[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?