Nov 21, 2024 Zoning Board of Appeals

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

BOARD OF APPEAL. MEANING FIRST OF ALL LET US APOLOGIZE FOR JUST A LITTLE SLIGHT TARDINESS BUT WE'RE GOING TO DEFINITELY GET STARTED WITH OUR MEETING.

IT IS A THAT WE BEGIN OUR MEETING BY RECITING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

IF I COULD ACTUALLY GUYS PLEASE STAND AND PLEASE I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU.

[4. ADOPTION OFAGENDA]

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AND ITEM NUMBER SIX WAS THE JOE

[6. Joe DeBlase is requesting a Special Use Permit for Lodging, Short Term Rental. The property is located at 1707 Palmetto Drive, Port Royal Island. The property is zoned C3-Neighborhood Mixed Use (C3NMU).]

WE HEAR FROM COUNTY DO THE COUNTY HAVE YOU IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTION WE CALL YOU BACK.

OKAY. THERE ARE NO COVENANTS RESTRICTIONS IN THIS AREA AND.

THEY DID THEIR SITE PLAN AND ALL THE PARKING IS GOING TO BE ON THE PROPERTY AND WE RECOMMENDED FOR THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. MS. HILLERY WELL WE'VE HEARD FROM THE CAT AND WE'VE HEARD FOR MS.. ASHLEY CAME UP WE HAVE THE APPLICATION DO WE HAVE ANY HAVE THAT EVIDENCE BEFORE US DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO PLACE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR ASHLEY ESPECIALLY USE PERMIT I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A SHORT TERM RENTAL AND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR APPROVE AND SECOND OF ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING. SO IT'S BEEN PASSED ASHLEY SO YOU CAN GIVE IT THE COUNTY MAYBE TOMORROW. YES.

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEM SIX? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

[8. Christopher Rung is requesting a Special Use Permit for Lodging, Short-Term Rental. The property is located at 147 Alljoy Road, Bluffton. The property is zonedT3-Edge (T3E).]

MR. CHRISTOPHER, IF YOU CAN JUST LET US KNOW. SO MY NAME IS TIERNEY.

I'M THE OWNER OF FORESHORE RENTALS AND THE AGENT FOR CHRISTOPHER RUN THE PROPERTY MANAGER SO MEAN HAVE MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS. YES SIR.

OH ARE YOU UNDER ANY COVENANTS ? WE ARE NOT.

NOT IN THE COVENANTS. ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR? HE SAID THE NAME WAS BRIAN.

BRIAN YES. NO NO QUESTIONS FOR MR. BRIAN OF COUNTY APPROVAL SO IT'S BEEN RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY SINCE THERE'S NO QUESTIONS OF WHAT WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PLACE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR SHOULD WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM PUBLIC COMMENT IS THERE ANYONE HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEM? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING

[00:05:01]

[10. Samuel & Elizabeth Connor plus other Aggrieved Parties are requesting an Administrative Appeal from a Zoning Permit issued by the Zoning & Development Administrator. Applicants are alleging that the Zoning & Development Administrator erred in issuing the Zoning Permit for a Private Use Horse Stable. The property is located at 68 Calhoun Plantation Road, Bluffton. The property is zoned T2- Rural (T2R).]

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, ARE YOU THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE PRESENTING? I'M THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE PRESENTING. ALL RIGHT.

SAME KIND OF ALL RIGHT. THIS IS OUR INTERN PATRICK. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD MY NAME IS PATRICK MOORE AND I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH AUSTIN AND GOT OUR LAW FIRM OUT OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA. AND I REPRESENT THE AGGRIEVED PARTIES. THE AGGRIEVED PARTIES ARE 11 FOLKS WHO LIVE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO OR NEARBY THE PROPOSED FACILITY WHOSE WALLETS, PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OF LIFE ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSAL. THESE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE KNOWN IN THE COMMUNITY FARMERS, DOCTORS, ENGINEERS WHO HAVE SERVED ON COUNTY COUNCIL DRAFTED ORDINANCES IMPLEMENTED ,ORDINANCES AND IMPROVED THEIR PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE FOUR COUNTIES ZONES ZONING ORDINANCE AS WELL. I'M UP HERE TO POINT THAT THEY'RE NOT JUST SAYING NO. WE ARE HERE WITH VERY SPECIFIC FEEDBACK AND A VERY SPECIFIC PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE WHAT'S BEFORE YOU ON APPEAL? JUST THIS MORNING THERE WAS A LETTER SENT TO THE APPLICANT ASKING THEM TO ADJUST SEVERAL PARTS OF THEIR SUBMITTAL NEW SETS OF DRAWINGS, NEW DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS. I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THIS IS IDEAL TIME TO PUMP THE BRAKES AND REMAND THIS BACK TO STAFF TO ADDRESS THE REALLY SPECIFIC THINGS THAT SAM IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT HERE IN JUST A MOMENT.

I APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN AND WE BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE IN SOME FORMAT WHEN YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT IMPACTS PEOPLE LIKE THIS ONE DOES SOME OF THE ISSUES IN THERE ARE NOT WITHIN YOUR JURISDICTION YOU MAY THINK TO YOURSELF THEM THOSE ARE DECK ISSUES OR DC ISSUES AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ABOUT THAT AND WE ARE PURSUING THOSE WITH THE DEPARTMENT THIS PATTERN HAS BROUGHT UP SOME WAY INTERESTING ISSUES WITH THE WAY THE COUNTY IMPLEMENTS ITS EMS FOUR PROGRAM AND WE'RE PURSUING THOSE WITH THE CORRECT SO WITH THAT I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR SUBJECT MATTER MATTER EXPERT SAM CONNER AND I'VE GOT SOME PICTURES OF THE SITE AT 68 KEVIN PLANTATION ROAD. IS IT ALL RIGHT IF I HAND THESE OUT TO YOU GUYS? YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

IT'S TO THE ALREADY FOR ME. I'LL GO AHEAD. YES, I'M GOING TO BEGIN BECAUSE THE FIRST THING I WANT TO DO IS EXPLAIN WHY WE'RE HERE BECAUSE THROUGH THIS WHOLE ORDEAL COUNTY STAFF AND ADMINISTRATION AND OUR OWN COUNTY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE HAVE REGARDED OUR AND THIS APPEAL AS A BUNCH OF CRAZY FAMILY MEMBERS WHO DON'T WANT SOMEONE BUILD A HOUSE AND PRIVATE STABLE NEXT DOOR. I MEAN TO TELL YOU THAT THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE AND IN FACT THERE'S ALREADY A NEIGHBOR ON A PROPERTY THAT IS NOT A FAMILY MEMBER WHO HAS A HOME AND A PRIVATE HORSE STABLE AT 90 CALHOUN PLANTATION ROAD AND WE'RE FRIENDS. WE HAVE BROUGHT THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU I HANDED OUT THAT SHOWS THAT 68 CALHOUN PLANTATION ROAD CAN ALSO HAVE ONE HORSE AND THAT'S SITE PLAN BE COMPLIANT THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE IS BECAUSE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVED THE RURAL EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND DEVELOPMENT 68 GALVIN PLANTATION ROAD WITHOUT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING WITHOUT CLASSIFYING A USE FOR A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT EQUESTRIAN ARENA BUILDING WITHOUT ACCESS TO THE DEVELOPMENT FROM CALHOUN PLANTATION ROAD OR ANY OTHER ROAD WITHOUT CALCULATIONS SHOWING EACH OF THE SIX HORSES WILL HAVE ITS OWN HALF ACRE WITHOUT A STORMWATER MEETING. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL WITHOUT A STORMWATER PLAN MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS

[00:10:04]

THESE DEFICIENCIES ARE TOO SIGNIFICANT TO BE IGNORED BUT THE FACT IS THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED APPROVALS FOR TWO ZONING PERMITS AND A STORMWATER PERMIT FOR THE RURAL EQUESTRIAN DEVELOPMENT ANYWAY AND THAT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IN THIS CASE THE WAY COUNTY IS ADMINISTERING ITS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE IS DEEPLY FLAWED AND IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE SPIRIT OR THE INTENT OF THE CODE . SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

WE'RE HERE TO APPEAL THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE ZONING PERMITS 5590 AND 5591 FOR THE BUELL EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO REMAIN ON THESE PERMITS NOW. DO YOU HAVE THE APPLICATION PACKET? YES. I JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH THOSE ITEMS ONE AT A TIME AND WE'RE HAVING TO TALK REALLY FAST TO GET THROUGH THIS IN 20 MINUTES.

SO JUST HANG IN THERE WITH ME. I'M GONNA PAUSE AFTER EACH ONE TO GIVE YOU GUYS A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS FIRST IS ON PAGE THREE OF THE PACKET THIS IS COUNTY STAFF APPROVAL OF A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT EQUESTRIAN ARENA BUILDING WITHOUT ASSIGNING A LAND USE OR ACCESSORY USE FOR THE STRUCTURE . PICTURES OF AN EQUESTRIAN ARENA ARE SHOWN ON PAGE SIX OF THE APPEAL PACKET. AS YOU CAN SEE A VERY LARGE, VERY TALL, VERY WELL LIT OPEN AIR STRUCTURE. THE QUESTION ARENA FOR THE ROYAL EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND WILL LIKELY BE SIMILAR AND WE KNOW IT HAS A ROOF BECAUSE IT'S LISTED ON THE SITE PLANS SQUARE FOOTAGE TABLE AS 15,013 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE AND THE PLAN SHOWS FOOTERS FOUR COLUMNS AND TRUSSES SPANNING THE WIDTH OF THE BUILDING FROM TO COLUMN. SO IT WILL IN FACT BE A STRUCTURE AND A CODE SECTION 4.2.2.2 EACH STRUCTURE MUST BE ASSIGNED TO USE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF IT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT PERMITTED WITH CONDITION PERMITTED A SPECIAL USE OR NOT PERMITTED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT BUILDINGS ALSO HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED AS BUILDINGS SO EACH BUILDING CAN BE REQUIRED TO MEET BUILDING PLACEMENT AND BUILDING FORM STANDARDS FOR ANY DISTRICT OR USE EQUESTRIAN ARENA IS NOT A LAND USE OR ACCESSORY USE LISTED CODE AND EVEN THOUGH IT IS DEFINITELY A BUILDING IT DOES NOT MEET THE BUILDING PLACEMENT STANDARDS FOR THE D2 OR ZONING DISTRICT.

