[00:00:01]
CLOSED CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY BUFORT COUNTY
[1. Call to Order]
WHO WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS APPLICATION WILL HAVE, UH, UP TO THREE MINUTES TO DO SO.AND THEN AFTER THAT, UH, THE BOARD WILL COME BACK AND DISCUSS THE APPLICATION AND MAKE A DECISION.
UH, BEFORE I ASKED FOR AN APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, I DID HAVE A QUESTION, UM, FOR, FOR THE PARTIES, UM, COUNSEL, WE HAD AN EMAIL SUBMISSION, I BELIEVE THIS MORNING.
UM, AND THERE REALLY IS NO LONGER A PUBLIC PORTAL FOR THAT.
AND I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THE EMAIL SUBMISSION THAT WE RECEIVED PART OF THE RECORD OF THIS CASE.
IS THAT THE LETTER FROM NADINE CHAPLIN? YES.
UM, I, MY GENERAL RULE IS I ALWAYS BEND OVER BACKWARD TO ASSURE AS MUCH PUBLIC INPUT AS POSSIBLE.
SO, NO, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO AGREEING THAT.
AND DOES TOWN STAFF HAVE ANY OBJECTION? NO, SIR.
SO THAT'LL BE MADE PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF, OF, OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
[3. Adoption of the Agenda]
A MOTION, UH, TO ADOPT THE AGENDA.ALMOST SECOND CHRISTIAN MOVES AND MS. BAYLOW SECONDS.
UH, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE, UH, RAISE YOUR HAND SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
[4. Approval of the Minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2025.]
COULD WE HAVE AN APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 24TH, 2025 MEETING? I MOTION? SECOND.UH, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HANDS AND SAYING, AYE.
UH, I, I'M GONNA ABSTAIN, UH, FROM THAT AS I WASN'T HERE, HAVE NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
[6.a. Public Hearing VAR-00111702025 - Request from Chester Williams, Esquire, and Roy Prescott, on behalf of Steven and Lisa Weston, owners of 125 and 140 Shark Key Way, also identified as Beaufort County Tax Map Parcel R510 005 000 001B 0000, for a variance from LMO Section 16-4-102.B.5.b, locational restrictions, to allow Outdoor Commercial Uses other than a Water Park without direct vehicular access to a minor arterial in accordance with 16-5-105.B.]
HAVE, UH, VARIANCE 0 0 1 1 1 7 0 2 0 2 5.UH, REQUEST FROM CHESTER WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE AND ROY PRESCOTT ON BEHALF OF STEVEN AND LISA WESTON, OWNERS OF 1 25 AND ONE 40 SHARK KEY WAY, ALSO IDENTIFIED AS BEAUFORT COUNTY TAX MAP PAR MAP PARCEL R 5 10 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 B 0 0 0 0 FOR A VARIANCE FROM LMO SECTION 16 4 1 0 2 B FIVE B LOCATIONAL RESTRICTIONS TO ALLOW OUTDOOR, COMMERCIAL USES OTHER THAN A WATERPARK WITHOUT DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO A MINOR ARTERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH 16 5 1 0 5 B.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND BOARD FOR THE RECORD.
MICHAEL CONLEY, SENIOR PLANNER.
UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON, UH, THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE ISLAND FOR YOUR ORIENTATION PURPOSES, AND IT IS ZONED IN THE MITCHELLVILLE DISTRICT.
UM, ON TOP OF THAT ZONING, WE HAVE A CORRIDOR OVERLAY AND THE AIRPORT OVERLAY.
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED.
IT HAS TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND A BOARDWALK THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE BEACH.
AND IT ALSO, UH, FRONTS MITCHELLVILLE ROAD YOU CAN SEE HERE.
UM, AND AGAIN, FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE, WE HAVE, UM, LOCATION MAPS, ONE OF THE ISLAND AND THE OTHER SHOWING THE ZONING AND THE PARCEL.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN THE FUTURE, WE CAN, WE CAN REFERENCE THESE.
UM, THE MITCHELLVILLE DISTRICT ALLOWS, USES THE OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION OTHER THAN A WATERPARK.
HOWEVER, UM, THAT USE IS PERMITTED TO USE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, AND THAT IS, AS YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, IT'S 16 4 1 0 2 B FIVE B.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO MITCHELLVILLE ROAD.
AND WHEN WE REFERENCE THAT IN THE LMO, IN THE MINOR ARTERIALS LISTED IN 16 5 1 0 5 B MITCHELLVILLE ROAD IS NOT LISTED AS A MINOR ARTERIAL.
AND THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT BRINGS US HERE TODAY.
