Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Meeting Called to Order



                                 JANUARY 8, 2007

Meeting Called to Order

The Joint Board of Zoning Appeals of Greenwood County met in Room 201 of the
Greenwood County Courthouse on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. A quorum
was present with the following members in attendance:

F. R. Rushton, Chairman                         L. Wayne Mathis
Mack Butler                                     Arvest Turner
Michael Butler                                  Nancy Wrenn
Glynn Boles

Greenwood City/County Planning Department Staff present:
Brian McKenna, Zoning Administrator
Melissa Duff, Secretary

Approval of November 6, 2006 Minutes
Chairman Rushton called for a motion. Mr. Mathis made a motion to approve the
minutes, seconded by Mr. Mack Butler, and the motion carried unanimously.

Hearing Procedures
Chairman Rushton read the Hearing Procedures.

4-Point Criteria
Mr. McKenna read the 4-Point Criteria from the South Carolina Code of Law for granting

Public Hearing

The first and only item on the agenda was Variance request number V-07-01-01
(County Council District 5), by W.M. Burdette, applicant, for Ed and Rona Monahan,
property owners. The property is located at 118 Patriot Point Ct., Ninety-Six, SC, 29666,
and is zoned PDD (Planned Development District). The property is identified by G-Pin:
7806-813-349. The variance request is for a 10 foot reduction to the rear yard/440
Contour (lake) setback requirement (40 feet instead of the required 50 feet), and a 2.5
foot reduction to both side yard setback requirements (7.5 feet instead of the required
10 feet.) This varies from Ordinance No.: 26-05, of the Greenwood County Zoning

Mr. McKenna, Zoning Administrator, gave the staff overview as follows:

The applicant would like to construct a single family detached dwelling at this location.
The lot is very narrow and on a cul-de-sac. The lot is narrow at the front and tapers out
Greenwood City/County Joint Board of Zoning Appeals
January 8, 2007 Minutes
Page 2 of 4

to the rear. The owners of the lot are an elderly couple who desire a one story home.
The applicant (Unireal Construction) has worked with the owners to find a suitable floor
plan that will meet the needs of the owners. The proposed layout is what they have
determined to be the only one that will work for the owners and this property. The Grand
Harbor Architectural Review Board has seen the proposed plans and given their
approval of the variance request. The County Engineer does not object to the reduction
of the rear yard setback to 40 feet from the 440 Contour as long as the house is not in a
flood plain (elevation certificate will be required.) The variance request is for a 10 foot
reduction to the rear yard/440 Contour (lake) setback requirement (40 feet instead of
the required 50 feet), and a 2.5 foot reduction to both side yard setback requirements
(7.5 feet instead of the required 10 feet.) This varies from Ordinance No.: 26-05, of the
Greenwood County Zoning Ordinance.

This request does not meet all of the 4-point criteria for granting variances.

1.   The shape of the property is extraordinary, and exceptional conditions do not exist.
2.   The enforcement of the ordinance would not create an unnecessary hardship.
3.   The conditions cited by this request are not peculiar to this property.
4.   Relief if granted would not be of substantial detriment to the public good but would
     impair the ordinance.

Mr. McKenna addressed the Board of the mistake in the legal ad of the Index Journal
which stated 30 feet instead of the required 40 feet. The legal ad should have read 40
feet instead of the required 50 feet. Also, Mr. McKenna read a letter to be entered into
the minutes from Ms. Sue Reeves, Administrator of Grand Harbor Architectural Control
Committee. The letter stated that the committee had granted the variance for lot 142,
which is where Ed and Rona Monahan would like to build. The rear setback variance of
ten feet from 50 feet to 40 feet and side setback variance of two and one half feet from
10 to seven and one half feet. The committee also stated that side setback variance on
lot line common to lot #143 accommodates the narrow triangular shaped area of the
purposed structure footprint. The Committee’s intent is that the variance be only the
width needed for such triangular area and that the variance not be expanded to a width
wider than shown on the drawing nor extended to include the entire length of the lot line.

Chairman Rushton opened the Public Hearing. The following spoke in favor of the

        1. William M. Burdette, 4 Keystone Street, Abbeville, SC-Stated that plans for
        this house were started about 6 months ago. Joe Prothro was the designer. He
        also designed my house stated Mr. Burdette. This couple is 75 years old and
        they purchased this lot for $360,000. They want to build a home that is keeping
        up with the neighborhood. The house that they would like to build would not
        work with the lot and this is the reason for the variance. The house plan is very
        nice so it can be of a reasonable use for the couple. They would like the lower
        story to be used as their living quarters and the upstairs for the grandchildren and
        guests. The house that they want to build can be built if the variance is granted.
Greenwood City/County Joint Board of Zoning Appeals
January 8, 2007 Minutes
Page 3 of 4

       Mr. Burdette stated that he lives in this area and he asked for a variance but it
       was not on the lake side but on the golf course side. Mr. Burdette stated that the
       Grand Harbor Architectural Review Board was in favor of the variance and he did
       not understand why the request had to go through the County. Mr. McKenna
       stated that the Architectural Review Board can only approve a variance request
       up to ten percent. Mr. Mathis asked what was the average square footage of
       houses in Grand Harbor? Someone from the audience said about 2200 square

The following spoke in opposition to the request.

