Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setbacks Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies side-setback variance for Panopolis lot; neighbors cite drainage and clearing damage
Summary
The Berkeley County Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request by John O. Williams for a two-foot side-setback variance on a roughly quarter-acre Panopolis lot after neighbors raised stormwater and property-clearing concerns.
John O. Williams asked the Berkeley County Board of Zoning Appeals to approve a two-foot side-setback variance so he could place a 30-foot-wide house with eaves on a 50-foot-wide lot in Panopolis. The board voted to deny the variance.
Williams told the board the parcel is about a quarter acre, zoned R-1, about 50 feet wide and roughly 220 feet deep, and that local homes have more traditional facades. “I appreciate you tabling this this item last time … this variance request tonight is, relatively small,” Williams said, explaining he needed the change to accommodate eaves and a conventional-looking 30-foot-wide house rather than a narrower footprint.
Neighbors said they opposed the requested relief. Walter Matkovich, who lives directly behind the lot, said his property regularly ponds stormwater and that runoff has nearly entered his garage after recent heavy rains. “My concerns with this all revolves around the water the water drainage,” Matkovich said, explaining the lot slopes back to a drainage easement and that adding a home could increase runoff onto his lot. Christie Steele, who owns an adjacent historic house, said clearing work already damaged trees and shrubs on her property and that she was concerned about further impacts.
Williams responded that a house could be built on the parcel today without the variance and that he had hired a licensed surveyor and contractor; he said he did not intend to damage neighbors’ property. Miss Allison, county staff, told the board the parcel is zoned R-1 and manufactured dwellings are not permitted; she did not add additional site‑specific permitting conditions during the hearing.
Board member Richard Smith moved to deny the variance, a motion seconded by Miss Burbage. The board recorded the motion as denied (the chair recorded two nays during the tally). The denial does not prevent a home from being built on the parcel within existing setback requirements; as board members noted, the applicant could build a narrower house that meets the R-1 standards.
The board’s action drew a brief exchange clarifying that denial would not render the lot unusable but would require a design that fits current setbacks and zoning. Williams said he would continue to work with prospective buyers and contractors.
