Aug 26, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals

WE ARE, ARE WE ALL OKAY WITH THE PUBLIC NOTICE? YES.

I LIKE TO MAKE NOTE THAT BEFORE WE ADOPTED AGENDA ITEM SIX, THERE A REQUEST THAT THIS ITEM, THEY BROKE THE PHONE UNTIL OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.

[4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA]

SO WE WON'T BE HEARING THAT CASE TONIGHT.

AND, UH, WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST IN CASE IT'S NECESSARY, I'VE MOVED THAT BASED ON THE LETTER WE RECEIVED FROM MR. COON THAT'S ITEM NUMBER SIX, THE HATS WOULD APPEAL BE CONTINUED TO OUR NEXT MEETING.

THAT'S YOUR MOTION.

IT'S GOING TO GET SOMEONE TO SECOND.

SO IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MADE AND SECOND ALL IN FAVOR.

SO THE AGENDA HAS BEEN ADOPTED, UH, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

I KNOW THAT MYSELF AND MR. GUINNESS, WASN'T HERE ON THAT MEETING.

SO WE WENT TO THREE.

IS MR. GUINNESS WITH US TONIGHT? NO, HE IS NOT THAT'S VIA ZOOM.

UM, OKAY.

SO I GUESS WE WILL HAVE TO, UH, MOVE THAT TO OUR NEXT MEETING WHERE WE CAN HAVE A COOL, AND IF WE GET WITH MS. AUSTIN, AS FAR AS THE MINUTES GO, WHEN COULD YOU PUT THE TIME THAT THE MINUTE THE MEETING ADJOURNED, WHEN THE MOST WITH ME, I APPRECIATE THAT.

SO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ADAM'S OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP APPEAL, THE DECISIONS AND THE NINE 11 SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION.

[7. Public hearing on Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership’s appeal of the decision(s) to deny 11 Sign Permit Applications (14 Parris Island Gateway), (2749 Boundary Street), (3026 Trask Parkway), (878 Parris Island Gateway), (1000 Fording Island Road), (1000 Fording Island Road), (463 Parris Island Gateway), (745 Robert Smalls Parkway), (205 Sea Island Parkway), (125 Sea Island Parkway), (3589 Trask Parkway). The appeal alleges that: (1) the denial letters signed by the Zoning & Development Administrator are invalid because only the Director of the Community Development Department can deny a sign permit application; (2) that the sign ordinance (CDC Division 5.6, et seq., are unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (3) if the sign ordinance is constitutional, then Adams Outdoor Advertising is entitled to a variance allowing their signs pursuant to Section 7.2.140 of the CDC.]

YOU CAN, UH, APPROACH THE PODIUM AND, UH, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES TO GO AHEAD AND NO MORE THAN 15 MINUTES TO STATE YOUR CASE.

UH, THANK YOU.

UH, CHAIRMAN MAC AND MEMBERS OF THE , UH, FOR BUFORD COUNTY.

MY NAME IS JEFF TIBBLES I'M WITH THE LAW FIRM OF BYBEE AND TABLES.

AND I'M HERE TODAY REPRESENTING ADAM'S OUTDOOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, UH, OUT ADAM'S OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, EXCUSE ME.

UM, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF 11, UM, SIGNED PART OF THAT APPLICATION DENIALS.

AND, UM, I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO SAY OTHER THAN THE, UM, THE APPEAL FORMS, STATE THE GROUNDS.

AND SO THOSE CAN BE REVIEWED PARTICULARLY IN 10 MINUTES.

I CAN'T, UM, COVER ALL THE, WELL, WHY DON'T YOU JUST BRIEFLY TELL US, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE GROUNDS ARE YOU JUST A FEW QUESTIONS? WE GOT INFORMATION ON TWO OF THE SIGNED PERMITS WERE ALL 11 OF THEM DENIED ALL FOR THE SAME REASONS.

WERE SUBMITTED FOR EACH OF THE 11.

ALL OF, ALL OF THEM, UM, WERE DENIED UNDER THE SAME GROUNDS.

AND IF I COULD JUST GIVE YOU THE TIMELINE AND VERY BRIEFLY ON APRIL 27TH, 2021 ADAMS SUBMITTED 11 SIGN APPLICATIONS FOR DIGITAL SIGNS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.

UM, ON MAY 24TH, UH, COUNSEL OF BUFORD COUNTY HAD FIRST READING OF A REVISED SIGNED ORDINANCE.

