Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Yes.

Exactly.

And you're supposed to fill out that form at least 10 minutes. It works. online is always because you can you did I did but you're saying the email

right I told you that is whatever is you want to follow it if you know what that is but right now Yes. My uh my sister

All right. Here we go. One, two, three. One, two, three. Troy, how do I sound to you?

Peter, Michael, David, Katherine, Amy, Jeffrey. Yeah, and I'm just going to go ahead and leave my stream going. I'm not going to bother stopping. Stop going to the point. All right, good. I'll go ahead and go to the desk.

One, two, three. One, two, three. How do I sound back at the uh studio, Troy? See you in a sec. Wait on the delay.

Sounds good. Thank you.

who wants to speak to this application will have up to three minutes to do so and then after that uh the board will come back and discuss the application and make a decision. Uh before uh I ask for uh an approval of the agenda, uh I did have a question um for for the parties. Um council, we had an email submission uh I believe this morning. Um and there really is no longer a public portal for that. And I just wanted to know if there was any objection to making the email submission that we received part of the record of this case. Mr. Is that the letter from Naen Chaplan?

Yes. Yeah. Um I my general rule is I always bend over backward to assure as much public input as possible. So no, we have no objection to that. Thank you very much. And does town staff have any objection? No, sir. Okay. So that'll be made part of the official record of these proceedings. Thank you. Have a motion uh to adopt the agenda. So moved. Second. M. Christie moves and Miss Bailey seconds. All in favor, please raise your hand. Signify by saying I. I. Next. Could we have an approval of the minutes of the November 24th, 2025 meeting?

Second. Okay. M. Fe makes the motion. Mr. Sackheim seconds. All in favor, please signify by raising your hands and saying I. I. Uh I I'm going to abstain uh from that as I wasn't here.

Have no unfinished business. So new business we have variance 0011172025. Uh request from Chester Williams Esquire and Roy Prescott on behalf of Steven and Lisa Weston owners of 125 and 140 Shark Keyway. Also identified as Buer County Tax Map Parcel R510 005 0000 001B 000000 for a variance from Elmo section 164102 B5B locationational restrictions to allow outdoor commercial uses other than a water park without direct vehicular access to a minor arterial in accordance with 165105. 5B.

Good afternoon, chair and board. For the record, Michael Connley, senior planner. Um, the subject property is located on uh the northeast side of the island for your orientation purposes, and it is zoned in the Mitchellville district. Um, on top of that zoning, we have the corridor overlay and the airport overlay. The site is currently developed. It has two single family homes and a boardwalk that provides access to the beach. And it also fronts Mitchellville Road. You can see here. Um, and again, for your convenience, we have um location maps, one of the island and the other showing the zoning and the parcel. Should you have any questions in the future, we can we can reference these. Um the Mitchellville district allows uses the outdoor commercial recreation other than a water park. However, um that use is permitted to use specific conditions and that is as you had mentioned earlier 164102 B5B. Um the property is adjacent to Mitchellville Road and when we reference that in the LMO the minor arterials listed in 165105B Mitchellville Road is not listed as a minor arterial and this is actually what brings us here today and this is what the applicant is seeking relief from. It's the use specific condition in the zoning requirement in this Mitchellville district that it be adjacent or connected to the minor arterial which it is not. So Buer County records a little bit of history. Before county shows that the west purchased the property in 2020 as referenced in your packet. The parcel is substantially larger than some of the surrounding parcels

