Sep 23, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals

[00:00:01]

CLOSED CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY BUFORD COUNTY.

UH, UM, AUDIO VIDEO.

ARE YOU GUYS

[CALL TO ORDER]

THAT'S A HIGH TECH, UH, AUDIO VIDEO SIGNAL WE HAVE HERE.

UM, THE TIME NOW IS FIVE O'CLOCK AND WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN OUR MEETING.

UH, MR. CHAD WILLIAMS IS ON THE WAY.

HOWEVER, I BELIEVE HE IS BACKED UP IN TRAFFIC, I GUESS, COMING FROM HILTON HEAD, OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE SO TWO ACCIDENT I'VE BEEN TOLD, SO HE SHOULD BE, UH, YOU KNOW, ARRIVING AT SOME TIME, HOPEFULLY HERE SHORTLY.

HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE A CORE AND IT IS OUR CUSTOMER

[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]

IF WE COULD ALL STAND FACE THE FLAG, WE'D HAVE TO MEET OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU.

[FOIA – PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, POSTED, AND DISTRIBUTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT]

THANK YOU.

UH, ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA.

CAN I GET SOMEONE TO MAKE AN ADOPTION OF THE

[ADOPTION OF AGENDA]

SO IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MADE AND SECOND ALL IN FAVOR, ALL THAT'S A ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES – June 24, 2021, August 26, 2021]

UH, WHAT ABOUT YOU? I WASN'T HERE FOR JUNE, SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN ADAPT THE JUNE TO AUGUST.

SO WE, YEAH, SHE WAS 26.

TELL YOU WHAT, WHY DON'T WE JUST PUSH THE MINUTES? OKAY.

TO THE END, CHAD IS HERE.

ARE YOU GOING TO MOVE

[Mr. Mark Haskett is appealing the decision of the Zoning & Development Administrator to not issue a Zoning Permit for a Home Business. The applicant’s request was to assemble ammunition under the Home Business provisions of the Community Development Code. The property is zoned C3 Neighborhood Mixed Use. (This item was rescheduled by Appellant from the last meeting) ]

SO THEREFORE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS MR. MARK HASAD IS APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR TO NOT ISSUE A ZONING PERMIT, UH, FOR YOUR HOME BUSINESS.

UH, MR. MARK HASKET, OR MR. FRED COON, UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

I'M FRED COON.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MARK PASKIN.

WHO'S SEATED BESIDE ME.

SHE'S LIKE THIS IT'S MUCH LOUDER THAN THE WAY I FEEL LIKE ABANDONED CHAIR.

THERE'S A BOARD.

I'M FRED COON LAWYER HERE, BUFORD.

AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MARK HASKET WHO SEATED BESIDE ME.

HE'S ASKED FOR A HOME BUSINESS LICENSE FOR HIS HOUSE HERE IN BUFORD COUNTY.

WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SOMETHING HE'S DOING ANYWAY.

HE TAKES RAW MATERIALS AND MAKES AMMUNITION, AND HE DOES THAT FOR HIS OWN USE.

HE'S BEEN DOING THAT FOR A LONG TIME.

AND WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS TURN THAT INTO A HOME BUSINESS AND TAKE IT TO LOCAL RETAILERS TO FOR SALE.

BUT HE'S BEEN DENIED THAT PERMIT, UM, FOR TWO REASONS.

UM, GIVE ME JUST WAIT, MR. CHAD IS HERE.

IF YOU DON'T MIND, I APOLOGIZE FOR MY TARDINESS WILLIAMS, HOW YOU DOING? OKAY.

IF YOU GIVE ME A CHANCE TO REPEAT MYSELF, JUST GOT STARTED.

THAT WAS COMPLETED, THAT HE HAS APPLIED FOR A HOME BUSINESS PERMIT TO SELL AMMUNITION, THAT HE DOES THIS ALREADY FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE USE.

AND HE WANTS TO HIS LOCAL PAWN SHOP GUN GUN SHOP IN BUFORD THAT WANTS HIM TO SUPPLY AMMUNITION TO THEM.

UH, HIS PERMIT WAS DENIED FOR TWO REASONS.

UM, I SPELLED THIS OUT IN MY APPEAL,

[00:05:01]

UH, BUT THIS USE, UH, WILL NOT ALTER THE APPEARANCE OF HIS RESIDENCE.

UH, HE WILL BE THE OPERATOR IN HIS HOUSE.

HE'S A SOLE EMPLOYEE IN HIS HOUSE.

UH, HE WILL NOT EMPLOY ANYBODY.

UH, THERE'LL BE NO TRAFFIC, NO SIGNS, NO ADVERTISING, NO NOTHING.

UH, SO THE CHARACTER, IT'S A HOME-BASED BUSINESS AS DEFINED IN THE CODE.

UM, IT ALSO QUALIFIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE.

IT'S IN ZONE C3 FOR THOSE BASICALLY SAME, SAME REASONS.

THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

NO CHANGE THE CHARACTER, THE HOUSE, NO EXTRA TRAFFIC, NO IN AND OUT, NO CUSTOMERS, NO NOTHING.

UH, UNLESS YOU'RE INSIDE THE HOUSE, WATCHING HIM, YOU'D NEVER KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT I BELIEVE HE QUALIFIES THERE.

THAT THE SECOND REASON IT WAS DENIED IS DECENT ABOVE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS A ZONING STANDARDS, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, AND ARE STRICT THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO RESIDENTIAL USES.

UM, NOW I'VE ATTACHED A NUMBER OF CASES CITED IN MY BRIEF, THIS GETS MORE OF A QUESTION OF A FALL, BUT BASICALLY THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT EVEN IF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS SAY SOMETHING LIKE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ONLY, OR ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS ONLY, OR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ONLY, OR RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COVENANTS UNLESS IT CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THAT STRUCTURE OR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO RESIDENTIAL.

AND THE COURTS HAVE LOOKED AT THE SAME FACTORS THAT QUITE FRANKLY ARE IN OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ALREADY.

DOES IT CHANGE EXTERNAL PARENTS? ARE THERE SIGNS OR THE CUSTOMERS, IS THERE EXTRA PARKING? ARE THERE OTHER EMPLOYEES? IS THERE ANY SORT OF, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS HOUSE AND STATE THAT OUT 24 7 WOULD, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A BUSINESS GOING ON INSIDE THERE, SO IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.

UH, THERE'S SOME CASES THAT I SEE THAT, UM, UH, MR. KEVIN HAS, HAS ATTACHED TO HIS BRIEF.

AND I THINK THOSE ARE VERY ILLUSTRATIVE OF WHAT I'M SAYING IT IN ONE, THE LADY WANTED TO A HAIRDRESSER SHOP.

THEY SAID, NO, CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE CUSTOMERS COMING IN AND OUT.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO ADVERTISE.

IT JUST DON'T COME IN AND OUT AND BE LIKE FRIENDS VISITING BASICALLY.

