Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning board unanimously denies variance request for 820 Dawhoo Street in Edisto Beach

Town of Edisto Beach Zoning Board of Appeals · April 13, 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 Town of Edisto Beach Zoning Board of Appeals on April 13 denied a variance request for 820 Dawhoo Street (Appeal No. 2026-01), finding the four statutory criteria were not met; the owners had sought relief from Sect. 86-135(e) to expand the home and raise property value.

The Town of Edisto Beach Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously denied a variance request for 820 Dawhoo Street at its April 13, 2026 meeting after concluding the application did not meet the four criteria required for a variance.

Chair Ned Kuntz opened Hearing Appeal No. 2026-01 and read the four statutory criteria the board must find to grant a variance. H. Preston Walter, representing property owners Susan and Christopher Shepherd, and owner Susan Shepherd testified in support of the request, and Patrick Brown, the town’s Building Code Administrator, also provided testimony. Susan Shepherd said the applicants sought relief "Yes, and to add square footage to the home." Board members asked whether increasing property value was a primary motive; Member Bill Davies questioned that justification and warned that granting a variance for financial gain is contrary to applicable law.

The board voted on each of the four statutory criteria in roll-call fashion. For criteria one through four, each vote failed by the same margin: 0 yes and 7 no (Ned Kuntz, Bill Davies, Pat Kostell, Beverly Sandifer, Ron Scroggy, Gary Cantrell and Stephanie Renner). After the criteria failed, Chair Kuntz moved to deny the variance; Bill Davies seconded and the motion to deny carried unanimously.

The denial leaves the property required to comply with Sect. 86-135(e) of the town code governing yard and setback regulations in the R‑1 district. The board took no alternative action and did not direct staff to return with a revised application; the hearing record will be available at Town Hall and a digital recording is on file.

The Zoning Board had earlier in the meeting approved the minutes from its January 26, 2026 regular meeting and adjourned after the denial. The meeting record shows compliance with the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act; minutes were submitted by Tammy Lake, secretary of the Zoning Board of Appeals.