Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Watch it?

You didn't watch it? Did you watch it? That webinar this morning? The zoning webinar? The training?

Huh?

You know, I don't know. I hope so, because there was stuff I'd like to go back and see, but it was live, so I couldn't really, you know, reverse it.

It had a lot of...

Thank you.

Test one, two.

For review, the variance application attachment. Always been like this.

Hey, Roger. How are you?

Don't worry about it.

Good evening and welcome to the June 11th 2026 meeting for the Board of Zoning Appeals of North Myrtle Beach like to go ahead and call the meeting the order and Miss Amber if you give us a roll call

Chairman McGonigal?

Here.

Andy Thomas?

Here.

Mendel Bell?

Here.

Joe Reeves? Here. Cynthia Lover? Here. Wyman Wise? Here. North Fleet Jones?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Great. Thank you. All right. Do we have minutes from the previous meeting? I don't see them on.

The minutes are not ready yet.

Okay. We'll catch that next to the next meeting. Great. Thank you, Mr. Norrie. All right. Communications from the city?

Great. Thank you, Ms. Caldwell.

All right. Next item on the agenda, we've got to, let's go, Ms. Amber, if we can get everybody to rise, and anybody's planning on speaking, we can get you to get sworn in.

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?

Great. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to... Move on to new business. We've got, well, before we go forward, we do have one less person. So you can see we're a board of seven, and we're missing one person. So you'd have to have a majority of the seven. You'd have to have four out of six in order to get your request approved. So if you do want to postpone, you're more than welcome to postpone. You can let us know when you come to the hearing. All right, let's go to item number one on the agenda. We've got BZA 26-9. We have an application by Jonathan Reynolds for a variance of a required building setback at 1205 Perrin Drive, TMS number 357-120-40061 and the resort residential R4 district. If you can go ahead and introduce yourself. No problem. Jonathan Reynolds. Great. Thank you. Come on up and bring what you got. Thank you. Good deal. Tell us your story.

Because it's an irregular lot, we were just trying to get the setbacks moved. And what we put on here puts us right under five feet on the setbacks, or right over five feet. It's like 5.1 all the way around.

Great. Specifically, what variance are you requesting? Because I'm not seeing that.

A variance to move the setbacks to five feet all the way around.

So you want a 10-foot variance on the front, a 10-foot variance on the rear?

I was looking for a 10-foot on the front, rear, and sides.

Five's out of five already.

Okay. Yeah, then adding the front and the rear is a five-foot.

A 10-foot variance.

Mm-hmm.

Any other questions for the applicant?

It says you want to build a five-bedroom house on this little lot. How are you going to fit it? Are you going to build three stories? What are you planning on building?

Yeah, I mean, three stories, it would be two levels. But, I mean, really we're just trying to get the max we can and then, I mean, I'll send this to the architect and see what kind of How creative he can get. It might drop back down to a four-bedroom because how funky it is.

So you don't have a plan yet?

No, I mean, I don't have a plan because I was trying to get the variance to see before we spend the money to draw the plan.

I think we need to see the plan before we grant the variance.

Okay.

What do you all think? I mean, normally we require people to submit a plan.

It does have a plan, I think.

We were just trying to get a layout.

We're going to grant you a variance based off of what you've submitted here. So just know that.

Okay.

Right.

Any other questions from the applicant before we go to the city? Or actually before we go to the audience?

Could you build a smaller house without the variance? Yes.

I'd have to go back and look at it. We were trying to keep it around like 2,500 heated square feet, maybe like five bedroom. That's a small lot.

Yeah, it is.

Very oddly shaped.

Yeah. Let's do that. Give us a second. We're going to hear if anybody in the audience wants to talk about the issue. Is there anybody, anyone in the audience that wanted to talk about this? Mr. Norton? Interest of parties? No, we don't. Great. Thank you for the new agenda. And Mr. Cole, tell us the... Give us the, tell us.

Commissioner Jonathan Reynolds has submitted an application for a variance to reduce the required building setbacks at 1205 Perrin Drive, located in the residential R4 district. Section 2322 requires for single family dwellings, 15 foot front and rear yard setbacks from the property lines. The section also requires five foot side yard setbacks from the property lines. The lot is irregular in shape and is 2,226 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R4 district for single family is 5,000 square foot for new lots. Staff recommends that the Board review the variance application and attach pictures and drawings and review Section 2322. Thank you, Mr. Caldwell.

You're welcome. I'd like to try something. We have that, the, gosh, the... class we had today. It gave us a little bit different structure, so I wanted to sort of run through that with Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Caldwell, does this address, does this property have extraordinary exceptional conditions pertaining to the shape of the lot?

I believe it does.

Do the conditions generally apply to other properties in the vicinity?

The conditions of the required setbacks?

Correct.

Yes, they do. And how about the shape of the lot? The shape of the lot is odd and irregular.

because of the conditions of the application of ordinances, particularly if this property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of this property?

It would not. The... I'm sorry, could you repeat that one? I think I misheard the beginning.

Yeah, because of these conditions, the application of this ordinance to this particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property? It would. Thank you, Mr. Caldwell. Last but not least, does the authorization of this variance would not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or to the public good and the character of the district would not be harmed by granting this variance? It would not be. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the city?

I do. When was this property platted out? When was this little lot formed? Do you know what year?

