Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music] Is it? [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

All right. Welcome everyone to the what day is today? Um

September 4th meeting of the city of Columbia uh city of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals. I am Katherine Fenner, chair for the board and will be serving as the chair for today's meeting. At this time, I would like to introduce the other members of the board. Sydney Lam, um Jonathan Vang, um I'm sorry, I'm not with it right now. Uh Jonathan Vang and um Sherard Duval, uh Davis Whittle, Sherard Duval. Um I would also like to introduce the staff that assists the board. Andrew Living, zoning administrator. Erica Hyenne, deputy zoning administrator, and Maline Bowen, land use coordinator. The board is charged with hearing applications for special exceptions, variances, and administrative appeals. All testimony is recorded for the record, and anyone wishing to speak will need to be sworn in and come to the podium to to speak. No testimony can be taken from the floor. When you come to the podium, state your name and please speak clearly into the microphone because this meeting is being recorded. Applicants with cases before the board are allotted at a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the board or staff regarding the case. Any member of the public may address the board in intervals of 3 minutes or 5 minutes if by a spokesperson for an established body or group of three or more. The applicant then has five minutes for rebuttal. The board reserves the right to amend these limits on a case-by case basis. Those of you who plan to speak must be sworn. If you are an applicant or here to speak in any case, please stand at this time and raise your right hand. Stand and raise your right hand. Okay. All right. Um, do you swear or attest that you do you affirm or attest that the testimony you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes. Very good. At this time, I will turn the meeting over to Mr. Living Good. Hi. Good afternoon. Um, first I'm going to go ahead and read the consent agenda. Um,

I will need to excuse myself for the consent agenda. Pardon me. I think um I think Miss Lam has said she wants to recuse herself. Oh, right. Right. [Music]

Um the the first item on the consent agenda is the approval of the August 7th, 2025 minutes. And following that is 1433 Greg Street, tax map number 1140615, which is a special exception to establish a micro school within the MU1 district. And following that is 1431 Assembly Street, a variance to increase the maximum display surface area of a temporary sign. Um I I will mention to the board that it does appear that a member of the public signed up to speak on some of the items on the consent agenda. So you may wish to see if they do in fact wish to speak.

All right. All right. Does the member of the board or any audience member wish to have any item removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda? Okay. Okay. You need to come to the to the to the microphone. I have asked to speak on two of the items listed. um 1433 Greg Street and 1431 Assembly Street. All right. So, you would like to have them removed from the consent agenda?

All right. So, I guess we will remove them from the consent agenda.

Would you like to stay but at the at the microphone so that you can tell us what your concerns are? Well, we we do still have the minutes on the consent agenda. Oh, yes. Okay. Um, do I have a motion to approve the minutes from the um, August meeting? Motion to approve the minutes of August. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. All right. Thank you. Love. Uh, my name is Dr. Bri Love. Um, and I am um You're You need to speak into the microphone and I I apologize. I should probably introduce the cases uh first. I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

We need the applicant to come up and talk about things. So, I should sit and come back.

Okay. So, so now that the uh two cases that were on the consent agenda have been moved to the regular agenda, I'll introduce the first case which is 1433 Greg Street. Again, that's a special exception to establish a micro school within the MU1 district. Um, you know, in in short, the um the applicant is proposing to establish a micro school within the existing building um for um for children. Um I believe it's going to start with two classes of about six to eight students and I believe the applicant is here and can tell you a little bit more about their application. All right. Um, would the applicant come forward?

Hello. Hi.

My name is Virginia Wells and we are wanting to start a special needs school for children. It'll be elementary age based. It'll be about kindergarten to fifth grade with the intentions of being able to move up each year with those children. And we have long-term plans. We uh have a lot purchased on North Main Street that we intend to build on, but in order to kind of start out small, get our roots in, we've been looking at Greg Street. Greg Street is, to my understanding, approved to be a daycare center. So, we're just asking for the exception to be a school for all these children to get their therapy and specialized schooling, all their academics. It'll take them out of the public school where they can really get individualized care. We are not anticipating doing any type of demolition on the inside nor the outside. We will put a playground in the backyard or in the back space. But besides that, everything is staying intact building wise.

All right. All right. And I believe Miss Breedlove, you had a Dr. reload. You had We have a question. I have a question for the applicant. Okay. Thank you. My only question for your application is the drop off and pickup. The parcel itself is kind of small. How do you imagine that happening based on that? Can we pull that picture up by the way? So, you have a reference. Mercy apparent uh currently owns that building and they are y'all familiar with mental illness recovery and

Yes. So that location was used as a facility where they can come and take showers, eat lunches, get outreach services. So they already had a drop off circle. It is small, but it is enough space to get a car in, make that radius, and come back out. We will not use they have about three parking spaces on that left-hand side. So we won't utilize those during drop off hours. We might, you know, if a child comes late, they can park there, drop off, but during pickup and drop off, there will be no cars parked in that slot. And we're also looking at the businesses around us to see if we can lease parking from them because we we don't want to take all the street parking up. So, we are actively looking at that.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? No. Okay. And I believe Dr. Freed Levy wanted to address this.

Yes. Thank you um committee and um Virginia Wells and Erica for the help you gave me in reviewing the application. Um I am representing the Robert Mills Historic District Association as vice president. Um the address for this requested zoning change is well within our neighborhood borders. Uh both um upon review of the application and various email exchanges for clarification um and um Erica indicating that you would make that change about a public dormatory which was not consistent with what was intended. Um, we do not foresee that the Opa Learning Academy pilot program negatively impacts the immediate neighbors or the neighborhood. Uh, I also happen to own the Scotch Shell Breedlove historic Columbia Cottage across the street. We hope the program will be a success for the school, our community, and for the children with special needs that you will serve. All right. So, you're in support?

