Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor disputes drainage after pool-deck work; board denies left-side variance but approves rear setback
Summary
A neighbor alleged that an encroaching paver patio at 515 Appaloosa Way filled a drainage swale and sends runoff onto adjacent property. The board failed to approve a left-side variance but approved a rear-setback variance, and asked staff to require follow-up engineering and permit corrections.
A contested hearing over an in-ground pool and paver patio at 515 Appaloosa Way split the Horry County Zoning Board of Appeals on Aug. 10.
Contractors and homeowner representatives said the patio was constructed following an existing fence and HOA guidance and that correcting the patio and wall would be costly. A contractor representative said, "We install infiltration for a living as well. We're happy to work with the neighbor, and improve what was there before." Neighbor Bruce Medallia showed photos and argued the drainage swale on his side was filled and that runoff now flows onto his property. "Every time it rains, everything comes off that foundation onto my property," Medallia said.
The board considered two separate variance motions: one to allow a 0.8-foot left-side encroachment and one to allow the rear setback to be reduced to 0 feet. The motion to approve the left-side variance failed; the subsequent motion to approve the rear setback passed. Staff noted that patios/pavers are allowed in plan view but that the height of the paver decking — where it exceeded 12 inches — triggered the need for a variance and a prior stop-work order. The board authorized staff to require permit corrections and engineering review as necessary and to reflect handwritten edits in the signed board order.
The contractor said it would coordinate with the neighbor to address drainage concerns and the company offered to bring an engineer and surveyor to the site if necessary. The board's split votes reflect unresolved neighbor concerns about drainage on the left side and a separate finding that the rear condition did not substantially detriment adjacent property when considered alone.
