Goose Creek board denies three variance requests for accessory building at 408 Indigo Road

The City of Goose Creek Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday denied three variance requests from applicant Jason Matthews for an accessory structure at 408 Indigo Road, rejecting requests to increase the building's allowed area and height and to reduce a side-yard setback.

Jason Matthews, the applicant, told the board he did not obtain permits before construction and asked the board to consider not counting a partially covered porch as part of the accessory structure's square footage. "I did not obtain the proper permits before the construction," Matthews said, adding he believed permits were unnecessary because his neighborhood has no homeowners association.

Planning staff told the board the application relies on a site survey showing the principal dwelling footprint at about 1,641 square feet; under the zoning ordinance the total floor area of all residential accessory structures is limited to the lesser of 1,000 square feet or 50% of the principal dwelling (calculated here as 820.5 square feet). The application proposed an accessory structure of about 929 square feet, a requested variance of roughly 108.5 square feet from the city's size limit.

On height, staff said the accessory structure measures about 17 feet 3 inches while the principal dwelling measures about 16 feet 5 inches, making the requested variance roughly 10 inches. Matthews said the building is a pre-engineered structure with a roof pitch needed to accommodate a four-post vehicle lift; he said the lift will be used for personal vehicle maintenance and that, when not in use, he plans to store a boat on the lift.

Regarding the side-yard setback, staff noted the residential mixed (RM) district requires a minimum side-yard setback of 5 feet. The accessory structure as built sits roughly 3 feet 6 inches from the side property line, producing a requested encroachment (variance) of about 1.5 feet. Matthews said the lot is a corner, pie-shaped lot and that the position of the structure was required to allow drive-in access and to avoid encroaching on a neighbor's property or damaging exterior equipment such as air-conditioning units.

During deliberations, a board member argued the variance criteria were not met and said the structure would be "a substantial detriment to adjacent properties." "It's a very big structure," the board member said, describing the building as out of context with neighboring lots. The board moved to deny the area variance first; that motion passed. The board subsequently denied the height variance and the side-yard setback variance after similar motions.

Matthews told the board he would consider lowering the roof height and removing the porch to bring the building closer to the ordinance limits but said moving the building laterally would require removing and replacing concrete and could be costly. Planning staff did not recommend approval in light of the variance criteria as discussed in the meeting packet (chapter 151, sections cited by staff).

The board took no further action on the matter after denying the three variance requests. The chair closed the meeting and the board adjourned.