Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, July 11, 2024 5:00 PM MINUTES William McGonigal, Chairman, Absent City Staff: Roger Quinn, Vice-Chairman Ben Caldwell, Zoning Administrator Mendel Bell, Absent 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: Vice-Chairman Quinn called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motion to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2024, meeting. The motion was made by Ms. Lover and seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion passed 5-0. 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 #V17-24: Application by David Pitts to reduce the side and rear yard setback at 703 18th Avenue South zoned Medium Density Residential, R-2 District. Mr. Pitts stated there was an existing shed on the property. The lot was 2,645 square feet. He was seeking approval to replace a shed at the current location of the existing shed. The shed was 2.5’ from the side and rear property lines. Mr. Pitts presented a site plan. Ms. Lover questioned why the shed could not be placed 5’ from the property line. She requested the applicant to state his hardship. Mr. Pitts stated the shed would intrude significantly into the driveway. He would lose parking space and the shed would be closer to the house. Ms. Lover stated the shed would be closer to the neighboring property. Mr. Pitts clarified the shed would remain 2.5’ from the right side and rear property lines. Ms. Lover disagreed with his hardship. Mr. Pitts expressed his desire to replace the shed in the current location. He stated his lot was not 5,000 square feet. Ms. Lover inquired whether the development was a zero-lot line development. Mr. Caldwell confirmed it was a zero- lot line development. Mr. Reaves referenced a letter from Santee Cooper stating Santee Cooper owned the utility easement. The lines were supply lines, not current transmission lines. Santee Cooper would give the applicant 90 days to comply and to move the shed. Mr. Reaves requested the size of the replacement shed. Mr. Pitts stated the shed would be 147 square feet. Ms. Lover requested the size of the existing shed. Mr. Pitts stated it was a 10’ x 8’ shed. Ms. Lover stated the replacement shed would be twice the size of the existing shed. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover asked if a permit was obtained for the existing shed. Mr. Caldwell stated a permit was not obtained for the existing shed. Ms. Lover asked if the zoning code requirement of a 5’ setback was in effect at the time. Mr. Caldwell stated the zoning code requirement was in effect. Mr. Pitts stated he purchased the property in 2007. The shed was existing. The lot was 1  half the size of the current zoning code. Mr. Wise asked if the lot was an unusually smaller lot. Mr. Caldwell confirmed the lot was an unusually small lot. Ms. Lover asked if the lots were the same size. Mr. Caldwell stated the applicant’s lot appeared the smallest lot within the 3-lot subdivision. Mr. Wise stated he would grant the variance due to the size of the lot, but with the condition the replacement shed must be the same size as the existing shed. The Board discussed the variance, encroachment letter, dimensions of the sheds, and size of the lot. Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to approve Variance #V17-24. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the small 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. Wise added the replacement shed must be an 8’ x 10’ shed (80 square feet) like the existing shed. The shed must meet a 2.5’ side and rear yard setback. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to approve passed 5-0. B. VARIANCE #V23-24: Application by Jason Willwerth to remove seven trees in excess of 24 caliper inches at Watertower Road East of Hwy. 31 to Cooper Meadow Loop West in the Wax Myrtle Phase of Waterside. The applicant was not in attendance. Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to continue Variance #V23-24 to the next scheduled meeting. If the applicant failed to attend the next scheduled meeting, the request would be dismissed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to continue passed 5-0. Ms. Lover requested clarification on the location of the trees. Mr. Caldwell clarified the location. He stated the submitted plan required revision. The revision would prevent the removal of several trees. The Board and staff continued to discuss the plans for the variance. C. SPECIAL EXCEPTION #SE3-24: Application by Greg Duckworth for a Special Exception to operate a mini warehouse and climate controlled mini warehouse development at 1425 Highway 17 North zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. The Board requested clarification on the location of the property. Mr. Caldwell clarified the location of the property. Mr. Duckworth mentioned businesses located near the property. He stated the property would be subdivided for the use of a Doctor’s Care and mini warehouse. He assured the Board that there would be a circuit ease of traffic circulation. The property would have more than one access. The property met the building setback requirements and the turn radiuses for fire trucks. Mr. Duckworth presented the proposed landscaping plan. He stated there would be lush landscaping around the perimeter. The buildings would be aesthetically pleasing with facades. Mr. Duckworth presented elevations of the proposed building. The building would have contrasting earth tones. Ms. Lover suggested changing the color scheme of the building. Mr. Duckworth stated the color scheme would be architecturally similar to buildings at Coastal North Town Center. Ms. Lover quoted the ordinance and stated the Board of Zoning Appeals could impose such reasonable and additional stipulations, conditions, and/or safeguards as, in its judgement, could enhance the siting and aesthetic quality of the special exception. Vice-Chairman Quinn stated they would like to keep the area in harmony. Ms. Lover requested the height of the building. She expressed concerns regarding height