►
From YouTube: Board of Zoning Appeals
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Now,
as
a
reminder,
it
is
unlawful
for
any
person
knowingly
providing
false
information
to
this
board
and
that's
according
to
section
22-9
of
the
aiken
municipal
code.
Each
infraction
is
a
separate
offense,
with
a
penalty
about
two
30
days
in
jail
and
are
a
fine
of
one
thousand.
Ninety
two
thousand
fifty
cents
to
the
board.
Do
you
have
received
copies
of
the
November
27th
2018
regular
meetings?
Are
there
any
Corrections
or
additions
to
those
minutes?
I
have
a
question
to
the
city.
B
A
A
C
C
C
A
A
D
A
A
D
C
A
B
Wouldn't
now
I
believe
it
would
play
at
this
point.
Last
year,
our
staffing
situation,
the
planning
department,
was
kind
of
in
flux,
we're
still
recruiting
somebody.
So
we
have
filled
that
position.
She
will
be
staffing
a
different
board,
so
I've
made
myself
available
to
staff
this
board
on
a
more
permanent
basis
from
the
planning
department.
If
you
would
have
me.
C
A
A
B
So,
unlike
other
boards,
you
adopt
your
calendar.
Normally,
the
other
boards
have
just
kind
of
a
standing
meeting
set
by
the
bylaws,
but
this
is
adopted
by
the
board,
so
design
reviews
first
Tuesday,
Planning
Commission
is
second
Tuesday,
so
that
leaves
immediately
to
other
Tuesday's.
And
so
we
looked
at
the
calendar
kind
of
similar
to
this
year
and
that
traditionally
the
December
meeting
was
fairly
close
to
Christmas,
and
so
that
was
kind
of
for
gone
or
noted
as
necessary.
B
And
then
you
would
have
two
meetings
in
January
that
they
believe
that
that
first
Thursday
was
typically
slotted
in
January.
But
then
you'd
also
have
your
regular
meeting
toward
the
end
of
the
month.
Just
looking
at
this
calendar,
we
we
have
again
the
the
fourth,
the
fourth
Tuesday,
which
is
a
typical
meeting,
would
be
Christmas
Eve.
B
So
we
kind
of
either
have
the
option
of
foregoing
that
December
meeting
moving
it
up
a
week,
which
is
what
you
have
on
your
count
or
your
proposed
calendar
or
moving
it
to
the
day
after
New
Year's
on
the
second
I'm.
Not
sure
any
of
those
feel
like
a
great
answer.
But
we
thought
that
if
any
of
those
were
to
be
an
option
for
the
board,
we
presented
the
17th
as
an
option.
If
you
were
to
want
to
keep
a
standing
meeting
in
December
this
year,.
D
B
E
A
A
Call
your
attention
to
application
1993
0:07,
a
petitioners
are
requesting
Avernus
to
section
three
point:
four
point:
two
of
the
zoning
ordinance
regarding
side
and
rear
yard
setback
for
in
a
seseri
structure,
submit
construction
of
approximately
12
a
12
story
shared
on
property
zone,
RS
6
and
is
located
at
7:46
charlie
drive
up
to
the
city.
Has
this
been
properly
posted?
It
has.
B
B
A
Before
we
go
into
it
in
any
front
of
the
discussion
generally,
when
I
open
up
I
usually
make
us
I
want
to
make
the
statement
that
I
mitad
tonight
that
anyone
wish
to
receive
copies
of
the
today's
for
seedings,
you
may
sign
up
on
the
side
of
she
just
beyond
the
double
doors
or
you
may
contact
the
planning
department
when
your
addressable,
what
we
ask
that
you
occupy
the
pouring
them
in
front
of
us
and
state
your
name
and
your
address.
Thank
you.
B
B
The
property
currently
only
has
a
1,600
square
foot
residents
and
staff
would
responded.
Our
zoning
official
responded
to
I
was
it
was
a
complaint,
but
it
was
a
kind
of
an
informational
call
that
there
was
a
structure
under
construction
on
the
residents
and
whether
it
meant
setbacks.
So
our
zoning
official
went
out
and
looked
at
the
property
in
the
approximate
twelve
by
twelve
accessory
structures
about
five
feet
from
the
side
and
rear
property
lines.