UM, ON MAY 25TH, THERE WAS A PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING VIA NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION IN THE BUFORD GAZETTE REGARDING THE REVISED ORDINANCE ON MAY 26TH, 2021 BUFORD COUNTY ADVISED ADAMS THAT THEIR APPLICATIONS WERE INCOMPLETE.

UM, BUT THEY DID NOT DENY THOSE APPLICATIONS IN ON MAY 27TH.

UH, ADAMS SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR THE EXISTING APPLICATIONS.

UH, THOSE

[00:05:01]

UH, AND SO THOSE WERE DELIVERED, UH, TO THE COUNTY ON, UM, THAT WAS ON MAY 27TH AND JUNE 1ST, UH, THERE WERE 11 SITES.

SO ONE WAS SUBMITTED ON MAY 27TH WITH THE UPDATED INFORMATION AND THE OTHERS WERE ON JUNE.

FIRST ON JUNE 14TH COUNCIL, UH, GAVE SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REVISED SIGN ORDINANCE ON JUNE 24TH, THE APPLICATIONS WERE DENIED ON THE BASIS OF THE OLD SIGN ORDINANCE THAT WAS IN EXISTENCE.

UM, ON JULY 8TH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE REVISED ORDINANCE AND ON JULY 26TH, UH, COUNSEL HAD THIRD AND FINAL READING OF THE REVISED.

AND SO, UM, THESE SIGN APPLICATIONS WERE DENIED ALL 11 UNDER THE OLD, UM, BUFORD COUNTY SIGN ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED.

UM, THE GROUNDS FOR THE DENIAL ARE STATED, UH, THEY ARE IN THE RECORD.

THEY, UH, THERE WAS A LETTER FOR EACH OF THE 11, UM, UH, SIGNED APPEAL, UM, APPEALS OF THE SIGN PERMIT, APPLICATION DENIALS.

AND THOSE ARE ALL IN THE RECORD AND GROUNDS FOR THE APPEALS ARE STATED IN THE APPEAL FORMS AS WELL.

UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT MAY BE A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS BODY HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR SOME OF THE GROUNDS.

UM, BUT THAT'S, AND W WHICH ONES ARE THE BY THOSE BEAMS. UH, I BELIEVE MR. WILLIAMS, THAT THOSE RELATE TO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.

AND I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT ABOUT THAT WHILE I THINK YOU LIKELY HAVE A VERY VALID ARGUMENT ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES, BECAUSE OFF PREMISES SIGNS ARE BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION CONTENT RELATED.

AND AS A GENERAL RULE, YOU CAN'T REGULATE THE CONTENT OF WHAT A SCIENTIST, BUT THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF OUR JURISDICTION.

THAT'S WHERE THE MAN SITTING UP ON THE BENCH, WHERE IN THE BLACK ROAD.

I UNDERSTAND MR. WILLIAMS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

BUT ONE OF THE, YOU SAID THAT I THINK ANOTHER GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL WAS THAT MS. AUSTIN DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE APPEALS.

WELL, I, I, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A GROUND STATED IN THERE, AND I BELIEVE THAT IT HAD TO DO WITH SOME OF THE TRANSITIONAL MATTERS THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED WHEN MR. GREENWAY WAS GOING FROM, UH, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR POSITION TO THE, UM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR POSITION.

AND SO I THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS, UM, CLEAR ON WHO HAS THE GROUNDS AND WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THOSE DECISIONS.

UM, I THINK IT'S UNCLEAR TO US AT WHAT POINT IN TIME SHE ASSUMED THE ROLE THAT'S DEFINED IN THE CDC AS THE PERSON WHO MAKES THESE DECISIONS? WELL, NO, MS. AUSTIN, ISN'T THE DIRECTOR.

IT NEVER HAS BEEN.

AND THE CODE GLUES IS THE DIRECTOR MAKES THESE DECISIONS, BUT THE CODE ALSO CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE DIRECTOR MAY ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION INTERPRETATION OF THIS CODE, TO THE STAFF AND, AND PERHAPS THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

AND PERHAPS, UM, THAT ASSIGNMENT WAS MADE AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT, BUT PERHAPS IT DOES EXIST AND MAYBE IT CAN BE AN ORAL ASSIGNMENT, I DON'T KNOW.

THANK YOU, MR. WILLIAMS. UH, THANK YOU.

UH, LET'S GO, MR. CHAIRMAN, UM, WE, UH, DIFFERENT COUNTY HAS KICKED IN YOU COME TO THE FOODIE.

