Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the uh March 12th, 2026 BZA meeting of North Myrtle Beach. Like to go ahead and call the meeting to order and Miss Amber if we could get a roll call. Chairman McGonagal here. Andy Thomas present. Mendel Bell here. Joe Reeves here. Cynthia Lover. Wyman Wise. We have a quorum. Great. Thank you. We'll take item number two on the agenda. We've got the minutes. If we can take a second to review those and if we can get a motion to approve the minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve Thursday, February 12th, 2026. Great. Thank you, Mr. Bell. We have a second. Second. Got a second from Mr. Thomas. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Eyes have it. Mr. Cowwell, any um communication from the city? No, sir. Great. Thank you. And Miss Amber, if you can go ahead and u have everybody rise and and get them to sworn in. So if they're they're planning on speaking. Um if you plan on speaking, please rise.

Do you solemnly state under penalty of perjury that the evidence you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? You may se have a seat. Great. Thank you. Starting new business. We've got um item number one and two. I have to recuse myself. So, I'm going to step out and we'll let M the vice chair take over. Thank you. Mr. Before you do that, maybe we should just explain to everybody the rules for the numbers.

Yep. Go ahead. We're a board of seven and it takes a majority of your short one because she's got We have a five people here tonight and it takes three and we're going to stand that we have a board of seven people. We only have five people here tonight. So, it takes three votes for yes to get your variance approved tonight. And what we normally do when we don't have a full board is we give people the option of um continuing their variance request to a later meeting to the next scheduled meeting um which would give them different odds on getting their variances approved because then they would have to get four out of seven instead of three out of five. So, we offer that option to everybody who has a um an item on an agenda when we have less than a full board present. So, if there's anybody here that would like to take that opportunity and not have their variance requests heard tonight, this would be the time to do that.

Great. Thank you, Miss Lover. Okay. All right. So, um we have the first three items on the agenda are um BCA 2601, 02, and 04. I'm sorry, the first two items, 01 and 02. And those are dealing with um requests for landscaping and parking requirements at 1716 and 1802 South Ocean Boulevard. It's my understanding that there have been new parking plans and new um perimeter landscaping plans submitted. Uh there's also been an additional piece of property added to the parcel. Um that's all of that necessitates that the those variance requests be readvertised because the details in them are not necessarily currently correct. Um, and so they all need to be readvertised and so the applicant has requested that they be tabled tonight because they can't be heard as they are. Um, so do I have a motion from anybody to have those?

Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we postpone BCA26-1 and BZA-2602 to the next meeting. Okay. Second. All right. All in favor?

I. All opposed. Okay. The motion carries. Then uh the first two items on the agenda will be rescheduled for the a later meeting or the next regularly scheduled meeting. Okay. All right, let's move on to the uh item number three. We got BZA26-04 an application by Kenneth Haynes for a variance of a sideyard setback requirement for a proposed screen lenai to cover the existing swimming pool at 806 Merl Place zone single family in the low density residential R1 district. Mr. Haynes, come on up and introduce yourself, please.

Hello. Thank you for having me. Uh, my name is Ken Haynes. I work for First Choice Enclosures. We build the pool on eyes. Mr. Clinton was not able to be here tonight, so he had me file on his behalf. Uh, essentially, I submitted a copy of a survey, but on the west side of the property, there's an area of the pool decking that go we thought there was a five foot setback on the rear on the side like a lot of lots, but it's actually 10 when we got the um the survey. So, he's going into the side uh yard set back uh to cover the pool decking. If we don't get the variance, the pool enclosure is going to sit right on the edge of the water. Uh so, we'd have no access to the pool from that side. So, for cleaning it out and whatnot. So that's why he's requesting a variance into the sideyard set back so that he would, you know, be able to util and it'll create difficulty putting the footing in as well for for us if we don't get the side set back. But it can be done. It would just look a lot better and be better for the homeowner and probably better for the community if it goes into the setback because it'll cover the decking that's already there.

Okay. I hope y'all had this. I uploaded it, but you have a the survey that shows what I'm talking about. We do. Okay. Very good. Thank you, sir. Any questions uh for the applicant? I peaked over the fence. I didn't jump it, but I looked over the fence to see what I could see. Yes, ma'am. Um and so it looked like there was a lot of space over there on that side. Um you're saying between the pool decking and the fence there's less than five feet? Yes. Really?

Yeah, it does. Actually, I I was surprised as well when I when I first met with him. I didn't think we'd have a setback issue at all when he got the survey. I'm not sure if that I didn't bother to look where that fence is. That fence may actually be the neighbor's fence. Maybe that's why it looks like so much more property than what it really is. Okay. But it looks like you've got about 15 to 18 feet, but just by eyeballing it. But, you know, it doesn't. It goes right through those pavers that's there on the decking. And that's why we'd have to tear all that up and and uh put a footing there to attach the pool enclosure to. and it would be right on the edge of his water. But what you want to do, I don't know how the lines work exactly. So, they just would not be on the pool decking. They have to be in the ground. They have to be in the dirt.

