Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, November 14, 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 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 October 10, 2024, meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion passed 6-0. Vice-Chairman Quinn abstained from the vote due to being absent at this meeting. 3. COMMUNICATION: Mr. Caldwell stated Variances #V33-24 and #V36-24 were withdrawn by the applicant. Variance #V37-24 would be postponed to the next scheduled meeting. 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 #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 asked Mr. Noury for recommendations. 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 present information on their behalf. Mr. Caldwell stated staff would like the item to remain on the agenda because it was a variance to fix an unpermitted structure. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Thomas motioned to postpone Variance #V29-24 to the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 7-0. Ms. Lover requested the City continue to post the property. B. VARIANCE #V32-24: Application by Mitch Sells for a variance of side yard setback for the placement of a generator at 2609 South Ocean Boulevard zoned Resort Residential, R-4 District. Mr. Thomas recused himself from the discussion, vote, and left the chambers. Mitch Sells, applicant, presented a site map depicting alternative locations to relocate the generator. Mr. Sells stated Location A was proposed by the Zoning Board in the last meeting. After further investigation, the Crescent Towers Board proposed relocating the generator to location B. Location B was a 16’ x 9’ void spot. The dimensions of the generator were 9’ x 40”. Mr. Sells presented an aerial view of the property. The generator would be away from neighbors and adjacent to a public beach access. 1  Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Lover asked if Location B was considered a parking space. Mr. Caldwell stated Location B was void due to the configuration of the parking lot. Ms. Lover asked why a variance was required. Mr. Caldwell stated a variance was required because of the side yard setback. Mr. Bell asked if the generator could be placed beside the fence. Mr. Caldwell confirmed the generator could be placed beside the fence. Ms. Lover reassured the public that the Board would take into consideration all the evidence and testimonies from prior hearings when making a decision. Vice- Chairman Quinn stated the applicant did not notify the City to alter the original permit. Neither the contractor nor HOA contacted the City for a final inspection. Chairman McGonigal opened the floor to others. Robert Puhl, neighbor, stated he was in favor of Location A. Beth Pidgeon, Crescent Towers resident, stated a permit was obtained to place the generator at the current location. She expressed her desire to keep the generator at the current location. Chairman McGonigal stated a solution was found. Mr. Bell requested clarification whether both Locations A and B required a variance. Mr. Caldwell clarified a variance was required for both locations. Mr. Wise stated he preferred Location B because it would save a parking space. Mr. Bell agreed. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #V32-24. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the unusually smaller lot in standard given the development that was on that piece of 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. This variance would be approved on the condition that it would be specifically based on application (Location) B and it would be allowed for the required variance setbacks that were requested for the generator placement. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion to approve passed 6-0. C. VARIANCE #33-24: Application by James Baldwin to remove a tree exceeding 24 caliper inches at 1104 Palm Bay Drive. Mr. Caldwell stated at the beginning of the meeting that Variance #V33- 24 had been withdrawn by the applicant. D. VARIANCE #V34-24: Application by Douglas Jolly for a variance of rear and side yard setback for a proposed propane tank at 609 21st Avenue North zoned Single Family, Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Douglas Jolly, applicant, stated they owned the house for 20 years, but recently retired in the area. Mr. Jolly contracted Apco Electric to install a generator, but he would have to hire a propane contractor. The propane contractor nor himself were aware of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Jolly installed two pads within the setbacks. There was nowhere on the property to locate the propane tanks. There was 5’ on each side and 20’ on the rear, but the tanks would be in the setbacks. Mr. Reaves requested the name of the propane contractor. Mr. Jolly stated it was Battle LP Gas. Mr. Jolly presented a site map depicting the proposed location of the generator. and propane tanks. Mr. Jolly stated there was an existing fence, but he would install a screen surrounding the propane tanks. Mr. Thomas requested the square footage of the lot. Mr. Jolly was uncertain. Mr. Bell stated it was 3,500 square feet. The square footage was on the site map. Mrs. Jolly stated other properties had propane tanks against their houses. Mr. Bell asked if the hardship was the smaller lot size in the area that it was located. Mr. Jolly agreed. Ms. Lover requested the square footage of the lot. Mr. Bell stated the lot was R1, which required a lot to be 10,000 square feet. The applicant’s lot was 3,500 square feet. The minimum width of the lot had to be 80’, but the applicant’s lot was 50’ wide. Ms. Lover requested the depth. 