TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JANUARY 8, 2007
MINUTES
(December Meeting)
Present:
Brian Garris, Chair, Chris Nickels, Thomas Henderson, Austin Atkinson,
Scott Lane, Brent Jonas, Dave Wilcox
Kent Prause, Lynnette Lynes
Staff:
Mr. Garris called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and reviewed the procedure with the
public.
A.
Roll Call
All Board members were present.
B.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Lane moved to approve the minutes from the previous meeting. Mr. Nickels seconded the
motion. All in favor.
C.
Approval of Agenda
Mr. Lane moved to approve the agenda with the following amendments:
Ø D. Rules of Procedure
Ø E. Correspondence
Ø F. New Business
Ø G. Election of Officers
Mr. Henderson seconded the motion. All in favor.
D.
Rules of Procedure
Mr. Garris moved to approve the rules of procedure as stated in the ordinance and presented by
staff. Mr. Nickels seconded the motion. All in favor.
E.
Correspondence
Mr. Prause stated that there was one piece of correspondence that was received and he suggested
that it be discussed at the time the agenda item is discussed.
Mr. Garris moved to discuss the correspondence in conjunction with the agenda item. Mr.
Nickels seconded the motion. All in favor.
F.
New Business
1.
2312 Larch Lane, Bessemer Park Office/Warehouse, TMS 583-03-00-189.
Request variance approval to substitute vegetation for the required masonry wall
in the bufferyard separating a commercial use under construction from an
Board of Zoning Appeals
January 8, 2007
Page 2 of 6
occupied single family detached residential land use. Zoning Code Section
156.201(D)(f) requires an “F-6” eight foot tall masonry wall structure in the
proposed 25 foot wide “E” bufferyard.
Mr. Prause read staff comments as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Please refer to the enclosed Form 3 for applicant’s justification of the relief
sought.
The Table of Bufferyard Requirements contained in Zoning Code Section
156.201(C) specifies a “C” buffer between a proposed commercial use and
adjacent vacant property zoned residential and an “E “ buffer between a proposed
Commercial use and adjacent improved residential use property.
The plans initially submitted to DRB, which were approved, erroneously
indicated the adjacent residential property as vacant with a proposed 20 foot wide
“C” buffer. This error was discovered during a site visit for a clearing and
grading permit, and the applicant was instructed to amend the site plan to reflect
the required “E” buffer. This was done and included the required masonry wall
associated with the minimum 25 foot wide buffer.
According to the application the variance request is predicated upon a request
from the neighbor not to install the required masonry wall. (See copy of enclosed
letter from the neighbor.) The bufferyard illustrations of Section 156.156.201(D)
allow a choice of five different bufferyards, only two of which require a masonry
wall structure and one that requires no structure at all. Had the correct
information been provided initially, the site could have been configured in a
manner that would not require the masonry wall. However, construction
commenced and now the minimum 25 foot “E” buffer with the masonry wall is
the only option available.
Section 156.201(C)(3)(a) clearly contemplates different bufferyard requirements
along a property line depending upon the abutting property uses.
Mr. Kevin Berry, Earthsource Engineering, reviewed the request with the Board.
Ms. Sandra Moultrie, adjacent homeowner, stated that she would prefer trees to having a
masonry wall.
Mr. Brantley, property owner, stated that it would be more appealing for the community to
have trees installed as opposed to having a masonry wall.
Mr. Wilcox asked what the business use would be. Mr. Berry answered that it would be an
office warehouse, with approximately 1500 square feet per unit. He stated that there would
not be heavy volume. Mr. Wilcox asked about the time for construction. Mr. Berry
answered that construction did not start for approximately one year from DRB approval and
the adjacent home was built during that time. He stated that there was an error on their part
by showing the adjacent property as vacant and not indicating the mobile home that was on
the property. Mr. Wilcox asked if Ms. Moultrie did not approve of the trees being installed,
what would be done. Mr. Berry answered that if Ms. Moultrie did not approve the
installation of the trees, the masonry wall would be built.
Board of Zoning Appeals
January 8, 2007
Page 3 of 6
Mr. Henderson stated that he is in favor of the installation of vegetation over a masonry
wall.
Mr. Nickels asked about the staff report indicating that the site could have been configured
so a masonry wall was not needed. Mr. Prause answered that if the adjacent home was
indicated on the plans, the site could have been configured to allow for a larger buffer,
which would not require a masonry wall. Mr. Nickels asked if strict adherence was
necessary because there was no space for additional buffer. Mr. Prause answered in the
affirmative. Mr. Nickels asked how long Ms. Moultrie has owned the property. Ms.
