Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, September 12, 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, Absent Chris Noury, City Attorney Joe Reaves, Absent Alexandra Smith, Administrative Asst. II Andy Thomas Wyman Wise, Absent for roll call and vote 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 August 8, 2024, meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Vice- Chairman Quinn. The motion passed 4-0. Mr. Wise was absent from vote. 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 Boulevard zoned Resort Residential (R-4) District. This is a rehearing of Variance #V42-23. Mr. Caldwell informed the Board he received an email from the applicant requesting to withdraw. Chairman McGonigal asked Mr. Noury for recommendations. Mr. Noury recommended the Board remove the item from the agenda at the request of the applicant. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to remove Variance #V6-24 from the agenda. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion to remove passed 4-0. Chairman McGonigal requested the Board hear Variance #V26-24 first. D. VARIANCE #V26-24: Application by Karson Setzer for a variance of the required separation between primary and accessory structure at 313 46th Avenue North zoned Single Family, Low Density Residential (R-1) District. Karson Setzer, licensed residential builder, stated he was representing Tommy Thompson. He was requesting a variance for the separation requirements between a primary and accessory structure. The accessory structure was a deck. In discussion with the North Myrtle Beach Floodplain Manager, Mr. Setzer discovered Mr. Thompson's property was considered noncompliance with the current floodplain ordinances. The replacement deck would have to be detached from the primary structure. This would provide the separation required to have the structure and accessory structure. Mr. Setzer was seeking approval to construct the replacement deck within the 5’ setback as the existing deck. The existing deck was within all the side and rear setbacks. The replacement deck would have the same layout and square footage as the existing deck, but slightly detached. Mr. Thomas asked if there was any difference in elevation. Mr. Setzer confirmed there was not a drop in elevation. He explained the construction and support of a detached deck. 1 Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Bell requested clarification regarding the variance request. Mr. Caldwell clarified the variance was for a reduction of the required 5’ separation between an accessory structure and primary structure. Mr. Bell asked if it would be a special exception. Mr. Caldwell stated it was not a special exception. Chairman McGonigal opened the floor to others. Chairman McGonigal stated the house was raised. Kendra Elliott, Floodplain Manager, stated the house was raised, but it did not meet the current FEMA and City’s flood zone ordinances because there was living space underneath. The structure was a nonconforming structure and the City could not allow it to become more nonconforming by having an attached deck. The flood zone ordinance and FEMA could approve the detached deck from the building department standpoint if it was approved for the zoning variance. The detached deck would not violate the flood zone ordinance because it would not be a part of the habitable structure. Mr. Bell stated the applicant was replacing the existing deck. Ms. Elliott stated correct. Mr. Bell stated the applicant was improving the deck. He asked if improvements could be made to the current structure. Ms. Elliott stated improvements could not be made because the existing structure was not in compliance. The applicant would have to bring the structure into compliance or not make it more nonconforming. Mr. Bell inquired whether the structure was grandfathered. Ms. Elliott stated the structure was not necessarily grandfathered, but it was built prior to the flood zone ordinances, which started in 1983. The structure would be subject to the current flood zone ordinances, which were passed in 2021. Vice-Chairman Quinn requested the location of the structure. Mr. Setzer explained the house was raised approximately 8’ from grade. The attached deck was on the rear of the property. Vice- Chairman Quinn stated there was not living space underneath. Mr. Setzer clarified there was living space underneath the house with a kitchenette, which was considered noncompliance with the flood zone ordinances. Chairman McGonigal stated there was a possibility the Board would see an increase of these similar issues. Ms. Elliott stated nonconforming structures were being addressed as they were discovered. This was a unique situation because previous work was performed to the house. FEMA prohibited improvements to a structure exceeding 50% of its market value unless the entire structure was brought into compliance. The valuation of the replacement deck would exceed the 50% threshold. The detached deck would not violate the zoning ordinance because FEMA makes allowances for detached structures. Mr. Bell questioned if the deck was considered detached because of its self-support. Ms. Kendra stated correct. The deck would be considered part of the habitable structure if it was attached to the house. Chairman McGonigal asked whether the first floor would be habitable if it did not have a kitchen. Ms. Elliott stated for the structure to be conforming, it could only have storage with flood vents. There could not be any plumbing, mechanical, or beds downstairs. Chairman McGonigal inquired if enclosed stairs would be a habitable structure. Ms. Elliott stated the enclosed stairs would be part of the habitable structure. The enclosure would require flood vents to allow water to move through. Mr. Bell requested the hardship. Mr. Noury recommended the Board explore the issue further due to any requirements placed