York County panel denies McConnell homeowner’s variance for carport

The York County hearing voted 3–2 to deny a variance request that would have let applicant Christian Keith Wright place a detached carport close to a side property line at 155 Mack Drive in McConnell, South Carolina.

County staff told the board the application failed to meet the four findings required under state law for a variance and recommended denial. The staff presentation said the lot is nonconforming and that the applicant had requested a variance from a six-foot side setback (staff recorded a 2.5-foot variance request). The board’s motion to deny carried by a 3–2 vote.

Why it matters: Variances are an exception to local zoning standards and require the board to find that unusual conditions affecting the property justify the relief and that granting it will not harm neighboring properties or the public good. Board members said they must apply all four required findings, and staff said it could not make those findings in this case.

Staff presentation and measurements County staff described the site as near the southern county line and in an RSF 40 zoning context, noting the lot is smaller than the district minimum and the house is sited near the middle of the parcel. Staff told the board the applicant’s packet described a 1,300-square-foot house and showed the proposed detached carport roughly 22 feet wide, with the carport placed approximately 3.5 to 4.5 feet from the side property line in the drawings. Staff said, “we didn't meet all 4 of the criteria, and we recommend denial,” and explained it could not identify an extraordinary or exceptional condition affecting only this parcel that would meet the legal standard.

Applicant’s case Applicant Christian Keith Wright testified that he relied on the contractor’s guidance and the presence of a similar carport on a neighboring lot when deciding to install the carport. Wright said he submitted a sketch that later proved insufficiently detailed, that the concrete footings/pillars have been set into the existing driveway, and that his objective was to protect his vehicle. Wright told the board he was requesting an “additional approximately 2 feet” of variance to match what he believed was commonly permitted in the neighborhood.

Numbers in the record There is inconsistent numeric detail in the transcript: staff recorded the requested variance as 2.5 feet from the six-foot requirement, and the applicant described his request as an additional “approximately 2 feet.” The board and staff discussion referenced 3.5–4.5 feet and other site measurements. The hearing record does not resolve that discrepancy; the board made its decision based on the packet and the four findings required under state law.

Board deliberation and vote A committee member moved to deny the variance, citing the board’s obligation to make all four findings; the chair agreed and a second was recorded. One board member dissented, saying there was no neighbor opposition and no specific safety, drainage, or utility concerns presented. That member said the denial felt disproportionate to the character of the district. The motion to deny carried, 3–2.

Procedure and next steps No executive session was scheduled or held. The hearing concluded with a motion to adjourn and the meeting was ended. The transcript does not record any immediate appeal or follow-up timeline; the applicant stated he could either sell the property or pursue a legal challenge to the code.

Quote highlights • County staff: “we didn't meet all 4 of the criteria, and we recommend denial.” • Applicant Christian Keith Wright: “I’m respectfully requesting the additional approximately 2 feet to build a detached carport.” • Dissenting member: “I’m not in favor of the denial… no neighbor opposition, and no specific concerns of safety, drainage, utility, easement access.”

Questions left open The transcript includes different numeric descriptions of the variance sought (staff’s 2.5-foot figure vs. the applicant’s description of an additional ~2 feet); the record also indicates neighboring nonpermitted carports exist but are handled through complaint-driven enforcement. The transcript does not record named individual votes, an appeal filing, or a specific next procedural filing date.