They have to be on a footer. So, we were planning on putting a footer to the outside of the pavers. Uh we can lift up the pavers and put the footing under there. Uh it's mainly he's just want to keep a walkway so he can have access to clean the pool and and and for kids to jump in and climb out. Yeah, it's kind of a safety issue if you're trying to climb out of the water and you're climbing into a a a screen enclosure. And how high would the LAI be? Uh the overall height would be about 12 feet. And would you be able to see through it? Yes, it screens. Yes. So there's no version of it that would be enclosed like they wouldn't put vinyl around it or anything in the winter time, the windbreak, nothing like that.

The only thing you'd have are 2 in by 6 in posts every six feet or so. Okay. And then the framing, you would see the skeleton, but as far as the actual enclosure, you'd see right through it. It's just screens. So, there's no chance the neighbors would be looking at like some kind of a wall. No, right on the property line. Okay. Not that we would build. I have no further questions. Put the pool in. Did y'all put the pool in? We did not. And the homeowner did not as well. It was there when he bought the house and I guess he decided he wanted to enclose it because all the frogs and snakes and critters keep getting in there and leaves and stuff as well. So that's why he wanted to pull enclosure. He didn't realize he was going to run into this. I didn't either.

It looks like the when I'm looking at the plan, I look at the the measurements. It looks like he had about 10 feet. He roughly got about another two feet to the pool. Is that about That's right. Yes. I'm sorry. So that we do have one more question. How much of a variance is it that you're seeking? Oh, it was um it's in my paperwork

required. How much? It looks about half of that or five fiveT which would give you about seven feet around the getting out of the Well, when we put the enclosure up, we always inset to the inside of the footing as well. So, it really would only be about four and a half ft, but I'd rather have the five just to make sure. That would give him roughly three feet to walk around the pool.

Great. Give a second. Sure thing. Absolutely. From the city and we'll be back to you. Thank you.

Petitioner Kenneth Haynes has submitted an application for a five- foot variance of the required 10- foot sideyard setback at 806 Mel Place zone single family lowdensity residential R1 district. The setback for pool enclosures is $10 ft on the side yard within the R1 district. The applicant would like to have the pool enclosure built on the back of the house to enclose the existing pool. The proposed pool enclosure would encroach five foot into the required sideyard setback. Swimming pools in ground and unenclosed only require the 5- foot sideyard setback. Staff recommends the board review the app variance application and attached plot plan. Hear the evidence presented at the meeting and review the ordinance provided.

Thank you, Miss Welcome. The um what is the setback? I I see the 10 foot setback. Is that the actual setback for the building side? That would be the setback required for the building and for the enclosure. Is the notice in on here um then was the the is this a straight up variance or is this going to be I see the special exception request? This would be a variance because they're trying to vary the requirement of the 10 foot and trying to reduce it.

Any questions for the city? Looking at the accessory buildings and uses code, is that what you look at when you're looking at this? Yes. Is considered an accessory building? So, it would go under 23-107. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it is in the accessory use table. Basically, you would consider it the same way you consider a garage or they're separately called out. Swimming pools are okay.

And they say, you know, within the R1 district, a five foot setback is required. That's for the unenclosed swimming pool. The enclosure is just considered an an addition to the building needing to meet the same setbacks as as the building as the house. And in this district, because of the square footage and width of the lot, it's a 10ft sideyard setback. So, okay. Like I'm reading here, a swimming pool fence. That's different. That's a five foot setback. Uh that's a five foot setback on the ocean front. Yes. I mean close to the ground.

Did you find it? I think so. Okay. Seems like if it was a if this was a garage, would it still have to be 10 ft? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the city? Any questions for the applicant? What we're charged with, Mr. H is try to find a hardship. Okay. I know it's it's inconvenient to do it. You know, as a board, we've got to find a hardship. shape of the lot.

Yeah, I I deal with that question a lot with variances with these because a lot of times the pools the pools don't have the decking does not have the same setbacks as a building setback. So what happens people get a pool then they decide a few years later oh I want an enclosure and they don't understand why you can't just build it wherever you want to build it. So I end up in these a lot of times they look at the hardship as you know having to work on the pool but then again in the grand scheme of things is having a pool really a hardship at all? So, I understand where you're coming from. I think the safety issue would be key because you're going to be right on the water edge. So, if somebody were to be in trouble and try to climb out, they'd be climbing into a um a lai. So, that could be considered a hardship. Um having u snakes and critters like that in the pool could be considered a hardship. So, having the lenai would do that. But the point with this one, like I explained to Mr. Clinton, is you can build it without the variance. It's just going to be kind of ugly. I think it would be prettier and and better if it's built into the setback. But

we run into that problem a lot where common sense sometimes doesn't get used ability to make the variance. I understood

you were saying you could you could put it under the current decking. You would have to put another that's what I'm trying to understand. But it would be more difficult. They're only there. Now, we have to have a footing to attach to. So, we'd have to peel all those pavers back, pour a footing, and then reattach the pavers. But, it would be within the setback then. But the decking, the lenai itself would sit basically about this close to the water's edge by the time it's bel built. So, there's not much room for somebody to, you know, pull themsel up out of the water and that sort of thing.