Moultrie answered that she has owned the property for 16 years and does not want to have a
masonry wall. Mr. Nickels asked if there are any homes next to Ms. Moultrie. Ms.
Moultrie answered that there are homes in front of her house, but not on either side. Mr.
Nickels asked about the acreage next to Ms. Moultrie’s property. Ms. Moultrie answered
that she was not sure the acreage of the property next to her, but her property was just over
one acre. Mr. Nickels asked Ms. Moultrie if her property was unique to the area. Ms.
Moultrie answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Atkinson asked if the reason there is no flexibility on the property is because of the
detention pond. Mr. Berry answered in the affirmative and stated that the best location for
the pond was to the rear of the property. He stated that there is a 25 foot buffer with an
additional 25 foot detention pond between the building and Ms. Moultrie’s property. He
stated that they intend to install additional plantings between the dry detention pond as well.
Mr. Lane stated that the Board must adhere to the four criteria outlined in 156.411 and
suggested that the application does not meet all four criteria because it is not an
extraordinary property and the use of the property would not be restricted. He asked if the
driveway wraps around the building. Mr. Berry answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lane
asked how many units the building would have. Mr. Brantley answered that there would be
approximately 11 units. Mr. Lane asked what the property was zoned. Mr. Berry answered
that it was part of a planned development. Mr. Lane suggested that the masonry wall could
be installed in addition to planting trees, which would not require a variance.
Mr. Jonas asked about the other adjacent property. Mr. Berry answered that there is an
existing 20 foot undisturbed buffer in the rear with a 40 foot drainage easement and the
property is zoned commercial. Mr. Jonas asked about the truck well behind the building.
Mr. Berry answered that it was a four foot well that would be used mainly as a turn around.
Mr. Jonas stated that there is a significant difference between a planted buffer and a
masonry wall in relation to noise. Mr. Berry answered that as the buffer matures, it would
provide sufficient noise protection and would be the best solution. Mr. Jonas asked if
Dunes West has approved this proposal. Mr. Berry answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Garris asked if the property owner next to Ms. Moultrie would be building on the
property any time soon. Ms. Moultrie answered that she was not sure. Mr. Garris
expressed concern that the property next to Ms. Moultrie’s would be developed in the future
and that there is only a 20 foot buffer. He asked if the existing buffer in that area could be
enhanced as well. Mr. Brantley answered in the affirmative.
Board of Zoning Appeals
January 8, 2007
Page 4 of 6
Mr. Henderson moved to approve the request to substitute the installation of vegetation for
the installation of a masonry wall as stipulated in 156.201(D)(f) based on the following
facts:
Ø This is an extraordinary condition as it is very raw land and undeveloped and creates
unique land;
Ø Does not apply to other property as the property is undeveloped;
Ø It would unreasonably restrict the use of the property as the masonry wall would
aesthetically change the character of the land;
Ø There would be no detriment as the adjacent home owner is in favor of the request.
Mr. Wilcox seconded the motion.
Mr. Prause asked if the Board wanted to stipulate the size of trees to be installed. Mr.
Garris stated that the plans indicate that there would be 20-30 foot mature trees. He stated
that the motion could be amended to stipulate the size of trees to be installed.
Mr. Lane expressed concern with approving a request based on the wishes of a neighbor.
Mr. Jonas asked what the difference is between the frontal property and the applicant’s
property. Mr. Prause answered that there is no difference. Mr. Jonas suggested that this
was a unique request.
Mr. Nickels stated that often there are emotional ties to requests. He stated that the
adjacent landowner is aggrieved. He suggested that there was no evidence to support a
variance with regard to criteria 156.411(2)(C).
Mr. Garris moved to amend the motion to stipulate the installation of 25-30 foot eastern red
cedars as indicated on the submitted plans. Mr. Wilcox seconded the motion. Mr. Garris
requested a roll call vote. Motion passed on a 5 to 2 vote, with Mr. Nickels and Mr.
Henderson opposed.
Mr. Garris called for a vote on the amended motion. Motion fails on a 3 to 4 vote with Mr.
Jonas, Mr. Lane, Mr. Garris, and Mr. Nickels opposed.
Ms. Moultrie stated that she would notify the Mayor of these proceedings and suggested
that if the same situation happened in the Board’s backyards, they would feel differently.
Mr. Garris called Ms. Moultrie out of order and stated that the decision of the Board is final.
2.
67 Georgetown Road, I’On Subdivision, TMS 535-06-00-799. Request variance
approval to remove a 36 inch DBH Hickory tree from a vacant lot for the purpose
of constructing a proposed single family residence. Zoning code Section
156.224(C)(2) requires variance approval to remove an historic tree with a DBH
measurement greater than 24 inches on lots approved after April 11, 2000.