WHEN WE ASKED COUNTY STAFF ABOUT THIS WE GOT THE FOLLOWING EMAIL RESPONSE FROM ROB MERCHANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING THE STABLE HOUSES THE HORSES IN A SETBACK 100 FEET FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE THE WRITING AREA SLASH WRITING SORRY THE ARENA SLASH WRITING AREA WHICH IS PART OF THE HORSE STABLE USE IS NOT WHERE THE HORSES ARE HOUSED AND THEREFORE THE SETBACK 100 FEET DID NOT APPLY EVEN THOUGH THE ARENA IS ATTACHED BY COVERED BREEZEWAY I DID NOT CONSIDER IT TO BE PART OF THE STABLE WHERE THE HORSES ARE HOUSED. I CONSIDERED IT TO BE A RIDING AREA THEREFORE THE 25 FEET SETBACK WAS APPLIED TO THE ARENA SO WHAT ROB IS SAYING IS THAT WHILE THE QUESTION REALLY ARENA IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE STABLES BY 15 FOOT WIDE EIGHT FOOT LONG COVERED BREEZEWAY HE DID NOT CONSIDER IT PART OF THE STABLES EVEN THOUGH THE ONLY WAY THE HORSES CAN GET TO AND FROM THE STABLES IS THROUGH THE ARENA AND THE HORSES WILL BE HOUSED IN THE ARENA WHEN DOING EQUESTRIAN. BUT HE STILL DECIDED THAT'S NOT PART OF THE STABLE AND. THEREFORE HE DOES NOT NEED IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE A 100 FOOT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SETBACK REQUIREMENT. HE ALSO ADDED THAT HE CONSIDERED IT TO BE A WRITING AREA WHICH IS NOT A BUILDING AND IS ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE 25 FOOT SETBACK FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES. THIS REASONING IS ALSO WHY THE EQUESTRIAN ARENA DOES NOT MEET THE 50 FOOT FRONT PROPERTY LINE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE TWO HOUR ZONING DISTRICT BECAUSE COUNTY STAFF DECIDED THAT THE 15,000 SQUARE FOOT EQUESTRIAN ARENA BUILDING WAS NOT ACTUALLY A BUILDING AT ALL. IT'S A RIDING AREA.

HOWEVER, EVEN THOUGH THE QUESTION ARENA IS NOT LISTED IN CODE AS A LAND USE OR ACCESSORY USE AND STAFF CLAIMS THE EQUESTRIAN ARENA IS NOT A BUILDING AND IS JUST A RIDING AREA. THE APPROVED ZONING PERMIT NUMBER 5590 IMPROPERLY LISTS ARENA AS ONE OF THE APPROVED USES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ARENA IS NOT A LAND USE OR ACCESSORY USE IDENTIFIED A CODE WHICH MEANS THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CREATED CODE AND IS NOT. THEREFORE WE WERE REQUESTING THE ZONING PERMIT 3590 BE REMANDED BECAUSE IT WAS APPROVED FOR A LAND USE AND ACCESSORY USE NOT IN CODE .

YOU'LL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT ONE. OKAY WE ON THE NEXT ONE PAGE

[00:15:07]

SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT PROPERTY DOESN'T ACCESS ANYMORE PERIODS WHERE IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS THE THE PLAN FOR THE EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND THE EXISTING ACCESS AND THEN TO ALSO AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT.

SO WITHIN HAVE AN EXPANDED ACCESS EXPANDING THE ACCESS AND THEN ADDING ANOTHER ACCESS POINT NO REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE TO THE OWNER OF . THE ROAD FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS OKAY YOU'RE DOING OKAY BUT WE WANT THE NEXT ONE. ALL RIGHT, PAGE THE PACKET.

THIRD ITEM WITH NO CALCULATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER OR COUNTY STAFF SHOWING THAT EACH OF THE SIX HORSES APPROVED FOR THE SITE HAS ITS OWN HALF ACRE.

THE REQUIREMENT HAVE A HALF ACRE PER HORSE COMES FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE FOUR DIVISION 4.2.12.8.2 ALSO CONDITIONS AFFIRMATIVE APPROVAL NUMBER TWO FOR ZONING PERMIT 5591 FOR THE APPROVED USE PRIVATE HORSE STABLE STATUS HORSE STABLES IS LIMITED TO SIX HORSES FOR HORSES OWNED BY THE OWNER AND TWO HORSES CAN BE BOARDED.

EACH HORSE IS LIMITED TO ONE HALF ACRE PER HORSE BUT NO CALCULATION.

ANY OTHER INFORMATION SUPPORTING OR EXPLAINING THE SIX HORSE LIMIT FOR THE SITE WAS PRESENTED SO WE DID OUR OWN CALCULATION TO DETERMINE THE AREA AVAILABLE FOR EACH HORSE USING THE WORLD EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND APPROVED SITE PLAN THE RESULT OF OUR CALCULATION AS SHOWN BY THE GREEN SHADED AREA ON THE EXHIBIT ON PAGE NINE BUT IT'S ALSO SHOWN IN FULL SIZE SOMEWHERE RIGHT THERE THAT GOT A GREEN ON IT. BEAR WITH ME SHOWS THIS AREA AVAILABLE FOR HORSES ON THE SITE ONCE BUILDINGS DRIVEWAYS SEPTIC LANDSCAPE HARDSCAPE AREAS AND PADDOCK FENCING SETBACKS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE LOT AREA AVAILABLE FOR PASTURES THAT'S WHAT'S SHOWN IN THE GREEN SHADED AREA ONCE THESE AREAS REMOVE THE REMAINING AREA THAT COULD BE USED FOR PASTURE 0.28 ACRES BASED ON THE HALF ACRE PER HORSE CODE REQUIREMENT THIS WOULD NOT EVEN PROVIDE ENOUGH SPACE FOR ONE HORSE THEREFORE REQUESTING THAT ZONING PERMIT PIT 591 FOR APPROVED USE PRIVATE HORSE STAY WILL BE REVOKED OR SORRY AMENDED BECAUSE THERE'S NOT AREA PROVIDED ON THE SITE FOR ANY HORSES TO HAVE A HALF ACRE.

NOTE WE ALSO ADDED THE BLUE AREA ON THE PLAN TO SHOW THE LEVEL OF THE CARLTON RIVER SPRING TIDES THAT WILL OCCUR TWICE A MONTH ON AND FULL MOONS.

THIS DEPICTION SHOWS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 150 FOOT HORSE PADDOCK FENCING SET BACK FROM THE ARE IN LINE HORSES DON'T NEED TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR OUTSTANDING RESORTS WATERBODY

[00:20:06]

ARTICLE SEVEN DIVISION 7.5.6.3 NO ONE IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW DECIDE ON OR APPROVE STORMWATER PERMITS. THE ONLY THING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CAN DO PER CODE IS RECEIVE AND PROCESS STORMWATER PERMIT APPLICATIONS .

THEREFORE REQUESTING STORMWATER PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT S.W. 1946 BE REMANDED BECAUSE IT WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE ZONING ADMINIS DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER AND DUTY TO REVIEW, DECIDE ON OR APPROVE STORMWATER WHAT QUESTIONS ARE FOR I'M LOOKING TO HEAR FROM THE COUNTY IT SAYS THE ISSUANCE OF THE LOCAL BEAUFORT COUNTY STORMWATER PERMIT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE NEED TO OBTAIN THAT AND PD HAS PERMIT FROM DEQ SO YOU STILL HAVE TO GET THE DNR PERMIT TO DO THIS PROJECT.

THAT'S YEAH, THAT'S TRUE. THE COMMENT IS JUST THE NO BE FOR COUNTY STAFF QUALIFIED TO REVIEW STORMWATER PLANS TO LOOK AT THIS THE. JUST TO ADD TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL DETAIL FOR THE COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION FOUR THAT ADDRESSES CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS STARTS WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS DEPARTMENT DISTRIBUTES THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO THE STORMWATER DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW.

NEW AND REDEVELOPMENT PLANS CANNOT BE APPROVED WITHOUT BY THE STORMWATER DEPARTMENT AND THIS RECENT PROCESS IS ALSO ILLUSTRATED IN CHAPTER THREE OF THE STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL. SO THAT IS THE THE COMPLIANCE DOCUMENT FOR THE COUNTY EMS FOR THE SUBMITTED EVERY YEAR TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THE HECK HOW YOUR COUNTY IS RUNNING THE REQUEST FOR PROGRAM THAT WAS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THAT OF HOW PLANS SUPPOSED TO BE SENT TO THE STORMWATER DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW. ALSO THERE'S THE STORMWATER STORMWATER ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 99 THAT'S TWO OF SIX IN 99 207 THE DEPARTMENT THAT DOES HAVE THE POWER AND DUTY TO REVIEW AND RENDER DECISIONS ON STORMWATER PERMANENT ALLOCATIONS IS THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IN THE STORMWATER DEPARTMENT ALSO FOR STORMWATER DESIGN MANUALS SECTION 1.5.1 THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS IN CHARGE OF ISSUING THE APPROVED STORMWATER PERMIT AND SO BASICALLY THE STORMWATER DEFICIENCIES ON THIS SITE COULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT WAS ISSUED IF COUNTY STAFF IS QUALIFIED TO LOOK AT IT HAD IT IN FRONT OF THEM BUT THESE PEOPLE STILL HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FOR THAT. THEY DO HAVE THEY STILL THEY DO STILL HAVE THE IN THE IS IS THE COUNTY RECEIVES THE PLAN REVIEWS IT AND THEY DO A DELEGATED REVIEW FOR THE STATE AND THEN THEY'LL ISSUE A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AND THEN EVERYTHING GETS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE AND THE STATE REVIEWS IT AND THEN ONCE THE STATE ISSUES THEIR PERMITS THEN COUNTY IS THE LAST ONE TO ISSUE THEIR FULL APPROVAL OF A STORMWATER PERMIT.