Yes. Thank you. All right. Very good. All right. Anyone else wish to address this? All right. So, okay. Do we have a motion on to approve this? I assume. Do I have any staff comments? A motion for staff comments. You mean you mean approve subject to staff comments? Right. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I. Okay. Motion carries. All right. And then I believe there's also a concern about the library side.

Yes. So, so the next item on the agenda is again it's 1431 Assembly Street, which is the Richland um library. And this is a request to um vary the maximum surface display area for a temporary sign. And uh you know what we summarized in the packet is that um this would actually fairly greatly exceed the requirement for a temporary sign. However, the the site as a whole um is allowed to have a significant amount of signage beyond what is already on the site. And so um staff had recommended to to the board to consider a condition that if you were inclined to approve the request to um the condition would be that if additional permanent signage is installed that the total sign display area would uh of both temporary and permanent signage would would not exceed the standard allowance. So which currently is about 708 square ft in total.

All right. And uh the applicant is here and I'm sure we'll be glad to answer any questions.

Yeah, you can. You're back, Sydney. Great. Okay. All right. Um, the applicant, would the applicant like to come forward? Hello. I am Kiosha Boilles, the marketing and communications director for Richland Library. Um, as stated, um, our goal is to increase our temporary sign variance within, um, the requirements, um, that we are allowed. Um this would be used for public programming um advertisements and um promotion of those free initiatives that are available to the public. Um the conditions that were um outlined by staff would be ones that we would be able to follow moving forward um and feel um something that we can accommodate and make sure that we can adhere to for future any future sign plans.

Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you.

And Dr. Breedlove, I believe you wanted this removed from the agenda. I'm uh changing my hat. I am now not representing the historic district at this time. I am one of the LLC members that own the Big Apple Venue which is a neighbor to the library. Uh my um other LLC member and dance partner Richard Derlac has read what I am presenting. We want to support the signage. We also want to invite everyone here and anyone listening to attend this fest. We were uh involved thanks to the library uh with your last event and it was a huge success and we welcome this and think it's a great sign.

Well, thank you. All right. Do I have an motion to approve this item? Uh does anyone else have anything they'd like to say? No. All right. So, a motion that we approve subject to staff comments. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. Motion carries. All right. Now, we are up to Oh, you're going to read. I'm sorry. This is you.

Yeah. Um and and apologies for the um technical issues we're having with the uh slideshow. So the the next item on the agenda is 3332 Leburg Road A. And this is a special exception request to establish a residential care facility for up to 10 women. And um again, this is on Leburg Road with within an existing building. And the applicant, I believe, is present. Would the applicant come forward, please? You have 10 minutes. Hi, how are you? Hello. Hi, my name is Jacqueline Chisum. Um, good afternoon, Madam Chair. I want Can I refer to my notes? Pardon me. Can I refer to my notes?

Certainly, ma'am.

Okay. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and the members of the board. My name is Jacqueline Chisum, founder and CEO of When You Can't Cope, There's Hope Transition House. I'm here today requesting a special exception to operate a small residential care facility for up to six adult women at 3332A Leburg Road. When we first submitted our application, our plan was for 10 residents. However, during the SCAR certification process, we learned that in order to house 10 women, um the home would need two full bathroom. Our property currently has one full bath and one half because okay because a half bath does not meet the shower requirements we responsibly reduce our request to six residents. Okay, the and that's total which keeps us in full compliance with SCAR uh standards and ensures uh comfort and safety for the women we serve. The smaller occupancy also means lower traffic, fewer fewer vehicles, less noise, and even lighter foot uh print for the neighborhood. Importantly, as part of our transitional program, residents are not permitted to have their own vehicles while in the home. This policy helps um them stay focused on recovery and accountability. Accountability. I personally provide uh an SUV for resident appointments and errands and we also have support from Minister Cedric of the Word of God Ministries who has a transportation contact also available to assist when needed. We have staff coverage, clean house rules, quiet hours and parking and transportation plan and a neighborhood contact system in place with six residents and over staff on site. supervision is strong and the program remains remains safe and structured and supported. Our mission is to provide a

stable quiet home for women in recovery, helping them rebuild their lives in a way that is safe, respectful to the community. Based on the adjust adjustments and our commitment to the compliance, we respectfully ask the board to approve the special exception for six residents at the location. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions. Does anyone on the board have a question for the applicant? Yes, I got one question for the applicant. And by the way, I think this uh I think the city of Columbia needs more places like this. So, thank you. My question is, is your request to reduce the number of occupants from 10 to six?

No, my request is to run the transition house. I was told that I need a special exception to to occupy that because it's zoned. It's already zone something else. Is that why? Cuz it's not clear in the app. I'm asking it's not the the the the use is a special exception within the zoning district and and so this is to establish the residential care facility or at least what our ordinance classifies as a residential care facility. Okay, I think I understand a little bit better now. And the reduction is just because she didn't have enough bathrooms. Right. Right. Right. I understand that part, but I wasn't. The exception part is what I was confused about, but you cleared it up for me. Thank you. Great.

Okay. Thank you. Can I say something else? Certainly. I still Okay. So, this property has historically been used for similar purposes and and and I would like to state that it's not a residential care facility. It's transitional. So, I won't be administering any medication or anything like that. Um so, halfway house basically, ma'am. Sort of a halfway house.

Yes, ma'am. When they come out of recovery such as Morris Village, they'll come to my transitional house which is for 9 months. And my my objective is to help these ladies u reconnect with their families so they can get their children and their grandparents can live their lives and the mothers can take on responsibilities. So that's my goal. And um like I said this property has historically been used for similar purpose including being previous operated by team challenge. So team challenge was there prior to me taking the occupancy of the of the property. So um I'm just asking for special permission. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak for or against the case? Do I need to sit down?

Yes, you you can step back for the moment. She's done such a wonderful job. I hope I don't come up and mess up. Tell us your name.