AND THE COURT SAID, NO, CAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE CUSTOMERS THAT DON'T HAVE THAT CHANGES THE NATURE, THE NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ANOTHER ONE THAT DOCTOR WANTED TO DO OFF OF A THING IN HIS HOUSE, HE WAS BUSINESS AGAIN, THE COURT SAID NO AGAIN, BECAUSE IF YOU THAT'LL CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PEOPLE WILL SEE PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT OF YOUR HOUSE.

UH, AND THEN FINALLY, SO I WANT TO DO A BREAD AND BED AND BREAKFAST, OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF A HOUSE TO A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT.

UH, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HE'S GOING TO BE DOING INSIDE THE HOUSE.

NO CUSTOMERS, NO ADVERTISING, NO CHANGE.

THOSE CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE ARE RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, QUALIFIES AS A HOME-BASED BUSINESS.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR, UH, GREG AND HIS LICENSE, SO HE CAN CARRY THIS ON IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO BE HERE TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFICS ABOUT WHAT HE'S DOING, WHAT HE PLANS.

UM, IF NOT THE TURTLE MR. MR. KEVIN IS CHOMPING AT THE BIT AND COME UP HERE.

ALRIGHT, MR. COON, I DID THAT.

I'M SORRY.

UH, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF HE'S ALREADY APPLIED FOR FFL TO SELL AMMUNITION.

SHE CAN ANSWER.

I HAVE, UH, MR. JOSH WHO WORKS WITH THE ATL HAS STATED THAT THE ONLY THING LEFT AS FAR AS THAT APPLICATION GOES, THAT EVERYTHING HAS GONE THROUGH.

AND THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVE LEFT TO GO THROUGH IS GET THE ZONING PERMIT BECAUSE, UH, ALTHOUGH THAT'S A FEDERAL, UH, LICENSE, UH, HE CAN'T SUPERSEDE ANY LOCAL JURISDICTION.

SO BASICALLY HE HAS TO ABIDE BY THE, UH, UH, THE ZONING OF THE, OF THE COUNTY THAT I'M IN.

AND THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

THERE IS ANOTHER LICENSE THAT HE HAS TO GET FROM ATF IN ORDER TO, TO DO THIS.

AND I'M GOING TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION.

I'M GOING TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION.

YOU'VE GOT ONE HECK OF A LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY IN CASE YOU GET A HOT LOAD OR SOMETHING.

AND HOW ABOUT STORAGE OR THE, UH, GUNPOWDER.

UH, THERE ARE, UH, REGULATIONS THAT I HAVE TO MEET AS FAR AS HOW IT'S STORED IN RELATION TO CERTAIN ELEMENTS.

THEY CAN'T BE, YOU KNOW, UH, DEPENDING UPON HOW MUCH I HAVE ON HAND, WHICH I DON'T PLAN ON HAVING MUCH, THIS IS ONLY, IT'S A SUPERSEDE AND THEY ARE NOT SUPERSEDE, BUT SUPPLEMENTS, UM, MY RETIREMENT INCOME ON OUR CAR FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

AND IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO DO.

SO I DON'T PLAN ON ANY LARGE SCALE MANUFACTURING.

I'M NOT TRYING TO COMPETE WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE, THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES.

I'M

[00:10:01]

WHEN I RETIRE.

YOU DON'T HAVE A LINE.

YOU DON'T HAVE A LINEMAN REVOLUTION THAT DOES 3,500 ROUNDS.

A NO, SIR.

NO, SIR.

WHAT YOU SAID, BUT NOW IT DOES PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THE VOLUME YOU CAN DO.

AND OF COURSE THERE ARE NUMEROUS SAFETY THINGS YES.

FROM LAB TO GET THEIR LICENSE, THEIR PERFECT.

OH, THAT SORT OF FLIES IN, WHERE WOULD YOU BE DOING THIS? WHAT SPACE? UH, AND, AND BASICALLY A BEDROOM IN MY HOUSE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE SPECIAL INSULATION OR NO, MA'AM IT BASICALLY THE MACHINE TO DO THIS IS ABOUT THE SIZE OF A SEWING MACHINE.

IT'S, IT'S VERY SMALL, IT'S HAND OPERATED IT.

LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT TRYING TO COMPETE.

I'M NOT TRYING TO TURN THIS INTO AN INDUSTRIAL, YOU KNOW, ARE THESE LIKE THE ONES JUST FOR LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE PHYSICAL AMMUNITION, I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE ANTI-TANK GUNS OR HURT ANY LARGE CALIBER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S JUST, UH, JUST BASICALLY THIS LAND MUNITION.

CAN YOU SAY YOU ARE CURRENTLY DOING IT NOW? ASSEMBLING? YES.

I'VE, UH, I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS TO SUPPLEMENT.

I ENJOY GOING TO THE SHOOTING RANGE MYSELF.

SO I, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN MAKING MY OWN AMMUNITION FOR A LONG TIME, A LONG TIME.

SO I'M, I'M ASSUMING IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT AT THE RESIDENCE.

YES, SIR.

IT IS ADDRESSED AND HAVE PERSONALLY, BUT THAT'S FROM MY PERSONAL VISUAL EXCHANGES NOW.

SO HOW MUCH VOLUME DO YOU EXPECT? OH, A COUPLE OF THOUSAND ROUNDS A MONTH.

HOW MUCH? WEIGHT-WISE AND FEM POWERS? UH, FIVE POUNDS.

I MEAN, IT'S LITERALLY NOTHING.

SO I'M QUITE SURE YOU WERE, YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU ARE, UH, PRIOR TO PURCHASING THAT PROPERTY, YOU WAS AWARE OF THE COVENANTS OF THAT, UH, ASHLEY AT THAT TIME, NOW YOU WASN'T AWARE OF IT.

OKAY.

SO THEY WERE RECORDED IN PARIS.

THEY WERE RECORDED AT THE COURTHOUSE.

YEAH, IT WAS.

IT'S A CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COVENANT CETERA IN DEED BOOK 9, 6 2 AT PAGE 3 73.

THAT'S TWO WORDS JUST IN MY APPEAL.

YOU'LL SEE A REFERENCE, ANOTHER SET.

THAT WAS A SUBSECTION TO WHAT I WAS DENIED LATER.

THAT THAT WAS THE CORRECT SITE, BUT SAME, SAME RESTRICTIONS SOURCES.

UM, ONE QUESTION FOR MR. .

THANK YOU, MR. COLEMAN, HEAR FROM THE COUNTY.

THANK YOU.

AND I FIND OURSELVES ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF AN ISSUE.

WE'VE BEEN, I'VE DONE THAT FOR THE LAST 35 YEARS.

WE'LL DO IT AGAIN TONIGHT, TOO.

I'M HONORED BY THE CALL.

YOUR LIKEWISE, UM, I HAVE PROVIDED EACH OF YOU A BOOK, UM, OF THE MATERIALS THAT I JUST WANT TO WALK THROUGH.