So, or or clean and things like that. So that was why I was thinking it might, you know, like I said, it is a stretch for a hardship. I understand that completely and I appreciate y'all seeing the case. Mr. Carwell, looking at this and you know, you're roughly two feet off the pool. Does does the state require a specific is there a five foot around the pool from a safety issue? Nothing in the zoning ordinance about that. know about the building code or any other codes that would require a setback from the edge of the water or the screen. I know the answer. Yep. I do know the answer. There's not

there's not unless we are the fence, which there's already a fence. So, we're not the fence. But if we are the fence, we have to have 19 inches of clearance. So, we're not the fence in this case. So, you can put it right on the edge of the water if you want to. Okay. Probably help my case, but it's the honesty this case. We're just looking to see if there if there are any outstanding issues that we can help with.

Any other questions for the applicant? And we've had these come up. Be nice to take a look at them since we're here. We're hearing these. Be nice to uh let's take a look at them and see if there's any because we've had this come up. The pools are put in. This one's a little even closer in than typically we've seen. So, but is anyone prepared to make a motion?

I think that's it. Thank you so much. Move that the board grant uh excuse me, the board deny variance BZA-2604 um because the applicant has not demonstrated an SA hardship. Um there are not extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property. Uh these conditions do generally apply to the properties in the vicinity. Um because these conditions application of the ordinance this particular piece of property would affect would not prohibit or unnecessarily restrict the utilization of the property. The authorization of the variance should not be substantial. Uh the denial of the variance would not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties of the public good and the character of the district would not be harmed by granting the variance.

I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. We got a second on Mr. Bell. Any discussion? All in favor? I thank you. Here you go. Thank you so much. Yes, ma'am. Thank you so much. All right, we'll move on the next item on the agenda. We've got item number four, BZA26-05, an application by Gillard Tanbomb for variance of a signage allowances for a building on 2011 Main Street within the resort commercial RC district. Come on up and introduce yourself for us. Thanks.

Good.

Thank you for for your time. Um, so a little bit tall. Um, my name is Gilad Tannibal and, uh, I'm the authorized applicant for Palmetto Island, uh, which is located on 2011 Main Street. Uh, we took over this store from the previous owner, um, on October. Um, the name of the store was Kings at the Beach. Um when we took over, we decided to go through um facade kind of um improvements to make it look more appealing um and um with partnership with the city of North Myrtle Beach. Uh we got approved for the um facade grant program. Um we are actually right now in the process of designing the signs for the building and uh we didn't know that there is um I guess a certain square footage that is uh that we can put on on on the building uh which is I think a 100 square foot total. So um we are already currently investing significantly in renovating the building. We already started and um our goal is to enhance the appearance of the corridor and create an attractive corner presence. Um the additional square footage requested is we believe is um the minimum necessary to provide proportional identification consistent with the site unique configuration. Um the property is is one of two

um corner p parcels um along Main Street and Ocean Boulevard. There's only like two buildings on the corner. um with dual frontage and intersection exposure. Um so unlike any other building on the corridor that they have only the um the front it is the visibility is divided between uh two traffic approaches. Um, strict applications of the sign ordinance limits effective identification in a way that does not affect interior lots. Um, I do have um I printed seven. I don't know if I can hand it to you if you can see the the differences between the size that we um offered or what is allowed and you'll see the difference with the building. I don't know if you have that.

We do. Yeah. So, So if you'll go to

what he wants to show us,

this one right here is um what we proposed and um what is actually I think permitted is um which you can see that this building has uh about 106 foot of uh frontage. Um the proport the proportion of the sign will be very I would say small to the building. Uh we're trying to make this corner looks very nice. Uh we're investing a good bit of money in it and uh I hope uh we can uh we can do that and you'll agree.

Thank you. Is it going to be a retail is it going to be a retail operation?

Yes, sir. the building right now. Uh the previous owner um kept it with um a staco facade uh with different colors um green and which for us it doesn't look very appealing and uh we wanted to give it more of a modern look and uh we believe that um when we will be done also a lot of people in the area would like to And I know the city is is actually very excited about it. Uh to have more people kind of renovate that corridor and and bring their facades to look more attractive. So we are the pioneers maybe. I don't know.

Good job. Looks the plan looks looks very nice. Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant? So you want the large You can see in this one

this is what we proposed. You will see all three entrances. Okay.

And the portion of the size um to the size of the sign to the I guess the frontage of the entrance. Go to the next page. You will see the smaller one on each entrance. And you will see that even if we do a smaller sign on uh the main street entrance or the other side and not the main on the boulevard, it still looks very very um small and really not I mean I think it it does uh the opposite than what we want to do for the building. So you can see the difference between the two sizes.

So if I'm looking at what you have up there in the bottom of the in the center thing there at the bottom it says 18.7 square feet. Is that right? Which one? Oh, just what you just had up there. I'm noticing on each of these. Oh, yes. Yes, I see that. Like it says one of them says that I have says 40.2 ft. And then that one you just had up there had 18.7. That was

Great. Thank you, M. Um, we've got this picture, right? There's the type of product he has. You is there a minimum lot size

in reser commercial or a retail operation? We've built so little new things in RC. I don't recall what the lot is. Can you look that up? Um, I think it depends on what's on there, right?

He's looking it up now. multi retail operation. There wouldn't be a required lot. I mean lot area.