Hello to the board. My name is Margie White and I'm a willing supporter of Miss Chisum. Um, one of the reasons why is because I've worked in um the home health field for so many years. Um, I've worked with DDSN. I've worked with autistic children. Um, and then I've also worked with those who was um, suffering from drug and alcohol abusiveness um, as well as mental health um, problems along with it. And I've seen the struggles that they've gone through on the streets and um, also within their own personal homes. And so I'm just here to give her that type of support because I've been a part of it. And I know just how well that these ladies out here on the streets want to try to, you know, get themselves back together and back into the working class.

Thanks. Okay. Are there any That's it. Thank you. Thank you for Thank you for listening. Thank you so much. Is there anyone in opposition?

Would anyone else like to speak to the case? Good evening, madame chair, lady and members. My name is Dorothy Harshaw and I'm here to speak on Miss Jacqueline behalf of how she works so hard to get this facility up for the ladies. I think that this facility will help not only the ladies that are coming in recovery, but the community as well. and I know that she has put hard work into it. So, we just wanted to speak on her behalf on this right and thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Are there any board questions? Do I have a motion? A motion to approve subject to staff comments. Second. Second. All in favor? I Okay, carries. Thank you. Sound Sounds like a worthwhile project. Thank you very much. All right. All right.

Okay. The next item on the agenda is 1925 Marian Street. And um you know this again is a special exception to establish a residential care facility. Um and in in this case uh this would be to um provide housing to uh to juveniles instead of adult women. And the applicant is here and I believe can answer any questions you might have. Okay. If the applicant could come forward and tell us your name and

Good afternoon. I am Bethany Boss with Lutheran Services Carolinas and I have the privilege of serving as our executive director for um child and adult services here in South Carolina. Um sorry about that. Um we are seeking um special exception to establish a residential care facility at 1925 Marian Street. Um we have been oper um operating out of 1925 for um several years since 2019 and we are looking to expand our um services there to um change the um usage for an intake into an intake and assessment center for children entering the child welfare system. So they will arrive at the facility and they will um receive a shower, food, warm bed, those types of things while they are assessed um by clinicians and determine the right level of placement to move them to. So it will not be a permanent home for any child. They will not stay there for more than 7 days at a time. But this is so that they can get the right placement correct from the beginning instead of moving these children around and around the county.

Thank you. Happy to answer any questions. Do any board questions? A subject to approve.

Wait, wait, no. Was any Is there anyone who would like to speak um in support or opposition to this case? Dr. Brelove, I didn't say good afternoon before, but good afternoon. And also I want to thank you for your service on the board and for the staff. Um I know how much effort that is based on my review of just these simple documents for this one meeting. Um I am representing the Robert Mills Historic District Neighborhood Association. The address for this requested zoning change 192527 Marian Street is well within our neighborhood borders. both our organization's president and I have met with Lutheran services representatives at their facility. We were given a tour of their buildings and extensively discussed plans and uses for both. We do not foresee Lutheran services pilot program negatively impacting the immediate neighbors or the neighborhood. Um I also live two blocks from there in the de rule Marshall House at the corner of Marian Street um and Laurel Street. We hope the program will be a success for their organization, our community and all the children they serve.

Thank you. I'm sorry. One moment please before you exit. Thank you very much. Yes. Um I just have a comment for you. Uh what is the name of the organization that you represent again? We are the Robert Mills Historic District Neighborhood Association. So within the city of Columbia, there are various neighborhoods. Correct. And so that neighborhood is our neighborhood that these properties are in.

Thank you very much. I just wanted that stated for the record and I just wanted the record to show that you as a part of your neighborhood association and working with the applicant to meet prior to a zoning meeting and to give a tour of the location is a type of relationship we like seeing here on the zoning board and we hope to see more of that in the future. So, thank you for setting that example for us and and thanks to the U Lutheran Services as well and their for uh meeting with us and answering all our questions. Thank you. No more no more comments for me.

Would anyone else like to speak on this? Okay. Do we have a motion? I'm I move Well, I move that we approve subject to staff comments. Second. All in favor? I I Okay, motion carries.

Okay. I'm sorry. What? What now? Oh, never mind. All right. So, sorry. I withdraw my motion.

Oh, it is okay. I withdraw my motion. Would someone else like to make a motion? A motion we approve. Subject to staff comments. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carries. Great. Now.

Okay. So, the um the last item on our agenda is 4732 Quail Lane and this is an appeal of the zoning administrator's determination regarding a fenced pool for a home occupation. And um you know you've probably seen a pretty lengthy packet and I I will not read the entire thing to you but uh so this is an appeal of a written interpretation uh again regarding a fence and pool for home occupation and uh specifically the written interpretation was dated July 9th 2025 and it's included within the packet. Um so my cliff's note version um is that you know this appeal is about the written interpretation um and and so is a fenced and pool a fully enclosed structure for the purposes of the home occupation portion of the uni unified development ordinance. And so I I maintain that it is not a fully enclosed structure and that the intent of the standards of home occupations is for home occupations to be conducted indoors um and not outside. Uh and the appeal maintains and of course they will explain in their own words and and maybe tell me that I'm not summarizing it correctly which is fine. uh that because this outdoor pool is fully enclosed by a fence that a home occupation can be conducted within the pool and um you know certainly there's a lot more in the packet and and of course the appellant may disagree with these cliff notes but uh but again I believe that the relevant parts of of this appeal are is is this written interpretation correct and uh also the pelant had had questioned the process by which we came to the written interpretation. But I'm I'm certainly appellent here. And

now it's my understanding that your assertion is that in order it doesn't necessarily have to be indoors. It has to be enclosed on all six sides um including overhead is the idea. Fully enclosed completely. It doesn't have to be indoors. It just has to be someplace like an an underground a an indoor pool would be fine. Right. But that would be indoors, right? Yeah. What about a shade cloth? I'm sorry. Shade cloth together. Oh, a shade cloth that would not tend to meet the definition of a roof. I see. Okay. Okay. Well, thank thank you very much. All right. So,

thank you for that. That actually helped me a lot. So, thank you for saying that. I also wanted to ask too, so the what we're hearing today is an appeal to the original 2018 decision. No, Could you clear that up for me? So, an appeal can only happen within 30 days of a determination. So, this was from July of this year. July 9th of this year. Okay. Thank you for clearing that up for me. And and I I guess the one thing I will say is I'm I'm certain the appellent will would like to speak and they certainly deserve the time to do so. Um I would like the chance to also respond. All right. Thank you.