I don't know. I know it's been around for quite a while. I've had questions on it in the past. I don't know if it was this Jacqueline Boer who owns a property abutting it in the back. Someone that owned that lot wanted to put a swimming pool back there. several years ago and we said well it's its own separate lot you can't put a swimming pool on it you can combine it into your lot and then put a swimming pool there but she didn't want to do that um so she could sell the lot later so do you think it was before the current zoning was put in place yes i do because this lot would not we wouldn't have been able to survive about this small and going to mr mcgonigal's questions

could they build a house on it and still meet the requirements? I mean, his question seems to be if we don't give him the variance, are we going to restrict his usage restricted? Could he still build a house within the setbacks?

Well, he's asking for a variance for this.

Right. But I don't know that we have to give him a variance for a five-bedroom house. We have to give him the minimal variance necessary. If we're going to give him a variance.

The fact that we're hypothetical here, I have an issue with that. We're not concrete with what we're giving a variance for. Correct. It's been designed for the lot itself to say this is what the variance is for.

Right. And I agree with that, but I think we do want to give him some defined direction to go because right now, I mean, what are you building? You got five foot, seven foot, 12 foot, 15 feet. I mean, how are we... And this lot is probably as odd shape as we have, and I agree with you. I'm not disagreeing. But the question is, where do we want to go with this so he's not doing five sets of plans, hypothetically?

If he wants to do that, he can do that, though. I mean, we would be granting a variance based on what he has submitted. Correct. Now, if his architecture engineer comes back and says, you know what, this is not going to work because of X, Y, and Z,

well he's going to have to draw some new plans and he'll be back up here asking for another variance so i mean one of the things we were looking at i'm sorry i can't hear you i'm sorry um right here across here After I'd already had this done, he told me recently he actually wants to have this deck go all the way across here, and I'd already had this plot done. So we were looking at maybe making this a 10-foot deck all the way across on those two levels. Yeah. But, I mean, if you look here, too, you really don't have... You only got 18 feet wide here. You've got 12 here. And because it's irregular, we can't really square it off here. So it's just kind of... It's so odd trying to figure out how to get bedrooms in here. So it's really one of those things where I... I don't want to have an architect spend $6,000 on drawing a set of plans and then it gets not approved and then I have to go back to the drawing board again and read the whole house plan. I was just trying to figure out what I guess y'all would grant me to be able to start drawing a set of plans to fit it.

I think that's a, you know, we're looking at this. We all realize it's been identified as an irregular shaped lot multiple ways. So the question is how much leeway do we want to give him so he can work with an architect and reasonably come up with something that works within our framework?

I agree it's a small lot. I agree it's a small shaped lot. But I also look at our section that says the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable development of the site. And that the variance is granted by the board is the minimum variance that will accomplish his purpose. So reasonable development, does that have to be a five-bedroom house? And the minimum variance will accomplish his purpose to allow him to reasonably develop the site. We have to give him a 10-foot variance. I mean, basically, it's a two-thirds variance variance. Give me my lesser variance. That's what I'm trying to figure out because... That's a good one. And he just talked about pulling 10 feet off the front with the deck. But the deck's still going to require variance. It's going to be more than 12 inches off the ground.

Yep. Good point. So... What's the current... There's a structure on there now, right? Is there a structure on that lot now? No.

It's a wooden building.

And there's a little shed or something. Well, I mean, there's a structure on it, right? Yeah. Yeah. What's the current setback? Five foot. The current setback's five foot? On that building, yes. And also, what about the house next to it that's at... Looks like 1203 Perrin. I mean, that looks like it's five feet off the back of the property line, too. I don't know. I mean, it's the same place. The rear of that setback is the same as that current wooden structure on that property line.

Aren't the setbacks different for a shed than a house?

What's that?

Setbacks are different for an accessory building than a house.

There's a house at 1203 Perrin that has the same setback right next to it as the current structure on that property, which is five feet off the back of a property line.

I'd have to go back and look at it. Okay, maybe it's five feet off the rear. Is it five feet off the front also?

It's pretty close. That's the house next to it.

Okay, I'd say it's five feet off the side.

Well, look at the back.

Okay.

It's five feet off the back too.

You think?

Because he just said that structure is five feet off the back. So that matches that same setback. So it's almost harmonious to the community. You'll see them. That's the current lot, and that's the house next to it.

And what about the front?

I'd say the front's probably not too far off the setback, because you've got a lot that comes back, so it's close.

I know we're going to have to give him a variance, but he wants a 10-foot variance on the front and a 10-foot variance on the back, and the setback's 15. He wants a Two-thirds variance. He wants a 66% variance.

Let's ask from the city. Give us, Mr. Caldwell, any direction. What do you see on this? I mean, and I don't care about the design of the house. I do care about the footprint. I think that's all of our... What's a reasonable solution to give him good direction?

You can see what the footprint would be. Right. Yes. Actually, I only did...

What's a reasonable consideration? A reasonable consideration? He's got the hardship. The question is, what kind of relief are we going to provide?

I mean, you've got easement. So you've got probably, is that a 10-foot easement on the front of the property? Go ahead, Elton.

It would be 10-foot more setback than what's shown at 5. It would be 15. So it would take it almost to the center of the lot.

But from the parent drive to the lot line itself, what is that?

Is that five foot setback?

They are.

That's why I'm asking.

So you got technically, even if we gave him a five foot setback off the front, he's still 15 feet off the road. It would be. Yeah. And I mean, I mean, looking at that, it will put it in. almost line with, when he moves it up, put it in line with the other house that's up there that's already next to it.

