Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, December 9, 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 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 November 11, 2021 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Reaves and seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion passed 7-0. 3. COMMUNICATION: Mr. Caldwell stated Variance #33-21 had been postponed to the January meeting. Variance #42-21 had been withdrawn by the applicant. 4. SWEAR IN THOSE PERSONS TO SPEAK: Mrs. Galbreath swore in persons to speak. 5. OLD BUSINSS: A. 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. Caldwell stated this item would be postponed to the January meeting. B. VARIANCE #V38-21: Application by Sarah Clayton for a variance to exceed the maximum allowed impervious surface at 703 41st Avenue South zoned Single-Family, Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Ms. Clayton stated she was combining families and would like to expand the home by building a room and bathroom over the garage in the back yard. She stated the lot was non-conforming in two ways. R-1 required 80’ wide lots and Ms. Clayton’s was only 60’ wide and it was also under the required 10,000 square foot size limit. She stated the impervious surface area was at 49.5% and she was proposing to go to 54.6%. She stated she bought the home last year and there was a lot of concrete in the front yard. The garage could not go in the front yard and proposed to keep the increase of impervious surface area low, she would remove one of the existing sheds from the back yard. The net gain would be 480 square feet. Chairman McGonigal stated there was a lot of concrete in the yard. Ms. Lover inquired why she did not remove some of the concrete. Ms. Clayton stated some of the concrete was over the public right-of-way and would have to get an easement to do something with it. She stated she did not know what kind of utilities were under the concrete and it would delay the project. Ms. Lover asked if she had looked into it. Ms. Clayton stated she had considered it, but had not looked into it. Ms. Clayton stated the garage would not be used for an automobile, but 1  motorcycles and storage. Ms. Lover stated it seemed like she was looking to build a second home on the property for living purposes. Ms. Lover stated Windy Hill had runoff and flooding issues, which was why they had the impervious numbers. She stated her lot was smaller, but only 2% smaller and she was asking for a much larger percentage. She asked what Ms. Clayton’s hardship was. Ms. Clayton stated her hardship was the non-conforming lot size by dimension and overall size. Ms. Lover suggested giving a variance of 2%, but she was already over that amount. Mr. Quinn asked how far the structure would be away from the home. Ms. Clayton stated it would attach in the rear. She stated taking down some of the concrete could be possible, but didn’t know what she would find underneath and what problems it would propose. Mr. Bell inquired when they were looking to start the project and Ms. Clayton stated she hoped by March. Mr. Bell recommended discussing with the contractor the possibilities of taking down some of the concrete and they could give a little bit of exemption. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal stated it would be a good idea to take down one of the sheds. Mr. Caldwell stated these lots had been subdivided prior to being in the city. The Board, staff, and Ms. Clayton continued to discuss the lot size, taking down some of the concrete, and looked at her survey. Chairman McGonigal recommended to postpone in order for the applicant to look into the possibilities of trimming off some of the concrete. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #38-21 to the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion to postpone passed 7-0. C. VARIANCE #V39-21: Application by Neil Johnson for a variance to reduce the minimum front setback requirement at 177 Palmetto Harbor Drive zoned Single-Family, Low-Medium Density Residential, R-1B District. Mr. Johnson stated he represented Heritage Construction. He stated the house had been pushed back as far as they could on the lot. The stairs were in the setback and the original design had an overhang over the stairs. Ms. Lover inquired if cars would be able to be parked under the house. Mr. Johnson stated there was parking under the house and if the garage was closed, there was 25’-27’ to the property line. Ms. Lover asked what his hardship was. Mr. Johnson stated the challenges of the site and the property previously had smaller setbacks. The property also slopped in the rear. Mr. Johnson stated the property extended into the water and could not be built upon. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to approve Variance #39-21 for a 20’ setback. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions of the lot was the slope of the land. These conditions did 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, but would be more in alignment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion to approve passed 7-0. 2 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. VARIANCE #V40-21: Application by Blane Sparks for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback at 4725 Surf Street zoned Resort Residential, R-4 District. Mr. Sparks stated he was the general contractor and represented the home owner. He stated they were looking at needing a ½ inch variance which was on the overhang. The hardship was not having to cut the brand new roof. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #40- 21 as the variance was minimal and it would be a hardship to cut into the house that was already built for a ½ inch. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 7-0. B. VARIANCE #41-21: Application by Janet Spencer for a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 20’ to 15’ at 708 34th Avenue South zoned Single-Family Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Ms. Spencer stated she had preliminary house plans drawn up and her husband was now handicap and needed more handicap accessible accommodations. She brought pictures of the trees that existed on her lot, which they have owned since 2008 or 2009. She stated she wanted to preserve the trees, but in order to do so, they had to move the house back. It would enhance the neighborhood and wouldn’t be a detriment to the neighbors. She stated if it wasn’t approved, they would have to take down the trees. Ms. Lover asked if she would come back to put a pool in the front yard. Ms. Spencer stated no, she just wanted a pretty front porch where she could enjoy the trees. Ms. Lover pointed out this was a substandard lot. Ms. Spencer stated they had a contractor look at it and if the house was too close to the trees, it would damage the root system and they would lose them. David Monin, architect, for the applicant stated the porch would need to be a minimum of 10 feet away. The main root structure was on the right side of the lot and the canopy of the trees grew to the front. He explained there were three trees, 2 18-inches and 1 14-inches. He stated he would have to build them a two story home in order to save the trees. He submitted a preliminary floorplan and the house was not excessive. He stated there was an access area that was already there and he would be able to use as a driveway. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. He stated he had received 2 emails in opposition to the variance and they would be placed into the written record. Joyce Giordano: My name is Joyce Giordano and I live at 3401 Poinsett Street in North Myrtle Beach. My backyard is a straight shot from your proposed construction. That lot has a flood issue and unless an embankment is constructed to prevent the water from going into the street at 34th Ave, the water will flow into my backyard. I oppose construction on this site. Due to my work schedule, I am unable to attend the appeals meeting so I am sending this email to state my opposition. Jolene Puffer: I believe the zoning meeting for this lot (listed above) is today. I would like to have the flooding of the lot address? How will a one story home mitigate the water that is often flooding this lot 3  when it rains? Also where will the water go once the home is built? This lot was for sale for at least a year and due to the flooding issues didn’t sell. Why would the water issue not be addressed when a lot will be built on? Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon. Ron Stalvey, 712 34th Avenue, North Myrtle Beach, stated he owned the property next to this lot and the one behind it. He stated he supported this and had no problem with it. He stated it would enhance the area and a nice home would be built on the property. He also would like to save the trees. Mr. Stalvey stated another neighbor, Mrs. Tucker came with him and she was also in support and wanted to save the trees. He thought it would be no problem building there. There was some standing water when the hurricanes come, but he and the property owner got some dirt to help with the grade of the properties. He asked they grant the variance. Ms. Spencer stated she had received an email in support and passed it along to Mr. Caldwell. Jane Vernon, 305 Sandcrest: Please approve variance request #41-21 on today’s agenda. North Myrtle Beach needs preserve as many of its existing large native trees as possible. Allowing a variance that leaves three large trees on the Spencer’s Windy Hill lot will enhance the entire neighborhood, and variances of this type/for this reason should always be encouraged. The Spencers saved a multi-trunked live oak when they built their house in Ocean Drive that was the envy of the neighborhood for its beauty and the shade it provided, and they worked for years to preserve the Ingram Dunes. They have been doing their part to keep The City of NMB green and beautiful. Please help them as they continue in this effort by approving their variance request. James Douglason, another neighbor, came to see if the lot was going to be subdivided. Since it was not, he was in support of the variance and liked the trees. Mr. Caldwell stated it could not be subdivided. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #41- 21 based on the substandard lot size which created a hardship. Ms. Lover commended their desire to save the trees. They had plenty of setbacks and it would not be a detriment to other lots. North Myrtle Beach was a Tree City and the Board needed to save as many trees as possible. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion to approve passed 7-0. C. VARIANCE #42-21: Application by East Coast Homes and Development for a variance for a one parking space variance for the minimum required number of parking spaces required at 1006 Surf Pointe Drive zoned Planned Development District (PDD). Mr. Caldwell stated this item had been withdrawn by the applicant. Chairman McGonigal called for a motioned to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Quinn and was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:52 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. 4