All right. So if the appellant could come forward and state your name for the record. Names, I guess. My name is Jeffrey Chambers. I represent Libby or Elizabeth Solder. I also have some packets that may simplify this uh for you and it this is uh basically my presentation and the ordinances that we will talk about today if I may approach and hand these out. You you only have 10 minutes for the record. I understand.

How did we get here? We got here. Uh, you need to wait till you're in front of the microphone. This business was approved in 2018 uh by the it received a business license. It received a zoning review. It received a visit from zoning in 2018. And so it was fully known that this was an outdoor pool that was that met the requirements of ordinance 5.1 which is fully enclosed by a fence. Lessons continued until uh until the present under a valid business license. Last year in 2024 someone was perspectively going to purchase an adjacent house. They got upset that there was a business next door. They started complaining to zoning. zoning in response issued two notices of violation. They did not prosecute those notices of violation as requested by the appellant and uh instead the zoning administrator uh withheld the paper copy of the business license to this organization this year uh without due process. I cannot appeal an approved business license. And so I filed a motion for declaratory judgment with the court. The judge had to recuse himself because his children have taken swimming lessons from this business. And uh basically there at the court, the city uh approached the bench and said, "Hey, this should go before Boza and uh we

have something to to serve uh the client to get that here." And uh so they served us with an interpretation in the hallway outside of the courtroom uh as we were leaving. No one ever applied for this interpretation. And this interpretation is under uh five uh 2.5 172.5W and uh it requires an application from the property owner or someone with a financial interest in the property and a statement of that financial interest. That never occurred. What we see in the city's response is is that oh well I talked to you on the phone. I uh you know she came by asking about other interpretations that the city has done and there were none. Uh in that uh conversation interestingly the zoning administrator asked the appellant if uh if she would like an interpretation and she said no. We show up to court and they've done an interpretation but they've skipped the two important steps. And if you'll turn in your packet, you'll have a U 2.5W. And if you turn to the second page of that, it's required that there's an application. And there's required that they do a determination of the application completeness. There was no application. So, there shouldn't have been an interpretation in the first place. There's a reason for this and there's a reason that it's the same as things like let's say that uh I wanted a wetlands determination on Mr. Whittle's property. In order to get the court to do that, I have to have Mr. Whittle's signature because he's the property owner. It's the same thing with this. That's a property right to determine whether or not your property is subject to a core action that determines whether or not

there wetlands on it. It doesn't matter. It doesn't mean that there are or not wetlands on it. It just says that this is my property and this is my right to either have this formal process done or not. That's why that's in here. That's why in so many other regulatory things that have to do with property, we see that exact same thing. It was violated. So, this appeal should be I mean this this should be stricken from the get-go. Secondly, there are requirements of a stoppple. And what a stoppple means is that you approved this. She relied on that approval. She invested in this. This business is ongoing.

Sir, I'm I'm not sure equitable things apply. Equitable estoppel applies here. Um, under the circumstances, it it's a it's a it's not prohibitive. If you reinterpreted what a business was lawfully approved under and received its business license, that is an arbitrary and capriccious re reinterpretation. Those things should be grandfathered in. Additionally, there are some issues with how this uh was done. Uh, one of the issues is is that the the ordinance requires that they look at certain uh definitions or or sources for definitions and it lists them. And in their response, there's an admission that they haven't done it because they said, "Well, there are other things other than Miriam Webster. I went all over six uh two states finding all of these obscure planning dictionaries and they don't have the words fully enclosed because they're common language. They're in the regular dictionaries that are put there. The reason they want you to go to those dictionaries is because the people who write this code have gone to all these different terms. They've used words that don't create conflict with other things. And they said, well, hey, well, there's other dictionaries other than this. Why don't you look at a planner's dictionary? Well, what they didn't know at the time is that a planner's dictionary doesn't define fully enclosed. Those are common language words. Never defined it. So to me that's an admission that even as the point of writing the response to this appeal they have not done that required looking at the definitions the definition of fully enclosed in Miriam Webster and the three other common language dictionaries that are cited by the code

basically say surrounded by a fence and that's the same as the definition in city ordinance 5.1 it basically if we look at that and I've given given that to you. It says surrounded by a fence. If you go with that definition, it meets the requirements of there's procedure in doing one of these interpretations and it meets those requirements and it prevents a certain uh conflict and and arbitrariness about this because if you look at and I have provided you with a copy of uh 174.3 where it talks about and I've highlighted invited uh family child care homes. They have an outdoor playground that is surrounded by a fence and they're required to have it. And then they also must comply with all the standards of 17436. And if you turn the page, you'll see that standard there. And this is a standard that we're talking about. The home occupation shall be conducted entirely within the principal structure or within a fully enclosed lawfully approved structure. Okay. They define that there is surrounded by a fence that playground. It's very much arbitrary and capriccious to say that I can have, you know, six kids playing outside in a playground if I register this as a home daycare in the same location. But we can't do one- on-one swim lessons with one student at a time that we've shown or or I I've had a decimal meter out there for a year. The average uh decimal reading on these lessons is between 30 and 40 dB, which is for reference about the same noise as the ticking of your watch. And more importantly,

