Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, June 13, 2024 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 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 May 9, 2024 meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Mr. Thomas. 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 #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. Ryan McCabe, representing Crescent Towers, stated the applicant replaced a roof top generator. The replacement generator was placed on an existing fuel tank pad located within the 15’ setback. Significant engineering would be required to remove the existing generator and relocate the new generator on the roof. Mr. McCabe stated a permit was obtained in August 2022. He indicated complaints regarding the generator arose after the termination of a parking agreement between Crescent Towers and Seascape. Mr. McCabe explained Crescent Towers would be required to close for an unknown period of time to undertake engineering and reconstruction. Engineering would create a tremendous expense. Mr. McCabe stated Hurricane Hugo reduced the utilization of the property. The City required Crescent Towers to relocate the swimming pool to the front of the property, which affected the number of parking spaces. He indicated that Seascape was closer to the generator because the building was located within the 15’ setback. Mr. McCabe explained the generator was required to operate the wet standpipe fire system. A weekly testing was required per the Fire Code NFPA 25. The generator ran weekly for 15 minutes. He assured the Board that the generator’s running schedule could be modified to accommodate the adjacent property. Smart Air Environmental conducted a noise and air quality report and it confirmed there were no signs of carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide. Mr. McCabe identified three condominiums with ground level generators. He stated Crescent Towers would make modifications to contain the noise and fumes. 1 Chairman McGonigal requested the engineer’s letter. Mr. McCabe stated the engineer’s letter was previously submitted. Mr. Noury stated the purpose of the rehearing was for the applicant to present new information. The engineering report was not new information. The Board, Mr. Noury, and Mr. McCabe had a lengthy discussion regarding the Board’s previous decision. Mr. Caldwell clarified the variance was tabled to provide additional information. Mr. Bell stated the engineering and gas screening reports were submitted in the previous meeting. Mr. Wise asked why the generator could not be relocated to the roof. Jamie Melton, electrician, stated newer generators were larger than the existing generator. He explained the new generator was a used generator. The used generator was larger than the room that the existing generator was housed in. The generator must be 150kW to handle the fire pump. Mr. Reaves asked if the relocation of rooftop generators to side yards was becoming a norm. Mr. Caldwell stated it was occurring quite frequently for single-family because generators were allowed in the side yard. Mr. Wise stated generators were not allowed on the side of the building in an A or AE flood zone. Mr. Caldwell confirmed the generator was not located in a flood zone. Mr. Melton stated the belly tank must be located underneath the generator per code. Mr. Reaves and Mr. Melton discussed the building code. Mr. Reaves requested the number of permanent residents. Mr. McCabe stated five families would be permanently displaced until the problem was resolved. He restated his concerns regarding engineering. Ms. Lover suggested the applicant purchase a generator similar to the old generator and/or refurbish the old generator. Mr. Melton stated the manufacturer did not make parts for the generator anymore; it was no longer in business. Ms. Lover requested the applicant to state the hardship related to the land. Mr. McCabe stated after Hugo, the usable footprint of the property was smaller because of limitations on the rear of the property. Parking spaces were eliminated due to the relocation of the swimming pool to the front of the property. The lot was a unique shaped lot. Mr. Reaves inquired about the proposed modifications to the generator. Mr. Caldwell stated the manufacturer’s recommendations would have to meet the building code. Mr. McCabe stated the applicant would install an attenuator and extend the exhaust. He presented a photograph of the generator located at Crescent Towers II. Mr. Melton recommended making a sound of continuation, which muffled the sound down. The exhaust would be installed horizontally to the front of the building or 20’ vertically. He stated the estimated cost of the modifications. Chairman McGonigal opened the floor to others. Bob Puhl, neighbor, presented the specification sheet of the generator. He stated the belly tank held 260 gallons of diesel fuel. Mr. Puhl mentioned the distance from the generator to the property line changed from 9’6” to 6’8”. Mr. Reaves asked if Mr. Puhl had the survey done. Mr. Puhl clarified Crescent Towers had the survey