Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

I find the symbolism confusing. That's it. Sorry. My bad. All good. Oh, so you were trying to unmute him. Okay. Yeah. I thought Oh. Is the podium working? Try now. Hello. All right. Good deal. User called it.

Good evening everyone. I'd like to call to order the August 4th, 2025 Board of Zoning Appeals. Uh we're going to follow the agenda. Um let's see. First item on the agenda is to approve the June meeting minutes. Motion to approve. All those in favor? I.

Uh, a couple of procedural things. Um, if you need to use your phone, please step out into the hall. Uh, you and you do not have to stay on. We only have two tonight. So you don't have to stay for the whole meeting. And there is the board of zoning appeals needs four votes one way or another to approve or disapprove of a just four to approve

just four to approve a variance request. And there will be no public comment for the appeal that we are hearing tonight. Okay. Uh Eileen, would you

Okay. The first item you have before you this evening is a variance from article 5, section 512B41, relating to the required orientation of the loading area for a property, excuse me, for the property addressed at 7365 Peppermill Lane, Charleston County TMS 3970025256 in the M1 Light Industrial Zoning District, Dorchester Road Corridor 2 Overlay District and Council District 6. These are pictures of the property as they were posted for tonight's meeting. And this is the zoning map of the parcel which is outlined here in blue. As you can see, the surrounding area is predominantly uh zoned M1 as as the subject property. And this is the aerial of the property showing it is lar undeveloped um but graded out and the the surrounding light industrial um uses are shown here in the aerial and this is the site plan provided by the applicant um in support of the variance application. So the representative George Micho of Design Build Construction LLC on behalf of the property owner Aerospace Defense Incorporated is seeking the variance as mentioned. Section 5-12B41 rel requires that structures be oriented so that loading areas are not visible from residential districts from existing public or private rights away or from planned future public rights away. The section further allows that loading areas may be oriented towards adjoining developed properties which are commercially zoned or towards adjoining pro properties that are excuse me eligible for future commercial development if and only if they are entirely screened from view by the use of solid fencing or appropriate landscaping. The applicant is proposing a commercial industrial flex space

building with a loading area which would face Peppermint Lane which is a public rightway. Variance to the requirement that such loading areas not be oriented toward a right ofway is thus proposed, excuse me, thus requested for section 7-7.3 of the city's zoning regulations. The board must make the following findings to grant the variance. Number one, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. The application states that three sides of the property adjoin rights of way, making placement of the loading zone difficult. Staff agrees that the lot's three road frontages are in exceptional condition of the property and may create a site planning challenge for its development. In addition to the three frontages dictating a northern orientation of the loading zone, staff notes that these frontage frontages also trigger a 15t buffer along these three sides per the Dorchester Road corridor 2 overlay district, further limiting the site's development. Finally, the parcel's irregular shape also impacts the potential development of the site. Number two, these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The application notes that most nearby lots have one property line abuing the right of way, whereas the subject property has three sides adjoining rights of way. Staff agrees that most nearby properties have only a single road frontage. There's only one other lot in this area located one property north of the subject lot which has three frontages. However, it was developed for for excuse me, it's permitted for development prior to the overlay district's 2007 expansion to include the peppermill area. So, its development was not restricted by the loading zone orientation requirement. Number three, because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to the particular piece or property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application states that the building is proposed to be located near the northern property line with a loading zone and parking area to be located on the southern portion of

