Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, March 10, 2022 5:00 PM MINUTES William McGonigal, Chairman City Staff: Roger Quinn, Vice-Chairman Ben Caldwell, Zoning Administrator Mendel Bell Elton Farmer, Zoning Technician Cynthia Lover Chris Noury, City Attorney Joe Reaves Allison Galbreath, City Clerk 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 February 10, 2022 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion passed 7-0. 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 BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. VARIANCE #V10-22: Application by Carl Powalie for a variance of the minimum signage allowance for a proposed wall mounted sign at 710 6th Avenue South zoned Highway Commercial (HC) district. Mr. Bell consulted with Chris Noury, City Attorney, to make sure there was not a conflict of interest since Mr. Bell’s business was in the same complex as the applicant. Chad Hatley, owner of the property, was unaware of the variance request and stated the lease said the landlord had to grant approval for any request made by the tenant for signage. Kevin Runnells represented the applicant. Mr. Runnells explained the Circle K had removed landscaping from the side of the building which opened the side of the building and it was now visible from Highway 17. He stated due to the construction, they had lost many parking spaces. Now that it had been removed, the applicant wanted to draw more attention to the building to gain customers. They had lost 20% of their business due to the parking issues. Mr. Runnells described the pictures he brought which showed where the sign would be placed on the building. Ms. Lover wanted to know who owned the property where the parking used to be located. Mr. Bell stated some of it was owned by the bank and some by Circle K. Mr. Runnells stated being in the sign business, it was important to have as much signage as possible and if a building was visible from two streets, they would be allowed to put signs on the viewable sides. Ms. Lover stated customers were not able to see the side of the building before and wanted to know what had changed. Mr. Runnells stated they had much less parking and needed to attract new 1  customers. Ms. Lover stated that was a parking issue, not a signage issue. Mr. Runnells stated the owner was hoping to get more attention. Ms. Lover stated it would be making the problem worse. The Board and Mr. Runnells continued to discuss the parking issue. Ms. Lover asked how much of a variance he was requesting. Mr. Runnells stated based on the side dimensions, they were requesting 119 square feet. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. The Board, staff, and Mr. Runnells discussed the ordinance and how much square feet of signage was allowed. Mr. Caldwell stated the number should have been based on the front dimensions, not the front and side dimensions. Mr. Quinn brought up a similar case that the Board denied last year that had asked for the same kind of variance. Mr. Powalie explained how customers were complaining about not getting in and out of the parking areas and only one way to get in. The parking issue was more with employees not having enough areas to park. Ms. Lover stated she was having a problem with the connection. Chad Hatley, owner of the property, stated he didn’t have a problem with the request, but with the understanding that it was not a waiver on the part of the landlord on the contractual obligations that was subject to the lease agreement. He agreed with whatever the Board would decide on the issue. He stated that the parking was an employee problem, not a customer problem. At the tenant’s request, they have an application with the SC DOT for a second entrance, which has been pending for 3 months. He did not have an objection to the variance request. Ms. Lover stated the current variance was asking for a 300% variance. Mr. Runnells stated that was based on how he measured the side of the building. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover stated she did not see a hardship and the request was overly large, but in the interest of making a compromise and seeing there was an issue with the traffic flow, Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #10-22, granting an additional 30 square feet of signage on the side and leave the front signage the same size. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion to approve passed 7-0. B. VARIANCE #11-22: Application by Dorian Kojtari for determination of the penalty to be set by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the improper removal of a 29” tree at 1608 27th Avenue North zoned Single-Family, Low-Density Residential, R-1 District. Ms. Kojtari was the co-owner of the property. She explained there was an oak tree in front of the house that was halfway dead, and the branches were on the roof and porch. They decided to cut it down. It was very close to the porch, less than 10 feet. They also cut two pine trees. Ms. Lover asked who the contractor was. Ms. Jojtari stated it was from Supply and named Deshawn Company. Ms. Lover stated a licensed tree company in the city would know that she needed a permit and should have informed her of it. Ms. Jojtari stated she asked if it could be cut down and he informed her it could as long as it was not an oak tree. She stated she knew trees, and this was not an oak tree. Ms. Lover stated she needed a permit to cut trees. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Farmer stated a call was received from a licensed contractor that reported work was being done on the property possibly without a permit. That was when an investigation began. No one was on the property at the time of inspection. Mr. Farmer stated it was an oak tree at 29-caliper inches. 2  Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Based on the testimony of the city, Ms. Lover motioned to assess a penalty on Variance #11-22. The penalty would be to replant 29” of hardwoods or oaks, pay $2900 into the Tree Bank, or a combination of both. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 7-0. C. VARIANCE #12-22: Application by Gary Hatfield for a variance of the minimum front yard setback at 5400 Little River Neck Road, Lot 19, zoned Planned Development District (PDD). Mr. Hatfield appeared before the Board via Zoom and Mrs. Galbreath swore in Mr. Hatfield. Mr. Hatfield stated he bought the property in October and was not aware the porch was being built in the setback. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Caldwell stated the minimum setback was 20’, so the encroachment was 8’ not 3’. What was built was not what was originally approved to be built and he believed the porch was an afterthought. Mr. Hatfield stated the volume was not very good and he could not hear the questions being asked. It was decided due to the ability of not being able to communicate clearly to continue the variance to the next scheduled meeting. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to continue Variance #12-22 to the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to continue passed 7-0. D. VARIANCE #13-22: Application by Jeff Martini for a variance of the minimum parking requirements at 2004 Highway 17 South zoned Highway Commercial (HC) District. Chad Hatley represented Mr. Martini and Bar 1912. Mr. Hatley stated a year ago, Mr. Martini decided to put an awning over the patio due to Covid and people needing to sit outside. Unknown to Mr. Martini, the company that put on the cover did not gain a permit from the city. This was not a wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Martini. They needed 5 parking spaces. The hardship was the size and narrowness of the property as well as one side has a cemetery and the other a golf course. Mr. Martini currently has a parking arrangement with Plantation Pancake House Restaurant across the street and with Lumber Liquidators. This would not change any operation factors and they would like to operate in the same fashion. Ms. Lover asked if they would continue to use valet parking services. Mr. Hatley stated the intention was to continue to operate in the same manner. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. The Board and staff discussed how many parking spaces would be required. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #13-22. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship due to the extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property due to the smaller size commercial 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 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 granting the variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 7-0. 3 Chairman McGonigal called for a motioned to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Reaves and was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:02 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