What are you saying? Mr. Farber, you had something you wanted to add. I was just going to say that if you looked at the full setbacks for the district, it would be a very small footprint to build a house, and it would be a triangle. I think that's an exceptional condition.

I agree. I think we have to give him a variance. I'm just saying, do we have to give him the variance that he's asking for? What's the minimal variance that will accomplish the purpose allowing him to reasonably develop the site? That's in our statute.

With the way the road's cut, he's got 52.53 feet off the back of the lot, right? Realistically, he only has... Probably, what do you think you have on the front, 24?

He's not off the bat.

Yeah, because, I mean, the house is 18 feet. So, he literally is going from lot line to lot line with an 18-foot wide house on the front at the 5-foot. Right. With a 5-foot setback. I mean, it's… Yeah, I mean, he's very limited on what he can build there. I'm not disagreeing with that. Yeah.

I agree.

And my concerns about the footprint, a reasonable footprint, I don't care if he builds a two-bedroom house or a three-bedroom house or a seven-bedroom house. So if we've got, if somebody's got a suggestion, yes, sir, Mr. Farmer.

Mr. Chairman, the board would also be reminded that... Variance for that on the table. However, that could help restricts Yep No matter what we grant him on setback

Good point.

He's saying if we granted him this variance and then he found out it didn't meet the pervious-impervious requirements, then he'd have to come back and get another one after he approved this one. So maybe the other one is just as important. He should be thinking about that.

I would say that, but just if you were worried or concerned about the house fit in that particular lot, the pervious surface, unfortunately,

That is correct. But on this plan, they're showing 50% impervious for the proposed house. The driveways are all pervious materials.

Mr. Caldwell, do you have any suggestions? Mr. Farmer on this? I mean, we'd like to give him some relief. He definitely has hardships in multiple ways. But what's the reasonable use of the property to Mrs. Lover's comment, which I agree with. But I think we want to help him, give him some framework, and then he can take us an architect who's going to have to meet the impervious surface requirements.

But the driveways can be impervious. And that would get me to 60%. Yeah. Right now they're shown as pervious.

Mr. Norton, is there any comments, any thoughts? Trying to figure this one out. It's like we're

Chris, can you speak into the mic?

No, no additional comments. I think the board is going through what it needs to go through regarding its decision to grant or deny the variance, and it looks like you're about to reach that decision.

Great, thank you. I'm going to hash over what Mr. Bell just said. The front... I don't know about you all, but there's a lot that utilizing that property in the front, the rear might be more of a consideration just as far as being closer to another property owner. But to your point, you also said there was only a five-foot setback. So any thoughts here how to navigate this?

I mean, I'm inclined to say the five-foot setback on the rear, but I would want more than a five-foot setback on the front. This woman sold him the lot. She knows she's going to get a neighbor that's going to be on top of her. I think she's going to get what's coming to her. She's going to have a lot right in her face, a house right in her face. Because she wanted to make sure she could sell her lot. Well, she sold it.

So what's that setback? What's the front setback at? He's got a five. Is that 15 foot?

The minimum requirement is 15. Front and rear is 15. Sides, 5.

I would give him maybe another 5 just to keep it at 10 on the front. If you take it back to 15, he's not. There's no way he's going to be able to go in that line.

And I agree. I agree he needs some variance.

I think that's a good suggestion.

That's a good compromise. He gets five on the back, and then he gets five on the front. Oh, he gets the 10-foot on the back, but he gets five on the front.

You want to give him more on the back? I was thinking five on the back. Oh, you mean variance-wise?

Yeah, he gets a 10-foot variance on the back and only five on the front.

A 10-foot variance on the back and a five-foot on the front. Yeah. So he'd have a 10-foot front yard setback. Yeah, that's right.

That sounds like a reasonable solution to me.

Yeah.

Is anyone prepared?

So we went through items. I guess we got kind of a new format here, right?

Well, and that's something we're going to talk about. I just want to see how it went so we can all hear it. But they were talking about addressing the city. Them as the evidentiary was the process.

Okay.

That was in that pod.

I'll just go through this real quick. So, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we grant BZA 26-9. Because the applicant has demonstrated hardship as proven by the city, and as strictly stated here, the only additional comments I'll make in this. Motion is that he only be allowed a 10 foot set back on the front. And a 5 foot set back for property line to the back of the proper line for the property itself. So he gets a five-foot setback variance on the front to take it to a 10-foot setback from the property line on the front, and he gets a 10-foot variance on the back to take it to a five-foot on the back.

And I would add, maybe suggest that you add to that, that whatever he builds has to comply with the pervious and pervious surface requirements now, that he can't come back later and ask for a different variance for the pervious and pervious.

Okay. And we'll also add that stipulation, and this will be recommended in that motion. Good deal.

Do we have a second? Second. Got a second from Mr. Thomas. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Great. Thank you.

Chairman, for the record, I just want to add that Wyman Wise is present.

Great. Thank you. For the record, could you say he was late?

For the record, Mom and Wives was late.

You've got to love that. I had a compliance till five. Do we have a new process?

We're going to move on to the next.