UM, THE FIRST ONE IS THE ZONING.

THE PINE TAB ONE IS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION, AND THIS IS WHAT IS BEING APPEALED.

UM, AND THAT IS, AND THE THREE POINTS HAVE BEEN HYPED WITH THE TWO POINTS HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED FOR YOU.

UM, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS BUSINESS, UM, DOES FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A HOME BUSINESS OR A HOME OFFICE AS MR. KENNEY JUST INDICATED.

WE THINK IT IS INDUSTRIAL.

IT'S NOT A HOME OFFICE OR HOME BUSINESS.

NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO IS THE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS DON'T ALLOW IT.

SO I'M GOING TO GO OVER EACH ONE WITH YOU.

UM, TATTOO JUST TALKS ABOUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

UM, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPELLANT BY CLEARANCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE DECISION MAKER MADE AN ERROR IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE STANDARD WAS OR WASN'T MET.

UM, UM, AND THEN THE OTHER TWO PROVISIONS ARE THERE AS WELL.

UH, I THINK THE EASY, THE FIRST PLACE TO START IS WITH A TAB THREE.

UM, THE BRIEF THAT MR. COON FILED, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO ANY FURTHER THAN THE FIRST TWO PAGES.

UM, REALLY, I THINK IT'S A STARTING POINT.

NUMBER ONE, HE ADMITS THAT THE PROPERTY IS ZONED TO C3.

UM, AND WHICH IS A NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE ZONING.

AND WITHIN

[00:15:01]

UM, IF YOU GO TO, UH, TAB FOUR, I HAVE PRODUCED FOR YOU, A COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED.

YOU STAY PULL THAT OUT.

TWO PAGES REALLY ARE.

WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT FIRST PAGE IS, UM, LINE NINE AND 10 UNDER RESIDENTIAL HOME OFFICE, HOME BUSINESS.

FOLLOW THAT OUT TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, WHERE YOU SEE C3, IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE.

SO IT CAN BE USED WITH CONDITIONS.

IF YOU GO TO THE SECOND PAGE LIKE PILOT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT INDUSTRIAL, YOU SEE MANUFACTURING PROCESSING AND PACKAGING LIGHT LESS THAN 1500, 15,000 SQUARE FEET.

FOLLOW THAT UP TO C3.

AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THAT IS JUST SIMPLY NOT PERMITTED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO MR. KEVIN, YOUR WINDOW, WE'RE NOT HERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL USE IS WE'RE HERE TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER IT'S A HOMEOWNER.

THANK YOU.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE, UH, TAB FIVE, YOU LOOK TO HOME OFFICE, UH, UNDER THE LAND USE DEFINITIONS.

CAN WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ASSEMBLING AMMUNITION IN ONE'S RESIDENCE QUALIFIES AS A HOME OFFICE OR A HOME BUSINESS HOME OFFICE IS AN OFFICE USE.

THAT'S CARRIED OUT FOR GAIN A HOME BUSINESS IS AN OFFICE OR A SERVICE THAT IS BY DEFINITION IN THE CODE ITSELF.

IF YOU LOOK AT BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, WHICH IS WHAT LAWYERS LOOK AT FREQUENTLY IN THE SUPREME COURT SITES FREQUENTLY, AN OFFICE IS A PLACE WHERE THE REGULAR TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS OR THE PERFORMANCE OF A PARTICULAR SERVICE.

THIS IS NEITHER, UH, A TRANSACTION OF A BUSINESS OR A PARTICULAR SERVICE.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT MERRIAM WEBSTER'S, A HOME OFFICE IS DEFINED AS A ROOM IN A PERSON'S HOUSE WHERE HE OR SHE DOES OFFICE WORK.

THIS IS NOT OFFICE WORK.

AND THE MANUFACTURING DEFINITION IS ON THE NEXT PAGE.

I WON'T GO OVER IT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

TAKE THAT BACK.

I WILL GO OVER IT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT.

THE DEFINITION OF MANUFACTURING IS ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY, FABRICATION, AND CONVERSION OF PROCESSED RAW MATERIALS INTO PRODUCTS.

AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MR. PUENTE AND MR. HASFORD SAID THAT MR. HASKER IS GOING TO DO PROCESS FOR ALL MATERIALS INTO A FINISHED PRODUCT.

SO IT IS INDUSTRIAL.

IT'S NOT A HOME OFFICE OR HOME USE.

AND AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE BRIEF, JUST BEHIND TAB SIX, WE'RE REFERRING TO ASSEMBLING AMMUNITION AND IS ACCORDING TO MR. COON HIMSELF.

SO MR. HASKER MR. COONS RELIANCE ON DIVISION 4.2 0.8, OH IS REALLY MISPLACED ASSEMBLING OF ALMOST ANYTHING, INCLUDING FOOD, WHICH IS FOR SALE IS CLASSIFIED AS MANUFACTURING BY DEFINITION IN TABLE 3.1 0.70.

AND THERE YOU SEE IT IN 3.1 0.70.

YOU GO DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT DEFINITION, EXAMPLES OF LIGHT MANUFACTURING INCLUDE CRAFT, PRODUCT MANUFACTURING, CLOTHING, AND FABRIC, PRODUCT MANUFACTURING, CABINET SHOPS, MEDIA PRINTING, AND PUBLISHING EVEN FOOD, FOOD, PREPARATION, WINERIES, AND MICRO GROUPS.

SO BY DEFINITION, WHAT HE WANTS TO DO UNDER OUR CODE IS INDUSTRIOUS AND DIVISION FOR SUBDIVISION FOR A PARTICULAR 4.2 0.0, DOESN'T DEFINE THE USES.

AS THEY'RE ASSIGNED TO ZONES, IT SEEKS TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION IN IDENTIFICATION OF THE KINDS OF OFFICES AND SERVICES, WHICH ARE PROHIBITED, BUT THE LIST ISN'T EXHAUSTIVE, IT'S NOT EXHAUSTIVE AT ALL.

UM, MANUFACTURING ISN'T LISTED IN THAT, IN THAT AREA.

UM, AND OTHER USERS AREN'T EITHER.

SO, UM, IN FACT, THE USES THAT ARE SET FORTH IN 3.1 0.70, AREN'T REPEATED IN 4.4 0.2 0.90 AS PROHIBITED.

THEY JUST DON'T FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION.

SO THAT'S UNDER THE CDC, BUT EVEN IF YOU GET BEYOND THE CDC AND YOU GO TO YOU GO TO, UH, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, RESTRICTED COVENANTS, DON'T ALLOW IT EITHER.

UM, HINE TAB SEVEN IS OF THE PLAT.

AND I THINK THAT FRED HAS NOW READ THAT, UM, THE PROPERTY THAT MR. HASKINS PROPERTY IS COVERED BY COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS.

HIS BRIEF INITIALLY INDICATED THAT HE DIDN'T BELIEVE IT IS.