around it. When the per when the property was purchased, Mitchellville Road was not a minor arterial and is still not a minor arterial. The LMO has not changed. The use specific conditions that apply today also applied when the property was purchased. In October of 2025, the town issued a formal determination confirming that outdoor commercial recreation use other than a water park has to be reviewed as permitted with conditions in the MV district or the Mitchellville district. And it also informed the applicant that a variance would be required in order to change the use of the land to allow outdoor commercial recreation other than a water park. Uh, one note in the LMO, I'm sorry. So, that would bring us then to the LMO criteria to determine um a variance. A variance may be granted by the board of zoning appeals. If it concludes that the strict enforcement of any appropriate dimensional, development, design, or performance standards set forth in the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. A variance may be granted in an individual case of unnecessary hardship if the board of zoning appeals determines and expresses in writing all of the following findings. And the first finding that there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. Again, the applicant requests relief from the use specific condition requiring direct vehicular access to a minor arterial. Shark Keyway is not listed as a minor arterial and neither is Mitchellville Road. The applicant states that the hardship arises from a desire to establish a commercial event venue on the road designed for low volume residential

access rather than any physical characteristics of the land itself. The parcel is long and narrow and there's no unique physical conditions such as shape, size, topography, any kind of environmental constraints that protect the reasonable use of the property that's permitted by the existing zoning. The hardship stems from a desire to establish a commercial use on residential access road being Shiway and not from the unique land conditions themselves. Therefore, staff um therefore the application does not meet the criteria set forth in the LMO because there are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions that pertain to this particular piece of property. Criteria number two, these conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. The use specific conditions, they do apply. They apply to all of the properties in the Mitchellville district. The use specific conditions were in effect prior to the purchase of the property and prior to the development in 2021. Access limitations on Mitchellville Road such as street width capacity. They apply equally to all nearby parcels and there's nothing unique about the applica applicant's property. The surrounding parcels are single family residential and the introduction of commercial event activity may increase noise other impacts inconsistent with established neighborhood conditions of the historic neighborhood bagal area. The access limitations again on Mitchellville Road are shared by all properties on the road. Um, and allowing a commercial event without compliance on a minor RTO access the with the meeting the requirements does potent um present potential impacts to public safety and the residential character of this area.

The application does not meet the criteria set forth in the LMO because there are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions that pertain to this particular piece of property that don't generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. and three, because of these conditions, the application of this ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The property is currently being utilized and is developed with two single family homes and can continue to be developed for all permitted uses and accessory uses in the Mitchellville district. The requested variance is intended to enable a commercial event venue, which is not necessary for the reasonable use of the land. The owners purchased the property and developed it. The ordinance requirement for a minor arterial access is tied directly to public safety, traffic management, infrastructure capacity, and waving it could alter fundamental functional requirement, not a minor technical standard. Other reasonable viable uses exist under the current zoning without the need for a variance. The inability to operate a commercial event venue does not constitute an unreasonable restriction of property rights because the property retains full reasonable uses as a residential parcel. Strict application of this ordinance does not prohibit the utilization of the property and the applicant has not demonstrated that the ordinance deprivives the property of reasonable use. This application does not meet the criteria set forth in the LMO because the use specific conditions would not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. Four, the authorization of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property or the public good and the character of the zoning district where the property is located will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. Elmo section 165105 establishes the

street hierarchy system to ensure compatibility between the road functioning and the land use intensity. The subject proposal this variance would conflict with that policy. The comprehensive plan speaks about this aligning land use intensity with infrastructure and chapter 5 on page 168. The surrounding area is a lowdensity residential neighborhood not designed for commercial recreation uses or event venues in the local plans or zoning. Granting the variance would introduce traffic noise and functional impacts incompatible with the established residential setting of the um historic neighborhood. The variance would undermine both the LMO and the comprehensive plan by placing a highintensity use on a low classification street. Therefore, this application does not meet the criteria set forth in the LMO. Staff recommends the BCA deny this application based on the findings and facts and conclusion of law. And one other part of the ELM I did want to bring up here was factors not to be considered. The fact that the property may be utilized more profitably should a variance be granted may not be considered as grounds for a variance. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Questions

Michael, is it a byite use that they could use that property for a water park? Um by right so long as they meet the use specific conditions. So um they would have the right to do it so long as they were adjacent to a minor arterial road. If they met that condition, that requirement, then it would be uh by right. But that use specific condition has to be met and and that's what brings us here because Mitchellville Road is not a minor arterial. So it the use would not allow it. So they would not be allowed to use that property as a water park

as it stands right now. No sir, they do not meet the requirements for it to be allowed. And what would be the highest and best use of that property if it was bought by someone else and they wanted to develop it residentially? What's what's the present zoning?

