Florence County Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2017 Florence County Council Chambers 6:30 PM 1 EZ/RP/HG/DS
Agenda Florence County Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 15, 2017 6:30 P.M. County Complex Room 803 The Florence County Planning Department staff posted the agenda for the meeting on the information boards at the main entrance and the back entrance of the City-County Complex and on the information board at the entrance of the Planning, Zoning and Building Inspection Department building. The agenda was also mailed to the media. I. Call to Order II. Election of Officers III. Review and Motion of Minutes • Meeting of September 20, 2016 IV. Public Hearings: BZA#2017-01 A variance request by Earl A. Muldrow from requirements of Sec. 30-111(7). – Setbacks And Sec. 30-242(1). – Setbacks- Corner Lots of the Florence County Code of Ordinances for property located at 3638 Tetbury Street, Florence shown on Florence County Tax Map No. 07306, Block 01, Parcel 038. V. Other Business: • Review and Approval of the 2018 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Calendar 2 VI. Adjournment
BZA# 2017-01 Subject: Variance request from the requirements of Sec. 30- 111(7). – Setbacks and Sec. 30-242(1). – Setbacks- Corner Lots Location: 3638 Tetbury Street, Florence, SC Tax Map Number: 07306, Block 01, Parcel 038 Council District(s): 3; County Council Owner of Record: Earl A. Muldrow Applicant: Earl A. Muldrow Variance Requested: Decrease in Secondary Frontage Setback from 12.5ft to 6ft. Land Area: Approx. 0.185 acres Staff Recommendation: Approve as submitted
BZA#2017-01 - Location Map
BZA#2017-01 - Zoning Map
BZA#2017-01 - Aerial Map
BZA#2017-01 – Original Approved Plat
BZA#2017-01 – Lot 38
BZA# 2017-01 Public Notice
BZA# 2017-01 Front of Property
BZA# 2017-01 North of Property
BZA# 2017-01 West of Property
BZA# 2017-01 East of Property
BZA# 2017-01 East of Property
BZA# 2017-01 South of Property
BZA# 2017-01 Behind Property
BZA# 2017-01 Background The subject property contains a residential single family home in a Unzoned District within Florence County, which was constructed approximately 7 yrs. ago in the Highgate Phase I Subdivision. Florence County Zoning stamped and approved Highgate Phase I Subdivision Final Plat on March 19, 2007 which depicted the building area of Lot 38 being within the required setbacks. The subject structure was improperly constructed in 2010 pursuant to Sec. 30-111(7) and Sec. 30-242(1) of The Florence County Zoning Ordinance. The secondary setback (off Cotswold) of the applicant’s home was constructed 6 ft. away from the property line, when it should have been 12.5 ft away from the property line pursuant to Sec. 30-111(7) and Sec. 30- 242(1) of The Florence County Zoning Ordinance. The residential single family home structure was not built in compliance with the Florence County approved Subdivision Plat. The applicant requests a variance from Sec. 30-111(7) and Sec. 30-242(1) of The Florence County Zoning Ordinance.
BZA# 2017-01 Variance Request (A) The applicant is requesting a 6.5 ft. variance which would decrease the required side setback from 12.5ft to 6ft. from the property line on a lot that has a required secondary frontage of 12.5 ft. in order to comply with The Florence County Code of Ordinances. (B) Sec. 30-111. Development standards for unzoned areas, (7) Setbacks. of the Florence County Zoning Ordinance requires the following: Front 25’, Rear 5’, Side 5’ (C) Sec. 30-242. Exceptions and modifications, (1) Setbacks- Corner lots. of the Florence County Zoning Ordinance requires the following: Setbacks—Corner lots. The setback from the street upon which the principal building will face shall be the minimum required front yard setback for the district in which the lot is located. The setback from the street upon which the side of the building will face shall be not less than one-half the front yard distance required for the district, but not less than ten feet.
BZA# 2017-01 Applicant’s Response (D) The following is extracted from the submitted variance application: a. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property as follows: Applicant’s response: The applicant’s home is located within the side setback. The applicant was unaware of this issue until the recent construction of Highgate Phase II. b. These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity as shown by: Applicant’s response: Florence County GIS clearly depicts other corner lots such as the applicant’s which are built within compliance. The property owner believes the developer and contractors clearly erred in the construction of his residential home.
BZA# 2017-01 Applicant’s Response Cont’d. 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 as follows: Applicant’s response: The property owner believes this error reduces his ability to expand or add to his property, prevents him from selling the property due to encumbrances, and causes his residential home to be out of compliance with The Florence County Zoning Ordinance. d. The authorization of the 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 for the following reasons: Applicant’s response: 1) Cotsworld Street is 66ft wide which is wider than the Florence County standard of a 50ft wide road.
BZA# 2017-01 Applicant’s Response Cont’d. 2) The property owner’s house is 7 yrs old, and has not had any issue to date. 3) Granting this variance remedies a harm that was caused by an oversight beyond his control, but rather that of the Developer-John Curl, John Cooper, and Florence County Planning and Building.
BZA# 2017-01 Staff Findings a. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property as follows: Staff’s response: There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the property. Applicant’s residential home was constructed within a side setback, causing the applicant to have encumbrances on his residential home. b. These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity as shown by: Staff’s response: Staff has no other reports of residential homes on corner lots within the Highgate Phase I Subdivision being out of compliance.
BZA# 2017-01 Staff Findings Cont’d. 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 as follows : Staff’s response: The encumbrances on the property will impact the home owners ability to expand or add to his residential home. The application of the ordinance to this particular parcel will restrict the utilization of the property by reducing the home owner’s ability to expand/add to the residential home by 10% as a nonconforming structure. It is uncertain if this nonconformance would prevent the owner from selling his residential home. d. The authorization of the 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 for the following reasons: Staff’s response: Based on the applicant’s information, there will be no site constraints or detriment to adjacent properties.
BZA# 2017-01 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance request by the Board of Zoning Appeals based on the information that has been provided by the applicant that reduced the applicant’s buildable area and may impede the sale of the residential home because it is out of compliance with Sec. 30-111(7) and Sec. 30-242(1) of the Florence County Code of Ordinances. Staff has consulted with Florence County Engineering Department and the current condition of the property does not impact Phase II development, utility maintenance, road or curb maintenance, and is not within a county or utility easement.
Section 30-293 (c,2,d) Board of Zoning Appeals The board may not grant a variance, the effect of which would be to allow the establishment of a use not otherwise permitted in a zoning district, to extend physically a nonconforming use of land or to change the zoning district boundaries shown on the official zoning map. The fact that property may be utilized more profitably, if a variance is granted, may not be considered grounds for a variance.
Recommend
More recommend