MY NAME IS TOM.

KEVIN AM WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THE COUNTY HAS RETAINED SCOTT BERCHTOLD TO REPRESENTED AT THIS HEARING.

SCOTT IS A, UH, A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF TENNESSEE.

HE'S BEEN ADMITTED PRO HAC VICI, UH, THROUGH OUR STATE SUPREME COURT.

UM, UM, AND HE'S REPRESENTING US IN US DISTRICT COURT WITH ADAMS. HE'S ALSO REPRESENTING US, UM, SOON, I THINK IN CIRCUIT COURT PRO HOC BEACHY.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY, IT'S NOT NECESSARY FOR HIM TO APPEAR HERE, BUT I'M PROVIDING THAT TO YOU JUST AS BY WAY OF INFORMATION REGARDING MR. BERG TOLD BACKGROUND.

WITH THAT SAID IS ALL RIGHT.

THAT I APPEARED BEFORE YOU.

DENIED UNDER THE NEW ORDINANCE.

UM, I'LL JUST TAKE WHAT MR. TIBBLES, UH, SAID, AND START FROM THERE.

THE ONLY, I THINK THE CHRONOLOGY G THAT HE GAVE WAS MOSTLY ACCURATE.

I THINK ONE THING THAT IS NOT ACCURATE IS THE CLAIM THAT ON JUNE 24TH, WHEN THEY FINALLY GOT AROUND TO SUBMITTING MORE COMPLETE APPLICATIONS, AND THOSE WERE REVIEWED BY, UH, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THAT THEY WERE DENIED UNDER THE OLD ORDINANCE.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

THEY WERE

[00:10:01]

UM, UNDER THE SOUTH CAROLINA PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE, THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED IN MANY CASES AND RECOGNIZED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, THE TWO LEADING CASES FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT ON THAT, OR ONE IS THE COURT OF APPEALS.

ONE IS THE SUPREME COURT.

YES, STRATOSE IS THE COURT OF APPEALS CASE FROM 1989 AND SHEERMAN OR SHERMAN VERSUS REAVIS FROM THE SUPREME COURT IN 1979.

AND BASICALLY THOSE ESTABLISHED THAT WHEN A PUBLIC BODY HAS TENDED TO, UH, CONSIDER ZONING AMENDMENTS AND THEY HAVE ISSUED NOTICE OF PUBLICATION DONE PUBLICATION, NOTICE THAT THEY INTEND TO TAKE THOSE UP AT A PUBLIC HEARING, UH, THAT THE ORDINANCE HAS THEN PENDING AN OPERATIVE AGAINST ANY APPLICATION THAT COMES IN AFTER THAT POINT IN TIME.

AND IN THIS CASE, ACCORDING TO WHAT MR. TIBBLE SAID THAT THE COUNTY COUNCIL HAD FIRST READING ON MAY 24TH, AND THEN ON MAY 25TH, UH, THE PUBLIC NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE PAPER, AND THAT IS CORRECT.

AND THEN, UH, THEN THERE WERE 11 APPLICATIONS THAT CAME IN AFTER THAT POINT IN TIME.

ONE OF THOSE 11 CAME IN ON MAY 27TH AND THE OTHER CAME IN ON JUNE THE FIRST.

AND SO THE PENDING ORDINANCE AND THE ORDINANCE THAT IS NOW PART OF THE PERMANENT ORDINANCE IN THE COUNTY, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE IS THE ONE THAT GOVERNED THESE APPLICATIONS.

IN FACT, MANY OF THE LETTER, THE LETTERS OF DENIAL REFERRED TO SECTIONS AND PROVISIONS THAT EXIST IN THAT NEW ORDINANCE.

SO IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT WHEN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WAS ACTING, THAT SHE WAS ACTING UNDER THE NEW PROVISIONS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN NOTICED FOR PUBLIC HEARING IN THE PAPER.

UH, THE SECOND THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT AS TO MR. WILLIAMS, TO MY OPPOSING COUNSEL CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN THE LETTERS, UH, HE WAS CORRECT, UH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 7.5560 A THREE, UH, SPECIFICALLY GIVES THE, THE, UM, THE AUTHORITY TO THE DIRECTOR TO ASSIGN THE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT, UH, DUTIES IN THE DEPARTMENT, UH, TO STAFF, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE HERE.

