Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Florence BZA approves variances to subdivide triangular lot at 1203 Sotkin Ave
Summary
The Florence Board of Zoning Appeals approved a 3–2 variance allowing subdivision of a triangular 11,172-square-foot parcel at 1203 Sotkin Avenue so the owner can convert an existing building to a house and create a second lot.
The Florence City Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance 3–2 to allow subdivision of a triangular parcel at 1203 Sotkin Avenue, enabling conversion of an existing commercial building to a single-family home and creation of a second small residential lot.
City staff told the board the original parcel totals 11,172 square feet and is identified as tax map 90099-12-016; the owner of record is Daddy Bummies LLC and the applicant listed is Abdul Zafir. Staff said the property was historically used as a laundromat and later by a church before being used for commercial purposes; the owner has applied to rezone the site to NC-6.1 and that rezoning passed first reading with city council and is expected to return for second reading on June 9, according to staff.
Staff described the dimensional conflict: NC-6.1 requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet and a 60-foot minimum lot width for new parcels. Under the proposed subdivision, the existing parcel would be split roughly into one lot of about 5,127 square feet with a lot width of about 48 feet (the lot containing the existing building) and a second, irregular triangular parcel that would exceed 6,000 square feet and have more than 100 feet of width at its widest point. Setbacks in NC-6.1 were described by staff as 5 feet for side setbacks and 25 feet for both front and rear; the existing building sits about 15 feet from the front property line, making it a preexisting nonconforming front setback.
Board members asked staff whether the applicant had provided architectural renderings; staff confirmed no renderings or detailed plans had been submitted and that the variance application was written to permit dividing the lot and fitting two houses “as much as possible.” One member warned that approving the variance without a specific plan could require the applicant to return later for additional variances, saying, “my only concern is if the board does approve this variance, then the owner's gonna have to find a way to squeeze a home into the space that's left.” Staff reiterated that, with or without the variance, the owner could still renovate the existing structure into a single-family residence.
The applicant was not present for the hearing; staff reported no written public comments had been received. Board member Poston moved to approve the variance citing the lot’s irregular configuration and preexisting structure as special conditions; Nolan seconded. The board approved the motion on a 3–2 vote. The motion’s findings as read into the record referenced the Unified Development Ordinance and concluded that granting the variance would not substantially harm adjacent property or the public good and would allow productive use of an underutilized parcel.
Next steps noted in the hearing: staff said a legal subdivision survey and any construction plans would be required before permits could be issued, and that the council’s rezoning ordinance was expected to proceed to second reading on June 9.
