Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the PDD Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission postpones Roberts PDD fence-extension amendment after neighbors raise drainage concerns
Summary
The commission postponed consideration of a minor PDD amendment to extend a six-foot privacy fence in Roberts Roost, directing city staff and parties to research past drainage work, records of public funds and possible access easements before the next meeting on Aug. 18.
The North Myrtle Beach Planning Commission on July 21 postponed action on a minor PDD amendment (Z-26-13) that would extend a six-foot privacy fence around a neighborhood amenity area after adjoining property owners raised concerns that the extension could block access to storm drainage infrastructure and worsen flooding.
Staff presented the amendment as a conceptual change that would complete an enclosure of the amenity area while leaving the approved lot layout, circulation and open-space configuration unchanged. The applicant seeks to extend an existing six-foot solid privacy fence for privacy and security; planning staff said the extension would not alter permitted land uses or residential density.
Several adjacent residents and HOA representatives spoke at the hearing. Ronnie Crawford (Robertsville) said the fence, as proposed, could block two drainage locations on neighboring property and prevent residents from accessing and cleaning those drains after storms. "If they put this fence up where we think it's going, it's gonna block us off from being able to get to those drains to clean them out," Crawford said. Anne Bane, who gave an address in Little River, said debris from magnolia trees routinely clogs a drain box and that water has at times come close to homes and yards.
HOA representatives said they intended to extend what is already an approved fence and that the proposed line is on the property line. Planning staff noted that the PDD amendment is a conceptual drawing, not a survey-accurate construction plan, and that easements for maintenance or access are not shown on the documents provided; staff said there is no currently shown maintenance easement co-located with the disputed drains on the final plat. Staff offered to search city records for documentation of prior drainage work and public-money involvement.
Commissioners debated whether the drainage issue falls within the commission’s scope for findings of fact under the PDD amendment review. Several commissioners suggested postponement to allow the parties and city staff to gather records documenting whether city funds or easements exist and to give the HOAs an opportunity to coordinate solutions (for example, access panels or agreed drainage maintenance arrangements). One commissioner moved to postpone the item to the next Planning Commission meeting on Aug. 18 and requested that the city search records for public money used on the drainage and that both HOAs submit any documentation they have; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
The postponement will give staff time to search project records (including engineer drawings by Bob Weaver referenced by residents) and for the applicant and adjoining property owners to confer and provide documentation and proposed mitigations before the commission revisits the amendment.
