Agenda
Transcript
SOURCE TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is downloaded from the source you provided but we haven't reviewed it for accuracy. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record. You can also request an AI-transcription of the audio file with the button to the left.
These are YouTube's auto-generated captions, not a human transcript — expect occasional errors, especially with names and technical terms.
[0:00]
Turtle Beach. Um, we'll go ahead and
[0:02]
call this uh meeting to or uh uh to
[0:04]
order.
[0:06]
>> Miss Amber.
[0:08]
>> Uh, Chairman McGonagal
[0:10]
>> here.
[0:11]
>> Andy Thomas
[0:12]
>> here.
[0:12]
>> Mendle Bell
[0:13]
>> here.
[0:14]
>> Joe Reeves.
[0:15]
>> Cynthia Lover
[0:16]
>> here.
[0:16]
>> Wyman Wise
[0:17]
>> here.
[0:18]
>> Norfleet Jones
[0:19]
>> here.
[0:19]
>> We have a quorum.
[0:21]
>> Great. Thank you. Um, take a minute and
[0:24]
review the minutes and if we can get a
[0:25]
um approval to on the
[0:29]
back to original meetings.
[0:34]
» We got the
[0:36]
>> Yeah. If we could take take a a moment
[0:37]
to review the um May 14th meeting
[0:40]
minutes and we get a motion to approve.
[0:44]
>> Motion to approve.
[0:45]
>> Thank you, Mr. Reeves. Do we have a
[0:46]
second?
[0:48]
>> Got a second. Mr. from Mr. Jones.
[0:50]
>> So, just a quick correction in the
[0:52]
minutes. My name is spelled wrong just
[0:53]
so it's recorded correctly.
[0:55]
>> What page?
[0:56]
>> It's on the front page. Just mendle me n
[1:00]
>> one L Mendle.
[1:07]
» All right.
[1:08]
>> Yeah, exactly. Two L's bell.
[1:12]
>> All right. Um we've got a a motion, a
[1:14]
second. All in favor with the
[1:16]
modification.
[1:18]
>> I
[1:19]
>> Any opposed? Nice have it. All right.
[1:22]
Let's review the um uh Thursday, June
[1:25]
11th uh BZA meeting. If we can get a uh
[1:29]
motion to approve those minutes.
[1:31]
>> So moved.
[1:33]
>> Second.
[1:35]
>> And if we Thank you. Uh um Mr. Thomas
[1:39]
for the motion.
[1:40]
>> Same same not
[1:42]
>> and Mr. Reeves on the second. Um and we
[1:45]
got a Mendle Bell with one L and two L's
[1:48]
on the bell.
[1:50]
All right. Any other discussion?
[1:53]
All in favor?
[1:55]
>> I.
[1:55]
>> Any opposed? The eyes have it.
[1:57]
>> All right. And um we're going to move on
[1:59]
to um the city item number three on the list. M uh Mr. Cwell. Any
[2:05]
communication?
[2:07]
>> Great. Thank you. Um
[2:11]
if we can go ahead and get uh the person
[2:13]
that's the only person here sworn in.
[2:19]
Do you solemnly state under penalty of
[2:21]
perjury that the evidence you shall give
[2:23]
in this matter shall be the truth, the
[2:25]
whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
[2:27]
>> I do.
[2:28]
>> Great. Thank you, Mr. Uh, we'll move on
[2:30]
to the first item on the agenda.
[2:33]
>> We want the first item on the agenda of
[2:35]
new business. We've got BZA 26-20, an
[2:38]
application by Donald David Okonnell uh
[2:41]
for a variance of the front yard setback
[2:43]
at 247 Pomemetto Harper Drive, zone R1B,
[2:47]
single family lowmedium density
[2:50]
district.
[2:53]
If you can introduce yourself for the
[2:54]
record.
[2:55]
>> David Okonnell.
[2:57]
>> Speak at the microphone if you would,
[2:58]
Mr. Connell. David Okonnell work with
[3:00]
Chris Manning Communities.
[3:04]
>> 9405 Cove Drive, Myrtle Beach.
[3:06]
>> Great. Thank you.
[3:10]
» Tell us your story.
[3:13]
>> We're building a house in Pelmetto
[3:15]
Harbor. And just like all the other ones
[3:17]
that we've done, um we've requested uh a
[3:22]
variance with a setback. So because of
[3:25]
the topo of the project uh of the of the
[3:29]
lot
[3:30]
and uh to keep the house from being
[3:33]
blocking the neighbors views, we're
[3:36]
asking for a 5-ft variance on the front
[3:39]
setback.
