Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, February 8, 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, Absent 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 January 11, 2024 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Vice- Chairman Quinn. 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 #V53-23: Application by Frank Boulineau to erect an electronic message sign at 2315 North Ocean Boulevard zoned Resort Commercial, RC District. Mr. Boulineau presented sign plans. He was seeking approval to install an LED sign on an existing sign. The ordinance did not allow LED signs in RC Districts. Mr. Boulineau stated LED or digital signs were allowed in other commercial zones within the city. He expressed his desire to install the LED sign. Mr. Wise requested the size of the lot. Mr. Boulineau stated in totality, with the individual lots combined, the property was 2.2 acres. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal requested the requirements for LED signage. Mr. Caldwell stated messages on electronic signs were required to remain stagnant for 10 seconds prior to changing. He stated his uncertainty when the ordinance was modified to not allow electronic signage in RC and R-4 Districts. The ordinance was modified to prevent the beach area from commercialization. Mr. Bell asked Mr. Noury if the variance should be considered a special exception. The Board, Staff, and Mr. Noury had a lengthy discussion regarding variances and special exceptions. Mr. Noury confirmed a variance was the correct method. Mr. Bell recommended the ordinance to be modified to make electronic message centers in RC and R-4 Districts as special exceptions. Ms. Lover stated the property was previously zoned AC, which allowed flashing signs. She asked Mr. Caldwell if the electronic sign would be grandfathered. Mr. Caldwell stated the electronic message center would not be grandfathered. Ms. Lover and Mr. Caldwell discussed the requirements for electronic message centers. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to approve Variance #V53-23. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional 1  condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the necessity for modernization 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. Bell. The motion to approve passed 6-0. B. VARIANCE #V3-24: Application by Steven Martin for a variance of side yard setback for a propane tank at 5400 Little River Neck Road, lot 167 zoned Planned Development District, PDD. Mr. Martin stated he was seeking approval to place propane tanks behind his home for a generator and fireplace. Ms. Lover asked for the orientation of the house to determine the front of the property. Mr. Martin clarified the front of the house faced Road A. It was a corner lot with 5’ side yard setbacks. Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant was installing additional tanks. Mr. Martin clarified the contractor had installed the generator and propane tanks without a permit. Ms. Lover stated the purpose of setbacks. She asked for the distance of the propane tanks to the neighbor’s house. Mr. Martin stated the propane tanks would be 10’ from the neighboring property. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Caldwell stated the site map depicted the generator on the side yard. Mr. Farmer clarified the propane tanks were currently in the rear yard. The front yard would be where the driveway was located (Road A). Unlike other surrounding lots, the applicant’s lot had a required 10’ rear setback. Ms. Lover requested the specific amount of variance required. Mr. Farmer and Mr. Martin discussed the amount of reduction needed. Mr. Farmer stated the applicant only had 5’ and propane tanks could not encroach into the setbacks. Ms. Lover asked if there were other alternatives that would meet the setbacks. Mr. Farmer confirmed there were no other alternatives due to the dimensions of the lot. Vice-Chairman Quinn stated his concerns regarding visibility of the propane tanks. Ms. Lover asked if there were any conditions pertaining to the property to determine if there was a hardship related to the land. Mr. Bell stated there were other lots that were bigger, and the lot was irregularly shaped. Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Caldwell if there was a requirement to block the visibility of the propane tanks. Mr. Caldwell confirmed there was not a requirement. Chairman McGonigal suggested placing a condition on the variance to include landscaping. Mr. Martin stated the lot was oddly shaped. Mr. Caldwell stated the lot was triangular shaped. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Thomas motioned to approve Variance #V3-24. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the irregular shaped lot. 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. Thomas added there must be a fence or landscaping surrounding the propane tanks. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion to approve passed 6-0. C. VARIANCE #V4-24: Application by Chad Hatley for a variance to place a swimming pool in the rear project setback at 629 Water Oak Lane zoned Medium Density Residential, R-2 District. Mr. Hatley stated the lot was a unique shaped lot that presented various challenges. The rear property line was adjacent to wetlands. He was seeking approval to install a swimming pool within the 20’ project setback. As discussed with Mr. Caldwell, the 20’ setback requirement was no longer part of the ordinance. Mr. Hatley stated there was ample space to locate a swimming pool and fence that would meet all requirements. Ms. Lover and Vice-Chairman Quinn stated their concerns regarding drainage of the swimming pool into the wetlands. Mr. Farmer ensured that the building permit would address drainage. Mr. Caldwell stated swimming pools were required to have an 2  inground filtration system. Mr. Noury stated the natural feature was known as the Hillside Drainage Project. The City acquired the land to alleviate flooding that would regularly occur on Hillside. He stated the applicant would not be opposed to directing drainage from the swimming pool away from the natural feature. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Bell asked if the setback was initially for the PDD development or after the amendment for the wetlands. Mr. Caldwell stated the setback was in place prior to the amendment. The property was zoned R-2, but under old provisions of the Zoning Board where patio home developments could be done. Mr. Caldwell explained patio home developments. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #V4-24. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was being in a zero lot line development that was developed with a zoning requirement that was no longer part of the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance effectively prohibits the utilization of the rear yard. 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. Ms. Lover added drainage would be directed away from the pond and drainage would be treated before being released into the environment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 6-0. D. VARIANCE #V5-24: Application by Chris Chockley for a variance to remove 13 protected trees with 5 of them exceeding 24” in diameter at Waterside Phase 2, Sycamore, located off Old Water Tower Road, zoned Planned Development District, PDD. This property has yet to be addressed. Mr. Danielson, representing Bolten & Menk, stated that he was requesting a variance to remove 5 large diameter trees, 13 trees in total. Plans were redesigned to protect as many trees as possible. Mr. Danielson presented landscaping plans depicting 40 additional trees on site. The calculation stipulated 63 replacement trees, but the additional trees would be planted in the second phase or in the Rosewood neighborhood. Ms. Lover, Mr. Wise, and Mr. Danielson discussed the landscaping plans and replacement schedule. Ms. Lover requested the percentage of replacement trees. Mr. Danielson stated it would be over 60 percent. Ms. Lover stated the applicant was removing 315” and replacing 157.5”, which would be half. Mr. Danielson stated that was correct, based on half inch per caliper in ordinance. Ms. Lover asked if the 23 additional trees would interfere with the other development’s landscaping requirement. Mr. Danielson confirmed the additional trees would not interfere because the development’s landscaping was in compliance. Ms. Lover asked if the applicant had gone before the Planning Commission. Mr. Danielson stated he had not. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover stated her concerns regarding approving a variance that had not gone before the Planning Commission. Mr. Caldwell explained it was an internal staff decision and recommendation that the Board of Zoning Appeals would initially approve the removal of trees located on individual lots and common areas prior to Planning Commission. Mr. Noury stated the Planning Commission would review the removal of trees within the right-of-way. Ms. Lover stated her concerns regarding the Planning Commission changing the number of lots or location of roads and reconsidering the trees. Mr. Noury asked Mr. Danielson if the plat had received preliminary approval from the Planning Commission. Mr. Danielson confirmed it had not received preliminary approval. Mr. Noury affirmed the layout could potentially be reconfigured by the Planning Commission. Mr. Caldwell stated a condition could be placed on the approval. If there were any significant changes to the plan that would affect the approved trees, then the variance would be null, and the applicant would be required to return. Ms. Lover and Mr. Caldwell discussed examples of significant changes. Ms. Lover requested the locations of the replacement trees. Mr. Danielson presented the plan. He mentioned the current layout could be altered. Ms. Lover and Mr. Danielson had a lengthy discussion regarding the location of the trees in question. Ms. Lover 3  suggested shifting the road to protect the trees. Mr. Danielson stated the road could not be shifted due to the slopes. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #V5-24 regarding the specified trees and replanting with the provision that, should the Planning Commission make any significant changes to the lot numbers or footprint of any lots which would affect any of the trees, the variance would be null. Then, the applicant must return for approval based on the Planning Commission’s plan. