Board of Zoning Appeals approves variances for private vehicle-storage site at 1460 S. US 31 with landscaping condition

The Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 27 approved four variances for a private vehicle-storage building at 1460 South U.S. 31, voting 5-0 to grant each request with a condition that the project substantially conform to the site plan shown in the petitioner’s materials (tab 3a).

Attorney David Gorman, representing owner Tom Sponsel, told the board the existing building was constructed in 2005 as private vehicle storage and later acquired by his client in 2018. He said the structure is roughly 6,000 square feet and that the petition seeks approval for a roughly 10,000-square-foot addition hidden from U.S. 31. Gorman argued the building was never intended as a commercial facility and that strict application of the Unified Development Ordinance’s commercial building design standards would impose an undue burden on the family’s continued private use.

The petitioner sought relief from four portions of the UDO: reducing required mortar masonry from 50% to 0%; lowering required transparency on a front elevation from 30% to 1%; increasing allowable metal cladding from 20% to 100%; and waiving the requirement to bring an existing structure into full UDO compliance for expansions exceeding 20% of the existing building. Gorman said the site is largely concealed behind an adjacent Tractor Supply building and that the owners committed to perimeter landscaping, year-round screening, and a new security fence to limit trespass.

Planning staff opposed the variances on the record, saying they could not find the petitioner met the statutory practical-difficulty standard. Staff noted the lot is commercially zoned and that the exterior design standards apply even when a building is behind another commercial structure. “Staff did not recommend approval of the variances,” a planning staff member said, citing the lack of demonstrated practical difficulty.

Board members questioned whether the expansion created a self-imposed hardship, how visible the building would be from U.S. 31, and whether landscaping commitments would be enforceable. The petitioner said the owners have invested in property upkeep — including about $30,000 for new fencing — and emphasized the structure is private storage, not a public-facing business. The petitioner also committed to the perimeter landscaping depicted in tab 3a and acknowledged that final landscaping would be subject to site-plan review.

After admitting petitioner exhibits, photographs, the staff report and certified copies of the comprehensive plan into the record, the board voted 5-0 to approve each variance request with the same condition: that the improvements substantially conform to the site plan shown in tab 3a of the petitioner’s submittal. The board then directed the corporation counsel to draft written findings of fact incorporating the staff report and evidence; the findings will return to the board for final adoption at the next meeting in two weeks.

The approvals allow the owner to expand the private vehicle-storage building under the specified conditions; the board’s action does not constitute the final written findings, which the counsel’s office will prepare for formal adoption.