The present zoning is Mitchellville. Um so anybody who would buy the property hypothetically would have to comply with all of the development standards and forms in that zone. Um there's also the corridor overlay and the airport overlay covers it as well. Um, so that's the zoning, but the highest and best use I I wouldn't be able to speak to. Now, when they bought the property, it was undeveloped and they submitted an application to develop three single family homes. So, they only built two. So, I'm sorry. Um, and what what I'm looking for, how many homes could potentially be built on that piece of property? I don't know off top of my head.

23. Does someone know from staff trade? Do you know? I can go do the math really quick and and I will. Um Trey Laauo, development services manager for the record. Uh to answer your question directly, which was would a permitted would would a water park be permitted? Yes, it is a buy use in the Mitchellville district. This is other than a water park outdoor commercial recreation other than a water park what's being presented here today. But a water park is a by right without conditional use.

So if they chose to build a water park there with all the assoc associated uses and parking and traffic, they would be allowed to do that by right as long as it if the state and our standards of the LMO outside of use specific conditions allowed it. Yes. Okay. And if if you could at some point do the math and how many how many units potentially could be on that property, that would be helpful. Not a problem. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, for the moment. Questions.

Michael, I think you mentioned that there was um I'm sorry, Michael, I think you mentioned that there was an application made previously that specified the number of homes to be built and only two were built. Yes, ma'am. M that was what was the number that that was uh sought but did not actually occur. So the um small residential development plan it was in your packet um was approved for three single family homes but only two were built. So um I believe at this point that has the vested right has expired because I don't think that they've um sought any extensions for that. Thank you.

Yes ma'am. Any other questions for town staff? Thank you. Thank you.

Hear from the applicant. Certainly.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm Chester Williams. I'm a local attorney here. I represent Stroll in the Park LLC and its owner Roy Prescott whose business is Royy's place is catering business. Um Mr. Christian you you know you hit one of the nails on the head there. They buy right they can do a water park here. Who knows how much traffic that's going to generate. Doesn't matter that it's not on a minor or a major arterial road. But a lower intensity use used only on the weekends limited to no more than 200 attendees can't do that because it's not on a minor arterial. That's a little unusual if you ask me. Um I've passed out to y'all and I'm not going to take a lot of time going back through everything that I've already submitted to you. be glad to answer any questions that y'all have about it. Suffice it to say, you know, we disagree with the town staff's assessment that this does not meet the criteria. We think it clearly does. And if you will look at one of the documents I left for y'all, the one that's highlighted, this is a staff report on a variance application that was done four years ago. Mr. Christian, you were on the board at the time. It's for an outdoor recreational use other than a water park on a street that's not a minor arterial. We went through a variance application and the town staff recommended approval of it back then and the board of zoning appeals approved it. Interestingly, if you flip to the third page, you'll see the town staff's assessment

of criteria one, extraordinary and exceptional conditions. And I've highlighted the last one. There is a lack of minor arterial streets in the area of the RD zoning district. Same thing is applicable to MV district which eliminates any uses that would be permitted in the zoning district if they were located on a minor arterial street. I mean that's one of the criteria that the town staff focused on as meeting that particular criteria. Now if you look at the other two that I didn't highlight, it has to do with the condition of the property. And the reason why I didn't highlight them is because if you look at the notice of action, which is the last two pages of the document, the board voted to approve that application provided that all reference to dilapidated or otherwise poor conditions of the property be removed. So that leaves you with only one matter that the town deemed inappropriate for criteria one and that's the fact that well you don't have a minor arterial there so you can't do any of those uses. So that's that's an unusual and extraordinary condition. That's that's what constitutes the hardship. That's 180 degrees from what the town staff's position is now. And we think there ought to be at least some sort of consistency in the town's thinking about what is or is not an extraordinary exceptional condition. And we think that that same criteria is applicable here. We think that is a valid criteria based judgment on this particular application. Again, I'm not going to go back through everything. Um, as far as I know, Trey, are you working on the 23?