BUT, UM, I THINK NOW HE IS READY TO STIPULATE THAT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, UM, DO APPLY.

AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT TAB EIGHT, YOU'LL

[00:20:01]

THE FIRST SET, WELL, SEVERAL SECTIONS, BUT THE FIRST SECTION JUST IDENTIFIES THE PROPERTIES TO WHICH THE RESTRICTIONS APPLY.

THIS LOT IS NUMBER, I THINK NUMBER 72.

AND CLEARLY IT IS WITHIN, UM, LOTS 52 AND 91.

SO IT APPLIES.

NUMBER ONE SAYS THE LOTS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF IRON GATE SHALL CONSTITUTE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT PURPOSES ONLY.

AND THEN IF YOU GO TO NUMBER 16, THERE'S A SECTION THAT SAYS THERE SHALL BE NO BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CONDUCTED ON ANY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREAS.

SO WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE TWO PROVISIONS PROHIBITED MR. COON REFERRED TO SOME OF THE CASES THAT I PROVIDED YOU GUYS WITH COPIES OF IN HIS BRIEF, I THINK HE CITES ABOUT 56 CASES OVER THE COURSE OF ABOUT THREE PAGES.

I DIDN'T LOOK AT ALL 56 CASES, BUT I DID LOOK AT THE THREE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.

THE FIRST ONE IS CAUTHERIN VERSUS STROMAN.

AND THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THAT CASE ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF THE BUSINESS, WHETHER THE IMPINGEMENT OF THERE'LL BE CARS THERE, WHETHER THERE'LL BE CUSTOMERS THERE, THERE'S NO DISCUSSION OF ANY KIND LIKE THAT, THAT PARTICULAR CASE, UM, WAS THAT FLORENCE, IT INVOLVED A HAIRDRESSER.

I BELIEVE THE RESIDENCE FILED AN ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO ESTABLISHED A HAIRDRESSING FACILITY.

THERE WERE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH READ NO LOT SHALL BE USED EXCEPT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.

UH, LET'S SEE, THE TRIAL JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT THE RESTRICTION SHOULDN'T BE INTERPRETED TO PROHIBIT THE ACTIVITY THAT THE OWNERS WERE PUTTING THE PROPERTY TO.

HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT COURT, THE SUPREME COURT DISAGREED AND HELD THAT IN THEIR OPINION, A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, WHICH COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CLEARLY VIOLATES THE PLAIN AND OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE COVENANTS AND IT'S PROHIBITED.

SO THAT'S FLORENCE CASE, THE MYRTLE BEACH CASE INVOLVED A DOCTOR.

AND IN THAT CASE, THERE WERE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.

UH, ONCE AGAIN, SEE THE PROPERTY SHALL BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ONLY.

THAT'S AT THE VERY TOP OF THE SECOND COLUMN ON THE FIRST PAGE IN QUOTES.

WELL, THE DOCTOR WAS USING HIS HOUSE FOR A HOME OFFICE FOR PHYSICIAN'S OFFICE.

AND THE COURT HELD THAT IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE COVENANTS COURT.

DIDN'T SAY, WELL, HE'S GOT CUSTOMERS THERE.

HE'S GOT CARS.

THERE APPEARS TO BE MORE THAN A HOUSE.

HE DIDN'T SAY THAT.

IT SAID THE COURT SAID IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE COVENANTS.

AND SO IT WAS BANNED.

IT COULDN'T BE DONE.

AND THE THIRD CASE IS ACTUALLY BROUGHT BY A NOW DECEASED US DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OF SOME THING IN CHARLESTON, JUDGE HOWELL WHO OWNED A CONDO AND A SECTION OF A HOUSE ON A LARGE HOUSE ON EAST BAY STREET, DOWNTOWN CHARLESTON ON HIGH BATTERY.

AND HE BROUGHT A LAWSUIT AGAINST ONE OF HIS OTHER CONDO OWNERS WHO WAS USING THEIR PLACE AS A BREAD AND BREAD AS A BED AND BREAKFAST PLACE.

IT VIOLATED THE MASTER CUP, THE MASTER A DEED, WHICH SAYS EACH DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE OCCUPIED AND USED BY RESPECTIVE OWNERS ONLY AS PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS FOR THE OWNER, HIS FAMILY, HIS SERVANTS, TENANTS, AND SOCIAL GUESTS, AND NO OTHER PURPOSE.

AND THE BYLAWS HAD A RESTRICTION IN, IT SAID, DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE USED ONLY AS RESIDENCES.

WELL, THIS OTHER OWNER WAS USING HER PLACE AS A BED AND BREAKFAST.

AND THE COURT HELD THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE CUSTOMERS WERE NOT SOCIAL GUESTS AND THEY WEREN'T TENANTS.

AND THAT RIVER'S USE OF THE PROPERTY CLEARLY VIOLATED THE MASTER DEED AND THE BYLAWS.

SO THERE'S NO DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IT APPEARS, NO DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW MANY CARS WERE THERE, NO DISCUSSION OF ANY KIND OF THAT TIME WHATSOEVER.

SO IT DOESN'T SUPPORT A MR. COON'S CONTENTION.

IN FACT, EVERY ALL THREE CASES THAT HE CITES FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, UM, SUPPORT OUR, OUR CON OUR PROPOSITION, WHICH IS THAT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS DON'T ALLOW THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY IN THIS PRO IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THAT'S OUR POSITION.

THANK YOU, SIR.

ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNTY? I DO.

WE'LL PUT MR. KEVIN AGAIN.

IF, IF THE PROPOSED USE HERE IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE CDC, WHY ISN'T IT LISTED IN THE LIST OF PROHIBITED USES? IS IT NOT LISTED, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S NOT BY DEFINITION PERMITTED.

THERE ARE LOTS OF USES THAT AREN'T, THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED IN

[00:25:01]

I MEAN, IF THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED AS HOME OCCUPATIONS, WHY INCLUDED A LIST OF PROHIBITED USES IF IT'S NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST, BECAUSE YOU GOT TO REMEMBER WHAT THE LATIN TERM IS, BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LIST SPECIFICALLY LISTS ARE FAKES BEING PROHIBITED AND THEN THE LAW ASSUMES THAT ANYTHING ELSE IS NOT PROHIBITED.

I DON'T THINK THAT I DON'T THINK THAT COUNTY COUNCIL COULD POSSIBLY LIST EVERY POSSIBLE NON PERMISSIBLE USE.

AND I AGREE THAT THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT, BUT YOU'VE STARTED DOWN THAT PATH HERE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE FOR A PROPERTY OWNER TO ASSUME THAT IF THEIR USE ISN'T LISTED IN THE PROHIBITED USES, THEN IT IS NOT PROHIBITED.

WELL, IT MAY NOT BE UNREASONABLE FOR THEM TO ASSUME THAT, WHICH IS WHY THEY COME TO THE ZONING OFFICE AND GET A PERMIT TO DO IT.