B
The
zoning
code
section
three
four
to
see
one
requires
a
setback
of
not
less
than
ten
feet
from
side
or
rear
lot
lines.
There
was
a
previous
version
of
our
ordinance
that
had
lesser
setbacks,
but
the
1999
version
onward
ten
feet
had
been
the
standard.
So
that's
when
the
there's
have
a
wholesale
change
in
the
zoning
oranges
1999-2000.
B
B
All
Lots
in
this
area.
It's
RS
6
zoning
for
the
entire
area
and
subdivision,
which
is
a
6,000
square
foot
lot.
Men-
and
these
are
some
of
the
smaller
Lots
allowed
by
our
zoning
ordinance.
Most
of
them
don't
go
down
to
the
6000
square
feet,
but
they're
still
relatively
small
compact,
their
subdivision
and
the
subdivision
does
have
a
number
of
previous
accessory
structures
that
are
less
than
the
10-foot
setback
from
side
and
rear
property
lines.
A
B
Yeah,
there
are
a
large
number,
many
of
them
you
can
tell
by
the
the
type
of
structure
it
is
that
they
likely
predated,
they're,
likely
80s
and
90s
structures.
Admittedly,
a
number
of
these
aren't
they're
fairly
small
in
stature,
and
so,
if
there
is
a
a
fence
have
been
difficult
to
verify
from
the
right
of
what
which
is
kind
of
where
we
run
into
the
issue.
B
With
this
actually
section
of
the
ordinance
and
being
able
to
find
things
on
patrol
so
to
speak,
is
that
many
times
they
can't
be
visibly
seen
from
the
right-of-way
now
this
one
I
think
I
have
a
picture,
the
one
being
constructed
you
can.
Actually
it
stands
up
a
bit
more
than
eight
just
a
handy
house,
they're
actually
constructing
the
thing
you
know,
so
it's
it's
a
little
higher
quality
construction.
B
Right
so
that's
the
other
issue
that
we
run
into
commonly
structures
under
two
hundred
square
feet:
don't
require
a
building
permit
and
then
some
other
structures
under
250
square
feet
don't
require
a
building
permit,
so
they
don't
come
through.
That
would
be
typically
how
we
would
see
these
for
approval
other
than
just
a
phone
call
requesting
information
on
where
you
can
put
an
accessory
structure.
B
The
roofline
yet
so
the
roofline
was
oriented
in
a
direction.
They
do
have
five
feet
from
the
rear
property
line
that
the
roofline
would
fall
into,
which
is
a
and
the
plant
was
kind
of
rough
to
see.
But
there
is
a
drainage
easement
back
there
that
it
would
be
emptying
into
it
on
one
side.
Well,
both
sides,
I,
guess,
I-
think
the
lot
drains
generally
that
direction
most
of
those
laws
work
we're
designed
to
try
to
gain
drain
to
that
rear
lot
line
and
down.
F
B
I
think
that
was
yeah
the
applicants
response
and
it
all
the
loss
in
the
subdivision
are
rough
other
than
the
one
on
the
end
are
pretty
close
to
the
same
size.
But
in
their
case
it's
my
view.
It's
a
little
bit
larger
a
lot,
but
it
is
kind
of
more
regular
shape.
Most
of
them
are
kind
of
squared
off
at
the
rear.
So.
B
G
A
H
The
only
one
additional
reason
for
my
personal
interest
is
that
I've
dug
drainage
underneath
the
Timbers
that
support
the
shed
so
moving.
If
I
have
to
move
the
shed
toward
the
street,
I
would
have
to
move
the
timbers
off
of
it.
I
still
have
gravel,
you
know,
spread
over
the
hold
it
by
up
deep
Jane
drainage
ditches
under
the
Timbers,
so
that
would
I
would
basically
have
to
abandon
those
as
providing
extra
drainage
underneath
the
support
structure
but
other
than
that
I
think
we'd
put
down
in
our
summation
pretty
much
all
we
had
to
say.
I
H
I
I
H
I
could
I
just
I
do
have
one
more
combo
just
go
ahead.
I
just
wanted
to
say
we
didn't
intend
to
mislead
the
committee
or
the
council
on
the
size
of
our
lot
up.
I
just
knew
that
from
our
backyard
as
I
look
down
toward
the
north-northwest,
the
Lots
get
slightly
larger
as
you
go
down
the
road,
so
I've
always
just
had
that
perception
of
the
smallest
lots.
