but the contractor permitted it differently. Ms. Horton stated that when the owners came in for a land development permit to open their business, it was discovered that the new building had setback issues. Dave George, neighbor, was sworn in. Mr. George gave a description of the area surrounding the property and said as a neighbor he has no problem with this variance. Mr. George also said if he could give Mr. Toney the property needed to meet the setback, he would. Mr. George also said that what has been done with that property has been a tremendous help to their community. Mr. George said he would love to see Mr. Toney and his business thrive. Donald Nodine, neighbor, was sworn in. Mr. Nodine said that Mr. Toney has made a big difference in the neighborhood. Mr. Nodine said he hopes the Board can help Mr. Toney because as a neighbor they like having Mr. Toney around. Mike Padgett asked Mr. Toney if he ever indicated to his building contractor after they went to get the building permit that he was going to use this as commercial property. Mr. Toney said yes he did indicate it to his building contractor. With no other speakers, Ms. Viney closed the public hearing. 4
Tom Davies made a motion to grant the variance based on the area becoming commercial, none of the neighbors having a problem with this variance request, and the fact that the Board has done this before on numerous occasions with minor setback issues. Heath Strawn seconded the motion. The vote carried unanimously 7-0. Marion Gramling and Louise Rakes were absent for the vote. 5. Other Business - None 6. Adjourn There being no further business, Jack Gowan made a motion to adjourn. Kae Fleming seconded the motion. The vote carried 7-0. Marion Gramling and Louise Rakes were absent for the vote. The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. 5