AND YOU'RE SAYING THIS HASN'T GONE THROUGH THAT THIS IS NOT DONE THROUGH THAT THING AND SO THIS NEXT ONE KIND OF SPEAKS TO THAT. THE NEXT ITEM IS JUST A CONTINUATION. WHEN WE ASKED COUNTY STAFF WHICH CODE SECTION ALLOWED THE ZONING DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE STORMWATER PERMITS AND BYPASS STORMWATER TECHNICAL REVIEW WE GOT AN EMAIL RESPONSE FROM ROB MERCHANT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ZONING DIVISION THAT 1225 EXEMPTIONS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY NOT INVOLVING RELOCATION A DRAINAGE CANAL APPLIES TO THIS PERMIT. DIVISION FIVE THAT 1220 C ON LOT VOLUME CONTROL WAS APPLIED TO THE FOR THE HOUSE AND ACCESSORY USE PRIVATE HORSE STABLE SO WHAT HAPPENED IS THEY

[00:25:01]

THE APPROVED ZONING PERMITS TO BE ISSUED CANNOT BE APPROVED UNTIL IT DEMONSTRATES THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH ALL PRIOR PERMITS FOR ACCESS POTABLE WATER AND SEWER . AND THEN THE CODE SECTION AT THE TOP OF THIS ONE IS ARTICLE SIX BUT IT NEEDS TO BE ARTICLE SEVEN DIVISION 7.2.2..3 SO THAT THE TYPO SINCE THERE'S NOT PUBLIC SEWER AVAILABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT THE SEWER PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THE BREW WELL EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND IS AN ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM PERMIT.

HOWEVER FOR AN EMAIL FROM COUNTY FOY OFFICE COUNTY NOT HAVE THE SEPTIC TANK PERMITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND WE WERE DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE SEPTIC TANK PERMITS FROM BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.

SO MY QUESTION IS COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE A COPY OF THE ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM PERMIT IN THEIR FILE? HOW WERE THEY ABLE TO THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH THE PERMIT WITH THE ONSITE WASTEWATER PERMIT FROM THE CDC AND FOUND THAT THE COUNTY ZONING PERMIT WAS APPROVED ON AUGUST 22ND, 2024 FOR THE ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM PERMIT WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE UNTIL OCTOBER 2ND 2024. WE ALSO FOUND NOT SURPRISINGLY THAT THE ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM SHOWN ON THE BREWER EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND APPROVED SITE PLAN DOES NOT MATCH THE DESIGN SHOWN ON THE CDC ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM PERMIT THE LOCATION OF DIMENSIONS OF THE DRAIN FIELD, THE SIZE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF SEPTIC PUMP TANKS AND PIPES DO NOT MATCH THE APPROVED THESE WASTEWATER SYSTEM PERMIT.

THEREFORE WE'RE ASKING THAT THE ZONING PERMIT BE REMANDED BOTH ZONING PERMITS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT ONE THE STABLES SHOWN ON REQUEST FROM HAVE FLOOR DRAINS IN THE CENTER AISLES AND IN THE TWO HORSE WASH STALLS. THESE FLOOR DRAINS ALSO REQUIRE AN ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR THE ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT ISSUED FOR 68 CALHOUN PLANTATION ROAD.

THE SYSTEM WAS ONLY FOR TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER GENERATED BY FOUR BEDROOMS IN THE HOUSE AND A HALF BATH IN WASHER AND DRYER IN THE STABLE. THIS THAT THE CDC ON SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM PERMIT DOES NOT COVER THE STABLE DRAINS AND THEREFORE THE PERMITTED ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO PROPERLY ALL WASTEWATER GENERATED BY A DEVELOPMENT OR THE NON-DOMESTIC FROM THE FLOOR DRAINS WILL RECEIVE NO TREATMENT AND JUST BE DISCHARGED ON SITE. EITHER SCENARIO WILL RESULT IN A VIOLATION OF THE COUNTY ILLICIT DISCHARGE ORDINANCE CODE ORDINANCE ARTICLE FIVE SECTION 99 TEST 400 THEREFORE REQUESTING THE ZONING PERMITS 3590 AND 5591 BE REMANDED BECAUSE.

THE DEVELOPMENT WILL CAUSE OR ALLOW AN ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND DOES NOT HAVE AN ONSITE WASTEWATER PERMIT FOR TREATMENT OF ALL WASTEWATER BEING GENERATED BY THE DEVELOPMENT.

OKAY X ONE PAGE 22 IS GOING TO SKIP ALL THE WAY TO 20 TO COVER THIS ONE NEXT ITEM IS NO STORMWATER BEING PROVIDED TO COLLECT AND TREAT STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTAMINATED WITH HORSE WASTE BEFORE DISCHARGING TO THE MARSHES OF THE GORLESTON RIVER FOR THE COUNTY RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS OF COMMUNE DEVELOPMENT CODE OF FIVE VISION 5.1. 63 THAT TO ALL DRAINAGE SHALL BE DIVERTED AWAY FROM THE WASHROOM CRITICAL THROUGH A COUNTY APPROVED STORMWATER SYSTEM EMPLOYING PUMPS. THIS REQUIREMENT IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE RURAL EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND DEVELOPMENT WILL DISCHARGE STORMWATER RUNOFF WITHIN 1000 FEET OF INTERTIDAL OYSTER REEFS THAT ARE APPROVED FOR OYSTER HARVESTING FURTHER APPROVE SITE PLAN NO FEES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTAMINATED HORSE RAISED BEFORE DISCHARGING INTO THE MARSHES OF THE CARLSON RIVER.

THEREFORE WE'RE REQUESTING THE ZONING PERMITS AND STORMWATER BE REMANDED BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOOD ARTICLE FIVE DIVISION FIVE DOT 11.60 RIVER BUFFER PROTECTION STANDARDS THANKS MOSES ON PAGE 24 IT'S ANOTHER RESOURCE PROTECTION ITEM GIVEN THE CODE ARTICLE FIVE DIVISION 5.1.9.8 REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU WANT TO DO ZONING ZONES PRESERVE A MINIMUM OF 70% OF THE MARITIME FOREST ARTICLE TEN DIVISION TEN .1.6 D DEFINES MARITIME FORCE AS AN INDIGENOUS FORCE COMMUNITY

[00:30:04]

THEREFORE WE'RE REQUESTING THAT THE ZONING PERMITS BE REMANDED BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE . ARTICLE FIVE DIVISION FIVE THE 1190 FOREST PROTECTION STANDARDS STANDARDS IN ORDER FOR ME TO KEEP GOING.

YES. OKAY THAT'S FOR ON PAGE 25 IT'S ANOTHER RESOURCE PROTECTION ONE THAT WAS IGNORED IS THE TREE PROTECTION STANDARDS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR BRUCE EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND ALLOWS THE REMOVAL OF 11 GRAND SPECIMEN LIFE OF TREES THAT'S TREE TRUNK 24 INCHES WIDE AND BIGGER AND FIVE SPECIMEN LIFE OF TREES THAT'S TREE TRUNKS BETWEEN 16 AND 23 INCHES WIDE FOR A TOTAL OF 478 INCHES OF LIVE OAK TREE .

IT ALSO INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF SEVERAL SPECIMEN LOBLOLLY PINE TREES.

ONE OF THE TREES BEING REMOVED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS A 64 INCH WIDE LIVE OAK.

THE REMOVAL OF SO MANY TREES AND SPECIMEN TREES SHOWS THAT NO GOOD FAITH EFFORT WAS MADE TO CONSIDER REASONABLE DESIGN FOR PRESERVING TREES. ONE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE COULD HAVE BEEN TO REMOVE OR SHRINK THE SIZE OF THE EQUESTRIAN ARENA TO SAVE SEVEN OF THE 11 GRAND SPECIMEN LIVE OAKS CURRENTLY BEING REMOVED FROM THE SITE.

ADDITIONALLY, MANY OF THE REMAINING TREES SAVED ARE NOT BEING PROTECTED FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND FILTERED ENCROACHING INTO OR TOTALLY COVERING THEIR REQUIRED TREE PROTECTION AREA. THEREFORE WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE ZONING PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT BE REMANDED BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 5,000,005.1 1.100 TREE PROTECTIONS STANDARDS OKAY THIS IS THE LAST ONE I PROMISE. OKAY. WE BELIEVE THE COUNTY IS THE WRONG PERMIT TRACK TO REVIEW THE BRUNEL EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND DEVELOPMENT.

THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PUSHED THROUGH THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT USING THE ZONING REVIEW PROCEDURE BUT THE ROYAL EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND DEVELOPMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED USING THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURE. THIS IS BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE SEVEN DIVISION 7.2.6. C EXEMPTS DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING FROM RECEIVING RECEIVING LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPROVAL A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IS NOT EXEMPT FROM MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL PER SECTION 1.4.2 OF THE STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL AND PERSONAL MATTERS ARE MANUAL FIGURE 3.1 ONCE A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THE THRESHOLD OF ADDING GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 5000 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OR DISTURBS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO ONE ACRE OF LAND IT IS REQUIRED TO A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. THIS MEANS THAT BECAUSE EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND DEVELOPMENT SEES THIS THRESHOLD IT IS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL. NOW THIS IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING BECAUSE PER A COUNTY STORMWATER CODE SECTION 90 9-2 11 THE PROCESS FOR REVIEWING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL IS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS .

SO NOW WE HAVE STORMWATER CODE REQUIREMENT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DEVELOPMENT TO BE REVIEWED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS AND THIS IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE EXEMPTION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DEVELOPMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS. THIS MEANS WE MUST CONSULT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ORACLE ONE DIVISION 1.4.18 ON HOW TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT AND THIS CODE SECTION STATES HAVE A PROVISION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE OR WITH THE PROVISION FOUND IN OTHER ADOPTED CODES OR ORDINANCE OF THE ORDINANCES OF THE COUNTY. THE MORE RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS THAT WILL GOVERN THE TERMS OF THE MORE RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS SPECIFY OTHERWISE THE MORE RESTRICTIVE PROVISION THE ONE THAT IMPOSES GREATER RESTRICTIONS OR BURDENS OR MORE STRINGENT CONTROLS FOLLOWING THIS GUIDANCE AND SELECTING FOR THE PROVISION THAT IMPOSES MORE STRINGENT CONTROLS RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT TO SEND THE RURAL EQUESTRIAN COMPOUND

[00:35:02]

SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ? NO, BUT I'M QUITE SURE THAT QUESTIONS WILL BE COMING. OKAY. YEAH.

BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE COUNTY ,WILL THE LANDOWNER LIKE TO SPEAK? HI. YES. PLEASE COME UP YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND. MY NAME IS DIANA BROWN AND YOU ? MY NAME IS DIANA RUEL. YES AND I JUST ACTUALLY IF YOU WANTED 20 MINUTES OR SOME TIME TO SAY SOMETHING ON THIS ON THIS CASE I MEAN YOU HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO IF YOU CHOOSE TO I'M SURE I AM LOOKING TO BUILD MY RESIDENCE WITH THE BARN FOR PRIVATE USE AND AN ARENA TO TRAIN. I WOULD BE ONE OF OTHER NEIGHBORS LIVING IN THAT IN THEIR PRIMARY PRIMARY HOME AND I OWN FIVE HORSES. I HAVE WORKED FOR MANY YEARS LIKE MOST OF US I WAS FORTUNATE TO SELL MY COMPANY AND NOW I TRAIN BECAUSE BEEN MY PASSION FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE. SO THIS IS NOT A NEW VENTURE. IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A BUSINESS VENTURE. ANYBODY WHO HAS HALF A BRAIN KNOWS THAT YOU CAN'T GO INTO AND MAKE MONEY. IT'S A BLACK HOLE SO I HAVE BEEN RIDING FOR 41 YEARS.

I COMPETE NATIONALLY. I HAVE AN EIGHT YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WHO RIDES HER PONY AS WELL AND CURRENTLY FOUR OF MY FIVE HORSES ARE BOARDED AT MOSS CREEK EQUESTRIAN CENTER WHERE I GO AND TRAIN EVERY DAY WITH REGARDS TO THE SIZE OF THE ARENA IF ANY OF YOU WATCHED THE OLYMPICS SUMMER THE REGULATED STANDARD DRESSAGE ARENA IS 20 METERS BY 60 METERS WHICH IS THE ARENA SIZE THAT I USE AND ANY OTHER DRESSAGE RIDER WORLDWIDE USES TO TRAIN TO COMPETE IN THAT DISCIPLINE. BUT THE GOOD ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE LANDOWNER? DO YOU TRAIN OTHER PEOPLE'S HORSES ALSO? NO MA'AM.

I JUST RIDE MY OWN. IT'S PLENTY. WHEN YOU SAID YOU HAVE FIVE HORSES. YES. ONE IS IN TRAINING IN GREENVILLE ACTUALLY. HE'S WITH A TRAINER AND THE OTHER THREE I TRAIN AND THEN THE PONY HE'S TOO SMALL SO MY DAUGHTER RIDES HIM. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

YOU'RE WELCOME. FROM COUNTY THIS IS THE CHAIRMAN MY NAME IS KEVIN DUKES AND I'VE BEEN RETAINED BY THE BUILDER ON THIS WHO ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION AND. I MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME LIGHT ON THIS.

SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BEFORE AND AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THAT I WAS LISTENING TO THAT AND QUITE HONESTLY A LOT OF IT WAS NOT TRUE BUT MOST OF IT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT AS SPECIFIC TO ONE THING I THINK THAT A LOT OF YOUR FOLKS IN YOUR KEVIN DUKES AND SO THE COASTAL SIGNATURE HOMES HAS WAS THESE THE APPLICANT THIS PROCESS THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD THE HOUSE AND THEY PUT TOGETHER ALL THE PLANS FOR MS..

BREWER. OKAY. AND SO I APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT WHERE THE ONES TO THE BEEN BEEN RIGHT. SO IN ORDER TO HOPEFULLY

[00:40:04]

YOU CAN PROCEED. THANK YOU. SO I THINK IT'S FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WHAT WE JUST HEARD, I THINK EVEN THE APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY STATED THAT A LOT OF THIS IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ZBA AND THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION GIVEN WITH REGARD DEAC AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND THAT CERTAINLY AS THEY'VE POINTED OUT THAT THEY INTEND TO PROCEED AND THAT'S CERTAINLY THEIR PREROGATIVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND TO PROCEED WITH THE PROPER PROCEDURES THROUGH DEAC.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THOSE SPECIFIC ISSUES. A LOT OF THE STORMWATER AND A LOT OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED THEY PULLED OUT PARTS OF THE CODE A LOT OF THOSE WERE RELIANT UPON COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND I THINK THAT A LOT OF THEIR CLAIMS TONIGHT HINGE ON THIS ISSUE AND IT'S IN THEIR APPLICATION THAT THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED OR INTERPRETED BE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THAT'S CLEAR WHEN THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO CREATE THEY CLAIM THE COUNTY IS TRYING TO CREATE CODE AND ADD ACCESSORY USES WHICH ARE NOT IN THE CODE BY ADDING IN THIS ARENA OR DRESSAGE FACILITY.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO THIS. THEY CLAIM THAT AND THEY REPRESENT AND THEY TRIED TO MOVE INTO THE COMMERCIAL CONTEXT AND THAT'S JUST CLEARLY NOT THE CASE HERE. MS. BURWELL THIS IS PURELY A RESIDENTIAL SOLELY TO BE USED BY HER AND HER DAUGHTER AND THAT'S PURPOSE. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT TO THIS AND THIS IS ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THE LARGEST OF WHICH IS CONTROL OVER THIS PROPERTY AND THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THIS AREA HAVE BEEN DEVISED THROUGH ONE FAMILY FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME. ONE OF THOSE FAMILY MEMBERS AT ONE POINT IN TIME DECIDED TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY AND THAT'S THE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT. AND SO THIS IS ABOUT CONTROL AND THE SURROUNDING OWNERS DECIDING WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE THE PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR AS OPPOSED TO WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS ON THE PROPERTY. AND KEEP IN MIND WE'RE HERE TONIGHT WITHOUT PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE THIS IS A BUY RIGHT DEVELOPMENT THIS LANDOWNER IS ENTITLED TO DEVELOP HER PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE CODE AS SHE IS DOING AND NOW THEY'RE THEY'VE USED THIS PROCESS TO THE ZBA AND INTERPRETED PORTION TO TRY TO SIDETRACK THAT AND I THINK THAT THAT IS THAT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THEY'VE GONE THAT DIRECTION BUT BUT THAT'S THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHY HERE AND I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE HERE IF NOT FOR THE ONE FACILITY THE ARENA DRESSAGE FACILITY AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS WE LOOK AT IT IS TO WHO IS THEN WHO IS MAKING THE INTERPRETATION THAT ACCESSORY USE IS IT GOING TO BE THE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OR IS IT GOING TO BE THE COUNTY AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO JUST REMEMBER THAT AS AS WE KIND OF MOVE FORWARD AS WE GET TO THE COUNTY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE VERY SPECIFIC AS TO HOW THEY ADDRESS THE APPLICATION AND HOW THEY MOVE FORWARD AND POINT OUT SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THE CODE THAT ACTUALLY APPLY TO THE SITUATION. AND THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT GOT RUSHED THROUGH.

I THINK EVERYBODY ON THIS BOARD KNOWS THAT THE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE DOES NOT JUST RUSH THINGS THROUGH. THERE WERE MULTIPLE MEETINGS, MULTIPLE MULTIPLE CHANGES WHICH OCCURRED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS TO BRING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE.

SO THIS IS NOT THEM ■TRYINGJUST PUSH THROUGH THIS PROJECT. THIS IS TRYING THEM TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE CODE WHICH THEY'VE LOOKED AT AND THEY'VE DETERMINED THAT IT DOES SO A COUPLE OTHER POINTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IS ONE WAS THE ACCESS THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ACCESS EASEMENT JUST TO BE CLEAR AND I THINK IT WAS STATED THE HOUSE THAT WAS THERE WAS BUILT IN THE SIXTIES.