the property. It is asserted that this site layout allows the natural flow of storm water to the west and south portion of the property. Whereas repositioning the building to the south to allow the loading zone to face north both limits the size of the building and would require changes to the storm water flow. It is implied that the reduction in building size required to reoriented the lo reorient the loading zone would unreasonably restrict the use of the property. The site does appear to be graded towards toward the south which would likely facilitate storm water flow in that direction. If the site layout were to be changed to accommodate the loading zone orientation requirement, it may necessitate a substantial regrading of the site to redirect storm water flow as well as reducing the potential size of the building due to the southern portion of the parcel being narrower than the northern part. Staff finds that the zoning regulations when applied to the lot's road frontages and irregular shape limit the placement of the loading zone as well as trigger the 15t landscape buffers. staff believes the regulations do unreasonably restrict the property's utilization. Number four, the authorization of a variance will not be of substant substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good and the character of the district will not be harmed by granting the variance. The application notes that the property is located in a wellestablished business park which has been developed over many years with little consistency and appearance between the various buildings as well as many of the buildings not meeting the overlay district's requirements. Staff agrees that the industrial development surrounding the subject property exhibits a range of architectural styles and site layouts without an overarching aesthetic. Most of the sites have been have loading zones which are visible from the rightway. Staff does not believe that allowing the subject properties loading zone to be oriented toward the right ofway is likely to be detrimental to the adjacent property, the public good, andor the character of the area, particularly given the opaque screening

fences proposed around the loading area. The relatively small scale of the loading zone, two overhead doors, and no tractor trailer parking spaces proposed, as well as the lack of adjacent or nearby residential development should also be noted. Staff agrees that this property is impacted by the irregular shape and three road frontages which dictate the loading zone orientation as well as trigger 15oot buffers on three sides. As noted, staff believes the zoning regulations application to the site unreasonably restrict the property's utilization. Accordingly, staffer recommends approval of the requested variance to the loading zone orientation requirement provided that the opaque fence shown shown on the site plan exhibit be installed at a minimum 8 foot height. And I would note that a copy of this report was emailed to the applicant last Tuesday the 29th.

Questions for city? Um, good evening. Thank you for reviewing that. Um, and thank you for the thorough um, review of our application. Um, I I really have no comments of what already has been proposed or requested for this property. Um, I think it just as it was stated, it just has three roadsides. is just a unique situation for this property and it kind of limits the the orientation of the building and we're trying just to maximize the site and utilize the property as best as possible. Yes, I don't know if there's much else to say other than, you know, the reason we've owned this site for years now. And the reason we haven't developed it is because of its odd shape. And the only way we could find to actually make a return on investment by building here is to put the property put the building where it's shown on the property. Why we have requested the variance.

Thank you. Appreciate your attention. Um, any question? Any questions for the applicant or the owner?

Yeah, I've got a question. There's one just slight discrepancy on the site plan here where the proposed opaque screening fence is shown. Um there's some impervious area outside that in the in the 15 foot required buffer. Is there do you plan on making a modification to the site plan so that it's Yes, that so the buffer wasn't adjusted. We just kind of marked it up. Okay. All right. Zass hasn't further adjusted. Your first name George the owner JT.

Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. discussion board.

Thank you gentlemen. I'll we'll entertain a motion. I'll uh I'll make a motion to approve with two conditions. That the staff recommendation that the opaque fence shown on the site plan be installed at a minimum 8ft height and the site plan be revised so that no imperous improvements are made um in the required buffer area.

Would you like to call the role? Yes, ma'am. So the motion you have before you is to approve the variance with the staff recommendation of the 8 foot fence height and also a revision to the site plan to show no imperous surface in the required buffer. Mr. Calhoun Mr. O' Calahan. Yes. Mr. Simmons. Yes. Miss Morrow. Yes. Uh the variance uh the passes with the conditions noted. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on the agenda to introduce the peppermill variance. This appeal.

