Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, August 11, 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 Dawn Snider, Acting City Clerk 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 July 14, 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: Ms. Snider swore in persons to speak at the beginning of the meeting. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. VARIANCE #29-22: Application by Zedekiah Heydenburg for a variance of the tree protection requirements for a proposed development at 961 Highway 17 North zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Craig Winnall stated he was a partner with Mr. Heydenburg. They had submitted plans for a drive-thru coffee shop which was in a heavily wooded area with wetlands. There are 28 trees on the site to preserve, but one was on the footprint of the plans and could not be preserved. It was in the drive-thru area. It was the only tree they couldn’t save and requested a variance to remove it. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Caldwell explained they would be replacing more than what was required to replace. Ms. Lover asked if the 30” of replacement would be in addition to what they would be replacing. Mr. Winnall stated they would be preserving 482” of trees and replanting 280” with a total of 762” of trees. Mr. Caldwell stated they originally submitted plans to remove 4 trees and after discussion, the applicant redesigned and would only need to remove one tree. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to grant Variance #29-22, based on the applicant’s willingness to replace one tree (30”) with an additional 30” of trees, providing the plan will include 762” of trees preserved and replanted. The tree was a hardship due to the location. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 5-0. 1 B. VARIANCE #30-22: Application by Anita Cziraki and Zoltan Cziraki for a variance of the minimum required side yard at 404 26th Avenue North zoned Single-Family Low-Density Residential District (R-1). Eric Wilson represented the applicants. When they originally surveyed the property, there were some errors on the survey that were not consistent with the original property lines. They believed when the adjoining property next to it was developed, they chose not to hold the site line that reached into the pump station. Based on this survey, they came up with the house plan that utilized that width. The adjacent property owners challenged the survey and building width. After realizing the errors, the width of the property should be 50’. However, the structure has been built based on a 52.96’ width. The eave of the house would encroach in the side setback. This error was not caused by the architect or the builder. It was caused by duplicate monumentation on the survey. They were asking for 1’ 7” for the side and the stairwell for a 3’ 6” variance. They had discussed with the adjacent homeowner. There would be 11’ 5” between the stairwell and adjacent residence. The setback would be behind and not affect the view from the street. They were asking the bare minimum to continue building the structure. Mr. Wilson stated the neighbor was 10’ 6” from the property line. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Caldwell stated they sometimes see surveys that were off. He called the surveyor and based on the discussion; they signed off on the plan for approval. The Board, staff, and applicant discussed the survey and how the dimensions could be off. The ambiguity of the city pump station created the survey being off. The design of the house cannot move the stairs to another side of the house. Mr. Cziraki stated they planned the stairs for the middle of the house, away from the house and now will design the stairs within the house because of the dimension problems. They would not be protruding out. Mr. Wilson stated the revised plan would need only a 1’ variance for the stairwell. Ms. Snider swore in Laura Burzesi. Frank Burzesi stated they were the adjacent neighbors. He stated this could have been avoided if the applicant had surveyed the property as soon as they put in the piling landings. He disagreed with it not being a self-created hardship. He was okay with the footage, but not happy with the way it went on. He didn’t understand the surveyor because in a few minutes you could locate the deed and see the lot was 50’. He was a professional engineer, and they should have spent the money to have a survey done, to make sure they would put the house in the right spot. Their personal house was 32’ wide on a 50’ lot. They were clear of their boundaries. If something happens and they would like to extend or build on, they would be down to less and it wouldn’t be of their doing. The inches didn’t bother him, and he was glad the stairs were being built in. He was okay with the minimum being done, but it was a self-created hardship. Ms. Burzesi stated she sent in a letter earlier and listed all the facts of the case. She stated that Mr. Cziraki moved their survey markers, wanted to move their fence, and he kept saying it was their fault it was wrong not his or the survey. This was not a scenario of mutual respect. Ms. Burzesi stated they had their property surveyed and he should have done it or read a map. It was clear what the property lines were. Ms. Lover asked if they were confident the property markers were in the correct place. Ms. Burzesi stated the surveyor put them where they belonged. Their fence was recessed 3’ into their property. She stated Mr. Cziraki said their fence was 3’ in his property. He was trying to take 6’ of their property. Mr. Bell asked if they were comfortable with the 1’ 7” eave variance. Ms. Burzesi stated her husband was fine, but after everything he had put them through. She stated the only reason why Mr. Cziraki was here was Mr. Burzesi insisted he put in a variance. Mr. Burzesi stated he had to threaten to have a stop work order put in on him. He stated he was trying to be a good neighbor, but he had put them through a lot. Mr. Bell stated they would need 1’ 7” for the eave, not the building 2  itself. He asked if they were okay with it. Ms. Burzesi stated it had been very