Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, December 14, 2023 5:00 PM MINUTES William McGonigal, Chairman City Staff: Roger Quinn, Vice-Chairman James Wood, P/D Director Mendel Bell Elton Farmer, Zoning Technician Cynthia Lover Chris Noury, City Attorney Joe Reaves Alexandra Smith, Administrative Asst II 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 9, 2023 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion passed 7-0. 3. COMMUNICATION: Mr. Wood stated Variance #V53-23 had been withdrawn by the applicant, Mr. Boulineau, due to advertising the incorrect address. Mr. Wood stated Variance #V54-23 had been withdrawn by the applicant. The tent would be removed the following day. Mr. Wood stated the applicant for Variance #V42-23 was present and requested the Board to make a motion to reconsider at the next meeting pending he provide new information. 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 #V50-23: Application by Nation Homes II to remove a protected tree on a lot at 1002 Surf Pointe Drive zoned Planned Development District, PDD. Mr. Brindle, representing Nation Homes II, stated a substantially large oak tree was in the footprint of the garage. He presented a site plan depicting the location of the tree. Ms. Lover requested clarification on the size of the live oak tree. Mr. Brindle confirmed it was 30”. He stated other options were explored, but grading would damage the tree. Ms. Lover asked if a different house plan could prevent the removal of the tree. Mr. Brindle stated there was not another house plan that would meet the neighborhood’s square footage requirement. The house could not be placed further back on the property and the overhangs could not be in the setbacks. Mr. Bell stated the applicant had hardships with elevation on the rear of the property. Mr. Brindle stated that was correct. Ms. Lover requested the square footage requirement. Mr. Brindle stated 1-story houses had to meet a requirement of 2,400 square feet. Mr. Reaves and Mr. Brindle discussed the neighborhood’s square footage requirements. Mr. Farmer read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Bell requested the applicant to state his hardship. Mr. Brindle stated his hardship as it related to the land was his inability to build on the residential lot without killing the oak tree. 1  Mr. Bell asked if the applicant’s hardship was the irregular shaped lot. Mr. Brindle confirmed that was correct. He stated he could not ask for a variance to go into the setback. Ms. Lover requested clarification on why the applicant could not request a variance to go into the setbacks. Mr. Brindle clarified the house could not be placed any further backwards due to the irregular shaped lot. Chairman McGonigal requested the applicant to verify the square footage of the house with the HOA. Ms. Lover recommended the applicant to construct a 2-car garage. Mr. Brindle stated the tree would be located at the second bay. Ms. Lover and Mr. Brindle briefly discussed the necessity for a garage. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Vice-Chairman Quinn motioned to approve Variance #V50-23. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property were the elevations of the property. 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. Vice-Chairman Quinn added the applicant must meet the HOA’s square footage requirement. The applicant must replace 30” with a variety of hardwoods. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 7-0. B. VARIANCE #V51-23: Application by Nation Homes II to remove a protected tree on a lot at 1202 Surf Pointe Drive zoned Planned Development District, PDD. Mr. Brindle, representing Nation Homes II, stated a large oak tree located at the rear of the property was within the footprint of the walkout basement. He presented a site plan depicting the location of the tree. Ms. Lover requested the applicant to state his hardship. Mr. Brindle stated his hardship was the tree located within the footprint of the house. Ms. Lover requested the square footage of the house. Mr. Brindle stated the house was 2,900 square feet. Ms. Lover stated 500 square feet could be removed to save the tree. Mr. Brindle expressed his concerns regarding building too close to the tree and disturbing the root system. Ms. Lover suggested building a smaller house. Mr. Brindle expressed his fear of the tree dying and the possibility of the tree falling on the houses during a hurricane. Ms. Lover explained the applicant had an alternative option available to him. Mr. Farmer read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Wood stated a third of the canopy or root system could be removed and the tree would have a reasonable chance of surviving, but the removal of both would likely kill the tree. Chairman McGonigal stated the applicant should not have a smaller house. Ms. Lover stated the applicant would not be denied the reasonable use of their property. She explained the applicant would be able to remove the tree if it died. Mr. Bell requested the applicant to state his hardship. Mr. Brindle stated his hardship as it related to the land was the tree located within the footprint of the house, a sloped lot, and not having the area to move the house forward. Ms. Lover stated the applicant had options. Mr. Brindle explained the foundation of the walkout basement would still disturb the root system. Mr. Bell and Mr. Brindle discussed the total of retaining trees. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to deny Variance #V51-23. The applicant had not fully explored the options to build a house on the lot that would allow the tree to remain. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion to deny failed 2-5. Chairman McGonigal, Mr. Bell, Mr. Reaves, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Wise voted nay. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #V51-23. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property were the irregular shaped lot, unusual setbacks, and elevations. 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 2  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 applicant must replace 30” of Oaks (protected species). The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion to approve passed 5-2. Vice-Chairman Quinn and Ms. Lover voted nay. C. VARIANCE #V52-23: Application by Petrit Kojtari for a swimming pool to be in the front yard at 4620 Surf Street zoned Medium Density Residential, R-2 District. Mr. Kojtari stated he was seeking approval to install a swimming pool on his double frontage lot. He would like to install the swimming pool in the front yard due to the driveway being in the back yard (Woodland Street). Mr. Farmer read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Vice-Chairman Quinn, Ms. Lover, and Mr. Farmer discussed the terminology stated in the ordinance. Mr. Wise expressed his concern regarding the inconsistency of swimming pool placements on double frontage properties. The Board and staff had a lengthy discussion regarding potential modifications to the ordinance for swimming pool placement on double frontage lots. Vice-Chairman Quinn mentioned a previous variance was denied due to the continuity of the neighborhood. Ms. Eisenbach stated the driveways throughout the neighborhood were inconsistent. It would be difficult to place swimming pools on only one side of the street. There was insufficient spacing between the pilings to allow parking underneath the house. The driveway had to be located on Woodland Street to accommodate 8 bedrooms. The swimming pool would have to be placed on Surf Street due to the lack of space. Ms. Eisenbach presented a site plan depicting the location of the swimming pool. The Board, Staff, and Ms. Eisenbach discussed addressing to designate the rear yard. Ms. Lover stated the applicant would have to comply with front yard setback requirements. Mr. Farmer stated the front and rear setbacks would be 5’ for swimming pools. Ms. Lover asked if the driveway could be relocated. Ms. Eisenbach stated the driveway could not be relocated due to the size of the property. It would not have the required parking for the number of bedrooms in the house. Mr. Bell asked if it was a rental. Ms. Eisenbach stated it was used as a real home and rental. Mr. Bell stated that was a self-imposed hardship. The Board and Staff discussed parking requirements. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to deny Variance #V52-23. Not having a swimming pool was not a hardship. Inconsistency of swimming pool placements affected zoning, property values, and the neighborhood. The Board did not take action on this motion. The Board and Staff had a lengthy discussion pertaining to the consistency of swimming pool placements on double frontage lots. Chairman McGonigal suggested a privacy fence or landscaping buffer. Mr. Farmer stated the setback for a privacy fence would be 10’ from the property line. The Board, Staff, Ms. Eisenbach discussed possible alternative options. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Vice-Chairman Quinn motioned to approve Variance #V52-23. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The Board recognized the need for consistency of pool placement, but in this particular case, there was an exception since the house fell under rules that were established. 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. Vice-Chairman Quinn added the applicant must have a buffer. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion to approve passed 6-1. Ms. Lover voted nay. D. VARIANCE #V53-23: Application by Frank Boulineau to erect an electronic message sign at 212 Sea Mountain Highway zoned Resort Commercial, RC District, was withdrawn by the applicant. 3  E. VARIANCE #V54-23: Application by Michael Marageus to extend the allowable number of days for a temporary tent at 2100 Firetower Road zoned Highway Commercial, HC District, was withdrawn by the applicant. F. SPECIAL EXCEPTION #SE3-23: Application by Cuba Bar and Restaurante to sell alcohol for on-site consumption at 70 Highway 17 South zoned Highway commercial, HC District. Mr. Lopez, representing Cuba Bar and Restaurante, stated he was seeking approval to construct an indoor bar to sell alcohol on the premises. Chairman McGonigal asked how long the business had been selling alcohol. Mr. Lopez stated the business had been selling alcohol for a month and a half. He informed the Board that the business owner obtained a liquor license. Mr. Farmer read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Bell asked if the Special Exception was for the business or property. Mr. Wood clarified that the Special Exception was for the applicant. Ms. Lover requested clarification on why a Special Exception was required. Mr. Farmer stated the property was Highway Commercial and it was located closer than 200’ from a residential neighborhood. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Special Exception #SE3- 23. The special exception would be granted to the business license holder of the property. If the business license changed then the special exception would be revoked. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion to approve passed 7-0. Mr. McCabe, representing Crescent Towers, stated he had discussed with Mr. Noury and he would submit a request for a rehearing in writing. Chairman McGonigal asked Mr. Noury for recommendations. Mr. Noury read the adopted rules for the Board regarding rehearings. The request for rehearings must be submitted in writing and the applicant has failed to do so. Once the written request was submitted, it would be presented to the Board, placed on the agenda, and then heard at the following meeting. 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 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 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