Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Got the spotlight. You got the microphone.

Got the spotlight. The microphone does some work. [Music] So I got it. I replied, "Did you not get my reply?" Okay, I got it. Why? We worked and working on it. Let's do it. call to order the North Myrtle Beach um planning commission meeting of Tuesday, August 19th, 2025. Um Madame Secretary, may we have the roll call?

Uh Chairman Coutuli, present. Commissioner Bellamy, here. Commissioner Goseski, present. Commissioner Horton, present. Commissioner Oler, Commissioner Prince, present. Commissioner Weise, Chairman, you have a quorum. Thank you. Um, assume everyone's had a chance to look at the meeting minutes from last meeting and everyone's happy with them. I entertain a motion. Make a motion we approve. Second. Second. All those in favor?

I opposed. Eyes have it. No old business. And we have new business. Item 5A is sketch plan SUGB25-9. This is a sketch plan of subdivision creating 41 residential lots, open space, and public rights of way at Harper Valley off of Tommy Chestnut Road. And um we are requesting to postpone this to the next meeting. Any discussion about that postponement?

We discussed it this morning. I think have to postpone it. Okay. And then I'll entertain a motion. I move that the planning commission postpone the sketch plan SUV-25-9 prepared for Harper Valley as submitted. I'll second. All those in favor of the motion I I I opposed. Eyes have it.

Item 5B is the first public hearing regarding the first amendment to the development agreement for Lorett Associates tract. Um this is just the f the first public hearing for that DA and um we're request the applicants requesting to postpone this to the next meeting. Any discussion about this request to postponement? I'll entertain a motion to approve. Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone the hearing regarding the first amendment to the development agreement for Laurette Associates track.

Second. All those in favor of the motion. I I

opposed. Eyes have it. Okay, we have item 6A, resoning request Z2512. Um, requesting the reszoning of 31 parcels containing 8.32 acres located on Yel Kings Highway. Uh, they are currently zoned R1 and are requesting the zoning district R1B. The parcels are vacant and undeveloped. Surrounding parcels are zoned R1, R1B and R3. Um so comparison of existing and proposed zoning R1 and R1B districts do share the same purpose which is to preserve and protect the character of existing neighborhoods and subdivisions and to prohibit any use uses which would compromise or alter existing conditions and uses. Uh these districts are intended to encourage residential infilling and expansion of existing neighborhoods and subdivisions. Development land uses permitted in each are designed to reflect existing conditions and enhance the prospects of live development. Uh permitted uses within both districts are also the same, which are single family detached dwellings, community parks, golf courses, publicly owned recreation facilities, and churches. uh to go over the questions we considered by ordinance, the relationship of the request to the comprehensive plan, the proposed zoning R1B is a primary recommended zoning district for RS and a secondary recommended zoning district for RPC within the compliance index. whether the request violates or supports the plan. The proposed R1 R1B zoning is consistent with residential suburban

land use classification but inconsistent with the RPC land use classification found in the 2018 comprehensive plan. Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change would be appropriate in the area. Uh uses permitted in the R1 district would be appropriate to in this area. We do have two large tracks flanking the property sharing the R1B zoning. Access subject to access is subject to city encroachment. Permit approval. Public water and sewer are available. Um there are no issues at the staff level. So if you do choose to forward to city council, um I do recommend um option A where necessary to implement the comprehensive plan. Any discussion by the commission? We discussed it at this morning's workshop and I think we clarified some things but just to be clear um the the way the lots are drawn u with the submission according to the uh what you've got up on the screen for example that isn't what's going to ultimately wind up there.

Correct. We will see a subdivision plot further in the future. Any other discussion, questions? The the um lots where the lots end and the what is that marsh land or wetland? Uh right on the bottom. No, to the where it says subject area requesting R1B there. That big block.

Yeah, there is a pond there. Is that wetland one? It Yeah, we haven't seen the the plat that we have is from 68. Um, it looks like salt marsh. Um, it doesn't I don't have anything indicating it's a wetland, but we do have the pond and it is in the flood zone uh ve area. Are you able to get the satellite like we saw this morning and maybe that'll help you better? Well, no. I'm just I'm just looking at it as far as uh when we looked this morning and we saw the uh flood zones and the flood maps. Let me

I'm just I guess when we see it again, we'll see how far they want to extend into that flood plane prone area. But that's really all I was asking.

