Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, February 10, 2022 5:00 PM MINUTES William McGonigal, Chairman City Staff: Roger Quinn, Vice-Chairman, Absent 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 January 13, 2022 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Wise and seconded by Ms. Lover. The motion passed 6-0. 3. COMMUNICATION: None 4. SWEAR IN THOSE PERSONS TO SPEAK: Mrs. Galbreath swore in persons to speak at the beginning of the meeting. 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 remove Variance #V33- 21 from the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to remove from the agenda passed 6-0. B. 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 the third time she had been dragged into these meetings when other people in the same neighborhood were doing a lot more and had not been asked to do what she’s been asked to do. She’s been asked to hire an arborist, specialists, and get variances. Her neighbor had almost 60 trees removed and he didn’t have to do these things. She stated she had been through hell just because she removed one tree. The 60 trees were removed, no problem. Chairman McGonigal stated they needed to look at her issue and not the neighbors. The city would handle the neighbor’s issues and monitored without preference. Chairman McGonigal stated at the last meeting there was a question if her property was in the city. Mr. Caldwell stated she was in the city. Ms. Osborn stated that was a problem. Her ex-husband had an annexation in 2008, but from 2008 to 2022, she had been dealing with Horry County. Last year she received a permit from Horry County for her steps for construction. When she cut the tree was when North Myrtle Beach 1 got involved, stopped the work, and said it was illegal. She didn’t know where that came from. She stated she found out that her ex-husband signed the annexation in 2008. She asked him why he signed the paper. He told her he had to in order to get water and sewer. That was never explained to her that they were going to be with the City of North Myrtle Beach from 2008 and on. From 2008 to 2021, she never got anything from North Myrtle Beach, not one permit. Ms. Osborn stated that has been confusing for everybody. She inquired why was she with North Myrtle Beach now, but not from 2008 to 2021. Chairman McGonigal asked when her property was annexed. Mr. Caldwell stated she was correct with the date of 2008. Ms. Lover stated she looked at the property tax records online and it looked like she had not been charged city taxes every year since 2008. Mr. Caldwell stated he could not speak to the taxes. Mr. Caldwell stated that an arborist had looked at the two other trees at the back of the property and they needed to be removed. The replacement value of the one tree was the only item to determine. Ms. Osborn stated the arborist told her they needed to be removed and there was no problem to remove them. They were 60 years old and falling on the building. She stated she did not have a problem replacing the trees. There was a storage in the front of her property, because the trees had been there. Now she had an approval by the arborist that she had to hire and pay. She stated she had to pay the storage company two times to move the storage building to the back of the property. She stated it could have been resolved if someone would have told her. She didn’t have a problem replacing the tree, but no one explained it in detail to her. They had just moved her from Horry County to the city and with Horry County they did not require a variance. She shouldn’t be expected to know everything. She stated she was not happy being with North Myrtle Beach, because of how she had been treated. Chairman McGonigal stated the city had a tree ordinance and since she received the letter from the arborist the two other trees would not need to be discussed. Mr. Caldwell stated the Board would need to decide the penalty for the removal of the one tree. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to set the penalty of paying $1,600 into the Tree Bank, replant 16” of trees on the property, or a combination of the two. Ms. Osborn stated she was not happy to be with North Myrtle Beach because she was not aware or nobody had explained these things to her. She stated if she was with North Myrtle Beach, why did she get permits through Horry County until 2021. Now everyone wants to fine her and play by the rules. If she was under North Myrtle Beach why didn’t they get involved? She had proof of permits received from Horry County for construction. Chairman McGonigal asked if she received a permit for the tree removal. She stated they never said anything about needing a permit to cut trees. Ms. Osborn stated she had permits from the county the whole time. Mr. Bell clarified to Ms. Osborn that she could replant the trees and did not have to pay into the Tree Bank. Ms. Osborn stated she already had spent the money on the arborist. She didn’t want someone to come to her to say she had only a couple of days to do this. Mr. Bell asked how much time was granted for tree replacement. Mr. Caldwell stated it was 6 months. Ms. Lover reworded the motion to state the penalty would be 16” inches, $1,600 paid to the Tree Bank or a combination of the two and had 6 months to comply. Mr. Bell seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. 2 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. VARIANCE #V05-22: Application by J. Hope Mills for a front yard setback variance of 5’ for a proposed recreational vehicle at 5400 Little River Neck Road, lot 272, zoned Planned Development District (PDD). Ms. Mills stated she was asking for the variance to leave the camper where it was because that was where they lived on the property. Mr. Bell stated the hardship was the irregular shape of the lot. Ms. Mills confirmed it was the hardship and the property was triangular in shape. Ms. Lover stated it was just the corner of the camper and not the entire camper. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal explained this was a challenge because of the odd- shaped lot. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #05-22, the applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship specifically due to the extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to the lot because of the irregular shape and size. 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. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 6-0. B. VARIANCE #06-22: Application by Tony Warren Jr. for a variance of the swimming pool siting standards at 1207 King Street zoned Mobile/Manufactured Home Residential, R-3 District. Mr. Warren stated he bought the property and didn’t have a yard at all. His wife wanted a pool. When the property next to him became available, he bought it so he would be able to put a pool on it. He understood from the city that he didn’t have enough yard to do it in the front or back yard. He stated the front of the house was opposite from what the city thought the front was. He bought the adjacent property to put the pool on outside his back door. He brought pictures to show the neighbors that were granted a variance for their side yards. Chairman McGonigal stated this was a double fronting lot and odd- shaped. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. King Street and Hill Street were considered the front of the lot. Mr. Caldwell explained that pools were only allowed in rear yards, but this did not have a rear yard. Ms. Lover asked why the metal building was able to have been put there. Mr. Caldwell stated he didn’t believe a permit was given for the building. Mr. Warren stated it was there before he moved in. The Board and Mr. Warren discussed the location of where the pool would be placed and explained the pictures he brought. Ms. Lover asked if he would meet all of the setbacks. Mr. Warren stated he would. Ms. Lover stated the other homes in the area that were granted a variance were due to their odd-shaped lots. She asked what would be the front yard. Mr. Warren stated it would be King Street, according to the city. Mr. Caldwell stated the Board did not need to designate what the front of the house was, but consider it a request to put in a side lot, instead of the rear. Mr. Warren stated he was trying to make Cherry Grove a better place to live. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Reaves motioned to approve Variance #06- 22. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship due to the extraordinary and 3  exceptional condition of a double-fronting lot with an odd-shaped 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 effectively prohibit the utilization of the property, and the authorization of the variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties or to the public good. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 6-0. C. VARIANCE #07-22: Application by Michael King for the removal of a 26” oak tree at 913 Marsh View Drive zoned Single Family Low-Medium Density, R-1B District. Lee Farthing stated he represented Cottages on the Marsh. Mr. Farthing stated this was only the second request they had out of the 66 live oaks they had. They had tried to keep the trees intact. They had also moved 7-8 homes or reconfigured them in order to save the trees. In this instance, the foundation had already been started. There were three oaks on the right-hand side. The roots of the tree were within 12 or less inches to the foundation. They contacted an arborist and he concluded if the house were built, the tree would probably die within 2 years. The tree had a large canopy and it would have to be cut in 3 different places, too. The family that purchased the lot, Mr. and Mrs. Mark Edwards were from Tennessee. The original plan for the home was 1,850 square feet. If they kept the tree, the new plan would have to be less than 1,000 square feet and would not meet the needs of their family. Mr. Farthing asked for the tree to be removed and stated they would replant 26” of trees on the property. Ms. Lover confirmed the other two trees would not be removed. Mr. Farthing confirmed they would stay. 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 #07- 22 to remove the oak tree in question and replant 26 inches worth of trees, pay $2,600 into the Tree Bank, or a combination of the two. The replacement tress may be put on another lots in the community and they must be hardwoods. The other trees on the property may not be removed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion to approve passed 6-0. D. VARIANCE #08-22: Application by Ray Skidmore, Jr. for a variance of the minimum site depth requirement at 1000 37th Avenue South zoned Mobile/Manufactured Home Residential, R-3 District. Mr. Skidmore stated he represented the Fox Fire RV Resort. Mr. Reaves confirmed he needed the variance based on the irregular shape of the lot. Ms. Lover asked if the utility easement impacted the request. Mr. Skidmore stated there was a Santee Cooper easement and city street that affected the buildable area. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Caldwell stated the lot would be slightly less deep. Chairman McGonigal commended the work they had done and stated the area look great. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #08-22. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship due to the extraordinary and exceptional condition of an irregular shaped lot, the utility easement, and city highway that ran through the lot. 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 4  would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties or to the public good. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 6-0. E. VARIANCE #09-22: Application by Jonathan Reynolds for determination of the penalty to be set by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the improper removal of a 26” tree at 2809 Ships Wheel Drive zoned Single-Family, Low-Density Residential, R-1 District. Mr. Reynolds stated he pulled the building permit for the lot and was not aware he needed to become before the Board to remove a tree like that. The tree was in the building path and the building would only fit in that location. Chairman McGonigal asked if he went to the city for a permit to clear the lot. Mr. Reynolds stated he had, $8,000 worth. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. The removed tree was an oak tree. Chairman McGonigal stated the lot was cleared and wanted to know how it would have transpired. Mr. Caldwell stated it was marked on the application the trees were going to be removed. He didn’t think all of the trees were marked. There may have been a mistake in the review. Ms. Lover pointed out that there were more trees removed than the protected one. Mr. Reynolds stated they had a survey, but not a tree survey. He stated they would put more trees back on the lot. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #09- 22. The penalty set would require 26” of oak trees or hardwoods to be replanted on the property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motioned to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Bell and was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion passed 6-0. 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. 5