Oh, sorry. Sorry. I moved on to the wrong screen. My apologies. Okay. So the the next item you have before you is an appeal of the decision of the of a zoning official under se excuse me article 7 section 7-6 relating to a sign displaying a non-commercial message for the property addressed is 5265B East Dolphin Street Justin County TMS 1 excuse me 471600157 and the R1 single family residential zoning district and council district 8 eight. This is a a zoning map of the property. As you can see, it's here sur highlighted in blue. The areas behind it are zone R1 as is the subject property. And across the street, this teal color is the Oak Terrace Preserve PDD. And this is an area of the property. This is the um principal home on the property. Uh another home has been constructed recently on the eastern side of the site um which is the uh house with the painting and this is a picture of that painting and I'm going to go through this just a moment. Okay. The property owners Joshua R and Christina A Jetty are appealing a decision of of a zoning official as mentioned after receiving a call regarding a house painted with a mural. A zoning inspector identified a house with a large painting of a woman's face and a bird on its front facade. Section 8-10A1 of the zoning regulations allows single family detached residences to display a maximum of 8 square ft of signage which may be on any combination of the following subjects: non-commercial messages, home occupation signs, real estate signs, and garage sale signs. Because the size of the painting sign exceeds 8 square feet of non-commercial

message. A violation note was sent to the property owners on May excuse me violation notice was sent to the property owners on May 21st, 2025. The owners now appeal that decision characterizing the painting as a sign and that that appeal was included as exhibit two arguing that the mural contains no words, logos, commercial content or messaging either commercial or non-commercial. Uh as the as there is no message, the appellants believe that the painting should not be subject to section 810 A1 and assert the painting is simply a work of art. That's it for me.

That's it for you. Okay. Um, any questions for staff from the board? Uh, are the appellants Josh and Christina Jetty here? Would you all like to come up to the podium?

Oh, am I okay to pass them out? Okay. Okay. Um, I can leave a couple Good evening, members of the B zoning board. My name is Christina Jetty and along with my husband Josh, we are the owners and residents of 5265 East Dolphin Street. We appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and we thank you for your service to our city. To begin, we'd like to share a little bit about ourselves. We moved to Charleston 12 years ago from Virginia when my husband completed his service with in the US Navy as a riverine in which he completed three deployments including Iraq in 2009 for Iraq operation Iraqi freedom. We purchased our home in Park Circle 11 years ago. I currently work as the COO of HANA Engineers and Consultants, an engineering firm that works primarily on military installations across the Southeast, and is based at the 10mi um elementary school on Rivers Avenue in North Charleston. Josh works as a systems engineer for Nywick Atlantic, which many of you may know as Spaywire, or raising two young children, one who attends Hershey Elementary, and the other one who is still in daycare, but will be attending North Charleston schools when he is old enough. Um, as Miss Duffy reach mentioned, recently we completed construction of a secondary dwelling on our property to host visiting friends and family. Well, it's technically not considered an ADU. Um, since ADUs were not permitted prior to

when we got um or were not zoned or not ordinanced current when we got permitted, um, it serves a similar purpose. This is the structure on which our artistic mural in question was painted. We are here today to respectfully appeal the notice of a violation we received on May 21st, which classifies the artistic mural on the exterior of that structure as a sign under section 810A of the city's zoning ordinance. We disagree with the interpretation that a piece of art, particularly one with no text or commercial mess, qualifies as a sign. According to section 83 of the zoning ordinance, a sign is consider is defined as any structure or device which displays a visual image for the purpose of attracting attention and/or conveying information or message which is visible from any portion of the public right ofway. However, the ordinance also explicitly lists 18 exclusions from this definition, three of which clearly apply to the mural. One, section 83A, architectural features. Number two, section 83 C, cultural decorations, and section 83J, non-commercial symbols integrated into architecture or landscaping. Based on any of these three exclusions, are murals not considered design? And I'll go through each one. So section 83A architectural features is defined as decorative or ornamental elements of buildings not including letters, tradesmartark trademarks or moving parts. So why does this apply? This mural is purely decorative, a visual enhancement of the building's exterior. It contains no words, logos, or commercial messaging and is permanently affixed to the wall as part of the home's facade. Therefore functioning as an ornamental architectural element. It is permanently affixed to our exterior

