Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board grants Fripp Island setback variance with added lighting standards
Summary
The zoning board approved a variance for a Fripp Island home that overlapped county baseline and Fripp setback lines after the applicant said state DES and Fripp approvals were obtained; the board added lighting standards as a friendly amendment.
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the end of the agenda the board considered a setback-variance request for a Fripp Island property represented by Michael Frederick on behalf of Cinda Rauberbush. Frederick explained the site plan shows overlapping setback requirements — a 50-foot county baseline setback and a 25-foot Fripp Island front setback — and said the applicant had presented the plan to Fripp Island three times and obtained approval and state DES approval for the baseline setback, with the final design locating the house roughly 11 to 14 feet from the road in places.
Board members questioned precise measurements. Frederick acknowledged that the closest measurement to the baseline was 14.2 feet on one side and that other measurements read 18 feet 4 inches from the baseline in places, and he noted an existing stone revetment at the site. During discussion the board and staff asked about stormwater controls; Frederick said gutters would direct water to a rain garden on the street side.
County staff recommended approval and a board member proposed a friendly amendment to add the county development-code lighting standards (referred to in the hearing by section language). The board voted first on the amendment and then on the motion as amended, approving the variance with the added lighting-condition language. The transcript records voice votes and does not include roll-call tallies.
The variance was approved with conditions tied to development standards for lighting; the motion and amendment were recorded in the meeting transcript and no appeals or further objections were raised during the hearing.