       1. Benjamin J. Brandimarte, 208 Chatham Dr., Greenwood, SC – Stated that he
          owned property at 117 Patriot Point Ct. The Board is only made up of two
          people, Ms. Reeves and two other persons that live in Grand Harbor. He
          stated that he can see what the homeowners are saying about the property
          being long and narrow but there are covenants. There have been problems
          with big houses on small lots. Mr. Brandimarte stated that between the
          property of 116 and 118 there was a delta that went down to the lake.
          Instead of repairing it, Grand Harbor decided to fill in the land with houses.
          Houses would be pinched together. This does affect the community and
          Grand Harbor benefits. Grand Harbor has covenants and restrictions and this
          is a promise. We should adhere to the covenants because this is the reason
          that the PDD was designed. A question was asked as to why did they build it
          this way. Mr. Mathis stated that he did not know because he was just an
          engineer. Mr. Brandimarte stated that the proper drainage system was not
          put in, but just putting houses closer and closer together.

       2. Max Guthrie, 120 Patriot Point Ct., Ninety Six, SC – Stated that he ran into
          the same problem in building his house with the flood plain area. Mr. Guthrie
          stated that he had to build 80ft from the water when his house plans were
          only 40ft. Mr. Guthrie stated that it was unfair for a variance to be given. A
          house can be built and remain in the standards of the setbacks. A 50ft
          setback is reasonable. This would cause for a variance request to be on
          every lot.

       3. Mark T. Mapes, 116 Patriot Point Ct., Ninety Six, SC – Stated that he lives on
          the opposite side of the Monahan’s property. Mr. Mapes believes that the
          house would infringe his rights. When we decided to buy property, we knew
          of the covenants and restrictions and what we needed to do to build. The
          reason we bought this property was because of the view in the back. We
          could see a great portion of the lake. This is what we loved about it. If this
          house is built this way, it will take away our view. The side is OK, but the
          back is my main concern.

Mr. Burdette asked the Chairman if he could come back and make a comment. Mr.
Burdette stated that 20ft between plus a fraction is still a good view. Mr. Guthrie could
Greenwood City/County Joint Board of Zoning Appeals
January 8, 2007 Minutes
Page 4 of 4

have gotten bad advice; he could have moved his house back a little farther. He could
have exercised the lower adjacent grading. Mr. Burdette also stated that 10ft is not
going to affect the view. This house would make everything look better and enhance
the property. Mr. Guthrie stated that 10ft makes a lot of difference when you are
opening up from your master bedroom. Mr. Mathis asked a question concerning the
flood plain. The engineer still would have to sign off on it and an elevation certification
is required. Mr. McKenna inserted that the County has to adhere to the regulations
established by the Federal Government (FEMA).

Chairman Rushton closed the Public Hearing.

Chairman Rushton asked if there were any questions or concerns.

Chairman Rushton called for a motion. Ms. Wrenn made a motion to deny the variance
based on the 4-point criteria not being met, the motion failed due to lack of second

Chairman Rushton opened the floor again for a motion. Mr. Mathis stated that he did
not have any problems with the side just the rear. He asked Mr. Burdette if the house
could be moved a little upward and if he could work with that. Mr. Burdette said yes.
Mr. Mathis said that if the Architectural Review Board approves of moving the house to
the front, he did not see a problem. Mr. Mathis then made a motion to approve the side
yard setback reduction on the lot line common to lot #141 of 2.5 feet; deny the rear
setback; and grant the side yard setback reduction on the lot line common to lot 143 of
2.5 feet on the condition that the setback reduction begins at the corner of the structure
and only extends the length of the structure footprint contingent upon approval of the
Architectural Review Board, seconded by Turner and the motion was carried with 4 in
favor (Boles, Mack Butler, Mathis, Turner) and 1 opposed (Wrenn).

Old Business

New Business
Mr. McKenna welcomed the city’s new appointee, Mr. Michael Butler, to the Board of
Zoning and Appeals. The next meeting will be held on February 5, 2007.


Chairman Rushton called for adjournment. Mr. Turner made a motion to adjourn,
seconded by Mr. Mack Butler. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

To top