 On June 2021, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting members, staff, and guests, we ask for your patience during this virtual meeting. Multiple staff members are behind the scenes to make sure applicants and citizens are able to communicate with the board at the appropriate times. Board members and applicants are participating via Zoom. Some are using video and all are using audio. I will unmute applicants when their case is called. Please be aware of your audio, public, and board members, and be mindful of anything going on in the background of your video to eliminate distractions. The public is able to participate in a number of ways. They can watch via city TV. They can communicate via email, call us by phone, or log into publicinput.com. You can go to youtube.com slash user slash Columbia SC government. You can also go to the main city page and the red ticker at the top will take you straight to the video. You can send public comments to COC board meeting at Columbia SC dot go leading up to and during the meeting. We are monitoring that email account for every case until the matter goes into board discussion and those statements will be read into the record by staff. You can participate via phone by calling 1-855-925-2801 and when prompted enter the meeting code which is 4316. Once you enter in that meeting code, you can either hit star one which will allow you to listen. Star two allows you to record a voice message that will be read into the record. Please make sure you speak clearly and leave your name and which case you're calling about and star three allows you to participate and be tuned into the meeting to speak live when prompted. Please make sure that you wait until your specific case is called to hit star three. The meeting can also be streamed at publicinput.com slash cocboza.jun 2021 and if you're participating by phone while also streaming on your computer, mute the audio on your computer so that you just have your own audio so that there's no playback issues. There's also an audio delay between our Zoom meeting and the live recording so if you notice that we pause at certain times, it is just to allow the audio to catch up. And I'll do roll call. Mr. Dinkins. You. Mr. Gregory is absent. Mr. Primus. Here. Ms. Stevens is absent. Ms. Fenner. Here. Mr. Gignard. Here. And we also have Ms. McIntosh joining us today. She's our newest member. She's just observing today. She'll be listening in and she might ask some questions during the meeting but she will be abstaining from voting until next month. We do have a quorum. Applicants with requests before the Board of Zoning Appeals are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, case history and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant such as attorneys, engineers and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the Board of Zoning Appeals or staff regarding the request. Any member of the general public may address the Board in intervals of three minutes or five minutes if by a spokesperson for an established body or for a group of three or more. The applicant will then have five minutes for rebutting. The Board reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case-by-case basis. The Board uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion in vote. If a member of the Board or the general public wishes to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed and placed on the regular agenda. The Board then approves the remaining consent agenda items. The first matter on the consent agenda is the approval of the May 6th minutes. We have case 2021-0055 for 1511 Richland Street. This is a special exception to permit a miscellaneous personal service, a day spa. We're back at 919 True Street for case 2021-0057. Three-unit E-5, a special exception to permit a beauty shop. Case 2021-0058 for unit W at 919 True Street to permit a beauty supply retail store. We have case 2021-0060 for 1920 Bull Street unit B. This is a special exception to permit a beauty shop. Case 2021-0061 for 2751 and 2761 Boulevard. It's a special exception to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirement for a warehouse use. Case 2021-0065 for 2401 Atlas Road. This is a special exception to permit a parking reduction to a multi-family senior development. And I'll just point out to the Board, I know usually you see variances for parking reductions. The ordinance does have a few code sections for specific uses that allow them to do those special exceptions, as long as they can show that there is room for size for additional parking if need be. We have case 2021-0066 for 200 West Merriam Avenue. Please make sure you're muted whoever's audio is on. And this is a special exception to permit an in-home daycare. And we have case 2021-0067 for 919 True Street unit J, a special exception to permit a beauty shop. Does anyone wish to have a case removed from the consent agenda prior to the Board vote? We'll take a minute to see if any letters come in or if we have anyone with their hands raised for public input. Andrew, just let us know. Oh, Rachel, I do have one caller in the speaker queue. Okay. Here you go. Hey, I think I missed to be for opportunity to speak. This is regarding 1511 Richland Street. So if you could put me in the queue for that one. That was part of the consent agenda, Elizabeth. So it was read onto this one. Are you wanting it to be placed on the regular agenda? Were you calling in opposition or were you calling in support? Right, calling in support. Okay. All right. Yeah, it was on consent agenda, so it's not going to be heard separately. It's just kind of in that bulk beginning. So the board's about to vote on that consent agenda. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Andrew, did we have anybody else? No, that is all we have right now. All right. So no emails have come in. So you are welcome to move forward. Thank you. Could we get a motion for the consent agenda, please? I move that we approve the consent agenda subject to staff comments. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? OK, motion passes. Move on to the regular agenda. Before we get going, just a few matters. Case number 11, which is 3,400 Coles Road, was withdrawn by the applicant. So that case won't be moving forward today. And case 5744 Farrell Road will be deferred until next month, just due to us being short of a quorum for that case. So the applicants aware and they will be coming back before y'all in July. So and I will introduce the other cases and give the applicant a chance to discuss their request. The board can ask any questions and then the public will be allowed to participate as well before action by the board. The first matter is case 2021-0039 for 915 Pine Street. This matter for a variance to maximum lot coverage was before you previously. They have changed their footprint of the structure. So the request has reduced a great deal for the lot coverage. If the applicant is on the line, they're welcome to unmute themselves and discuss the case a little bit. Thank you again for hearing me. This is Julius Thomas. My wife and I were looking to build our new home on the property of 915 Pine Street. And when we came before you before, the lot coverage was significantly higher, I think 54%. And we have reduced and we worked our plans and hope to be in more alignment with the city requires. And I think we're down to 37.75 or just about 38%. And we're hoping that we can go ahead and move forward with the variance for a lot coverage. Thank you for hearing us. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Appreciate you coming back before us again. Really appreciate you providing us with a sketch illustrating what the proposed new dwelling will look like. I think that's helpful. When you're here before, we just had no idea. So that part was helpful. Let's do get you... I think your application was very thorough, but if you could run through some of the criteria, please, so we can get some of these facts on the record regarding your request, specifically in asking you to... You don't have to read it word for word, but sort of summarize your responses to the questions asked regarding the request in the packet for us, please. Some of them are very good answers. Starting with the person who described the extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the subject property. Well, I don't have that right in front of me, which I probably should have. I didn't think I would need that today. But... Well, OK, that's not a problem. I understood. I think you did a very good job writing them. I'll summarize a couple of them for you. Starting with the person, this lot really is a very narrow lot. And you say that you have four vehicles and you'd like to have a detached garage. So you were saying that without this variance, that would not be possible. Another one you stated would explain how the conditions are not generally applied to other properties in the area. Well, you said that some are situated differently on the lots and further back, some are closer to the street. So I think that was a good answer. Getting over gloss number three, number four. We're just trying to do some of this stuff, Mr. Collins, to get it on the record so we have a reason for why we approve this. That's fair. OK, and I like one of your answers in particular regarding the size of your family and there was something in here trying to find it about being in the neighborhood that you live and building in the house. But that was a very good answer. Well, anyway, I don't see it looking quickly. I think your application is very well written. I think you did a good job with it. So at this point, we'd like to ask you board members if they have any questions. I do not. Dean, you're very muffled on the audio. I don't know if your microphone's blocked. Has it been that way the whole time, Rachel? It comes and goes. OK, maybe it times too far back. I'll try to make sure I'm closer. This is a new camera and microphone that I got. And I think that's the problem. Sorry about that. I'll try to stay close to it. Anyway, just for the record, I briefly ran through some of the answers to the criteria and think you did a much better job answering them. So at this point, do any board members have any questions for the applicant? All right, good. Do we have any public input regarding this matter? No emails have come in, but I will turn it over to Andrew to see if there's anybody who's indicated they would like to speak. At this time, I do not have any callers. Great, thank you. All right, we'll move into what's going to be a brief board discussion. I'll just start and say thank you, Mr. Thomas. Again, appreciate the sketch illustrating the drawing. I think the reduction from 50 something percent to 38 percent is much better. And I would be in favor of this. Other board members? It looks fine to me. Sure. Yeah, I agree. Jean is much clearer now, and it's a lot easier for the 38 percent as opposed to the 54. So I think we're bringing it back and answering the questions thoroughly. I have no objections. OK, it really is. Well, can we get a motion on the side, and please? I move it to be. Great. Ladies first. I know that we approve subject to staff comments. Second. And we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone oppose? OK, motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next case. Items 11 and 12. 