►
From YouTube: Board of Zoning Appeals August 23, 2022
Description
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 23, 2022
5:30 PM
Call to Order
Minutes
Old Business:
Final Orders
New Business:
A) App 23- 93001 — Petitioner the City of Aiken is requesting a Variance to Zoning
Ordinance Section 4. 4. 6. 13. 1 to permit an additional freestanding sign on property
zoned Residential Single- Family/ Stable ( RSS) and generally located at 135 Dupree
PI. SW. ( TPN: 105- 16- 01- 010). ( Application WITHDRAWN at Applicant' s Request).
B) App 23- 93002 — Petitioners James and Cora Cunningham are requesting a
Variance to Zoning Ordinance Sections 3. 4. 1. A. 1. & 3. 4. 1. A. 3. to permit an
accessory apartment on property zoned Residential Multifamily High -Density
RMH) and generally located at 230 Chesterfield St. N ( TPN: 120- 17- 15- 010).
Application WITHDRAWN at Applicant' s Request).
C) App 23- 93003 — Petitioner Niki Ivanko, representing Build On Your Land LLC, is
requesting a Variance to Zoning Ordinance Section 4. 4. 11. C. to permit a
freestanding sign on property zoned Limited Business ( LB) and generally located at
539 E Pine Log Rd. ( TPN: 122- 06- 08- 010).
Adjournment
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
F
F
Pursuant
to
section
4411c
of
the
city.
Zoning
ordinance
signs
located
in
the
limited
business
district
are
limited
to
a
maximum
of
nine
square
feet
in
area
information
provided
by
the
applicant
about
the
site,
plan,
dimensions
and
design,
or
look
of
the
proposed
sign,
as
well
as
the
submitted
sign
permit.
Application
is
contained
in
exhibit
b
of
your
agenda
packet.
F
This
picture
here
is
a
the
site
plan
that
was
submitted,
indicating
the
approximate
location
of
the
sign
relative
to
the
structure
and
the
roadway.
It's
indicated
here
towards
the
bottom
there
of
the
picture.
I
don't
believe
this
is
to
scale,
but
the
pictures
taken
by
staff
should
illustrate
approximately
how
far
it
is
from
the
the
driveway
and
this
the
the
roadway
there,
but
it
does
appear
to
indicate
that
it
is
approximately
three
feet
from
the
the
asphalt
driveway
and
about
ten
feet
from
the
the
sidewalk.
F
F
As
you
can
see
here,
the
dimensions
of
the
sign
itself
are
5
by
3,
which
total
15
square
feet
in
area
again
sort
of
indicated
by
this
application.
Here,
the
total
dimensions
of
the
structure,
approximately
seven
foot
three
feet
tall.
Excuse
me:
seven
foot,
three
inches
tall
and
eight
feet
and
five
inches
wide.
That's
total
structure,
but
the
the
area
of
the
sign
itself
is
the
five
by
three.
F
As
indicated
by
this,
pursuant
to
section
447c
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
the
structure
supporting
a
ground
level
freestanding
monument
sign
shall
not
be
included
in
calculating
the
area
of
the
sign
permitted
by
this
article.
So,
basically,
the
the
supporting
structure
here
on
the
bottom,
as
well
as
the
additional
height
here,
does
not
count
in
determining
the
overall
area
of
the
sign.
F
F
F
However,
the
sign
ordinance
regulates
signage
by
intensity
of
district
rather
than
use
or
proximity
to
major
roadways
offices
are
limited.
Excuse
me.
Offices
are
permitted
in
the
lb
district
by
right,
but,
as
I
previously
mentioned,
signs
located
in
that
district
are
limited
to
a
total
of
9
square
feet,
largely
to
limit
the
impact
of
commercial
signage
on
surrounding
residential
uses,
since
the
district
is
primarily
intended
to
serve
as
a
transition
between
more
intense
commercial
uses
and
existing
residential
areas.
F
F
There
are
a
variety
of
zoning
districts
in
the
vicinity
of
the
subject:
property,
including
general
business
across
the
roadway
to
the
south
here
planned
residential
to
kind
of
the
north
east,
which
is
city,
property
and
unincorporated
properties
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
county,
sort
of
surrounding
it
to
the
west
and
northwest
here
properties
immediately
adjacent
to
the
subject.
Property
are
not
subject
to
the
same
signage
requirements
as
they
are
unincorporated,
primarily
residential
and
are
subject
to
aitkin.
F
County
standards
incorporated
properties
across
the
road
roadway
to
the
south
are
not
subject
to
the
same
design
standards
as
their
as
the
subject
property,
since
they
are
zoned
general
business
and
are
therefore
allowed
larger
signage
up
to
60
square
feet
in
area
by
right.
Pursuant
to
section
4411,
c4
of
the
zoning
ordinance
exhibit
e
in
your
agenda.
