Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newberry County BZA denies variance to enclose carport at Newberry Shores property
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request to reduce the side-yard setback from 7 feet to 3 feet for a 30x30 addition at 1197 Newberry Shores Drive, concluding the applicant did not demonstrate the extraordinary or exceptional conditions required by county ordinance and state law.
The Newberry County Board of Zoning Appeals on Feb. 3 denied a variance request to reduce a required 7-foot side setback to 3 feet so an owner could enclose a 30-by-30 addition at 1197 Newberry Shores Drive.
Donald Beason, the property owner, told the board he believed the structure had been described to the board narrowly as a "carport-like structure" and that adding sides was necessary to protect his vehicles from sun and severe weather. Beason said the work was nearly complete and that "this structure does not work without these sides." He presented photographs and said the addition had been approved in July 2025 and that his intention had been consistent since then.
Opposing counsel Ben Bruner argued the variance standards in Newberry County’s ordinance (section 153.052(c)) and the incorporated requirements of South Carolina Code § 6-29-800 require a showing of "extraordinary and exceptional conditions," which he said Beason had not shown. "There is nothing extraordinary or exceptional that I've heard so far," Bruner told the board, urging them to deny the variance.
Board members reviewed prior meeting minutes, the building and permit descriptions, and video of the earlier hearing to clarify whether the initial approval had been for an open carport. Commissioners then read the five required findings aloud and recorded their positions; several findings split the board. After deliberation the board voted on a motion to deny the variance. The chair announced: "That variance has failed. You're not granting that variance at this time." The transcript does not record a roll-call vote by name.
Because the board determined the statutory findings required for relief were not all met, the application to enclose the 30x30 addition was denied. The applicant may pursue further administrative remedies or appeal according to county procedures.