and serves as an artistic enhancement much like shutters or unique brick work. It was never intended to convey a message or promote anything only to beautify our property and to reflect our community's creative spirit. The second reason section 83C cultural decorations is defined as displays of non-commercial nature mounted on private residential property which pertain to cultural and religious observations or obser observances. Sorry. So why does this apply? The mural was created by Revo Krug, an artist who works who whose work draws from his Estonian cultural background. His stylized face motif is not random. It's rooted in his cultural identity and symbolic expression. You may also recognize Revo's work throughout Charleston, including the back patio of Odd Duck on buildings along Spru Avenue and along with the girls who paint on the new assembly buildings in Park Circle. He will also be prot participating in the melt mural festival being held in North Charleston next month. The inclusion of the corarent bird, a native species observed in our own neighborhood, including several at the pond at the end of our street, ties the mural to the cultural and natural environments of the Low Country. Therefore, celebrating our regional identity in a way that is reflective and expressive, not promotional. Cultural decorations aren't limited to just widely celebrated holidays. They can include ongoing symbolic representations of identity, community, or heritage. This mural reflects both the artist's cultural identity and the connection to the natural environment of our community, making it a meaningful and non-commercial cultural expression. Reason three, section 83J, non-commercial symbols integrated into architecture or landscaping. Now, why does this apply? This mural can be

interpreted as a symbol of non-commercial concepts such as community, identity, artistic expression, and appreciation for nature. Its permanence, being painted directly onto the building's wall, makes it an integrated feature rather than a temporary or freestanding object. This exemption was clearly designed to protect the non-commercial expressions that are embedded into a built environment, and our mural satisfies that intent. I'm turning over to Josh

now. You're going to have to bear with me. She's better at reading than I am. But perhaps the best argument for why this ordinance does not apply to our artistic mural comes from the city employees themselves. In preparation for this meeting, we submitted a foyer request for city correspondence related to this issue. Those records reveal internal uncertainty among staff about how to interpret and enforce the code in relation to murals. For example, one staff member asked, "We don't have anything to prohibit murals on private residential property. Correct. It is it just cannot be a commercial message." Another stated,"I think we could write a violation, but I wouldn't unless slash until we are getting complaints from the neighbors. If the city's own staff doesn't think that the law covers artistic murals, why should our citizens think that?" I think we could, or I think we could, should indicate uncertainty within the law. To date, we've received no complaints and from what we can tell, neither has the city. Neighbors and passerbys regularly stop to compliment the mural and express appreciation for its contribution to the neighborhood. The foyer request only mentions a man calling in with a complaint but does not provide any additional information on the basis of the complaint. If the basis of the complaint is an anonymous undocumented phone call, how can we address or answer their concerns? And furthermore, how can you? This inconsistency in interpretation and enforcement further underscores the need for thoughtful consideration and a clear, fair process. If this artistic mural, permanently affixed, non-commercial, culturally inspired, and embraced by our neighbors, is considered a sign, then we're left with serious

questions about what is allowed. Could we instead paint a paint the structure a hundred different colors? Would a rainbow pattern be permitted? What about abstract shapes or artistic designs without any symbolism at all? Where's the line drawn? At what point does creative expression cross into zoning enforcement? If the rules are this unclear, how can homeowners know what's allowed? We're not asking to be the exemption. We're asking for clarity, consistency, and a fair interpretation of the ordinance that supports the artistic and cultural vibrancy of uh North Charleston is known for. In fact, the Foyer response also included a draft ordinance that proposes adding murals to the list of exemptions from the definition of a sign. Say again, what do I do? Oh,

the microphone. Um, I would be careful in going into any proposed change. I mean, the issue that y'all are looking at tonight is about the existing rule and whether or not staff has properly interpreted it, not whether you all like it or whether or not um there is something proposed for the future. And so when you're when you're I guess deciding and listening to information base it on your interpretation or staff's interpretation of the current rule, not whether or not there was something in the future. I say again we were just saying that showing that lack of clarity

and it sounds like you guys are trying to shore up that lack of clarity through a proposed ordinance is what I'm saying. I'm not saying judge it on what's coming.