OBVIOUSLY, MS. AUSTIN'S BEEN BEFORE YOU SHE'S BEEN IN HER ROLE FOR SOME TIME, SHE'S ISSUED MANY DENIAL LETTERS.

AND THAT SUB SECTION THREE OF THAT SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIFICALLY PERTAINS TO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE DIRECTOR CAN DELEGATE TO STAFF, AND THAT IS DEALING WITH SIGNED PERMITS.

AND THAT'S WHAT SHE DID IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.

IN FACT, UM, THE DEFINITION OF DIRECTOR IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE COMMUNITY EVENT, MY CODE REFERS TO THE DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE.

SO THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH WHO EXECUTED THE LETTER.

UM, I WILL KNOW, HOWEVER FOR THAT, IT BEARS, UH, OBSERVATION THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR APPEAL, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE GROUNDS THAT WERE GIVEN AS MR. TIBBLE SAID, THE DENIALS WERE FOR ALL THE SIGNS WERE BASED ON, ON THE SAME GROUNDS.

AND THEY WERE, UH, THAT THEY WERE SEEKING, UH, AND AN APPLICATION OR A PERMIT FOR A TYPE OF SIGN THAT IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.

UM, THEY WERE SEEKING, UM, AN APPLICATION FOR AN LED OR DIGITAL DISPLAY SIGN THAT IS, UH, WAS IN A LOCATION WHERE A DIGITAL DISPLAY IS NOT ALLOWED.

UM, IT ALSO SOUGHT THESE APPLICATIONS SOUGHT TO ERECT FREESTANDING SIGNS, UM, THAT HAVE A HEIGHT AND A WIDTH THAT ARE MUCH GREATER THAN WHAT, UM, FREESTANDING OR POLE SIGNS, WHICH IS ONE KIND OF FREESTANDING SIGN AS ALLOWED TO HAVE.

UM, THE APPLICATION WAS ALSO DENIED.

UH, THESE APPLICATIONS WERE ALSO DENIED BECAUSE THERE WERE FALSE ANSWERS GIVEN ON THE APPLICATION.

SOME OF THOSE REFER TO, UH, YOU KNOW, GIVE US THE PHONE NUMBER FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.

AND IT SHOWED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNER ADAMS DIDN'T ON THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS TRUE OF 10 OUT OF THE 11 SIGNED PERMITS.

UM, AND SO, BUT THEY BASICALLY GAVE THEIR OWN PHONE NUMBER.

AND THEN ANOTHER ONE, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ON THAT, ON THE APPLICATION QUERIES, WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY, UH, BECAUSE THAT WOULD RELATE TO, YOU KNOW, WHETHER ADDITIONAL SIGNS ARE ALLOWED AND DENSITY AND SO FORTH.

AND IN ALL THESE APPLICATIONS, IT SAYS NOT APPLICABLE OR NO, OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

UM, BUT THEN UPON FURTHER REVIEW, IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE ARE SIGNS PRE-EXISTING ON THOSE PROPERTIES.

SO THERE WERE A LOT OF DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE DIRECTOR AND THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET BEFORE YOU, AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE APPEAL DOCUMENT, THERE'S NO CLAIM AS TO, UH, AS TO ANY OF THOSE FACTUAL GROUNDS.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, NONE OF THE APPEAL IS BASED ON THE IDEA THAT THE DIRECTOR EARNED IN HER DETERMINATION

[00:15:01]

OR IN HER APPLICATION OF A STANDARD UNDER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS OF COURSE WHAT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IS SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT IS WHETHER SHE EARNED IN THE APPLICATION OF THE STANDARD.

AND THERE'S NO ASS ASSERTION THAT SHE DID.

THE ONLY THREE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL IS THAT SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN THE LETTER, WHICH IS THE DESIGNEE OF THE DIRECTOR AND HAS THE TIME ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.

SHE DOES HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.

AND THEN NUMBER TWO, THEY CLAIM THAT THE ORDINANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHICH OF COURSE IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THIS BODY.

AND THE NUMBER THREE, I WILL KNOW THAT IN THE APPLICATION PACKET, THEY SAY, IF THE ORDINANCE IS DEEMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL, THEN WE WANT A VARIANCE AND WE'RE ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE UNDER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 7.2 0.14.

OH, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT OF COURSE, IS THIS IS AN APPEAL OF A DENIAL.

AND YOU CAN'T SAY, AM I APPEAL AS AN ALTERNATIVE, GIMME A REMEDY THAT HAS A WHOLE SEPARATE PROCESS THERE.