AND THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM.
IT'S THE USE SPECIFIC CONDITION IN THE ZONING REQUIREMENT IN THIS MITCHELLVILLE DISTRICT THAT'D BE ADJACENT OR CONNECTED TO THE MINOR ARTERIAL, WHICH IT IS NOT.
SO BEAUFORT COUNTY RECORDS A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY.
BUFORT COUNTY SHOWS THAT THE WESTIN'S PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND 2020 AS REFERENCED IN YOUR PACKET, THE PARCEL IS SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER THAN SOME OF THE SURROUNDING PARCELS AROUND IT.
[00:05:02]
WHEN THE PER WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED, MITCHELLVILLE ROAD WAS NOT A MINOR ARTERIAL AND IS STILL NOT A MINOR ARTERIAL.THE USE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TODAY ALSO APPLIED WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN OCTOBER OF 2025.
THE TOWN ISSUED A FORMAL DETERMINATION CONFIRMING THAT OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE OTHER THAN A WATERPARK HAS TO BE REVIEWED AS PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS IN THE MV DISTRICT OF THE MITCHELLVILLE DISTRICT.
AND IT ALSO INFORMED THE APPLICANT THAT A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE USE OF THE LAND TO ALLOW OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION OTHER THAN A WATERPARK, UH, ONE NOTE IN THE LMO, I'M SORRY.
SO THAT WOULD BRING US THEN TO THE LMO CRITERIA TO DETERMINE, UM, A VARIANCE.
A VARIANCE MAY BE GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
IF IT CONCLUDES THAT THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF ANY APPROPRIATE DIMENSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN, OR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A VARIANCE MAY BE GRANTED IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE OF UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DETERMINES AND EXPRESSES IN WRITING ALL OF THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS.
AND THE FIRST FINDING IS THAT THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AGAIN, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE USE SPECIFIC CONDITION REQUIRING DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO A MINOR ARTERIAL SHARK.
KEYWAY IS NOT LISTED AS A MINOR ARTERIAL AND NEITHER IS MITCHELLVILLE ROAD.
THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE HARDSHIP ARISES FROM A DESIRE TO ESTABLISH A COMMERCIAL EVENT VENUE ON THE ROAD DESIGNED FOR LOW VOLUME RESIDENTIAL ACCESS RATHER THAN ANY PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAND ITSELF.
THE PARCEL IS LONG AND NARROW AND THERE'S NO UNIQUE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS SUCH AS SHAPE, SIZE, TOPOGRAPHY, ANY KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS THAT PROTECT THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S PERMITTED BY THE EXISTING ZONING.
THE HARDSHIP STEMS FROM A DESIRE TO ESTABLISH A COMMERCIAL USE ON RESIDENTIAL ACCESS ROAD BEING SHARK KEYWAY AND NOT FROM THE UNIQUE LAND CONDITIONS THEMSELVES.
THEREFORE, STAFF, UM, THEREFORE THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE LMO BECAUSE THERE ARE NO EXTRAORDINARY OR EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS THAT PERTAIN TO THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY CRITERIA.
NUMBER TWO, THESE CON CONDITIONS DO NOT GENERALLY APPLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY.
THE USE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, THEY DO APPLY.
THEY APPLY TO ALL OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE MITCHELLVILLE DISTRICT.
THE USE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS WERE IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AND PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT IN 2021, ACCESS LIMITATIONS ON MITCHELLVILLE ROAD SUCH AS STREET WIDTH CAPACITY, THEY APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL NEARBY PARCELS.
AND THERE'S NOTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THE APPLICANT.
APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, THE SURROUNDING PARCELS ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THE INTRODUCTION OF COMMERCIAL EVENT ACTIVITY MAY INCREASE NOISE.
OTHER IMPACTS INCONSISTENT WITH ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS OF THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD BAG.
THE ACCESS LIMITATIONS AGAIN ON MITCHELLVILLE ROAD ARE SHARED BY ALL PROPERTIES ON THE ROAD, UM, AND ALLOWING A COMMERCIAL EVENT WITHOUT COMPLIANCE ON A MINOR ART O ACCESS.
THE, WITH THE REQ MEETING, THE REQUIREMENTS DOES POTENT, UM, PRESENT POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THIS AREA.
THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE LMO BECAUSE THERE ARE NO EXTRAORDINARY OR EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS THAT PERTAIN TO THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT DON'T GENERALLY APPLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY.
AND THREE, BECAUSE OF THESE CONDITIONS, THE APPLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE UTILIZATION OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY BEING UTILIZED AND IS DEVELOPED WITH TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND CAN CONTINUE TO BE DEVELOPED FOR ALL PERMITTED USES AND ACCESSORY USES.
