Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, February 11, 2021 5:00 PM MINUTES William McGonigal, Chairman City Staff: Cynthia Lover Ben Caldwell, Zoning Administrator Roger Quinn Chris Noury, City Attorney Joe Reaves, Absent Allison K. Galbreath, City Clerk Trey Skidmore Andy Thomas Wyman Wise 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: Chairman McGonigal called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM. 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2020 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Skidmore. The motion passed 6-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to approve the minutes of the December 10, 2020 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Quinn and seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion passed 5-0 with Ms. Lover abstaining. 3. COMMUNICATIONS: None 4. OLD BUSINSS: A. VARIANCE #41-20: Application by Anita Minervino for a variance of Sec. 23-113 to store and use a recreational vehicle at 1103 24th Avenue South zoned Single Family Low- Density Residential, R-1 District. The RV has been removed and therefore, no need for variance. No action from the Board was necessary. 5. NEW BUSINESS: A. SWEAR IN THOSE PERSONS TO SPEAK: Mrs. Galbreath swore in persons to speak. B. VARIANCE #V1-21: Application by Sheldon and Susan Stein for a variance to reduce the minimum required rear setback for a proposed screen enclosure at 5614 Whistling Duck Drive zoned Planned Development District, PDD. This variance request was withdrawn by the applicant and therefore, no need for variance. No action from the Board was necessary. C. VARIANCE #V2-21: Application by Timothy Sealey for a variance of Sec. 23-107 to allow the placement of a six-foot fence in the side yard within the Coastal Protection Overlay Zone at 2406 North Ocean Blvd zoned Resort Residential, R-4 District. Chad Hatley, represented the owner, Timothy Sealey for the variance. Mr. Hatley stated the 1 property was uniquely situated with one side next to a public beach access walkway. Next to this was a large raised condominium. He stated Ordinance 23-107 had a 3 foot rule to prevent blocking the view of the beach. However, the view would not be blocked because the condominium was a raised structure. Mr. Hatley stated this was a public safety issue and the owner was having trouble with people entering his property, jumping over the fence and getting into his pool. In addition, a lot of litter was causing a nuisance. The owner would like to put a larger fence around the structure to help prevent this from happening. Mr. Hatley had pictures to show of the area. He stated the current railing was serving as a ladder for kids to get on and be able to jump the fence. This railing had been damaged and not been repaired by the City. Mr. Hatley stated the variance would not impose a hardship on the general public, but would allow the owner to secure his property. Ms. Lover asked if the structure of the fence would be see through, like the current fence. Mr. Hatley stated it would be a privacy cedar fence. Ms. Lover stated she would be amendable to them building a 6 foot see through fence, because it would comply with the purpose of the ordinance. Mr. Hatley stated that would not help keep the kids from trying to get into the pool. Ms. Lover asked if the kids would not climb a solid fence. Mr. Hatley stated they would not have an inclination to do so, because they would not be able to see what was behind the fence. They would continue the same activity, if they could see through the fence. Porter Hardee, another representative for the owner, stated the fence would not go all the way to the road, just 20% of the back of the house and the same on the other side of the house. Ms. Lover stated the variance did not ask for the other side of the house to be fenced, but only the left hand side of the house. Mr. Hatley stated there was no one that had appeared or expressed concern over the view being obstructed. He stated that public safety would supersede this ordinance of a view. Chairman McGonigal inquired if the house next to the property was raised and how far back would the fence be located. Mr. Hatley stated the house was raised and there was a garage underneath. The fence would be 10-15 feet back and there would not be a fence on the ocean front. Mr. Skidmore inquired where another beach access was located in the area. Mr. Hatley stated he believed there was one 4 or 5 houses north from this property. With that walkway, there was a fence, similar to the one the property owner was wanting to build. Mr. Skidmore stated there would not be an obstruction of view. Mr. Hatley agreed and said it would only affect the property owner. Ms. Lover stated she believed it would affect the view of the people on the other side, especially pedestrians that were walking. She stated over the years, the Board had taken a lot of effort to make sure views would not be obstructed. Mr. Wise asked if this was a primary or rental home. Mr. Hatley stated it was primarily a second home, however it may be subject to a rental in the future. Ms. Lover stated she felt this request was more for privacy. Mr. Wise stated in the insurance world, this would be a danger because it was a high traffic area and considered a traffic nuisance. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover asked what the position of the City was on the location of the fence. Mr. Caldwell stated he advertised the fence to be the side yard where the public walkway existed, not yards. Chairman McGonigal stated he believed it was a privacy issue, however there was a safety factor involved, which brought a degree of uniqueness. Mr. 2  Quinn asked if the other side of the house would be able to be fenced. Chris Noury, City Attorney, stated it could not be fenced, because it was not advertised as such. Mr. Hatley inquired if the adjacent property owner gave written consent, would the Board be able to grant the variance for both sides. Mr. Noury stated the Board would not be able to act on it, because it was not advertised and this was a notice issue. Ms. Lover stated it affected more than just the adjacent property owner. Mr. Noury reiterated it would affect more than just one person and gave an example of people walking down the street. Chairman McGonigal stated the way it was worded, it would be one side. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #V2- 21 to build a 6 foot fence that must comply with 50% opaque requirement of the statue and was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The Staff and Board had a discussion on the height of the fence. Mr. Hatley asked for a reconsideration with regards to the spacing requirement of the fence, because of the unique situation of the high traffic and ability to see the pool. The Board continued to discuss the difference of having a see through versus solid fence. Mr. Wise made a motion to amend the motion to have a 6 foot solid fence and was seconded by Mr. Skidmore. The amended motion passed 5-1, Ms. Lover voted nay. Because of confusion with the motions, Ms. Lover withdrew her first motion. Mr. Wise motioned to approve Variance #V2-21 on the basis this was an extraordinary circumstance with a public walkway, a traffic nuisance, and there was an obligation to protect the homeowner in regards to liability. The fence could be a 6 foot solid fence where the torn down fence was located. Mr. Skidmore seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-1, Ms. Lover voted nay. D. VARIANCE #V3-21: Application by Gregory Duckworth for a variance of Sec. 23-43 to allow more than the maximum allowed number of parking spaces provided for a proposed medical office at 1447 Bellamy Road zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Mr. Duckworth, consultant, and Kenan Walker, developer, represented their clients Doctor’s Care and Progressive Physical Therapy. Their proposed location would be across from Coastal North Town Center, where the former Millennium Club was located. Mr. Duckworth showed the Board a proposed rendering of the location and proposed parking lot spaces. He explained that due to the pandemic, visitors to physician offices have to wait out in their vehicles and there were more parking spaces needed. The Doctor’s Care location in Windy Hill attested to this need. The staff alone at this location would be 19 individuals, which would take up several parking spaces. Mr. Duckworth stated it was a very complex situation. He stated the applicants were asking for 45 parking spaces, even though the capacity studied indicated 49 spaces, in order to accommodate the healthcare pressures of today. All other ordinance requirements would be met. Ms. Lover stated she believed the variance request was lacking in specificity and wanted to know how many spaces were allowed versus how many they requested. Mr. Caldwell inquired how many doctors would be at the facility on a shift. Mr. Walker stated there would not just be doctors, but physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other staff, as well as the staff at the physical therapy location, but all in all 19 staff at the building. Mr. Caldwell stated the ordinance was probably antiquated because it stated only doctors and should be updated. If it was based on 19, the required number of parking spaces would be 95. Ms. Lover inquired what the variance would be for in this case. Chairman 3 McGonigal stated he wanted to hear from the city to understand the variance from the City’s point of view. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. He stated they did not know the number of doctors, but assumed 3-4, which would put the number of required spaces at 15-20 spaces. The applicant had proven they needed more. The Staff, Board, and applicants discussed the number of spaces, the ordinance, the site of the building, and adjacent lot behind the proposed parcel. Mr. Duckworth stated the application spoke to the fact that the city ordinance needed to be updated, however, it would take approximately 2 months for this to occur, which would be too much time to get the facility up and running. Mr. Caldwell stated the ordinance needed to be changed to reflect the change of times. The Staff, Board and applicants continued to discuss the number of spaces needed for the variance. Ms. Lover asked how they knew they needed a variance, if the number was not advertised. She inquired if they could vote on it with the advertised variance being so vague. Mr. Noury asked exactly how many doctors would be on location. Mr. Walker stated there would be a maximum number of three at a given time. Mr. Caldwell calculated the number of spaces needed based on 3 doctors and the square footage of the physical therapy office. Mr. Caldwell stated that would be 15 spaces plus 7 for the physical therapy office or 22 total. The variance would need to allow more than the maximum allowed or 19 additional spaces. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #V3- 21 for an additional 19 parking spaces due to the hardship that the current zoning ordinance created, which needed to be revised and did not fully address the needs of a modern day medical facility, especially in light of social distancing caused by the Coronavirus. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas. Mr. Quinn stated under the circumstances, there needed to be a boarder term used, such as health care provider. He stated it was necessary to approve and recommended to review the ordinance. Ms. Lover stated she wanted to restate her motion. She stated she wanted to add on that the 19 parking spaces would be 100% pervious materials and the original 26 impervious. The Board discussed this restated motion and the retention pond located on site. After this discussion, Ms. Lover stated she withdrew her motion and wanted to restate it. Ms. Lover made a motion to grant a variance for Variance #V3-21 for 19 parking places; 26 required by the ordinance and wanting a total of 45 on the grounds that there was a hardship, because the ordinance needed to be replaced and did not fully encompass today’s medical facilities and how they were run or staffed, especially in light of Coronavirus. Also, the additional 19 parking spaces be constructed of pervious material and 26 parking spaces be of impervious material. Mr. Duckworth stated the instability of the pervious materials would not be favorable for a healthcare facility or in the City’s best interest to require this. Mr. Walker stated they have already discussed stormwater quality and quantity at 45 spaces with both the Public Works and Planning Departments. Chairman McGonigal asked if Mr. Caldwell would be comfortable with this motion. Mr. Caldwell stated the City would require them to contain 100% of their stormwater on site. Ms. Lover asked why there would be specific language in the ordinance on extra spaces. Mr. Skidmore stated this was probably for non-commercial properties. Ms. Lover added to the motion that the applicant did not have to make the additional parking spaces pervious, 4  provided they provide adequate onsite stormwater retention and was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Chairman McGonigal asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wise motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Skidmore. The motion passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:16 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