THESE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN ACCESSED VIA THE SAME ROAD FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME DECADES. SO YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FOR THE LAST 65, 64 YEARS FROM THE SIXTIES TO NOW AND THE COUNTY MAINTAINS THAT ROAD PAST THE POINT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND I BELIEVE THE COUNTY CAN ADDRESS THIS DIRECTLY BUT THE COUNTY MAINTAINS AND CONSIDERS THAT TO BE A PUBLIC ROAD SO WHAT HAPPENED IS IN 2004 THERE WAS AN EASEMENT INSTRUMENT WAS

[00:45:04]

THE ISSUE COMES IN WHEN THEY TRY TO CREATE ALSO RESTRICTIONS THROUGH THAT DOCUMENT AND SO WHAT THEY ADDED IN IS ADDING ALL THESE RESTRICTIONS THAT SAY IF YOU WANT TO USE THE ROAD IF YOU WANT TO DO THIS YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHAT WE SAY YOU NEED TO COMPLY WITH AND THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS IF THERE'S BEEN AN ESTABLISHED ACCESS AND THAT'S DETERMINED THROUGH USE OR THROUGH THE COUNTY'S IMPROVEMENTS ON AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER WHETHER THEY OWN THE LAND OR NOT CANNOT THEN UNILATERALLY RESTRICT THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS FROM USING PROPERTY.

THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS NOT ENLARGING THE USE OF THIS EASEMENT.

THIS IS HER AND HER DAUGHTER DRIVING AND FROM THEIR HOUSE SHE'S NOT SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY.

SHE'S NOT ADDING INTO MORE HOMES. SHE'S NOT OVERBURDENING THE SO THERE'S NO ARGUMENT THAT SHE CANNOT USE THE EASEMENT THE RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE OF WHICH HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR A PURPOSE WHICH BEEN USED FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 60 YEARS AND AND YOU CANNOT UNILATERALLY AN EASEMENT DOCUMENT AND EFFECTIVELY TRY TO CREATE COVENANTS BY GRANTING AN EASEMENT TO THE ADJOINING OWNERS. AND SO AGAIN WE GET BACK TO THIS ISSUE OF CONTROL AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO CONTROL THE PROPERTY AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DECIDE WHAT SOMEONE ELSE GETS TO BUILD THE ISSUE OF WE HAD THIS THIS STATEMENT THAT THE COUNTY IS CREATING CODE AND CREATING LAW I WOULD POSIT TO THE BOARD RIGHT NOW THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE APPELLANT IS DOING. THEY'RE BRINGING UP ALL THESE ADDITIONAL INTERPRETATIONS, ALL THESE ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED.

THINK ABOUT THE HORSE AND THE HALF ACRE FOR EXAMPLE THE CODE DOES IT SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A HALF ACRE OF PASTURE ? THEY'VE SAID THAT AND THEY'VE PUT THAT FORWARD THE BOARD AS IF IT'S FACT AND IT'S IN THE CODE AND THAT'S WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE. THAT'S NOT WHAT IT AND SOUTH CAROLINA IS A PROPERTY RIGHTS STATE AND THE DEFAULT IS NOT RESTRICTION. THE DEFAULT IS THE FREE USE OF PROPERTY AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE A 55 MILE AN HOUR SPEED LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT IS SAYING YOU CANNOT GO OVER 55 MILES AN HOUR. THEY DON'T ALSO THAT IT DOESN'T ALSO TELL YOU YOU CAN GO 35 BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU CAN IF THE COUNTY SAYS YOU CANNOT BUILD A COMMERCIAL FACILITY, YOU CAN'T BUILD A COMMERCIAL FACILITY BUT IF THEY ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE YOU CAN BUILD A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE RESTRAINTS THERE SPECIFIED IN THE CODE . AND SO UNLESS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INTERPRETATIONS AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT QUITE HONESTLY THINGS WHICH WERE JUST MADE UP AND BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE BOARD AND AND SIMILARLY THIS RED HERRING OF DISCHARGE OF ANIMAL WASTE THAT THAT THAT THE OWNER IF SHE GETS APPROVAL THIS TONIGHT IS GOING TO START WHEELING WHEELBARROWS OF ANIMAL WASTE DOWN TO THE CREEK AND DUMPING IT IN IT'S ABSURD AND ALSO WE HAVE TO CONSIDER AS A BASELINE THAT THE PROPERTY WILL BE USED IN A LEGAL THEY'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE OWNER WHEN SHE GETS THE APPROVAL AND MOSES IS TO VIOLATE THE LAW AND AND THAT'S IF SHE DOES AND SHE HAS A PERMANENT SHE DOESN'T BUILD IT SO THAT PERMIT THEN ACTIONS CAN BE TAKEN ABOUT THAT BUT ON THE ON THE FRONT END OF AN APPROVAL WE ASSUME THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS GOING TO VIOLATE THE IF THEY GET THE APPROVAL WE HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE AND THAT'S THAT'S THE WAY THAT IT IS. AND AND I THINK THAT IN CLOSING I WOULD READ OF COURSE FINANCE FROM ELIZABETH CONNOR TO MY CLIENT AND I THINK THIS BRINGS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING WHICH IS THAT SHE STATES IN TALKING TO THE BUILDER AT THE PROPERTY AFTER A MEETING THAT

[00:50:01]

THEY WANT TO CONTROL THE PERMITTING PROCESS. THEY WANT THE BUILDER TO SUBMIT PLANS TO THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WITH IT AND THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THEIR STANDARDS AND THAT'S NOT WHAT'S REQUIRED IN COUNTY. THANK YOU.

AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND THE BUILDERS HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFICS OF THE PROJECT OR THE BUILDER OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S COME UP.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE SIDETRACKED TOO MUCH BUT AS FAR AS YOU COME OFF THE EASEMENT INTEREST TO ME THAT YOU ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT IS THAT EASEMENT HOW IS THAT EVEN AFFECTED IF THERE IS ANOTHER ACCESS OBVIOUSLY I SEE WHERE IT IS TO ACCESS YOU KNOW THE PROPOSED YEAH. SO THERE IS NO OTHER ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY EXCEPT FOR THIS ROAD IT'S BOUNDED ON TWO SIDES BY PROPERTY OWNERS THE MARSH ON SIDE AND THE ROAD ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO THAT IS THE ONLY THAT IS THE ONLY ACCESS AVAILABLE TO THE PROPERTY. OKAY. AND I DON'T KNOW SO AND THE QUESTION IS TO THE STATE THE OKAY OKAY. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE LANDOWNER? THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT. I'VE OWNED THE LAND FOR THREE YEARS. I PURCHASED IT THREE YEARS AGO AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE BUILDERS FOR OVER TWO YEARS AND THE COUNTY TO WORK ON THESE PROJECTS.

IT'S LIFELONG DREAM AND I'VE WORKED SPECIFICALLY TO HAVE AND TO PRESERVE AS MUCH OF THE ENVIRONMENT AS POSSIBLE. WE'VE SHIFTED MANY THINGS A LOT OF TIMES IN ORDER TO SEE WHAT TREES BE PRESERVED AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ACTUAL THE 67 INCH TREE WAS SAVED AND SO AM NOT SURE WHY I'M BEING ACCUSED OF TAKING THAT DOWN. BUT SINCE WE GO INTO THINGS THAT I'M ACCUSED OF , I HAVE BEEN ACCUSED NOW BY THESE AGGRIEVED PARTIES OF WANTING POISON THEIR CHILDREN. I HAVE BEEN ALREADY INFORMED THAT THEY WILL SUE ME FOR I THINK ENDANGERING THE WELFARE AND THEIR HEALTH OF THEIR FAMILIES.

WHAT ELSE? I'VE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF THREATS SOME PEOPLE HAVE HAD TO BE REMOVED THE PROPERTY BY THE POLICE SEVERAL TIMES AND SO WHEN OUR ATTORNEY SAYS THAT IT IS ABOUT CONTROL I WOULD DEFINITELY SAY THAT THERE IS SOMETHING TO IT.

AS YOU CAN HEAR FROM MY ACCENT I AM NOT FROM AROUND HERE. I DIDN'T GROW UP IN SOUTH CAROLINA BUT I HAVE BEEN A BEAUFORT RESIDENT FOR OVER EIGHT YEARS.

MY DAUGHTER WAS BORN IN CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA AND I HAVE BEEN LIVING IN HILTON HEAD IN BLUFFTON FOR NINE YEARS NOW. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. YOU KNOW THIS TIME FOR THE COUNTY GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS DYLAN KIDD AND I'M DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR BEAUFORT AND I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF STAFF. I ALSO HAVE MY SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT AS LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR HILARY AUSTIN HERE TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR HER AND I IMAGINE YOU MAY AND ROB HAS PULLED UP THE POWERPOINT THAT I HAVE FOR YOU AND I WANT TO START BY SAYING I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE PASSION THAT THIS MATTER HAS ELICITED FROM THE NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS THAT I APPRECIATE THEM JOINING US HERE THIS EVENING AND I DON'T TO DISMISS OR DIMINISH THEIR PERSPECTIVE AND CONCERNS.

THIS PROCEEDING, HOWEVER, IS AN APPEAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF TWO ZONING PERMITS.

IT'S FOCUSED UPON THE DECISIONS TO ISSUE THE TWO PERMITS BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT STAFF RECEIVED AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS AS COUNSEL AS ARE BOTH ATTORNEYS HAVE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED ON APPEAL ARE NOT WITHIN THIS BOARD'S PURVIEW. SO I WILL LIMIT WHAT WE OUR PRESENTATION THIS EVENING TO WHAT IS BEFORE THIS BOARD AND THE GERMANE ISSUES TO THIS

[00:55:01]

SO THAT'S THE FIRST APPLICATION THAT HAS THE STAMP OF JULY THE 10TH THE TOTAL LAND AREA NOTED ON THE APPLICATION WAS 3.49 ACRES AS A RESULT WHEN HILLARY AUSTIN BEGAN THE PROCESS OF CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION, SHE IMMEDIATELY THE DEVELOPER THE APPLICANT THAT NO COMMERCIAL STABLE WOULD BE PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE COMMERCIAL STABLES REQUIRE AT LEAST FIVE ACRES OF LAND. SO SHE INFORMED THEM THAT A PRIVATE STABLE WOULD BE CONSIDERED AND SHE WOULD NEED A SECOND APPLICATION ONE FOR THE RESIDENCE AND ONE FOR THE ACCESSORIES SHE RECEIVED THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS I BELIEVE THEY ARE DATE STAMPED RECEIVED ON AUGUST THE 14TH. SO THOSE PROJECT NAMES WERE THE BRUNEL RESIDENCE AND THE BRUEGHEL ACCESSORY USE THE PROJECT TYPES WERE RESIDENTS WITH THE ATTACHED GARAGE AND THE PRIVATE WERE STABLE WAS THE APPLICATION FOR THE ACCESSORY USE AT THAT POINT STAFF DETERMINED THAT THE PRIMARY USE SAW IT WAS A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNIT UNDER DIVISION POINT ONE AND THEY ALSO DETERMINED THAT THE ACCESSORY USE WOULD BE AN AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT SERVICES WHICH IS ALSO UNDER THE DIVISION POINT ONE NOTABLY ALSO UNDER THE DIVISION 3.1 A COMMERCIAL STABLE IS ONE OF THE LAND USE AS CONTEMPLATED A PRIVATE STABLE IS NOT CONTEMPLATED HOWEVER WE DO BELIEVE IT FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURAL SUPPORUE TO THE AGRICULTURAL COMPONENT.

