Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, July 14, 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 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 June 9, 2022 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion passed 5-0, 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 beginning of the meeting. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: Chairman McGonigal stated the Board would hear Variance #27-22 first because Variance #17- 22 and #28-22 were related. A. VARIANCE #27-22: Application by Ronald Blackwelder to install a swimming pool in one of the front yards at 419 Oak Lake Circle zoned Single-Family Residential, Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Mr. Blackwelder stated the front of his house was on Oak Lake and the back was on Oak Drive. The pool would be on the Oak Drive side. He didn’t believe there were other pools on that side. He agreed his hardship was two front lots. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. The pool would be in the setbacks. Ms. Lover asked if there were landscape requirements. Mr. Caldwell stated there was not a requirement, but the variance could include landscape as a condition. The Board and Mr. Blackwelder discussed the fencing and landscape that would be installed around the pool. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to grant Variance #27-22. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship of two front yards, which restricted the use of one of the yards. The rear yard would be designated as the Oak Drive side of the house. The variance would allow a swimming pool to be installed on the Oak Drive side. As a condition for the variance, the applicant must have a landscape buffer along Oak Drive to shroud the 1  pool from the view around people on Oak Drive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion to approve 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. Mr. Bolli stated he was there to seek a variance to use three shipping containers to help run his business. He was before the Board before, and the variance was tabled in order to get permission from the landlord. He did get permission and presented it to the Board. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. The three containers were in the back parking lot, not screened or not properly permitted by the ordinance. There was not a possibility the containers could not be in the parking lot. The property had a surplus of 4 parking spaces. If a variance was granted, the Board would need to approve multiple containers and the location within the parking lot. Ms. Lover asked what his hardship was. Mr. Bolli stated they operated a flooring business and needed a stage area for multiple products. The staging periods were requiring a longer period of time. He explained when they moved into the building, there were other containers being used by another business. They were under the impression it was okay to do and leased the property with that expectation. The Board and Mr. Bolli discussed staging areas and off-site warehouses being used. Ms. Lover stated this was not a hardship to the land, but to his business. Mr. Bolli stated his biggest hardship was when they leased the place, they saw shipping containers being used and the expectation was that it was okay with the city. Even when they moved in, the landlord said shipping containers were okay and showed them when they would need to be stored. Ms. Lover stated it was up to the owner to look at the ordinances. Chairman McGonigal stated he would like to hear from Mr. Bayley, applicant with the next variance, because it was a similar situation and within the same property. Mr. Bayley stated they shared 10,000 square feet of commercial space. The back was secluded and couldn’t be seen from anywhere. The shipping lane was very tight that also serviced the bank, CVS, Food Lion, and other stores in the area. Mr. Bayley stated when he got a shipment, it was a full trailer full. When he staged the material, it was to be a better neighbor to the other businesses. He only had 2 people to unload the trailer and it took a long time to unload. If he had to block the whole shipping lane for 3-4 hours to drag each mattress to his store, the other businesses would not be getting their shipments for several hours. It would shut the area down. His containers were nice and backed up to the building in parking spaces. They did not have a parking issue. Mr. Bayley stated the hardship for him was if he couldn’t have the containers to put the merchandise in quickly and then take his time to move to storage, it didn’t work. He had 4 storage units off site and at other places. There were not many storage units that a 54-foot trailer could back into. He could barely get his own delivery truck in some of the units. He stated the containers were not harming anyone, they were nice and out of the way. He was a small business trying to survive. The Board, staff, Mr. Bolli and Mr. Bayley discussed at length options for storage, building a storage building, and off-site locations. Mr. Bayley stated he had 4 containers for 7 years. He could remove one, but not the other three. Ms. Lover asked if the setbacks were met, could they build a permanent structure instead of the containers? Mr. Bayley stated he didn’t know if the landlord would allow someone that was renting to do that. He knew the landlord and that wasn’t going to happen. Mr. Bell pointed out that the ordinance was one shipping container per property, not business. He stated that they were all small business owners and 2  wanted to try to find a solution. He suggested they discuss with the landlord the possibilities of having a permanent structure. Ms. Lover stated the hardship had to be related to the land and this was not. Mr. Bayley stated there was a hardship of the trucks going in and out. Ms. Lover stated that was not a hardship to the land. Chairman McGonigal stated he would argue that it was but wanted them to discuss options with the landlord for a long-term solution. Mr. Bell suggested they table this until they had time to discuss with the landlord. Mr. Caldwell stated storage buildings up to 620 square feet could be placed on the property, as long as they met the setbacks. They would probably need a reduction in parking to put in a storage building. The Board, staff, and applicants discussed storage buildings as an option. Mr. Bayley showed the Board and staff many pictures of businesses with shipping containers up and down Highway 17 and asked why they were allowed to have them. It was asked if the law could be changed, and Mr. Bell stated they could not and that would have to go before the City Council. Mr. Bolli stated that was where the hardship was created. Small businesses see shipping containers all over the city and think that was okay. Mr. Bayley stated the hardship was the land was designed that they couldn’t get a truck in and out in a timely manner. Ms. Lover stated this process was complaint driven and that was where their companies were brought into scrutiny. Mr. Caldwell stated there were other on-going cases that had to do with shipping containers. Ms. Lover suggested they visit City Council members to change the ordinance. They were tasked with upholding and enforcing the current ordinance. Mr. Bell stated if they granted the variance, then other businesses would ask for a variance, and then the city wouldn’t be able to enforce the ordinance on the books. Mr. Noury stated a solution would be to speak with the landlord about more options on storage space in the rear of the building and have a variance on the parking spaces. He stated it would have to be readvertised. Mr. Bayley stated that was a great idea, but the landlord would probably not agree to it. Mr. Noury stated if the applicants didn’t want to pursue it, the Board could decide on the cases tonight. Chairman McGonigal suggested to give them 3 more months to find a solution and talk with Council members. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #17-22 until the November meeting to give the applicant time to discuss options with the City Council and landlord. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 6-0. C. VARIANCE #28-22: Application by Brian Bayley to use multiple shipping containers for product storage when the ordinance allows only one shipping container at 900-A Highway 17 North zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #28-22 until the November meeting to give the applicant time to discuss options with the City Council and landlord. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 6-0. 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 6:02 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. 3