And I could have that all wrong, but we'll talk to Mr. Caldwell afterwards. All right, so let's go to item number two on the agenda. We've got BZA 26-18, an application by James Baldwin for a van to encroach into the required front building setback with a projecting roof overhang at 1104 Highway 17 South, so in a highway commercial in the HC District. Could the applicant come on up here? and introduce yourself.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shep Guyton, I'm here for the applicant and the engineering firm. Most of you will recognize this as the former Sea Merchants Restaurant, which ironically we were talking about earlier, building that predated zoning. This building predated the consolidation of North Myrtle Beach as well, so it's been there for a while. And it's a renovation, so the existing front wall has not changed. What did change was they removed the former staircase and a big planter that actually extended into the right of way because 17 was widened after that was constructed. So what they're proposing now is rather than the 24 inch projection into the right of way or setback for the building overhang. They're proposing 36 inches. If you look at the elevations, Ben, I don't know if those made it to the system or not. But if you look at the elevations, the building includes essentially floor to ceiling windows. So that overhang extension both protects the integrity of the building by protecting those windows and it offers some protection to the patrons that are both coming in and out of the restaurant as well. Like I said, this is a restaurant that existed. Happy to run through the five, six conditions if you'd prefer me do that. Please do.

Okay.

So describe the extraordinary and exception conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. This is the renovation of a restaurant that existed on the site prior to the consolidation of North Myrtle Beach and its zoning ordinances. Highway 17 has been widened since the restaurant was built, further compacting the site, particularly in regards to vehicular circulation and the existing parking improvements. Are the previously described conditions unique to the property for which the variance is sought, or do these same conditions apply to other properties in the vicinity? The conditions are unique as to this site as the restaurant has been located closer to the existing right-of-way than adjoining properties as a result of the widening of the highway, and the parking and circulation requirements are more stringent than those related to retail or other uses. Describe why the zoning regulation proposed for variance would prohibit or unreasonably restrict utilization of the property because of the previously described conditions. Without the granting of an easement, the restaurant could not incorporate an overhang along the front exterior wall that exceeded 24 inches, and that extended overhang protects both the roof, the windows, and the elements for stormwater potential undermining the foundation of the building. The overhang also provides for shelter for guests entering and exiting the restaurant during inclement weather. Describe how authorization of the variance will be in harmony with the intent of zoning ordinance and will not be injurious to adjacent properties, the neighborhood, or the general public. The variance impacts the front setback only, which is adjacent to Highway 17 and does not impact any neighboring property. The variance also relates to overhang only and is located in an area above where it would impact pedestrian traffic or accessibility to the improvements on the property. Overhangs are allowed to encroach on the 24 inches. We're requesting an additional 12 inches. Describe how the variance solved is the minimum variance necessary for reasonable development of site. The requested overhang is limited to 38 inches, and if you look at the total square footage area, it's relatively small area compared to the pedestrian corridor it's intended to protect. Finally, describe why the granting of the requested variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the zoning regulations to other landowners in the same zoning district. Buildings within the city include overhangs and given the requested encroachment is limited to 12 additional inches, which is not excessive or out of character with other buildings in the city, particularly along the Highway 17 corridor.

Great.

Thank you, Mr. Guyton.

Any questions for the applicant? I have a question. So, Mr. Guyton, in the original proposal that you guys sent to the city, it said you want a 38-inch, you want to be able to have 38 inches front yard setback, so you actually want 14 inches, not 12. Is it Mr. Baldwin behind you shaking his head?

Yeah, okay. You're correct. You said 36. I just want to make sure. You're correct. 38 inches, so it's 14 rather than 12 addition. Thank you for that correction.

I just want to make sure. Yep, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant?

So the front of this, you're saying it's going to provide shelter for pedestrians? Are people entering the building? Is there going to be a walkway in front of those windows?

If you look at the, I'll show you the site plan. So before, if you remember the old sea merchant, there was nothing in front. You couldn't pass by there because of the way that planter was set up and the stairwell. So that's been cleared. Part of that was a conversation with staff as to how do we soften that front from a curb appeal and from a 17 corridor. So that's what we've done. That area you see includes both landscaping and soft paths so you can get in and out of that building over there.

You are saying there is a Are you saying there is a sidewalk along the front of the building?

There's soft paths through the landscaping area.

Soft paths.

There's a sidewalk on 17.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay. But is that under the overhang?

No, that is not under the overhang.

You were saying it would provide shelter to pedestrians or... No, visitors to the restaurant.

Visitors to the restaurant.

So how will it provide shelter to the visitors to the restaurant?

As you're going in and out of the door, you actually have something that covers your head there with an overhang.

But I'm just... The door's not on the front. It looks like the windows are on the front. Right? Looking at this, is this where the overhang's going to go? I don't see a door there on Highway 17.

James, am I correct?

Looks to me like that's all landscaping. I'm just questioning whether what you're saying about it providing shelter to...

no you're you're correct it is just windows along the frontage of the building okay what what mr guyton was saying though is there will be i believe a soft path you know a i believe pavered or grass pathway through there for patrons that are on the west side of the building to get across to enter the building on the east side of the building

That's sort of where I was going is that they're parked on this side. The door's here. If they're parked over here, are they going to be able to walk across the front to get to that door?

I believe so. We're showing that area. I guess, on this site plan as a full landscaped area. I believe they will have a pathway, though, for if you did come from the west-hand side, you could not have to take the sidewalk on Highway 17, but you could actually have an accessible path through that landscaped area.

That would make it safer. They would be sheltered from rain. They wouldn't be out beside the traffic. They could walk right there along the building. and not be exposed to traffic. And if it was raining, they'd be under that overhang. Correct.

Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Great. Give us a minute. We're going to hear from the city. We'll be back. Thank you. Oh, gosh. Make sure I got the road agenda. We're following here. Actually, is there any interest at parties here that want to speak on this matter? Nope. All right. We'll go back to the city. Mr. Cuomo.

