Board grants variance to allow carport at 1401 Jackson Avenue, citing corner‑lot constraints
October 31, 2025 | Florence City, Florence County, South Carolina
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Florence Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance to the minimum street‑side setback to allow a carport at 1401 Jackson Avenue (BZA‑2025‑17) during its Oct. 31 meeting.
City staff told the board the parcel is a corner lot where the Unified Development Ordinance requires carport posts to be 10 feet from a street‑side property line; interior lots require a 3‑foot clearance for posts. The applicant lacks the required street‑side setback and has roughly 7 feet at the proposed location. Staff described the proposed carport as an open structure to be placed over the existing driveway and said it would not interfere with sight lines at the intersection because it is set back and buffered by an existing landscaped island with mature trees. Staff also noted a Type C buffer is required where the site abuts residential areas.
Applicant Douglas Coleman was sworn and testified the carport would measure 12 by 20 feet, would be a standalone structure of four poles and a roof, and that he had spoken with one nearby neighbor who expressed only mild surprise. Staff and the applicant said existing landscaping would remain and there was no intent to remove the trees that create a visual buffer.
Board member Mr. Poston moved to approve the variance, reciting findings required under the Unified Development Ordinance: (1) a variance would not be contrary to the public interest because strict enforcement would cause unnecessary hardship due to the corner‑lot configuration, (2) the spirit of the UDO would be observed and public welfare secured given the placement over an existing driveway and existing landscaping, (3) extraordinary and exceptional conditions exist because the lot is a corner lot and the house was built in 1953, (4) the conditions are unique to this parcel, (5) application of the UDO would unreasonably restrict the property’s reasonable use, and (6) authorization would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property or the public good. A second was given and the motion carried on a voice vote.
The variance approval allows Coleman to apply for a building permit; staff said a separate building permit remains required for the carport.
City staff told the board the parcel is a corner lot where the Unified Development Ordinance requires carport posts to be 10 feet from a street‑side property line; interior lots require a 3‑foot clearance for posts. The applicant lacks the required street‑side setback and has roughly 7 feet at the proposed location. Staff described the proposed carport as an open structure to be placed over the existing driveway and said it would not interfere with sight lines at the intersection because it is set back and buffered by an existing landscaped island with mature trees. Staff also noted a Type C buffer is required where the site abuts residential areas.
Applicant Douglas Coleman was sworn and testified the carport would measure 12 by 20 feet, would be a standalone structure of four poles and a roof, and that he had spoken with one nearby neighbor who expressed only mild surprise. Staff and the applicant said existing landscaping would remain and there was no intent to remove the trees that create a visual buffer.
Board member Mr. Poston moved to approve the variance, reciting findings required under the Unified Development Ordinance: (1) a variance would not be contrary to the public interest because strict enforcement would cause unnecessary hardship due to the corner‑lot configuration, (2) the spirit of the UDO would be observed and public welfare secured given the placement over an existing driveway and existing landscaping, (3) extraordinary and exceptional conditions exist because the lot is a corner lot and the house was built in 1953, (4) the conditions are unique to this parcel, (5) application of the UDO would unreasonably restrict the property’s reasonable use, and (6) authorization would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property or the public good. A second was given and the motion carried on a voice vote.
The variance approval allows Coleman to apply for a building permit; staff said a separate building permit remains required for the carport.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