11 is withdrawn and 12 is deferred. So we will move to item number 13. Items number 13 and 14 are for the same address. So I figure we can hear them together, but just make sure that there's two separate motions. Item number 13 and 14 are for it's 2021-0062 and 63. They're for 2213 Gadsden Street. It's a variance to the maximum lot-covered requirement to add a covered porch, as well as a variance to the minimum side yard setback for that covered porch. It's an existing deck, but adding the covered structure, that's where the setback, adding that covering, brings in a lot coverage in the setback. If the applicant is on the line, she's welcome to run through her request. You hear Ms. Masters? I think she's on here, but she's showing as muted. So I'm asking, I'm sending it. It's letting me ask you to unmute. So if it's you, you get a request to unmute. She's on there, but we just can't hear her. She just sent an email. Yeah, she's on here. I just don't, she just is permanently muted, I think. We're trying to get her unmuted. I think I might have just seen it on the iPhone. Can you hear me? Yes. There you are. Sorry, I was dialed in through my audio on my phone, and even though I was unmuted, it would not let me connect. So I had to chime in a different way. I apologize for the delay. No problem. So I appreciate the opportunity to hear my request today. My name is Cindy Masters. I bought the property in September of 2020, tried to make several aesthetic improvements to the property and one being removing the old really unsafe unusable deck and wanting to install a screen porch. I've also taken the steps of moving some of the wires that ran diagonally across the property to the side of the property. So some of the electrical wiring and cable wiring to move it over. And so the intention is to build out a new deck with the screen porch with a roof that runs flush with the house. And so if you've seen any pictures of the old deck, it actually extended too far if you're facing the back of the house, extended too far to the right of the property, very close to the property line. My proposal is to move that in where it's flush with the house and then installed a screen porch. One of my applications identifies a hardship in that my property is only 38 feet wide. And so that's why I'm requesting to build a two and a half feet away from the property line because again, that is flush with the house. And so the intention is to create a nice, plain aesthetic appearance in the back. It is not visible from the road. It's just visible in the backyard. The other requests for the roof increases my square footage footprint coverage from, it's about 3% over the existing allowance. It goes up to about 33%. And so that does fit within the 40% allowance for that's I think taking effect in August, but it would be a request to move forward in advance of that ruling. So I appreciate your time. Please, please ask any questions as needed. So Cynthia, thank you very much for explaining that to us. So you, as we understand it, you're not really increasing the footprint on your property at all. Are you exactly my understanding that correctly? I understand you're covering the debt. Yes, I'm covering the debt. They told me that if I add a roof, then that increases the footprint, but I am not increasing the existing footprint. I'm actually just shifting it, shifting it a little bit left where it's flush with the house and rebuilding the deck and adding a roof for the spring porch. Understood. So Rachel, this is probably one that was close to going on the consent agenda. Is that correct? Correct. But just because it was two together for variances, I put it on regular, but we hadn't received any feedback. Okay, understood. Well, I think your applications are very well written. I think it's a very reasonable request. I don't see me to ask you to run through anything. I don't have any questions. Do any other board members have any questions for the applicant? I'm fine. I don't. I'm fine. All right, very good. Is there any public input regarding this matter? At this time, I do not have any callers on the line. I wish to speak. Thank you. We'll move into board discussion. I'll simply just say, certainly would like for you to be able to do this and we just want to add a roof to your deck. Very reasonable request, minor increases. I don't have anything else to add. Anyone else? Okay. As for a motion regarding, well, let's again, I realize we have two matters. So let's start with the variance. What was the first one appearing in our packet? The lock average. Okay. Let's like to ask for a motion for the variance regarding the increased lock coverage, please. I'll make a motion that we approve the variance for a lock coverage subject to staff comments. I second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone oppose? Thank you. Okay. Like to ask for a motion for the variance to the minimum side yard setback for the covered portion decision, please. Move. We approve the motion subject to staff comments. Second. We have a move. Go ahead, Captain. I think that should be, I would say that we, you move that we accept the motion. I think what you mean is that you move that we approve. Approve the request. Nice to have a good lawyer on board. Thank you, Captain. Let's move a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone oppose? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for the time. I appreciate it. You're welcome. All right. The final item on the agenda, case number 15 is case 2021.0068. This is the variance at 2439 Reed Street. It's a variance to the minimum landscape buffer transition yard requirement for a proposed multifamily development. If the applicants on the line, they're welcome to unmute themselves and run through their requests for the board. Yeah, I'm here. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay. This is pretty straightforward. We are trying to turn this property into three residential apartments. One of the, it's been vacant for a number of years. One of the reasons that's been the case is because of the parking challenge. It basically rules out any kind of commercial space. We need to get six parking spots. And in order to do that, we need to have the parking buffer removed along the rear property line. So we're gonna do that. And then we're posing to build a masonry wall basically along the property line. And yeah, that really sums it up. It's pretty straightforward. Happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you. Interesting here. So what did the church that used to occupy this property do for parking? You know, I tried to get an answer on that. The real estate agent who was representing the seller did not know. So we was not able to find that out. They, in a special exception from a long time ago for that church, it had