Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beaufort County zoning board tables variance for Windmill Harbor house after neighbors, ARB raise setback and size concerns
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals tabled a variance request for a large proposed home in Windmill Harbor after the Architectural Review Board and multiple neighbors questioned square-foot calculations, OCRM setback interpretation and visual impacts; the applicant was directed to work with county staff and may revise plans.
A Beaufort County Zoning Board of Appeals meeting considered a variance request for a proposed house in Windmill Harbor but tabled the application after neighbors and the Windmill Harbor Architectural Review Board raised objections.
Mike Shalboy, representing the owner, said the design had "passed all their requirements" at the Windmill Harbor review level but that county square-footage math and recent changes to flood-elevation rules made the house appear larger under county calculations. "It changed the massing," Shalboy said, arguing that lower-level conditioned space is now counted, whereas neighboring homes built earlier may not have their lower-level area counted.
The chair of the Windmill Harbor Architectural Review Board told the board the ARB "has not given final approval" and said the ARB generally opposes variances to OCRM setbacks; the ARB chair urged the board to make an "apples-to-apples" comparison of square footage among homes. Neighbor John Acres called the proposal "gargantuan" and urged the board not to allow the variance, citing neighborhood character and conservation concerns.
During deliberations a board member moved to deny the variance "because there has been no hardship shown." That motion failed for lack of a second. The board instead tabled the item and instructed the applicant to work with county staff and the staff review team to reduce the house size or otherwise meet the "five-left, five-right" average and setback guidance before returning to the board.
The board did not take a formal vote on the variance; the action recorded was a tabling to a future meeting so the applicant can pursue revisions and additional staff review.