Okay. Uh while that ordinance has not yet been adopted, it demonstrates that city staff understand there's a lack of clarity in our laws and are already moving toward an appropriate framework. We're asking the mayor and city council to prioritize it. Until then, we ask this board to help ensure enforcement does not outpace policy. Our intent was always to beautify our home and contribute to the cultural character of our neighborhood. North Charleston is a home to a thriving art scene and our mural is part of that community spirit. We understand the need for balance between expression and zoning, but we believe the current ordinance is being interpreted too broadly and without consideration for equal protection in this case. This mural enhances, not harms, the aesthetic of our community. We respectfully ask this board to reverse or suspend the citation issued under section 8-8 8-10A. Uh we ask to recognize that this artistic mural does not meet the definition of a sign and encourage the city to finalize the ordinance that provides clarity for future cases cases. We appreciate your time, your attention, and your commitment to fair governance. Thank you again for healing hearing our appeal. Any questions for Josh or Christina? Uh, Mr. or Mrs. Jetty, do you have any witnesses?

Guess that picture,

Miss Anderson. uh to make the city's presentation. This appeal is about a wall sign that was painted on the home bearing the address of 5265 East Dolphin Street. While one may argue for the freedom of expression, the city has clearly articulated that wall signs painted in residential areas are allowed but may not exceed 8 square ft pursuit into section 8.10. 10. You will hear today from Tim McCall, planning and zoning director, who will explain why this sign is specifically, excuse me, explain why this sign is problematic and specifically why the citation was issued. We ask that you listen closely, uphold the decision by zoning, and find that the citation was proper. And at this time, I would ask that I be allowed to call Tim McCall as a witness.

Yes, ma'am. Please state your name. Uh Tim McCall. Where do you work? I work for the city of North Charleston. And what is your title? I am the director of planning and zoning as well as the zoning administrator for the city. And how long have you worked? Uh just over a year. interact with residents.

Typically, I'm last resort when dealing directly with the general public regarding violations. Uh usually the inspectors will interact with residents first and then if it needs to be escalated beyond uh them uh that first line of uh individuals, then it goes up typically to Andrew Bach, the deputy director who directly supervises the zoning inspectors. And then it would then go to me after going through Andrew Do you have inspectors that personally visit these sites

when needed? Yes, they can go out and do field visits. Can you describe that? So, the planning department has four zoning inspectors that uh inspect four zoning inspection areas that have been designated by the city. Uh those four inspectors as I stated uh previously uh report directly to the deputy director and then obviously to myself as the director and zoning administrator.

What prompts contact? Uh typically uh contact with the field inspectors would be phone calls from uh other residents or uh reports of uh zoning violations. The inspectors also do general sweeps to identify potential zoning uh infractions. public.

So the typical process would be for the inspectors to receive a complaint or uh spot one in one of their sweeps. They will verify that violation. They will document the violation, take pictures. Uh they will come back to the office, verify whether or not it rises to the level of notification. uh verifying the zoning ordinance as and the actual uh complaint and uh making sure that there is an actual violation that needs to be notified. Once that determination has been made, a letter is drafted and typically sent to the property owner notifying them of a violation. They are given 30 days in general to correct that violation. If that violation is not corrected in 30 days, then a summon or citation will be issued to the property owner.

I did. If I show you the letter, would you recognize it? Yes. You recognize this? I do. What is it? This is the letter that Inspector Tim Campbell sent to the property owners. Not that I can tell. Is it a fair accurate depiction of the letter? Yes. How was this letter sent? Uh, this was sent via standard mail.

Why was this letter Uh the sign that was painted on the side of the accessory structure at the property exceeded the permitted total square footage allowed in residential districts.