these students, and this is an important policy, these students about more than 50% of them are special needs students, autistic kids, kids with ADHD, kids that just do not learn anywhere else. And you have to do one-on-one swim lessons. Well, why don't you just do those over at Quail? Why don't you just do those over at this place? To rent these public pools is prohibitively expensive. And to rent that public school pool to do just one-on-one swim lessons after hours of that public school in a very quiet environment with only one student at a time so that there are no distractions so that special needs kids can learn to swim. would create a situation where it is just priced out of the market for those kids. So in addition to the issues that we have with the you know with the with the interpretation itself it not even meeting the requirements of its own procedure which protects property owners. One of those property owners uh there are two property owners here. One of them was never on any of these things that the city says, "Hey, well, they filed a lawsuit and that required us to do this." Well, great. But one of the property owners isn't on there. He's his rights are violated. Um, this whole thing really should be stricken. And I think you've gotten a lot of letters from a lot of people that live in the area and this that and the other and and you may have one that opposes it, but you probably got a lot that say, "Hey, it's not a big deal." And you're always going to wind up with somebody who is opposed to everything. But big picture, this is a good thing. This is good for our community. This serves a legitimate purpose. And it's an

excellent thing to teach kids to swim because that reduces a lot of tragedy in our community and this is a great way to do it. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. Uh let's see. Do so do we have any questions from the board? All right. So let me get this right. you've been running this business in Lake Catherine on Quail Lane, u teaching swim lessons, etc. And somebody she needs to come to the podium or the attorney, I guess, but yeah. Yeah.

So, this business has been going on and really you're saying the decibel count is low. We're helping out people u children learn to swim, etc., etc. It sounds like a good thing. So, what what has happened? Somebody new moved in and is now throwing flags on the field. Like, what's the problem? Someone new moved in next door and the problem the complaint started before the contract was even uh on the house basically in in the maybe the due diligence phase of an offer. That's it. Okay. Any other questions from the board? All right. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this?

Hello. Good afternoon. Can you speak into the microphone for us if you would please and state your name? my uh hearing aids and your audio equipment aren't quite jing. So, I'm sorry.

Um, my name is Robert Smith. I'm a resident of the city of Colombia. I'm a concerned citizen. As a matter of note, I've served as a chairman of planning and zoning commission in an upstate city uh for better part of a decade. I understand what you all go through and I appreciate the time and effort that you put in especially in the light of the compensation that you don't get for your job. I come before you to here today to advocate for the reversal of the of the interpretation or opinion of the zoning administrator that private swim lessons given as a home occupation must be given in an indoor pool. Let me quote from your website, excuse me. Uh, one of the preface the preface says the city of Colombia uses zoning regulations to preserve, protect, and support the use of existing residences, businesses, and properties. We strive to provide a reasonable expectation of how areas will develop and change over time. Swim Colombia is a an existing business. It's been in business since 2018 and it's operated without a single recorded violation. There's no viol there's no valid reason for the city to to uh deny its ability to operate. I suggest that the uh ordinances never had the intention of blocking private swim lessons in an outdoor pool. The interpretation is written will produce no benefit for the city and specifically for its children. In fact, it will provide for fewer opportunities for children to learn life-saving swimming skills.

Common sense and the history of Swim Colombia shows that one or two children receiving structured lessons in an outdoor pool produces no undesirable conditions. It's important to note that this issue has come up in before in several major cities in South Carolina, most recently Mount Pleasant and the city of Charleston. Both cities now allow the use of outdoor pools for swimming instruction with no restrictions. If the zoning administrator's interpretation stands, it will have a negative effect on the children of Colombia. I urge you, members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to use a common sense approach and reject this flawless interpretation. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? All right. I'd like to speak. Yeah, please. Any one way or the other?

All right. Good afternoon. Hello. My name is Jim Buouie. I live next door to the Sourers at 40 Souers, excuse me, at 4728 Quail Lane. Sers are very nice people and the Smiths and the Nores and the rest of their supporting cast here today. Um, and I've enjoyed getting to know them over the last year, especially Brady and his boys. We used to have a cordial neighborly relationship. I enjoy talking sports or hunting and letting our dogs play together. I also think that Miss Ser's mission of teaching children how to swim is an extremely important one and a critical part of childhood development. However, I do not believe that it's proper or legal for Miss Solder to be running what is clearly a very large commercial business in a residential neighborhood. I've not spoken to anyone who lives in Lake Catherine who agrees that they would like to live next door to her business. And we were not aware that our business existed until after my wife and I contracted to buy our home. Our driveways are literally 2 feet apart. And every morning I feel as if I live next door to a beach access. Strangers with young kids walking and swimming lessons literally feed from my property. I am speaking today for all adjacent neighbors that have been negatively impacted by noise, increased and dangerous traffic and parking situations, and other ongoing issues related to Swim Colombia. I've had verbal and written communication with each of them, but they were all reluctant to come today and speak based on the negative way that the SERS have treated me over the last few months since finding out that I question in writing the legally of their business. If any research needs to be done or any any discussions had with any of the other neighbors, they are available for comment and I'm authorized to release contact information to the board. Again, however, we are not here today to talk about the size of Swim Colombia or ongoing issues for our neighbors. We're simply here today to determine one thing and one thing only. Whether or not a chain link fence covering two or three sides of the SER's backyard, excuse me, two of three sides is creating a fully enclosed structure. It is very clear to me that the homebased business guidelines in relation to this topic written in order to deter noise. I don't think any one of us would agree that a fence or any kind of any kind is going to stop all noise, especially

screaming and scared children. The city of Columbia's zoning administration has reviewed the situation at length and issued a determination which does not allow this business to continue. I support their determination fully. Today, I simply ask you to use common sense. Put yourself in the situation of all adjacent neighbors who have been dealing with many disruptions to our legally afforded peaceful enjoyment of our residential property, some for many, many years. and please enforce the zoning administrator to his determination that the SARS business does not meet the homebased business guidelines to continue operation. Lastly, you're also in possession of a very detailed rebuttal to negative language put into the SER's appeal about me personally. It was my only opportunity to defend myself in this unfortunate situation. I would implore that you please ask Miss Solder under oath some, if not all of the questions that I submitted in that document. If any other proof or documentation is needed from me, please do not hesitate to ask. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Would someone else like to speak?