Packet
contains
photographs
of
the
property
taken
by
staff
depicting
the
existing
conditions
of
the
property,
as
well
as
proposed
location
of
the
new
sign
and
the
distance
between
the
proposed
location
and
the
nearest
residential
home.
F
F
F
B
F
F
F
Yeah,
absolutely
this
wasn't
a
conversation
that
I
had
with
the
applicant,
I'm
not
100
sure,
on
the
the
extent
of
the
the
conversation,
so
they
may
be
able
to.
You
know,
answer
that
as
well,
but
it's
my
understanding
that,
in
discussion
with
with
a
member
of
the
planning
department,
there
was
miscommunication
between
the
applicant
and
that
staff
member
with
the
the
permitted
area
of
the
sign,
and
that
was
erroneously
communicated
to
them.
F
I
believe
it
was
over
the
phone
and
perhaps
not
in
writing,
I'm
not
sure,
but
in
any
case
it
sounds
like
that
was
the
what
had
happened.
They
were.
They
were
given
the
wrong
information
by
staff
and,
as
a
result,
they
had
basically
commissioned
a
sign
based
on
that
information,
and
it
was
later
determined
at
the
time
that
they
had
submitted
the
sign
application
permit
signed
permit
application
that
it
was
too
large
for
the
district.
B
A
F
F
F
I
believe
I
mean
again
I
it
wasn't.
I
wasn't.
I
wasn't
like
part
of
the
conversation
I
guess
but
and
they
may
be
able
to
kind
of
clarify,
but
it's
my
understanding
that
they
had
been
in
communication
with
with
the
planning
department
with
regard
to
the
size
of
the
sign
and
what
they
could
and
couldn't
do,
and
they
were
given
the
incorrect
information.
E
F
F
I
do
not
believe
that
to
be
the
case.
I
think
it
was
more
just
a
conversation
trying
to
get
the
information
as
best
as
possible
that
they
could,
you
know,
go
ahead
and
make
a
sign
but
yeah.
I
don't
believe
that
the
there
was
any
yeah
this
like
in-person
meeting
I
mean
I'm
not
sure
but
yeah
it's
my
understanding.
F
It
was
a
phone
call
or
a
series
of
phone
calls
that
led
to
some
incorrect
information
being
distributed
or
communicated,
at
which
point
they
kind
of
took
that
information
as
an
okay
to
commission
a
sign,
I
guess
in
in
an
effort
to
expedite
the
process
rather
than
having
to
wait,
and
then
we
received
the
sign
permit
application
after
that
with
these
dimensions
and
it
was,
it
was
notice
that
it
is
too
large
for
the
district.
At
that
point,.
E
F
F
F
F
That's
my
understanding,
yeah.
I
think
it
was
just
it
was
either
the
staff
member
misreading
it
not
not.
You
know
catching
it,
some
something
of
that
nature,
but
yeah.
Basically,
it's
my
understanding
that
the
applicant
was
passed.
Some
was
you
know,
given
some
incorrect
information
over
the
phone
and
that
led
to
sort
of
this
this
the
situation.
G
F
G
F
Sir,
and
predominantly
in
the
county,
there
is
this
little
bit
up
here
to
the
north
and
the
kind
of
the
back
corner
of
the
property
that
I
believe
is
also
in
the
city
zone
planned
residential,
but
the
the
properties
that
would,
I
guess
primarily
be
you
know
the
sign,
would
kind
of
border
or
are
zoned
residential,
but
in
the
county,
they're
all
they're,
all
in
the
county.
I
believe,
there's
an
rc
right:
okay,
but
yeah.
That's
all
county
property,
yellow.
G
F
F
G
F
F
Not
office
right
I
mean
it
is
it
is,
I
guess
it's
a
model
home
that
for
their
their
business,
so
it
looks
like
a
home
and
then
many
of
the
it's
similar
to
the
districts
that
are
up
kind
of
you
know
out
west
of
the
downtown
area,
where
some
of
these
more
residential
type
use
looking
homes
are
like
offices
or
like
a
lawyer's
practice,
or
something
like
that.
It's
much
the
same
idea.
F
I
did
actually
try
to
look
that
up.
They're
as
confusing
as
ours
is.
There's
is
confusing
as
well
more
confusing
for
me,
I
tried
to
kind
of
figure
that
out
for
for
the
residential
uses,
I
wasn't
able
to
kind
of
make
much
sense
of
it
in
the
sort
of
limited
amount
of
time
or
and
research
that
I
did
into
it.
F
F
It
is
one
of
the
more
restrictive
in
the
county
as
far
as
I
can
tell,
but
they
still
have
provisions
for.
You
know
acceptable
signage
on
those
properties,
I
believe,
but
I
wasn't
able
to
quite
determine
exactly
you
know
how
how
their
their
requirements
for
that
district
and
I
believe
the
district
is
rc,
so
it
is
their
more
traditional
residential
district,
so
it
would
probably
be
somewhat
similar
to
ours.
F
F
Again,
I'm
not
100
sure
on
that.