I I said lot area. I meant lot width. They're not there's not a minimum lot width in RC. because we got 1.5 not in the sign ordinance. The sign on this. If you divided that building up three separate businesses on each door, right?

It said total signage area per location shall not exceed 100 square foot. Even if you had three separate per divided that building up three separate businesses, I think altogether it would be limited to 100 square foot. If there was three businesses in there, if there was if if they were on separate lots that building, then that then 300 square foot for three tenants if they were on separate lots. City council have an interest in putting this in a special exception rather than a variance.

I mean, it's just you're seeing this more and more with the signage ordinance. Um that's something that um if you wanted them to review, you could make that recommendation. Didn't they just do the whole facade ordinance as well? And given the fact that they're giving him he's getting money to upgrade his facade. Mhm. I mean, it makes sense, right? was trying to

and we and we see this, you know, because these the zoning rules are written for one lot 50 ft by 225 and yet just like we had on the alley oops it was six lots quite quite quite a bit bigger. If there's a way we could look at it so we have a like and we work within thresholds that city council sets and staff sets and then we we'd have the ability to make special exception decisions would make a lot of sense. be nice if the signage could be proportionate to the building. Sure. Andor the frontage of the building or the the frontage of the building facing a road, something like that. You've got you got two roads here.

Yeah. This whole thing you got two roads here. You're limited just because it's a per location. I agree 100%. You look at it from Mr. Reeves pointed out if this easily could be two to three businesses. So now you're trying to make the right common sense decisions.

Have you have you started construction? You have three days ago. Well, excuse me. Come up to the I'm sorry, my fault. Come on up to the microphone. Thank you. So, we get it for the record.

So, we did start about three days ago and we're planning to have this going uh for about three to four weeks. uh we wanted to start manufacture the signs uh because we didn't want to enter the season and to interfere with um you know visitors and tourists around. Um but we kind of hold on with the sign until we'll figure it out. So, but the facade is being um already being upgraded. Great. Thank you. Yeah. No, give us a second. we just let us finish up what we're doing and then we're gonna we're definitely going to ask for public comment. So, give me a second. Thank you.

I have a question for the city. If I recall from the past things we look at on signs, he has no restrictions on what he could put inside the windows. Correct. Like over the doors, he could put something big and ugly neon signs that said Palmetto Island and that wouldn't even be subject to the sign ordinance. Is that true? Uh, our sign ordinance doesn't allow more than 25% of the inside of the windows to be covered, but we don't regulate it as signage. I mean, he's got a lot of windows. He could just put something really big over the door and it would be tacky looking and not as good-looking as what he wants to do. There's no limit on what he can what people could see if he wanted to do it that way. Um, may I?

Uh, that's another good point. Um the previous owner um had a lot of stickers and signs on the windows um which really made it look like a bizaar kind of thing. And uh we are also in the process of removing all of these stickers and everything. We want to have like clean windows that you can see through and excuse me and a really nice clean modern look. So, our vision is to have a clean looking building without the look of stickers on the windows and because because they did that. I mean, they have a lot of square footage of stickers and signs that are stuck to the windows and that will be removed. I mean, actually, as we speak.

My other question for the city is you're not counting these circular things with the palm trees inside of them as signs. So if he took the palm tree out of his signs and he put the palm tree separate beside he put the palm tree somewhere else on the facade and it just said Palmetto Island which made his signs bigger. He could still do that too. Right. Correct.

But he could just have a palm tree add some palm trees in there and just have the words Palmetto Island. He doesn't have to have it all together. So that's another way for him to avoid it which to me is a reason for why we should give him the variance because he has so many ways around it. he's trying to do is make it look nice without us trying to tear it apart. My thoughts any other questions for the city or the applicant? Okay, hear from the public. Come on. And just introduce yourself, please.

Do I need to give my address?

Yeah, if you don't. Thanks. Puffer 3506 Turner Avenue. I'm a little confused because Ali oops had a similar situation and they were granted that. This is on the corner of Main Street and we're trying to revitalize it. I think it's a very attractive uh design. I think a smaller design would be a hardship. I mean, I think it's unique because it's going to be very very um appealing and we're trying to revitalize Main Street. So, I really think that this is one of those things where it would be a much better opportunity to approve this as opposed to something like what we saw with Ali Oops. And I think they got a how many? 800. What was that square footage on that sign? Because the rationale was it was one building,

six lots, six lots. Yeah. But this is a fairly large building and it would be extremely unfortunate aesthetically if it were small a small sign and given how many people come to Main Street. So if it helps that the community supports it, I just wanted to make sure I said that. Thank you. We feel similar. So different ways that you go about doing this, but doing something that wants to have value and benefit the community.

This would be a good one. I mean, because we It's hardship. I mean, he doesn't have He doesn't have to have street side parking grandfather into an old system. The building original give us some ideas. Mr. Mur, you have to help us with this sometimes as well.

No, I'll get it. Yeah. Just up on the up on the screen.

