Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, October 10, 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 September 12, 2024, meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion passed 5-0. Ms. Lover abstained from the vote due to being absent at this meeting. 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 #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. George Bennett, applicant, stated he was seeking a variance for an 8’ x 10’ prefabricated storage building with no electricity. The property was irregularly shaped, and it was a corner lot. Ms. Lover requested clarification regarding the orientation of the lot. Mr. Reaves stated that Bryan Street would be the front yard. Mr. Bennett stated the storage building would be placed behind the residence, but the deed stated that 24th Avenue North would be the front yard. Mr. Wise and Ms. Lover stated the storage building would be placed in the side yard. Ms. Lover requested the amount of variance required. Mr. Bennett stated a 5’ variance would be required. Mr. Bell asked if the variance was to attach the structure to the house because it was supposed to be separated from the house. Mr. Bennett stated he was seeking a variance from the back of the storage building to the property line. Mr. Caldwell asked if the drawing accurately depicted the setbacks and location of the home and proposed addition. Mr. Bennett stated the drawing was not accurate. The 8’ x 10’ building would encroach approximately 2’ in the setbacks. Mr. Caldwell stated the plot plan was not an as-built drawing. Ms. Lover requested clarification whether the applicant had conducted a survey. Mr. Bennett stated yes. Mr. Caldwell clarified the survey was conducted prior to the house. Mr. Caldwell stated it would be a 5’ variance of side yard setback. Ms. Lover requested clarification whether the applicant was asking for a variance off the property line or to be allowed to attach the shed to the house. Mr. Caldwell stated if an accessory building was attached to a home than it would be considered an addition. It would not have to meet the separation requirement. A detached accessory building would only be allowed in the rear yard. The applicant was requesting a variance of the side yard setback because the house was closer than what was shown in the plot plan. The building would encroach 5’ into the 7.5’ required side yard setback. Mr. Bell asked if an addition would have to be accessed from inside the home. Mr. Caldwell stated not necessarily; it had been allowed in the past. 1  Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover stated the addition did not face Bryan Street. Mr. Caldwell disagreed. Mr. Bennett confirmed the addition would not face Bryan Street. It would face 24th Avenue North. Mr. Caldwell stated at the time of the permit submittal, the site map depicted the building at a different location. Mr. Bennett stated he was informed that the structure could not be placed in front of the house. Mr. Caldwell stated the structure could be on the Bryan Street side as an addition. He was uncertain of the exact location of the home in proximity to the property line. Ms. Lover stated the applicant would have enough room. Mr. Wise asked if the building could be relocated to Bryan. A variance would not be required if the building was relocated. Mr. Bennett stated the building could be relocated. Mr. Bell stated if the building faced 24th Avenue North as depicted in the drawing then a survey would be required due to the angled property line. Ms. Lover suggested placing the addition in the rear left corner on Bryan Street. Mr. Farmer stated a previous plot plan depicted approximately 19.5’ to the property line at the rear back corner. Mr. Bennett stated it could not be placed at that location. Mr. Bell assured the applicant that an addition could be placed in the front if a permit was obtained. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to withdraw Variance #V27-24. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to withdraw passed 6-0. B. VARIANCE #V28-24: Application by Sarah Hamblin for a variance of the maximum parking allowance for a proposed convenience retail establishment at 10571 Park Village Drive zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Chairman McGonigal recused himself from the discussion, vote, and left the chambers. Daniel Ben-Yisrael, Real Estate Development Manager for Drayton-Parker Companies and Parker's Kitchen, was requesting a variance for maximum parking requirements. The request would allow the construction of a 5,175 square feet convenience store with restaurant use, 8,280 square feet fuel canopy, 10 multiple product dispensers, and 37 parking spaces. The proposed convenience store would include a full-service kitchen and 14 indoor seats. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that the ordinance did not provide a hybrid option for the structure to be considered both a retail convenience store and restaurant. The parking allowances would be higher if the structure was considered hybrid use. Sarah Hamblin, Civil Engineer for Foresite Group, stated the retail allowances were one per 300 square feet and one per 100 square feet for restaurants. Based off 5,175 square feet, there would be 51 parking spaces. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the variance would ensure efficient traffic safety and circulation. He briefly discussed the findings of the traffic study. To minimize the impact of the request, some of the proposed parking spaces would be impervious. Mr. Bell asked if any trees were being removed. Ms. Hamblin stated the property was cleared. Ms. Lover asked if the applicant was requesting a variance of 12 parking spaces. Ms. Hamblin stated that was correct. Mr. Bell requested clarification whether the item would be a variance or an exemption. Mr. Noury stated it would be a variance. Mr. Caldwell stated convenience retail establishments were historically treated as retail. Staff were considering modifying the ordinance to allow additional parking to be pervious. Ms. Lover requested Mr. Bell to clarify where the technical term exemption was mentioned in the code. Mr. Noury stated Mr. Bell was asking if the applicant could have selected to be classified as a restaurant as opposed to a convenience store. Ms. Lover asked how classifications were determined. Mr. Caldwell read the definition of retail convenience. Ms. Lover asked for the square footage devoted to food service and retail. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that the kitchen, coolers, food prep, and dining area would approximately be 2,700 square feet. The remainder would be dedicated to the convenience retail. Ms. Lover inquired how much of the property would be green space. Ms. Hamblin shaded the site map to depict green spaces on the property. Ms. Lover asked if there was a landscaping plan. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the landscaping plan was in production, but it would be very dense. Ms. Lover stated she would be inclined to 12 pervious parking spots. Mr. Caldwell mentioned 80% would be impervious and 90% was the City’s maximum. It would be 10% under the maximum. 