Application by James Baldwin for a request to allow roof overhangs to project 38 inches into the front yard setback. Section 23-105-1 of the zoning ordinance allows roof overhangs to project into their front yard setback up to 24 inches. The district has a required 20-foot rear yard building setback. The proposed renovation of the building depicts a projecting roof overhang going further into the front setback than the allowed 24 inches. Staff recommends that the board review the variance application, hear the evidence presented at the meeting, and review section 23-26 and 23-105.

Mr. Cole, I'm thinking about how we handled that because the applicant went through all of them, all the hardships. Do we need to, because on that piece we watched, educational piece we watched today, they talked about evidentiary, where we can utilize you for meeting those requirements. I think Mr. Guyton hit on a bunch of them. How do we suggest as far as addressing that from the city's perspective?

Sounds good. I just got us doing this new process.

Just trying to feel it out And we're going to make sure this process says I think when you we review that we can talk about it. So great. Thank you Mr. Caldwell, do you want to dress all these issues? Describe the extraordinary and exceptional conditions etc start item one down to item six. I

Do you want me to say if you agree with the conditions that are there?

That's what, that's what, I wasn't prepared to come up with my own. No, I don't want you, whether or not the applicant addressed them.

for number one describe the extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to this particular piece of property in regards to the size of it there are larger and there are smaller but it's probably smaller than a good many other restaurant sites on highway 17 and it is very close to the front setback line as the applicant stated due to the widening of highway 17

I have a question for that. In order for them to maintain their parking ratio, weren't they required to keep the footprint of the building and maintain the structure itself? They weren't allowed to take that down, right?

Take what down?

So they could be grandfathered into their parking requirements. Weren't they required to maintain the existing structure?

I believe they meet their parking requirements.

They do meet?

Yeah, a site plan was submitted before any construction happened.

Do they meet their parking requirements, Mr. Baldwin? They do? Okay. Okay. So what made them maintain the structure to begin with then?

Because I bet they would have to have been way, if they tore it all the way down, they'd have to have different setbacks. They'd had to have been more restrictive setbacks.

Is that the law to maintain the setbacks?

I don't know. I think the applicant may be able to answer that question.

What would the setbacks be on that property if they tore it down?

If they raised everything, it would be starting over. So 20 foot in the front.

20 foot. And what is it now?

It's practically 20 foot.

I mean, 20 foot, but what is this, under this proposal, what would it be?

The overhang, the building still meets the required setback. Okay. The overhang is going farther into the setback than allowed.

Okay.

He's asking for a 14-inch variance. Yeah.

So it's still 20 foot. Okay. I was thinking it would be a lot closer.

Yes, sir. According to the site plan, it's right at 20. Okay.

The overhang it's it's not the building. It's the over the overhang.

Okay, the projecting roof over.

Yeah, I gotcha Any any other questions?

Okay, let's go Which I can do number two now are the previously described conditions unique to the property for which the variance is sought or do these same conditions apply to other properties in the vicinity and Location of the existing building in relation to the front setback line is unique for this parcel Working with these conditions provides unique challenges that other nearby properties may not have Where are you reading from now I'm from the from the applicants so he's just regurgitating what's there I am But we're asking

Just saying this this whole educational thing this morning is that he's not supposed to he's the evidence evidentiary And he was the we're not given evidence.

We're not supposed to look we're going to review the request As far as with that whole today hour and 40 minute right, but they're supposed to be submitting their own report And my reading on that was is the staff is supposed to have a staff report. We don't have one tonight We've met these requirements I mean, we just heard, actually, the requirements. We hit on them. I think this is the evidentiary part is he's going to review, yes, we are meeting those. I mean, you all tell me what you think. That was today. You sat in on it.

Yeah, I did. I mean, I didn't take that from it, though. I took from it that the staff should be making their own report and making a recommendation whether to approve or not approve the variance. And we were supposed to consider the staff report.

Well, I think they were reviewing what the requests were and whether or not they met those requirements. But that's right. This is probably something we need to talk about with that educational training and stuff. So keep on going. I'm not saying we'll figure this out.

There's many different setbacks in highway commercial for buildings that especially were built prior to there being zoning. There's a lot of buildings that meet the front setback and there's a lot that very much exceed the required setback. We see large parking lots and front yards, but this property seems to be unique in the fact that it was built prior to there being zoning in the city.

Thank you, Mr. Kolb.

Describe why the zoning regulation proposed for variance would prohibit or unreasonably restrict utilization of the property because of the previously described conditions. Given the unique conditions of the existing building and property, strict application of this zoning ordinance would inhibit proper aesthetic improvements to the existing structure.

Or aesthetic... I'm just arguing devil's advocate here. Aesthetic conditions or whatever, aesthetic appearances would not prohibit or unreasonable strict utilization of the property. He could still use it as a restaurant without this

I agree with you.

So that's why I'm saying when you're reading this and then you're reading from theirs, we know it's not. We know if they could build it without that pretty overhang and it would still be a restaurant. It wouldn't keep it from being a restaurant.

You're correct.

Yeah.

It's also kind of like a pool, right? Technically a pool, someone wants to put in a pool, you're not reasonably restricting them the use of the property, right? Because you deny them a pool. Right. But we give it to them. Because they live there. They live there, but we still give it to them because it meets certain requirements of the requirements for the variance.

I agree with you. I think you should have an overhang. Yeah. I'm all for it, okay? I'll approve the overhang, but when you go through this evidentiary thing that we're supposed to be doing, Almost every variance we give, we would not be giving.