This building being on Main Street. Yeah. the size of the signage and the size of the building and not you know theoretically you know he has you know they have off-site parking all the other stuff that comes with it. So the size of this building is unique and grandfathered into the city because he wouldn't be able he wouldn't be this in some other district in the city anymore. You'd have to have on-site parking all the other stuff that comes with it. So this is kind of protecting the historical element of the community. Just trying to help help define the hardship so that we can help the applicant. And Mr. Nur on you know this is a good example of something that common sense we this would make sense but with a hardship it makes it a little challenging. Is there a way that we can look at these and with a spectral exception? You got to set some parameters just because when we have bigger piece of property, we got this one with no parking. Um the improvements are going to look great.

Two road road frontages. Two road typical storefront or per location because it's got two road frontages on it. You got main street and ocean boulevard.

Yes. And now I say it'd be nice if it would because as we're seeing this, we've got like We've got broad stroke on one one paint job for for everybody. You think more on the the double road frontage for the applicant? I mean

I think maybe we need to we need to look at this so we so we make it a right. Yeah. If it was a special exception, it' make a whole lot easier. But this does have two. You got Main Street, you got you got Ocean Boulevard. And how would you sign it? Just to not now in the future. In the future recommendation

recommendation of city council just makes it so we've got I know there's time, but look at it from this gentleman's perspective. Can we look at it from a to Mr. Bell's point? We got two streets. So can Does that help us on adding some square footage? I kind of got two roades. it would make the signage proportionate to the building given the fact it's on two roads just that presents possible hardship if the board's in agreement with that.

Um I agree with that and I like the uh I like the sign the way it is.

So Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that the board grant variance BZA-26-5 because applicant has demonstrated an unnecessary hardship, specifically our extraordinary central conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property given the fact it does sit on Ocean Boulevard and Main Street having double road frontage. These conditions do not generally apply to all properties in the vicinity. Because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit earnings to restrict the utilization of the property. The authorization of the variance would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties or to the public good and the character of the district would not be harmed by granting of the variance. And I make a motion that we approve as suggested by the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Do we have a second?

A second. And a second for Mr. Reeves. Any discussion? All in favor? I have it. Good luck with your project. Very much. Thank you for your time. Thank you for doing that. look forward to seeing your new building

in your in your future notes though and you know I don't know how you report to council and not but I would suggest you know that that be brought to their attention that they should figure out a way to amend their ordinance to consider the square footage of the of the building or the size of the the amount of road frontage or the number of entrances. There's lots of different variables that they could put into that ordinance that would allow for a um you know a sign that would be proportional to what to what the building itself is. Okay. Then we're coming up with the church one. Yes. So I mean it's the same thing. It's far off the street. So how you trying to you know we're throwing everything into one basket. It's a challenge really challenging.

Right. How to differentiate buildings signage for buildings based on the the size and the the amount of square footage of the building, the amount of road frontage. That would help a bunch.

Great. All right, let's move on to the next item on the agenda. We've got item number five. We got BZA26-06 and application by Elizabeth Pettit uh due to removal of a tree greater than 24 in without a permit at 58th Avenue North. Let's pet it. A petite. First, I'd like to apologize to the city because there's no way I would let that man talk me into cutting down any trees had I known we needed permits.

Um, just so you know, the guy to do the tree. Anyway, um the tree in question, you probably have pictures in your packet. If not, I have um anyway, the tree had an infestation as I've been informed of uh some kind of termite and the um Mr. Aley said to me that this infestation was a danger to the rest of trees in my yard, which of course I had no intention of losing any. Um,

tell me how.

It's just an easy explanation when you see the Okay. It was just like paper. And he said the whole tree was like that and that when these bugs were finished with this tree, they would move on to the other trees in my yard. And so it had to go.

So the person that told you this is also the person you paid to cut down the tree. That's correct. Did you ask him if he had a city license? I did not. You think it was strange his phone, his business card didn't have a local area code on it? Well, he said he just moved here and I area code. So, no, it didn't seem odd.

And I think if you're a business, you should have a local area. That's the first thing that stood out to me. I was gone for a very long time, but I grew up here, so it matters to me that we do all the things we're supposed to do. And I'm He said he was an arborist. He's not that either. He still doesn't have a business license in the in the city of North Myrtle Beach to my understanding. So, I'm finding out all of these after the fact, and that's on me to not have having done my homework, but he had done work for other neighbors, and so I thought he was legit recommended.

Well, let us hear from the city. I'm going to come back to you. Okay. The board is tasked with determining the replacement value for the improper removal of a 20 24 inch oak tree and 40inch oak tree at 5008th Avenue North. The ordinance requires that when a tree over 24 in is removed without the approval by the board. uh the property owner shall apply to the board for the board to determine the replacement required to mitigate the loss of the protected tree or trees as seen in the video produced by the applicant that the arborist well that the uh tree cutter most likely would have concluded that I'm sorry I need to start that sentence over as seen in the video produced by the applicant that the arborist most likely would have concluded that the 40inch tree was dying. City staff also verified that the 24-inch oak was beginning to hollow. Staff recommends that the board review the situation, hear the evidence presented at the meeting, and set what the board determines to be a suitable replacement.

Thank you, M. How did you um how did the city this come to the city's attention? I believe it was a complaint. And when you got out there, was he still cutting the tree or was it was it already gone by the time somebody went out there to check on it? Damn. Did Sam look at them and see? Yeah, he could tell that they they weren't healthy trees, but we don't make determinations on tree health. We rely on an arborist to tell us if the tree is dead or dying before we issue a permit. Mr. Even when the we just saw that that tree was done, you could peel stuff off.

