Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH MYRTLE BEACH CITY HALL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Thursday, December 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 Alexandra Smith, Administrative Asst. II Joe Reaves 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 November 14, 2024, meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Reaves and seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion passed 7-0. 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 #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. Caldwell for a recommendation. Mr. Caldwell requested the item remain on the agenda for another month. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Thomas motioned to postpone Variance #V29-24 to the next scheduled meeting. Ms. Lover requested Mr. Thomas to add that the item would be removed from the roster if the applicant did not attend. The item had been postponed three times. Ms. Lover asked if there was an outstanding ticket. Mr. Caldwell stated the lift was constructed without a permit and it was in the side yard. Ms. Lover stated the applicant was avoiding the matter. Mr. Caldwell stated the applicant was out of state due to a family member’s health issues. Mr. Farmer clarified that the applicant had applied for a permit after the installation of the lift, but it was not approved. Mr. Thomas did not amend the motion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion to postpone passed 5-2. Ms. Lover and Mr. Bell voted nay. B. VARIANCE #V37-24: 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. Stephanie Carroll, applicant, presented a survey of the property. Ms. Lover asked for the amount of variance being requested. Ms. Carroll stated it would be a total of 13’ for the porch and steps. The home was built in 1959 prior to the area becoming part of Windy Hill. The home existed when the setbacks were established. There was water damage due to the front door not being under a cover. Ms. Carroll was seeking approval to remove the existing gable and shift the gable 1  to the center above the door and portrait window. Then extend out with a porch to cover the front door and eliminate water damage. Ms. Carroll presented images of water damage. She stated the water damage had been repaired multiple times. Ms. Carroll presented a CAD drawing depicting the proposed structure. Ms. Carroll stated her road had a 75’ right of way in comparison to other similar roads; other similar roads had a 50’ right-of-way. Ms. Carroll stated there was plenty of front yard in case the road needed to be widened. Several houses in the neighborhood had similar layouts with covered porches. Ms. Carroll stated the property was oddly shaped in the rear. Ms. Lover requested clarification of the variance. Ms. Carroll stated the overhang would be 1.2’ in the side yard setback. The front porch and steps would be 13’ in the front yard setback. There would be 40’ from the front steps for the right-of-way. Mr. Caldwell stated the CAD drawing depicted 9.3’. Ms. Carroll clarified there was 9.3’ from the front steps to the property line. There was 38.6’ from the front steps to the edge of the road or sidewalk. The house was angled. On one end, it would be 21.3’ from the property line and 19’ on the other end. Ms. Lover asked if any trees would be removed. Ms. Carroll stated no trees would be removed. Ms. Lover requested the hardship. Ms. Carroll stated the hardships were the oddly shaped lot, the house was constructed on the property prior to having setbacks, water damage, and the large right-of-way. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Ms. Bell stated the house was already 6’ in the setback. Mr. Caldwell stated it was. Ms. Lover asked if there were any plans to widen the road. Mr. Caldwell stated he was not aware of any plans. Mr. Bell asked if the applicant was requesting a 15.7’ variance because there would be 9.3’ from the lot line. Ms. Carroll stated she had a CAD drawing showing the steps on the side. The porch would only come out 8’. Vice-Chairman Quinn requested the CAD drawing. Ms. Carroll presented option 2. Mr. Reaves asked if the front yard setback was 25’. Mr. Caldwell stated that was correct. Mr. Reaves asked if the side yard setback was 10’. Mr. Caldwell stated it was. Mr. Bell asked if only the overhang would be encroaching into the side yard. Ms. Carroll confirmed the overhang would encroach 1.2’. Mr. Bell stated it was not a self-imposed hardship. Mr. Reaves stated the Board should decide whether the steps would be in the front or the side. Chairman McGonigal suggested the steps be on the side as a compromise. Mr. Bell asked if it would be 11.7’ for the variance if the steps were off the side. Ms. Carroll stated the numbers would vary due to the house being skewed. Mr. Caldwell stated the Board could condition the approval that the porch could only come out 8’. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #V37-24. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property were the property being purchased prior to being annexed into the City and having new zoning restrictions, the property was existing, and the irregular shaped lot. 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. This variance would be approved on the conditions that the porch only come off 8’ from the front of the property. The steps must be placed on the side of the porch. Grant 1’2” on the right side of the property for the additional construction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wise. The motion to approve passed 7-0. C. VARIANCE #V39-24: Application by Sarah Hamblin for a variance to increase the maximum parking spaces allowed for a proposed development from 26 to 46 spaces at 4350 Highway 17 South zoned Highway Commercial, HC District. Daniel Ben-Yisrael, Real Estate Development Manager for Parker’s Kitchen, presented a site plan. Mr. Ben-Yisrael was requesting a variance to increase parking from 26 to 46 spaces due to geography conditions. The property was encumbered by a shared parking and access easement with the adjacent property. The adjacent 2 property was under development to accommodate two retail businesses, Dairy Queen and Dunkin’ Donuts. The easement allowed the adjacent property and its patrons to access Parker’s Kitchen parking aisles to get to Barefoot Landing Road. The variance would allow adequate parking. The additional parking would minimize the adverse impact of traffic flow. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated there was a discrepancy in the application. The application requested 44 spaces, but the site plan reflected 41 spaces. During the planning stage, a site plan layout was designed to fit 44 spaces. Sarah Hamblin, representing Foresite group, stated the landscape plan being presented was the updated plan. Ms. Lover asked for the square footage of additional pavement. Ms. Hamblin did not have the exact acre to acre calculation. She stated there would be a lot of landscaping. Ms. Lover asked if there would be any additional paving. Ms. Hamblin confirmed there would not be any additional paving. Landscaping areas would be added. Mr. Ben-Yisrael clarified that the existing pavement would be demolished and new asphalt would be installed. The end result would be a net reduction in the amount of impervious areas on the site. Ms. Hamblin stated the site would be treated as a green space. Ms. Lover asked if the applicant would make some of the parking spaces pervious. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated absolutely. Ms. Lover stated customers could cross share parking with Dairy Queen and Dunkin’ Donuts. Ms. Hamblin stated the cross-access easement was located on the parcel. Mr. Bell asked if the applicant owned both properties. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated they only owned the Parker’s Kitchen location. Mr. Bell requested the egress. Ms. Hamblin stated the easement was existing and recorded. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the easement was granted in perpetuity to the successors of the property. Ms. Lover and Mr. Ben-Yisrael discussed the cross- access and parking easement agreement. Mr. Caldwell read the description of the request, the ordinance, and recommended to hear the variance. Chairman McGonigal asked Mr. Caldwell about impervious parking spaces. Mr. Caldwell stated Staff proposed an ordinance modification that would stop prohibiting the maximum number of spaces on a property, but any space other than the minimum requirement would have to be pervious. The ordinance had not passed. The Board and Mr. Caldwell discussed the proposed ordinance modification. Chairman McGonigal stated the applicant had two different parking plans. Chairman McGonigal requested a site plan that provided adequate parking. Mr. Ben-Yisrael presented a site plan that would allow additional landscaping on the corner, front, and rear of the property. Mr. Bell asked if all parking depicted on the site plan was pervious. Ms. Hamblin shaded parking spaces located on the sides that would be pervious. Mr. Bell stated the applicant could have 18 pervious parking spaces. Ms. Lover requested clarification regarding the runoff. Mr. Caldwell stated Public Works would treat it as a grass field. It would have to meet today’s standards. Mr. Bell stated there would be underground water storage. Ms. Lover expressed her concerns regarding runoff affecting wildlife and neighboring properties. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated a hydrological analysis would be completed to determine whether water could be detained or retained on site. There were inlet structures adjacent to the property that conveyed water to a pond. Ms. Lover asked why additional parking was required. Mr. Thomas asked for the number of restaurants the applicant owned. Mr. Ben- Yisrael stated they operated 94 stores. Mr. Wise asked if the other gas stations filled up parking. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated this gas station would probably generate about 4,000 trips per day and 230-240 trips during peak hours. The average stay was approximately 8-10 minutes. Ms. Lover expressed her concerns regarding traffic during the summer. Mr. Caldwell stated Public Works reviewed the traffic plans. Ms. Lover asked if the Board could place restrictions on landscaping. Mr. Caldwell stated the Board could make conditions on landscaping, but the plans being presented may not be the final product. Mr. Caldwell and the Board discussed conditions that could be placed. The Board had a lengthy discussion regarding landscaping. Mr. Bell stated preliminary landscaping was required. Mr. Ben-Yisrael presented a color copy of the site map. 3  Chairman McGonigal called for a motion. Mr. Bell motioned to approve Variance #V39-24. The applicant had demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property were the right-of-way easement that was required in regard to the adjacent property that was grandfathered with the property and the lot was abnormally larger than normal. These conditions did not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. The application of the ordinance to the particular piece of property would not effectively prohibit, but could restrict 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 the preliminary landscaping buffers must be intact as required by the City. There must be 18 pervious parking spaces on the property for the maximum allowed 44 parking spots on the property. Vice-Chairman Quinn added there must be a proprietary water system to protect the environment from any hazardous runoff. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Quinn. The motion to approve passed 7-0. Chairman McGonigal called for a motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Reaves. The motion passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:07 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