IN THE MITCHELLVILLE DISTRICT THAT REQUESTED VARIANCE IS INTENDED TO ENABLE A COMMERCIAL EVENT VENUE, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
THE OWNERS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND DEVELOPED IT.
THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT FOR A MINOR ARTERIAL ACCESS IS TIED DIRECTLY TO PUBLIC SAFETY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY AND WAIVING IT COULD ALTER FUNDAMENTAL FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT, NOT A MINOR TECHNICAL STANDARD.
OTHER REASONABLE, VIABLE USES EXIST UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE.
[00:10:02]
THE INABILITY TO OPERATE A COMMERCIAL EVENT VENUE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS BECAUSE THE PROPERTY RETAINS FULL REASONABLE USES AS A RESIDENTIAL PARCEL.STRICT APPLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE UTILIZATION OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ORDINANCE DEPRIVES THE PROPERTY OF REASONABLE USE.
THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE LMO BECAUSE THE USE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS WOULD NOT EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE UTILIZATION OF THE PROPERTY.
FOUR, THE AUTHORIZATION OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT BE OF SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OR THE PUBLIC GOOD.
AND THE CHARACTER OF THE ZONING DISTRICT WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WILL NOT BE HARMED BY THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE.
SECTION 16 5 1 0 5 ESTABLISHES THE STREET HIERARCHY SYSTEM TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE ROAD FUNCTIONING AND THE LAND USE INTENSITY.
THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL, THIS VARIANCE WOULD CONFLICT WITH THAT POLICY.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPEAKS ABOUT THIS ALIGNING LAND USE INTENSITY WITH INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND CHAPTER FIVE ON PAGE 1 68, THE SURROUNDING AREA IS A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT DESIGNED FOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION USES OR EVENT VENUES.
IN THE LOCAL PLANS OR ZONING GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD INTRODUCE TRAFFIC, NOISE AND FUNCTIONAL IMPACTS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL SETTING OF THE, UM, HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE VARIANCE WOULD UNDERMINE BOTH THE AMO AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY PLACING A HIGH INTENSITY USE ON A LOW CLASSIFICATION STREET.
THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE ALAMO STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BZA DENY, UM, THIS APPLICATION BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW.
AND ONE OTHER PART OF THE ILLINOIS I DID WANNA BRING UP HERE WAS FACTORS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED.
THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY MAY BE UTILIZED MORE PROFITABLY, SHOULD A VARIANCE BE GRANTED, MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AS GROUNDS FOR A VARIANCE.
COUNCIL? YEAH, MICHAEL, IS IT A BY RIGHT USE THAT THEY COULD USE THAT PROPERTY FOR A WATERPARK, UM, BY RIGHT.
SO LONG AS THEY MEET THE USE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
SO, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT SO LONG AS THEY WERE ADJACENT TO A MINOR ARTERIAL ROAD.
IF THEY MET THAT CONDITION, THAT REQUIREMENT, THEN IT WOULD BE, UH, BY RIGHT.
BUT THAT USE SPECIFIC CONDITION HAS TO BE MET.
AND, AND THAT'S WHAT BRINGS US HERE BECAUSE MITCHELLVILLE ROAD IS NOT A MINOR ARTERIAL, SO IT, THE USE WOULD NOT ALLOW IT.
SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE THAT PROPERTY AS A WATER PARK AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW? NO, SIR.
THEY DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR IT TO BE ALLOWED.
AND WHAT WOULD BE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THAT PROPERTY IF IT WAS BOUGHT BY SOMEONE ELSE AND THEY WANTED TO DEVELOP IT RESIDENTIALLY? WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE PRESENT ZONING? THE PRESENT ZONING IS MITCHELLVILLE.
UM, SO ANYBODY WHO WOULD BUY THE PROPERTY HYPOTHETICALLY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND FORMS IN THAT ZONE.
UM, THERE'S ALSO THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY AND THE AIRPORT OVERLAY COVERS IT AS WELL.
BUT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE, I, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO NOW, WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, IT WAS UNDEVELOPED AND THEY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO DEVELOP THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UM, AND WHAT, WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR, HOW, HOW MANY HOMES COULD POTENTIALLY BE BUILT ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY? I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
DOES SOMEONE KNOW FROM STAFF? TREY? YOU KNOW, I CAN GO DO THE MATH REALLY QUICK AND, AND I WILL, UM, TRE ALLOW DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER FOR THE RECORD.