Well, we wouldn't have been able to see that until I think they started cutting into it, which is is that that was the outside. A staff that reviews trees for removal are not arborists. We don't want to make a call that a tree is not dead or dying and then it fall down the next day. You know, we don't want that liability. So, we rely on a professional arborist to give us their opinion on whether the tree is dead or dying or dangerous before we'll issue a permit to remove it. I'm almost inclined to let her have the ability to have an arborist write a letter and say that he would have taken it down because it is dead. It does present dead and it was hollow and dying than for us to find her. I mean

to get an arborist to do it. You can't see the tree now. Well, still part of it still there and the video as well, right? So you still you have you have the part of the trunk that's you can see he can look at the part of the stump that's hollowing out in the one picture. M ma'am, how about coming up to the microphone, please? Thank you. And then present the video for the other. I mean, that's kind of I kind of struggle. We've I think we've we sort of see your case, but we are going to need a letter from an arborist to Yeah, I don't know one. I'm sure the city has the city will have somebody they could pro they could Could you guys have somebody that we can recommend or is there

Oh, we could let you know that you can Google that and find a local one because we don't make recommendations. Yeah. Right. And and question is how do we want to go with this? Do we want the I mean because you saw this trees falling apart. I mean common sense should prevail here. You get an arborist and uh then we we could table it and then we could postpone it if you can bring come back next month with a letter. Is that what you think? Then we still there might be still how would that work on the tree? They would she wouldn't be required to plant trees. If the arborist says the arborist deems that the tree is dead or dying, we require a one tree replacement. Okay. There's no minimum size on that tree.

And do we do we have to come before this board if she brings you a letter from an orb? We wouldn't have to do that. That was on the 40inch tree. What about the 24 inch one? That one was hollow. That was hollowed out. If you go to the next picture, that's the one that was hollowing out in the middle. I haven't started. Well, the one penalized for the tree replacement that's there's there's not really a penalty there, you know. So, that's that would be we're trying to give you a path that makes more sense. Common sense. I want you to put the trees back. Put the trees back. I was going to plant some magnolia and some flowering shrubs and so now I, you know, have to plant 48 inches worth of trees.

Oh man, we're not going. That's what we're Oh, no. Okay. Well, anyway, a lot of trees. But, but I want to plant trees anyway. So, plant some oak trees. Well, I have to plant 75% oak trees because that's the kind that was cut down. Okay. Which is fine. Yeah. with with what you wanted to put. You want to just we have to get a letter from a pay a letter money from an arborist. Just tell her what you wanted to do. Well, she's talking about 75%. What is she referring to?

So, if if we had issued a permit for a tree less than 24, it requires a 50% replacement. 75% with the same species that was removed. If an arborist gives us a letter that says a tree is dead or dying, it's a one tree replacement and it doesn't have to be the same species. If you were inclined to issue a variance, you could make conditions that it be an oak tree. You'll do that now. Save the arburst. Well, hold on now. I want to make sure I got it straight before I do that. So, one tree that's an oak tree, but what for the 40inch tree and then something for the 20-inch tree. I want I want two trees. She took down two trees. Make them replace two. Two oaks.

Do we know what kind of oaks they were? Red eggs, white oaks. I I don't Okay. I would make a motion that um the penalty for I don't see the variance number BZA26-06. I'll make a motion that the applicant be required to replant as a penalty for cutting the trees without a permit. she'd be required to plant two um oak trees of between two and four inches in diameter on her property. Oh, that's my motion. Thank you, Miss Lover. Do we have a second?

Second. Got a second by Mr. Bell. Any discussion? All in favor? I Who do I need to say to tell I've done that so that it's like if you could come in and apply for a permit or apply online for a permit to plant two trees. Oh, okay. We don't usually issue permits to plant trees. We issue them after we received the letter from the arbor. So, it's a little bit different, but I just apply for permit. There's no fee. And so, these two permits that I had applied for and one was denied and the other one was this one. They're They're both null. Yeah, we would. Those would be null and just just apply for a new one and just do it for tree planting.

Awesome. I'm gonna go buy some trees. Good. Buy some good looking ones. Don't make Don't buy little twiggy ones. I want two to four inch ones. They're pretty thick. Okay. Two to four inch trees. Oh, yes. Absolutely. Not little sprigs, but you know, something substantial. In addition, can I plant pecan trees? Yeah. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Hickory nuts, pecans, plant them all. Good deal. Thank you. You got a big yard.

Thank you. All right, we're going to next item on the agenda. We've got item number six, BZA26-07 and application by John Rebri um for variance of the signage allowance for a church at 200 highway 17 south zoned office commercial in the OC highway commercial district HC. come on up and introduce yourself, sir. Uh my name is Mr. William Stap. I'm actually representing Mr. Rebrey. Okay. Um I'm the GC for the project there that the sign is being attached on to. So we just uh we're building the new church there.

