Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, June 9, 2022 5:00 PM MINUTES William McGonigal, Chairman City Staff: Roger Quinn, Vice-Chairman, Absent 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: 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 May 12, 2022 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion passed 5-0. 3. COMMUNICATION: Mr. Caldwell stated the Board had asked the applicant from Variance #17-22 to receive permission from the property owner for the containers on the property. The applicant submitted an email from the landlord that had no objection to the placement of the containers. They wanted him to attend today and was unable. Mr. Noury stated the Board could postpone at the applicant’s request. 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 #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. Caldwell stated he tried to contact via phone, but it had been disconnected. He would send a letter before the next meeting. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to postpone Variance #16-22 until the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. 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. 1  Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #17-22 until the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. C. VARIANCE #24-22: Application by Pools Plus of the Carolinas to reduce the required setbacks for pool equipment at 630 11th Avenue South zoned Single-Family Residential, Low- Medium Density, R-1A District. Russell Price, homeowner, stated some of the chiller, filter, and pool pump were in the 5-foot area. He showed some pictures to visualize the area. He stated all of the fencing was in place when he purchased the home and no changes had been made except for the pool compliant fencing. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. He stated a mistake had been made in the placement of the pool equipment. Chairman McGonigal stated he looked at the area and it was obvious the pool company made a mistake. Mr. Caldwell stated staff had looked at including pool equipment in the side yard setback, but research showed pool equipment to be louder than air conditioning and heating units. The Council did not want to move forward with putting it in the exceptions. Chairman McGonigal stated the equipment he saw on the property only had a hum to it, was not noisy and had a solid fence around it. Kimberly Fretz, representative for Pools Plus, stated with technology, pool equipment was a lot quieter than it used to be. Mr. Caldwell stated the research was done about 5 years ago. Mr. Bell stated they had to have a hardship to the land. He suggested postponing it to send to the City Council for them to consider including pool equipment as an exception in the ordinance because technology had been improved and it was quieter. Ms. Fretz wanted to point out with a fiberglass pool, the equipment would only run 7-8 hours during the summer and 2-3 hours in the winter. The noise was not an issue. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #24-22 for the City Council to consider putting pool equipment as an exception in the ordinance. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. D. VARIANCE #25-22: Application by Jerred Roberts for a proposed privacy fence on a double fronting lot at 2902 Diane Circle zoned Single-Family Residential, Low Density, R-1 District. Mr. Roberts stated he had a double-sided front lot and Diane Circle was the front yard. The back yard would be facing the airport. He also stated the neighbors faced the same side and also had fencing in the back yards facing the airport. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to grant Variance #25-22. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property was two front yards. It would make it more uniform to the other houses on the street. 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 5-0. 2  E. VARIANCE #26-22: Application by Robert S. Guyton for a variance of the tree protection ordinance for the removal of trees exceeding 24” at Hope Pointe located at 5225 Little River Neck Road zoned Planned Development District (PDD). Mr. Noury stated the Planning Commission had a concern with the removal of the trees on this site. They would like the Board to work as close as they could to save as many trees as possible. Mr. Guyton stated the infrastructure would be done at one time and the trees proposed for removal were in the footprint of the homes, in the infrastructure, or on the banks of the retaining ponds. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. The applicant petitioned to remove 730 trees totaling 11,851 caliper inches. The Board, staff, and applicant extensively discussed the tree removal and the replacement of trees within the subdivision. Mr. Guyton stated the trees would be replanted after the homes were built and sidewalks put in. Chairman McGonigal was concerned if the project didn’t build to fruition, how the trees would still be replanted as a condition of approval. Mr. Guyton stated parameters could be placed within the Development Agreement and building permits could be held if the developer was not in compliance. Chairman McGonigal inquired what kind of trees would be replanted. Mr. Guyton stated there was a list of native species that the staff had prepared for replacement trees. Mr. Bell wanted to make sure this project was done correctly for the city and retain as much green space as possible. Mr. Noury reiterated the Planning Commission wanted to save as many trees as possible. Chairman McGonigal asked for them to consider replanting within an acceptable timetable. The Board and staff discussed how to equitably have a replanting schedule that would satisfy the city and applicant. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to grant Variance #26-22. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property due to trees within the footprint and infrastructure, water retention requirements, and the grading process of the development. 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 conditions for granting the variance include the developer must adhere to the required landscaping plans and after the site work has been completed and the first building permit is filed, 33% of the trees would be replaced every 24 months, within a 6-year period. If the required schedule is not met within the 6-year period, the balance would be paid into the city’s Tree Bank. 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. Bell and was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:54 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. 3