[3:41]
>> Great. Thank you, Mr. Okonnell. Any
[3:44]
questions for the applicant?
[3:49]
» Yes,
[3:52]
I'm reading your
[3:55]
Number five, you say describe how the
[3:58]
variance solves the minimum variance
[3:59]
necessary. It said a variance is not
[4:03]
necessary for the reasonable development
[4:04]
of a lot which would say that you don't
[4:07]
need the variance.
[4:12]
» I'm sorry, Miss Lover, where are you? Uh
[4:14]
yeah, where we
[4:20]
» Oh, that's yours. You started doing it.
[4:22]
You started doing these different
[4:27]
Okay. So,
[4:29]
this So, these pages are yours.
[4:32]
>> Okay. Where's his
[4:36]
» Okay. Thank you.
[4:39]
Sorry, I'm confused.
[4:43]
» And just to be clear again, this is the
[4:45]
neighborhood that that goes back down
[4:47]
that slopes down into the waterway.
[4:49]
>> Yeah. Yeah. Palmetto Harbor.
[4:52]
um almost every single house built in
[4:55]
there, especially over the last 10
[4:58]
years, um has they tried to keep it
[5:02]
uniform so it wouldn't block any of the
[5:04]
neighbors views by being, you know, 5
[5:06]
foot in front. So,
[5:09]
we've done this a bunch of times and
[5:11]
this is just I think it's the last lot.
[5:13]
I don't think there's any lots left
[5:14]
after this one
[5:19]
» property. Um these lots usually laid out
[5:23]
when the property was in the county.
[5:26]
>> I believe so. It was before my time, but
[5:28]
I believe so.
[5:32]
>> Would these would these lot would the
[5:33]
county zoning have uh given you would
[5:36]
you have needed a variance under the
[5:38]
original zoning when they were plotted
[5:40]
in the county?
[5:41]
>> I don't remember. I'm sorry.
[5:45]
>> Ben, you might know the answer to that.
[5:50]
set
[5:53]
to
[5:56]
>> I think so.
[6:02]
» I thought my recollection was when we
[6:04]
had these before that
[6:06]
when they were in the county they were
[6:07]
laid out with different setbacks. That's
[6:09]
why the lots were platted the way they
[6:10]
were.
[6:11]
>> I think that's come somebody said that
[6:13]
in a prior hearing on these lots. I'm
[6:15]
just trying to determine
[6:18]
Okay,
[6:21]
>> that seems like something we took into
[6:22]
consideration what the original
[6:24]
>> zoning was when the subdivision was laid
[6:26]
out versus when it came into the city
[6:28]
that gave it a more restrictive
[6:32]
>> question
[6:35]
a minimum 20.
[6:39]
Okay,
[6:39]
>> that's and I do believe I think that's
[6:41]
what we all kind of recollect on the
[6:43]
>> when we initially started dealing with
[6:44]
these it had to do with the zoning that
[6:46]
the county had was more and it was 5 ft
[6:50]
less. So
[6:51]
>> So under the original zoning when this
[6:53]
was plotted out
[6:55]
>> correct?
[7:00]
» Yep. Good deal. Great. Give us a second.
[7:01]
We're going to hear from the city and
[7:02]
we'll be back to you. Let's go
[7:33]
» on the
[7:36]
Majority of the box
[7:38]
area.
[7:58]
Straight
[8:09]
down
[8:17]
the street.
[8:48]
pull off
[8:55]
regulations.
[10:03]
issuance of the varants because other
[10:05]
homes
[10:07]
are not loud enough.
[10:11]
Well, I'm reading it verbatim.
[10:14]
>> Yeah, it's
[10:19]
» I'm going to start that sentence over.
[10:21]
The inter coastal waterway side of the
[10:22]
Palmetto Harbor Drive would be
[10:24]
harmonious, congruous, and balanced with
[10:26]
the issuance of the variance because
[10:27]
other homes on the street were granted
[10:29]
setback relief from the BCA. Describe
[10:32]
how the variance saw as the minimum
[10:33]
variance necessary for reasonable
[10:34]
development of the site. A footprint of
[10:37]
more than 2,000 square foot can be built
[10:39]
without any reduction of setback. A
[10:41]
three-story home exceeding 6,000 square
[10:43]
foot can be built without any reduction
[10:45]
of setback. A 6,000t single family home
[10:48]
is a reasonable development on a 7,860
[10:51]
foot lot. A variance is not necessary
[10:53]
for the reasonable development of the
[10:55]
lot. Six, describe why the granting of
[10:57]
the requested variance will not confer
[10:59]
on the applicant any special privilege
[11:01]
that is denied by the zoning regulations
[11:03]
to other land owners in the same zoning
[11:05]
district. Other land owners and
[11:07]
developers with properties on the same
[11:08]
side of Palmetto Harbor Drive have been
[11:10]
granted variances for reduction of front
[11:12]
setback.