Not
here.
D
H
E
So
I
have
a
question
for
the
Petersons.
Certainly
sympathetic,
I
mean
you're,
basically
surrounded
by
what
I
would
consider
non-conforming
buildings
everywhere
around
you
not
just
down
the
street,
but
I.
Think
everyone
in
your
immediate
neighbors
is
go
on
whether
that
was
all
done
prior
to
zoning,
and
all
that
is
would
be
difficult
to
to
get
to
issue.
I
have
is
just
the
scope
of
the
building.
I
mean
you
got
I.
Think
your
letter
and
support
from
miss
Haynes
calls
it.
E
H
Standard
construction
there-
those
are
their
full
stud
walls,
so
just
be
I-
have
a
lot
of
interests,
so
I
and
I
have
a
lot
of
equipment
that
goes
along
with
that
you
know
woodworking
and
motorcycling
and
fishing
and
etc.
So
I
just
felt
like
if
I'm
gonna
build
something
I
want
to
build
something
I
don't
have
to
crouch
in
or
what
you
know
I
and
and
the
size
of
it
I.
You
know
I
personally
felt
that
I
would
rather
have
a
20
by
40
shed
personally.
H
E
H
E
E
D
Firstly,
I
think
that
you
know,
based
on
the
all
the
individual
structures
around
the
area.
I
think
it's
an
you
know,
it's
a
positive
move
to
the
to
the
neighborhood,
because
I
you
know
right
in
his
particular
neighborhood.
There's
one
right
behind
there,
one
right
beside
and
there's
one
on
the
other
side
and
they're
all
you
know.
H
H
Of
it
is
relieve
some
of
the
clutter
in
my
garage
and
all
my
garden
tools.
I
have
you
know
things
like
a
radial
arm
saw
on
a
drill,
press
and
all
the
equipment
of
that
sort.
That's
my
intention
is
that
a
lot
of
that
would
I
would
move
into
that
shed
and
I've
got.
You
know
to
work
benches
in
my
garage
right
now,
I'd
like
to
have
a
large
work
bench
in
that
shed
that
I
could
do.
C
Order
for
us
to
approve
something
like
this:
you
have
to
meet,
you
know
all
the
criteria
mm-hmm
and
it's
due
to
the
conditions.
The
application
of
the
ordinance
to
this
particular
piece
of
property
would
effectively
prohibit
or
unreasonably
restrict
the
utilization
of
this
property.
If
you
don't
get
this
shed,
could
you
explain
how
that.
C
A
I
B
Was
7
feet
and
I
think
it
may
have
been
even
less
prior
to
that,
but
back
into
at
least
as
far
as
I
was
able
to
chase
down
zoning
ordinances
history
into
roughly
90
to
93
you,
it
I
believe
at
that
point
changes
7
feet
now
from
records
in
our
office.
There
were
a
number
of
times
that
they
simply
if
the
structure
wasn't
large
enough
to
meet
the
minimum
requirements
of
obtaining
a
building
permit.
They
didn't
strictly
enforce
that
section.
I
You,
mr.
chairman,
I
guess-
and
it's
not
necessarily
a
question
that
they
can
answer,
but
perhaps
in
relation
to
the
conditions
are
not
a
result
of
the
applicants
own
actions
because
they're
dealing
with
previously,
you
know
it
was
a
community
that
was
built
just
for
lack
of
a
better
example.
You
know
deodar
today
is
built
in
such
a
way.
I
You
know
larger
properties
to
accommodate
these
things,
so
I
think
I,
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
sort
of
in
response
to
I.
Don't
believe
that
it
is
a
result
of
their
own
actions.
I
think
they're
kind
of
an
unfortunate
circumstance
where,
if
the
woodlands
and
the
HOA
was
still
active
and
alive
and
obviously
I
think
it
was
built
in
the
80s
we'd
get
a
little
handy
house
and
you
know
slap
it
on
the
property
and
make
sure
it
was
seven
feet
off
and
now
times
have
sort
of
changed.
I
I
think
I
think
it's
it's
I
know
we're
not
really
speaking
to
the
that
restriction.
That's
not
really
our
jurisdiction
but
I
think
aesthetically.