WE THINK THAT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBES THE LAND USE SORT NOW SPECIFICALLY MS. AUSTIN LOOK TO TABLE 4.2 TO A WISH LIST THE PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES FOR 2 HOURS OWNED PROPERTIES WHICH THIS WAS IN A PRIVATE STABLE IS SPECIFICALLY LISTED AS A PERMISSIBLE USE IN ACCESSORIES AND STRUCTURES. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ACCESSORY USE AND STRUCTURE DIVISION WITHIN OUR CODE . WHAT I WANT TO POINT TO HERE IS THAT THE INTENT IN ADOPTING THE SECTION IS TO ALLOW A BROAD RANGE OF ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES SO LONG AS THEY ARE COMPLY WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS. I BELIEVE COUNSEL PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED THAT THE APPLICANT THE APPELLANT ASKED US TO READ OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE IN A RESTRICTED MANNER ASKS US TO INTERPRET IT IN THE NARROWEST SENSE WHEN WE BELIEVE THAT INTERPRETING THE CODE SHOULD ALLOW FOR THE FREEST DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LIMITS THAT WE PLACE UPON IT. AND I BELIEVE THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION ILLUSTRATES THAT INTENT SO RELEVANT TO PRIVATE STABLES WE HAVE A SIZE AREA LIMITATION SO IF SALES ARE PERMITTED ON LOTS OVER THREE ACRES THIS LOT IS 3.49 ACRES THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE LOT SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE HALF ACRE PER HORSE.

YOU CAN SEE IN AUSTIN'S EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE PERMITS ISSUED THAT SHE DID HER CALCULATIONS AND THAT'S HOW SHE ARRIVED AT THE NUMBER FOUR HORSES TO BE PERMITTED THAT WERE BY THE LANDOWNER AND TWO COULD BE BOARDED DUE TO THE SIZE THE CODE ALLOWS FOR UP TO FOUR HORSES TO BE BOARDED THAT ARE NOT OWNED BY THE LANDOWNER. BUT DUE TO THE SIZE CONSTRAINTS HERE THE MATH WORKED OUT SO THAT WAS GOING TO BE TWO COULD BE BOARDED FOR A TOTAL OF SIX HORSES TO BE PERMITTED ON FARM PROPERTY AND WE HAVE AND THE OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS GENTLEMEN THERE WE GO SO THERE ARE LIMITATIONS AS TO THE SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON PARCELS NOTABLY HOWEVER IN THE TWO HOUR DISTRICT I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THERE THESE SIZE RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO STRUCTURES USED FOR BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES.

IT'S OUR CONTENTION THAT THE LAND USE UNDER 3.1 THE AGRICULTURE RULE ACCESSORY FALLS UNDER THIS BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND THEREFORE THE LIMITATIONS ON THE TO CONSIDER IT TO BE THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AS OPPOSED TO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ARE INAPPLICABLE HERE AND IS THE SIZE OF THIS STRUCTURE DOES NOT RUN AFOUL OF ANY OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS YES AND BACK THAT IT SAYS IT IS FOR AGRICULTURAL USE SO WHAT WE HAVE IS WE HAVE A HOUSE AND WE HAVE A GARAGE AND WE REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THE HOUSE OR THE GARAGE IS.

[01:00:02]

IT DOESN'T SHOW US WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HALF OF THE BUILDING IS AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT SAYS REBUILDING CAN ONLY BE 30% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE MAIN HOUSE AND THEY ADDED THE BREEZEWAY. THERE WAS A CHANGE TO THE CODE THAT ADDED TO THE THAT IS CONSIDERED OF THE HOUSE IT BECOMES PART OF THE HOUSE AND.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE SET. THEY STARTED OUT AS A AND THEN THEY CAME BACK AND A DETACHED GARAGE TO OKAY CAME BACK AND THEY SAID OH WE'RE JUST GOING TO THE BREEZEWAY AND MAKE IT A PART OF THE HOUSE. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S GARAGE THE SIZE OF THE GARAGE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A PART. OKAY BUT DOES IT HAVE TO HAVE THE SET BACK THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IT WOULD MEET THE SET BACK.

OKAY. THINGS AND WHEN ALL OF THIS CAME UP I REALIZED THAT I MADE A MISTAKE ON THAT. OKAY SO IF THE GARAGE IS A BUILT ON THAT YES.

CHANGE IT AND MOVE IT. WE DO HAVE AND WE HAVE THE A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE BUILDER AND TO COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT REGARDING THOSE CHANGES I DO HAVE COPY HERE SO THIS WAS A LETTER THAT WAS AND I DID WANT CLEAR UP A COUPLE MORE THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED ONE OF WHICH WAS THE ACCESS ISSUE AND WE DO MS. AUSTIN CORRESPONDED WITH THE COUNTY IS RIGHT OF WAY MANAGER MS. PATTY WILSON AND ASKED IF CALHOUN PLANTATION ROAD IS A COUNTY ROAD. PATTY WILSON RESPONDED THAT THE COUNTY HAS A PRESCRIPTIVE INTEREST INTEREST IN THE ROAD BUT NOT A FORMAL INTEREST OF OWNERSHIP.

WE HAVE BEEN MAINTAINING ROAD FOR WELL OVER 20 YEARS SINCE BEFORE 1994 AND SO WE DO TAKE THE POSITION THAT IS A COUNTY MAINTAINED PUBLIC ROAD ONE IN WHICH THE COUNTY AT LEAST IN THE PUBLIC HAS A PRESCRIPTIVE INTEREST RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

SO AS TO THE STORMWATER ISSUE SO THE AND MS.. AUSTIN CAN PROBABLY SHED MORE LIGHT ON THE HISTORY OF THIS BUT 2011 WHEN THE ONLINE CALCULATION SYSTEM WAS INSTITUTED, STAFF HAS HANDLED STORMWATER CALCULATIONS, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DID IN THIS CASE. THEY REQUIRED A STORMWATER APPLICATION WHICH WAS SUBMITTED MISS US AND THEN FORWARDED THAT APPLICATION TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR CALCULATIONS.

THEY RAN THEIR CALCULATIONS AND CAME BACK WITH THE RAIN GARDEN PLAN THAT WAS INCLUDED WHEN THEY ISSUED THE STORMWATER PERMIT. SO THEY THEY FOLLOWED EVERYTHING THAT WAS REQUIRED OF THEM ON THAT FRONT WAS SOME CORRESPONDENCE I BELIEVE THAT THE CONNERS HAD DISCUSSED BEING TOLD THAT AN AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION HAD APPLIED AT ONE POINT AND EXEMPTION WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLICABLE FOR THE ACCESSORY USE BUT IT WASN'T UTILIZED BECAUSE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND CHARACTERISTICS WERE INCLUDED IN THE STORMWATER CALCULATIONS THAT WERE DONE BY THE ENGINEERING. SO I WANTED TO CLEAR UP ANY DISCREPANCY THERE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE IT WAS NOT APPLIED EVERY CONSIDERATION AND EVERY CHARACTERISTIC OF THE PROPERTY WAS FACTORED INTO THE CALCULATIONS THAT ENGINEERING DID. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT STAFF COULD ACTUALLY SIGNED ON AND SO WE HAVE THEY DID SIGN OFF ON THE STORMWATER AND WE ALSO HAVE I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS NOT PRODUCED WITH THE RESPONSE TO FOIA.

WE DO HAVE DOCUMENTS FROM DE AS TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AS WELL. I HAVE THAT HERE THAT SAYS SOMETHING DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED OFF ON STORMWATER PERMITS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THEIR ASSESSOR USES SINCE YOU KNOW WHEN THE IMPLEMENTED THE ONLINE LEGAL SYSTEMS FOR US THIS IS THE CORRESPONDENCE I

[01:05:35]

I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN OR ASK HIM AS TO ASSIST.

OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION IN THE TRANSIT ZONE REQUIREMENTS 3.8 A ON BUILDING PLACEMENT THE FRONT SETBACK IS 50 FOOT MINIMUM AND THE ARENA DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE 50 FEET FROM THE ROAD.

I CAN SEE THAT RIGHT IN THE AREA BUT IT'S UNDER A ROOF. YEAH AND IT'S CONNECTED TO THE STABLES SO THAT'S I MEAN IF WE SAY GARAGE IS CONNECTED OR ONE BUILDING THEN IT SEEMS LIKE THIS EQUESTRIAN CONNECTED TO THE STABLES THE SAME AND NO ONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THE COUNTY ALSO DID WANT TO ADDRESS I'M SORRY THE THE TREE REMOVAL I BELIEVE IN YOUR APPELLATE PACKET FROM THE COUNTY MS. AUSTIN'S CALCULATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR TREE PRESERVATION CODE WERE INCLUDED SHE CALCULATED THAT THERE WERE BUT SHE CAME UP WITH 399 INCHES THE EXISTING PINE REQUIRED 240 EXISTING INCHES OF EXISTING FIND TIME TO BE USED AS MITIGATION THE TOTAL COST OF THE TREE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION WAS $40,000 TO THE TREE FUNDS AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S BEEN PAID.