Uh, it is. Yeah. Based on the U GIS, it would be 25, but I'm going to say they probably had to survey GIS always accurate. So, 23 is probably 23 units. Correct.

Yeah, Miss Bis, your your question. I mean, there was an application to build three units, three dwelling units there. only two have been constructed, but that could always be changed and the the owners can come back and ask for a 23 lot subdivision or multif family residential permitted there. They've got two. They could build a 21 unit multif family residential use. That sort of use is going to generate far more traffic than what the proposed use is. And if the if the intention of restricting that use to a minor arterial is traffic based then why in the world would the town want to allow a higher generating trip rate under the buy right uses and I and I suspect that a water park would generate a whole lot more also as opposed to the lower trip generation rate just because it's not on a minor arterial. We think the town staff is off base on this. We think this is an application that ought to be approved. Uh, and if y'all don't have any questions or comments for me, um, Mr. Prescott would like to make a couple of comments.

Questions for Mr. Williams. Question. Yes. So, I think in your material you said you estimate parking spaces for 80 cars. Uh, I think under the town's codes would be 67. Now, I think the site plan does provide for approximately 80 parking spaces. But if you look at the parking requirements for an outdoor commercial recreational use other than a water park, then you come to the and you look at the size of the property, you end up at 67 spaces. It's the minimum number of spaces required. So presumably if there was a wedding or these cars would be coming and going correct

mostly at the same time they come to the event. Correct. Correct. And that's why we said, you know, it's going to generate approximately 134, which is 67* 2 trips on a weekend when there is an event there as opposed to the 202 or 232 weekend trips that 23 dwelling units on the property would generate. So, if you're looking to manage traffic, well, then you want this particular use. You don't want the residential use.

But if it was residential, you're looking on an ad hoc here and there parking lot at an event. They don't coming and going approximately the same time. You know, if if they come over an hour period, that's one car a minute. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Thanks. I have a few. Um I guess first is where if you could show me I mean I've read everything you submitted. Um, where is the unnecessary hardship in this application?

Well, there it doesn't require what it what the code requires is a showing that you meet the four criteria.

Absolutely. And that's then that's what we've been and and the hardship is that be because of these because of these odd restrictions of the code. The hardship is is that just like it was back in 2022, the lack of minor arterial street in the area of the substitute MV for RD district which eliminates any use that would be permitted in the Sony district if they were located on a minor arterial street. So the the inability to implement that particular use and you know and the code doesn't say you know you're prohibited from using your property. It says you are prohibited or unreasonably restricted in the use of the property. And it seems to me pretty evident that if you have a use that is condition specific that restricts the use that generates less of an impact than other byright permitted uses that that's not a that's a that's a hardship there because the town is saying no you can't implement the lower impact use. if you're going to do something, go ahead and do the higher impact use.

So, but but then isn't isn't your argument then if if you will and really one of the I mean you're pres presenting the argument without going through your application. Your argument in essence is a policy argument that that the law says this but it's really not it's not appropriate. So you're but then you're asking the BA to enact policy. No, not at all. I'm asking you to I'm asking you to find that this application meets the four criteria required for finding for a variance and approve the application.

