Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, January 13, 2022 5:00 PM MINUTES William McGonigal, Chairman City Staff: Roger Quinn, Vice-Chairman Ben Caldwell, Zoning Administrator Mendel Bell, Absent Chris Noury, City Attorney Cynthia Lover Allison Galbreath, City Clerk Joe Reaves, Absent Andy Thomas, Absent until 5:05 PM Wyman Wise 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: Chairman McGonigal called the meeting to order at 5:03 PM. 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to approve the minutes of the December 9, 2021 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Quinn and seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion passed 4-0. 3. COMMUNICATION: None 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. Rowell was not present at the meeting Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to postpone Variance #V33- 21 until the February meeting. If Mr. Rowell does not attend the February meeting, the variance would be stricken. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. 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. Jim Wood spoke on behalf of Ms. Clayton, now Mrs. Wood. Mr. Wood explained the relevant numbers that applied to the variance request. The property was zoned R-1, which requires an 80 foot minimum lot width and 10,000 square foot size and allows a maximum of 40% lot coverage. Currently, the lot coverage was at 4,683 square feet or 49.5%. When they purchased the property, it was already over the impervious ratio. The lot was non-conforming due to the minimum lot size and width. Mr. Wood stated the property would meet the minimum requirements for a lot zoned R-1B, which required a minimum 6,000 square foot lot, minimum 60 foot wide lot and allowed up to 50% lot coverage. He requested to add a garage with bedroom and bathroom over the garage. The combined family has 5 children and 2 adults in a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house, which was causing difficulty. They had looked into buying another house, but that was a challenge based on the real estate market today. The MLS returned 3 homes that would be available, but for various reasons, they were not attractive options 1  at this time. They would like to add a 20x30 garage that would connect to the house and have a bedroom and bathroom over the garage. There would not be kitchen facilities or used as an apartment. They would be adding 600 square feet of impervious surface to the backyard. They would remove a 120 square foot existing shed. The request would be just under 55% impervious lot coverage. Ms. Lover asked if he believed the hardship was the lot was non-confirming in two ways because it was smaller in size and width. She pointed out they would still not be under 50% of impervious lot coverage. Mr. Wood stated they needed 54.4% to be able to do what they would like. He reiterated they would take down one of the sheds, but would like to leave the second. He stated even if they took both down and pulled some of the concrete up, they would still be over 50%. There was no way to get that number under 50%. Chairman McGonigal stated when he looked at the house, they could not go up, because the neighbor has trees over their home. Mr. Wood stated they did look into building a second story, but the neighbor has 4 oak trees that have 80% of their canopy on their property. The other neighbor has 2 oak trees that come over their property, too. It was a total of 6 trees that would be dramatically impacted and cause difficult conversations with the neighbors. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover inquired about the numbers. Mr. Wood stated they hired someone to do a survey of the lot to give exact numbers, instead of an estimate. The Board, staff, and Mr. Wood continued to discuss the lot size, taking down the shed, and options he may have. Mr. Wood stated they inherited this situation and did not create it. Ms. Lover stated she still did not see the hardship to the land. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Thomas motioned to grant Variance #38-21. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship due to the extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to the lot because it did not meet the minimum lot size and width. 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, and the authorization of the variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 4-1. Ms. Lover voted nay. 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. VARIANCE #V01-22: Application by Hafida Osborn for determination of the penalty to be set by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the improper removal of a 32 inch tree at 1110 28th Avenue South zoned Single-Family, Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Ms. Osborn stated this was a multi-family, two-story house. She stated it was 60 years old and the trees were old, too. She stated her tenants have 4-5 kids. She didn’t know about the laws and that needed to comply. She hired an arborist and found out that two of the trees were dying. The other trees were old and they were laying on the roof. She spent thousands of dollars on the roof because of the trees causing damage. She stated she needed to cut other trees because she couldn’t access her back yard. She ordered a storage shed and it had to be put on her yard, because they couldn’t get to the back yard because of the trees. She didn’t have a problem replacing the trees as long it didn’t stop her from using her yard. She stated she spoke with the arborist last week and he stated the trees were dying. She couldn’t use the back or side yard because of the trees. She stated she was wanting to get a permit to get rid of the trees. She stated the arborist was going to send a letter about the dying trees so she could send to the city. The tenant’s 2  kids rode bicycles around and she needed to take care of it before they got hurt. She was not getting any help to fix the problem before something bad happen. She stated the two trees that had fallen in the yard, she had no idea when they fell. But it was good that no one was there. Chairman McGonigal asked if the tree that was cut down was looked at by the arborist. Ms. Osborn stated no, she didn’t know what an arborist was until she talked to the city. Ms. Lover asked when the house was annexed into the city. Ms. Osborn stated she didn’t do this, the city did it. She was in the county 6-8 months ago and now she was not. Ms. Lover asked if the property could be annexed without the owner’s knowledge. Chris Noury, City Attorney, stated it would have to be a request by the landowner to be annexed into the city. Ms. Lover stated she lived in that neighborhood and the neighbors called her all of the time about the house. Ms. Lover asked if it was Section 8 housing. Ms. Osborn stated it was not. Ms. Lover stated her tenants called it Section 8 housing. Ms. Osborn stated before the divorce, her husband may have used it as Section 8. She stated she didn’t ask for the house to be in the city. Ms. Osborn stated she called and asked the city and she said no one could tell her why or how that worked. Mr. Caldwell stated he didn’t know when it was annexed, but would find out. Ms. Lover pointed out that if the house was in the county, she didn’t need a variance. Mr. Caldwell suggested to postpone to the next meeting to get a request from the arborist for the other trees and to find out when the property was annexed into the city. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Quinn motioned to postpone Variance #01- 22 until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lover. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. B. VARIANCE #02-22: Application by Wilma Parrott for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback at 1308 Moss Street zoned Mobile/Manufactured Home Residential, R- 3 District. Charles Wheeler represented Ms. Parrott and stated the current mobile was placed in 1983 and needed to be replaced due to mold. When they put the mobile in, it was 13 feet back. The current setback is 20 feet. The mobile home they would like to bring in would be slightly larger. The problem of moving the home back would be the stability of the home, due to the lake behind the mobile. Mr. Wheeler stated they dug down 10-15 feet and water started to seep in. A structure would sink in it. They would like to leave the front of the mobile where it was. This was the same as all the other mobiles in the neighborhood. Ms. Lover asked if they wanted a 2.7 foot variance. Mr. Wheeler stated it needed to be a little more than that and he didn’t know where the 2.7 came from. Mr. Wheeler stated he would need at least a 5 ½ foot variance. Mr. Caldwell stated it was advertised as a reduction, not a specific amount. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Caldwell stated it would be a 6 ½ foot variance. Ms. Lover asked how deep the lot was. Mr. Wheeler stated it was 101.5 feet. He explained they could go back, but the stability of it would be in question. They would like to put the trailer back where it was. Chairman McGonigal stated it would upgrade the community. Mr. Wheeler stated since 2012, what he’s seen in the area needed improvement. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to approve Variance #02-22. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship due to the extraordinary and exceptional condition of the lot not being usable due to the water and lake at the back of the property. The variance would be 6 ½ feet. These conditions did generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. The application of the ordinance to the particular piece of 3  property would effectively prohibit the utilization of the property, and the authorization of the variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion to approve passed 5-0. C. VARIANCE #03-22: Application by South Causeway Builders, LLC for a variance to remove two (2) protected trees at 1307 Wading Heron Road zoned Planned Development District (PDD). John Loveday represented the applicant. He stated one of the trees was located within the footprint of the house. The other tree was about 1 ½ feet away from the house, but leaned into the house footprint. It was a small, 2-story home and because of the size of the lot, they would not be able to shrink the size of the home any more than what it was. Ms. Lover stated she went out and looked at the home and was confused on which trees he was talking about. They discussed where the trees were located and the access alley road behind the property. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal explained the tree replacement policy to Mr. Loveday. Mr. Loveday stated he would put trees on other properties he has in the neighborhood, if that would be a suitable option. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #03- 22 to remove 78 inches worth of trees and replace with 39 inches of oak trees or pay $3,900 to the Tree Bank or a combination of the two. The replacement tress may be put on another lots in the community. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion to approve passed 5-0. D. VARIANCE #04-22: Application by Charles B. Ashley for a variance to reduce the rear year setback for a proposed garage at 2701 Nixon Street zoned Low Density Single-Family Residential, R-1 District. Attorney, Kenneth Moss, represented Mr. Ashley. Mr. Moss explained this was going to be their permanent home. It was their beach home, not a rental home and now their residence. They would like some extra room, so they purchased the property behind them for a pool and garage. They have an ‘L’ shaped property now. A map had been provided for the Board to see. Mr. Moss explained the property was unique for the size and shape in Cherry Grove and was a non-conforming lot. As a result of the combination of property, what used to be the side yard setback was now the rear setback, which was 20 feet. It sounded like a lot, but what they were trying to build would be in the exact place it was previously. It would be smaller construction, too. It would be a detached garage with a pool in between. Mr. Moss explained in the packet were 2 support letters of the construction. The third property owner he was not able to get ahold of, but instead of a 20 yard setback, they would end up with a 60 foot buffer. He could not imagine they would not agree to the benefit it would provide them. Chairman McGonigal stated this was a unique lot. Mr. Caldwell stated they would not need further approval for the pool. Ms. Lover asked if they moved the garage, would they need a variance. Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Moss explained anywhere they moved it, it would need a variance. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal inquired if Mr. Ashley was planning on doing a buffer. Mr. Ashley stated they were going to do landscaping with trees and bushes. Ms. Lover asked how big the lot was. Mr. Ashley stated it was 50x100 feet. Mr. Moss stated they were underutilizing the lot. 4  Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #04- 22. The hardship was the odd shape of the lot, the two lots combined was less than 10,000 square feet. The lot was not square, which necessitates the variance. It was unique because there were few to none L shaped lots in the Cherry Grove area. The granting of the variance would not be harmful to surrounding lots. It would improve the neighborhood and would be in harmony with the use of the properties in the surrounding neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 5-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motioned to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Thomas and was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:12 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