Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves Marcus variance for backyard pool in Saint Andrews

Charleston County Board of Zoning Appeals · July 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Charleston County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing Daniel Marcus to build a smaller inground pool 21 feet from his rear property line at 1470 Saint Hubert Way, finding lot configuration, an existing utility pole and topography create a hardship. Approval included staff‑recommended conditions limiting the encroachment to the submitted footprint.

The Charleston County Board of Zoning Appeals on June 30 approved a variance that will let Daniel Marcus place an inground pool 21 feet from the rear property line at 1470 Saint Hubert Way.

Staff presented a revised application and recommended approval with one condition limiting the encroachment to the pool footprint shown in the submitted site plan. Miss Warking, the staff presenter, told the board there were no public comments for the case at this hearing and summarized the parcel as 0.21 acres in the Saint Andrews area and within PD‑73 Hunt Club zoning.

Marcus, the property owner, testified he and his pool contractor tested multiple configurations and that the combination of the house position, steep yard slopes and a Dominion Energy utility pole on the lot significantly reduce usable backyard space. "My home is situated towards the rear of the property…which significantly reduces the size of my backyard and with it, any usable space to construct a swimming pool," he said.

Board members questioned whether the proposed pool footprint provided sufficient apron and installation room given the grade change. Marcus replied the pool will be gunite and indicated the design could be adjusted; he also said he had negotiated with a nearby neighbor and that the homeowners association had approved the modified plan.

A board member moved to approve the variance including staff recommendations; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. The board instructed staff to mail the formal decision within 10 working days and told Marcus staff would follow up about next steps.

The variance is limited to the footprint shown in Marcus’s site plan and, if granted, will be valid for 12 months (with a possible one‑year extension if construction is diligently pursued).