Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Gravel Masonry Waiver topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board allows masonry waiver and permits gravel driveway for accessory building at 1275 West Crossing Road
Summary
Greenwood’s Board of Zoning Appeals on March 10 approved a waiver of the 36-inch masonry wainscot and permitted a gravel driveway for an accessory building at 1275 West Crossing Road, voting 5-0 on both requests.
The Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals on March 10 approved two requests from Millmar Buildings (petition BZA2025-006) for a property at 1275 West Crossing Road: removal of the 36-inch masonry wainscot requirement for accessory structures over 300 square feet, and permission to use a gravel driveway rather than a paved surface. Both motions carried 5-0.
Planning staff recommended a favorable finding for the masonry wainscot waiver and proposed a condition that the accessory structure substantially conform to the submitted site plan (exhibit C). Staff recommended denying the gravel-drive request, saying the claimed practical difficulty was not unique to the parcel and that a shorter paved runway or another permitted surface could have reduced costs.
Petitioner representatives told the board that metal siding is less expensive for their customers and that the proposed gravel extension would not connect to the public road; the petitioner said asphalt paving may be added later “as money allows.” The petitioner said the gravel driveway would connect a roughly 30-foot run from the existing 12-foot paved driveway back to the accessory building and would primarily serve storage of motorcycles and classic cars rather than daily parking.
The board admitted all evidence and approved the masonry-waiver request with the staff’s site-plan condition. The board also voted to allow the gravel driveway with no additional conditions. Mr. Milbourne moved to admit evidence; Mr. King and Ms. Peters participated in subsequent motions; the board then directed corporation counsel to draft written findings incorporating the staff report and submitted evidence. Final written findings will be prepared for adoption at the next meeting.
Staff and board members discussed visibility, floodplain/grade constraints and that the chosen location was the only reasonably flat area outside a flood zone; the board referenced those site-specific constraints when finding the request acceptable for the property. The petitioner and staff agreed the driveway would not directly connect to the street and that future paving could occur as funds permit.