Thank you. Um Mr. Chris Chad, if if if this was approved for outdoor commercial uses, it it would not only be for this particular venue, they could use it for any outdoor commercial use. We're fine with putting conditions on it that limit it to these sorts of particular uses with no more than 200 attendees. And going back to the 2002 application, there was a condition placed on the approval of that variance also. So, it's certainly within your authority to say, yeah, weddings, uh, you know, fundraiser events, I think we listed several of them. If you want to restrict it to that, that's we're okay with that,

right? Yes. I mean there there's sorts all sorts of ways to craft that sort of condition to protect whatever you think needs to be protected. Mr. Waves, when I look at the fourth criteria Mhm. Um, we have in response to that the letter that was emailed apparently by Miss Chaplain

that sets forth the objections um by a good number of neighbors. Do you have a response to her letter? I I'd point out that there are plenty of other byright permitted uses that could go on that property that would be much more ownorous, much more overbearing, much more problematic for the neighborhood. And what would those be? A water park. 23 dwelling units on the property. Well, I've looked at that property and it's going to have to be kind of small. 23 units, I think. But in any event,

um you would acknowledge that all if there was a water park there, you would not have 60 to 70 cars arriving within a 15minut span of each other and leaving at about the same time. I mean, that's that that that is a distinguishing feature from from um what would happen for an event space. Correct. Correct. But I s I posit to you that you'd have a whole lot more than 67 there over the entire day's period. I think the impact would be much much greater. Well, there's a limited amount of space for parking, isn't there? Agreed. Mhm.

So, there has to be a limit on the number of cars that would come in. I continually to I continue to be amazed at how creative land planners can be. And and as an attorney, you're aware of the fact that while consistency may not be the hobgoblin of small minds, uh membership on boards changes. Sure. The LMO changes.

Well, that the LMO hasn't changed in that past in the that four years. way folks interpret the Elmo may change and consistency has not been observed on this island over the course of decades as far as I can tell and what is permitted and what is not. Um so we're not guided by precedent and our rules do not require that we uh adhere to precedent. We are not a court. Right. Correct.

Thank you. But I think it's important to understand that the town staff's position what has been in the past and if and there hasn't been any change in the code and if that was an extraordinary and exceptional condition four years ago I know of no reason why it's still not an extraordinary exceptional condition. Excuse me if I may. So four years ago though that application was for the mini golf in the resort district. Correct. Okay. This is not a resort district, correct? Okay. Correct. But it's the it's the exact same use under the code. Outdoor, recreational, commercial use other than a water park.

But an event venue generates a lot more noise and disturbance than a mini golf course does possibly, right, with bands and music and DJs and lights and all that other kind of stuff. I mean, I know when I have a party, just just send me an invitation, please. Are there events currently being held on this property? There have been in the past. Yes. And what sort of events have been held on this property? I'll let Mr. Prescott address. All right. It was set up for an event.

I'm Roy Prescott. Uh to answer your question directly, uh my nephew I had his welcome party there back in November of 24 2024 where before I realized there were any restrictions. We had 200 people there. Since then we've done two weddings with 50 people as suggested 45 and 50. Right now everything's in a holding pattern. We've got um quite a few people interested in there and I bet everybody in holding paddle until we get a decision today to find out whether they're going to do that or not. That's what I was going to address in my

When did you become aware of the limitations in the LMO uh in terms of this being used as a commercial space? Well, I met with uh Trello and them. We talked about that. When was that? Oh, I can't remember to be honest with you. um quite a while. He told me, "Sorry, I couldn't hear that ma'am." He said, he said, "We met I I cannot remember when." He just told me that time it was going to be a hard road to go with this um the minor arterial was a major hold up in this. Do you think that meeting was within the last year? Yes.

So, you've owned the property since 20 Mr. President, yeah, Mr. President, Dr. Mrs. Weston own the property. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, should I continue? Sure. All right. Um, unless anybody else has any questions for me, I just going to let Mr. Prescott make his presentation. Certainly, Mr. Prescott. Anybody have any other questions for Mr. Williams?

