Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Bartle Beach. We'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. Ms. Amber?

Chairman McGonigal?

Here.

Andy Thomas?

Here.

Mendel Bell?

Here.

Joe Reeves? Here. Cynthia Lover? Here. Wyman Wise?

Here.

Norfleet Jones?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Great, thank you. We'll take a minute and review the minutes, and if we get a... approval to on the original meetings. Yeah, if we could take a moment to review the May 14th meeting minutes, and we get a motion to approve. Thank you, Mr. Reeves. Do we have a second?

Got a second for Mr. Jones. So just a quick correction in the minutes. My name is spelled wrong, just so it's recorded correctly.

What page?

It's on the front page. Just Mendel, M-E-N-D-E-L.

Okay.

1L Mendel. 1L Mendel. All right.

2L is Bell. Yeah, exactly. 2L is Bell. All right. We've got a motion and a second. All in favor with the modification? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nice to have it. All right, let's review the Thursday, June 11th BZA meeting. If we can get a motion to approve those minutes.

So moved. Second.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas, for the motion.

Same note.

And Mr. Reeves on the second. And we got a Mendel Bell with one L and two L's on the bell. All right. Any other discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. All right. Then we're going to move on to the city. Item number three on the list. Mr. Cuomo, any communication? Great. Thank you. If we can go ahead and get the person that's the only person here 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?

I do. Thank you. We'll move on to the first item on the agenda. We want the first item on the agenda of new business. We've got BZA 26-20, an application by David O'Connell. for a variance of the front yard setback at 247 Palmetto Harbor Drive, Zone R1B, Single Family Low-Medium Density District. If you can introduce yourself for the record. David O'Connell. Speak in the microphone if you would, Mr. O'Connell.

David O'Connell, work with Chris Manning Communities, 9405 Cove Drive, Myrtle Beach.

Great, thank you. Tell us your story.

We're building a house in Palmetto Harbor and just like all the other ones that we've done. Um. We've requested a variance for the setback. So, because of the topo, the project of the of the lot. And to keep the house from being blocking the neighbors views. We're asking for a 5 foot variance on the front setback.

Thank you, Mr. O'Connell. Any questions for the applicant?

Yes. I'm reading your application. Number five, you say describe how the variance is necessary. It says a variance is not necessary for the reasonable development of the lot, which would say that you don't need the variance. I'm

Sorry miss Oliver. Where are you?

These pages are yours, okay Okay, thank you All right, I'm confused

Just to be clear again, this is the neighborhood that goes back, that slopes down into the waterway?

Yeah, yeah, Palmetto Harbor. Almost every single house built in there, especially over the last 10 years, they tried to keep it uniform so it wouldn't block any of the neighbors' views by being five foot in front, so... We've done this a bunch of times, and this is just, I think it's the last lot. I don't think there's any lots left after this one.

Property, were these lots originally laid out when the property was in the county?

I believe so. It was before my time, but I believe so.

Would the county zoning have given you, would you have needed a variance under the original zoning? When they were plotted in the county.

I don't remember. I'm sorry. Ben, you might know the answer to that.

I think so. I thought my recollection was when we've had these before that.

When they were in the county, they were laid out with different setbacks. That's why the lots were platted the way they were. Somebody said that in a prior hearing on these lots. I'm just trying to determine. Okay. That seems like something we took into consideration, what the original zoning was when the subdivision was laid out versus when it came into the city that gave it a more restrictive setback.

counties are required a minimum of 20. Yeah. Okay.

And I do believe, I think that's what we all kind of recollect on the, when we initially started dealing with these, it had to do with the zoning that the county had was more, you know, it was five feet less.

So under the original zoning, when this was plotted out, we wouldn't have needed a variance. Correct. Yep.

Good deal. Great. Give us a second. We're going to hear from the city and we'll be back to you. Ms. Colwell.

Mm-hmm.

You see the grave down. R1B. R1B requires. Unique to the property to which the variance. Other properties. A lot in this subdivision facing. because other homes well i'm reading it verbatim yeah it's

I'm gonna start that sentence over the intercoastal waterway side of the Palmetto Harbor drive would be harmonious congruous and balanced with the issuance of the variance because other homes on the street were granted setback relief from the. Describe how the variance side is the minimum variance necessary for reasonable development of the site. A footprint of more than 2,000 square foot can be built without any reduction of setback. A three-story home exceeding 6,000 square foot can be built without any reduction of setback. A 6,000 square foot single family home is a reasonable development on a 7,860 square foot lot. A variance is not necessary for the reasonable development of the lot. Six, 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 and developers with properties on the same side of Palmetto Harbor Drive have been granted variances for reduction of front setback. That's all.

Thank you, Mr. Kola.

You're welcome.

Any questions for the city?

Is there a staff recommendation on this property?

I am not making a recommendation, no, ma'am.

Do you feel there's a hardship?

I feel that there's a hardship with the slope of the lot going back towards the waterway. It's about 47 feet into the lot. It starts to slope down. About 47 feet from the back of the lot.

My reading of all this is... Variance is not necessary for the reasonable development of the lot, but however, because this board has issued variances for the other homes on the street that are on the same side of the waterway and are similarly situated, you feel that's a mitigating factor?

I do.

Okay.

Does that not account for the topography, though?

Even though that lots of size, you still have to account for the topography, right? Because you got that 47-foot slope. If they push the house back, they go back further in the slope back towards the waterway, right? And so they have a topography issue on the backside of that lot. So moving the house up five feet would actually give them relief on that topography on the back part of the property, correct? It would. Okay.

And in the past, I'd like to just ask David, excuse me, in the past when we've granted these, we always ask the question of making sure that you're not going to have any parking like on the sidewalk. You'll have plenty underneath the house and in the driveway. Okay. That's okay. There's going to be, by letting you come closer to the front, they're not going to have to park their cars on the sidewalk in that neighborhood or anything.

No, there's still room, just like the other ones, there's still room to pull the cars all the way in.

Any other questions for the applicant or the city? Then we'll prepare to make a motion.

I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. I move that the board grant variance BZA 26-20 because African has demonstrated unnecessary hardship. Specifically there are extraordinary excepting conditions playing this big piece of property with a topography and a steep slope back to the waterway on that property itself these conditions they generally apply to the other properties in the vicinity because these conditions application of the ordinance particular property would effectively Would be not fully restricted, but it still would put limitations on the property itself the authorization of the variance would not be a central detriment to adjacent properties actually would bring harmonious to The actual neighborhood itself, because every lot would be a lot, every house would be lined with the proper setbacks that match the character in the district of the variance.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. With two L's. Do we have a second? Second. Any discussion? On favor? Aye. Let's have it. Can we get a motion to close our meeting? I'll make a motion. Second. A motion from Mr. Bell, a second from Mr. Reeves. All in favor? Aye.