I mean, we could look at this. You've got an odd-shaped lot. You've got an older building, but I think we meet.

Yes. They lost property when they did the widening of 17. Yes, they did. It changed the setback lines. It does change that. That itself, right? Yeah, I mean, it did some different things.

However, they could build this building without a pretty front on it, and they don't need it. They don't need it, but it makes it pretty. We like it.

It makes it pretty. We would be doing a disservice to the community by not allowing them to do that.

You could make that argument.

Yes, we are. People would ride by and say, man, that would look a lot better with a nice overhang over it.

Exactly.

There you go.

You want it to be in substantial harmony, right? But we're supposed to hit all four of these, and it just makes it very difficult. Yes, sir.

That's a great point. We're improving. We're trying to get better and meet requirements.

So for the green space and it made it much more attractive.

Yeah, and if we want to make a motion to approve this, we could require, if they say they're going to have an access that goes in front of the building for pedestrians, and we can require that there be a soft path or some type of pavement surface that goes across. That goes underneath that overhang. All right, Mr. Quilwell.

Describe how authorization of the variance will be in harmony with the intent of zoning ordinance and will not be injurious to adjacent properties, the neighborhood, or the general public. The owners are making substantial improvements to the quality and aesthetics of this existing building and property. Granting the variance will only lend to the overall aesthetics of the Highway 17 corridor. I think that that is all true, but I don't think that that's a reason to issue a variance on aesthetics. But also, I believe that it would not be injurious to adjacent properties, the neighborhood, or the general public.

I think it's a bonus we get the aesthetics, correct? Because they're not injuring any of the adjacent properties. Great. Thank you, Ms. Colwell.

Describe how the variance sought is the minimum variance necessary for reasonable development of the site. The owners have determined that the requested overhang is the minimum needed to provide the proper aesthetics to the renovated building. That also may be true, but it's not... Necessary for reasonable development development of the site.

Take the minimum variances we're talking 12 inches. And it does improve the... 14 inches. I'm sorry, 14 inches. 14 inches. It does provide a... And you come back.

I mean, if you look at the site plan that's on the screen, I mean, you got Cole's Jewelers next to him. Sitting on top of the property line, right? I mean they're asking for an overhang. They're not asking for a building impediment They're asking just for an overhang to sure impede with safety pedestrians also aesthetics everything else and maintaining green space to the process It's a lot tougher than we usually make then we've made it in the past this case that came out is going to make things a lot more

tougher for our decisions.

And that case was really pertaining to planning more than zoning. But it was interesting on, you know, Mr. Farmer made a good comment. I think we've addressed a lot of these issues. 14 inches is not It's significant when they've lost, the highways got moved closer and closer to them, and they were stuck with, right? They didn't have the zoning then, so it's more than reasonable.

Would this overhang have met regulations before the widening of 17?

Probably is the best answer I can give you because I don't know how wide they widened it. But they probably widened it more than 14 inches.

Exactly.

I hope so.

Yep. Great. Definitely. All right, where are we at on this, Mr. Coble? Did we get everything else?

Describe why the granting of the requested variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the zoning regulations to other landowners in the same zoning district. Other landowners may not have the same extraordinary conditions that pertain to this parcel. I think it was demonstrated that there are some extraordinary conditions on this property, and... That being said, we would deny the same situation on neighboring properties if it was the same request, and we would recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals or changing the overhang so that it would meet the 24 inches.

Wouldn't his neighbor be, I don't mean to get hypothetical, but wouldn't his neighbor be in the same position for the taking of the road? The jewelry store either side or anybody on that we said anybody on 17 for that matter.

I mean it you know We allow the the zoning ordinance allows the 24-inch encroachment Anything else we wouldn't be able to approve That's why it's here correct.

Mm-hmm I think a concept from the move from the addition of the highway working with existing building footprint Um, I've done an outstanding job and I feel like it's met the intent for 14 inches meets these requirements. I mean.

Um, maybe if the applicant can address, um, the setback of the original building, uh, was there not a staircase on the front or some other, um.

There was on the side, I think. Yes, there was a staircase on the front. I believe it encroached into the setback probably two feet maybe or so.

And with a renovation of a building, if it is a non-conforming structure for setback, we don't require that the building be taken back to the required setback lines if it's being renovated. So the building encroached farther out towards Highway 17 or the structure, encroached closer to highway 17 than it does now is that a correct statement if you're including the staircase yes if you're just talking about the face of the existing building it is the exact same location yes sir so there were further encroachments um prior to this renovation beginning yes and the staircase was inside right

Yeah, the staircase was inside. On record, yeah. It wasn't exterior that encroached. It was interior. So the interior building encroached further into it. Oh, the staircase was exterior. It was exterior. Yeah, it was exterior.

It was on the front of the building? On the front left-hand side. Front left-hand side. Okay. And how far did it encroach? I want to say it was about two feet, I believe. Whatever the minimum would be for a staircase. I don't know what stairs can encroach. I don't know if they have the same.

Stairs can encroach up to three foot into required front setbacks.

Okay. How many stairs can go three feet? A little bit of an overhang for a variance.

Mm-hmm.

And we're maintaining a 10-foot landscape buffer that didn't exist before. A lot of things that are improving quality and property overall.

Anything else?

Mr. Caldwell, did you address six?