2  Mr. Bell stated the depth was 70’ on one side and 65’ on the opposite side. Mr. Thomas and Mr. Wise stated the lot was 50’ x 100’. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Caldwell stated staff were considering modifying the zoning ordinance to allow propane tanks in the side or rear yard with a decreased setback. Ms. Lover expressed concerns regarding the frequent misinterpretations of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Lover stated the City’s system was complaint driven and that was a problem. Mr. Farmer stated the applicant made numerous attempts to come into compliance. The applicant proposed burying the tanks, but it would conflict with the building code. The building code required buried propane tanks to have a 10’ setback requirement from all property lines. Buried propane tanks would not have a zoning setback requirement per the zoning code. Mr. Reaves asked if there was a location on the property that would meet the 10’ setback. Mr. Jolly stated he was unable to contact a professional. Mr. Farmer stated the applicant would have to remove the driveway. Mr. Bell clarified the applicant’s lot was 5,000 square feet. His prior statement was based on the incorrect lot. Ms. Lover asked if the location of the propane tanks would pose any safety risks to the neighbors. Mr. Jolly stated the pad was located the farthest from all four houses. Mr. Wise requested clarification regarding the proposed location depicted on the site map. Mr. Jolly stated he would prefer the first proposed location. Chairman McGonigal asked Staff for recommendations. Mr. Farmer stated the first location would be against the side property line. The second location would be against the rear of the home. Mr. Caldwell stated the pad would be the farthest away from all neighbors. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Wise motioned to approve Variance #V34-24. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property was the smaller lot size compared to today’s standard. 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 propane tanks would be placed at the first proposed location as presented to the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bell. Mr. Bell added the conditions did apply to other lots in the area. The motion to approve passed 7-0. E. VARIANCE #V35-24: Application by Jane Dodge for a variance to remove two trees exceeding 24 caliper inches at 875 Westport Drive. Bob Weaver, representing Lennar Homes, stated he was seeking approval to remove a 26” tree on Lot 16 and a 40” elm tree on Lot 29. Mr. Weaver presented a letter from an arborist. Mr. Weaver stated they tried to move the lots around the 16” tree with a canopy exceeding 100’. The property was 8 acres. The utilization of the property was restricted due to distribution and transmission lines, pump station, and DOT drainage outfall located on the property. The applicant agreed to deed the City 0.51 acres for the pump station site. The pump station prevented the applicant from using all the property because there were setback requirements. Ms. Lover stated the letter listed four trees and three of the four trees were at least 24”. Ms. Lover asked if the 24” elm tree on Lot 25 required a variance. Mr. Weaver stated that he discussed the matter with Mr. Caldwell. He did not request a variance for the 24” tree on Lot 25 and 20” tree on Lot 39 because of the letter. Ms. Lover stated the 20” would not come before the Board. The 26” water oak was damaged due to construction. The applicant did not take preventive measures to protect the tree. Lennar Homes should have been aware of the pump station and power lines prior to purchasing the property. Mr. Weaver clarified he was not involved in the Development Agreement. Ms. Lover stated that the 40” elm tree was in good health and the arborist believed it had good odds of survival. She would approve a variance to remove the 26” tree but would like the 40” elm tree to remain. Ms. Lover requested the inches of trees on the property that would remain. Mr. 3  Weaver stated there were 2 acres of wetlands that had trees. Ms. Lover asked if a tree survey had been completed. Mr. Weaver stated the tree survey was presented to the City. Ms. Lover requested the inches of trees that would remain. Mr. Weaver did not have the requested information. Ms. Lover asked if any additional trees located in the wetlands would be removed. Mr. Weaver confirmed that no additional trees would be removed. All wetlands required a 20’ buffer. Mr. Bell stated that the Planning Commission wanted the applicant to save the trees. Mr. Weaver stated the 40” tree was mentioned to the Planning Commission. The street was relocated, and the sidewalk was eliminated to save the 40” tree. Ms. Lover asked why a variance was being requested. Mr. Weaver stated he was requesting a variance to remove the tree because it may be damaged in the future. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Mr. Bell asked if it was a PDD. Mr. Caldwell stated it was an R2A, Midrise Multifamily Residential. Mr. Farmer specified that the sidewalks were a City’s requirement, not public benefit. Chairman McGonigal opened the floor to others. Rich Zigabarra, neighbor, expressed concerns regarding the removal of trees and traffic. He was in favor of saving the trees. Mr. Caldwell presented a site map. Mr. Caldwell clarified there were not any houses underneath the powerlines or in the pump station area. Chairman McGonigal and Ms. Lover stated the development was already approved. Mrs. Lover suggested concerned citizens to attend the Planning Comissions and City Council meetings to voice their concerns. Debbie Zigabarra, neighbor, stated the protected trees should be protected. The applicant should be required to replace any damaged trees. The Board and Mr. Weaver had a lengthy discussion regarding the trees. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Ms. Lover motioned to deny the variance as to the 40” elm tree located on Lot 29. The 40” elm tree must remain protected. The applicant must provide a sufficient construction zone around the tree for it to continue to live. The Board grants the variance as to the 26” water oak with a provision that it was damaged during construction. The applicant must replant 26” of oak trees on the site in addition to any other trees that were included in the approved landscape plan. The applicant would not be allowed to cut down any other trees that were on the property. All remaining trees around the transfer station and wetlands must remain. If the applicant did not want to replant 26” of oak trees, they could pay $2,600 into the Tree Bank. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion to deny removal of the 40” elm tree passed 7-0. The motion to approve the removal of the 26” water oak passed 7- 0. F. VARIANCE #36-24: Application by Phillip Hornbeck for a variance to remove trees exceeding 24 caliper inches at the proposed Bahama Island RV Park at the end of Bowline Boulevard abutting the NMB Drydock and RV Park. Mr. Caldwell stated at the beginning of the meeting that Variance #V36-24 had been withdrawn by the applicant. G. VARIANCE #37-24: Application by Stephanie Carroll for a variance of the front yard setback requirements at 704 Windy Hill Road zoned Single Family-Low Density Residential, R-1 District. Mr. Caldwell stated at the beginning of the meeting that Variance #V37-24 would be postponed to the next scheduled meeting. H. VARIANCE #V38-24: Application by Jeffrey Kiser for a variance of the minimum building setback requirements of the archaic, superseded, patio home regulations for a proposed home addition at 729 Sweet Gum Lane zoned Medium Density Residential, R-2 District. Jeffrey Kiser, applicant, presented a site map. Mr. Kiser stated the proposed addition would be on an existing slab. The proposed addition would be allowed because it met the accumulation of a 10’ setback requirement between houses. Mr. Farmer identified that the house was encroaching in the setbacks in two locations. The house was allowed to encroach only on one side of the property per zoning. Mr. Kiser was seeking a variance to waive the 2.5 square feet on the rear to have the 4  ability to use the accumulation of 10’ on the side to construct the proposed addition. Mr. Bell asked if the applicant was the original owner. Mr. Kiser stated the home was purchased a year and a half ago. He expressed that many homes in the neighborhood had constructed additions on similar raised patios. The house was skewed on the lot in relation to the other homes. Ms. Lover requested the hardship. Mr. Kiser stated the home was small. Mr. Thomas requested the minimum lot size for an R2 lot. Mr. Caldwell stated today’s requirement for zero lot line single family detached lots were 3,000 square feet. Mr. Caldwell explained in detail the superseded patio home regulations. Mr. Caldwell confirmed the applicant had the total 10’ of required setback on the sides. Mr. Bell asked if the encroachment was the result of a bad survey and laying out the house. Mr. Caldwell stated it was a bad layout. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal suggested the applicant construct a smaller addition in the front of the property. Mr. Caldwell stated the applicant had 20’ in the front yard. The required front yard setback was 7.5’, but it could be slightly larger due to the encroachment in the rear. Chairman McGonigal asked if there was an equation to determine the size of the addition, so a variance would not be required. Mr. Caldwell stated there was 20.9’ on the front minus 7.5’ minus 16 inches on the rear. Chairman McGonigal stated the applicant had an option. Ms. Lover stated the applicant could construct an 8’ addition. Chairman McGonigal suggested Staff resolve the matter. Ms. Lover stated the applicant had options that would not require a variance. Mr. Kiser stated a 7’9” x 4’ would be an unreasonable size for a bedroom. The room would be unusable. The homeowner would opt for the removal of the rear. Mr. Bell stated if the rear was removed then a variance would not be required because the applicant would have the ability to encroach on the side. The proposed addition would be a self-imposed hardship. Mr. Bell suggested postponing the variance to give the applicant the opportunity to find a solution with Staff. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to postpone Variance #V38-24 to the next scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion to postpone passed 7-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Wise and seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion passed 7-0. 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. 5