Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, October 14, 2021 5:00 PM MINUTES William McGonigal, Chairman City Staff: Roger Quinn, Vice-Chairman Ben Caldwell, Zoning Administrator Mendel Bell Chris Noury, City Attorney Cynthia Lover Allison Galbreath, City Clerk Joe Reaves, Absent Andy Thomas 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 September 3, 2021 Special Called meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion passed 6-0. 3. COMMUNICATION: None 4. SWEAR IN THOSE PERSONS TO SPEAK: Mrs. Galbreath swore in persons to speak. 5. OLD BUSINSS: VARIANCE #V28-21: Application from A Backyard Creation for a variance to install a swimming pool in one of the side yards at 704 1st Avenue South zoned Single-Family Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Stephanie Ussery stated her extraordinary and exceptional condition was the lot size which was .29 acres and 20% of it was in the water. It was also an odd sized lot and the home was built differently than all the other houses in the neighborhood. She stated what they considered their back and front yard was different than what the City considered it. If the pool was put in the back yard, it would not allow for the sitting area they would prefer. Ms. Ussery stated they were at the maximum for concrete allowed on the property. If they were allowed to put the pool in the side yard, they could use some of their driveway concrete. If the pool had to be put in the back, ground utilities would have to be relocated and there was also a French drain. Ms. Ussery had some pictures of the property to show the Board. Ms. Lover inquired why the pool could not be built in the back of the yard. Ms. Ussery stated it would fit, but there would only be one foot on each side. Ms. Lover stated they could get a smaller pool to fit within their setbacks. Mr. Bell asked if the French drain helped with flooding. Ms. Ussery stated they did not have any problems with flooding because the drain helped with it. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #28-21 due to the extraordinary and exceptional conditions of the drainage on the back of the property, which could cause flooding. If the pool was in the back yard, it would contribute to the 1  flooding, which they have had in the past. These conditions did not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. The application of the ordinance to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit the utilization of the property. The authorization of the variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties or to the public good and the character of the district would not be harmed by the granting of the variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion to approve passed 6-0. 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. VARIANCE #V32-21: Application by Michael King for a variance to reduce the required twenty-foot rear yard setback for a proposed home at 1113 Marsh Cove Court zoned Single -Family, Low Medium Density Residential, R-1B District. Mr. King expressed the lot was irregular and the critical line jutted into the lot at an angle. Ms. Lover inquired if they plotted the properties. Mr. King stated they did, but didn’t realize how small the home would be. It would only be an 1850 square foot home. Ms. Lover expressed that the hardship could not be self-created and they could build the home without the variance. Mr. King stated the lot sizes only had to be 50 feet and they made them 60 feet, so they would not be so close together. The minimum was 5,000 square feet and they made them 7,000 square feet to make the homes wider and bigger. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. King stated there was nothing behind this home. Mr. Wise asked what the average size home was in the area. Mr. King stated around 2,500 square feet. Ms. Lover asked how much the variance they were asking for was. Mr. King stated 20 feet, which would be a 0 foot setback. Mr. Caldwell stated it would be back at least 3 feet for building permits. The Board commended Mr. King for how they have saved the trees in this development. The Board asked exactly where the home would be set on the property. The Board agreed to set aside the item, until Mr. King could hear back from an engineer to know exactly how much of a variance would be needed. D. VARIANCE #V33-21: Application by Josh Rowell for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback for a proposed warehouse addition to the existing building at 2500 Highway 17 South zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Mr. Rowell stated he did not know what was needed to be presented to the Board. Chairman McGonigal expressed the Board would need more information to see where the proposed addition would be going. They would like to see a footprint. Mr. Rowell stated it was his understanding that the property in the back could not be developed. Luke Prichard, the owner of the properties behind the warehouse, stated this would negatively impact the value of his two properties and asked the Board to honor the setbacks and not given a variance. Chairman McGonigal suggested Mr. Rowell share with the neighbors where this addition would be placed. Ms. Lover stated there was an ordinance that stated only one shipping container could be on the property and Mr. Rowell had two. Mr. Caldwell confirmed they could only have one with a screen on three sides. Ms. Lover expressed concern with them having two shipping containers. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #V33- 21 to the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to postpone passed 6-0. 2 E. VARIANCE #V35-21: Application by Davis Thomas for a variance of a building setback on one of the front yards at 2706 Willow Drive zoned Mobile/Manufactured Home Residential, R-3 District. Mr. Thomas stated he was looking for a 10 foot variance at Camp Street to put his mobile home on. He was not aware of the 40 feet of variance, 20 feet on each side when he bought it. Chairman McGonigal confirmed he had a double-fronted lot and the Board saw this frequently in his neighborhood. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover asked what would be the front of the house. Mr. Thomas stated the front of the house would be Willow Street. Ms. Lover confirmed his hardship was the double-front lot. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #35-21 due to the hardship of a double-fronted lot and the standard size of a mobile home had changed since the lots were plotted out decades ago. These conditions did generally apply to other properties. If the variance was not granted, it would restrict the utilization of the property and the authorization of the variance would not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property owners. Additionally, the front yard would have to be on Willow Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion to approve passed 6-0. F. VARIANCE #V36-21: Application by Lon Lester for a variance of the rear building setback requirement for a proposed cargo lift at 1711 26th Avenue North zoned Single Family Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Mr. Lester stated there was no one behind them and they wanted to build a lift on the back of the stairs for an emergency exit for his father-in-law and for use as a cargo lift. The lot beside them extended 20 feet beyond their lot, so the neighbor’s view would not be obstructed. Ms. Lover asked why the lift could not be behind the stairs. Mr. Lester stated there was a window there and they didn’t want to obstruct their view of the outside. Mr. Lester stated the lift would only be the metal frame with no roof on top of it. Ms. Lover asked what the hardship was. Mr. Lester stated he didn’t have the ability to use the marsh area, so his lot was shortened. Ms. Lover stated she was having a hard time finding the hardship, because the lift could be put in a different location without needing a variance. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal inquired how big the lift would be. Mr. Lester stated it would be 5 x 5 feet. Mr. Bell stated he would only need a 2 foot variance. Mr. Quinn asked if this was a reasonable accommodation. Chris Noury, City Attorney, stated reasonable accommodations were usually associated with the Americans with Disabilities Act and this was a variance that needed to demonstrate hardship, as it related to the land. He explained the Board could place conditions on the variance, if it was granted. Ms. Lover stated it did appear to be a small R-1 lot. This lot was a 50 foot lot as opposed to normally an 80 foot lot. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to approve Variance #36-21 based on the applicant demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The hardship was the smaller size of the land, especially on the right side of the property. These conditions did not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. The application of the ordinance to the particular piece of property would restrict the utilization of the property and the authorization of the variance would not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property owners or to the public good and the character of the district would not be 3  harmed by the granting of the variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion to approve passed 5-1. Ms. Lover voted nay. A. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON VARIANCE #32-21: Mr. King stated they could get by with a variance of 12 feet, not 20 feet. It would leave an 8 foot property setback. Ms. Lover inquired if the hardwood tree in the front of the lot would be taken down. Mr. King stated that tree would be saved. Chairman McGonigal reiterated they appreciated him saving as many trees as he could. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Thomas motioned to approve Variance #32-21 due to the extraordinary and exceptional condition of the odd shape of the land. These conditions did not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. The application of the ordinance to the particular piece of property would restrict the utilization of the property and the authorization of the variance would not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property owners or to the public good and the character of the district would not be harmed by the granting of the variance. The variance granted would be 12 feet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a short recess and returned to chambers at 6:04 pm. G. VARIANCE #34-21: Application by J. Cameron Parker for a variance to remove 89 trees 24” or greater near the intersection of Hwy 31 and Water Tower Road for the Grande Dunes North development zoned Planned Development District, PDD. Mr. Parker represented the Development Resource Group and was requesting a variance to remove 89 trees for the first 5 phases within 117 acres. He gave the Board a presentation overview and background of the property. Mr. Parker stated the property had several acres of open space with paths and trails. He stated Mr. Duckworth had studied the character and health of each of the trees. He presented an overview of the saved areas within the project. Mr. Parker stated they would need to remove 2621 DBH and typically, this would require a ½ to one replacement, which would be 1300 DBH. In their current street tree plan, they proposed 1494 DBH. In calculating the value of the saved trees, the DBH exceeded what was required. They would be replacing 2789 DBH. He stated they could go through each off the exhibits one by one, if the Board chose to do so. Chairman McGonigal stated he did not have to show the exhibits one by one. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. The Board, staff and Mr. Parker discussed the lot sizes for the different phases. Ms. Lover inquired about the replanting requirement. Mr. Caldwell stated any over 24” would have to have a ½ replacement. Currently, there was not a number that had been determined of how many would need to be replaced. Ms. Lover wanted to know how they would determine this number. Mr. Caldwell stated prior to grading it would be determined. It was a staff level decision. Ms. Lover stated this was a little bit of smoke and mirrors on what they were saving and replacing. The replacement value should be in addition to what they would already needed to replant. Ms. Lover pointed out Lot 9, 10, and 11 and asked if the cluster of trees on these lots could be saved. She asked if that phase could be reworked to keep them by shifting the ponds. Mr. Parker stated this would be a major PUD amendment and any changes would have to go back to Planning Commission and take 6 months or more to change. 4  Mr. Bell stated this had already been before the Planning Commission and had much more green space than required. Mr. Parker stated the PUD had already been to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. They had not given the final plat approval, but will at the next Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday. Mr. Quinn requested they save the maximum number of trees as possible. Ms. Lover stated the large canopy trees taken down would not provide the same environmental benefits as the smaller canopy replacement trees. Mr. Bell pointed out they had 8 acres of land that could have been developed. They were at 30% open space, which was 15% more than required. Mr. Bell suggested to give them some accommodations. Ms. Lover stated she was looking for a way to save the cluster of trees on those particular lots. The Board and Mr. Parker continued to discuss a replacement schedule, the street tree plan, the planned green spaces, and longevity of the trees in question. There were approximately 350” of trees in Lots 9, 10, and 11. Mr. Parker stated they made considerable efforts to save other trees. Ms. Lover stated there was no guarantee that a homeowner would not move in and cut down the smaller trees, because they were not protected. Mr. Quinn suggested the HOA could have an architectural review board that would not allow a homeowner to cut down any tree without permission, like Tidewater. The Board and Mr. Parker discussed the street trees and what would be necessary to plant. Ms. Lover stated that the street trees already had to be planted. Mr. Parker stated the park areas enhanced the property and this was not a requirement. Chairman McGonigal clarified that what Mr. Parker was proposing was the standard of replacement. Mr. Caldwell stated 1311 DBH was necessary to be replaced, but the Board could require a percentage in addition. The Board and Mr. Parker continued their discussion. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #34-21 due to the extraordinary and exceptional conditions of the elevation and development of the lots. These conditions did not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. The application of the ordinance to the particular piece of property would restrict the utilization of the property and the authorization of the variance would not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property owners or to the public good and the character of the district would not be harmed by the granting of the variance. In addition, only a 25% replacement of trees was required, because of the green space they had already provided. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn. Ms. Lover stated she would have liked to have seen at least 50% of the 1311 and not 25%. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motioned to adjourn. The motion was made by Mr. Bell and was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:54 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