language about having I believe at least six parking spaces back there. It was never improved like it was supposed to be. So an actual, I think a religious school came before you all probably about two, two and a half years ago for this property. The school never happened. But in that special exception, there was language about that parking actually being made and more than just gravel. But again, that was never done either. So I think it's just kind of gravel and some concrete back there, but it was never a lot of parking spaces. You mentioned in your application that you're planning on building a masonry wall, would that be brick or concrete or tell us a little bit about this wall you're planning to build? I assume it would be brick. Good. So we could do, I mean, either center block on the outside and a brick to near or it'd be, you know, say a double road brick. What other questions do the board members have for the applicant here? I mean, just to be clear, I don't, I mean, I think it's pretty straightforward, but you want to build a wall along that north property line right up against that structure and then put in a parking spaces between that and the existing building on the property? Correct. Yes. Okay. And we would build a masonry wall down the, if you're looking at it on the left side as well, just to sort of contain the parking lot. Between that existing parking lot? Correct. Any questions, Marcellus or Catherine? No, it seems like a pretty reasonable request and it seems like a great upgrade for that area. Yeah. I agree with that. Okay. Do we have any public input regarding this matter? No emails have come in, but I'll see if Andrew has anybody on the line. At this time, I have one caller, but they have not indicated they wish to speak. It's interesting that we want to give them a moment to make sure they don't want to talk or we just need to move forward. That's sort of odd. They might just try to, perhaps they're trying to explain to us that we need to extend our car warranty or something. I mean, you never know. Okay. All right. Well, without any public input, I guess we'll move into forward discussion. You know, this is in the Waverly community. Is that correct, Rachel? Is this officially Waverly? I believe it's outside of the historic part, but it's right on the outskirts. So when I saw it, I guess it was yesterday when I was looking at all this and then normally if it's in Waverly and there's a problem with it, we hear from a lot of the vocal neighbors. So the fact that we're not hearing anything gives me more comfort with this. I guess I'm kind of on the outlier. It doesn't seem as straightforward of a slam duck, let's say, to me as some of the other board members may have indicated. I don't know that this parcel is big enough to support a three, is it three multi-family? Yeah, three residential units. Three family units. I mean, this is a quarter acre parcel. I mean, these buffers are throughout the city buffering residential parcels for a reason. Sort of on the other hand, you look at the adjacent similar type use that has parking right up to the property line with a nice looking brick wall. And then the other one across Waverly Street that does the same thing. So I guess I'm looking at both ways. If that's the situation, then why couldn't these people do it? So I guess I'll start a board discussion. What are some of the other board members think about all this? Well, it seems like an extremely densely, if you look across Waverly there, it's very, very dense. And I think this is not out of character with that level of density that's across Waverly. It looked fine to me from that perspective. John or Marcellus, anything to add? Take your back off Catherine's comment. Any other comments? No, nothing to add from me. I mean, I agree with Catherine and seeing kind of what she said, but also being able to redevelop it, I guess, and have it be of use to the community and provide some residents there, I think is something that as an improvement, I should say. Also, I would imagine that three apartments are going to require fewer parking. It's going to be much less of a burden parking wise than a church would have been once a week or twice a week. I'm assuming that church probably met twice a week and had a lot more than, I mean, how many cars are you going to get with three relatively small apartments? Probably so. It's a large structure. I mean, it must take up 60% of a lot. No, we've had a lot of lot coverage. No, that doesn't even apply in this case, but it's a large structure. Well, I can't think of any reason then, why not to move forward and ask for a motion? I move that we approve subject to staff comments. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Do you want to pose? Okay, motion passes. Good luck with the project. Wonderful, thank you. All right. There is no other business, so, but I will just say really quickly now that we have a full seven, so I will be scheduling just kind of a work session to go over things and talk about the upcoming new ordinance that is coming very soon and just how that will affect you all, if at all. I mean, obviously I'm not going to ask that you all memorize it, but we'll go over that and just some housekeeping matters, but we'll try to get that scheduled in the next month or two. And Rachel, I'm guessing this will have to be a virtual meeting. Yes, so it'll probably be August, September, when we start coming back. Good, just sort of thanking it. It'd be nice for all the board members to get in each other. It's been really, kind of been so long through this that we really, we have a bunch of board members now who really haven't even met or if they have, it's been a long time. So hopefully we can do it sooner rather than later. Yeah, so once Council starts coming back in person, then it'll trickle down that. All right, so that's good. Well, do we have a motion to adjourn? Move that we adjourn. We have a second. Motion to second, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye, anyone opposed? All right, thank you very much everyone. Thank you.