UM, AND THAT'S WHY, AND THAT'S WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.

I MEAN, I GO BACK TO THE DEFINITION OF A HOME OFFICE AND A HOME BUSINESS.

I UNDERSTAND, UH, I THINK THERE'S A, I THINK THERE WAS SOME, SOME DISCREPANCY BETWEEN 3.1 POINT 70 AND 4.2, AND MAYBE WHAT THE STAFF NEEDS TO DO IS TAKE A LOOK AT RECONCILING SOME OF THOSE SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THESE SORTS OF ISSUES.

YOU BRING UP A VERY GOOD POINT THAT I HAVE RAISED WITH THE STAFF MANY TIMES.

AND THAT IS WHEN WE COME ACROSS ISSUES LIKE THIS.

AND WE COME ACROSS THEM ON A DAILY BASIS THAT WE START A RUNNING TALLY OF ISSUES WITH THE CDC THAT WE ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF STAFF AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BOARD AS WELL.

AND THEY, THEY AREN'T NECESSARILY MAJOR CHANGES THAT HAVE TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY.

UM, LIKE MORE MAJOR CHANGES THAT WE BRING BEFORE COUNTY COUNCIL FOR CHANGES TO THE CDC, BUT THERE ARE FINE TUNING OF THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE.

AND I THINK MS. AUSTIN AND MR. MERCHANT HAVE STARTED THIS LIST TO THAT VERY POINT.

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

AND JUST BRING IT TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL SEMI-ANNUALLY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

EXACTLY, EXACTLY WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE OTHER DAY, BRING FORTH THE LIST LIKE EVERY SIX MONTHS OR ONCE A YEAR, DEPENDING ON HOW LAUNCHED THE LIST IS AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR WE WENT INTO THESE ISSUES AND WE NEED TO FIND TUNE, WE NEED TO TWEAK THE CDC IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS.

SO I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. WILLIAMS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DO, RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

WELL, WE'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE COUNTY.

UM, I GUESS WE ARE TO THE POINT WHERE I GUESS WE NEED TO, UH, MAKE A DECISION ON, ON THIS APPLICATION.

RATHER IT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF, UH, OF A BUSINESS IN THAT AREA OR NOT TO DENY OR TO ACCEPT THIS APPLICANT.

UM, CAN I GET SOMEONE TO PUT UP A MOTION ON THE FLOOR? WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D MOVED THAT WE UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION ON THE BASIS THAT THE PROPOSED USE DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CDC AND VIOLATES THE APPLICABLE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.

OKAY.

THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND IT'S BEEN SECOND ALL IN FAVOR OF UPHOLDING THE COUNTY AND DENYING THIS APPLICATION.

CAN YOU SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND? SO ALL IN FAVOR.

SO THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN DENIED AND, UH, YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE COUNTY AND FOLLOW PROCEDURES FROM THERE.

[Mr. Thomas O’Brien is appealing the decision of the Zoning & Development Administrator to not render a Grandfathered Rights Determination in his favor to operate a Vehicle Rental Use for the property located at 180 Savannah Highway. The property is zoned T4 Hamlet Center. (T4HC)]

THANK YOU, SIR.

UM, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, NEXT ON THE AGENDA.

UH, MR. THOMAS O'BRYAN IS APPEALING.

THE DECISION OF THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR DID NOT RENDER A GRANDFATHER TO RIGHT, HIS DETERMINATION AND HIS FAVOR TO OPERATE A VEHICLE RENTAL.

USE THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON 180, UH, SAVANNAH HIGHWAY.

GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

I HOPE YOU ALL ARE DOING WELL TODAY WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON.

SO I RECOGNIZE ONE PERSON UP THERE.

I DON'T RECOGNIZE ANY OF THE REST OF YOU.

FIRST TIME.

WE'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON MYSELF.

MY NAME'S TOMMY ORION.

I'M A NATIVE OF BUFORD COUNTY.

I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE.

I'M 65 YEARS OLD.

I'VE OWNED BUSINESSES IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF PORT ROYAL LAND IN THE COUNTY SINCE 1980.

AND I STILL

[00:30:01]

NOW THIS HAS TO DO WITH A NUMBER OF THINGS, AND MY POSITION IS AS FOLLOWS.

MY PROPERTY IS GRANDFATHER.

I BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY IN 1982 OR 83, AND I HAVE USED THAT PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL USES IN THE PAST AND HAD PERMITS.

BUT THIS COUNTY COMMERCIAL USERS, MR. LEBRON, UH, I HAD A GO-KART TRACK AND A BMX BICYCLE TRACK.

AND THEN I CONVERTED TO A CAMP BROWN AND I HAD A CAMPGROUND FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

I ENDED UP SELLING EIGHT ACRES OF THE PROPERTY AND RETAIN ABOUT AN ACRE AND HOT.

THE PROPERTY WAS SPLIT BY THE HIGHWAY BEFORE I EVER BOUGHT IT.

AND THAT THE TIME I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THIS IS THE BOOK THAT CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT IN BUFORD COUNTY.

THIS IS IT, THERE WAS NO ZONING.

THIS HAS A PAGE IN IT THAT YOU BASICALLY PHOTOCOPIED.

AND IT HAD A LIST OF REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU HAD TO PRODUCE TO THE COUNTY.

AND I BELIEVE, UM, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THEY CALLED THAT BOARD.

IT WAS LIKE A PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND I CAN TELL YOU, I REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY THAT RETIRED ARMY GENERAL REDLING WAS IN CHARGE OF THAT.

AND THEY VERY, VERY, VERY SELDOM EVER TURNED ANYTHING DOWN, OR THEY WOULD TELL YOU, OKAY, BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, YOU HAVE TO APPLY FOR PUD, WHICH THEN PEOPLE WOULD DO.

AND THE PDS WERE MOSTLY FOR RESIDENTIAL OR LARGE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, NOT SMALL BUSINESSES.

SO EVERYTHING I'VE EVER DONE HAS BEEN A SMALL BUSINESS.

AND EVERY TIME YOU COME INTO THIS COUNTY OFFICE, YOU GET A DIFFERENT ANSWER FROM A DIFFERENT PERSON ON A DIFFERENT DAY.

JUST AS I HAVE A PAGE HERE THAT WAS SENT TO ME, AND IT SAYS THAT MY MANDATORY, MANDATORY DATE OF SUBMISSION IS SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2021.

YET I HAVE OTHER PROPERTIES OR OTHER PAPERS THAT SAID I HAVE TO HAVE IT DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER.

AND I RECEIVED THIS LETTER, UH, AUGUST 18TH.

SO THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN ME TILL SEPTEMBER 18TH.

AND THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT GOES ON WITH PROPERTY FOR SOME BUFORD COUNTY.

I MUST POINT OUT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

MY POSITION IS MY PROPERTY IS GRANDFATHERED.