OF COURSE, THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS.

AS YOU ARE FULLY AWARE OF A VARIANCE, IT'S A SEPARATE FORM.

IT GOES THROUGH SEPARATE STAFF REVIEW AND DETERMINATION.

NONE OF THAT'S HAPPENED HERE.

SO IT'S AN IMPROPER PROCEDURALLY UNDER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO, UM, TO TRY TO ASSERT A VARIANCE APPLICATION IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR PENDING APPEAL.

AND SO THAT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN UP BY THIS BODY PROCEDURALLY.

UM, BUT WITH THOSE ELEMENTS AND THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE FACTUAL GROUNDS ARE BASES FOR THE DENIALS OF THESE 11 SIGNED PERMIT APPLICATIONS ARE CHALLENGED IN THE APPEAL.

UH, WE ASKED THAT THIS BODY WOULD AFFIRM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS AND AS THE DESIGNEE OF THE DIRECTOR, HER DECISIONS TO DENY THESE 11 APPLICATIONS.

IF I MAY IT, AT WHAT POINT DID THE, DID THE NEWT WELL, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT DENIALS ARE ALL MADE UNDER THE NEW THEN PENDING ORDINANCE THAT HAD NOT BEEN FINALLY ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL, RIGHT? IT WAS FINALLY ADOPTED, I THINK ON JULY 23RD, BUT W W WHEN DID THAT ORDINANCE BECOME PENDING? BECAUSE I MAY 25TH BECAUSE THE STAFF WRITE-UPS SAYS WHEN THESE PERMITS WERE DENIED, COUNTY COUNCIL HAD VOTED AND APPROVED FIRST READING OF A TEXT AMENDMENT DIVISIONS, 5.69 STANDARDS DIVISION 7.2 POINT 40 SIGNS PERMIT AN ARTICLE 10 DEFINITION AT THAT TIME COUNTY COUNCIL ALSO ENACTED DEPENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE FOR THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

WHAT DOES THAT LINE MEAN? UM, THAT MEANS THAT THE COUNTY COUNCIL ADOPTED ON FIRST READING THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AND THE VERY NEXT DAY THEY HAD PUBLISHED IN THE PAPER.

THE NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT IN FACT OCCURRED ON JUNE 14TH AND UNDER REAVIS AND UNDER THE CASES AND THE, THE FEDERAL CASE, UH, COVENANT MEDIA OF SOUTH CAROLINA VERSUS CITY NORTH CHARLESTON, UM, ALL THOSE CASES SAY THE SAME THING IS THAT IS THE POINT THAT THE PENDING ORDINANCE, UH, IS OPERATIVE.

YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE, THERE WASN'T AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT ABOUT THE COUNTY COUNCIL THAT, UH, AS THE STAFF WRITE-UPS, THAT ENACTED THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE FOR THIS TEXT AMENDMENT, WELL, YOU DON'T THE COUNTY COUNCIL DOESN'T ENACT ANYTHING WHEN THEY DO A PENDING ORDINANCE, IT'S BY OPERATION OF LAW WHEN THEY HAVE EVENTS AND INTENT TO MODIFY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

WELL, ALL THE OTHER MUNICIPAL BODIES HAVE CLEARED.

THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE PASSED RESOLUTIONS INVOKING THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN.

BUT I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THE HISTORY OF THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE, BUT IT WAS MADE UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH AND, AND AN ATTORNEY IN CHARLESTON WHO WAS THE COUNTY, THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF CHARLESTON AT THE TIME, MADE IT UP IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT BOUGHT INTO IT.

AND I THINK IT'S A TOTALLY SPECIOUS DOCTRINE.

IT'S DEFINITELY IN THE STATE LAW.

I THINK IT'S SUBJECT TO BEING OVERTURNED AT SOME POINT, BUT BECAUSE IT CLEARLY FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT AN ORDINANCE ISN'T AN ORDINANCE UNTIL IT'S FINALLY ADOPTED, BUT THAT BEING SAID, IT'S OUT THERE.

AND, BUT IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME THAT THE REJECTIONS WERE UNDER THE NEW ORDINANCE.

SO I'M, I'M GLAD YOU, YOU GOT THAT CLARIFIED FOR US.

SO WHAT ARE, AND ARE THERE SOME OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE NEW ORDINANCE THAT ARE THE SAME AS THE PROVISIONS UNDER THE OLD ORDINANCE THAT WOULD, IF APPLIED INTO THE OLD ORDINANCE ALSO JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE SIGN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HEIGHT, THE WIDTH RESTRICTION.