Yeah. Yeah. We'll see once a survey and the plat platting work is done. We'll see and have more um up- to-date information. I'll try to get this pulled up. So, we have here is going to be the VE zone. Mhm.

And so, we have in this kind of area that you're um talking about, we have the VE and then the AE zone that goes all into here. So, are you able to take away the light blue and the dark blue and then it It gives us what it looks like to be a pond or the extension of the marsh that goes in there like that whole area there on the bottom. Yeah. But I can't I cannot say if that is wetland. I don't have any other information.

Okay. Any other questions or discussions? Mr. Chairman, I move the planning commission recommend approval of the reasonzoning request Z2512 as submitted. Chairman, do we need to call for public comment? I didn't

public comment first. Pardon? Public comment before we take our vote. Yeah. Usually take a motion, then you get a second, then you do discussion, then you do the vote. That's Robert's rules of order. No. No. Yes. Okay. I'd like to invite the any public comment.

Sure.

Hi, it's Michael Lake, 1124 Marshview Drive, North Myrtle. uh own property bordering what's in discussion. Um is it my understanding that someone said that what we're seeing on that proposed uh uh was it that Z125 or whatever it was? Yeah, the Z2512. That's not what it's going to be the way the lots are proposed there. No. Okay. That's what it is currently, right? Um we'll be seeing um a plot in the future. It's my understanding basically is all they're asking to do is fit more homes into that. This request right now is just um to be reszone to R1B

which will allow for more lots, smaller lots and what's proposed is that basically what it is the reszoning request. It's hard to say what the the minimum lot size will be 6,000 square. Okay. And right now it's it's 10,000. Yes. Okay. So basically all they're doing is just shrinking the lot size. That's what this request is is asking for Yes. for this area. Okay. Now, there's already paper roads in there with sewer lines. Will those roads possibly be moved as well? Those roads are not consistent with our design standards and the roads will be replatted as well.

Okay. So, they possibly can be Okay. Okay. Um that's that's what I have now. When you reszone or uh replplot this, there'll be another meeting. Mhm. Yes.

Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks. Okay. Thank you for your comment. Any more discussion by the commissioners? I think we have a motion on the floor. Ed,

your motion was to approve, correct? Yes. As submitted. I'll second that. Thought I had Oh, did you already? Did you? That's why I was asking public comment. Okay. Okay. I guess I'll call for a vote. All those in favor? I I

opposed. Guys have it. Okay. 6B. Next we have item 6B, annexation and zoning designation Z2513 with a petition to annex 2 acres on Water Tower Road. The lot is currently unincorporated and zoned to CFA by Ory County. This petition is requesting the zoning district highway commercial. Um we received a petition earlier in the year for this parcel requesting limited industrial. Uh the petition received approval from planning commission but failed to receive approval from city council. Uh council um expressed that they would prefer to see highway commercial for this parcel. Uh so the applicant withdrew the original um petition and resubmitted for highway commercial. Uh the parcel is fully developed for commercial use. Um we it is currently um J&J electric. Um it is improved with a modern commercial structure featuring paved access utilities and site enhancements. Uh surrounding parcels within the same limits are zoned LI and R2A and surrounding county parcels are zoned CFA. Um the questions we consider by ordinance relationship of the request to the comprehensive plan. The proposed zoning designation um highway commercial is not a primary or secondary recommended zoning district within the compliance index. Uh whether the request violates or supports the plan. The proposed highway commercial zoning is inconsistent with the residential suburban land use classification in our 2018 comprehensive plan. whether the uses permitted by the proposed change would be appropriate in the area. Uh the purpose uh so the

parcel is located in a transition area between highways 90 and 22 which are major transportation corridors. Um we do see contractor suppliers and storage facilities. Um and with their access accessibility on these trans transition areas. Um at the same time residential neighborhoods are steadily growing in this area. Therefore, the highway commercial zone district um is designed to provide commercial opportunities along busy routes, keeping impacts on nearby homes to a minimum. Um in this case, highway commercial is appropriate um since it is supporting commercial activity and helping ensure the future development um is more compatible within res residential growth happening nearby. Uh access is subject to South Carolina DOT encroachment permit approval and public water and sewer is available through Grand Strand Water and Sewer. There are no issues at the staff level. Um, so if you choose to forward to city council with recommendations of approval, I recommend option C to recognize substantial change or changing conditions or circumstances in a particular locality. Um, which is most relevant to the request? Any thoughts on this? I do have a question. Um, noticing that the request is for reszoning or I'm sorry, requesting HC zone for this parcel if it's uh um included in the city and in the nearby area we have an LI zone. Is it the intent to make the HC zone if joining parcels um are annexed in to be a buffer between LI and the R2?

