Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, April 14, 2022 5:00 PM MINUTES William McGonigal, Chairman, Absent City Staff: Roger Quinn, Vice-Chairman Ben Caldwell, Zoning Administrator Mendel Bell Elton Farmer, Zoning Technician Cynthia Lover, Absent Allison Galbreath, City Clerk Joe Reaves Andy Thomas Wyman Wise 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: Vice-Chairman Quinn called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motion to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2022 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Wise and seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion passed 5-0. 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 #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). Lester Spain represented Gary Hatfield for the variance. He stated the reason he needed the variance was because of an illness called vertigo and this would provide curb appeal to the home. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Bell confirmed the issue was the irregular shape of the lot and asked how it would impact parking. Mr. Caldwell stated there would not be an impact to the parking and there was a car area for parking. Mr. Bell clarified the variance was only on one side of the lot. Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #12-22 The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship due to the extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property due to the irregular shape of 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 would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties or to the public good, and the character of 1  the district would not be harmed by granting the variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 5-0. B. VARIANCE #14-22: Application by Earthworks for a variance to remove five protected trees that are greater than 24” in diameter at the corner of Hill Street and 24th Avenue North. Dan Park represented Earthworks and passed out plans that showed the trees in question. Due to grading and meeting flood regulations, these trees would need to be removed. He stated they would add new trees in front of every unit and would meet city regulations. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Park stated they would meet all the landscaping requirements as well as an additional 30 trees above the requirements. Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motion. Mr. Reaves motioned to approve Variance #14- 22, and to replace 65 inches of replacement hardwood trees or pay $6500 to the Tree Bank or a combination of the two. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 5-0. C. VARIANCE #15-22: Application by Richard and Karen Walterson for a variance to place a swimming pool in one of the front yards at 4708 Surf Street zoned Single Family Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Ms. Walterson stated they would like to put in a pool on the Surf Road side of the road. Their front door and parking were on the Woodland Street side. The Surf Road side was large and would accommodate the pool. She stated there were several other homes in the area that had a pool on the Surf Road side. Mr. Reaves stated the home next to them had their pool on the Woodland Street side. Ms. Walterson stated they did, but three homes down the pool was on the Surf Road side. She stated it was dependent on how the home had been designed. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Wise inquired if the pool would meet requirements. Mr. Caldwell stated it would but wasn’t aware of what kind of fencing they would have but would have to comply with sight lines. Marc Leatherman, 4714 Surf Street, North Myrtle Beach, stated he was in opposition to the variance, not of the pool. All the houses in the neighborhood lined up and this would affect the integrity of the neighborhood. Pools were not in the front yard and all the pools were on the Woodland Street side. There was not a hardship to put the pool in. He asked the Board to consider the integrity of the neighborhood and the precedent that had been set with pools on the Woodland Street side. Dave O’Rear, 4710 Woodland Street, North Myrtle Beach, stated she was with his wife and another couple. They were in opposition to the pool because there was no hardship. The property sold for what they were asking for, so they do not need to increase it. There was nothing unique about the lot that would require the variance. He stated the past people that stayed there, filled the area with cars when they rented it. He spent a lot of time that day discussing the issue with Public Safety and Mike Mahaney’s office trying to get people to park where they did not have a dangerous situation. He also questioned the pervious area after putting in the pool. He stated they looked at three pools within sight of his house, and those pools were started and some completed without a permit from 2 the city. He was sure it would be a short-term rental and that kept him and his wife awake at night. Tracey Tessier, 4712 Surf Street, North Myrtle Beach, stated this would affect the integrity and beauty of the front of the street. She thanked the Board for hearing their opposition to the variance. Susan O’Rear, 4710 Woodland Street, North Myrtle Beach, stated she wanted to address the requirement that 40% of a surface should be pervious to water. Their concern was the flooding of the area. She showed a picture of the property from January 3, 2022 which flooded from a King Tide. The pool would overflow by a regular King Tide and she was worried about heavy rains or a hurricane, if more of the ground were taken by a pool. Mr. Bell inquired about having pools on different sides of the street. Mr. Caldwell stated the ordinance was created to have uniformity in a neighborhood and pools would be on the same side. The Board and Ms. Walterson discussed the pool parameters and what she had submitted. Ms. Walterson stated her pool company had applied for a pool permit and it was granted from the building department. The builder submitted to the permitting department and was approved to put in the pool using the 4709 Woodland Street address, which made Surf Street the back yard. She called Mr. Caldwell to find out if she needed to still come to the meeting. Mr. Caldwell stated he would have to look into that situation and why a permit was granted. Ms. O’Rear stated the six of them and another family would like to know what the home would be used for and their understanding was it was for a short-term rental. The owners did