Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board tables variance request to subdivide 313 Baynard Street amid notice and historic‑district concerns
Summary
After discussion about recorded plats and whether the application matched public notice, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to table a request by Jean Rogers to subdivide a historic‑district property at 313 Baynard Street so the applicant can refile with clarified plats and notice.
The Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday tabled a request to subdivide a waterfront property at 313 Baynard Street in Beaufort, citing uncertainties about which plat had been recorded and whether additional subdivision requests had been properly noticed.
The applicant, Jean Rogers, told the board she is trustee of her mother’s revocable trust and that the family wants the property split so heirs can hold separate parcels. Rogers said a portion of the property had been surveyed and recorded in 2011 but that a 2021 plat prepared by the family was never recorded. “We did not record that,” Rogers said, explaining the family’s intent to settle trust ownership rather than to put the land on the market.
Planning staff described the request as unusual because a clause in the city’s form‑based development code (cited in the packet as section 9.92(d)(3)) requires a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for subdivision of any lot inside the National Landmark Historic District. Staff said the Historic District Review Board declined to make a recommendation and noted that, even if the board granted a variance, any future development on a newly created lot would still require HRB review.
Historic‑preservation advocates urged caution. Lisa Sunderland of The Beaufort Foundation argued the district’s original lot fabric is important to preserve and warned that piecemeal subdivisions have eroded the district’s character. “We feel very strongly that the fabric of the district needs to be preserved,” Sunderland said.
Board members focused on two procedural issues: (1) whether the application on the agenda accurately described the specific subdivision the public was notified about and (2) whether the 2021 plat shown to the board had actually been recorded in the county’s records. Several members cautioned that the board may only act on items that were properly noticed and that acting on an un‑noticed request could leave the decision vulnerable to legal challenge.
Faced with that uncertainty, the board voted to table the application to allow the applicant to revise the submission and to re‑notice the matter. A board member moved to table the item and another seconded; the chair called for the vote and announced none opposed. The motion to table carried.
The board also discussed scheduling and holiday meeting dates and confirmed the item will return to a future agenda after the applicant submits clarified plats and public‑notice documentation. The hearing was adjourned.
Actions at a glance: Motion to table the application until the applicant re‑files and the item is re‑noticed; motion moved by a board member and seconded; chair announced none opposed and the application was tabled.
What’s next: The applicant may reapply and the board expects a clarified survey/plat and revised public notice before reconsideration. The HRB would still review any future development on the site if new lots are created.
