Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, December 8, 2022 5:00 PM MINUTES William McGonigal, Chairman City Staff: Mendel Bell Ben Caldwell, Zoning Administrator Cynthia Lover Elton Farmer, Zoning Technician 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 November 10, 2022 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion passed 6-0. 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 #35-22: Application by Flagship Construction to remove three trees in excess of 24 caliper inches at lot 7 and 8 and to seek the Board’s determination for penalty of removing a 27” oak tree at Briarcliff Commons off of Commons Blvd. zoned Mid-Rise Multifamily, R-2A District. John, agent for Flagship Construction, stated one of the trees was in the footprint of the master bedroom and didn’t have a choice but to take it down. They did not ask permission to take it down and were aware there was a penalty for removing it. He stated on Lot 7 there were three trees in the footers and Lot 8 had two trees intertwined that would need to be taken down. Ms. Lover stated she looked at the property and one of the trees on Lot 8, down at the property line, was marked for removal and shouldn’t be. John agreed and stated it was mistakenly marked. The Board and staff discussed where the trees were located on the map and which ones would be removed and the ones kept. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover had two separate motions for Variance #35-22. One was to allow the applicant to remove 2 24” trees on Lot 7. He would be required to replace 24” of oak trees somewhere on the property or pay $2400 into the Tree Bank. In regard to the 27” tree that was removed improperly, the penalty would be to replant 27” of oak trees on the property or pay $2700 into the Tree Bank. The 24” oak at the rear of Lot 8 would be removed from the application and be required to remain on the property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion passed 6-0. 1 B. VARIANCE #38-22: Application by Josh Rowell to reduce the rear yard setback from 20’ to 8’ at 2500 Hwy. 17 South zoned, Highway Commercial, HC District. Mr. Rowell, agent for Casual Furniture World, stated they have had problems with storage for many years and wanted to replace storage containers for a free-standing building. Ms. Lover confirmed the storage containers would be removed. Mr. Rowell stated all three of them would be removed. Mr. Bell asked if the free-standing building would be attached. Mr. Rowell stated it was a possibility depending on the design. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Caldwell stated this was advertised as an 8’ setback, but it could be reduced. Ms. Lover stated she saw the fence in the back and it had a 3’ offset. Mr. Rowell stated the lot line was the furthest back but were looking at a survey to confirm. He did not put the fence up, so he didn’t know why there was a 3’ offset. The Board discussed the variance amount needed depending on where the property line was located. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #38-22. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property was the smaller lot size. 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. 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 the granting of the variance which will allow 5’ which would restrict to 15’ off the property line. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 6-0. C. VARIANCE #35-22: Application by Mark and Cheryl Bradley to reduce the front yard setback from 25’ to 20’ at 189 Palmetto Harbour Drive zoned R1-B, single family low-medium density residential district. Mr. or Mrs. Bradley were not in attendance. Mr. Caldwell stated he spoke with the contractor and he would be in attendance. Chairman McGonigal stated they would come back to the item at the end of the meeting. At the end of the meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Bradley were still not in attendance. D. VARIANCE #41-22: Application by Ryan and Sharra Swisher for a request to allow a swimming pool in the side yard at 440 7th Avenue South zoned medium density residential R-2 district. Mrs. Swisher stated their home was built 5’ to 8’ off of a retaining wall and wetland area. She stated their yard was to the side of the home inside a privacy fence. There was no visibility from the street and no homes around them. It was a private and enclosed area. She didn’t believe there would be any disturbance to the neighbors. Mr. Thomas confirmed there was a fence around the area. Ms. Lover asked if her rear property line was behind the retaining wall. Mrs. Swisher stated it was far behind it within the wetland area. Ms. Lover stated this was a hardship and the square footage was not available to build on. She also pointed out if she had her pool in her side yard, it would not disturb anyone from that location. 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 approve Variance #41-22. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property was the irregular shape and the property line went into the marsh so there was not a back yard. These conditions did not 2  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. 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 the granting of the variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion to approve passed 6-0. E. VARIANCE #42-22: Application by James O. Baldwin IV for a request to remove a protected tree at 1104 Palm Bay Drive zoned Planned Development District, PPD. Mr. Baldwin stated he wanted to remove a 29” tree on his lot. The property had a unique typography with a 20’ elevation in the front to an 8’ drop off the back of the property. They needed to build a wall. Building the home required 1400 square feet on the first floor and with the setbacks, they would not be able to save the tree and it would encroach into the root system. The tree would be leaning over the top of the house. Ms. Lover stated there was a deep drop off that went into the swamp. She asked if the trees that were behind the hickory would be kept. Mr. Baldwin stated that based on his survey those trees were off of his property. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #42-22. The applicant had shown an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property was the typography of the lot with the severe drop off in the back. A retaining wall would have to be built and filled in which would damage the tree and the tree had a large lean to it. The variance would be granted with the provision that all the trees behind the tree in question would be kept, if they were proven to be on his property. The applicant must replace with 14.5” of hardwood trees, not palms. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion to approve passed 6-0. F. VARIANCE #V43-22: Application by Amber Wall for a request to remove nine trees in excess of 24 caliper inches at PIN #35700000006 at the corner of Tom E. Chestnut and Ridgewood Drive zoned single family low-medium density residential R-1A district. The applicant was not in attendance. Ms. Lover asked about the difference in the agenda for removing 9 versus 14 in the application. Mr. Caldwell stated he would need to readvertise for the removal of 14 trees. Ms. Lover asked to see the survey of where the trees were located at the next meeting. It was decided there was no need for any action on the agenda item, because it would need to be readvertised. G. VARIANCE #V44-22: Application by DRG, LLC for a request to remove trees exceeding 24 caliper inches at Water Tower Road and Coates Road zoned mid-rise multifamily residential R-2A district. Rob Wilfong, agent for the applicant, stated this parcel was recently annexed in the City. They would like to remove around 1,000” and saving around 1,200”. They would replace over 600” of street trees. He showed the Board a map of the parcel depicting the trees that would be removed and saved. Ms. Lover inquired what was required to be replaced and Mr. Caldwell stated he did not have that number. Mr. Wilfong stated they saved a lot. Ms. Lover asked about the sycamore tree on Lot 101. Mr. Wilfong was going to shift over the design for Lots 99 and 100 to be able to save the sycamore. In Lot 179, they would not be able to save the maple tree because of the utilities. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover inquired about the Tupelo on Lot 110 and the Black Tupelo between Lots 139 and 140. Mr. Wilfong stated the canopy of the Black Tupelo would interfere with 3  the construction. Ms. Lover asked for him to save the Tupelo, because they would be putting up several inches of trees, but they would not have any canopies. Mr. Wilfong stated they had saved several areas with clusters of trees on the property. Mr. Wilfong clarified that they were going to save the sycamore and then everything else as submitted would be removed. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #44-22, as presented with the exception of the sycamore tree on Lot 101 will be retained. In addition to all the trees they would have to replace that is required by the City, they would be required to replant an additional 269” of trees. They must be oak, maple, birch, beech, hickory, tupelo, or hardwood native tree. They may not replant any magnolia or palm trees. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion to approve passed 6-0. H. VARIANCE #V45-22: Application by Brian Bayley for a request to keep multiple storage containers on the lot where his business is located at 900 Hwy. 17 North zoned highway commercial, HC District. Mr. Bayley stated he took the opportunity to speak with the resident that was not happy and put in the complaint. His name was Mike Smith and the problem he had was not the containers but the homeless people sleeping on the carpets that were around the dumpsters. Mr. Bayley stated Mr. Smith was willing to come and say this. He stated it was against city code to have trash behind the dumpsters and against the lease. Homeless people were getting a nice piece of carpet that was illegally put out and able to sleep there and it had become homeless alley. He stated he could build a fence around his containers. But he stated Mr. Smith didn’t want that, he wanted the code to be upheld that no commercial debris would be thrown on the ground. Mr. Bell asked if Mr. Smith was willing to withdrawal his complaint. Mr. Bayley stated he believed he would if it was promised that no commercial debris would be left out in the dumpsters or around it, which happened nightly. Ms. Lover stated once they had been made aware of a violation of the ordinance, they could not ignore it. Mr. Bell stated it was not their responsibility to enforce the ordinance, but only to grant variances. Ms. Lover stated he would need a variance to keep those containers. Ms. Lover stated Mr. Noury needed to weigh in on the legality of withdrawing a complaint. Chairman McGonigal agreed this needed to be tabled until Mr. Noury could be in attendance. Mr. Caldwell stated his department was 100% complaint driven. He stated he believed the complaint came in that the homeless were sleeping on mattresses at the time. He was under the impression that the homeless were not a problem because the mattresses were not stored outside. This was the first time he had heard that carpets were a problem. He stated if the complaint was withdrawn it would have never come to the Board. They do not ride around down looking for violations. When they were presented to them, they attempted to enforce the ordinances. Chairman McGonigal stated this needed to wait until the City Attorney was in attendance. Mr. Caldwell stated the complaint needed to be retracted in writing. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #45-22 until the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 6-0. I. VARIANCE #46-22: Application by Ted Bolli for a request to keep multiple storage containers on the lot where his business is located at 900 Hwy. 17 North zoned highway commercial, HC District. Mr. Bolli stated that he didn’t know this was going to be a session of pointing fingers. It would have been better if they worked together to get it resolved. He stated the only solution was to grant a variance for the containers. He stated Mr. Bayley’s containers were taking up more of a section. He could potentially put up a fence, too. Mr. Bolli stated the community created the hardship by not enforcing the ordinance. He didn’t 4  know he was doing anything wrong, because everyone had one. Chairman McGonigal agreed that his containers were out of the way. Mr. Bolli stated they could grandfather what they got and enforce it afterward. The discussion continued. Ms. Lover asked if the City Council had addressed the issue of the containers. Mr. Caldwell stated he did extensive research on how other cities handled containers and it varied with each city. He stated the City Manager had decided not to take it forward to the City Council. Mr. Bell stated each of them needed to call the City Council to ask their opinion if the City Manager was not going to take it to them. Ms. Lover stated they were put on the Board to grant variances and if the City Administration saw fit to leave the ordinance in place, then they needed to enforce what was there. She stated it was not up to them to change the ordinance. They had told many people they could not have additional storage for their stuff and golf carts. The discussion continued. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #46-22 until the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 6-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #46-22 until the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 6-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Bell and was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:24 PM. Respectfully submitted, Allison 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