So thank you. Tell us I'm going looked at the property and saw how far back off of 17 are. Can you show us where the buildings the the addition you're doing? Uh the addition is added on to the side of the building there to the southern side of the existing sanctuary. Okay. Um the existing the new sign will be attached directly to the building on about 4 in standoffs and will stand approximately 170 ft back off of the road off the road frontage there on uh Highway 17. For the um do you have a a picture of the plan for the for the additions? I do. I uh did not have a paper copy, but I have it here pulled up

cuz right now that looked like the the existing building's roughly probably 300 feet off 17 close to 300 feet I would have think because there was four lots. Yes, sir. Yeah. And the building that we have now um as the front of the building is about 170 ft off of the highway um itself uh with the parking lot in front of it uh which is the reason for the size of the sign in order to ensure legibility from the distance. Yes, sir.

Yeah. Um additionally, the entire property is 6.4 acres and has road frontage on three roads. Um Highway 17 as well as 6th Avenue and Second um Avenue. Uh it's going to give us a total collective road frontage of actually around 1,200 square feet uh or 1,200 feet of road frontage between the three roads that we border the the whole property. Great. Thank you. Any questions uh for the applicant?

Okay, give a second. We're going to hear from um the city. Thank you. Petitioner John Rebrey has submitted an application for a variance to increase the allowable square footage of signage at the under construction expansion of the First Baptist Church at 200 Highway 17 South within the Highway commercial HC district. The sign ordinance allows up to 150 square foot of signage on this lot. The applicant is asking for approximately 377.8 additional square foot of building mounted signage. Staff recommends that the board review the variance application and attach drawings and review section 233610E. Thank you, Miss Cola. You're welcome. How much signage is already there in total?

I was looking for permits for the words over by the the the u childcare area. I don't remember what the words say, but a variance was issued to allow that additional square footage. I can remember in the they've been in front of us before and we gave them a variance for something that they added at some point in time. Yeah, I was I was trying to find that case and I was unable to find it. Okay, I do recall that. Yes, there was a variance issue for that additional wording on the building. Okay, very good.

That was in 2012. Okay, 13 years ago. what variance the sign that was approved for on that variance indicate or stated family life center and is now obscured by the new building due to its placement further back and off angle angled more towards 6th Avenue. I guess that was where I was going to go with this question was the signage that's already there. Are can it be moved or is it still visible or are the new buildings covering up the old signage? Are you covering are you considering all the old variance that we gave them for other signage in the past when you're looking at this?

They wanted to remove square footage of existing signage and replace it with new. We would allow that because it's a variance for the property. Okay. It runs with the property for life. Okay. And it's not specific to what they had showed you they were going to do. It's specific to the square footage. Okay. Uh sir, come on. Come on up the mic, please. Hey, um you heard Miss Lover's question. Are you going to remove the other signage?

We most certainly can. In this case, the buildings are separate. Buildings are not tied to each other. Um this is a new sanctuary. So the sign is indicating that it's part of the church whereas the family life center was indicating that specific building itself. Um it is no longer visible from Highway 17 in this case. So it couldn't be used to identify from the highway for people to access uh the building. Um which would cause a little bit of an issue just due to the fact that as a predominantly tourist town, you're going to have a lot of people that wouldn't be able to identify the church other than a steeple from the road. Um this is why we believe that or we were asking for that. Um additionally just because of the road frontage and all that we do believe it does cause a hardship to the land just that um positioning on the property and the size of the property um is why we're asking for the addition the variance for the additional sign frontage or frontage.

So the variance that you got previously you can't even see that anymore. Not from highway 17. No sir. It can be seen from highway or it can be seen from sixth avenue which is the angle at which the building sits that building they have a hardship with the size of the lot because it's a big huge go from second to sixth avenue. I agree. Yeah. Yeah. Multiple streets.

I think what I'm trying to figure out is how much signage is there? They're allowed 150 square feet. How much signage is there? If you have to consider the whole project, the whole lot thing, how much is there? And so what what amount of variance are we giving them? Are you taking down any signage at all?

Uh not in this case, sir. That building is not within the scope of the project. So we have not touched that building. Um we have built a new building which has two attachments to the existing sanctuary, not even to the family life center. So, um, the proposed signage will actually only cover approximately 6.3% of the new frontage of the building on the road. Um, it is rather small in light of the entire frontage scene from Highway 17. Um, it's, if you've driven, as I'm sure you guys have driven by the new building, it's going to cover two of the cells of Stuckco that you see on the higher roof on the front of the building. So uh the actual percentage of square footage covered is is quite minimal.

Any questions for the uh for the city? We got this fixed city. So, we got to get this fixed with city council. This keeps coming up. Yeah, I know. That's why I'm just like I trying to come up with a formula or something, you know? That's where you come look at. It's a sixacre track. They got the same rule if it was a 50 foot lot. Yeah. I mean I'm just thinking six and a half acres and they want a total I'm trying what is the total that they want though 377.8 That's additional additional. That's additional. I'm saying what's the total that we're 150 plus that, right?

What's already there? Does it tell you how much in that variance that you put up? Does it tell you how much of the square footage they gave in that last variance?

