Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, November 12, 2020 5:00 PM MINUTES William McGonigal, Chairman City Staff: Cynthia Lover Ben Caldwell Roger Quinn Chris Noury Joe Reaves Allison K. Galbreath, City Clerk Trey Skidmore Andy Thomas, Absent Wyman Wise 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: Chairman McGonigal called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to approve the minutes of the October 8, 2020 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Skidmore and seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion passed 6-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to approve the minutes of the October 15, 2020 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Wyman and seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion passed 6-0. 3. COMMUNICATIONS: Chris Noury, City Attorney, stated he would discuss the adoption of the rules and regulations at the end of the meeting. 4. OLD BUSINSS: A. VARIANCE #28-20: Mr. Harold Alvis, Jr. made application for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback for a proposed addition at 1800 North Cove Court zoned Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Mr. Caldwell stated the applicant had withdrawn their application. B. VARIANCE #V24-20: Ms. Jodi Curry made an application for a variance to reduce the required rear yard project setback for a proposed carport at 601 26th Avenue South zoned Medium Density Residential, R-2 District. Mr. Caldwell stated the applicant had withdrawn their application. 5. NEW BUSINESS: A. SWEAR IN THOSE PERSONS TO SPEAK: Mrs. Galbreath swore in persons to speak. B. VARIANCE #V33-20: Application by Jerred Roberts for a variance to remove three trees that exceed 24” in diameter at 301 10th Avenue North zoned Single Family Low-Medium Density Residential, R-1B District. Mr. Roberts stated he was the contractor for the property owner. The lot had been cleared and there were plans for a house to be situated 1  on the lot. In order to build on the site, Mr. Roberts was requesting a variance to remove three trees, two would be impacted by the driveway and one by the closeness of the house. Ms. Lover asked how close the tree was to the house. Mr. Roberts stated approximately 10 feet. Ms. Lover asked if he was aware of the city requirements and mitigation rate on tree removal. Mr. Roberts stated he was familiar. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Roberts stated there would be one live oak, two pine, one cedar, and a few other trees in the back of the property that would be saved in the project. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to grant Variance #V33-20 and replace with the required trees measuring a total of 46 ½ inches or pay into the Tree Bank $100 per inch or a combination of the two. If palm trees were used as replacement, it would only count as ¼ inch. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion to approve passed 6-0. C. VARIANCE #34-20: Application by Darryl Jackson for variance of the minimum required front yard setback at lot 21 Palmetto Harbor Drive zoned Single Family Low-Medium Density Residential, R-1B District. Gary Armistead spoke for homeowner, Darryl Jackson. He stated construction would begin in the next 8-10 week. He had the understanding that when the City annexed Palmetto Harbour, the setbacks were changed from 20 feet to 25 feet. The back of the lot, towards the Intracoastal Waterway, slopes at a 45 degree angle and only leaves a limited amount of space for the footprint of the home. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal asked Mr. Jackson to tell them about the property and what the plans were to build. Mr. Jackson stated he wanted to keep the steps back away from the setback area. He did not have a drawing of the plan. Chairman McGonigal explained the Board would need to see an example of where the house or steps would go in relation to the road and setbacks. Mr. Jackson stated he believed the variance would be needed to build steps and provide adequate parking. The Board and Mr. Jackson discussed what he would need to show to demonstrate how much of a variance he would need to apply for. Chris Noury, City Attorney, stated the Board could postpone the variance to the next meeting in order to provide more documentation or the Board could make a motion on the exact dimensions of where the steps/house would be located. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Quinn motioned to postpone Variance #V34- 20 to the next meeting in order for the owner to obtain a site plan with the positioning of the house and was seconded by Mr. Skidmore. The motion to postpone passed 6-0. Mr. Noury gave a word of caution to Mr. Jackson that the advertised variance was 5 feet. The Board could only consider a 5 foot variance or less, when he returns next month. D. VARIANCE #35-20: Application by Tyler Thorn for variance to remove a tree exceeding 30” at 1001 Marsh View Drive zoned Single Family Low-Medium Density Residential, R-1B District. Mr. Thorn stated he was the contracted homebuilder for the Cottage on the Marsh development and he passed out a schematic of the property showing the tree to be removed and the ones that would be protected. He stated they have a great replacement landscaping package for the development and have worked to save other trees. The tree 2  in question is a 30 inch caliper live oak. Ms. Lover asked if the other trees circled in orange were staying. Mr. Thorn confirmed they were going to be kept. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request and recommended to hear the variance. He expressed this developer had kept as many trees as possible on the property. During the last major storm, 7-8 of them came down. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #V35- 20 based on the fact that the tree created a hardship where it was located and there would be no way to build around it on the lot. There would be a requirement of replacing with 15 inches of additional oak trees or pay $100 per inch to the Tree Bank or a combination of both. He could not cut the 10, 8, 8, and 12 inch oak trees circled in orange on the schematic and the motion was seconded by Mr. Skidmore. The motion to approve passed 6-0. E. VARIANCE #36-20: Application by Edward Nye for variance to allow a proposed swimming pool in one of the front yards at 1202 Strand Avenue zoned Single Family Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Ms. Galbreath swore in Mr. Nye, because he was not present during the first swearing in. Mr. Nye stated he wanted to put a pool into his back yard and the City informed him, he had two front yards. He was seeking a variance to put a pool into one of the ‘front’ yards. Ms. Lover asked if his hardship was having two front yards and if the variance was granted, was he prepared to seclude the pool from view. Mr. Nye stated he was prepared to seclude with a fence and landscape buffer. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Caldwell stated there were no landscaping requirements, only the safety requirement of fencing to be put around the pool. The Staff, Board, and Mr. Nye discussed the fencing requirements, the landscaping, and concrete dimensions around the pool Mr. Nye was planning. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Skidmore motioned to approve Variance #V36-20 based on the hardship that the lot had two front yards. Mr. Nye would put a privacy fence and landscaping to block the pool from view. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion to approve passed 6-0. F. VARIANCE #37-20: Application by Alton Swann for variance of the minimum required front yard setback at 300, 302, 304 and 306 63rd Avenue North zoned Mid-Rise Multifamily Residential, R-2A District. Mr. Swann stated he was a resident and was a member on the Board for the Inlet Cove Condominiums. He stated the building sat on a unique, irregular lot situated within a curvature in the road. The buildings were built 40 years ago and the front balconies and stairs were already encroaching the front setbacks. He stated for Building A, they needed to move the staircase 4 feet. Building C would only need 18.5 inches. It would not affect parking. Mr. Swann stated there was not a way to get large appliances or furniture up the stairs. It has to be pushed up from ground level to the balcony and created a safety hazard. He stated delivery companies will not deliver to them, because there is not space enough to go up the stairs. Ms. Lover asked for clarification on the drawings he provided. Mr. Swann also stated there was a safety 3  concern, if there happened to be a fire. Two people could not go down the stairs at the same time. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Quinn asked if this would require any additional review by the Fire Department. Mr. Swann stated if the variance was granted, the new stairs and balcony would provide more safety, including a new standpipe. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #V37- 20 based on the fact that the hardship was created from the irregular curvature of the land, which created a safety hazard with the current location of the steps. The request was the minimum necessary to mitigate the problem and it would not conflict with neighboring property owners and would be harmonious to neighboring communities. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeves. The motion to approve passed 6-0. G. VARIANCE #38-20: Application by Clyde Kiser for variance of the required side yard setback at 338 55th Avenue North zoned Single Family Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Mr. Kiser stated he had lived at this location for 20 years. He and his neighbor’s seawall were failing and it had taken two years to get a permit from DHEC. His neighbor had given him an easement in order to build the seawall together. He had a pergola built, which happened to be over the setback after it was built. He moved it back, in order to be within the setback requirements. Mr. Kiser stated he researched and designed the seawall for 5 years before building it. Ms. Lover asked why it was necessary to go into the neighbor’s land. Mr. Kiser stated both seawalls were falling in and one of them had to get the permit. They needed to build the wall together, because if one falls in, they both fall in. The Staff, Board, and Mr. Kiser discussed the seawall, retaining wall, and decking that was on the property. Ms. Lover wanted to know what was permitted and what wasn’t. Mr. Kiser stated he did receive a permit from DHEC and a city permit. Mr. Kiser stated what was in question was the decking on the wall. Chairman McGonigal stated this was a challenge because of the definition between the seawall and retaining wall; and then the boat ramp was in between. He stated tying them together was certainly a challenge and he didn’t see any other way to put them together. Ms. Lover asked what the hardship was. Mr. Kiser stated his hardship was flooding that happens with every tide. If the seawall was not built correctly, it would continue to fail. Ms. Lover stated the City’s problem was the decking and Mr. Caldwell confirmed. Mr. Quinn asked if the 5 feet of decking protected the integrity of the seawall. Mr. Kiser stated it did, which was in his design. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #V38- 20 based on the fact that the hardship was created because the location was surrounded by two sides of water and had a propensity to flood, the back property line was in the water itself. The structure built and developed was the minimum necessary to protect the property from flooding and high tides. The request does not negatively affect surrounding properties, but the surrounding properties have joined together to request the variance be approved. This would protect the structures built in regards to the canal and easements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Skidmore. The motion to approve passed 6-0. 4  H. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: Mr. Noury reviewed the changes and edits that were made to the rules and regulations, which had already been submitted to the City Council for approval. The Staff and Board discussed the changes and clarified any questions. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Quinn motioned to adopt the Rules and Regulation of the Board of Zoning Appeals, as presented on November 12, 2020 and was seconded by Mr. Skidmore. The motion passed 6-0. Chairman McGonigal asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Quinn motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:39 PM. Respectfully submitted, Allison K. Galbreath City Clerk NOTE: BE ADVISED THAT THESE MINUTES REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT A FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING. 5