done. Mr. Bell requested a copy of the survey. Mr. Puhl did not obtain a copy of the survey. Mr. Puhl stated the fuel tank weighed 2,655 pounds. The generator weighed 2,500 pounds. Chairman McGonigal requested Mr. Melton to confirm the generator’s weight. Mr. Melton stated the generator, not including the fuel tank, weighed 7,000 pounds. Mr. Puhl presented a copy of the permit application. The permit application stated a 125kW Cummins generator would be installed. Mr. Puhl stated he contacted structural engineers, and they confirmed x-rays could not be performed on buildings. He discussed the engineer’s findings and suggestions. Mr. Bell requested reports performed by professionals. Mr. Puhl presented a police report stating the decibel reading was 95 decibels. Mr. Bell clarified the City’s ordinance had a decibel limit. The Board and Mr. Puhl had a lengthy discussion regarding comparisons between the police report and gas screening report. Eddie Baine, Vice-President of Seascape HOA, expressed concerns regarding emissions. He stated the diesel fumes were exceptionally strong and intolerable. Mr. Baine suggested an LP generator to eliminate the diesel fumes. He stated the 20’ vertical exhaust modification would not resolve 2 the fume emission issue. Seascape was losing business due to the generator. Mr. Baine stated in a previous conversation with Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Caldwell had stated Crescent Towers had sufficient space to install four additional parking spaces. Mr. Baine suggested the applicant relocate the generator to the handicapped parking place beside their swimming pool. Lynn Caudle, neighbor, expressed her concerns regarding the generator’s proximity, running schedule, and fumes. She stated the strong odors were affecting the health of her dog and herself. The fumes could be smelled through the units. Mr. Baine asked why the generator could not be relocated to the roof outside of the existing room. He briefly expressed his concerns. Chairman McGonigal requested clarification regarding parking modifications. Mr. Melton stated the generator would fit in one parking space. Mitch Sells stated Crescent Towers did not have the required number of parking spots for Mr. Caldwell. He expressed his desire to maintain the generator at its current location and make modifications to accommodate the neighboring property. Mr. McCabe requested to make a correction. The generator ran for 30 minutes weekly. Ms. Lover requested the applicant to state the unusual circumstances compared to other properties in the vicinity. Mr. McCabe stated the building was not designed to accommodate a ground level generator. Mr. Bell suggested an alternative location. Mr. McCabe restated the hardship. Mr. Bell stated hardships could not be self-imposed. Mr. Sells requested clarification of the alternative location. He confirmed the alternative location was not a handicapped parking spot. Mr. Bell asked if the handicapped spots could be relocated. Mr. Noury asked Staff if a variance would be required for parking requirements. Mr. Caldwell stated Crescent Towers had the ability to add four parking spaces. A walkthrough would be required for verification. The Board briefly discussed a parking variance. Mr. Bell asked if the variance would have to be readvertised. Mr. Noury confirmed the variance would have to be readvertised. The Board could decide on the matter, or the applicant could withdraw from the Board’s consideration. Chairman McGonigal suggested the applicant table the item to allow the applicant the opportunity to find a solution. Mr. Noury stated the applicant indicated that he would prefer not to withdraw, but he would rather the Board decide. Mr. Caldwell recommended the variance for a setback to remain tabled because the applicant may need the variance. Mr. Bell stated if the variance was denied, there would be a 12-month window. Beth Pigeon, Crescent Towers resident, stated a permit was obtained for the generator. Ms. Lover stated there was some inaccuracy in the permit application. Mr. Farmer presented the permit application. He stated the location was not specified on the permit application. The Board, staff, and Mr. McCabe had a brief discussion regarding the permit application. Mr. Noury recommended the variance to be postponed to the August meeting. Mr. Caldwell stated the deadline for the next scheduled meeting would be the following day. Staff would measure and count the parking spaces the following day. The variance application would have to be submitted by Monday for readvertisement. Mr. Reaves asked if engineering would be required to relocate the generator. Mr. Melton confirmed engineering would not be required. Mr. Reaves recommended the applicant submit their variance application by Monday for the July Meeting. Mr. McCabe requested the variance to be postponed to the September Meeting. He was unable to attend the August meeting. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #V6-24 to the September 12, 2024, meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. 