Trying to pull that up for you right now, sir. I do have dimensions. I don't see um that variance was an additional 55.27 square ft. So the sign, the family life center sign was a 200 square foot approximately 205 square foot sign if that was all they were going over the 150. And actually per the description up to 50 up to 50 square foot sign um there in description of request. You're asking for 227T

uh the new sign the new sign as proposed is 377 square feet sir plus the additional above the top on top of 150 he's got 527 so he's got 200 technically because he had he's allowed He's allowed 150. So you're asking he's asking about 377. He's asking for 377. So you have a total of 577.8 square feet of signage on that sixacre track with a roughly 1,200 square feet of road frontage between three roads. And here's you know here's the thing. We got you know driving down looking for a church out of town and you're trying to look at the sign and there's a safety issue no matter where you're at. If you even if you make it right down the the street,

right? I mean this have two. So this has got second 17 and six. He's got three roads. I mean it literally goes from Second Avenue to 6.

It's just all murky for me. It's what's proportional for 6.4 acres. What we're trying to make a decision is what's proportional for six acres of property. And just from the aesthetic aspect of what they presented, it doesn't look out of place. Right. 175t off of Right. Yeah. The other lots are the rest of the lots that have that same square footage is you've already painted. It's Yeah. It's right on the road. We're on this one. It's back back. I don't think it looks I don't think it looks overdone. I'm not saying that. I'm just trying to figure out what are we going on? Are we going on Oh, it looks okay. Where are we going on? Well, this should be proportional to this or that. These are the things that should be considered because we don't have that guidance in the statute,

right? And then we're making a decision. That's what we got to do. What we've done before is we we consider the size of the property, three roads, fronts, all that stuff. And that's I mean that classifies your hardship. We're staying staying congruent and consistent with what we've been doing in the past. Makes sense to me. No, I agree with you. trying to say what is it's a whole bigger question is what is consistent when you look at the size of the property you say the size of the alley whoops building the size of that building we just looked at down on the boulevard the size of this building consistent with how is there a percentage somewhere what what formula do you use to figure out

I don't want to go back to miss puffer's statement earlier we square feet at alley hoops right for that huge piece of track of land this guy's asking for 577.8 feet on a sixacre track of land, right? And I said still, I mean, he's still well within the proportion of what we have approved in the past. And he does have, you know, three road frontages. I mean, to be stuck with 150 square feet just because it's a location. I agree with you. Creates a hardship for the applicant. That's also how I think I think the ordinance is a hardship. Yeah, I do too without a doubt.

And I think we're looking at it. The big thing is from we're you're on 17. You want to be see what you have so we know what it is. So people aren't zigzagging and oh that's so and so church I'm going to keep on going or that's correct. Additionally 60% of the congregants of this church are over the age of 60. So uh clear signage is very helpful for even just the existing congregants with a new sanctuary. For sure. Any questions for the city or the applicant? Pull that up. I see something here. Mr. Chairman, I'll go ahead and make a motion if that's okay.

Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move that the board grant variance 20 BZA-26-07 because the applicant has demonstrated an hardship. Specifically, there are extra extraordinary exceptional conditions pertaining this particular piece of property given the fact that it has three road frontages. It's on a sixacre piece of property and it sits 175 ft back from the road. These conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. Because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or to restrict the utilization of the property. The authorization of the variance would not be a 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 and approving the request as is.

Second. Got a motion by Mr. Bell. We got a second by Mr. Reeves. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Great. Thank you. Thank you very much for your All right. The uh next item on the agenda, we've got item number seven. We got BZA 26-8, an application by James Baldwin for a variance to remove trees in excess of 24 in in diameter at 1701 Springland Drive. So, Mr. Chairman, before we get started on this, I am a stockholder, an active stockholder of the surf club. So, Mr. scenario. Would you recommend that I recuse myself from this conversation?

Well, Mr. Chairman, since I'm an active stockholder of the surf club, I will recuse myself from this VCA item. Okay. Thanks, Mr. B. All right. U Mr. Roy, if you can uh introduce yourself.

On behalf of the applicant, um I'd ask that you table this motion. I think it'd be better for this board to go have a site visit to understand what's going on. Surf Club. We are in the middle or should say we've just started finished phase one of a project in which we're going to change the surf club to a more campus style facility and not just have one big building. One facet of that's already been completed and I know it looks like there's a lot for these three trees to come down, but you know the surf club has 30,000 trees on the property. It's a large green space, probably the second largest green space here in the city outside of the three barefoot golf courses that are together. And I'd like to, you know, be able to demonstrate to you how we're positioning bu buildings to do things so we don't uh do anything to just to harm the integrity of the golf course especially. In addition, there when this project is completed, there's going to be more green space that's there because the overall size of the building is going to be a lot less than that big monstrosity that's there. Now, we've already taken down a part portion of that building to do phase one. And if it would be for the board, they all wanted to do it together, that's fine. You want to do it individually, be more than happy to go out and show you what we have and what we're doing.

Sounds good. Okay. Uh, any questions for the applicant before we do we need to postpone this or table? Postpone. Postpone. Do we have a motion to postpone? I'll make a motion to postpone. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Do we have a second? Second. Got a second, Mr. Reeves. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Thank you. Um, since there's no other business, Mr. Nordy or Mr. Cowwell, we're going to close the meeting. Great. Can we get a motion to close the meeting? Make a motion. Thank you, Mr. Reeves. Second. Second.

Get a second from Mr. Thomas. All in favor? I Housingment.