SO IS THE POINT THERE THAT, REGARDLESS OF WHERE, WHETHER YOU LOOK AT IT UNDER THE OLD ORDINANCE OR THE NEW ORDINANCE, THE DENIAL WAS JUSTIFIED.

UH, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE PREEXISTING IN THE OLD ORDINANCE THAT ARE ALSO IN THE NEW ORDINANCE, LIKE THE DESIGNEE LANGUAGE FOR THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR FOR THE STAFF OF THE DIRECTOR, ALSO THE SIZE AND HEIGHT AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

THOSE DIDN'T CHANGE WITH THE RECENT ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED.

AND YEAH.

[00:20:01]

I'M GLAD YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE VERY SIMILAR BECAUSE LOOK, THAT BEING SAID, IF WE LOOKING AT SOME OF THIS SAME INFORMATION, THAT'S AN OLD ORDINANCE AND A NEW ORDINANCE, THEN YOU KNOW, IT REALLY WOULDN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF A DIFFERENCE, I GUESS, BECAUSE IT'S YOU SPEAKING SOMEWHAT OF THE SAME LANGUAGE, IT VARIES AS FAR AS THE SIGN SIZE.

AS FAR AS SIGNS SIZE, AS FAR AS PROHIBITING CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS.

THERE ARE, UH, ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES IN BOTH THE OLD ORDINANCE AND THE NEW ORDINANCE, BUT ACCORDING TO THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE, THE MR. WILLIAMS ELUCIDATED AND MAY NOT LIKE, OR MAY DISAGREE WITH, BUT IS THE LAW IN SOUTH CAROLINA, ONCE THEY ON MAY 25TH PUBLISH THE NOTICE OF AN INTENT TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 14TH AS OF MAY 25TH, THAT'S WHEN THE ORDINANCE, UH, WHAT BECAME OPERATIVE AS TO ANY APPLICATION AND THE LEANING.

ONE OF THE LEADING CASES, WHICH IS A BILLBOARD CASE CALLED COVENANT MEDIA, IT WAS A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THAT NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE PAPER TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT.

AND THEN TWO DAYS LATER, SOME APPLICATIONS CAME IN AND THE FEDERAL COURT SAID, NO, THAT THAT NEW ORDINANCE APPLIES, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.

THESE, THESE APPLICATIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO BE DENIED UNDER THE OLD ORDINANCE OR THE NEW ORDINANCE.

BUT IN THIS CASE, THEY WERE DENIED UNDER THE NEW ONE.

I ONLY, I ONLY SEEN ONE APPLICATION WITH OUR PACKAGE.

THAT'D BE SOME MORE GOING ON, JUST LOOKING AT THE ONE THAT SAW IT.

THERE WERE ONLY TWO.

AND I THINK IN WHAT OPPORTUNITY I SAID TO YOU BEFORE I DID THAT, YOU TOLD ME, OKAY.

AND IF I MAY APPROACH, UH, I KNOW THAT OFTENTIMES THE BODY WILL VOTE AT THIS JUNCTURE AND THEN THEY WILL TAKE A WRITTEN DECISION LATER.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS APPEAL, THAT THERE WAS REALLY NO FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS THAT WERE ASKED THAT THIS BODY WAS BEING ASKED TO MAKE.

I DID, UH, PREPARE A WRITTEN DECISION THAT BASICALLY LAYS OUT THE GROUNDS IF I COULD APPROACH AND GIVE THESE TWO.

I'LL GIVE YOU A COPY.

IT'S BASICALLY IDENTICAL TO THE LETTER, BASICALLY THE GRANDMA.

OH YEAH.

AS SOON AS YOU GET THERE.

UM, SO, SO AS THIS, DOES, THESE SEVEN BULLET POINTS ARE THE SEVEN GROUNDS AS MR. TIBBLES INDICATED, ARE THE GROUNDS LAID OUT FOR THE DENIAL OF EACH OF THE SIGNS? UM, IT SHOWS THAT THE HEARING WAS HELD ON TODAY'S DAY.

THE APPLICANT WAS PROVIDED NOTICE BY MAIL ON AUGUST FIVE, AND THEN THERE'S A SPOT TO PUT IN THE APPLICANT EITHER DID OR DIDN'T ATTEND THE HEARING OBVIOUSLY, UH, ADAMS DID ATTEND THIS HEARING AND THEY WERE REPRESENTED BY MR. TIBBLES.

