Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, November 9, 2023 5:00 PM MINUTES William McGonigal, Chairman City Staff: Roger Quinn, Vice-Chairman Ben Caldwell, Zoning Administrator Mendel Bell Elton Farmer, Zoning Technician Cynthia Lover Chris Noury, City Attorney Joe Reaves Alexandra Smith, Administrative Asst II Andy Thomas Wyman Wise, Absent 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 October 12, 2023 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. Smith swore in persons to speak at the meeting. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. VARIANCE #V42-23: Application by Mitch Sells for a variance to allow an existing generator to be located in a required side yard and to allow privacy fencing to be installed around the generator at 2609 South Ocean Boulevard zoned Resort Residential, R-4 District. Mr. Thomas recused himself from the discussion, vote, and left the chambers. Mr. Sells presented the Board with an engineer letter. He stated the generator was approved by the City a year ago. The generator was 10’ from the property line instead of the required 15’ setback. Venture Engineering performed an inspection, and they recommended the generator to remain in the current location. He searched for alternative locations. An option would be to relocate the generator to a parking spot, but Crescent Towers would not have the required number of parking spots. He was seeking a variance of 5’ for the existing generator. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Reaves and Mr. Caldwell discussed the zoning ordinance regarding commercial generators. Ms. Lover asked if there was an existing generator. Mr. Caldwell clarified there was previously a rooftop generator. Vice-Chairman Quinn stated there were residents who had expressed their concerns of the fumes and noise. Mr. Sells stated he would make modifications. Ms. Lover requested clarification on the difference between the old and new generator. Mr. Sells stated the only difference was size. Ms. Lover stated the engineer’s letter did not state the generator could not be relocated to the roof. The applicant had other alternatives. Mr. Sells stated the engineer’s letter indicated the relocation of the generator to the roof was not recommended due to structural inadequacy. Ms. Lover asked if professional guidance was sought-after to assist with modifications. Mr. Sells clarified he was waiting for approval prior to contacting an engineering company. Ms. Lover and Vice-Chairman Quinn requested the steps that would be taken to reduce the fumes and noise. Mr. Bell asked if the generator’s running schedule had 1  changed. Mr. Sells stated the schedule remained the same. Chairman McGonigal and Mr. Caldwell discussed ground level generators. Mr. Farmer clarified the generator would require a structure surrounding it and the structure would also need a variance. Chairman McGonigal asked if the generator could be relocated to the other side of the property. Mr. Sells stated the generator could not be relocated to the other side due to public parking, swimming pool, and entrance way. Mr. Noury specified that the applicant must demonstrate a hardship related to the land. Mr. Sells stated he had a structural hardship. Ms. Lover stated the hardship was self-imposed. Chairman McGonigal disagreed. Ms. Lover stated she would give the applicant the opportunity to seek professional help to reduce the fumes and noise. Mr. Sells agreed to postpone the variance to the next meeting. Chairman McGonigal opened the floor to others. Mr. Puhl, neighbor, expressed his concerns of carbon monoxide poisoning. He stated the carbon monoxide detector would continuously go off at the pool and top floor patio. A hardship would be a fatality caused by the generator. The generator should be turned off immediately and relocated to the roof. Chairman McGonigal requested the generator to be turned off for the month of November. Mr. Sells stated the test mode would be turned off. He explained the generator ran water pumps that were hooked up to fire boxes and elevators. The Board discussed safety concerns. Mr. Bell asked for clarification on the ramifications of a denied variance. Mr. Caldwell clarified the applicant would have 30 days to appeal or to comply. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to deny Variance #V42-23. The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship. There were no extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property that would merit a variance from the application of the zoning code. Ms. Lover amended the motion. The granting of the variance would be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property due to fumes, carbon monoxide, and noise. Denying the variance would not deny the reasonable use of the land or building per Section 23-161. The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship per section 23-161. The applicant’s increased cost regarding the substantial structural modifications would not be an unnecessary hardship. Section 23-161 granting the variance would impair an adequate supply of air to adjacent property as it would create pollution. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to deny passed 5-0. B. VARIANCE #V46-23: Application by Robert Rogers to exceed the maximum allowed signage for a proposed convenience store on a currently vacant lot at the corner of Hwy. 17 North and Vereen Drive zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Mr. Geddie, representing the applicant, stated he was seeking approval for an architectural feature on the front of the building. He presented sign plans. Total signage on the property exceeded the allowed 150 square feet. The property was 2.5 acres and 210’ off Highway 17. There were 3 separate entrances, but none were from the front of the lot. The architectural stars were much smaller in size. It would be in harmony with the adjacent commercial properties. Ms. Lover asked if the applicant would be within the allowed square footage if the stars were removed. Mr. Geddie stated the stars were exceeding the total 150 square feet. Chairman McGonigal and Mr. Bell discussed the dimensions of the base on the monument sign. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal requested clarification on why the City counted the base on signage. Mr. Caldwell explained why the City counted bases as part of the structure. Ms. Lover requested clarification on the variance. Mr. Caldwell clarified the applicant was exceeding the allowable square footage on the building and the total 150 square feet. Mr. Bell mentioned the applicant was exceeding the allowable footage by 28 square feet. Ms. Lover asked if a variance would be required if the stars were not counted. Mr. Caldwell stated the definition for sign could be found in Section 23-36. Mr. Bell stated the stars were not measured on their actual size, but on dimensions. Lover read the definition for sign. Mr. Reaves requested Mr. Geddie to state his 2  hardship. Mr. Geddie stated the hardship was the design of the deep lot and it was 210’ from Highway 17 making any visible impact of any signage reduced. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Reaves motioned to approve Variance #V46-23. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property were the design of the deep commercial lot with no direct access and signage would have very little impact on the area. 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. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lover. The motion to approve passed 6-0. C. VARIANCE #V47-23: Application by Krista Cole for a variance to allow a second building mounted sign at 900 Highway 17 South zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Ms. Cole was not in attendance at the meeting due to a family emergency. Mr. Caldwell stated the applicant rearranged the sign to meet zoning’s minimum standard. The applicant requested to be removed from the agenda. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to withdraw Variance #V47-23 and was seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion to withdraw passed 6-0. D. VARIANCE #V48-23: Application by Porter Hardee for a variance to install a privacy fence on the oceanfront at 2406 North Ocean Boulevard zoned Resort Residential, R-4 District. Mr. Hardee was seeking approval for an additional 21’ to the corner of the single-family dwelling. Ms. Lover asked if Mr. Hardee was provided with a copy of the minutes of the approved variance. Mr. Hardee stated he was uncertain. Mr. Caldwell confirmed that Mr. Hardee was not provided with a copy of the minutes. Ms. Lover read the minutes. The minutes stated the fence could be a 6’ solid fence where the torn down fence was located. Ms. Lover requested the image of the fence. Mr. Caldwell presented the image. He pointed out the damaged areas that needed to be replaced. He stated the applicant’s intent was to cover the entire backyard to prevent people from jumping over the fence. The approved minutes did not mention the fence could be installed all the way to the front of the house. The applicant requested to extend the fence to the corner of the house. He presented an image of the proposed 3 sections of fencing. Mr. Bell asked if the fence was torn down. Mr. Caldwell asked if the metal fence was in the same location as the privacy fence. Mr. Hardee confirmed it was. Mr. Bell requested clarification on whether the old fence was still in place when the variance was requested. Mr. Hardee stated the old fence was in place. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover asked if there were any concerned neighbors present. Chairman McGonigal stated the HOA had concerns. Mr. Caldwell clarified the issues had been resolved. Ms. Lover asked if the HOA had expressed concerns regarding visibility with traffic. Mr. Caldwell clarified the HOA expressed concerns of additional fencing in the front yard, but the fence would stop at the corner of the house. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #V48-23. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property were the public walkway, traffic nuisance, and obligation to protect the homeowner regarding liability. 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. Mr. Bell added the fence would have to stop at the corner of the house. The fence would not be allowed to make 3  a left at perpendicular to front of the house. The applicant must maintain current fencing up to the privacy fence. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion to approve passed 6-0. E. VARIANCE #V49-23: Application by Alexa Ingle for a variance of the required front yard setback for a porch roof at 407 36th Avenue North zoned Single Family Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Mrs. Ingle requested a 7’ variance for a front porch. She stated the lot was nonconforming and it did not meet the R-1 District requirement of a 10,000 square foot lot. Their lot was approximately 5,300 square feet. One-fourth of the property is unusable due to the canal. She expressed her desire for additional weatherproofing for structural support. Mr. Bell asked if the hardship was their unusually smaller lot than the required R-1 lot. Mrs. Ingle confirmed that was correct. Ms. Lover asked if there was an existing deck with a roof. Mrs. Ingle confirmed there was an existing deck with an awning, but not a roof. Ms. Lover asked if the deck was replaced in the same footprint. Mrs. Ingle confirmed it was in the same footprint. Ms. Ingle presented an image of the deck. She stated it would be in harmony with other homes. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover asked if the steps remained in the same location. Mr. Caldwell stated the steps and deck were exact replicas. He considered it repairs because the original posts and subfloors remained. Ms. Lover stated if the variance was approved it would be in harmony with other homes in the neighborhood. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Thomas motioned to approve Variance #V49-23. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the lot did not meet the minimum R- 1 lot size. 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. Mr. Bell added the Board was approving a variance for the front yard setback from 25’ to 18’. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion to approve passed 6- 0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Vice-Chairman Quinn and seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 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. 4