Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, May 12, 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 Allison Galbreath, City Clerk Joe Reaves Andy Thomas, Absent 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 April 14, 2022 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Quinn and seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion passed 4-0. Chairman McGonigal and Ms. Lover abstained from the vote due to being absent at this meeting. 3. COMMUNICATION: None 4. SWEAR IN THOSE PERSONS TO SPEAK: Mrs. Galbreath swore in persons to speak at the meeting. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. 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. Due to the applicant not in attendance, the Board deferred this item to the end of the meeting to see if Mr. Lewis would appear at the meeting. At the end of the meeting, the applicant was not in attendance. Mr. Noury suggested the variance be postponed to the next scheduled meeting. Chairman McGonigal motioned to postpone Variance #16-22 until the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lover. The motion to postpone passed 6-0. B. 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. Due to the applicant not in attendance, the Board deferred this item to the end of the meeting to see if Mr. Bolli would appear at the meeting. At the end of the meeting, the applicant was not in attendance. Mr. Noury suggested the variance be postponed to the next scheduled meeting. 1  Chairman McGonigal motioned to postpone Variance #17-22 until the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lover. The motion to postpone passed 6-0. C. VARIANCE #19-22: Application by Patricia Queen to reduce one of the required front yards from 20’ to 10’ on a double fronting lot at 1023 Seaside Drive zoned Mobile/Manufactured Home Residential, R-3 District. Ronnie Leonhardt represented the applicant. Mr. Leonhardt stated Ms. Queen bought a lot that backed directly up to the cul- de-sac on Sand Court. The cul-de-sac protruded into her lot which only gave her a usable space of 86 feet. She was looking for a 10-foot variance on the back of the home. Seaside Drive would be where the front of the home faced. The Board and Mr. Leonhardt discuss the size and type of home that would be built on the property. Ms. Lover inquired what the hardship was. She explained that the home could be tailored to be within the setbacks. Chairman McGonigal stated the two front yards meant in choosing the rear yard, the setback would be 10-feet. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Caldwell added this lot did not meet the minimum lot size requirement. Chairman McGonigal inquired if they had a house plan. Mr. Leonhardt stated Ms. Queen had a builder they would probably use, and it would be similar to the other houses in the area. She would like a plan that was a foot wider on both sides. Chairman McGonigal stated she would need another variance for the width and would have to prove a hardship. It would be in her best interest to have her build a house within the parameters and not have a variance. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to grant Variance #19-22 giving a 10-foot variance. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. There were extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property due to the double fronting lot and the cul-de-sac that cut into 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 the district would not be harmed by granting the variance. This would keep the uniformity of the neighborhood with the front being designated on Seaside Drive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 6-0. D. VARIANCE #20-22: Application by Marc Elko to place a swimming pool and privacy fence on one of the required front yards at 4622 Woodland Street zoned Low-Density, Single-Family Residential, R-1 District. Gary Weber was the property owner and Marc Elko was his contractor. Mr. Weber stated he purchased the home a couple of years ago and contracted with Backyard Creation to put a pool in last January. When he applied for the permit, he spoke with Mr. Caldwell and found out he had two front yards. He stated there were multiple homes with pools in the neighborhood. He stated his life would not end if he didn’t this variance. He was asking for a variance for the back yard to enjoy the pool with family for relaxation and enjoyment. Mr. Wise inquired if the pools in the neighborhood were on the same side of the street. Mr. Weber stated there were other lots within the neighborhood. There was one being put on Hedrick Street and one across from him, but it was a different zone. Mr. Bell confirmed his hardship was a double fronting yard. Woodland Street would be his front yard, the pool would be on the Hedrick side, which would conform to the other house that had a pool on Hedrick Street. 2  Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. If approval was granted, he asked a condition be applied for the fence to be 10-foot off the property line, for sufficient sight distance. Mr. Bell had Mr. Weber looked at a map to confirm where the pool would be built. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to grant Variance #20-22 and have a 10-foot setback for a fence. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property was the double-fronting lot. 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, 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. Quinn. The motion to approve passed 6-0. E. VARIANCE #21-22: Application by Murray Willitts for a variance of the required side yard setback for pool equipment at 802 46th Avenue South zoned Low-Density, Single- Family Residential, R-1 District. John McIlvaine was the property owner and Murray Willitts was his contractor. They contracted with Pools Plus out of Myrtle Beach and they asked where they would like the equipment to be located. Mr. McIlvaine stated there was an existing heat pump and air conditioning unit on the right-hand side of the house. There were hook-ups already available on that side of the house. They relied on the contractor to pull the permits and then it came to light that there was a Zoning Ordinance that this equipment had to be 5-feet from the property line. This was 4-feet from the property line. He stated if it had to be moved it would be an added expense. If the equipment were located in the back, the master bedroom window was in the back, and it might impede getting out in case of an emergency. He stated there was existing fencing between his house and the next-door neighbor’s house. His neighbors were in attendance to let the Board know they were okay with the location of the pool equipment. Chairman McGonigal stated he visited his home, and the equipment location and fencing was very well done. Mr. Quinn mentioned he would have felt bad for him if he had put the pool in and couldn’t get a variance on the equipment. He may have had to move the equipment for safety and setback requirements. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover inquired where the pool permit showed the equipment. Mr. Caldwell stated it was on the back of the house and that was how they approved the permit. Ms. Lover stated it was changed after the permit was approved. Mr. McIlvaine stated the company asked him where he wanted it, and it made sense to put it where the other hook-ups were located. Mr. Quinn stated he wanted it on the record he was concerned about someone submitting a permit, putting in a pool, and then not being able to get a variance for the equipment. The owner would have a pool with no equipment. He wanted the consumer to be aware of this fact. Mr. McIlvaine stated this was a mistake and oversight and he didn’t realize it. Mr. Bell asked if there was a heater. Mr. McIlvaine stated they do not have one right now. They had planned for one, but with the supply chain issues and Covid, they couldn’t get it. There was space on the pad for one. Ms. Lover asked Mr. Caldwell if the lack of pool equipment not being listed within the code section was an oversight. Mr. Caldwell stated a request had been made in the past by a pool company to include pool equipment, but in doing research pool equipment was louder 3  than air conditioners and generators, and the Council wasn’t willing to add it in. Chairman McGonigal stated most pool equipment was in the side yard. William and Barbara Hotalen, 800 46th Avenue South, North Myrtle Beach, stated they lived right next to the applicant. The way their house was situated, it was diagonal, and the noise didn’t bother them at all. Mr. Hotalen stated they also have a fence, and the noise would not bother them. The Board, staff, and applicant discussed the pluses and minuses of approving the variance and the hardship of the case. Mr. McIlvaine showed a picture on his phone of the equipment next to his house. Mr. Caldwell stated the lot size was smaller than required. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to grant Variance #21-22 giving a 1-foot variance. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property due to the smaller size of the lot and also the smaller size of the width in today’s requirements. 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, 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. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 6-0. F. VARIANCE #22-22: Application by Charles McDonald for variance to permit a storage building to be placed in one of the required front yards and to establish a 5’ required front and side yard setback for the proposed building at 4514 Hedrick Street zoned Low-Density Single-Family Residential, R-1 District. Mr. McDonald stated he bought the property in February and had a survey done. There was an existing shed on the property. They have a through street property with 2 front yards, Hedrick was the front and Lewis was the back. Mr. McDonald stated these had 25’ setbacks and that was one of his hardships. The current shed was beyond the setback, and he wanted to turn the shed 90 degrees to turn the opening closer toward the road in order to drive a golf cart into the shed. He would like to move the shed inside the setback to be 10’ off the property line. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. If a variance would be granted, Mr. Caldwell asked to include in the approval a condition that the storage building have a minimum of a 10-foot setback in order to have a line of sight down the street. Mr. McDonald showed the Board a picture of the shed and survey of the property. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Reaves motioned to grant Variance #22-22 making Hedrick Street the back yard with a 10-foot setback. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property due to the two front yards. 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 6-0. 4  G. VARIANCE #23-22: Application by Rich Sofield for a variance of the front yard setback requirement for proposed front steps at 5903 Channel Street zoned Low Density Single Family Residential, R-1 District. Mr. Sofield purchased the home about a year ago and raised it approximately 3 feet above due to flood levels. They were seeking a variance for a set of steps on the front of the house. Their home was uniquely positioned up closer to the street than other homes. They would not be able to get steps coming off the house. Mr. Sofield was asking for a 4-foot variance to have access into his home. Ms. Lover inquired if there was parking under the house and Mr. Sofield stated there was and the steps would not limit the parking area for the home. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal stated the placement of the steps seemed reasonable. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to grant Variance #23-22 giving a 4-foot variance for steps off the house. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property due to the applicant not having access into his house and the elevation of the house was to prevent flooding. 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. Bell. The motion to approve passed 6-0. The Board and staff discussed postponing Variance #16-22 and #17-22. Chairman McGonigal stated the ordinance referring to the containers was a bigger discussion and would need to be addressed by City Council. Mr. Noury stated staff could take back to the department head the Board’s desire to approach City Council with a potential change to the ordinance. Ms. Lover stated she was not in favor of the ordinance adding more containers. She would like to see them add on to the building, not use additional containers. Chairman McGonigal stated he wanted to look out for the small business owner that needed the inventory to conduct a successful business. Chairman McGonigal called for a motioned to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Reaves and was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:31 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