upon the property and current site conditions. Mr. Bell stated the hardship was self-imposed. Mr. Noury disagreed. Mr. Bell stated the applicant had the ability to remove the kitchenette downstairs. This would make the structure conforming to FEMA standards and the deck would be allowed. Mr. Noury asked Ms. Elliott if the removal of the kitchenette would make the structure conforming. Ms. Elliott stated the structure would require additional alterations. Mr. Noury asked what other alterations would be necessary to bring the structure into full compliance. Ms. Elliott stated the structure would have to meet the City’s flood zone height requirements. Livable space would have to be completely elevated. Storage must be constructed 2  with treated materials and must have flood vents. FEMA would need a new elevation certificate. Mr. Bell asked when the modifications were made downstairs. Ms. Elliott stated the house was constructed in the 1950s or 1960s prior to the adoption of the flood zone ordinances. Mr. Bell asked if the kitchenette was part of the original structure. Ms. Elliott stated it was possibly part of the original structure. Mr. Bell stated it would not be a self-imposed hardship if the structure was built in the 1950’s, prior to the 1983 FEMA code. Mr. Noury agreed. Vice-Chairman Quinn inquired if plumbing and electrical would have to be removed. Ms. Elliott stated any electrical and plumbing would have to removed and capped off. Mr. Bell requested assurance that the structure was not constructed after the 1983 FEMA code. Chairman McGonigal requested to hear from Suzanne Pritchard. Suzanne Pritchard, Assistant Director of Planning and Development, stated this case was more unique than all the nonconforming structures in Cherry Grove because a permit was issued after the City revised the flood ordinance in 2021. The issuance of a permit created the problem, and it was unique to this house. There may be another instance, but it's certainly not all the nonconforming houses that were built in the 1960s. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #V26-24. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property were the elevations and floodplain zones. 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 that the condition was strictly for this particular piece of property because it was nonconforming after the 1983 FEMA code changed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion to approve passed 4-0. Mr. Wise abstained from the vote due to being tardy. 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. Chris Chockley, representing the applicant, stated he previously discussed plans depicting a proposed cul-de-sac that would potentially remove eight additional trees. Mr. Chockley presented plans depicting the project site and a portion of the tree survey. The revised design depicted the removal of the proposed cul-de-sac and two lots. The grove of trees and a tree located on one of the two lots were saved due to the modifications. The roads were modified to meet at 90° to be able to keep the trees. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Bell stated the previous tree removal schedule depicted a total of 365 caliper inches to be removed. The applicant lost 18 caliper inches of total removal due to the elimination of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Chockley stated the previous tree mitigation plan did not incorporate the eight additional trees because of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Chockley explained the revised tree mitigation plan. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #V23-24. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property were elevation and grading issues. 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 3  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 continue with the tree mitigation schedule depicting replacement of 174” of protected tree species as presented to the Board. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion to approve passed 5-0. C. VARIANCE #V25-24: Application by Kim Ford for a variance of the side and rear setback requirements for a proposed park model at 5400 Little River Neck Road, Lot #47, zoned Planned Development District, PDD. Mr. Caldwell stated he had attempted to contact applicant, Kim Ford, concerning Variance #V25-24 and was unable to reach her. Chairman McGonigal asked Mr. Noury for recommendations. Mr. Noury stated the Board could decide on the variance request based on the documents submitted or remove the item from the agenda. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Thomas motioned to withdraw Variance #V25-24. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to withdraw passed 5-0. E. VARIANCE #V27-24: Application by George Bennett for a variance of the required side yard setback for a proposed addition to the home at 2400 Bryan Street zoned Mobile/Manufactured Home Residential R-3 District. Chairman McGonigal stated he had noticed the applicant did not attend the meeting. Mr. Caldwell stated he had no communication with the applicant. It was an online submittal. The applicant would be required to provide additional information to complete the application. Mr. Caldwell suggested the Board postpone the variance until additional information was provided. Mr. Noury stated it’s been the board's practice in the past to continue the variance to the following meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to appear in staff and present information on their behalf. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Thomas motioned to postpone Variance #V27-24 to the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to postpone passed 5-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Vice-Chairman Quinn and seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:37 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