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion to approve passed 6-0. E. VARIANCE #V6-24: Application by D. Ryan McCabe Jr. for a variance of side yard setback for a generator at 2609 South Ocean Blvd. zoned Resort Residential, R-4 District. This is a rehearing of VARIANCE #V42-23. Mr. Thomas recused himself from the discussion, vote, and left the chambers. Mr. McCabe stated Crescent Towers requested a variance of the side yard setback because they installed a new generator that was less than 15’ from the neighboring property. Crescent Towers used a wet fire suppression system that required a generator in case of power outages. The generator installation cost was approximately $80,000. He stated modern generators were much heavier and the building would not be able to withstand the weight of the modern generator. The engineers stated the generator could not be placed on top of the building. Mr. McCabe stated Crescent Towers obtained a permit on August 4, 2022. All alternative locations were within the setback. The generator was located on the pad of the previous fuel tank, which was within the setback. He expressed enforcing the setback would require the closing of Crescent Towers as the engineering would take months and it would be an incredibly expensive proposition. Mr. McCabe assured the Board that the generator’s running schedule could be modified. He briefly reviewed the report’s findings and mentioned modifications that could be made to accommodate the neighbors. Ms. Lover suggested relocating the generator to the parking lot across the street. Mr. Sells stated Crescent Towers would not meet the parking requirement. Mr. Caldwell confirmed the parking lot across the street was required parking. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal asked the applicant if there was a reasonable reading of carbon monoxide on the property. Mr. McCabe stated all readings were safe and negligible. Chairman McGonigal opened the floor to others. Mr. Puhl, neighbor, stated Crescent Towers had a two- stage fire system. He explained the standard horsepower for a fire system. Ms. Lover asked if the size of the generator was unnecessary for the purpose of providing fire protection. Mr. Puhl presented an image of an impeller pump. He stated Crescent Towers could install a smaller generator on the roof. He stated his concerns regarding the generator located illegally in a flood zone. Chairman McGonigal asked Mr. Caldwell if the generator could be on the ground. Mr. Caldwell stated it was not a zoning requirement. Mr. Noury stated the Building Department would be responsible for making that determination. He stated the Board’s scope of authority. Ms. Lover stated her concerns regarding the tank belly during a flood. Mr. Puhl and Ms. Lover discussed their concerns regarding potential discrepancies in the reports. Chairman McGonigal asked if the generator was diesel or gas. Mr. McCabe stated it was a diesel generator. Mr. Bell asked if a generator of that size was necessary to run the fire suppression and not the entire building. Mr. McCabe confirmed the generator did not power the entire building. It ran power to the fire suppression and back up lighting for stairwells. Chairman McGonigal requested the gallons of the generator. Mr. McCabe did not have the requested information. Ms. Phillips, President of the Seascape HOA, requested the kilowatts of the generator and engineering plans with the quote. She expressed her concerns regarding fuel located too close to their 4  property in a flood zone. Mr. Wise requested the weight of the previous generator to determine the difference in weight. Mr. McCabe did not have the requested information. Mr. McCabe stated the Board had prohibited Crescent Towers from running the generator in the last meeting. Mr. Bell clarified the Board stated not to run the generator on Saturdays. Mr. McCabe stated the hardship was, there was no other location on the property to relocate the generator and engineering would be very expensive. Mr. Bell suggested the applicant sell the generator and replace it with an ergonomically and lighter generator that can be located on the roof. Mr. McCabe stated Crescent Towers had to remove the generator or be in violation. Mr. Bell asked if the Board had the ability to offer a temporary variance. Mr. Noury stated the Board could continue to allow the applicant to provide additional information before making a decision. The Board had a lengthy discussion regarding the weight of fuel affecting the overall weight of the generator. Mr. Bell stated the applicant had other alternatives available. Chairman McGonigal requested professional information. Mr. McCabe provided information from the engineer. He stated the generator was 150 kilowatts and 250-gallon belly tank. Mr. Noury recommended the applicant to reconfigure its land to place the generator in the pool area. Ms. Lover read the Board’s ordinance. The Board listed the additional information the applicant was required to provide for the next scheduled meeting. Chairman McGonigal opened the floor to others. Ms. Williams, property manager, stated Crescent Towers could relocate the generator across the street. Mr. Bell clarified Crescent Towers did not have the required parking. Ms. Williams requested the applicant to provide a copy of the engineering report. Chairman McGonigal asked Mr. Noury if the Board had the ability to approve the reduction of one parking spot. Ms. Lover requested Mr. Caldwell to provide the number of parking required and how much of a variance would Crescent Towers need for parking. Mr. Caldwell stated he would provide the information at the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Baine, Vice President of Seascape, requested the Board to give them permission to have professionals go to Crescent Towers to perform their own reports. Chairman McGonigal asked Mr. Sells to cooperate with Seascape to provide the additional information. Ms. Caudle, neighbor, expressed her concerns regarding safety hazards. Mr. McCabe stated he confirmed with the engineer and the 150 kilowatts was the minimum size per code. He restated his desire to keep the generator at its current location. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #V6-24 to the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Ms. Lover. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 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. 5