Recognize this document? Yes. The sign section of the zoning ordinance. From your knowledge, has it been changed or altered in any way besides obvious notes? No, it has not been altered. Is it a fair and accurate depiction of the code rep section that your inspectors reference each day? Yes. Can you tell the board um why this is considered a sign?

So, uh there are a couple of reasons why uh this is considered a sign. Uh it is as defined within the ordinance under the definition section. It's a a structure or device which displays a visual image for the purpose of attracting attention. Um I I think that anytime you put anything on a wall such as that, the intent is to draw attention to it. So by that it fits into that definition. Wall sign definition.

Wall sign is a sign painted on or attached to a wall of a building and in the same plane as the wall. also includes a roof sign on roof that is at an angle to a plane which is perpendicular to the building wall of not less than 80 degrees and no more than 100 degrees.

Can you also section 810 that the residential sign measurements requirement? So, uh, 8-10 signs permitted in residential districts A in a single family residential district and on detached single family residences regardless of zone. Number one, display area. Each residence may display a maximum of 8 square feet of sign message area, which may be on any combination of the following subjects. non-commercial messages, home occupation signs not exceeding two square feet, real estate signs, garage sale signs, general advertising, and off-site commercial messages are prohibited. Signs used to identify the address and or residence, as well as flags do not count toward the 8 square feet maximum. The walk that was done by tell us approximately how large um

based on this mockup is approximately 244.83 square ft. And what size did the mural be for residential? It's not permitted to exceed eight square feet. When a resident wants a modification, is there a way a mechanism in place? Uh modification as far as a variance,

uh it it is possible to apply for a variance um through the the zoning board of appeals. Uh if you feel that there's an actual hardship that would prevent you from being able to accomplish the your your project based on something unique on the property and if a person wanted to change the home would

generally we do not require permits for painting uh when dealing with uh private residences uh we don't regulate that uh strictly. Have you received a variance request from No, we have not received a variance uh from that address. Does this payment sign fall into? I do not believe that it does. Can you tell me to your Have you received any additional resurre?

We have not. This is the first residential mural that we're aware of. Can you also tell the board why this is not an architecture? So, uh the architectural fe feature features are elements directly built into the building. This has been applied to the wall per the section as it relates to wall signs. uh this was not integrally built into the architecture of the building.

Cultural decorations.

Typically, cultural decorations would relate to uh holiday decorations such as Christmas lights or Christmas trees, uh Halloween displays or you know, other uh items such as that. Those are taken into account. So typically those are items that are permanently embedded into the architecture of a building. Uh think about like a Masonic symbol uh at a Masonic lodge built into like a cornerstone or something along those lines. that is more of the uh what we would consider the non-commercial uh symbol integrated to meet that exception.

Any questions for to to

I potentially yes. I I if it was an integrated part of the cladding of the house where it was, you know, they used wood to differentiate uh colors to to create the image potentially. Yeah, I I could see that as being the case. Wouldn't that still continue to have to be within 8 square foot

because it would be part of the exception? No. Uh if if it was built into the actual structure of the building. Uh it it would be it would meet that exception. So therefore would not be considered a sign and therefore would not need to be limited to eight square feet. Thank you. If if it falls into one of the exception categories, is there any limit on size of a There is not.

Any other questions? Thank you. And uh summation from Miss Anderson.

Thank you for hearing us this evening. Testimony shared tonight is clear and compelling. The applicant painted a wall sign on their home. They failed to contact the city before starting this project. They did not attempt to get a variance um from the provided ordinance. And we are here tonight because of the size of the sign and that cause only. The city's goal is not to punish the homeowners but rather gain compliance. Um the sign can either be removed completely or reduced in size. We ask the board to uphold the decision of the zoning official and find that the citation was issued properly. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes, you can speak again for a summation. Um, I have a couple things I want to point out. I'm sure Josh does as well. Um, I wanted to let you know we did look into this before we painted it. We contacted our city councilman. Um, he was unaware of any um, process that we had to follow for it. We also did look online with the cultural arts department who regulates all the murals within North Charleston and there was no guidance provided for residential. Um, they only required permits for uh, commercial and industrial murals. Um I guess I had a few questions um related to the exemptions where the definition of these would be called um for specific um cultural decorations. Is there any specific definition given for what a cultural decoration is considered? Um okay. Um