I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THIS PROPERTY, AS I WISHED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, EVERYTHING ALONG THAT HIGHWAY IS PREDOMINANTLY COMMERCIAL AND HAS BEEN BAKED SITE, THE VISION 4.3 0.80 TABLES, 4.3 0.208.

WELL, THAT WOULD BE WELL AND GOOD IF MY PROPERTY FELL UNDER THIS, BUT IT DOESN'T, IT FALLS UNDER THIS WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT A CORRECT STATE.

UH YOU'RE YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE CURRENT.

NO, I AM NOT.

I AM GRANDFATHER.

AND I'M GOING TO POINT OUT ONE CASE IN PARTICULAR THAT'S LUCAS VERSUS SOUTH CAROLINA COAST COUNCIL.

THIS GENTLEMAN BOUGHT TWO LOTS AT THE OLIVE PUMPS.

THAT CASE DEALS WITH, WITH THE DEPRIVATION OF ALL ECONOMICALLY VIABLE PROFIT, WHAT IT SAYS, YOU CAN'T USE YOUR PROPERTY FOR ANYTHING.

THEN THAT'S A PHYSICAL TAKING THAT IS ANYTIME THAT YOU LIMIT SOMEBODIES USE ON THEIR PROPERTY, THAT THEY HAD AN EXPECTATION THAT DOES FALL UNDER, UH, TAKING THEM PROPERTY, SIR.

YEAH.

I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THAT IS FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, BUT CATEGORICALLY INCORRECT STATE.

UH, NO, SIR, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THE COURTS AGREED WITH MR. LUCAS, THAT HE HAD TO BE PAID FOR HIS PROPERTY AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UPHELD IT.

CORRECT.

AND NOW THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED.

I THINK IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, HE SOLD IT AND IT ENDED UP GETTING, AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS, IS THE STATE BOUGHT IT FROM HIM AND THEN THE STATE TURNED AROUND AND SOLD AS TO RECOUP THEIR MONEY.

AND NOW THERE ARE TWO HOUSES ON THERE THAT WERE ORIGINALLY THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED TO DO.

NOW.

THERE'S ALSO OTHER REMEDIES THAT MR. GREENWAY, WHO IS NOW THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, AND AT THAT TIME HE WAS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, OR HE DID WHAT MR. MERCHANT DOES.

[00:35:01]

I'M JUST GOING TO GET THE COUNTY COUNCIL TO ADD, TO USE.

WELL, I NEVER HEARD ANOTHER WORD SINCE THEN.

OKAY.

SO I'D GO ON MY MERRY WAY.

NOW SOMEONE REMEDIES, BECAUSE THIS IS OLD PROPERTY THAT I HAD AN EXPECTATION OF USE AT ANY TIME LATER IN MY LIFETIME, AS LONG AS I OWNED THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTIES ADDRESS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WAS WHEN I BOUGHT IT 180 SAVANNAH HIGHWAY THAT HAS NOT CHANGED THE COUNTY AND THEIR ZONING.

THEY NEVER NOTIFIED ME THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PUT A ZONING RESTRICTION OR SOME TYPE OF ZONING ON MY PROPERTY THAT WAS GOING TO RESTRICT USES.

THEY NEVER NOTIFIED ME.

THAT'S A VIOLATION.

WE FOUND THAT OUT.

WHEN WE FOUGHT THE OAKS BROAD RIVER DEVELOPMENT, YOU MUST BE NOTIFIED.

WELL, THEY NEVER NOTIFIED ME.

THEY APPARENTLY CHANGED THE ZONING AGAIN.

THEY NEVER NOTIFIED ME.

SO I'M GOING LONG.

HEY, I CAN, MY PROPERTY HAS BEEN MY PROPERTY AND I CAN DO WHAT I WANT BY THE OLD ZONING STANDARDS THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME.

THERE'S NO RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ON THE PROPERTY, ZERO NONE.

SO ONE OF THE REMEDIES IS THEY CAN GRANT A ZONING VARIANCE TO ALLOW OWNERS TO HAVE, UM, A VARIANCE OF USE.

IT IS A NON-CONFORMING USE.

OKAY.

IT ALSO, AND THIS IS LAW, SIR.

W W WHAT ARE YOU READING RIGHT NOW? MR. O'BRIEN DOES THE ACCOUNT CODE PROHIBITS USE AREA INCHES YOU WANT NOW OUR COUNTY CODE PROHIBITS USE VARIANCES.

WELL, THAT MAY BE WRONG TOO.

SO THERE ARE, THERE ARE THINGS THAT THE ZONING DEPARTMENT CAN DO TO ALLOW ME TO USE IS I WANT TO USE ON MY GRANDFATHER PROPERTY.

THEY MAY NOT WANT TO DO IT, BUT THEY CAN DO IT.

ANOTHER IS TO GET THE COUNTY COUNCIL TO CHANGE THE ZONING, TO ALLOW THE USE.

NOW, THE USE IN QUESTION, WHEN YOU APPLY FOR NOT YET, I'M GOING THROUGH THIS FIRST.

THERE'S ANOTHER THING THAT CAN BE DONE.

WELL, I CAN DO WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOES.

GOES UP ZONING, SHOPPING TO POOR ROW.

I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, BUT IF I HAVE TO, I WILL NOW LET ME TELL YOU THE USE THAT THEY WANT TO PROHIBIT.

THEY WANT TO PROHIBIT ME FROM RENTING.

YOU HAUL TRUCKS AND YOU HAUL TRAILERS.

YOU ALL, AS A FIRST RESPONDER, WHEN HURRICANE MATTHEW AND IRMA CAME THROUGH HERE, WE ARE DESIGNATED BY THE UNITED STATES.

AS A FIRST RESPONDER, WE GET, UM, A FORM EMAIL TO US THAT WE PRINT OFF.

AND WE PUT ON THE DASHBOARD OF OUR TRUCKS THAT WE RENT AND OR SOMEBODY THAT RENTS A TRAILER OR OUR OWN TRUCKS THAT WE USE TO GO AROUND AND MOVE TRAILERS, MOVE TRUCKS, OR DO SERVICE.

WHEN THE TORNADO HIT EASTER SUNDAY AND HAMPTON COUNTY AND DEVASTATED A ONE MILE WIDE SWATH FROM BASICALLY THE EDGE OF JASPER COUNTY, ALL THE WAY INTO COLLINGTON COUNTY.

WE WERE FIRST RESPONDERS TO THAT INCIDENT.

I, MYSELF EVEN WENT OVER THERE WITH MY PERSONAL EQUIPMENT TO HELP CLEAN UP THAT AREA.

ALSO Y'ALL ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE KEY.

THIS COUNTY IS SUPPOSED TO BE GREEN CORPS, MILITARY FRIENDS, ABOUT 85% OF WHAT I DO IS FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL, EITHER COMING INTO BUFORD TO THE BASIS OR LEAVING BUFORD COUNTY TO GO TO OTHER BASIS.

SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THEM AT A DISADVANTAGE.

BLUFFTON AND HILTON HEAD LOCATIONS WILL NOT TAKE THE TRAILER.

SO IF I'M NOT GIVEN A VANCE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYWHERE TO TAKE A TRAILER BECAUSE I'M THE ONLY PLACE YOU HAUL BUSINESS.

NOW, MR. GREENWAY FIXED IT ON THE PROPERTY.

YOU SHALL OPERATE SOMEPLACE ELSE BEFORE THAT.

OH YEAH, I DID JUST DOWN ROAD.

AND THEN YOU MOVE THE SAME PROPERTY THAT I OWN THERE, BUT YOU, THEN YOU MOVE THAT BUSINESS WITHOUT GETTING THE ZONING PERMIT.

THEY TOLD ME THEY WERE GOING TO GET ME HIS OWN APARTMENT.

MR. GREENWAY TOLD ME HE WAS GOING TO GET ME HIS OWN A PERMIT.

I'VE BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY.

AND THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

NOW THE SAME PROPERTY THAT I USED TO HAVE IT ON FALLS UNDER THE SAME TYPE OF GRANDFATHERING.

WHERE'S THAT PROPERTY? A 1 48 SAVANNAH HIGHWAY.

AND YOU HAD A, YOU HALL HAD YOU ALL THERE.

I'M GOING TO, SO WHAT MAKES YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE GRANDFATHERED? AND I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THAT AROUND, OR CAUSE YOU MENTIONED THAT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, WHEN I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, THERE WAS NO ZONING, RIGHT? ZERO ZILCH.

SO BY TELLING ME I CAN'T DO SOME COMMERCIAL BUSINESS ON THAT PROPERTY THAT I WAS ALLOWED TO DO WHEN I BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY

[00:40:02]

IT'S GRANDFATHER.

THAT'S A CATEGORICALLY INCORRECT SAY, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT, SIR.

I'M SORRY.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

AND I ACTUALLY, I SENT IT ALL IN.

Y'ALL HAVE A BUNCH OF PACKETS.

UM, ALONG THAT HIGHWAY, THERE'S TWO AUTO REPAIR SHOPS.

THERE'S A BODY SHOP.

THERE'S AN AUTO TRIM SHOP.

THERE'S A MOTORCYCLE SALES AND REPAIR SHOP.

THERE'S A TREE COMPANY.

THERE'S A POOL SERVICE AND INSTALLATION COMPANY.

THERE'S ACTUALLY PROBABLY ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN CHURCHES ALONG THAT HIGHWAY.

THERE'S A TATTOO SHOP.

THERE'S THREE GAS STATIONS.

THERE'S A SHOPPING CENTER.

THERE'S ONE SCHOOL.

THERE'S A NECK FISHING SUPPLY STORE.

THERE'S TWO STORAGE WAREHOUSES.

THERE'S ONE MOBILE HOME AND CAMPER BUSINESS.

THERE'S TWO APARTMENT COMPLEX.

THERE'S AN ASPHALT COMPANY AND TWO TALL COMPANIES.

NOW IT ALSO STATES IN THIS WALL THAT WHEN YOU ZONE A PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT IT REMOVES, USES THAT SURROUND IT.

IT'S ALSO A TAKINGS.

SO ALL THESE USES ARE ALL AROUND ME.

AND SO BY NOT ALLOWING ME TO DO THIS IS THE TAKINGS OF MY PROPERTY.

YOU CANNOT HOLD A POSITION.

I'M GRANDFATHER.

AND I WILL HOLD THAT POSITION.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WERE THE, WHAT THE LAW SAYS IS NO ONE HAS A VESTED, RIGHT? IN EXPECTING THAT THE ZONING APPLICABLE THEIR PROPERTY WILL NOT CHANGE.

UM, THAT'S AN OPINION THAT HAS BEEN NOT HELD UP IN OTHER CASES.

YEARS AGO, YEARS AGO, YEARS AGO, THIS HOLD ON A MINUTE, YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A BUSINESS ON HIGHWAY 2 78 CALLED SPECIALTY MOTOR SPORTS AND WELDING IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE TANGER.

ONE OUTLET.

THAT'S WHERE IT WAS LOCATED.

IT BURNT DOWN.

SO THE OWNER WANTED TO REBUILD.

THIS COUNTY SAID, NO, THE ZONING CHANGED.

THE STANDARDS CHANGED.

YOU CANNOT REBUILD.

THE MAN WENT TO COURT.

THE MAGISTRATE OVER THERE RULED THAT HE CAN'T REBUILD ON THE DEAL STANDARDS.

ANYTHING ELSE WOULD BE A TAKINGS.

IT WAS APPEALED.

AND IT WAS UPHELD IN HIS FAVOR.

NOW, TODAY, THAT SAME LOCATION AS A PARKER'S GAS STATION.

SO THERE IS PRECEDENCE THAT SAYS YOU CAN BE GRANDFATHERED AND YOU CAN, THIS COUNTY WAS MADE TO LET THAT MAN REBUILD THAT PROPERTY.

SO THERE ARE OTHER PRECEDENT CASES AROUND BUFORD OF A NON-CONFORMING USE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING.

I HAVE TALKED ABOUT.

NON-CONFORMING USE, I HAVE TEST ONE OF THEIR REMEDIES.

THEY CAN GIVE ME A NON-CONFORMING USE BECAUSE MY PROPERTY, I HAD EXPECTATIONS WHEN I BOUGHT IT AND I HAVE USED IT FOR NUMEROUS AND INFORMING YOU.

SO YOU SAID LEGALLY ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME IT'S ESTABLISHED AND THEN BECOMES NON-CONFORMING.

BUT THE CODE BECAUSE OF FUTURE CODE CHANGES, WHEN YOU MOVED YOUR BUSINESS OVER TO THIS PARTICULAR SPOT, WAS THAT AFTER THE TEETH FOR HAMLET ZONING.

OKAY, THEN, SO NOW YOU'RE NOT A, NON-CONFORMING USELESS.

I AM ON GRANDFATHER.

I STILL HOLD POSITION.

I AM GRANDFATHERED.

I'M COMPLETELY GRANDFATHER BECAUSE WITHOUT A LOT, BY NOT ALLOWING ME TO USE MY PROPERTY, THE WAY THAT I EXPECTED TO WHEN I BOUGHT IT, ISN'T TAKINGS OF PROPERTY.

THIS, THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT ME.

THIS IS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY THAT HAVE THE SAME THING GOING ON, THAT THEY CAN'T USE THEIR HOUSE.

THEY CAN'T USE THEIR PROPERTY FOR A CERTAIN USE BECAUSE THEY'VE OWNED IT FOR THEIR ANCESTORS, OWNED IT.

