Board of Zoning Appeals approves variance to allow pool at 3147 Marshgate Drive

The Seabrook Island Board of Zoning Appeals on July 22 approved Variance No. 194 to allow a proposed 11 feet 4 inches by 21 feet 4 inches (about 242 square feet) swimming pool and associated equipment to be constructed in the side yard at 3147 Marshgate Drive.

Zoning staff described the property as zoned RSF-2 (medium-lot single-family) and told the board the pool location as proposed is prohibited by Development Standards Ordinance section 2.5(e)(1), which restricts pools and related mechanical equipment to rear yards. Staff noted the lot is substantially bounded by marsh critical area and a 25-foot critical-line setback; staff said the proposed improvements would not encroach into the required critical-area setbacks. “The requested variance only pertains to allowing the pool and equipment to be constructed in the side yard of the property,” staff said during the presentation.

The applicant, who identified himself as Michael Karamis and the project architect, told the board the lot is irregularly shaped and that placing a pool in the ordinance-defined rear yard would leave the pool impractically distant from the house. “If we had to put [the] pool in rear yard, it would be way out far removed from the house and kind of unusable,” the applicant said, explaining that the proposed location avoids views into neighboring homes and does not intrude on adjacent lots.

Board members considered the legal variance criteria, including whether extraordinary or exceptional conditions apply and whether strict application of the setback rules would unreasonably restrict use of the property. One member summarized the practical effect: remodeling the house to relocate interior spaces to accommodate a rear-yard pool would be an unreasonable restriction. Another said the lot’s unique configuration makes the ordinance’s front/side/rear designations poorly suited to this parcel.

A member moved to approve the variance “based on the reasoning given in [the applicant architect’s] letter … along with the recommendations from the zoning administrator.” A second followed, members voted by voice and the chair declared the motion passed.

Staff told the board it would attach three conditions to the approval: (1) the variance applies only to the site-specific plan reviewed by the board (dated 07/22/2026); (2) the applicant must submit a professionally prepared as-built survey prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or within 30 days of final inspection if no certificate is required; and (3) the variance becomes null and void if the applicants or a subsequent owner fail to obtain a building permit prior to any effective date of changes to the SCDES critical line affecting the property. The board requested that the minutes and the approval letter incorporate those conditions.

The board also noted two letters of support from neighboring property owners were included in the record and that staff reported no negative responses in the public-notice filings.

The board’s approval was announced at the meeting; the transcript records voice “ayes” and the chair’s declaration that the motion passed. The transcript does not record a roll-call tally by name.