Okay, fine. Um, may just kind of brief. Uh, no, none of y'all I doubt any of y'all know me. Uh, I'm a little country native. Original South Carolina on the island a long time. As a matter of fact, my father brought me over on the ferry before the first swing bridge was built. He came over one day a week and sold fish to native islanders of Atlanta waterlock. Twice a every two weeks he'd come over with a panel wagon selling homegoods. So, I've been coming 27 was a dirt road. That's a little bit of my history. Uh, I've been on the island for except for going to USC for four years, been on the island all of my adult life. Um, my dear friend, former mayor Tom Peoples had me serving four terms on the ATAC committee when I didn't really have time to do it and three terms at the President Hospitality Association. So, I've got a strong background here on the island. I opened my own business in 1984, independent businessman. um still going strong. But this property, u some of y'all have seen the property and I have some drone footage. I think it's a very unique piece of property on Hilton Head Island this day and time. You don't find two 2.13 acres fenced in on the water with a cemetery on one side, a vacant lot on the other side and very very minimal residential impact where you can have an event. Um all of the gated communities right terminology there the gated communities are restricted to residents and family members of the residents. If I'm not mistaken, Sepines may be the only one that rents um to people other than residents. I'm not positive about that, but I know from Hilton Head Plantation, Fort Royal,

Shipyard, uh Indigo Run, they're all require that. So, there's not many of uh venues available except the Honey Horn, uh Coastal Discovery Museum and Honey Horn, which I happen to cater there quite a bit. And I had some sheets. They're booked. I reached out to Michelle Cook and but they're booked almost solid all of 2026 in weddings and a few other events including the heritage parking. So there's not a whole lot of places available and 140 short keyway offers one of those things. And the only seems like the only restriction there seems to be is this uh minor arterial street, but it's a private it's not a public venue. It'll be private invitation only and some 200 is probably going to be a large one. There would probably there would probably be more but a lesser number. But you know you have bark of field that's the corn of bagal and Mitchellville road two ten of a mile down the road either one of those are minor arterial and they generate a lot more traffic than we would at 140 short keyway um you know it's my business will be impacted by this if I don't get this variance but I will survive but what's really going to be impacted a lot future brides and grooms that are looking into this property trying to find a location on the Low Country waterfront majestic oaks they can get married have their dream dream wedding in the Low Country and there's just only place that that's even possible really is Honeyorn and they're book solid and um I just and you know just we have a drone footage to show you what I think is a

limited residential impact and we follow the with the events we've done there. We followed town rules. 10:00, no outdoor music. Um, all the parking has been on site. There's I don't think there's been any any complaints for the few that we've had. And um I don't know, it just seemed like the main thing is this minor arterial road and being a private by event only is going to be limited. It's not more than just if it was a public mini golf course, whatever. It'd be wide open. You have people coming going all times a day. So like a heck of a lot more trips than invited personal uh venue in event. But anyway, that's that's about all I have to say. And all I'm going to say is I think it's a beautiful property. If y'all see this drone footage, maybe you'll see see what little impact I think it has. It's a lot of open space and everything's facing out towards the water. A lot of the noise and sound will go across Port Royal Sound. It may hit view for the Port Royal or St. Helens Island. I doubt it. So,

Mr. Prescott, um, you have a, you know, I'm assuming you have a business relationship with Steven and Lisa Weston, the the actual owners of the property. Are you, are you renting this from them? Are they, did they hire you to do this venue? No. What's What's the What's the business arrangement? Well, I've known them I've known their son and my nephew been friends for years. I just met them about two years ago, year and a half ago. And they would they would they would rent the property and I would occasionally vent and it's two separate entities. They would they would collect the rental income.

So they would collect the rent for the property you know if for a particular venue and then you would provide the catering service. Exactly. Exactly. That's all I have Mr. Chairman for the moment. Thank you. Anything else from the applicants? No sir. Thank staff. Thank you. Does town staff wish uh to give any rebuttal?

Get all my stuff.