I'm
not
sure
that
that
use
would
be
permitted
in
the
rc
district.
I'm
not
100,
familiar
with
with
the
requirements
for
the
counties,
what
can
and
can't
be
used
in
their
their
districts,
but,
generally
speaking,
if
you
were
to
compare
our
residential
districts
to
their
residential
districts
generally
speaking,
I
I
think
that
their
requirements
for
signage
are
a
little
bit
more
permissive.
H
E
E
F
F
All
right
I
mean
yeah,
but
I
mean
the
the
north
side
there
is
is
primarily
residential
currently,
but,
as
we
can
kind
of
see,
the
the
south
side
there
of
east
pineland
is
commercial.
So
it
is
kind
of
this.
This
interesting
transitionary
area
between
more
traditional
residential
uses
and
a
higher
intensity
commercial
area.
B
F
A
C
Questions
regarding
the
miscommunication,
I
have
two
emails
from
mario
moultrie,
confirming
that
the
sign
can
be
no
bigger
than
nine
foot
wide
and
eight
foot
high,
and
once
we
realized
we
had
to
have
a
signed
permit,
we
were
not
used
to
doing
sign
permits.
This
was
new,
for
us
is
when
it
was
called,
and
then
they
said
it
could
be
nine
square
foot
no
higher
than
eight
foot
tall.
C
G
Be
approved
that
the
sign
comply
with
all
other
requirements
of
chapter
four
article
four
of
the
zoning
orders
regarding
signs,
let
the
sign
be
consistent
with
the
submitted
design,
dimensions
and
site
plan
item.
That's
item
number.
Three
item
number:
four:
the
variance
to
run
with
the
current
owner,
slash
business
and
number
five
that
the
final
order
be
recorded
at
the
aitkin
county
office.
A
B
B
F
B
B
B
F
F
Okay,
so
this
is
section
447c
for
monument
signs.
The
structure
supporting
a
ground
level
freestanding
monument
sign
shall
not
be
included
in
calculating
the
area
of
the
sign
permitted
by
this
article.
I
previously
kind
of
mentioned
that.
However,
it
goes
on
to
say
that
the
area
of
the
supporting
structure
shall
not
exceed
50
of
the
total
combined
area
of
the
sign
and
supporting
structure.
F
B
F
F
That's
my
assumption,
because
of
the
nine
to
nine
feet,
confusion
there,
but
yeah
everything
else.
This
is
this
is
fine
as
far
as
the
standards
for
monument
signs,
the
50
of
the
total
combined
area,
the
sign.
In
addition,
the
I
did
the
math,
but
I
think
the
base
is
it's
like
72
percent
or
something
like
that.
So
that's
that's
fine,
but
yeah.
I
think
I
assume
that's
where
the
confusion
is
between
the
nine
square
feet
versus
the
nine
feet,
wide
distinction
there
got.
B
B
I
was
just
gonna
trying
to
interpret
what
the
city,
what
kind
of
feedback
they
were
actually
trying
to
convey
clearly
was
not
trying
to
give
them
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
there,
but
that
clearly
was
not.
It
was
erroneous
information,
so
I
mean
to
me
based
on
that
and
the
fact
that
they've
got
county
properties
beside
them.
They
got
general
business
across
the
street
on
a
four
lane
45
mile
an
hour
high
volume.
H
E
A
E
Okay,
well,
I
think
it's
obvious
that
I
mean
when
I
had
a
business.
I
went
down
to
the
city,
sat
down
with
them
and
had
it
mapped
out
in
writing
what
I
know.
Everybody
doesn't
do
that,
but
I
think
that
anything
should
be
in
writing
and
he
says
he
has
an
email
stating
this
and
I'd
like
to
see
that
email.
E
F
F
F
B
E
C
March
18th
2021,
I
emailed
maria
maria,
I
hope
you've
been
well.
I
had
a
question
about
sign
restrictions
for
a
limited
business
property
ahead
of
my
notes
from
the
city
council
meeting
that
we
can
have
a
free
standing
sign,
no
bigger
than
nine
foot
wide
eight
foot
high.
I
was
wanting
to
confirm
this
size
is
correct,
and
can
it
be
digital
or
only
illuminated?
Thank
you
march,
18
2021
mario,
replied.
Good
morning
jared.
You
were
correct
on
the
size
of
the
freestanding
sign
in
an
lb
district.
C
C
B
B
However,
I'm
I'm
that's
certainly
part
of
the
reason
I'm
would
approve
the
variance,
but
quite
honestly,
even
if
he
had
perfect
information
and
was
just
asking
for
the
variance,
I
personally
would
still
be
inclined
to
grant
the
variance
just
again,
based
on
the
fact
that
those
are
county
properties.
No
one
has
responded
to
the
city
with
an
issue
they're
looking
right
across
the
street
in
general,
business
humongous
freestanding
signs,
it's
again
a
high
volume
area.
I
just
I
would
be.
I
would
be
inclined
to
give
give
it
anyway.
Okay,.