Thank you, board members. My name is Michael Hedgecock. I um for reference, I live in 4711, the house at the right hand corner of your view. Um, I've been a neighbor of the SERS for the past 10 years. Um, never have I once had an issue with the swim lessons. Um, never any complaints of loudness, screaming, hollering, um, parking on the street, log jams as far as that goes. Um, prior to my wife taking uh a role uh with the governor's mansion, uh she worked often from home in the lefthand side of our home which faced directly across the street. She often had to be on Zoom calls um and throughout the day never had any issue with loudness or any issues with any of the children taking swim lessons um or any of the parents that would be dropping off. Um to boot, um my daughter took swim lessons, um many years ago, um as a benefit, um if you all have children, grandchildren, or family members, um being afforded the ability to learn how to swim is a lesson that you can take with you throughout your life. Um, as a mental health um, psychiatric therapist licensed in the state of South Carolina, I can't tell you how much benefit swimming lessons can provide for young children. The ability to give them um, decreased stress in their life. Um, give them confidence in what they do. Um, and knowing that they can go to a friend's pool, go to the beach, and feel safe going into the water. Um, again, I have lived there since 2015. Um, and have

never had one issue whatsoever. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak?

Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca Mclawhorn and I would like to speak on behalf of the neighbors who are not here right now. They are here right now actually. Um, my parents live a few houses down and I actually have four children under four. And Mr. Buoie said that um, he said the words it's like beach access, traffic, mayhem around her house. So my four children under four, I take them scootering, walking up and down the road all the time. If there were screaming or scared children coming from that house, I would not have my own children near anywhere near that house. As a matter of fact, it seems to be a completely normal house. You cannot even see the pool from the road at all. Um there's a privacy fence. In addition, bushes and other things that just poke out into the road, they um they pose more of a threat to my children on scooters than a few children having swimming lessons behind their house. It's very safe. It's very It's wellmaintained. and it has been operating for a really long time. So, I just wanted to say that in addition to the fact that um Miss Ser has taught so many children how to swim and it's the leing the leading cause of death um in children ages 1 to four according to the American Red Cross. So, what a shame to to um not let the little children learn how to swim. Thank you.

Would anyone else like to speak? All right. I believe Mr. Living would like to speak.

Uh, yes. Thank you. Um, yeah, and I I'll keep it relatively short. I I spent enough time writing. I um uh but yes, of course, this is not a value judgment on swim lessons and the value of giving swim lessons to to children. Um, I think we all agree that's a valuable thing. Um but of course my job as zoning administrator is to look at the zoning ordinance and what it's asking for me to do. And um certainly in making an interpretation I need to look at um the specific parts but we're talking about the home occupation. And if if you look at the component parts of the home occupation, it it it describes the scenario where it is from all outward appearances a home and it is not a business. Um it does allow you to hang your hat so to speak inside a home. Matter of fact, our old ordinance, which has been amended over time, and and this is not our old ordinance, but um and I I would even go to the extent of saying I'm glad that our current ordinance gives a lot more leeway to allow more activities. Um but um the the the again the intent is you you you live in a neighborhood, you drive by, you're not aware that somebody is conducting a business at a location. And and so when the the thing says when the home occupation ordinance says it shall be conducted entirely within the principal residence, which is the first part, it says and it says or a fully enclosed, lawfully permitted structure, right? And a pool is a structure and a fence is a structure. Um, a fence encloses a yard. A yard is not a structure, right? But so we're talking about two different structures

here, um, which serve their own purposes. And and certainly um you know the pelletants talked about the building code and how the building code requires that a fence be sorry a pool be enclosed. Yes that is a requirement of the building code but that's that is a separate ordinance. What we are looking at is is in fact that swimming pool is that an is that a situation where it is indoors and is it fully enclosed in that sense and it is not. Um you know the other things I'll I'll briefly touch on is um you know the question of whether or not the written interpretation as as a process is valid. I'll just return to what I said in in my summary that if that was not a valid um document then the time for appeal expired at the end of March. So I I will say that I think the city's being pretty generous in extending the written interpretation to allow them to appeal the determination. Um, and the other thing I do want to mention is that there was discussion of a daycare and how a daycare um is permitted to have six six children. I'm not sure if it was mentioned that they're allowed to have six children and they are required by the ordinance to have a fenced in play area. So, um, the appellent says, "Well, I'm not being consistent." But it's also very important to mention that a daycare is not a home occupation. It is a separate category. It's a separate accessory use as defined in our ordinance. So, it it has regulations that are designed for that purpose and the purposes that I anticipate in the UDO, a home occupation, um you're not supposed to um you know,

if let's say you're a piano teacher, should you do a piano lesson in the backyard because it's fully enclosed by a fence? I I would argue not. Um, you know, and what if that g what if it's on a gazebo, right? Because a yard is not a structure, but what if you know that piano is on a gazebo and that gazebo is fully enclosed by that fence. So, is that is that gazebo now fully enclosed structure? I would again I'd argue not has a roof and you have the fence around it. But but anyway, just returning to the question of is a pool a fully enclosed structure? I just say no. And I I don't think I I have too much more to say, but I'll be glad to answer any questions.

Any questions? Um, thank you for that and thank you everybody for your comments. Um, is it is it time for us to talk amongst each other? Well, uh, no. Actually, it's time for the applicant to have a rebuttal if they wish to. They have, I believe, 5 minutes. That's right. Thank you.