Thank you. I want to close this here. Um, so I did want to just bring a couple points up and uh and understand that the board had already addressed a few things. So I just want to remind um everybody that section 10 of the BCA rules and procedures talks about supplemental submissions and briefs and how they're to be submitted. The town staff was not aware of anything that was given to the board until 5 minutes before the meeting. Um, and it does not comply with the rules and procedures. A supplemental written submission or legal brief must be delivered one hard copy or one sent via email to the secretary of the board no later than 8:00 a.m. 4 days four business days before the public meeting day in order for the secretary to distribute such information to each board member by the close of that business day. Town staff or the opposing party has two business days after receipt of the supplemental submission to respond in writing. And so we were not afforded that opportunity just to make you aware. Um, another thing I wanted to to highlight real quick was talking about the variance in general. We know this, but just for the public. Um, so a variance may be granted by the board of zoning appeals if it concludes that the strict enforcement of any appropriate dimensional development or design performance standards set forth in the LMO would result in unnecessary hardship. Um, so unnecessary hardship is not defined in the LMO. I wanted to point that out. And it's also talking about case specific. That's why in the variance application you require a site plan because each variance is specific. So we we do do our research. We do look at previous applications for the property. But we don't compare it and we

don't um aggregate data to to review any kind of precedent because everything is very specific to the particular piece of property. As you can see here in the LMO, it's talking about this specific particular piece of property. Um, want to make another point of clarification. Um, small, but just wanted to say it is that it's not what the town wants. It's it's never about what the town wants. We try to administer the LMO and what the LMO says. And so there I just wanted to point that out. Also, the comprehensive plan is what gives us guidance and direction that informs the zoning rules and regulations and those use specific conditions are there to prevent conflicts. And so that's what brings us here today is the use specific condition and whoever penned this comprehensive plan put that you specific condition in there for some reason. So I would hope that the board would appreciate the weightiness of that. Thank you. Thank you.

Can I ask staff for a question? Mr. Connie, on the overlay of the property, I'm looking at it in our packet. It's 23 of 39. Help me understand what the adjacent adjacent properties are. Yes, sir. Cuz when I I mean, I went to the property and what I think I saw and what I heard are different. Okay. Um so we have the the Mitchellville the blue that is the section on the right hand side in the subject property that's the subject property across the street we have residential RM8 and that brown turns into a lighter brown the RM12

but and my question is not about the what's zoning but what's actually there it looked to me to be individual residents adjoining the property as well as across the street from the property. Oh, okay. I misunderstood like what's currently developed in the area. Oh, I Yes. Okay. Um cuz he said it was a vacant lot and a cemetery if I heard right. Right. So I wonder which one. There we go. Okay, that might be a little bit easier to see. Um

the lots look undeveloped with a few parcels surrounding it. We can see um homes. Not always single family though, especially across the road. We see a couple multif family homes. And then Hammock Breeze, that subdivision is a little further south of that. Um, and that is explained through the zoning. The graphic that we were just looking at with the RM8, the RM12, the PD1 is is over there. So, it's very residential. And then there's also some uh park designated land over there as well. Is that That's what I thought. That's what I thought I saw. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions?

Thank you. Thank you. Applicant have something in in rebuttal to what was just said from town. Mr. Chairman, yes. With respect to the supplemental submissions, I mean, if I was doing an additional brief or giving you new information that was not already in your own records, then yeah, I think that time period applies. the the two the documents that I gave you that are highlighted that's part of your records already. It's a matter of public record and it's not anything that's a supplemental submission here. Thanks.

I'm sorry. So, just from what you said, uh, Mr. Williams, so are you suggesting we should disregard it because it's already in the public record or or No, because it's in the public record, you should take not judicial notice of it, but you should take notice of it because it's it's part and parcel of what y'all have already decided. Thanks. Thank you. So, now we've heard from uh the applicant, from town staff. Um are there members of the public here who would like to speak to this particular application? And if so, please step up and just uh state your name for the record and uh and three minutes per person.

