MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
SEPTEMBER 27, 2011, 6:30 P.M.
GOOSE CREEK MUNICIPAL COURTROOM
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD

I. Call To Order - Chairman Williams called the meeting to order at 6:32.

Pledge of Allegiance

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

II. Review of Minutes from August 17, 2011 Meeting

Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Volkmar seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

Chairman Williams explained the process for the hearings and administered an oath to all who wished to provide testimony.

III. Public Hearing - Request for a Variance from the Required Side and Rear Setback Requirements at 203 Janice Street

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

Chairman Williams opened the public hearing.

Chairman Williams asked Staff to present the application summary. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the specifics of the application and the setback requirements as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that the request was for a six-inch (6") encroachment into the back setback and a one-and-a-half foot (1.5') side encroachment.

Mr. Leonard Turner, owner of 203 Janice Street, explained the history of his property and the fact that he was replacing a shed that was on the property at the time he purchased his property. He explained the process he went through in beginning construction, attempting to match the exact location of the existing slab. He stated he realized later that the layout he provided for the slab did not take into consideration the width required for the footers. He referred to surveys which have been created for the property over the years, pointing out that at one time a survey showed a "jog out" that created a wider portion of the lot at the back corner where the shed was constructed.

Mr. Turner explained how he had decided upon the necessary size and location of the building, particularly trying to give ample distance from the existing pool area on the property. He presented a notarized statement from the adjoining property owners which stated they had no opposition to the location of the shed.

Mr. Fisk asked why the shed was constructed without going through the permitting process. Mr. Turner explained he was told by someone it wasn't necessary because he was doing most of the work himself. Mr. Fisk asked Staff if the encroachment would have been discovered had he gone through the proper permitting procedures, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered the applicant would have been required to submit a plat showing the proposed location of the shed, and this would have been checked with the required setbacks.

Mr. Turner stated that to have to move the shed would be a financial hardship, as it is 95% complete. He explained he had received permission from Berkeley Water and Sewer to encroach into the sewer easement at the back of the property.

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

Chairman Williams asked for Board discussion.

Mr. Smith asked if the proper permitting information had now been submitted, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he had applied for a permit, but the permit application was being held until the Board made a determination.

There was discussion as to how the application met the criteria necessary for approval. Mr. Volkmar stated he felt the situation was unique because of the pool location. Mr. Smith stated he felt the fact that the building was already built could make it extraordinary. There was discussion about the three surveys all being different, with one showing a jog at the back of the property. There was discussion about approving something that had been built without prior approval. Mr. Clift stated he felt it should be case by case. Mr. Volkmar stated he felt the combination of the pool location, the location of the previous shed, and the various surveys could provide justification for granting the request.

Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to approve the application, having found the application satisfies the criteria as stated in Section 151.171, finding that the application meets the criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance: the conditions are extraordinary; they are unique due to having had the jog out at the back property line; the use of the property would be unjustly limited by strict enforcement of the ordinance; and the statement from the neighbors show the variance would not adversely impact the adjacent properties. Mr. Volkmar seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Volkmar stated he felt Mr. Clift had spelled out the ways the application met the ordinance criteria.
Vote: Chairman Williams asked for a roll call vote. Mr. Clift: yes; Mr. Fisk: no; Mr. Monheit: no; Mr. Smith: yes; Mr. Volkmar: yes; Mr. Robert Williams: yes. The motion was approved with a vote of 4-2.

IV. Public Hearing - Request for a Variance from the Maximum Height for Accessory Buildings at 165 Manchester Ct.

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

Chairman Williams asked Staff to present their summary. Mr. Ben-Yisrael summarized the application and explained the applicable ordinance.

Chairman Williams asked the applicant to present his application.

Mr. Dwight Cooper, the property owner, explained the property was pie shaped and stated he has very limited building space, particularly due to easements on the back and the side of the property. He stated he wished to build a taller structure to utilize the upper storage area rather than build a larger footprint because of the restricted building space. There was general discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of having a taller structure vs. having a larger one story building. Mr. Cooper stated it was much more economical to build up.

Mr. Cooper confirmed that his home was slightly less than 22' in height. There was brief discussion about the type of the surrounding homes, with it being stated that some are two story and some are one story. Mr. Cooper explained that he also wished to limit the footprint in order to reserve space for a possible pool or other recreational improvement in the future.

There was discussion about the scope of the building, how he planned to use the building, and the size needed for the planned use. It was confirmed that the property is in excess of one-half acre. Mr. Cooper stated his property was unique in that there is a wide buffer area at the rear of his yard, so that no other property would be impacted by a variance.

The Board members explained that they were considering the information based on the four specific criteria stated within the Zoning Ordinance for approving a variance.

Mr. Cooper stated that if granted the variance to allow the additional 4' in height, it would result in being able to stand up in the upstairs area of the building. Mr. Robert Still, the contractor for Mr. Cooper's project, assured the Board members the building would be built with quality construction and finishes. He stated there wasn't a lot of difference in the heights.

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

Mr. Volkmar read the applicant's summary regarding how the application met the four criteria as stated in the zoning ordinance. He asked if a two story home would have a different height limit, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered a two story structure would be allowed an accessory structure of 27' in height. Mr. Volkmar explained that he was not able to justify that the application met all the criteria, particularly criteria 2 and 3. Mr. Fisk mentioned he felt the size of the property allowed for other ways to utilize the property beyond having to have a variance.

Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to deny the application for a variance in accordance with Section 151.171 of the Zoning Ordinance, having found the application does not meet the conditions for a variance as set forth in Section 151.171: there were not extraordinary or exceptional conditions pertaining to the property; the conditions do generally apply to other properties in the vicinity; the application of the ordinance would not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property; and the approval of the variance could be detrimental to the adjacent property or to the public good. Mr. Monheit seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was no further discussion.
Vote: Chairman Williams requested a roll call vote. There was clarification that a yes vote was a vote to deny, and a no vote was a vote to approve.
Mr. Clift, yes; Mr. Fisk, yes; Mr. Monheit, yes; Mr. Smith, yes; Mr. Volkmar, yes; Mr. Williams, yes. The Board voted unanimously to deny the application.

V. Adjournment

Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Monheit seconded.
Vote: All voted in favor.

The meeting ended at or about 7:47 p.m.