3 Mr. Bell recommended the Board hear Variances #V20-24 and #V21-24 first because Chairman McGonigal would have to recuse himself for Variance #V18-24. C. VARIANCE #V20-24: Application by Keith Bean for a rear yard setback variance for a proposed addition on the rear of the home at 1028 Mount Vernon Drive zoned Medium Density residential R-2 District. Mr. Caldwell stated Variance #V20-24 was withdrawn by the applicant. D. VARIANCE #V21-24: Application by Steve Winfree for a variance of the tree protection regulations for a 24 caliper inch tree at 1408 Hunters Rest Drive zoned Planned Development District, PDD. Mr. Winfree stated Charleston Landing was a PDD that allowed smaller lots. The minimum GLA requirements were fairly sizeable. Mr. Winfree stated the lot was oddly shaped. He was seeking approval to remove a 25 caliper inch tree located within the footprint of the garage. Ms. Lover requested clarification on which trees would be removed. Mr. Winfree clarified that the four trees within the footprint of the house would be removed. Ms. Lover asked if there would be more trees than the two trees depicted on the site map that would remain on the property. Mr. Winfree clarified only two trees would remain on the property. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #V21-24. The hardship was the trees located within the footprint of the house. The applicant would be allowed to remove the 25” protected tree with the provision that he keeps the 30” and 22” trees located on the outside perimeter. The applicant would be required to replant 12” of hardwoods in addition to the two trees that must remain, pay $1,200 into the tree bank, or a combination of the two. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 6-0. B. VARIANCE #V18-24: Application by William McGonigal for a setback variance for proposed mechanical equipment to be located in the side yard and for a variance of the oceanfront fencing regulations at 1717 South Ocean Boulevard zoned Resort Commercial, R4 District. Chairman McGonigal recused himself from the discussion, vote, and left the chambers. Derrick Mozingo, architect, stated he was seeking approval to install mechanical equipment in the side yard setback. Mr. Mozingo presented site plans depicting the location of four proposed heaters. He stated the heaters operated at a noise level of 65 decibels. Mr. Mozingo explained the unique features of the heaters in detail. He stated other options were explored, but it would be exceptionally noisy to locate the heaters inside the building. Greg Duckworth, landscape architect, presented a planting schedule. Mr. Duckworth specified the types and sizes of the trees that would be used as a landscape buffer. Chad Hatley, representing the applicant, stated the hardship related to the land was the limited utilization of the property due to the OCRM regulated dune lines and location. The property was adjacent to a beach access. Mr. Hatley stated the project developer contributed land to the City for the adjacent park which impacted the ability to maximize the use of the property. Ms. Lover asked if there were any other locations on the property where the heaters could be placed. Mr. Hatley confirmed there were no other locations on the property. Ms. Lover asked if fencing was part of the variance. Mr. Hatley stated the current code did not allow a solid fence. He was seeking approval to install a solid fence in front of the heaters. Ms. Lover requested clarification regarding the applicant’s hardship. Mr. Bell clarified the hardships were the OCRM line and the reduction of the applicant’s property. The developer voluntarily donated land to the City’s public access for public goods. Ms. Lover asked if fencing would be necessary. She stated landscaping should be sufficient. Mr. Hatley expressed adjacent properties would prefer fencing. Ms. Lover asked if there was a public walkway between the properties. Mr. Hatley and Mr. Mozingo confirmed there was not a beach access on the north side of the property. Ms. Lover 4  requested the height and material of the proposed fence. Mr. Caldwell stated if the proposed fence was an opaque fence over 6’ than it would need a variance. Mr. Bell asked if the fence would exceed 6’. Mr. Hatley stated the fence would not exceed 6’. Mr. Duckworth requested clarification regarding the placement of the fence. Mr. Mozingo clarified the fence would be placed on the property line. Mr. Duckworth stated the landscaping along the property line would be enhanced. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #V18-24. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property were the OCRM setback line and the applicant’s willingness to give land to the City to utilize for public use. 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 an opaque fence, up to 6’ tall, would be allowed with the proper landscaping as presented to the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. 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. Reaves. The motion passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:18 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