Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Based Business topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA approves variance to allow home‑based hair salon at 133 Mineral Waters Drive
Summary
The Lexington County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing a single‑operator, appointment‑only hair salon at 133 Mineral Waters Drive, concluding the operation’s limited hours, one‑client‑at‑a‑time plan and neighbor support reduce likely traffic impacts.
The Lexington County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to approve a variance that clears the way for a home‑based hair salon at 133 Mineral Waters Drive.
Walt McPherson, the county zoning administrator, told the board the variance request targets the home‑occupation standard that limits traffic generation, and he read the applicant’s written statement and the four legal criteria for variances into the record. The application—submitted by Haley Pinkney, who lives at the property—proposes one service chair, no more than three clients per day by appointment, hours from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., and no nonresident employees.
Pinkney told the board she does not plan to exceed three clients a day and that appointments are typically two to five hours. “I do not plan on having any additional chairs or additional clients over 3 clients a day,” she said.
Neighbor Brian Price said he has been a client of the prior operator at that address and does not expect increased traffic: “One car comes in at a time…we quietly leave the neighborhood.”
After brief questions from board members about how ‘substantial’ traffic is measured, a member moved to approve the variance on the basis that the application met the four statutory criteria; a second was given and a roll‑call vote recorded every member present voting in favor. The motion passed.
The approval allows Pinkney to operate the salon under the conditions described in her application; staff will issue the formal approval or denial letter and continue to enforce conditions by complaint and permit review.
The board’s decision was grounded on the applicant’s proposed limitations (appointment‑only operation, single operator, limited daily clients, no signage) and neighbor testimony in support.