and aesthetics. Mr. Caldwell stated the building would be 35’. Ms. Lover asked if the building would be 3 stories. Mr. Caldwell confirmed it would be a 3-story building. Mr. Thomas requested clarification on how the property would be accessed. Mr. Duckworth stated 2 there would be a point of access off of Highway 17 and the rear of the property. Vice-Chairman Quinn expressed concerns regarding potential conflicts with Doctor’s Care. Mr. Duckworth assured him that there would not be any conflicts. Mr. Reaves requested clarification on who determined whether the special exception would not be injurious to the adjoining property and if it would be in substantial harmony with the area. Ms. Lover clarified that the Board would make the determination. Mr. Noury stated the applicant would present their reasons why the proposed structure would be in harmony with the surrounding properties, and it would not be injurious to the surrounding properties. Mr. Duckworth compared the building’s color palette to the buildings at Coastal North Town Center and Rio’s. He stated that he had latitude to modify the color palette. Ms. Lover read the zoning ordinance. She expressed concerns regarding the warehouse being near residential housing. Mr. Noury stated the Board could impose conditions such as landscape screening and buffering from the neighboring properties, so they're not as impacted by the facility. Ms. Lover requested the number of units. Mr. Duckworth and Mr. Caldwell did not have the requested information. Mr. Thomas requested the size of the units. Ms. Lover stated each unit must not exceed 300 square feet. Mr. Thomas asked why a special exception was required. Mr. Caldwell stated the district allowed the use, but with the Board's approval. Mr. Duckworth named several commercial businesses located in the area. Vice-Chairman Quinn explained the special exception could not be injurious to the surrounding areas. Mr. Duckworth stated the facility was in demand in the community. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover requested the number of storage units. Mr. Duckworth did not have the requested information. He approximated 33 large surface units located at the back of the property and 150 small climate control units. Ms. Lover requested clarification whether all units would be climate controlled. Mr. Duckworth clarified the units located at the rear of the property would be standard self-storage units. The units located at the front of the property would be climate controlled. There were two separate structures. Ms. Lover stated the application requested a special exception for a proposed climate controlled mini warehouse. Mr. Caldwell clarified both structures required a special exception. He had failed to use the language that was advertised. Ms. Lover stated the climate controlled units would have to be 300 square feet or less. Mr. Caldwell confirmed she was correct. Ms. Lover requested the ordinance for the self-storage units. Mr. Caldwell stated he did not have the ordinance, but the units could be larger than 300 square feet. Mr. Duckworth stated the units were approximately 10’ x 35’-40’ for regular use storage. Ms. Lover and Mr. Duckworth discussed the ordinance for storage structures. Ms. Lover requested a traffic study. Mr. Duckworth provided a traffic study of a similar facility. Ms. Lover stated she counted 110 units which would be a total of 330 units. Mr. Duckworth was uncertain of the number of units. Ms. Lover requested the number of houses behind the proposed warehouse. Mr. Duckworth stated there were no houses, only woods. He stated that Mr. Caldwell mentioned there were plans for a residential development. Mr. Caldwell was uncertain, but stated there were approximately 37 units in the development. Ms. Lover asked about roads. Mr. Caldwell stated the road would be expanded and connected to Waterway Drive. Mr. Duckworth discussed egress. Ms. Lover expressed her concerns regarding aesthetics and traffic. Mr. Duckworth stated they were initiating a zoning text amendment. The revision to the zoning ordinance would reduce parking spaces by 75%. Ms. Lover stated the warehouse was not in harmony with the area. Mr. Duckworth stated the developer believed there was a need for the warehouse in the area. He explained that it would be densely landscaped between the property and adjacent property. Mr. Reaves asked if the City had approved the landscaping plans. Mr. Caldwell stated he had not reviewed the plans for approval. The landscaping plans would have to be submitted to staff and they would need to be as per the Board’s stipulations of the special exception. Mr. Reaves stated 3  there must be dense landscaping. Mr. Caldwell stated a condition could be placed that evergreen trees must be in the back. Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to deny Special Exception #SE3- 24 positioned that a mini-storage business would not be in harmony with the surrounding area, and it would be injurious to adjoining property. Based on the Board not taking action on this motion, Mr. Noury stated the motion to deny failed. Vice-Chairman Quinn called for another motion. Mr. Wise motioned to approve the Special Exception #SE3-24. The special exception complied with all applicable development standards, off-street parking. The special exception would be in substantial harmony with the area in which it was located. The special exception would not be injurious to adjoining property. The special exception would not discourage or negate the use of surrounding property for uses permitted by right. Mr. Wise added the landscaping buffer must be substantial and dense. It must be a 5’ deep buffer with a minimum of 10’ Evergreen screening. The building must have earth tone colors. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion to approve passed 4-1. Ms. Lover voted nay. Vice-Chairman Quinn called for a motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Reaves and seconded by Ms. Lover. The motion passed 5-0. 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