hard and stressful. Mr. Burzesi stated it could have been avoided. This had cost them several thousand dollars. Chairman McGonigal asked Mr. Wilson to discuss the survey and how it had been conducted. He stated there was enough evidence at the time to make them believe there was a surplus of property. Mr. Caldwell stated eaves could not encroach in the side setbacks. Ms. Lover stated if she saw something that was that far off, she would need to go back and figure out the true dimensions. Mr. Wilson stated in this case, this was not a standalone lot. There was a pump station that had no deed, construction documents, or a chain of title for it. There was one lot by itself with monumentation to the right and left that was allocated to the other lots. There were extenuating circumstances to determine the lot size. Ms. Lover stated she wanted to make sure the property lines were set, and everyone was happy with where they were located. Chairman McGonigal confirmed the city had not been given the current plans for the stairs. Mr. Buzeski stated he disagreed with the monumentation. He was able to get the plans and so was his surveyor. The pump station wasn’t the issue and he found markers and the real property line. There was one place and if they were skilled at it, everyone should have found the same line. Mr. Cziraki stated they bought the house in February and didn’t do a survey because they had one from January, which had the line at 52’ wide. He had a chance to build something wider. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to grant Variance #30-22. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property was the error in the original surveys. 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 only allows the roof line eave of the home to protrude 1’ 7” over the setback but denied the 3’ 5” stair request in the variance. The new set of plans need to be submitted to the city for approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 5-0. C. VARIANCE #31-22: Application by Robert S. Guyton for a variance to install two (2) off premise signs. One along Robert Edge Parkway and one along Champions Boulevard for a proposed tenant at Champions Crossing. The properties are zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Shep Guyton, agent for the developer, stated this was a large track for a healthcare provider with emergency services. This originally was going to be a retail project, but Target went away. Now it includes multi-family, and this site would be the healthcare site. The sign would be on the Parkway to get to the facility and on Champions Boulevard on the right in front of the retention pond to know how to go to the facility. Ms. Lover asked if the healthcare facility had been permitted by the state. Mr. Guyton stated he didn’t handle that portion of the paperwork for them, but they were buying the property. Ms. Lover stated the variance request was predicated by the facility having emergency services. Mr. Guyton stated the healthcare facility would have directional signage and other outparcels would be in front of it. Ms. Lover stated she didn’t want to start multiple signage on Highway 31 or Robert Edge Parkway. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. The Board and staff discussed the Off-Premises Overlay Zone, signage in this zone and the current zone the property was in, and the sign dimensions. 3  Ms. Snider swore in Harry Oehler. Mr. Oehler stated he was a resident of Park Pointe. He stated it was nice for the hospital and other parcels, but not for the hotel site. He asked if he could ask the Planning Board or if it would be on the website what would be going on this property. Mr. Caldwell told him he could leave his name and number. He would give it to the Planning Department. When something came in for review, they would contact him. The Board, staff, and applicant discussed the specific sign dimensions for both signs. Mr. Guyton stated once the front part of Champions was developed, there would need to be signage on that road to directly route someone to the facility. Ms. Lover stated she would be inclined to approve the request, but not a flashing sign within the residential area. She thought a base sign that was static would be sufficient. Mr. Guyton stated it was going to be a full-service healthcare facility and not an abbreviated one. Ms. Lover stated it should be subtle and not have flashing lights. They needed to limit it and not have multiple flashing signs. Mr. Guyton stated it was important for the healthcare facility to get the message out if someone could be seen or not. They had a long-term investment and would not be out in 5 years. They were trying to anticipate what they would need for the next 50 years. Chairman McGonigal stated if there was a message, it would make more sense. Mr. Guyton stated the message might change from time to time, but not be characters. They did not need LED on Champions. Ms. Lover asked if this was going to be specific to the healthcare facility. Mr. Guyton stated it would be for them only and not other stores in the project. Chairman McGonigal asked if there was enough easement for this sign. Mr. Guyton stated there was a 100’ right-of-way. The Board, staff, and applicant discussed the type of sign for each road that would be appropriate. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to grant Variance #31-22. The hardship exists because the type of business applying for the variance, a healthcare service provider, necessitates extra signage would be needed for patients to easily find the building. If a medical service provider goes into this property, the signs cannot be a billboard, and will only have the dimensions that were submitted in the drawings. An LED sign could only be allowed on Robert Edge Parkway and not on Champions Boulevard. The messaging on both signs must be limited to the advisability of medical services. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 5-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Reaves and was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:28 PM. Respectfully submitted, Dawn Snider Acting 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