Um so I know city council expressed concern for future um for the future of this area. Um there was some concerns about a concrete plant, a concrete plant going in this area. Um and I think that's why they are are more comfortable with um the highway commercial. So it's conceivable that the highway commercial would be a good buffer between the uh light and industrial and the uh residential areas. Yes. Any other questions?

Well, my concern is that we should be closing doughnut holes, not creating them. And unless the adjacent properties come in as highway commercial or if they don't come in at all, um this just extends the map in another odd jug handle kind of thing of the city of North Myrtle Beach and we still have these pockets. Um, I I like seeing uh commercial rather than residential, but there's no guarantee of what's going to come in between Kerchis Road and J&J. Given the surrounding areas though, I think um it's not likely to be residential. It's probably going to be either continuation of light industrial or commercial highway commercial. And whether it's in the county or in the city, it's not going to appear to be any different. If if whoever buys or and chooses to develop the other properties that are in the county, if they don't come to us and petition for some kind of a a zoning, uh then they're under the not very likely that that they'll have to go to the county and ask for some kind of a zoning change uh because it's just CFF. But um I think the idea would be is as others approached us about bringing those properties into the city that were adjacent to this or to other city property. Um then

I think the opportunity would be to encourage that look toward that zoning area. definitely filling in back toward uh Highway 90 would be that it would be commercial. Any other discussion or questions?

Okay, I'll call for a motion, please. I move that the plan commission recommend approval of the annexation and zoning petition. I got the wrong page. Uh Z2513 as submitted uh reflecting C to recognize substantial change or change in conditions or circumstances in a particular locality. Second. Okay. Motion was seconded. All those in favor? I I

opposed. eyes at it. Item 6 C is zoning tech zoning ordinance text amendment ZTX25-10. This amendment revises the definition of sign regarding murals. I know we spoke about this a lot this morning. So you have the original version in your packet and then I've updated the um the text in the ordinance. Um so it would read sign any device, fixture, painting or visual image using words, graphics, symbols, numbers or letters designed and used for the purpose of communicating a message or attracting attention including structures whose purpose can be reasonably construed to communicate a message or attract attention. Customary graphics found on soft drink and newspaper dispensers and similar machines shall not be considered as signs. Murals that are primarily artistic in nature shall not be considered signs. A mural may include incidental commercial references provided that such commercial content does not exceed 10% of the total mural area. This incidental commercial content shall be considered in addition to the signage otherwise permitted for the property and shall not count against the maximum sign allotment but is limited to 15% of the total sign area otherwise allowed on the property to address our concern about someone creating a massive mural so they could get 10% of huge copy. Yeah.

So just using it as a figure. So, if you're entitled to 200 square ft, if they decide to put the mural, all right, they would be entitled to use 15 more%. So, say another 30 square ft for that incidental 10% of the mural. Correct. Yeah. That would max out their commercial copy and the mural. They could work backwards or they could work forwards, either way. Yeah. But it would also be capped at the size of the mural as a 10% not 10% of the sign capacity. Yeah, that's a cap. But the mural is the maximum is 10% of the mural.

Yes, the mural could be as big as they wanted, but the commercial copy could only be 10% of the mural provided that that 10% was only 15% of the allowed signage. So, yes. Okay. So, if they had a 300 ft mural, the 10% would give them the 30. if they were entitled to 200 square feet and a 30 and a 30 would match. Correct. Correct. Okay. Yes. It's all about the numbers. Yeah.

So, the signage um the commercial part of it is there any limitation as to location on the mural? No. Oh, one other uh thing. Uh what about glass surfaces? Can a mural cover a storefront window? I don't know why you would want it to cover a storefront window. You shouldn't want it to, but conceivably that could happen. There are different rules for signage in windows. Um,

yeah, but this is on a window, not in a window. And it's going to be part of a larger mural. And there are those wraps that go across like you can wrap an whole car, including the windows. Yeah. And you can see one of the few things that I read, I thought they can only cover up the window 25%. I think that was the number. They You can only cover up that window on the front of the building 25%. That's in the sign ordinance. Yeah. Yeah. I would have to get back to you on that. Yeah, maybe something to consider. I don't know what how how likely it is to to happen, but you know, I'm thinking of all the possibilities.