From noise, can you hear whether I have a watch on? 30 dB. You wouldn't expect to be. I don't. And that's what these average at the property line. 30 to 40 dB. I'm for reference, I'm talking at about 75. Now, this microphone's obviously making it louder, maybe 85. I want to read section 5.1. All outdoor swimming pools shall be completely enclosed by a barrier meeting the requirements hereafter specified. And if you go down to the bottom of 5.1, it says, "The provisions of this section shall not apply retroactively to any existing outdoor swimming pool that is fully enclosed by an existing fence, wall, screen, or other barrier. In between those, it describes the nature of the fence. For example, it says that it can't have if it's chain link for chain link fences, uh, you know, 2 point 2 and a/4 inch square mesh. So, fully enclosed. I'll read that again.

I think we we we understand fully enclosed. Next, the definitions that were required to be you you you have somebody making a definition without and they're procedurally required to look at these reference sources. They didn't or they don't appear to have. They made up something else and they have a conflict and that conflict is in 1743 and uh so on this family child care home as an access is not a child care home.

I'm aware of that but it creates conflict. include a fenced outdoor play area not not less than 500 square feet that is completely enclosed by a fence that is at least 4 feet in height. And so if this were licensed as a as a child care or child daycare, they would required to have that outdoor fenced in playground basically. And they're also required under section 5C to comply with standards in section 4.3D6. We turn the page to D6. That's home occupations. The home occupation shall be in conducted entirely within the principal structure within fully enclosed lawfully approved structure which is accessory to the residential use. So enclosed with an offense in the prior section has to comply with all of the all of this and in order to comply with that the dictionary definition that I supplied does it this definition out of Sydney city ordinances surrounded by enclosed fully enclosed by a fence makes those two things And that says a lot as far as the intent. Another thing that says a lot as far as the intent is that in a family child care home, you can have children playing outside in a playground.

But this isn't a family child care home, but we're talking about noise. And the complaint is I don't believe we're talking about noise. I believe we're talking about whether or not it's a fully enclosed structure.

Right. And the fully and the purpose of that is to allegedly prevent noise. And the purpose in the interpretation itself said that it needs to be fully enclosed to prevent noise. But we have a situation right before that where we have an outdoor playground which is clearly an outdoor playground in the same setting. And so what I'm saying is that I think that's misplaced and I think that it's a misreading and I think that by taking this interpretation in the ordinance it itself which is fully enclosed by fence as well as the dictionary definitions which are required to be cited. It makes these things jive it makes sense. Um I appreciate your time and uh I look forward to weighing in on this. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I believe testimony is closed and we are now entering board discussion. Um, it's a good one. Well, and thank you Katherine for that. Um, I think I'm just a little bit miffed. I guess is the word, right? I I really hate to see neighbors and neighborhood infighting um over something that that um can really be um that that may have been a mistake that or an oversight or I'm not quite sure what happened um that may have been missed that has something to do with a city ordinance. I think that's really unfortunate. So, I really hate to see that. I think that's

ultimately what my question is is if the business was able to operate in 2018 and went into operation and 6 years later the zoning board came and said it's not lawful to operate the business. That seems to be where the issue is. And what I'm trying to figure out is if that was the issue in 2024, why wasn't that the original zoning board's decision in 2018? I believe the situation, Mr. Living Good.

Yeah. Uh, this did not come to the board in 2024. There were there were um inspections and there was a notice of violation. I'm sorry, what was that last part? There was a a notice of violation. There was a notice of violation. Yes. When was the notice of violation? Um it it was in the summer of 2024. Um after you bought the house. So no violations up until he Oh, wait. The business was in operation at in 2018, right? Uh that's correct. Yeah. And the violation was in 2024. Yes.

What am I what am I missing? What am I missing here?

So, um, generally speaking, from an enforcement standpoint, zoning, our first step is not writing a citation and taking someone to court. Our first step is to work with the property owner to ensure compliance. And so there have been inspections through the years um and various resolutions taken upon them. But um you know as appellent stated no we have not issued a citation. Um I I believe when the citation was requested it was not summer and so there were no active classes to our understanding. So, if I'm hearing this correctly, I think I'm still a little bit confused. So, are you saying there was no citation prior to 2024 or there was a citation prior to 2024?

So, so no, there have been no summons or citations issued. Um, there have been notices of violation, which is the first step. So, there were notices of violation prior to the citation, right? Citation. citation. There's been no citation. Yeah. Yeah. So, so there's not been a a document that says, you know, you you shall appear in court. That that has not happened. Um the penalties within the zoning ordinance are um you know, basically that you're called to court. So, they're not civil offenses. They're they're they're misdemeanors.

Correct. All right. That part I understand. What what I'm having a hard time understanding is the gap between 2018 and 2024. That's where I'm confused. Am I only He bought it when 24 and he's looking for a technicality to uproot the business. I'm sorry. What now? Did you buy the house in 24, sir? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not the That's not the issue. The issue is about the wording of whether or not the structure needs to be around the pool. No. Right. Not not the home. The issue The issue is whether or not you can have a home occupation.

Correct. anywhere that is not fully enclosed. Fully enclosed means um a roof and a fully enclosed structure like above on the sides, not just a fence. Correct. Thank you. That's the issue. This All right. Thank you. So based on what Katherine just said, which I completely understand and agree, but the business was open prior to 2024.

There's no but there's no docu There's no doctrine of estoppel that would apply here. In other words, equitable estoppel is a situation that says you've been running your business all along, so you get to keep running your business. There's no such doctrine. Is that correct, Mr. Levenging Good? Yeah, that's that's my understanding. Um, and and also, you know, if if there was an error in judgment made, I'm not supposed to further the error. [Music] So, are you saying that there was potentially an error made back in 2018 when the business was approved for a license? Um,

a business license is a different issue though from a um I don't think he mean license specifically. I think he means was a previous zoning administrator. Is that correct? Right. That's what he's saying. I mean, yeah. And and for clarity, I took this position in January of this year. Okay.

But at any event, I think with this point, as I I've said before, malum prohibitum is the notion that you're either technically technically you're you're you're either correct or you're not correct. It doesn't mean that you're a bad person or that you have, you know, you're an evil intent or anything like that. It just means that whether you're not they're technically within the real realm of this of the ordinance and I would assert that we're not that they're not because it is not enclosed on all sides. Correct. That we agree on. Okay.

