Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Berkeley BZA tables narrow‑lot variance after neighbor objections and split vote
Loading...
Summary
A requested variance for a narrow lot in Pineopolis (TMS102-00-000-040) drew opposition from neighbors over stormwater, drainage easement concerns and aesthetics. After an initial failed attempt to deny the variance, the board voted to table the matter for 30 days to gather more information and seek possible compromise.
The Berkeley County Board of Zoning Appeals tabled action for 30 days on a variance request for TMS102-00-000-040, a narrow lot in Pineopolis where the applicant seeks relief from side-yard setback rules to allow a 30-foot house footprint with 2-foot overhangs.
Hank Jackson spoke for the applicant John O. Williams, explaining Williams bought a narrow lot and wants a 30-foot footprint; the relief sought concerns 2-foot overhangs on each side that would otherwise encroach on setback requirements. Jackson said he did not have final square footage for the planned house in the meeting packet.
Several neighbors objected. Walter Matkovich said the parcel sits above a county drainage easement behind the property and that high-volume rain events already bring water close to his garage; he said placing a house closer to the easement could increase runoff against neighboring properties. Matkovich also raised aesthetics concerns, saying surrounding lots are larger and that the narrow lot may not fit the neighborhood character. Neighbor Billy Ford echoed drainage and runoff concerns.
County staff noted the parcel is nonconforming in size for the R R 1 district (roughly 10,000 square feet vs. the stated 14,000-square-foot minimum in the R R 1 district) but that a property owner retains the right to build in conformance with current setback standards if they choose. Miss Allison (staff) also emphasized that any future construction must meet plot-plan, grading and drainage requirements.
Board member Matthew Smith moved to deny the variance, and the motion was seconded. The initial vote on denial failed after a split among board members. Following that vote, Smith moved to table the application for 30 days to gather additional information; the motion to table was seconded and passed by voice vote. The tabling will allow staff, the applicant and the opposition to attempt to resolve concerns or develop additional materials for the board’s review at the next meeting.