[11:14]
>> That's all.
[11:15]
>> Great. Thank you, Mola.
[11:16]
>> You're welcome.
[11:17]
>> Any questions for the city?
[11:21]
» Um,
[11:23]
is there a staff recommendation on this
[11:25]
property?
[11:26]
>> I am not making a recommendation. No,
[11:28]
ma'am.
[11:30]
Do you feel that you feel there's a
[11:32]
hardship
[11:34]
this lot that would um
[11:38]
>> I feel that there's a hardship with the
[11:40]
um with the slope of the lot going back
[11:42]
towards the the waterway. It's um about
[11:44]
47 feet into the lot. It starts to slope
[11:48]
down about 47 feet from the back of the
[11:50]
lot.
[11:56]
» I know that. So my reading of all this
[11:58]
is
[12:02]
variance is not necessary for the
[12:04]
reasonable development of the lot. But
[12:05]
however,
[12:10]
this board has issued variances for the
[12:12]
other homes on the street that are on
[12:13]
the same side of the waterway and are
[12:14]
similarly situated. Um, you feel that's
[12:18]
a mitigating factor?
[12:19]
>> I do.
[12:20]
>> Okay.
[12:23]
» Does that not account for the topography
[12:26]
though? Even though that lot's that
[12:27]
size, you still have to account for the
[12:28]
topography, right? Because you got that
[12:30]
47 foot slope. If they push the house
[12:33]
back, they go back into further in the
[12:34]
slope back towards the waterway, right?
[12:37]
>> And so they have a topography issue on
[12:38]
the back side of that lot.
[12:40]
>> So moving the house up five feet would
[12:42]
actually give them relief on that
[12:43]
topography on the back part of the
[12:45]
property. Correct.
[12:45]
>> It would. Okay.
[12:47]
And in the in the past, I'd like to just
[12:49]
ask David, excuse me. Um, in the past
[12:51]
when we've granted these, we we always
[12:52]
ask the question of me making sure
[12:54]
there's going you're not going to have
[12:55]
any parking like under the sidewalk.
[12:57]
You'll have plenty underneath the house
[12:59]
and in the driveway.
[13:01]
>> Sorry,
[13:02]
>> that's okay. Um, there there's going to
[13:04]
be with by letting you come closer to
[13:06]
the front, there's not you going to have
[13:07]
they're not going to have to park the
[13:08]
cars on the sidewalk. No, in that
[13:10]
neighborhood or anything.
[13:11]
>> No, there's still room to just like the
[13:13]
other ones. There's still room to pull
[13:15]
the cars all the way in.
[13:17]
Yep.
[13:21]
» Any other questions for the applicant or
[13:22]
the city? Anyone prepare to make a
[13:25]
motion?
[13:26]
>> I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. I move
[13:27]
that the board grant variance BZA26-20
[13:30]
because applicant has demonstrated an
[13:32]
essay hardship. Specifically, there are
[13:34]
extraordinary exception conditions
[13:35]
pertaining to this piece of property
[13:36]
with the topography and a steep slope
[13:38]
back to the waterway on that property
[13:40]
itself. These conditions they generally
[13:42]
apply to the other properties in the
[13:43]
vicinity. Because of these conditions,
[13:45]
application of the ordinance
[13:46]
particularly property would effectively
[13:48]
would be not fully restricted but it
[13:50]
still would put limitations on the
[13:52]
property itself. The authorization of
[13:54]
the variance would not be a substantial
[13:55]
detriment to adjacent properties that
[13:56]
actually would bring harmonous to uh the
[13:59]
actual neighborhood itself because every
[14:00]
lot would be align every house would be
[14:02]
lined with the proper setbacks that
[14:04]
match the character in the district of
[14:06]
the of the variance.
[14:08]
>> Thank you Mr. bell with two L's.
[14:12]
Um, do we have a Do we have a second?
[14:14]
>> Second.
[14:15]
Any discussion?
[14:18]
>> All in favor?
[14:19]
>> I
[14:21]
>> Let's have it.
[14:23]
>> Um, can we get a motion to close our
[14:26]
meeting?
[14:26]
>> I'll make a motion. Second.
[14:27]
>> Second.
[14:28]
>> A motion from Mr. Bell, a second from
[14:30]
Mr. Reeves. All in favor?