not live in North Myrtle Beach. They have all lived there for 8-9 years and were not taking it lightly. She wanted to know what their intent was. Ms. Walterson stated they had a place in Briarcliff and when their adult children came to visit, they wanted to stay at the beach. It was their family vacation home. She didn’t know why there was so much negativity. Mr. Bell stated that was irrelevant to the variance. He stated he was struggling with the uniformity of the street. Their variance conditions were not meeting their requirements to be able to grant a variance. Mr. Caldwell pulled up Google Earth to look closer at the property and surrounding properties with pools. Ms. Walterson stated they intended to do fencing. Mr. Leatherman stated there were doors on either end and it was designed with two front doors if they desired to use it that way. It would take the removal of the deck or redesign of it to use that entrance as the front. He asked the Board to protect the integrity of the street based on the ordinances that were in place. Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to deny Variance #15-22 The applicant had not shown an unnecessary hardship due to the extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property due to the irregular shape of the lot. It would make it non-uniform to the rest of the area. It would make a difference if the pool was on the other side. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 5-0. 3 D. VARIANCE #16-22: Application by Lanny Lewis for a variance of side and rear yard setback for an existing garage and rear yard setback for an existing raised wooden deck at 4506 Osprey Street zoned Mobile/Manufactured Home Residential, R-3 District. Mr. Lewis stated the carport, shed, and structure were there when he bought the house. He took it upon himself to close it off and added a lean to. He did not have a permit for any of it. He stated he would do whatever it took to make it right but asked for any help to save any of it. Vice-Chairman Quinn asked if he had consulted with the building department for a recommendation on what to do. Mr. Lewis stated he had not spoken with anyone. Mr. Caldwell stated there was a complaint and that’s when the investigation started. He stated this was on two separate lots and then Mr. Lewis combined them. He didn’t know if the buildings were built to code. He would be removing two smaller buildings and showed pictures of what would need the variance. Mr. Reaves asked if they could give a variance in the utility easement. Mr. Caldwell stated they could not, and they did not have the authority over the utility easement. He stated they may need to table the request to see if Mr. Lewis would be able to obtain a utility encroachment easement. Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #16-22 until the applicant had the opportunity to speak with the utility company on an encroachment easement. Mr. Caldwell would be able to set up the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. E. VARIANCE #17-22: Application by Theodore Bolli to use three shipping containers for product storage when the ordinance allows only one shipping container at 900 Highway 17 North zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Mr. Bolli stated he was the owner and operator of Forever Floor and Tile. He stated the containers were new and nicely maintained. Mr. Caldwell pulled up the property on Google Earth. The three shipping containers in the middle of the island belonged to the mattress store and one more next to the building. Mr. Bolli stated their three containers were lined up in the parking lot side by side under the trees. Mr. Caldwell stated the owner of the mattress store received the same notification as Mr. Bolli to appear before the Board. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. The ordinance permitted one shipping container, off the parking lot, and screened. Mr. Bolli stated the hardship was storage because of the amount of buildings being built in the area and contractors were ordering products months in advance. Without the containers they would not be in business. Mr. Bell inquired if the storage could be off- site. Mr. Bolli stated it would not be financially feasible. Mr. Caldwell stated there was a surplus of parking spaces by 4. Ms. Bolli stated they had looked for over a year to find different property that was bigger. Mr. Bell stated this would set precedent and they had to consider the slippery slope it would create. Ms. Bolli asked if they could have more time and a temporary variance. Mr. Caldwell stated the variance goes with the land and it would not expire. The Board and staff discussed the situation and the precedent it may set. Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motion. Mr. Thomas motioned to postpone Variance #17-22 to give the applicant time to discuss a solution and seek approval with the property owner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. F. VARIANCE #18-22: Application by Bill Seay for a variance of side yard setback for pool equipment located at in a side yard at 3651 Diamond Stars Way zoned Mid-Rise Multifamily, R-2A District. James Farmer represented Mr. Seay. He passed pictures of 4  where the pool equipment was located. He stated they had approval from the HOA and neighbor. He stated there was an air conditioning unit on the same side of the house that stuck out just as far as the pool equipment. There was no other place to put the equipment because of the design of the house. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. The pool was property permitted and installed, but the equipment was in the setback. Mr. Seay stated he would put a fence around the equipment to lessen the noise. Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motion. Mr. Reaves motioned to approve Variance #18- 22. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship due to the extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property because there was already an air conditioning unit and fencing on that 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 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. There must be a solid fencing put in place around the equipment to combat noise coming from it. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion to approve passed 5-0. Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motioned to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Bell and was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:22 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