The Planning Commission

City of
North Augusta, South Carolina
Board of Zoning Appeals

Minutes of the November 14, 2000 Meeting

Kathie Stallworth
Chairman

Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals
Joe Holt Wesley Summers
Harry Weigle Ted Stephens

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stallworth.

2. ROLL CALL

Board members present were Chairman Kathie Stallworth, Wesley Summers and Harry Weigle. Ted Stephens and Joe Holt were absent.

Also in attendance were Skip Grkovic, Director of Economic and Community Development, Christina Anderson, Administrative Secretary for Economic and Community Development and Stephen and Renee Kendrick, Sr., Stephen Kendrick, Jr. and Roger Davis; Davis Design Group.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A motion was made by Chairman Stallworth to accept the minutes April 11, 2000 as presented. Mr. Summers made a motion to accept the minutes. Mr. Weigle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

4. Confirmation of Agenda

There were no additions to the agenda.

5. Application Number zv 00-02 a request by Mr. Stephen Kendrick for a variance from provision of Section 4.g.1 of the Zoning and Development Standards Ordinance related to the location of fences and walls which affects the property at 260 East Shoreline Drive, tax parcel number 00-011-0-01-077.

Public Hearing – Chairman Stallworth opened the public hearing at 7:03 P.M.

Mr. Grkovic explained that the single-family lot is still under construction and that a five-foot brick wall and fence with columns had been built beyond the property line located approximately eighteen inches inside the East Shoreline Drive right-of-way.

Chairman Stallworth asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none.

Chairman Stallworth closed the Public Hearing at 7:06 PM.

Chairman Stallworth asked why the applicant had not been aware of the fence location requirements when they applied for the original site plan or building permit? Mr. Grkovic said that the fence was not shown on the residential lot layout or the building permit application. Generally, a fence constructed in conjunction with a home is dealt with on the site and there isn’t a problem. In this situation the contractor went ahead without anyone’s knowledge and the City Engineer noticed the problem after the columns were under construction. In some cases a wood fence is easily relocated. In this case the columns and concrete footings would be destroyed if they were moved so the applicant applied for the variance.

Mr. Davis of Davis Design Group requested permission to speak. He said that the original plans did not include a sidewalk. The contractor later constructed a sidewalk and did not know where the property line was. Mr. Weigle asked where the water line was? Mr. Grkovic confirmed with Mr. Davis that the water line was inside the fence.

Mr. Grkovic summarized the condition he recommended on an approval of the application and included in ECD Memo #00-119 to the Board.

The applicant must execute a hold harmless agreement indemnifying the City from any liability associated with the location of the fence within the right-of-way of East Shoreline Drive. The applicant must also grant an access easement to the City for the purpose of reading the water meter. The hold harmless and indemnification agreement and access easement shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted in a form acceptable to the City Attorney before the variance is effective. Mr. Weigle asked Mr. Grkovic if a Hold Harmless Agreement would address the issue of the cable, water and telephone lines. Mr. Grkovic said that it would.

Chairman Stallworth read the four conditions that must be met for a variance to be approved.

There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property.

These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity.
Because of these conditions, the application of the Zoning and Development Standards Ordinance to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property; and
The authorization of a 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.

Chairman Stallworth asked Mr. Grkovic to summarize the evaluation of the application he included in his memo. Mr. Grkovic referred to the memo.

No separate building permit for the wall and fence was requested from the City or approved by the City. A review of the planned location of the columns would have identified the incorrect location of the columns on the plan and the 18 inch setback requirement.
The decision to locate columns inside the right-of-way against the edge of the sidewalk was reportedly made in the field by a contractor.
The location of the columns does not interfere with either pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk or vehicular traffic on Shoreline Drive.
The location of the columns does not conflict with any required lines of sight or create unsafe conditions.
The home is fairly large and consumes most of the buildable area of the lot. As a result the front yard is relatively shallow. Relocating the columns to a line 18 inches behind the property line would put the fence well into the front yard.
The brick house, exterior walls, fence columns and planter edging are designed to work together. Relocating the columns would significantly and adversely affect the design of the landscape in the front yard.
No other lots in the subdivision have proposed or requested a similar column and fence system.

Chairman Stallworth acknowledged a letter that was received from one of the Kendrick’s neighbors; Mr. David Ward located at 252 East Shoreline Drive. He wrote that he had no objection to the requested variance. Chairman Stallworth asked Mr. Summers and Mr. Weigle for comments. Although the evaluation by Mr. Grkovic stated that there was no conflict; Mr. Summers was concerned that there was not enough space on the sidewalk. Mr. Summers said that it was important that the builders know the rules and standards before they came in for permits to build.

Mr. Weigle made a motion to approve Application Number ZV 00-02. Mr. Weigle stated that his motion included the condition regarding the hold harmless agreement to be worked out with the City’s Attorney and Stephen and Renee Kendrick’s attorney. Mr. Summers seconded the motion. Chairman Stallworth requested a roll call vote. Mr. Weigle voted for the motion, and Mr. Summers voted nay and Chairman Stallworth voted to approve the variance. The motion passed.

Chairman Stallworth thanked Mr. and Mrs. Kendrick, Mr. Davis and members of the public. Mr. Kendrick asked Mr. Grkovic if he needed to sign any paperwork before leaving and Mr. Grkovic requested him to have his attorney contact the City.

6. BOARD COMMENTS

There were no Board comments.

7. Staff Reports

Mr. Grkovic explained to the Board that Taylor Toyota had not fully complied with the order of the Board issued at the April 11 meeting. Mr. Grkovic also stated that the City staff would be working on revisions to the Zoning and Development Standards Ordinance, specifically the sign regulations.

8. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 7: 45 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
G. M. ‘Skip’ Grkovic, AICP
Director of Economic and Community Development