MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
JANUARY 26, 2012, 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.
Present: Butch Clift, James Fisk, Larry Monheit, Thomas Volkmar, Robert Williams and Van Williams
Absent: Kevin Smith
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson
II. Review of Minutes from December 15, 2011 Meeting
Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Monheit seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
III. Public Hearing - Request for a Variance from the Rear Setback Requirement at 109 Queens Court
Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Van Williams seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
Mr. Williams requested that Staff present the application. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the applicant was seeking a variance from the rear setback requirement in order to construct an addition to the property. The applicant is seeking to reduce the setback from twenty (20) feet to twelve feet (12') on one side of the addition.
Mr. Williams administered the testimony oath to Mr. Stephen McKenzie, Applicant.
Mr. McKenzie stated he is hoping to enclose the existing porch and then add another eight (8) feet to the width to make a larger interior room. It was confirmed that the porch already encroaches into the setback, as it was built within the setback by over 13 feet.
Mr. Fisk asked if, by enclosing the porch, it would be considered a new structure, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated it would be just an addition, and for the purposes of the ordinance the porch still remains an existing nonconforming structure. There was brief discussion about there currently being two setback encroachments from the original construction of the home.
Mr. Volkmar stated they were having to decide in terms of the ordinance criteria and asked the applicant if he was considering this an unusual situation because of the structure being originally built within the setback, and Mr. McKenzie stated that was the case. He stated that a portion of what appeared to be the porch structure was actually an extension of the kitchen; the existing structure was not just a porch.
Chairman Williams asked if Staff had a recommendation, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated Staff recommended approval based on the information submitted by the applicant and Staff's further review. He stated the recommendation is based on the home's nonconforming status and the position of the house on the lot, which causes it to be nonconforming. It was also set very close to the side property line which was subsequently abandoned. He explained it was determined that for the applicant to undertake a reasonable addition to the home he would, in most cases, be required to put a portion of any addition within the setback; there seems to be no way around some level of encroachment on this lot given the lot's configuration.
Mr. Fisk asked if there were encroachments prior to the abandonment of the side property line, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the home was built within the setbacks at that time.
Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Van Williams seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to approve the variance as it met the ordinance criteria due to its extraordinary position on the lot. Mr. Clift seconded.
Discussion: Mr. Volkmar stated he felt this application met the concerns they had with the prior application.
Vote: Five voted in favor. One opposed.
IV. Comments from the Board
There were none.
V. Comments from Staff
Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated Staff was currently working on training for 2012, and there was brief discussion regarding the training.
VI. Adjournment
Motion: Mr. Monheit made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Clift seconded.
Vote: All voted in favor.
The meeting ended at or about 6:49 p.m.
