Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pool And Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board deadlocks on Surfside pool and fence variance request
Summary
A proposal to place an in‑ground pool 9 ft from the corner/front line (instead of the required 28.4 ft) and to allow an existing privacy fence in the road frontage failed after the board produced a tie vote.
The board considered a Surfside Beach application proposing an in‑ground pool at 11 Long Oak Lane that would sit 9 feet from the corner/front setback instead of the required 28.4 feet. Staff noted the parcel’s corner status and the existing privacy fence; the applicant, Quinn Parsons, said there was no practical location on the lot for the pool and that the fence and foliage limit visibility from the road.
Board members raised technical questions about the precise setback measurement and whether the fence encroached onto a neighbor’s property. The staff clarified that the fence encroachment was a private neighbor dispute and that the board’s review was limited to the road frontage section. After a motion to approve with staff conditions, the vote resulted in a tie and the motion failed. "It's a tie vote, mister chairman, and the motion fails," the clerk announced.