I THINK WE BELIEVE OAKS IS LIABLE. YES.

SO UNDER OUR MITIGATION SHE WAS TO PERFORM THE CALCULATIONS FOR MITIGATION AND WHAT IT CAME OUT TO IT CAME TO THE $40,000 WHICH WAS PAID ALSO AS STATED WITHIN THE ISSUANCE OF THE STORMWATER PERMIT. IT'S NOT AS IF THERE WERE MITIGATION EFFORTS REQUIRED.

THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RAIN GARDENS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED VEGETATED AND INSPECTED. THERE IS SOME CERTIFICATION THE STATE PLAYS A ROLE IN CAN STOP THIS AS WELL IN THE DEC CERTIFICATIONS WITH THE NOI BUT THOSE ARE THE LAST THINGS THAT I WANTED TO TOUCH UPON. THANK YOU. WAS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?

[01:10:08]

WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BASED ON 7.3, THE 70 ON AN APPEAL, WE WILL JUST TAKE A MOMENT LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FOR THE APPEAL. THAT WAY WE CAN MAKE A SOLID DECISION AND WITH THE CLOSE I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TREES.

IS THE MITIGATION REALLY HAPPENING ON THE SITE? SOME OF IT IT'S NOT.

YOU HAVE UNACCOMPANIED BY SOME OF THE TREES AND ON SITE THE PINES WERE AND THEY'RE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE BACK SO IT'S ALREADY BEEN PLANNED. NO EXISTING OAK TREES? YES. YES. MITIGATING THINK YOUR DEMANDS ARE LESS THAN STRESSED TIME VISITED WITH I GUESS WE NEED TO SEE THE COUNTY HERE AN AREA OF SO OUR WHAT WE DO IS MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE LEGITIMATE FINDING OF FACTS.

MR. CHAIRMAN, YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE REQUIRES YOU TO HOLD THE PARTIES INDEPENDENTLY LOCATED INSIDE THE HOUSE. YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. SO WOULD YOU TO HAVE A TEN MINUTE REBUTTAL DO OKAY. ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT FOR REBUTTAL IS THE YOUR PROPERTY SAID THAT THEY'VE GONE TO GREAT PAINS TO LITTLE LOUDER PLEASE.

I'M SORRY. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SAID THAT THEY HAD GONE TO GREAT PAINS TO SAVE THE 64 INCH DB H LIVE OAK ON THE SITE SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THE THE LOT GRADING PLANT ON MY KEY ENGINEERING THAT SHOWS SHOWS AS POINTED I RIGHT I THINK THE GRADE NINE DOES HAVE AN X ON IT BUT THAT'S NOT THE APPROVED PLAN.

THE APPROVED PLAN IS THIS AND THIS SHOWS A 64 INCH MODEL. OKAY.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE ON THAT ON THAT PLAN IT SAYS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ROOT ZONE FOR THAT TREE IS GOING TO BE OBLITERATED IN THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURES ADJACENT TO IT WHERE MOST OF THE CANOPY TO BE PRUNED BACK TO ALMOST NOTHING.

SO THERE'S NOT MUCH CHANCE OF THAT TREE TO LIVE ANYWAY. THAT'S WHY IT'S ON THE WAY HERE. THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT THIS GRADING PLAN ALSO SHOULD FIT RIGHT NEXT TO THE SIX FOUR INCH LEVEL. OKAY.

AND THIS IS THE PLAN THAT WAS USED TO ISSUE THE THE STORMWATER PERMIT.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S NOT ALSO STAMPED AN APPROVED PLAN SO I ALSO LIKE TO MAKE THE POINT THAT IN ADDITION TO THE EQUESTRIAN ARENA BEING BUILDING NEEDING TO BE 50 FEET BACK FROM THE THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE 100 FEET AWAY FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINES. IT BEING CONSIDERED AS AS ONE BUILDING CONNECTED IN ONE STABLE FACILITY. SO IT IS ALSO NOT 100 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE MY PROPERTY LINE THAT IS RUNS ALONG THE THE DITCH THERE. SO THE EXISTING DITCH IS ALSO THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 6870 CAL AND PLANTATION ROAD AND I LIVE AT 77 PLANTATION ROAD AND SO AT ONE AT ONE POINT THE EQUESTRIAN ARENA IS APPROXIMATELY 28 FEET FROM MY FROM MY PROPERTY LINE AND IN FACT ALSO I DON'T KNOW IF THE COUNTY COUNTY I'M CONFUSED WITH

[01:15:21]

WHAT COLORS DECIDE ON THAT ROAD IS A GREEN ZONE. I'M SORRY.

OKAY. YEAH. AND ALSO FOR THE AGRICULTURAL USE AND SO SO THE BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ON SITE IS THAT THE THE OTHER THING WHAT YOU SAID IS THAT THE BONA FIDE IF THERE'S A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE ON SITE AND THAT BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE IS HAPPENING INSIDE THE EQUESTRIAN ARENA AND THAT'S WHY THE HORSE STABLE EQUESTRIAN ARENA THAT THAT THE THE USE IDENTIFIED IN CODE THAT IS A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY OF STABLES IS A COMMERCIAL STABLE USE AND THAT IS IN THE LAND USE TABLES UNDER THE LAND USE HEADING AGRICULTURAL IS COMMERCIAL STABLES SO GOING TO MAKE I WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT SO IT'S A THERE'S IS IT'S A PRIVATE PRIVATE USE TABLE THAT THEY'RE SAYING IS AGRICULTURAL BUT THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT CODE UNDER AGRICULTURAL USES THE ONLY STABLE USE THAT'S AGRICULTURAL IS COMMERCIAL STABLE SO CAN JUST AND I'M THE WIFE WE'RE IN GREEN PARTY SO ABOUT THE AND THIS ONE THIS ONE THEY WANT CERTIFIED ANIMALS RELEASED AND WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THIS A LOT BECAUSE THERE IS A CODE OF PRIVATE STABLE AND COMMERCIAL STABLE. RIGHT. IT'S ONLY ONE OR THE OTHER.

SO IF YOU GO TO THE LAND USE FOR AGRICULTURAL AND BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE THE ONLY ONE THERE IS COMMERCIAL STABLE AND THAT'S WHAT IS USED FOR TRAINING AND USING ALL THOSE KINDS OF FACILITIES WHICH IS WHAT THE OWNER INTENDS TO USE IT FOR WHICH IS TOTALLY FINE AND WE ALL AGREE BUT FOR THAT TO BE USED IN APPROPRIATE LAND USE IN THE COMMERCIAL STABLE THE SITE HAS TO BE FIVE ACRES. SO THERE WE'RE THAT IT'S A COMMERCIAL STABLE AND IT'S USED FOR TRAINING AND EVERYTHING UNDER THE LAND USE UNDER COMMERCIAL STABLE IS WHAT'S BEING USED TO EXPLAIN THIS BUILDING BUT WE'RE JUST CALLING IT A PRIVATE STABLE AND SO WE'RE WE'RE BUILDING A COMMERCIAL STABLE WITH THE ARENA AND AND THE FOUR STABLES AND ALL THOSE GOOD THINGS. RIGHT. BUT THE SITE LOT IS JUST TOO SMALL SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT CALLING IT A PRIVATE OR I'M SO WE'RE NOT CALLING IT A COMMERCIAL STABLE BUT THE ACTIVITY IS USED UNDER A COMMERCIAL STABLE LIKE IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN CODE IS TRAINING AND DOING ALL THESE SORTS OF THINGS BUT THAT'S NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE THE SITE IS LESS THAN FIVE ACRES SO THE BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE CAN'T USED ON SITE LESS THAN FIVE ACRES THAT'S THAT'S WHERE CONFUSION HAS COME FROM AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE THE SAME THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND IT TOTALLY COMBINED IS 20,000 SQUARE FEET AND WE'RE FINDING IS AN ACCESSORY USE I'M SORRY WE'RE SAYING IT'S AN ACCESSORY USE PRIVATE STABLE BUT IT'S THE WHOLE THING IT'S TWICE THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE AND GARAGE COMBINED THE 2.7 TIMES THE SIZE SO SO OUR CONFUSION HAS BEEN RIGHT WHERE WE'RE GOING DOWN THIS TRACK SAYING NOT A COMMERCIAL STABLE BUT EVERYTHING ABOUT IT AND IT BEING ALLOWED AND ZONING AND THE SIZE OF IT AND ALL THESE GOOD THINGS ARE SAYING IT'S TOTALLY ALLOWED AS AN AGRICULTURAL USE BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE UNDER COMMERCIAL STABLE TO USE FOR HORSE TRAINING BUT HORSE TRAINING IS NOT ALLOWED AND PRIVATE USE BECAUSE THE LOT IS TOO SMALL.

OKAY SORRY YOU'RE SAYING IF I OWN A HORSE AND I TRADE IT FOR ME TO RIDE THAT'S COMMERCIAL.

NO, I'M SAYING THAT SO IN THE IN THE CODE THIS IS JUST THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING.

OKAY. SO YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY TRAIN YOUR HORSE JUST I MEAN USE THAT HAVING THE GIANT ARENA ON A LOT THAT'S LESS THAN FIVE ACRES IS NOT A LOT OF HOME HAVING THEM

[01:20:05]

THIS ONE IS 2.7 TIMES THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND HER DESIRE TO HAVE MORE HORSES AND ARENA AND I KNOW THAT'S GREAT BUT THE LOT IS JUST TOO SMALL.

