MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 2010, 6:30 P.M.
GOOSE CREEK MUNICIPAL CENTER
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD

I. Call To Order - Chairman Robert Williams

Chairman Robert Williams called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.

Present: Butch Clift, James Fisk, Larry Monheit, Kevin Smith, Thomas Volkmar, and Robert Williams
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael

Pledge of Allegiance

II. Review of Minutes -July 28, 2010

Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Mr. Clift seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Clift asked why the signs were still up after the Board's decision that they were illegal signs. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he had been told that Eastwood had been awaiting notification by Staff of any additional appeals process available to them. He has told them they do have the option of appealing to Circuit Court. At this point they have chosen not to do so, and he has notified them to remove the signs. There was discussion about having them removed.
Vote: All voted in favor.

III. Public Hearing - Request for Variance of Residential Setback Requirements - 109 Queens Ct.

Chairman Williams administered the testimony oath to Stephen Mackenzie, owner of the property, and to Staff.

Chairman Williams requested Staff present their facts and evidence.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the applicant, per Section 151.171 of the Zoning Ordinance,
is requesting a variance to both the side and rear setbacks as set forth in Appendix D of the Ordinance to allow for the construction of an addition to his home. The minimum required side setback is 5', and the rear setback is 20'. The applicant is asking for a reduction of the side setback to 4.7', a variance of 4", and a reduction of the rear setback to 5', a reduction of 15'. He referenced the application, plat, and photos provided to them.

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Mackenzie to present his testimony. Mr. Mackenzie stated his family needed more space in their home. He explained where he wished to add the addition, resulting in the need to amend the setbacks. Mr. Fisk asked if there were any easements that would be impacted, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the submitted plat did show an easement, but not one that would impact the addition. Mr. Clift asked about the maximum lot coverage requirement, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the addition would be well within the 40% limitation. There was discussion about possible alternative locations for the addition and/or other possibilities for the addition.

Mr. Smith recused himself from the hearing due to a business relationship with the applicant.

Mr. Williams questioned if there was any other option so to not encroach into the rear setback. Mr. Mackenzie stated the design submitted worked best. Mr. Volkmar explained that per the City's Zoning Ordinance, certain criteria must be met in order to be able to grant the variance and discussed how this situation did not meet the criteria.

Mr. Williams noted Mr. Mackenzie had a letter from the neighbors located on the side in question stating they did not have a problem with the setback variance. Mr. Mackenzie stated if he had neighbors behind him he would not ask for the rear setback but there was a 100' easement behind him. Also, their existing porch had been built and approved within the setback when the home was built.

Per Mr. Volkmar's request, Mr. Ben-Yisrael accessed the property card on the GIS website which illustrated the footprint and floor plan of the home.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael advised the Board that the question before the Board was whether the application meets the criteria for the variance, and the Board must consider this without regard to the size or distance of the encroachment, but whether it meets the criteria.

Mr. Volkmar asked Mr. Mackenzie what the extraordinary or special conditions were for his property that would make his situation different from other properties. There was discussion concerning setting a precedence for other property owners. Mr. Mackenzie stressed the fact of having no one living behind his property. Mr. Volkmar explained that the Board is bound by the criteria included in the Ordinance. Mr. Fisk asked how not having the variance would adversely impact him, and Mr. Mackenzie stated they would have to move.

Mr. Monheit called the questions.

Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Monheit seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to deny the variance based on Section 151.171, having found the application does not meet the criteria set forth in Section 151.171, and granting the variance would adversely impact adjacent properties owners and cause detriment to the public. Mr. Monheit seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: Chairman Williams asked for a roll call vote. Mr. Clift: Aye; Mr. Fisk: Aye; Mr. Monheit: Aye; Mr. Volkmar: Aye; Mr. Williams: Aye; The Board voted unanimously to deny the variance.

The applicant asked the Board about the porch which had been built into the setback, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that without conducting an investigation, the porch would be considered an existing nonconforming structure. Mr. Mackenzie asked about the Crowfield covenants requiring only a 5' rear setback, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the City's Ordinance prevails when the City's Ordinance is more restrictive, so in this case, they would have to abide by the City's requirements; in any case you had to abide by the more restrictive requirements. Mr. Mackenzie asked if he designed a smaller addition would he be required to come back for another hearing. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated any encroachment would require another variance application.

IV. Comments from the Board

Mr. Volkmar asked about the status of the 2010 required training. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he hadn't received a training schedule from the COG and that Staff would not be able to provide the training in-house. He stated he hoped there would be other options available as well, and he would follow up with them.

Mr. Monheit asked if there was any progress concerning changing the application fee schedule. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered that he has received confirmation from the City Administrator that the new fee schedule with increased fees will be implemented, but it has not been implemented as yet.

V. Comments from Staff

There was nothing from Staff.

VI. Adjournment

Motion: Mr. Monheit made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

The meeting adjourned at or about 7:16 p.m.