What
they're
trying
to
accomplish
is
very
considerate
of
the
neighborhood
and
my
personal
I
love
cars
in
a
garage
personally
in
a
neighborhood
and
that's
one
of
my
pet
peeves,
so
I
think
car
in
the
garage
again
aesthetically
for
the
community.
So
if
they're
gonna
build
a
nice
building
and
park
their
cars
in
the
garage,
I
think
an
argument.
I
think
that's
that's
a
fairly
strong
argument
for
the
exception.
A
J
My
name
is
sandy
Haines
I
live
at
743,
Maple
Drive
southeast.
My
property
is
directly
behind
the
Petersons.
I
have
owned
this
property
since
July
of
last
summer,
it's
been
you
had
talked
about
drainage
and
the
issue
with
drainage.
I
just
want
to
say
that
we
are
very
lucky
in
our
neighborhood.
They
have
a
very
good
percolating
soil.
J
We've
had
an
awful
lot
of
rain
and
there
is
no
problem
that
I
see
between
my
property
and
the
Petersons
as
far
as
drainage
is
concerned,
and
I
don't
expect
that
this
building,
which
has
been
erected
and
had
a
roof
on
it
during
all
of
these
rains,
is
going
to
add
to
that.
So
I
have
absolutely
no
problem
with
you
granting
variance
to
them.
As
I
said
in
my
email,
it's
it's
compared
to
other
structures,
including
the
one
on
the
property
that
I
just
bought.
J
So
that's
why
I
came
tonight
and
also
I'm
a
new
neighbor
and
I
believe
that
neighbors
should
speak
up
for
each
other
when
it
comes
to
these
things,
and
originally
they
thought
I
might
have
been
the
one
that
made
the
phone
calls.
I
was
I,
have
had
no
problem
with
this
structure
in
its
construction
or
its
completion.
Any.
A
B
So
the
one
more
thing
that
mr.
chairman
is
that
the
there
are
I
believe
there
were
a
number
of
structures
in
this
neighborhood
that
were
issued
administrative
waivers
generally.
That
is
available
for
a
condition
like
this.
Typically,
it
has
been
and
I've
just
kind
of
followed
the
the
internal
policies
of
my
predecessor
that,
if
it's
you
know
based
upon
you
know,
either
a
complaint
or
a
phone
call
that
you
know.
We
just
assume
that
there
may
be
an
objection
to
it.
B
If
there's
an
objection
to
it,
it
comes
to
the
board,
and
so
that's
why
that
was
not
pursued
in
this
case.
It's
kind
of
just
following
policies
of
the
Planning
Department
back
from
when
that
administrative
waiver
process
was
established
so
another,
so
that
just
to
remind
the
board
how
that
process
works,
we
would
notify
adjacent
properties
not
including
properties
across
the
street,
and
if
they
met
certain
requirements-
and
there
were
no
objections,
then
administrative
Lea
staff
can
grant
that
waiver
and
a
number
of
the
newer
structures
that
neighborhood
it
appears
may
have
waivers.
A
G
D
The
the
size
of
the
well
may
be
going
to
D
the
conditions
were
not
his
own
action.
Of
course,
building
the
building
was
his
own
action,
but
trying
to
place
a
building
in
that
particular
size
lot
was
very,
very
challenging
and
I
think
that
you
know
that
that
was,
it
I
think
it's
going
to
add
to
the
property.
D
Love
has
been
taken
away
and
I
also
think
that
like
say,
there
are
just
so
many
things
that
will
help
that
property
be
utilized
in
a
positive
manner
and
I
guess
y'all
didn't
see
his
garage,
but
let
me
tell
what
it
is
packed
full
of
stuff
and
there's
no
way
a
car
could
ever
get
in
that
particular
spot.
And
if
that's
one
of
the
actions
I
think
that
would
be
good
and
I.
Think
it'd
save.
A
D
F
F
The
quality
of
construction
is
a
consideration
it's
more
than
just
a
place
for
hobbies.
It's
a
there's,
a
need
to
safely
and
securely
keep
his
tools
and
other
his
stuff,
and
there
seems
to
be.
There
would
be
no
negative
impact
on
the
other
properties
in
in
the
neighborhood.
So
for
that
reason,
I
think
I
would
support
this
variance.
I
Mr.
Chairman
I
just
wanted
to
contribute
as
well.