Yes, I did.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Caldwell. Any questions for the city? questions for the applicant what's interesting is you come back you took off those those stairwells in it with a 14 inch overhang that actually aesthetically improves everything about the building it's kind of a It looks it looks outstanding and this is that hopefully we see more of this and you're working with a footprint of a building that's that was here from 50 years ago, right? And they say within that footprint right and working within that footprint, and we the 2 feet we're going to add the landscaping. I feel like it's a yeah, it's went all the way around.

Well, Mr. Chairman, if it's okay with you, I'd like to make a motion that we approve BZA 26-18 because the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship. Specifically, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property given the fact that they did lose some of their front property line when the widening of 17, which pushed their setback a little bit further. They've also maintaining a 10-foot landscape buffer through the process of rebuilding this, which didn't exist before, which will be harmonious to the community itself. And also that overhang will help protect pedestrians walking from the south side of the property back to the north side of the property. These conditions, they do apply to the other properties in the vicinity. Because of the conditions, particular ordinance, particular piece of property would not, it wouldn't prohibit or reasonably restrict the utilization of the property, but the authorization would also not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties or to the public good. and the character of the district wouldn't be harmed by granting of the variance. I'd also like to add that if they are going to put the overhang and they're going to exceed 14 inches that we approved, that they maintain some type of foot traffic path that would be a soft path or a pervious style surface in front of the building that goes under that overhang to allow pedestrians to cross closer to the building. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bell.

Do we have a second? Second. Second. Mr. Jones, any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed?

The ayes have it. Thank you.

All right, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. We've got a variance for BZA 26-19. We got an application by Roger Roy for a variance to encroach in the required rear yard at 9419 Long Meadow Way, zone mid-rise, multifamily, R2A district. Mr Roy, come on up the front and introduce yourself please.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman Roger Roy on behalf of the. Applicant who is an owner of 9419 long meadow way, which is in the city of North Myrtle beach. This is from Michael heard he is attempting to put in a screened in porch in his backyard to cover an existing patio and grill that is out there. And when the contractor went to do the measurements, it was found that the. The deck that's out there. To put the structure over that would be 3 feet into the setback. This property is unique in that neighborhood in the fact that there is a pond behind it and also there's a public easement on the side of the house, which is only other 1 other house 1 next to him backs up to that easement. The pond in the back. The site line would not for his neighbors. They would not lose any sight line into that pond. It wouldn't obstruct their views. The in addition, if that structure. Was required to be 3 feet back the grill that sits there with a gas line that's run would cause a safety issue. You know, if they would use it, the. I got here give you some pictures to see this is the. That's the pond in the backyard. How do you know the area?

Upside down.

There we go. That's the structure and the grills there.

3 feet.

Of course, where the patio would go would not interfere with what the landscape buffer is around it. But it would just extend to that back portion. So the 3 feet is the minimum that we're requesting based on where the existing patio is and. And this would not harm anybody in that neighborhood. There's also a letter in your packet from the. Homeowners Association that says that they you know, they're in favor of this provided that of course it meets With the city approval and they they get a permit to do it as well Because you're saying that's a unique circumstance Well, in that neighborhood, there's probably 300 houses.

Okay, but it's not a unique circumstance. You can count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, at least 10. I can't see under this white block. Houses, if there's a lake back there, all those houses back up to that lake. It's not unique and exceptional that it's on a pond.

Well, some of the houses in that neighborhood don't have a pond in their backyard.

I'm just looking at the ones right here. There's this backyard, and if the pond's here, I don't see that. I just feel that's a reach.

In that neighborhood, there's other houses where their backyards abut each other. This one doesn't. It doesn't affect their neighbor behind them.

But it's not unique. Our statute says that it has to be unique circumstances, and you're saying that the house is on a pond. That makes it unique. It's not unique. There's lots of other houses on that pond.

I guess that's differing legal opinions.

Well, I'm not looking for the variance.

Any questions for Mr. Roy? When was the concrete pad bored?

When did he have the retrofits done? I believe it was two years prior. I'm not sure of the date.

But he bought the house and he did the addition with a concrete pad?

They put the pad back there during the construction or right after the construction.

And then he decided he wanted to cover it and close it?

Correct, in order to be able to use it more because the sun is pretty brutal at that time of day to go outside in the afternoons. But he's wanting it enclosed on all sides? All sides of it.

But again... How is it safer to have the grill covered than uncovered? If it's covered, the smoke's going up inside the house, and it's more likely to catch on fire.

If the structure is the three feet back, the three feet we're requesting, if it meets on the setback's lines, it's three feet closer to that grill, and there's not a very big space between the grill and where the structure would be, as in the structure he's going to put up.

And how close is the structure going to be to the back of the grill?

The back of the grill?

Yeah, where I'm looking at, it looks like the back of the grill is on the edge of the patio. If you build a wall down there, that's going to be closer than three feet.

Where the rails go down or where they're going to attach the screens to are not going to be behind it. But if it gets closer and they've got to move it, those corners will be there. And so the structure, not the screens, but the actual structure that's going to be built will be there. The screens are part of it.

I just feel like it's a stretch. Everything that's being said, I don't see that it matches the pictures of the property and the flat. I can't imagine a closed-in grill is safer than an uncovered grill. I can't imagine that the structure being behind it is better for it if you just made it three feet back. I mean... You're saying it has to go all the way out to the edge of the patio.

But, I mean, what they're asking for is to cover that entire patio.

Yeah, but I just don't see that there's a hardship. He could cover it 17 feet without a variance. And he poured the patio and decided to make it into the setback. I mean, you're saying he poured it. He could have poured a 17-foot patio and he wouldn't need a variance.