Okay. Um good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Naen Chaplain. I own property adjacent to 125 Shark Keyway. I am here today to speak in firm opposition to variance V002675-2025. I am not standing here alone. I am representing a large group of neighbors and historic land owners including Brown, Chisum, Gatson, Washington, Trees, Jenkins, and Jones family who share the same grave concern about this proposal. The land management ordinance is clear. Commercial recreation must have access to a major auto street. Sorry, this isn't just a technicality. It's a safety requirement. Shark Keyway is a local road. It was not intended to serve as a commercial artery for any outdoor recreation facility. By passing the rule, you are inviting congestion, noise, safety, risk directly into our front yards. Furthermore, we live in the Mitchellville district. This area is defined by its historic and its quiet residential nature. Introducing a commercial use that doesn't meet the town's own access standards threatens the very character we spent generations preserving. The to grant a variance, the applicant must prove a unique unnecessary hardship hardship. seeking a variance simply because it's more

convenient or profitable to build a commercial facility where it doesn't belong is not a hardship. It's a choice. If you grant this variance today, you are telling every resident of Hilton Head that the protection of the LMO are negotiable whenever a developer asks. you would be setting a dangerous precedence that will be cited by every developer who follows. I just want to say again also that there are properties all around this property that they're talking about and um in addition to that there is a graveyard right next to it. I have family members in that graveyard, including my mother, I would not want disturbed. And there um there is just we have a very nice uh quiet neighborhood and we would you know like to be at peace. I also want to say we ask you to listen to the people who actually live on this land. Please uphold the standard of our LMO and deny this variance request. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Anybody else would like to speak to this application?

Nobody else. Okay. So now public comment is now closed and we can bring the discussion back up here. Okay. Anybody have any uh thoughts or comments or or shall we just um move on to a motion?

Hearing none. Um uh if I could have a motion. I move that the board of zoning appeals um deny this application and adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law that have been drafted by staff. Second. motion and second. Uh any discussion from the board before uh I ask that the role be called?

Just a comment. I mean I'm I'm troubled that the LMO allows a a water park in in this area and as my colleague pointed out the distinction between the the previous application was one was in a resort area. This is a residential community which has a character all its own and this would change the character of that community. Um you therefore I'm going to be voting in favor of the of the motion. Anybody else discuss before we call the role?

I think you know from my perspective on this is that um there's a lot of attention given to this arterial or this minor road. For me though, the the criteria for of you know the detriment to the adjacent properties I honey hole the the sheet we were given lists 36 different events on the schedule for 2026. You know, it's one thing for it's one thing when you have your own private birthday or that for your family, but I would be concerned about the effects on the neighbors from an event venue like this. It would have I mean, it's a beautiful piece of property. I mean, anybody that went, you know, I'd that's a beautiful piece of property of which I think a lot of brides would like to be at, but I would think that the disturbance on the neighbors and what that does for their property values is, you know, really the concern I have the most I have the where I have the most concern.

I I I don't think the applicant showed any unique hardship to the applicant. And I think if this was approved, it would be a hardship on the residential community with additional traffic at uh all the traffic occurring at the same time. People coming from an event where presumably they'd be drinking and partying and then all getting in their cars at the same time is a res in a residential community, I think would be a substantial hardship for that community. for the comments. Karen, if you could please call the role. Mr. Christian,

for the motion. Mr. Sim for the motion. Mr. Bis for the motion. Miss Fee for the motion. Mr. Green for the motion. And Mr. Fingerhut for the motion. Thank you.

Thank you all. Um the uh motion was granted unanimously by the board and the application for the variance was denied. Um we just move on to the rest of the meeting. Everybody is welcome to to remain for the meeting. Um or not. That that that's your choices. Is there um any members of the public who are here who would like to comment on something not on the agenda today. So not this variance, but anything else. Hearing none. I would ask if there's any staff reports. No, sir. Thank you. Then uh if we could have a motion to adjurnn.

If I may, I just want to tell you thank you very much. Wish all happy holidays and a safe, happy, prosperous new year. Thank you. Same to you and to you all. Motion to adjourn. Thank you. Second. Second. All in favor? I I merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah. Whatever floats your boat.