What I think the issue is between the neighborhood is why wasn't this brought up earlier? Why was it brought up later? That's what this I mean ultimately our what we're here to do is help the the city neighborhoods function according to the zoning rules that are here and we're just making sure that everything is operating within the within the world of the exceptions that we have. That's all we're here to do. And ultimately we have a neighbor issue and one of the neighbors is saying, "I've had a business and we've been doing this years before 2024 arrives. But when 2024 arrives, now the zoning is saying that this is not allowed. But I've already been doing it and it's clear that this is not allowed. I'm not arguing that point." But the issue that the neighbors are having is what's up with the gap is what I'm trying to figure out. Nothing the neighbors want to hear like what's the deal with

but but that's it but but that's really irrelevant. Thank you. It's irrelevant to this determination. Either it's either they got past they got they got it done for five. How is it irrelevant? That's what I'm lost. It's already expired. The time's gone. It's you know you got to cut your mic on, bro. I can't hear you. It the time that is expired is irrelevant to this determination. What time is expired? Between 2018 and 2024. She ran she's been running a business that has had zero violations. Okay. And obvious and then somebody who I'm going to point fingers at your realtor for not telling you that there was a business going on next door. But she's been running a good business. No complaints. She's in job with the neighborhood. But I don't understand why you point it's not the neighbor's fault. Like it's the wording's fault. It's not his fault.

Yeah. Yeah. The wording says it's supposed to be enclosed. I ain't got nothing to do with him. Yeah. It's either fully enclosed or it's not fully enclosed. That's the bottom line. There's no other no issue relevant. You're not addressing the gap still, but the gap is irrelevant. And so the question is why is the gap irrelevant?

The gap is irrelevant because it's a technical question whether or not it is fully enclosed, a fully enclosed structure. There's no doctrine of equitable estoppel, which is the doctrine that says, "Oh, you've been running it all along, so therefore you get to continue running it." There's no doctrine that applies here, is my understanding. Um, we actually have a a licensed attorney over there for the moment for the city. Can we bring the city attorney in to No. Well, the Mr. Hamlet is is an attorney. If we would like to receive legal advice privately, we can do that. Would we like to do that at this point? I think we should cuz that's really what this issue is all about.

All right. Well, let us go. We will go into executive session. We have a motion to go into executive session. Motion to go into executive session. Second.

All in favor? Okay. Going into executive session. [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] you come to the mic.

This is um Assistant City Attorney Mike Hemlb. Um and y'all are back in session. We are back in session.

Okay. Um I uh we went back into executive session. You went back into executive session, but of course, as you know, I don't represent BOSA, which is an independent board. I represent the city of Columbia. So what we attempted to do was get in touch with Pete Baser who is the lawyer for Boza so that you could talk to him on the phone and I was unable to get him on the phone. So um uh we didn't I didn't provide you legal advice nor did you ask my opinion uh about anything because that would be improper and I apologize that I wasn't able to get Pete on the phone.

Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. So now we're back into board discussion. Anyone like to say anything further?

Yeah, I just think that um I think that it would be hoove um uh this session that the applicant that's appealing as well as the neighbors uh really understand what the issue here is. Um, and Katherine, you did a great job of really explaining um to me um what the issue is and why the technicality of the issue is really down to the language that's already here in the documentation about a fully enclosed and I just wanted the the neighbors to be able to understand that.

Yes, the structure has to be fully enclosed on all six sides basically. Um, and that's my that is I believe Andrew's interpretation and I believe that is my understanding as well. And so for some reason, we're not sure, but whyever she was supposed to however she was operating the business should have always been under that rule. Okay, Andrew. So, let me get this right. In order for her to continue what she's doing, she has to have an enclosed pool to move forward. like a fully you could say it's you know heated space.

Sure. So I I did have discussions with Miss Ser about her options um and um some of them she's employing already um using the um swim club down the street to provide lessons. Um other options are to um go to someone's home and provide um swim lessons at their home. So, for example, um you could you could have a home occupation as as a maid, right? And and you know, um or as as as a plumber, but um well, okay, these are all bad examples because those almost require that you go to someone's home, but there are there are certain home occupations you can have that are fine so long as you're not doing the work there. Um and and and really those are the options that she would have and and certainly she could have you know paperwork filing things etc etc which are a necessary part of the business but but the actual conduct of the activity has to be within the fully enclosed structure if it's on her property.

All right. All right. Any more discussion? Do I have a motion?

Um, a motion to figure out we're denying we're approving your denial. What are we doing? Um, so so generally speaking, um, it it is to, you know, either uphold or to reverse the determination, okay, of the zoning zoning administrator. Yes. So, so we're going to uphold or reverse it. Okay. So, what do you say? I motion to reverse. Reverse? Yes. So, you're you're you're in favor of the home business, correct? I see. Do I have a second?

Second. Do we have all in favor? I I Okay, the motion does not carry. I move uh Nope. I can't move. I move to make a motion to uphold the zoning administrator. Um explanation provided by the zoning administrator. Is that good? Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I

I think I I Okay, motion carries. Okay. And do I have a mo motion to adjurnn? I was going to say there are there are no other um items on the agenda. Yeah. Okay. Catherine, do you want to just give the audience an explanation before you adjourn?

All right. The explanation is is that the structure has to be completely enclosed. Um the fact that it's got a fence around it is nice, but that's not relevant. The fact that it may or may not create noise or doesn't create noise or whatever is not relevant. What is apparently relevant according to our interpretation of this the situation um is that it has to be within a fully in enclosed structure. It is not within a fully enclosed structure. So therefore we are denying the motion. Thank you. Thank you Katherine. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. All in favor I. Meetings jjourned.

Oh jeez. Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah. I'm I'm a 700 Henderson.