I mean, it's a paver patio. It's not... It's not, it's an impervious, I mean, it's got pervious based on the pavers being there. It's not a concrete pad.

Any additional questions for the applicant?

But on the site plan, it's listed as a concrete porch. I think that's why she said that.

I couldn't hear you.

On the site plan, it is listed as a concrete porch on the site plan.

Well, it's got pavers. Did they just put the pavers on top of the concrete? They must have.

Because roof installation is over the existing concrete patio.

Yeah. I got you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Roy. We'll be back to you in just a minute. Is there any interested parties here wanting to speak? Nope. Great. Thank you. Mr. Caldwell.

94-19 Long Meadow Way is zoned mid-rise multifamily R2A district, and the minimum rear yard setback for the desired screen room is 20 foot. The homeowner wants to have the screen room addition built on the back of the house that would encroach into the 20 foot rear yard setback by three foot. Staff recommends that the board review the application, hear the evidence presented at the meeting, and review section 2320.

Thank you, Mr. Colwell. You're welcome. Any questions from Mr. Colwell?

Ben, is that, there's no regulations or ordinances for building a screen porch over a grill like that?

No zoning regulations against it. I don't know what the fire marshal would have to say. I don't know.

I think about fire and I think about carbon monoxide.

Well, you can think about it. There's no zoning ordinance that would prohibit a screen porch over a grill.

And even if you extended the roof, they still need the exception, wouldn't they, the variance?

The roof overhang can go two foot into the required setback. So they couldn't go back as far as they want to on here, but they could go back to an 18-foot setback from the rear with the roof overhang.

So we could grant a variance, but just not enclosed?

You could.

A variance that's what?

We could grant a variance for them to have a structure, a roof over the patio, but not enclose it. That way it wouldn't keep the sun off of them. Well, we don't need to grant a variance if he wants to do that, right?

If the applicant is okay with having the posts set at 20 foot and only having two foot of overhang, that would get to 19 foot.

Okay. Okay.

I'm sorry, 18-foot from the property line.

17-9 off the back of the house. The turn, 17-9 off the back of the house.

Well, I think that's showing to the concrete pad where they want to go to or whatever the surface is. That's the three-foot variance for the screened room, not just the overhang.

I got you.

So there are options still.

Theoretically we'd be able to we just have to grant a one-foot variance if we allowed him to do a just a roof structure You could do that Without enclosing it Mr.. Roy you got a one you like to comment on that Mr.. Bell's comments

Hadn't talked about that with Mr. Hurd, but whatever variance that the board's willing to give, you'd have to abide by. Or if they don't give one, they'll go back and try something else.

Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant or the city?

Anyone prepared to make a motion?

My motion would be to deny it. If Mendel wants to make a motion to give him a one-foot variance or whatever you were just saying.

I've made the two other motions tonight. I'm not making them.

I'm just saying. I would make a motion. Y'all can vote no or yes because that's what we do here. I would make a motion that we deny variance BZA 26-19 as the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. He's not demonstrated there's extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to his particular piece of property. The conditions that he cites regarding the pond in the backyard, there's plenty of houses there that have the front on that pond. I don't see why that's an exceptional circumstance. These conditions do apply to other people in the vicinity to where other people would want to, they could also, I mean, there's other people in the vicinity that have a lake in their backyard. And I don't see that applying the ordinance would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. And the authorization, if you gave him the variance, I'm concerned it would be of detriment to the adjacent property or to the public good, because I think there's a fire hazard if you're, Building a roof and I've screened in roof over a grill So I make a motion to deny the variance Do we have a second?

I'll second it.

I get your turn to make a variance any discussion?

I do want to make a comment. I do believe that the pond, you know, we're not encroaching on your neighbor's property. I think there's setbacks are set up for those reasons. That's just my opinion. Ponds, lakes, waterway, you've got. I agree. No matter if it's 10 or 20 out of the 300 in place.

It's not unique.

If nearby properties have it, that's not an extenuating condition. I would disagree. I would think being on the waterway, being on a pond, being a lake is unique to all the general properties we do have. So that's my opinion.

But the ordinance says properties in the vicinity. In the vicinity of his development, there is a lot of people with that.

A fraction of them.

I'd count 20.

Out of 300.

Right there on that picture. I don't know how many the rest of what's your threshold?

Yeah, that's that's the sort of Right.

What is you? Yeah, what is unique? What's your definition of unique one of a kind or 30 of a kind?

I don't you know, that's why we have a body of seven for opinions and facts We have a Mr. West

I'd like to find a way to at least do an exception, maybe just do a roof of some sort. But if we denied this on here now, he could come back later with another, or do we do that today?

He can put up a roof now. He can put up a roof. He just can't enclose it. He can put up a roof now. He just can't enclose it. He's got an option. He's got an option.

Yeah.

Yeah, he's got an option. He can put a roof up. He just can't enclose it. He wants it enclosed. Mr. Cole, is that the case?

Yes, he could set posts at 20 foot from the regard setback and then the projecting roof overhang can go an additional two feet towards the back Okay We've got a motion we've got a second for mr. Bell any more discussion On favor opposed no Five to two The nays were Mr. Thomas and myself. Great. Great. And that's it.

Can you clarify who the two were?

Myself.

Okay.

Mr. McGonigal and Mr. Thomas. Great. Thank you. Can we get a motion to close the meeting? We'll make a motion to move. We got a second? Second. Got a second. Good. All in favor? Aye. Great. Thank you.