um I'm wondering which part of that mural is considered the sign. So the like for instance the right side of the door is just colors. There's no anything. uh the bottom left where the wing comes down. That's I don't know how that's considered a sign. The only part I could guess is the sign is her face and duck. If you wanted to call that a sign, which it's just a face and duck um on the stairs. That doesn't look like a sign to me. I I'm missing something completely here. So, if I blacked out the face of this lady, just the face, would that adhere to your standards?

That's still I don't understand what's going on. Okay. So, I I want to make sure we're procedurally operating. Um Okay. Sorry. I I assume you are asking questions of the witness um our zoning administrator. Am I I mean if that's where we are. Okay. So if you ask the question um he can answer. Um but it should be more of a question and answer and not editorializing or explaining your question. Ask a specific question, he'll answer it. And then when you all finish that, um, Madam Chairman, if they want to give a summary, they can.

Tempo, that's all I had to ask. That's it.

No, that's it. We're just, like I said, I mean, we did this because we love art. Um, it was that's the reason we built this cast this guest house. We actually ran out of art space in our house and um we are very good friends with lots of locom artists and we wanted to give them the opportunity to give us more art. It um helps our children live in this community. Um and um I apologize for any inconvenience it has caused. Um and we I think like I said we're just looking for a better understanding of if this is not allowed then what is allowed because right now we do not understand it within the var um within the ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you. I call for a motion to reverse, affirm, or modify the staff decision. It says we call for discussion after the motion. Motion to affirm the city's motion. Do Do I have a second?

Um, I'll I'll second just to get the discussion going. Discussion amongst board members. Who wants to start?

Um, I guess I'd like to encourage a little debate. Um, I think I think you've made some very good points about the um the definitions here in the ordinance. Um, I think some of this is open to interpretation and um I wouldn't say you are wrong in your interpretation, but the city zoning officials, they've written parts of this code and no more the intent of even if it seems like it's open interp to interpretation, they know the intent of the code better than anyone else. Um, so I'm a little torn on that argument. Um, and I guess my main hangup on this mural is uh the precedent that it might set. Um it seems like this is the first one that's come before the board or the first one that staff is aware of. Um and the yeah the precedent that might set for any future murals um you know that wouldn't have any words or lettering or logos but may have a commercial or political message or something. Um, this one obviously does not. It's a very beautiful piece of art, but um, it it may set it might set a dangerous precedent. My only concern is if a future president say if we set it as a mural. I worry about it because I live in that community and that community I've been there practically all my life and the thing of it is I worry about any mural

being painted on the side of a house regardless. You know, I don't have a problem with the businesses in downtown North Charleston painting their murals to advertise their murals for whatever reason, but it's a beautiful mural. I don't object to to the beauty of it, but I just don't feel like it should be painted on the side of a house. It's my personal opinion.

Zola, do you have anything to add? and ma madam chairwoman if I may just to respond to to Mr. Calhoun I think and really Mr. Simmons, I think you all are um want to make sure that that you all understand that the issue is not whether or not a mural would be allowed. Um the ordinance allows for that. It's about the size.

And so and and so the beauty of it is really not in question. It's whether or not you feel that it's larger than it should be um based on the current ordinance. Thank you, Chris. We have a motion to affirm. Correct. We have a second. Eileen, call the role. Motion you have before you is to affirm the staff decision. Uh, Mr. Calhoun. Yes. Mr. O' Calahan. Mr. Simmons. Yes.

Miss Mororrow. Yes. The um staff decision is upheld.

Did great work.

And with that the meeting is adjourned.