Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County meeting approves 15-foot front-setback variance for Highway 557 property
Summary
At a county meeting, members approved a 15-foot variance to the 50-foot front setback for a property on Highway 557 after staff said a state road-widening project rendered the lot nonconforming; the motion (case Z26-4 v) passed unanimously.
County members approved a 15-foot variance to the 50-foot front setback for a property on Highway 557 after staff recommended the change, saying a state road-widening project made the lot nonconforming.
Staff presented the variance request for the property identified in the record as 2092092 Highway 557, which is zoned RSF 40. The staff member said the applicants are seeking a 15-foot variance from the required 50-foot front setback because a state road-widening project removed about 17.5 feet from the previously measured frontage. "We would find that the proposal meets all four of the approval criteria and recommend approval," the staff member said.
The staff presentation included aerial maps and an explanation that the pavement next to the property will be widened approximately three to seven feet as part of the state project. The staff member told the panel that, while the right-of-way change made the lot nonconforming, granting a 15-foot variance would not change the character of the zoning district or be a material detriment to adjacent properties.
A committee member asked why the applicant would have to pay the variance fee when the state’s action created the nonconformity. The staff member agreed that "the state made it nonconforming" and said they did not have authority to waive the fee.
Thomas Horton, who identified himself as living at 153 McSween in Blacksburg, South Carolina, spoke for the applicants. "It's not really hurting anybody," Horton said, adding that the applicants had planned the addition before the state’s eminent-domain taking and that approval would allow them to proceed with their originally planned project.
No members of the public spoke in favor of or opposition to the application during the public-comment call. A committee member moved to approve the application identified as case number Z26-4 v; another member seconded the motion. The chair called the vote and recorded unanimous "aye" votes, and the variance was approved.
The chair then requested and received a motion to adjourn; the meeting ended shortly afterward.