BUT NOW THE ZONING CHANGED AND WON'T ALLOW ME TO DO, BUT THERE'S A NUMBER OF PLACES AROUND THIS COUNTY THAT ARE, DON'T EVEN HAVE A ZONING PERMIT, NEVER HAD A ZONING PERMIT AND HAVE THAT BUILDING PERMIT BUILT THINGS WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS.

BUT THAT'S FOR A DIFFERENT DAY, NOT JUST ONE IN THIS COUNTY KNOWS ABOUT IT, BUT THEY TURNED IT BACK ON IT.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TURNS HER BACK ON IT.

SO ANYWAY, THAT'S MY ARGUMENT.

THAT ONE, MY PROPERTY IS GRANDFATHERED BY ZONING MY PROPERTY, WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE AND LIMITING.

WHAT USES I CAN USE IT FOR TO THIS DAY IS THE TAKINGS OF MY PROPERTY.

AND THEN THAT JUST WENT CLARITY.

AND YOU, YOU FEEL AS THOUGH YOUR GRANDFATHER DIDN'T DO TO YOUR DUE

[00:45:01]

AND THE DATE I BOUGHT IT WHEN THERE WAS NO ZONE, IT WAS ABOUT MAYBE 12 PLUS YEARS BEFORE THEY EVER HAD ZONING AFTER I PURCHASED IT, BUT THEY NEVER, THE COUNTY NEVER NOTIFIED ME.

THAT'S ANOTHER POSITION NEVER, EVER, EVER NOTIFIED ME WHAT ZONING WAS GOING TO BE SO THAT I COULD GO DOWN AND SAY, NO, NO, I WANT ITS OWN THIS.

THEY NEVER NOTIFIED ME.

THEY ALLOW OTHER COMMERCIAL USES, BUT JUST NOT YUVAL RENTAL.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR.

ANY, ANY, DO ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTION? ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MR. O'BRIEN MR. O'BRIAN? I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

SURE.

UH, HOW LONG HAVE YOU HAD THAT? YOU HOPE BUSINESS THERE, THERE ABOUT AUGUST OF 2018.

I'VE ALSO GOT TWO OTHER BUSINESSES THERE.

SO YOU RUN THAT BUSINESS THERE WITHOUT A BUSINESS LICENSE SINCE AUGUST OF 2018 AND COLLECT SALES TOWER.

YOU HAWK LET SALES TAX, MR. GREENWAY SAID HE WAS GOING TO FIX IT.

YEAH.

BUT AGAIN, YOU DIDN'T HAVE A BUSINESS LICENSE AREA SINCE 2018.

I WAS WAITING ON MR. GREENWAY SINCE 2018, SIR.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

CAN WE HEAR FROM THE KAREN, MR. GREEN HERE? A LITTLE WILD BILL.

I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF HE TOLD HIM THAT HE FELT CHAIRMAN MACK AND BOARD MEMBERS.

GOOD EVENING.

GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS BEN COPPEDGE.

I'M REPRESENTING THE COUNTY IN THIS MATTER.

WHAT'S YOUR LAST NAME? UM, THE SPOT, THE EXTENSIVE ARGUMENT OF MR. O'BRIAN.

THE ISSUE THAT'S BEFORE THIS BODY TONIGHT IS, IS VERY LIMITED AND VERY NARROW UNLESS I'M DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY YOU.

I'M NOT GOING TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS AND WE'LL STICK TO THE, WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING APPEALED HERE.

UH, MR. O'BRIEN SOUGHT AN INTERPRETATION, UH, FROM THE ZONING DEPARTMENT THAT IS USE OF THIS PROPERTY AS A YOU BUSINESS SHOULD BE GRANDFATHERED.

YOU HOPE BUSINESS FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A VEHICLE SALES AND RENTAL AUTOMOBILES, LIKE TRUCKS AND BOATS, UH, IN THE T4 HAMLET CENTER WHERE MR. O'BRIEN'S PROPERTY IS LOCATED, THAT IS NOT PERMITTED USE.

UH, SO THIS IS A, THAT WOULD BE A NON-CONFORMING USE IS A NON-CONFORMING USE.

SO MR. O'BRIEN SOUGHT AN INTERPRETATION FROM THE ZONING DEPARTMENT THAT, THAT YOU SHOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN THERE.

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT IT'S NONCONFORMING UNDER THE CURRENT CODE.

AND WHAT DOES IT GLOBALLY REFERRED TO AS GRANDFATHERING? UM, UNDER THE CDC IS KNOWN AS MR. WILLIAMS PRETTY MUCH SPELLED OUT WORSE A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE AND LEGAL NONCONFORMITIES ARE THOSE NONCONFORMITIES THAT WERE PROPERLY PERMITTED, LEGALLY ESTABLISHED, BUT THAT NO LONGER COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CDC ALMOST HAD A WORD FOR WORD THERE, MR. WILLIAMS, QUITE FAMILIAR WITH IT.

SO FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, FOR VEHICLE SALES AND RENTAL WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED AND MR. BRYAN WOULD NEED TO SHOW THAT AT SOME POINT, THE PROPERTIES USED FOR THAT PURPOSE WAS ONE PROPERLY PERMITTED INTO LEGALLY ESTABLISHED AND WORKING WITH THE ZONING DEPARTMENT HERE TODAY.

HE HAS GIVEN NO EVIDENCE OF EITHER, UH, AND THE ZONING DEPARTMENT'S INVESTIGATION INTO IT CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THERE WAS NO PERMIT FOR, OR LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT OF THAT PROPERTY.

NOW THE PROPERTY, UH, AS WE KNOW, MR. BRYAN'S ON QUITE A WHILE, IT'S RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FIRST IN 1983 FOR A MINI RACEWAY.

SECOND FOR RV PARK IN 1985 AND THIRD FOR SEASONAL SALES OF FIREWORKS.

UH, THREE YEARS AGO, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A PERMIT ISSUED FOR VEHICLE SALES AND RENTALS.

LIKEWISE, THE USES USE THE PROPERTY IS, UH, NOT THE CONTINUING USE OF ILLEGALLY ESTABLISHED USE.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT USED FOR THAT PURPOSE HAS EVER BEEN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED.

IT IS, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS THERE PRIOR TO THE CODE, UH, PRIOR TO THE CHANGE

[00:50:01]

UH, THIS IS A NEW THING.

SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS EVER PERMITTED OR ESTABLISHED.

SO IT IS SIMPLY A NON-CONFORMITY, UH, THE ARGUMENTS THAT MR. O'BRIEN HAS MADE TO NOT ADDRESS WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEFORE, UH, THE BOARD HERE AND WHICH IS WHAT I'VE JUST DISCUSSED, UM, INSTEAD MAKES THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT TAKING.

AND AGAIN, THAT, THAT IS JUST NOT FOR US HERE TONIGHT.

UH, THAT BEING THE CASE, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT, UH, THE BOARD UPHOLD, UH, THE ZONING DEPARTMENT'S DECISION, UH, AND DENY THE, UH, MR. O'BRIEN'S APPEAL.

YOU HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO HAVE.