Mr. Prause reviewed staff comments as follows:
•
Please refer to the enclosed Form 3 for applicant’s justification of the relief
sought.
Board of Zoning Appeals
January 8, 2007
Page 5 of 6
•
•
•
There appears to be ample buildable area within the lot boundaries in which to
construct a suitable residence.
The lot has a fairly significant grade differentiation, ranging from a high point of
16.3 feet in the vicinity of the subject tree to a low point of 10.1 feet to the rear of
the lot; however, according to the site plan provided, the position of the proposed
residence encompasses this entire grade variation.
Lot was created by final plat approved on 2-21-05 with full knowledge of site
conditions including the location of the subject historic tree and topography.
Mr. Whitfield reviewed the request and submitted a letter from a certified arborist on the
failing condition of the tree. Mr. Garris asked if the letter was submitted to Town staff. Mr.
Whitfield answered in the negative. Mr. Garris suggested that the letter should be submitted
to the Town arborist for review and this item deferred.
Mr. Whitfield asked for a deferral.
Mr. Jonas moved to defer this issue in order for the applicant to provide evidence to the
Town arborist on the condition of the tree. Mr. Nickels seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Whitfield asked if he would have to appear before the Board next month. Mr. Garris
answered that only if the issue was not resolved through submission of the evidence to the
Town arborist.
3.
934 South Shem Drive, Shemwood subdivision, TMS 535-15-00-037. Request
variance approval for a combined 21.5 foot side yard setback and with a 9.2 foot
minimum setback on one side for a proposed addition to an existing residence
located in the R-1, Low-density Residential District. Zoning Code Section
156.312(D)(2) requires a minimum 25 foot combined side yard setback with a ten
foot minimum on one side.
Mr. Prause reviewed staff comments as follows:
•
•
•
•
Please refer to the enclosed Form 3 for applicant’s justification of the relief
sought.
Charleston County tax records confirm the construction date of the current
residence in 1963. They also indicate a purchase date of 8/15/05 and a finished
square footage area of 1575 feet
As mentioned in the application, many of the other homes in the subdivision have
or are undergoing upgrades.
Most of the homes in the subdivision are single-story like the subject; however,
approximately a dozen are a story and one-half or two-story, mainly on North
Shem Drive, but three others are located on South Shem Drive.
Mr. Brian Gawrych reviewed the request with the Board. He submitted letters from the
neighbors in favor of the request.
Mr. Lane asked if there were any other alternatives explored. Mr. Gawrych answered that
this was the best option in order to have better flow for the house.
Board of Zoning Appeals
January 8, 2007
Page 6 of 6
Mr. Nickels asked if the house would be resold. Mr. Gawrych answered in the negative.
Mr. Henderson asked about the trees. Mr. Gawrych answered that there is a Bradford pear
that he would like to remove. Mr. Henderson stated that there have been similar problems
with other homes built in the 1960s/1970s. He stated that the Board must make decisions
based on whether the criteria outlined in the ordinance are met. He suggested that this
should be reviewed by Town Council to allow relief in these situations with these types of
homes, so that a variance would not be needed. He stated that the next lot is fairly similar
and has the same character.
Mr. Gawrych stated that in regard to his neighbor’s lot, the home is better oriented on the
lot.
Mr. Garris reviewed the criteria and suggested that the application does meet the criteria
because there is an extraordinary condition with the size and configuration of the lot and
orientation of the house, there is a difference between the neighboring lots because they is a
difference in width, particularly to the rear of the lot, because of the orientation of the
house, use would be restricted, and the neighbors are not opposed to the request and see it
as a benefit to the community.
Mr. Lane moved to approve the request based on the evidence presented and the following
findings of fact:
Ø An extraordinary condition exists because of the lot configuration, which is a
minority for the neighborhood;
Ø The applicant would be restricted from expanding and using the property to its
fullest;
Ø There is no hardship to neighbors as they are in favor as evidenced by the submitted
letters.
Mr. Nickels seconded the motion.
Mr. Garris moved to amend the motion and add that the encroachment would result in a 9.2
inch setback. Mr. Lane seconded the amendment.
Mr. Garris called for a vote on the amended motion. Motion passed on a 6 to 1 vote with
Mr. Henderson opposed.
G. Election of Officers
The Board voted by secret ballot to elect Mr. Garris as chairman and Mr. Henderson as vicechairman.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Submitted by,
L. Lynes
BOZA01082007