Beaufort County board denies variance for two driveways at Bluffton lot after resident raises sewer concerns

The Beaufort County Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny a variance request that would have allowed two driveway cuts to serve a single lot in Bluffton.

The request concerned a property described in the hearing as 27 Allendale Street. The board heard from the applicant’s representative, a builder with Kingfisher Construction, county engineering staff and a resident who raised infrastructure concerns before moving to the denial vote.

County engineering staff told the board that encroachment permits are issued under county code and the applicable 'Arms' manual, which requires about 75 feet of separation for driveway cuts on local roads; staff said the lot could not meet that spacing and noted parking is generally intended to be behind houses rather than multiple curb cuts on short lots. Staff also told the board that sewer work in the area could, in time, allow houses to be pushed back to improve driveway layout.

The builder, identified at the meeting as representing Kingfisher Construction, told the board he had built a similar house nearby and said SCDOT previously approved two driveways on a comparable lot. He described structural constraints — including footers and a central stair run — that, he said, make a single driveway difficult without redesigning the house. "It's the same lot size, same lot, same house footprint," the builder said, arguing the request mirrored other neighborhood patterns.

Laurel Ashley, who the chair introduced for public comment, said she has lived in the area and urged caution on adding more housing until drainage and septic problems are fixed. "We can't keep adding more until we fix where we're at," Ashley said, saying residents already experience routine problems, including difficulty with septic/percolation in parts of the neighborhood.

After questions and further discussion about whether the stairs could be moved to permit a single driveway, a committee member moved to deny the variance, saying the lot did not demonstrate the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances necessary for relief. Another member seconded the motion. The board took a voice vote and the motion to deny was approved. The maker of the motion said they would make the same motion regarding a paired item (item 8), which the board indicated would be handled separately but under the same rationale.

The board also briefly approved routine minutes and adopted the agenda with one amendment before considering the variance. The meeting closed shortly after the vote.

What happens next

The denial means the applicant may redesign the site to meet county spacing rules or return with an application showing hardship or an alternative design that meets code, such as a single consolidated driveway if the stairs or house placement are altered. The record did not include a roll-call tally or named recorded votes; the decision was recorded as a board voice vote.