2  Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Bell asked if the canopy was included in the square footage. Mr. Caldwell stated canopies had not been included in the past. Mr. Bell requested the hardship as it related to the land. Mr. Wise stated the hardship would be that it was considered a hybrid, but there was not a hybrid use. Mr. Thomas stated the property was irregularly shaped. Mr. Bell stated the irregular shape did not affect the number of parking spaces. Ms. Lover requested the applicant to state the hardship. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the hardship was the limitations of the ordinance, the use was not properly adequately addressed by the current language in the ordinance. Ms. Lover explained the hardship must be related to the land. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated due to the unique configuration of the property there were few places where the driveways could be placed. They must maintain driveway spacing requirements to provide adequate traffic circulation throughout the site. Ms. Lover called for a motion. Mr. Thomas motioned to approve Variance #V28-24. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property were the irregularly shaped lot and busy intersection. 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 4-1. Ms. Lover voted nay. Mr. Caldwell requested the Board hear Variance #V29-24 at the end of the meeting. The applicant was in route. Mr. Reaves stated that a family member requested the variance to be postponed if the applicant was unable to attend. D. VARIANCE #V30-24: Application by Phillip Jones for a variance of the accessory structure requirements to construct a swimming pool in the front yard at 319 36th Avenue North zoned Single Family, Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Phillip Jones, home builder, representing Frank Morgan, was seeking a variance to install a 14’ x 9’ swimming pool in the front side yard. Swimming pools were not allowed in front yards in R-1 Districts. There was nowhere else on the property where the swimming pool could be placed. The property was a corner lot. The proposed swimming pool would be placed 13’ from the property line to prevent obstruction of visibility. There was a manmade lake and concrete bulkhead in the neighborhood that prevented property owners from installing swimming pools. Mr. Jones stated the hardship was the lake and bulkhead on the property. Mr. Reaves asked how much of the property went into the lake. Mr. Jones was uncertain. Ms. Lover asked for the date Mr. Morgan purchased the property. Mr. Wise stated the deed was transferred on January 25, 2024. Ms. Lover stated the front yard was very small. The property was not unique because other properties in the area could not fit swimming pools in their properties. Ms. Lover expressed concerns regarding neighbors seeking future variances, traffic, visibility, and aesthetics. Mr. Jones stated R-4 Districts allowed swimming pools in the front yard. Ms. Lover read the ordinance stating not being aware of the restrictions on the property when it was purchased was not a detriment. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Bell and Chairman McGonigal agreed with Ms. Lover’s concerns. Chairman McGonigal stated a swimming pool located in the front yard would not be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Jones stated that R-4 Districts allowed swimming pools in the front yard. The Board explained R-4 Districts were zoned to allow swimming pools in the front yard. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to deny Variance #V30-24. The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship. There were no unique circumstances attached to the property. All the surrounding properties were similar in nature. Although the rear of the property may be under water, so was everybody else’s house on that street. Therefore, this was not a unique request, and the Board may not consider that it would make more money 3  for the applicant by being able to rent it more. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion to deny passed 6-0. E. VARIANCE #V31-24: Application by Michelle Barney for a variance to remove a tree exceeding 24 caliper inches at 1101 Anne Street zoned R-1A Single-Family Residential Low-Medium District. Clint Richardson, Land Developer Manager for Beverly Homes, presented the Board the original and revised tree surveys. Mr. Richardson stated he was seeking a variance to remove a tree. The tree was in the Kingswood subdivision. Mr. Richardson stated two years ago he came before the Board and discussed conflicting trees. The original lot lines of the subdivision were correct, but the tree survey was inaccurate for Lot 2. The original tree survey depicted the tree straddling the property line, but it was 12’ off the property line. Once the home was formed, it was discovered that the tree was in the middle of the garage. The orientation of the garage could not be modified because it would be in close proximity to the intersection of Anne Street and Tom Chestnut. The driveway location was determined by the City and Horry County Engineering for safety matters. An alternative option could be to move the home away and extend the driveway, but they would encroach on the 16” and 20” cedar trees. Ms. Lover requested clarification regarding the location of the tree. Mr. Richardson clarified the location. Ms. Lover requested the number of lots located on the corner. Mr. Richardson stated there were two additional lots. He explained how the lots would be accessed. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Caldwell mentioned there was not another location on the property where the driveway could be installed. Ms. Lover asked if the other two trees would remain. Mr. Richardson stated yes. Mr. Bell asked if there was a landscaping plan that would accommodate replacing some hardwoods for the cedar that would be removed. Mr. Richardson stated there was a heavy landscaping schedule for the subdivision with 50’ across each lot or every 50’ between the curb and the back of the sidewalk. The schedule would be over 125 street trees. Chairman McGonigal stated the applicant may have to plant additional trees. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to approve Variance #V31-24. The hardship would be the required location of the driveway on the lot and the tree. The applicant must replant 15” of hardwoods on the property, pay $1500 into the tree bank, or a combination of both. Mr. Bell asked if the 15” could be replanted somewhere else. Ms. Lover stated 10” on the property, 5” somewhere else within the subdivision, pay $1500 into the tree bank, or a combination. The conditions would be in addition to the approved landscaping plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. The motion to approve passed 6-0. C. VARIANCE #V29-24: Application by Ann Walters for a variance of the side yard setback requirements for a cargo lift at 338 46th Avenue North zoned Single Family, Low Density, R-1 District. The applicant was not in attendance. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Reaves motioned to postpone Variance #V29-24 to the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to postpone 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 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:24 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