SOMEONE COULD PUT THAT IN THERE.

AND THEN AFTER HEARING THE EVIDENCE OR REVIEWING THE RECORD, UM, THE ZBA FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE SIGNING PERMITS FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTERS.

AND SINCE WE THERE'S BEEN NO ARGUMENT ON ANY OF THESE SEVEN, IT WOULD BE LIKE A CHECK BOX OR CHECK ON EACH OF THESE SEVEN.

I WILL KNOW ONE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF MR. TIM WAS GOING TO LEAVE THIS UP.

THERE WAS ONE, UH, THERE'S A FOOTNOTE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

UM, AND AT THE HEARING, WE ARE WITHDRAWING THE GROUND FOR DENYING THE SIGN PERMIT PERTAIN TO, UM, 35 89 TRANS PARKWAY, THE SPECIFIC GROUND, ONE OF THE SEVEN POUNDS SEVEN, A, UH, WHICH REFERRED TO REQUIRING THE PROPERTY OWNERS NUMBER, BEING FALSELY ANSWERED BECAUSE THE PHONE NUMBER FOR ADAM'S OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER, WE WENT BACK AND WE LOOKED AT SOME FURTHER RECORDS, AND THAT IS THE ONLY PROPERTY THAT ADAMS ACTUALLY OWNS THE PROPERTY ALSO.

SO THAT SEVEN, A GROUND OF DENIAL IN THE 35 89 TRANS PARKWAY, UH, IS ON THAT GROUND IS BEING WITHDRAWN, UH, AT THIS TIME.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE WOULD JUST ASK THAT THIS BODY, UM, BASICALLY, UH, CHECK THOSE SEVEN BOXES AND, AND FILL THIS OUT FOR TODAY FOR THE WRITTEN DECISION THAT JUST SAVES THE HASSLE GOING BACK LATER AND PREPARING A WRITTEN DECISION BEYOND THAT.

I'LL GIVE ONE OF THESE.

WOULD ONLY SAY, UM, IN RESPONSE THAT, UM, I, IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME THAT THE, UH, GROUNDS WERE UNDER THE, UH, PENDING ORDINANCE.

[00:25:01]

AND, UM, I THINK THAT'S IMPROPER AND I WOULD INCORPORATE THAT A GROUND AS A GROUND FOR APPEAL, UH, TODAY, BECAUSE, UM, MR. WILLIAMS IS, YOU SAID, THIS IS, UH, UH, I KNOW THE CASE SHERMAN VERSUS REVIS.

I KNOW THE LAWYERS, WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO HE'LL READ FRANCIS SCALE? WELL, WE'RE SET OF LAWYERS FOR FOUR DECADES IN CHARLESTON.

AND, UM, AND THEY, UM, IT IS A FICTION THAT THE COURTS HAVE CREATED TO BASICALLY SAY IF YOU'VE GOT A SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE PENDING APPLICATIONS, UH, WELL THERE WHERE THERE'S A PENDING ORDINANCE AND APPLICATIONS ARE FILED PRIOR TO THIRD READING OR SECOND RATING OR WHATEVER, IT'S REQUIRED TO AN ACT THAT IT'S NOT VERY FAIR OR EQUITABLE TO SAY, UM, YOU CAN SNEAK IN RIGHT BEFORE THE LAW CHANGES.

AND HERE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE APPLICATIONS WERE PENDING BEFORE THE FIRST NOTICE EVEN STARTED THE PROCESS BEFORE THE FIRST PUBLIC NOTICE.

AND SO I THINK THERE'S TWO THINGS WRONG WITH THE, UM, WITH THE GROUNDS STATED IN EACH OF THE LETTERS ON THE 11 DENIALS.

NUMBER ONE IS A MISAPPLICATION OF THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE, BECAUSE UNTIL IT IS ACTUALLY ENACTED UNTIL IT BECOMES LAW, UNTIL IT RECEIVES THE PROCESS THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS AND THE COUNTY UNDERSTANDS HIS DUE PROCESS, THEN IT'S NOT LAW.

IT'S NOT LAW UNTIL IT'S AN ACT.

UH, WE, WE AGREED THAT THESE APPLICATIONS ARE OFF OF FREESTANDING SIGNS, I GUESS.

AND THEY ALL HAD A HEIGHT HIGHER THAN 10 FEET.

THEY ALL HAD A WIDTH OF MORE THAN 15 FEET.