I
think
should
that
building
as
it
is
be
moved
within
the
ten-foot
standards
realistically,
any
any
neighboring
property
is
still
going
to
see
the
building
the
same
way,
it's
just
going
to
be
sort
of
awkwardly
placed
more
in
the
useable
area
of
the
yard.
So
to
me
the
setback
seems
a
little
off
because
it's
not
it's
not
being
you
know,
shielded
from
the
neighbors
view
or
impeding
anything.
I
If
anything,
it's
going
to
make
the
property
sort
of
tidier
as
a
whole
and
more
useful
and
I
think
lend
itself
aesthetically.
You
know
to
the
neighborhood
his
roof
lines.
Actually,
looking
you
know
when
you
drove
by
and
looked
at
it,
it
almost
looked
like
an
extension
of
the
house
without
that
depth
perception,
which
I
thought
was
actually
very
smart.
E
E
E
You
know
before
the
board,
in
terms
of
issuing
future
waiver
I
just
be
very
difficult
in
good
faith.
Ever
I
won't
say
that,
but
to
really
consistently
enforce
this
in
light
of
the
Wild
West
that
that
neighborhood
has
already
become
yeah.
So
you
really
wrestled:
is
this
the
time
to
draw
a
line
in
the
sand
and
really
try
to
get
things
in
order
where
at
least
the
the
zoning
very
requirement
is
set,
or
is
that
really
an
unfair
burden
on
someone
who's
stumbled
into
it
later
later
in
the
developmental
cycle?
So.
A
A
Clearly
an
exception
from
from
the
audience
due
to
some
unforeseen
circumstances
as
I
travel,
the
neighborhood
I
think
I,
like
the
rest
of
the
board,
probably
saw
a
lot
of
violations
a
lot
of
violations
and
I'm
getting
to
think
how
will
I
rule
in
this
particular
case,
it's
going
to
be
difficult.
Our
job
is
to
have
the
city
comply
with
the
regulations
and
I
am
going.
A
But
if
you
get
us
off
the
hook,
I
think
you've
heard
the
discussion.
I
think
you
see
where
we
are
and
the
dilemma
that
we
are
in
I
think
we
all
sympathize
with
the
condition
we
saw
the
conditions
we
see
what
the
applicant
is
trying
to
do.
We
appreciate
what
he's
trying
to
do
and
the
way
he's
doing
it,
but
is
in
violation
of
law,
there's
no
two
ways
about
it.
But
if
there's
a
we're
looking
for
wiggle
room
and
mr.
B
Chairman,
it
might
be
able
to
add
to
that
just
a
little
bit
is
there
one
thing
that
is
kind
of
difficult
from
the
staffs
perspective
is
that
there
is
the
administrative
waiver
process
and
while
it
allows
for
you,
know,
I
guess
something
less
than
a
variance.
The
fact
that
that
exists
with
I
would
say
some
less
stringent
requirements
attached
to
it
than
a
strict
variance
request
is
required
to
meet.
B
That
is
the
typical
route
we
would
see
unless
we
would
get
you
know
if
we,
if
our
zoning
official
had
caught
this
out
in
the
field
without
there
being
a
call
again.
This
is
kind
of
more
of
a
department
policy
that
we're
just
following
that
was
established
by
my
predecessors.
That
typically
would
offer
that
up
to
them
as
as
the
primary
option
first
before,
and
then
an
appeal
could
come
to
the
board.
So
essentially,
what
you're
saying
is
would
work
the
other
way.
A
D
See
your
point,
but
I
think
that
this
is
a
I
think
it's
an
upgrade
to
the
community,
even
though
it's
the
5-foot
area
I
mean
what
he's
trying
to
do.
Certainly
is
it's
more
appealing
to
the
community
as
far
as
I'm
concerned
than
having
all
the
the
the
variable
sizes
and
shapes
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff
of
them
of
these
huge
buildings.
E
B
This
point,
since
this
is
already
at
the
board
I
think
staff
would
have
to
receive
direction
from
the
board
to
have
it
essentially
bumped
down
back
to
the
staff
review
process.
I
think
if
you
were
to
deny
it
I,
think
I
think
so.
I
think
the
administrative
waver
is
kind
of
a
lower
process.
The
the
variance
is
the
higher
process.
I
think
there
has
to
be
a
place
that
they
can
appeal
at
administrative
decision,
and
that
is
the
board.