I MEAN THAT'S WHAT HILARY SAID IT CAN'T BE A COMMERCIAL STABLE BUT IT'S STILL THE PLAN SET IS A COMMERCIAL STATE. SO YOUR YOUR ARGUMENT IS FOR IT TO HAVE THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING PERKS IT HAS TO BE A COMMERCIAL STATE. I'M SAYING THIS LOT SIZE HAS TO BE FIVE ACRES. THERE'S I MEAN THE BUILDING THE BUILDING BUILT IS IS IS A IT'S A COMMERCIAL STABLE FACILITY IS THE BUILDING THAT'S BEING I MEAN THE WORD WE'RE USING THE WORD STABLE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE CODE CALLS IT REGARDLESS REGARDLESS OF HOW THE BUILDING IS BEING USED, WE'RE REFERRING IT'S A COMMERCIAL STABLE FACILITY IS THAT SIZE I MEAN AND IT AND THESE THESE THESE BUILDINGS ARE THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE THEY'RE USED FOR.

BUT IN ORDER FOR THE BUILDING TO BE THAT BIG AND NOT HAVE BE SUBORDINATE TO THE THE PRIMARY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE STRUCTURE THE COUNTY'S INTERPRETATION WAS THAT IT CAN BE THIS BIG BECAUSE IT'S A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE BUT PRIVATE HORSE TABLE IS NOT LISTED AS A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE IN COTE COMMERCIAL STABLE IS BUT NOT PRIVATE STABLE PRIVATE STABLE LISTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A HOME AND THAT HAS TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF BEING TO THE PRIMARY AND PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THE SITE WHICH IS THE WHICH IS THE RESIDENCE. BUT I'M GOING TO LET THE COUNTESS SPEAK ON THAT.

BUT I THINK THAT THE BONA FIDE WELL I'M ABOUT TO KIND OF SPEAK OF THIS AND IF YOU WANT TO THE DEFINITION OF A COMMERCIAL STABLE IT SAYS STABLE IN TRAINING FEEDING MULES DONKEYS OR OR THE PROVISION OF RIDING FACILITIES FOR USE OTHER THAN THE RESIDENT OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S A COMMERCIAL STABLE SO THERE IS NOT A DEFINITION FOR A HORSE STABLE BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU CAN RIDE TRAIN EVEN STABLE A COUPLE HORSES THAT'S NOT YOURS AT A PRIVATE AT A PRIVATE STABLE BECAUSE THE CODE ALLOWS YOU TO BOARD FOR HORSES IF YOU HAVE THE FACILITY TO DO THAT SO YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TRAIN OTHER PEOPLE HORSES OR DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT BUT YOU CAN TRAIN OWN SO THAT'S TO ME THAT'S A HORSE STABLE SO DEFINITION AN ACCESSORY SAYS EXCEPT FOR TWO OUR DISTRICT AND THEN IT SAYS ENTITY TO OUR DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR STRUCTURES USED FOR BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL ALL RIGHT WELL OKAY. EXCEPT FOR STRUCTURES USED FOR BONA FIDE PURPOSES COMMERCIAL STABLES FALLS UNDER AGRICULTURE.

I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE PRIVATE HORSE STABLES SHOULD FALL. ISN'T THAT CAN SOMEBODY ANSWER THAT FOR ME I MEAN, I KNOW. WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT AGRICULTURE.

IT'S NOT A LOT OF CULTURAL GROUPS. IT'S NOT A STABLE.

YOU CAN'T HAVE TWO PRIMARY USES FOR THE RIVER. WE'RE NOT DOING TWO PRIMARY USES AND I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU AND I'M SORRY I SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE ASKED YOU A QUESTION SO THE REASON WHY THIS STRUCTURE IS SO LARGE IS BECAUSE IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT STABLES ARE CONSIDERED AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES AND THAT'S WHY I DID NOT PUT A

[01:25:03]

THANK YOU. JUST WANT I'LL ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. I DID WANT TO NOTE I MISSED ONE SLIDE FOR THE MARITIME FOREST PRESERVATION EXEMPTED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THE SAME AS TO DESIGN ALTERNATIVES AND WE LAST WE SAID WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT AND WE CORRECTED THE GARAGE THAT BACK ISSUE BY THE LETTER THAT I HANDED UP TO THE BOARD EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON SO THANK YOU.

WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE THE SECOND WE'VE IMPROVED COUPLE OF MINUTES WE GOT TO OKAY GO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE MARITIME FOREST PRESERVATION IS EXEMPT FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS BUT THEN THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE THE RIDE THE EQUESTRIAN ARENA AND STABLES BEING AGRICULTURAL USE. SO THEN THIS FOREST PRESERVATION THE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IT'S NOT EXEMPTED BECAUSE IT EXEMPTED FOR AGRICULTURE WOULD BE MY QUESTION AS WELL AS THE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES AND. I'M STILL CONCERNED THAT THE I JUST ASK YOU TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THE QUESTION ARENA THE ACTUALLY BEING A BUILDING SO THAT IT CAN MEET SOME SORT OF STANDARD AND CODE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T MEET ANY STANDARD THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

SO YOU HAVE THIS APPEAL OF THIS HORSE. IT IS A DETRIMENT.

I MEAN IT WAS BEFORE US THAT THE COUNTY HERE IN THE NEAR UPHOLD IN THE COUNTY DID THE COUNTY ACTUALLY IN AN ERROR AS HERE BEFORE US TONIGHT AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A RULING ON SO WE CAN FORWARD ON THIS. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION FOR THE MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE HAVE ALL THE COUNTIES CAN WE DISCUSS OR YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION IN I WAS TRYING TO DISCUSS THE COMMISSION TO OVERCOME HIS RULING ON THIS IN AND WHEN YOU PLACE THAT MOTION YOU KNOW PUT YOUR FEET ON THE FENCE ON WHY WE ARE MEETING WHEN WE DON'T HAVE BINDING EFFECTS THAT WE'RE SEEING.

YEAH YEAH YOU CORRECT. SO THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO UPHOLD THE COUNTY'S DECISION THAT AN ERROR WAS NOT MADE ON THE ON THIS APPEAL RIGHT.

I HAVE CONCERNS THAT THE ARENA IS A BUILDING THAT WOULD NEED A BUILDING PERMIT.

IT'S GOT A ROOF AND THAT IT SHOULD MEET THE SETBACKS THAT ARE REQUIRED.

JEREMY AND I SPEAK REAL QUICK. I DON'T I DIDN'T HEAR A SECOND ON THAT MOTION I LIVE IN WHEN SAID YES IT WAS GOOD HEARING SORRY. YOU KNOW WHERE WERE YOU FINISHED? YEAH, I JUST SAID THAT I THINK THAT THE ARENA SHOULD MEET SETBACKS FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THIS SIDE PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE IT IS A BUILDING AND WE CAN DEFINITELY AND I AGREE WE CAN DEFINITELY MAKE THAT CONDITION INTO THIS THAT DOES MEET THE SETBACKS OF THE ACCESSORY THAT'S YOU KNOW THAT'S ALLOWED THE HORSE

[01:30:06]

I MEAN IF IT DIDN'T HAVE A ROOF ON IT IT WOULDN'T BE A BUILT OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE A BUILDING BUT WITH A ROOF ON IT A BUILDING IT SHOULD BE 50 FEET AND THAT IS CORRECT.

SO IT'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO UPHOLD THE DECISION THE COUNTY'S DECISION THAT THERE WAS NOT AN ERROR MADE AND IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MADE A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR OF UPHOLDING THE COUNTY'S DECISION SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND ANY OPPOSED FAVOR OF HAS BEEN PASSED YOU DID VOTE YES OKAY IT'S BEEN PASSED THAT THE COUNTY IN THAT AIR IN AN ERROR IN THIS APPEAL SO THERE'S ANY OTHER CONCERNS YOU GUYS DIDN'T GET WITH THE COUNTY BUT IT'S BEEN CLEAR THAT THE COUNTY HAVE A NOT AIR IN AN ERROR IN THIS DECISION PROCESS, THIS APPEAL PROCESS THROUGH YOUR SYMPATHETIC THE MOST CRITICAL TAKE AT A MINIMUM OF FIND MEMBERS MAKING THE DECISION TO HOLD THE FACTUAL INFORMATION TO DECIDE DO YOU JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK IT WAS IT YOU KNOW YEAH SO YOU WANT TO PUT THIS INTO MOTION BASED ON WHY DO WE THINK THE COUNTY DID NOT VEER TO NEAR THESE EFFECTS IF YOU WHAT DO YOU MEAN LIKE EACH ISSUE IN THIS POST THAT THEY SAY IS I MEAN YES I THINK THAT I THINK THAT THE I CAN GO THROUGH AND JUST LISTEN I BELIEVE THAT THE COUNTY WAS LOOKING TO BE LIKE WHAT FOR YOU KNOW OF I MEAN WE COULD JUST GO WE COULD ALL THOSE OR YOU KNOW THAT'S ONE THAT HAPPENS HAPPENS COMMISSION I BELIEVE THAT NUMBER ONE IS THAT THE THAT THE STABLES ARE YOU KNOW PRIVATE AND THE ACCESSORY USE A PRIVATE STABLE IS IS UNDER A LOT OF THE THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN THIS PROCEDURE STILL FALL UNDER THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOR PERMITTING YOU KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE THE STORMWATER PERMIT REQUIREMENTS BUT I STILL FEEL THAT FROM THE COUNTY'S INTERPRETATION WAS CORRECT THAT THE THE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS TO FALL UNDER THE STATE REMAIN UNDER THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THE THEY THEY THE APPLICATION IN THE PERMIT FALLS UNDER THE THOSE CORRECTLY FALL UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

[01:35:01]