Listen, like Cali said, it's a slippery slope. Yeah.

What is this going to open up? How are we trying to define our First Amendment rights if it gets to that? If it gets political or what we believe, hey, our expression of speech, where do we go? We're putting together an arts commission. We want to see stuff, murals or a form of art. I'd love to see everything look like the beach because if that's what we're here to maintain what we have with the beach community and the example we had this morning, Mr. jam. You saw the saw the beach, saw the ocean, saw a lounge chair, a guitar, and sunset or sunrise, whatever that was, palm tree. Well, council passed the ordinance addressing outdoor display. And I think while this is not merchandise, it could undermine that ordinance by advertising of merchandise and services. if the mural is permanent, unless they're going to continue to paint over it and display some other different merchandise based on the sale.

Ultimately, this is a recommendation that does go to council. Well, really in tr I guess the thing is as we've introduced this today it is we're setting we're attempting to set aside something that puts some limitations on murals and of course we have them I mean they're all throughout our community in some form or fashion where uh and of course as we design something to actually rein it in to some degree. U we have to start somewhere and I think this is a a pretty good place to start with it. Uh and then of course the idea is if if what we're doing doesn't work and it

what recourse becomes abusive we can take additional steps in the future but I think at at this juncture trying to put something some guidelines on it I think I think with the the idea of what we did we talked about the 10% and then we limited it by saying it still can't expand your total sign capacity more than 15% of whatever is the maximum that applies for that use and or that district is pretty I think it's pretty reasonable to start to do something with it um because we got to we got to start somewhere and stop somewhere and this seems to be reasonable

not everybody loves every mural obviously but they are a useful tool in placemaking public art is a useful tool um you can create a destin ation. People want to go and get their photographs in front of it. It act makes the city just feel more alive and vibrant. Um we are as a city trying to encourage public art and we're creating a public arts commission and that that is moving forward. Um so by allowing 10% of a mural to be commercial content, I do believe we are encouraging more murals through that. they get their message through a little bit. But again, it's up to you and city council on whether they want to do this.

You know, I've got a thought about along those lines with regard to the murals themselves. The murals are supposed to be an an artistic item on a building to do what you said, you know, destination or artwork or whatever. in along those lines though uh artistic works on buildings. Usually you have a for example if you have a painting on canvas you're going to have the artist's name somewhere signed off on that. But since we're talking about something that's on constant public display and is supposed to be artistic in nature, can't we limit the commercial u aspect of it to a particular size and something like this mural courtesy of the business that sponsored the painting or something like that? This ordinance does limit it to a particular size with the 10% of the mural and the 15% of the total area of the allowed signage.

Um, right. Th this does not address us having murals in town. It addresses the commercialization of the mural. Yes. Is what it's about. It's not about the mural problem. There's not a mural problem. It's about the commercialization of the mural. Right. Does the 15% cap Does the requested mural Yes. Does it fit within that? Yes. Because it looks like it does limit it. 17 by 19 was the mural, right? 15 by 19. 15 by 19. 385.

They're allowed 200 right now. So, this would allow them another 30. And it was 28.5 ft. So it's the algorithm seems to work. It does definitely does works for this one. And you saw what percentage that was. I mean of commercial copy and that's one of the larger pieces that they're receiving 50 50 square ft more and allowing 200 to allow for their changing of their

and what we were talking about this morning was you know we got the one that's 17 by9 but the discussion began you know what if it was uh 25 ft by 150 ft then how how big that sign we get and we said, "Okay, we're going to bring that down that even if it was a huge mural, it's still a small piece. We're going to have the small." Yeah. And highway commercials capped at 150. Unless it's a theater, it gets 200. And these shopping centers get one square foot per linear foot of frontage, which is very limited.

I think we put a reasonable cap on it. Oh, absolutely. cuz now they're going to calculate how big my mural actually could be for me to put a substantial commercialization of it advertising my business or whoever it was and just with the theater alone he's hitting the 10% and that's all he's going to get a 300 square foot that's it we and I hope that we have reasonably responsible businesses that are going to do tasteful things on the side of their business. Absolutely.

You know, I don't think they would uh be wanting to do something that would hurt their business. No, but like when the tiki god appeared, our response was pretty swift, I think, in changing the ordinance. So, we still happens again. But we still have the tiki god. Yeah. After the fact. So if it was