Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, August 10, 2023 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 for roll call Chris Noury, City Attorney Joe Reaves Alexandra Smith, Administrative Asst II 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 May 11, 2023 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion passed 4-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to approve the minutes of the July 13, 2023 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Reaves and seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion passed 4-0. 3. COMMUNICATION: None 4. SWEAR IN THOSE PERSONS TO SPEAK: Mrs. Smith swore in persons to speak at the meeting. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. VARIANCE #V21-23: Application by Troy Payne to reduce the required building setback for a proposed lift at 322 46th Avenue North zoned Single-Family, Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Mr. Payne was not in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Caldwell recommended postponing the variance to the next meeting. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to postpone Variance #V21-23 and was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. B. VARIANCE #V28-23: Application by William Junker Carolinas to reduce the required side yard setback for proposed pool equipment at 348 52nd Avenue North zoned Single-Family, Low Density, Residential R-1 District. Mr. Junker expressed his desire to locate the pool equipment in the side yard. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal asked for the status on the new ordinance. Mr. Caldwell stated City Council would have the first reading on August 21, 2023. Mr. Bell asked for the date of the second reading. Mr. Noury confirmed the second reading would be in September. Ms. Lover asked for the square footage of the lot. Mr. Farmer stated the lot was 6,317 square feet. Mr. Wise requested to see the photograph of the property. Chairman McGonigal opened 1  the floor for public comment. Mr. Bryant, neighbor, stated he was in favor of the proposed location for the pool equipment. Chairman McGonigal asked if the pool equipment would be raised. Mr. Junker confirmed the pool equipment would be located on a 3’ raised platform. Ms. Lover asked Mr. Junker to state his hardship as it related to land. Mr. Junker stated his hardship would be aesthetics. Mr. Bell asked for the required square footage of lots in the R- 1 district. Mr. Caldwell stated R-1 was 10,000 square feet. Mr. Bell stated the applicant’s lot was small and was surrounded by water on two sides. Mr. Junker agreed that he was restricted in the utilization of his property due to the lot being smaller than today’s required R-1 district standards. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #V28-23. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the small lot. This condition 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 4-1. Ms. Lover voted nay. C. VARIANCE #V32-23: Application by William McGonigal for a variance to allow more signage than permitted by ordinance at 1717 South Ocean Boulevard zoned Resort Residential, R-4 District. Chairman McGonigal recused himself from the discussion, vote, and left the chambers. Mr. Mozingo, representing the Applicant, stated Compass Margaritaville had certain standards to adhere to. The proposed hotel was in an overlay zone that allowed extra height and considerations, but signage was overlooked. The allowable square footage of signage was for lower rise structures that were on the residential scale. Mr. Mozingo presented two images depicting the current zoning allowance and the proposed signage. Mr. Mozingo explained that he was requesting 200 square feet of signage. The art feature was an art mural, which was allowed in the city. Mr. Mozingo presented two additional images. Ms. Lover asked if the mural was included in the 1,002 square feet. Mr. Mozingo confirmed the square footage included the mural. Ms. Lover and Mr. Mozingo discussed the sign plans. Mr. Mozingo stated the signage should be proportional to the building. Ms. Lover requested the number of floors in the building. Mr. Mozingo stated the building consisted of 17 floors. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Reaves requested clarification between a sign and an art mural. Mr. Caldwell explained the art mural would be considered a sign due to the resort called Compass Margaritaville. Ms. Lover asked if the compass had the four cardinal directions. Mr. Caldwell stated the compass did not appear to have cardinal directions. Ms. Lover asked if the mural exceeded the square footage allowance. Mr. Caldwell confirmed the square footage of the compass and additional signs exceeded the total 100 square footage allowance. Mr. Reaves asked if the size of the building determined the size of signage. Mr. Caldwell stated signage was not determined by the size of the building in that district. Mr. Mozingo stated the art mural was not a true depiction of a compass. Ms. Lover called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to approve Variance #V32-23. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the proportion of the sign to the building. This condition 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 2  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. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 4-0. D. VARIANCE #V33-23: Application by William McGonigal to reduce the required perimeter landscaping buffer on one side at 1717 South Ocean Boulevard zoned Resort Residential, R- 4 District. Chairman McGonigal recused himself from the discussion, vote, and left the chambers. Mr. Mozingo, representing the Applicant, stated there was an existing seawall on the property. The property was too narrow to maintain the 5’ landscaping buffer. He was requesting to remove the landscape buffer and develop pockets of landscaping within the deck. Mr. Mozingo presented landscaping plans. He stated the proposed landscaping would exceed the ordinance requirement. The 5’ landscaping buffer would critically affect seating around the pool area. He suggested making a proposal to OCRM regarding an enhancement dune line with vegetation that would be compliant with OCRM and coastal standards. Ms. Lover asked if the trees would be potted or planted. Mr. Mozingo confirmed the trees would be planted within the deck. Ms. Lover and Mr. Mozingo discussed the number of trees required per the zoning ordinance. Mr. Bell and Mr. Mozingo discussed the seawall and OCRM line location. He clarified the required approval from OCRM would be petitioned separately. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Caldwell and Ms. Lover discussed if the proposed number of trees met and/or exceeded the zoning ordinance. Mr. Caldwell explained the purpose of the 5’ landscaping buffer. Mr. Bell and Mr. Caldwell discussed if the square footage of the lot would restrict the utilization of the property. Mr. Mozingo stated the hardship related to the land was the narrow lot. Ms. Lover called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #V33-23. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the narrow lot. This condition 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 4-0. E. VARIANCE #V34-23: Application by William McGonigal for a variance to allow mechanical equipment in the required side yard at 1717 South Ocean Boulevard zoned Resort Residential, R-4 District. Chairman McGonigal recused himself from the discussion, vote, and left the chambers. Mr. Mozingo, representing the Applicant, clarified he was seeking approval for five pool heaters. He stated fencing and landscaping would be installed around the pool heaters. Ms. Lover requested the location of the pool equipment. She stated her concerns regarding noise disturbance and fumes. Mr. Mozingo stated there was nowhere else to locate the pool equipment. The 30” gas pool heaters would not omit any exhaust fumes, only heat. He would request a variance for an 8’ privacy fence. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover and Mr. Caldwell had a lengthy discussion regarding the pool equipment ordinance. Mr. Caldwell explained the existing ordinance did not extend to commercial use. He specified the ordinance’s purpose for mechanical in side yards. Ms. Lover asked if the pool equipment would create a noise hardship for the neighbors. Mr. Caldwell stated pool equipment had improved. Mr. Reaves requested Mr. Caldwell explain the 3  ordinance. Mr. Bell suggested a wall or privacy fence to alleviate the noise. Mr. Caldwell stated a wall or privacy fence were not advertised. The variance would have to be readvertised to include the wall or fence. Ms. Lover stated her concerns about unfenced pool heaters posing any kind of danger to the public. Mr. Bell clarified that pool heaters would burn someone due to the release of hot exhaust gases. Mr. Caldwell confirmed that swimming pool fences were allowed in the side yard in all districts. Mr. Mozingo stated he would not be opposed to fencing. Mr. Mozingo requested to withdraw the variance. Ms. Lover called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to withdraw Variance #V34-23. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to withdraw passed 4-0. F. VARIANCE #V35-23: Application by William McGonigal for a variance to increase the percentage of mechanical features allowed to exceed the maximum building height limitation at 1717 South Ocean Boulevard zoned Resort Residential, R-4 District. Chairman McGonigal recused himself from the discussion, vote, and left the chambers. Mr. Mozingo, representing the Applicant, stated the narrowness of the property limited the space for mechanical features. He mentioned that the building code required the roof line to stop at the 16th floor, but a penthouse was located above. Mr. Mozingo expressed the necessity for the variance. He presented an image depicting the mechanical features on the rooftop. Ms. Lover requested clarification that the requested variance of 84 square feet of height was only for mechanical features and not for additional height of the structure. Mr. Mozingo confirmed she was correct in her conclusion. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover and Mr. Caldwell discussed the height of the building and necessary mechanical features. Mr. Bell requested Mr. Mozingo to state his hardship as it related to the land. Mr. Mozingo stated his hardship was the narrow property. Ms. Lover requested the dimensions of the building. Mr. Mozingo was unable to provide the requested information. He expressed his desire for the variance. Ms. Lover called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to approve Variance #V35-23 and the 84 square feet for the mechanical features on the roof. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the narrowness of the property. This condition 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 4-0. G. SPECIAL EXCEPTION #SE-1-23: Application by Thomas Quattlebaum for a special exception for a proposed climate controlled self-storage facility at 3601 Hwy. 17 South (former Ryan’s) zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Mr. Quattlebaum was not present at the meeting. Mr. Caldwell informed the Board there was a proposed ordinance that would affect the variance. He requested the Board to act on the request. Mr. Noury stated the Applicant was aware of the modifications to the zoning code to disallow storage units on the eastern side of Highway 17. He suggested the Board withdraw the special exception due to the proposed ordinance. Ms. Lover disagreed. She expressed her concerns. Mr. Noury asked if staff had discussed with the Applicant regarding their appearance at the meeting and their stance on the item being removed. Mr. Caldwell confirmed he lucidly explained the proposed ordinance to the Applicant. The Applicant had moved on and was looking for other properties 4  in the City to develop his product. Out of an abundance of caution, Mr. Noury recommended the Board postpone the special exception to the next meeting, to allow the Applicant an opportunity to present information on their behalf. If the Applicant chose not to be present, then the Board would withdraw the request from the agenda. Ms. Lover agreed. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to postpone Special Exception #SE-1-23. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. H. VARIANCE #V36-23: Application by Ronald K. Wyatt Jr. to remove a tree exceeding 24 caliper inches at 1616 27th Avenue North zoned Single-Family, Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Mr. Wyatt requested approval to remove a tree located in the center of the lot that would be in the footprint of the garage. He stated the tree would hinder construction. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover stated she observed several taped trees on the property. She requested clarification on the taped trees. Mr. Wyatt clarified the surveyor had performed a topographical survey. Ms. Lover asked if the small oak trees would be removed. Mr. Wyatt confirmed the small oaks would be removed. Ms. Lover requested the types of trees located on the property. Mr. Wyatt stated the species of the trees, and he clarified large pines were mostly being removed. Ms. Lover asked if the Applicant planned to remove the 20” hickory tree. Mr. Wyatt stated the 20” hickory tree in the rear of the property would remain. He was informed that the tree could be removed, but additional trees would have to be replanted. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #V36-23. The applicant would be required to preserve the 20” hickory located in the rear right of the property instead of replanting additional small trees. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 5-0. I. VARIANCE #V37-23: Application by J. Cameron Parker to remove trees exceeding 24 caliper inches at Grande Dunes North near the intersection of Hwy. 31 and Water Tower Road zoned Planned Development, PDD District. Mr. Parker was not in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Caldwell stated the applicant had requested to postpone the variance to the next meeting. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell. motioned to postpone Variance #V37-23. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lover. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. J. VARIANCE #V38-23: Application by Vasilis Paliouras to allow a storage building in the side yard and to reduce the required side yard setbacks for an existing storage building at 4501 Poinsett Street zoned Single Family, Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Mr. Paliouras was not in attendance at the meeting. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Reaves motioned to postpone Variance #V38- 23. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. K. VARIANCE #V39-23: Application by Kevin and Mary Katherine Stone for the placement of a swimming pool and spa in one of the front yards at 1403 Surfwatch Drive zoned Single- Family, Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Ms. Stone stated her hardship was the double frontage lot. 5  Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Bell asked if the Applicant’s hardship related to the land was having two front yards. Ms. Stone confirmed the hardship. She stated there was a fence that backed up to Turtle Court. Chairman McGonigal suggested she provide screening for privacy. Ms. Stone confirmed screening would be part of the landscape design. Ms. Lover requested a drawing. Chairman McGonigal expressed his concerns regarding privacy. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #V39-23. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the double frontage lot. This condition 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. 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 applicant would be required to provide privacy through fencing or landscaping. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 5-0. L. VARIANCE #V40-23: Application by Robert S. Guyton for a variance of the temporary use days allowed restriction for a proposed temporary tent at 2100 Fire Tower Road zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Mr. Guyton stated construction for the new Valorous church was not on schedule. Valorous church would have to vacate their current facility by the end of the month. Temporary tents were only allowed for 14 days and there would be a 30-day waiting period to reapply for another permit. He requested a variance to allow the use of a temporary tent for a 60-day period. Chairman McGonigal asked if construction would be completed in the time frame requested. Mr. Guyton stated it appeared construction would be completed in that time frame. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal recommended to postpone the variance. Mr. Wise asked if the temporary tent would be approved for 60 days or until construction was completed. Ms. Lover requested the specific number of days being requested. Mr. Guyton stated it would be 60 days, but it would be satisfactory if the Board allowed a longer period. Ms. Lover asked the City for clarification on the advertisement of the variance. Mr. Caldwell clarified it was advertised as a variance of the temporary use days allowed. There was not an exact number of days. Mr. Bell inquired if the request was a variance or special exception. Mr. Caldwell explained the ordinance states a maximum number of days allowed. The City was not able to find in the ordinance it allowed the use of temporary tents longer than 28 days. The Board, staff, and the Applicant continued the discussion. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #V40-23. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the restriction of the use of the building due to construction. This condition 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. The temporary tent would be allowed for 84 days and/or once the Certificate of Occupancy was issued. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 5-0. 6  M. VARIANCE #V41-23: Application by Brent Schultz for a variance to allow off premise signage at the Champions Crossing development on Champion’s Boulevard, zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Mr. Chockley, representing the Applicant, stated he was requesting approval for off-premises signage consolidating various tenant signs in three locations. He stated signage was allowed in one location rather than all the parcels located within the development. Ms. Lover requested the address of the building located at the premises. Mr. Guyton, representing the Applicant, stated the monument signs were for the shopping district, not for a particular business. Multiple parcels would be advertised on the same sign. Chairman McGonigal asked for clarification on the requested variance because the matter had been discussed previously. Mr. Guyton stated a variance for signage for a proposed hospital was approved. He clarified a variance had not been submitted for signage on a shopping district. Ms. Lover read the definition for off-premises signage. She requested the primary activity or service on the premises. Mr. Guyton specified there would not be any activity on the premises where the sign would be located. Ms. Lover inquired about the signage specifications. Mr. Guyton referred to the signage plans. He explained each tenant would receive a slot on the monument sign located at the entrance of the shopping district. Ms. Lover asked who would gain ownership of the land where the off-premises sign would be located. Mr. Guyton stated the HOA would own the off-premises sign once the parcels were sold within. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover asked if a variance was required due to the signage being located off Champions Boulevard instead of Highway 17. Mr. Caldwell clarified the zoning ordinance stated in his staff report pertained to billboards. He read the off-premises sign ordinance. Ms. Lover stated off-premises signs were allowed according to the zoning code. Mr. Caldwell explained off-premises signs were not allowed. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Reaves motioned to approve Variance #V41- 23. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was it was not within the Off-Premises Sign Overlay district. This condition 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion to approve passed 5-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:04 PM. Respectfully submitted, Alexandra Smith Administrative Assistant II 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. 7