Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, January 11, 2024 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 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 December 14, 2023 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Reaves and seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion passed 7-0. 3. COMMUNICATION: Mr. Caldwell presented the Board with the request for rehearing Variance #V42-23 and the gas generator screening report. Mr. Caldwell stated the applicant, Frank Boulineau, requested to postpone Variance #V53-23. 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 #V53-23: Application by Frank Boulineau to erect an electronic message sign at 2315 North Ocean Boulevard zoned Resort Commercial, RC District. Mr. Caldwell stated the applicant requested to postpone the variance to the next meeting. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Thomas motioned to postpone Variance #V53-23 and was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 7-0. B. VARIANCE #V1-24: Application by Patrick Lowe for a variance to exceed the allowable square footage for a proposed gazebo at 1101 Prince William Road zoned Single Family, Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Mr. King, representing the Applicant, presented a site map of the large property and plans for the proposed gazebo. He requested a variance to exceed the allowable square footage of 144 square feet. The proposed gazebo would be 25’ x 35’. The unique lot was 1.6 acres, which was double the size of other lots in the neighborhood. The gazebo would be located behind the main structure. The building coverage would be 12-13% of the lot. He would like to avoid constructing an unnecessary addition connecting the gazebo to the single-family dwelling. He expressed the proposed gazebo would be proportionate to the size of the property and it would be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Lowe added the City originally approved the plans, but rejected them in plan review. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Reaves, Ms. Lover, and Mr. Caldwell discussed the structure and its surroundings. 1  Mr. Bell requested clarification on how the limitation of 144 square feet was determined. Mr. Caldwell stated the history of the ordinance was unknown. Mr. Bell suggested the City Council review and modify the ordinance. Ms. Lover referred to a previous variance where the property was substantially large. Chairman McGonigal stated the property was extraordinarily large and the proposed gazebo should be allowed. Mr. Wise suggested the ordinance use a percentage of the property instead of a fixed square footage. Vice-Chairman Quinn and Mr. Bell agreed the structure should be proportionate to the lot. Mr. Bell asked Mr. Noury for recommendations on modifying the ordinance. Mr. Noury mentioned a sliding scale for larger lots to accommodate structures. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to approve Variance #V1-24. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property were the large and irregularly shaped lot. 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 proposed structure must be constructed as presented to the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. Vice-Chairman Quinn added the structure should not be utilized for any commercial activity. Mr. Caldwell stated the ordinance would be modified to omit that specific language from the definition. The motion to approve passed 7-0. C. VARIANCE #V2-24: Application by Deborah Felder for a variance of the minimum side yard setback at 2303 Ameron Court zoned Mobile/Manufactured Home Residential, R-3 District. Ms. Felder apologized to the Board for failing to obtain a permit. She stated the structure was constructed in July 2023. A stop work order was issued on November 2, 2023. She constructed a small carport to use as storage space and easy access for her disabled family members. The width of the structure encroached into the 7.5’ side yard setback. She was seeking approval for a reduction of the side yard setback from 7.5’ to 3.5’ along the 20’ length of the structure. Forty- five percent of the property was wetlands. The lot was small, and it tapered towards the rear of the property by 16’ on the left side. The house was constructed very close to the setbacks and buffer line. Other lots in the neighborhood had adequate usable land on the sides or rear of the properties. Ms. Felder presented an aerial view of her property. Only fifty-five percent of the lot could be utilized. She presented a copy of the original survey depicting the carport addition. Ms. Felder expressed her desire to keep the structure at its current location. She confirmed there was no drainage, runoff, erosion, or safety issues that would be of substantial detriment to the adjacent properties. She obtained a notarized letter from the neighbors stating the structure could remain. She also obtained a signed petition from the neighborhood’s residents that supported the reduction of the side yard setback. Ms. Felder presented images of the carport structure. Mr. Reaves requested clarification on the location of the property line. Ms. Felder clarified the trees were on the property line. Mr. Bell asked who constructed the structure. Ms. Felder stated she had built the structure. Ms. Lover asked if a concrete driveway was installed. Ms. Felder stated the concrete driveway was existing. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Bell requested clarification on how the completed structure received a stop work order. Mr. Caldwell stated building inspectors regularly investigate any new construction to determine if a permit was issued. Ms. Lover asked if the structure complied with the building codes. Mr. Caldwell stated once the permit was issued, the applicant would be required to schedule the proper inspections. Ms. Lover stated her concerns regarding the structural integrity of the carport. Ms. Lover suggested relocating the carport to the rear of the property. Ms. Felder stated there was not sufficient space for the golf cart due to the tapered lot. Ms. Lover stated the carport was an unnecessary structure. Ms. Felder expressed her desire to keep the carport. Mr. Wise questioned if a fine would be implemented. Mr. Caldwell confirmed a stop work order fee 2  would be assessed. Vice-Chairman Quinn stated his concerns regarding potential drainage issues affecting the neighboring property. Ms. Felder stated there was a slight recess between the lots where the water ran into the wetlands. The Board had a lengthy discussion regarding the applicant’s hardships. Mr. Farmer stated the structure could not be relocated to the rear of the property due to a 20’ setback from the buffer. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Thomas motioned to approve Variance #V2-24. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the irregular shaped lot within wetlands. 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. Thomas added the structure must meet the City’s requirements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion to approve passed 6-1. Ms. Lover voted nay. The Board read and reviewed the request that Variance #V42-23 have a rehearing and gas generator screening report. Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Noury stated they received the documents the day of the meeting. Ms. Lover requested clarification on the Applicant presenting the new evidence. Mr. Noury clarified a request for rehearing had to be submitted in writing first. The Board and Mr. Noury had a lengthy discussion regarding the new information provided. Mr. Noury explained the procedure for approving a request for a rehearing. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to rehear Variance #V42-23 at the next meeting. Mr. Thomas recused himself from the vote and left the chambers. Mr. Noury stated Board members should recuse themselves from the beginning to not engage in any discussion. The motion was seconded by Vice- Chairman Quinn. The motion passed 6-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:03 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. 3