Board approves variance for 531 Oyster Rake Drive to add accessible bedroom, with landscape and as‑built conditions

The Kiawah Island Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance for 531 Oyster Rake Drive (case BZA26‑000009), allowing about 40 square feet of side‑setback encroachment to permit an approximately 20‑by‑14‑foot addition that the applicants say is necessary to create an accessible master bedroom and bath. With one member recused, the board voted 5–0 to grant the request with two staff‑recommended conditions: a landscape plan acceptable to the planning director to provide screening for the encroachment, and a post‑construction as‑built survey to verify encroachments match approved plans.

Planning staff member Daniel presented the application and said the residence, built in 1986, is legally nonconforming after subsequent increases to side‑yard setbacks. Staff found the application met most variance criteria but did not recommend approval on criterion C (that strict application of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict property utilization), and therefore recommended disapproval. The staff presentation noted existing lot coverage (38.6%), the proposed 40 square‑foot encroachment and a May 29, 2026 site visit.

Architect Gov Gottschalk, representing Michael and Nancy Foley, said the owners have lived in the house since 1986 and seek the modest addition largely to enable longer term accessibility in the home. “As they age and have mobility issues, they just realized that they needed to have a bedroom, bath area that would be mobile accessible,” Gottschalk said, adding that moving the addition to another part of the lot would require reorienting the driveway and interior circulation.

Board members discussed whether to require Architectural Review Board approval before construction or to instead require staff review of a detailed landscape/screening plan; several members favored conditioning approval on a landscape plan to address neighbor concerns about tree removal. The applicant said the design currently has no windows on the side facing the neighbor and that the ARB had suggested the applicant come before the BZA first due to tree concerns.

The motion to approve, with the two conditions, passed 5–0. The record shows the board did not require ARB final approval as a precondition, although ARB review remains a downstream step for aesthetics and final permits. The applicant must obtain required town permits, submit the landscape plan for planning director approval and provide the post‑construction as‑built survey.