Greenville Board of Adjustment Meeting - January 24, 2019

On January 24, 2019, the Greenville Board of Adjustment held a public hearing to consider a variance request from property owner Richard Barnes (also identified as Richard Bones in the transcript) to subdivide a 0.25-acre lot at 1712 and 1714 South Green Street into two lots, each containing an existing residential dwelling. The variance was sought from Sections 9429 (extension/enlargement of non-conforming situations) and 9494 (schedule of development standards) of the zoning ordinance because both resulting lots would be smaller than the minimum dimensional standards for the R-6 zoning district. The board approved the variance with a condition.

Discussion Items

• Staff Report: Planning staff presented the request, noting that the property currently contains two detached homes on a single lot. The applicant wished to divide the lot into two separate lots, each with a house. The property is zoned R-6 residential, and surrounding uses are also single-family dwellings. Staff initially informed the applicant that a variance would be required, but later clarified that Section 9433 (non-conforming lots) did not apply because that section refers to a building site, not an existing structure. Therefore, a variance was needed. Staff recommended approval with one condition: that a final plat be recorded with the Register of Deeds.
• Applicant Testimony: The applicant, Richard Barnes (stated as Richard Bones when speaking), explained that he lost his job and needed to sell one of the houses (1714 South Green Street) to generate income. Subdividing the lot would allow him to sell the house separately. He confirmed he had no intention of selling the other house at this time.
• Public Comments: No members of the public spoke in favor or opposition.
• Board Discussion: Board members asked about the driveway encroachment on an adjacent property (staff noted a portion of the driveway is on the neighbor's property) and the applicant's intent to sell. The board then reviewed the six required variance criteria sequentially, voting unanimously on each.

Key Outcomes

• Variance Approval: The board voted unanimously (7 members present, 7 voting members) to approve the variance request, with the condition that a final plat be recorded. A variance requires a four-fifths vote (6 of 7), so the decision met the threshold.
• Criteria Findings: The board found that:
  1. The application met all required conditions and specifications.
  2. Proper notice was given to adjoining property owners and published in the Daily Reflector on January 14 and 21, 2019.
  3. The applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if strict application of the ordinance were enforced.
  4. The hardship resulted from unique circumstances related to the land (size, location) and was not self-created or common to others.
  5. The variance would be in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance.
  6. The variance would secure public safety and welfare and do substantial justice.
• Motion and Second: A motion was made to approve the variance with the staff condition, seconded, and carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned shortly after, lasting approximately 18 minutes.

Note: The applicant's name appears as Richard Barnes in the chair's opening and as Richard Bones in the applicant's own testimony; the discrepancy is preserved from the transcript.