SO THEY, THEY DON'T COMPLY THEM WITH THE EXISTING ORDINANCE.

THEY WOULD NOT HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE EXISTING ORDINANCE IN THOSE RESPECTS AND MENTAL AND LEGITIMATE GROUNDS TO DENY THE APPLICATION.

SO THAT WOULD BE, UM, POINTING OUT WHAT I BELIEVE IS A TECHNICAL ERROR IN THE DENIAL LETTERS.

RIGHT.

SO, ALL RIGHT.

UM, AND, AND, AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT, THAT JUST ALONG THOSE SAME LINES, THE APPLICATIONS WERE PENDING AT THE TIME THAT THE FIRST, UM, BEFORE THE FIRST PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE ORDINANCE CHANGE.

AND SO, BECAUSE THE APPLICATIONS WERE PENDING FIRST, THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE DOESN'T EVEN AGREED, BUT, BUT IF THEY DIDN'T, IF THE SIGNS DON'T COMPLY WITH THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE EXHIBIT OR THE EXISTING ORDINANCE, THEN THERE ISN'T THAT LEGITIMATE GROUNDS TO DIVIDE THE APPLICATION PROBLEMS ANYWAY.

ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURES OF THE CDC, UH, UNDER 7.3 0.70 C, UM, THE APPEAL IS, IS LIMITED TO THE APPEAL DOCUMENT THAT THEY SUPPLIED AND ANY ARGUMENT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY ADVANCED, THEY DID NOT ADVANCE THAT GROUND.

YOU CAN'T COME TO THE HEARING AND ADD A NEW GROUND TO YOUR APPEAL UNDER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODES.

SO TRYING TO ADD AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PENDING ORDINANCE IS JUST NOT A GROUNDS THAT YOU CAN ADD AT THE HEARING.

THE SECOND THING THAT I WOULD KNOW IS THAT THERE WAS NO PENDING APPLICATION.

THEY SUBMITTED SOME INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS, BUT THEY GOT A RESPONSE ON APRIL 27TH.

I BELIEVE FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, LAYING OUT ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE INCOMPLETE ABOUT THEIR APPLICATION.

SO THEN WHEN THE PUBLIC NOTICE WAS PRINTED IN THE PAPER ABOUT THE NEW ORDINANCE ON MAY, THE 25TH, IT WASN'T UNTIL AFTER THAT ON MAY THE 27TH FOR ONE, AND THEN JUNE, THE FIRST FOR THE REMAINING 10, THAT APPLICATIONS CAME IN THAT WERE ACTUALLY ULTIMATELY DENIED.

AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS, BY THE WAY, IF THERE ARE GROUNDS UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCE DENIED, WHY DO WE EVEN NEED TO GET TO THAT POINT? I JUST WANT TO CORRECT THE FACT THAT HE'S TRYING TO ARGUE THAT THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE THERE WERE PENDING APPLICATIONS.

NO, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAD RESOLVED THE INCOMPLETE APPLICATION.

SHE HAD SENT BACK 11 LETTERS AND SAYING TO EACH ONE, WHICH WAS INCOMPLETE.

AND THEN THE NEW APPLICATIONS THAT BASICALLY CAME IN IN JUNE 1ST, UH, WERE AFTER THE PENDING ORDINANCE ALREADY BEEN NOTICED IN THE PAPER.

SO I'M JUST CORRECTING THE FACTUAL FACTS, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.

SUBSEQUENTLY THEY WOULD BOTH BE DUE TO BE DENIED.

BEFORE VERSUS THE APPLE PIECE BEFORE IT'S THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE UPHOLD THE ADMINISTRATOR OR THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO DENY THESE APPLICATIONS ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE FREESTANDING SIGN DIMENSION REQUIREMENTS, CDC SECTION 5.6 0.1 TO ZERO.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE, UH, FROM ANYONE, FOR ANY OF THE, UH, APPLICANT, THE COUNTY? RIGHT.

WELL, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY FROM BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE COUNTY, UM, YEAH, THEY'RE BASED ON, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY, THE INFORMATION

[00:30:01]

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

MS. LEWIS HAS SECONDED ALL IN FAVOR OF DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR THE SIGNS.

UM, DID YOU PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HANDS ALL IN FAVOR? UM, YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN DENIED AND I'M QUITE SURE THE COUNTY WOULD, YOU KNOW, INSTRUCT YOU AND WAIT, WHAT YOU SHOULD DO FROM THIS POINT.