UM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, WHICH WAS, WOULD A PERMITTED, WOULD, WOULD A WATERPARK BE PERMITTED? YES, IT IS A BUYRIGHT USE IN THE MITCHELLVILLE DISTRICT.
THIS IS OTHER THAN A WATERPARK OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION OTHER THAN A WATERPARK WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED HERE TODAY.
BUT A WATERPARK IS A BUYRIGHT WITHOUT CONDITIONAL USE.
SO IF THEY CHOSE TO BUILD A WATERPARK THERE WITH ALL THE ASSOCI ASSOCIATED USES AND PARKING AND TRAFFIC, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT BY RIGHT.
AS LONG AS IT, IT THE STATE AND OUR STANDARDS OF THE LMO OUTSIDE OF USE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, UH, ALLOWED IT.
AND IF, IF YOU COULD AT SOME POINT DO THE MATH AND YEAH, I'LL DO IT RIGHT NOW, HOW MANY, HOW MANY UNITS POTENTIALLY COULD BE ON THAT PROPERTY, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE MR. CHAIRMAN FOR THE MOMENT.
MICHAEL, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS, UM, I'M SORRY, MICHAEL, I, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT
[00:15:01]
THERE WAS AN APPLICATION MADE PREVIOUSLY THAT SPECIFIED THE NUMBER OF HOMES TO BE BUILT AND ONLY TWO WERE BUILT? YES, MA'AM.THAT WAS, WHAT WAS THE NUMBER THAT, THAT WAS, UH, SOUGHT BUT DID NOT ACTUALLY OCCUR.
SO THE, UM, SMALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IT WAS IN YOUR PACKET, UM, WAS APPROVED FOR THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT ONLY TWO WERE BUILT.
SO, UM, I BELIEVE AT THIS POINT THAT HAS A, THE VESTED RIGHT HAS EXPIRED BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'VE, UM, SOUGHT ANY EXTENSIONS FOR THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR TOWN'S STAFF? THANK YOU.
HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? CERTAINLY.
I'M CHESTER WILLIAMS. I'M A LOCAL ATTORNEY HERE.
I REPRESENT STRO IN THE PARK, LLC AND IT'S OWNER ROY PRESCOTT, WHO'S BUSINESS IS ROY'S PLACE IS A CATERING BUSINESS.
UM, MR. CHRISTIAN, YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU HIT ONE OF THE NAILS ON THE HEAD THERE.
THEY BY RIGHT? THEY CAN DO A WATERPARK HERE.
WHO KNOWS HOW MUCH TRAFFIC THAT'S GONNA GENERATE, DOESN'T MATTER, THAT'S NOT ON A MINOR OR A MAJOR ARTERIAL ROAD, BUT A LOWER INTENSITY USE USED ONLY ON THE WEEKENDS LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN 200 ATTENDEES.
CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON A MINOR ARTERIAL.
THAT'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL IF YOU ASK ME.
UM, I PASSED OUT TO Y'ALL, BUT, AND I, I'M NOT GONNA TAKE A LOT OF TIME GOING BACK THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT I'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED TO Y'ALL.
I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL HAVE ABOUT IT.
SUFFICE IT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE DISAGREE WITH THE TOWN STAFF'S ASSESSMENT, THAT THIS DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA.
AND IF YOU WILL, LOOK AT ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS I LEFT YOU, THE ONE THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED, THIS IS A STAFF REPORT ON A VARIANCE APPLICATION THAT WAS DONE FOUR YEARS AGO.
MR. CHRISTIAN, YOU WERE ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME.
IT IS FOR AN OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL USE OTHER THAN A WATERPARK ON A STREET THAT'S NOT A MINOR ARTERIAL.
WE WENT THROUGH A VARIANCE APPLICATION AND THE TOWN STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF IT BACK THEN AND THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED IT.
INTERESTINGLY, IF YOU FLIP TO THE THIRD PAGE, YOU'LL SEE THE TOWN STAFF'S ASSESSMENT OF CRITERIA ONE EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS.
AND I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THE LAST ONE.
THERE IS A LACK OF MINOR ARTERIAL STREETS IN THE AREA OF THE RD ZONING DISTRICT.
SAME THINGS APPLICABLE TO MV DISTRICT, WHICH ELIMINATES ANY USES THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IF THEY WERE LOCATED ON A MINOR ARTERIAL STREET.
I MEAN, THAT'S ONE OF THE CRITERIA THAT THE TOWN STAFF FOCUSED ON AS MEETING THAT PARTICULAR CRITERIA.
NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER TWO THAT I DIDN'T HIGHLIGHT, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THE REASON WHY I DIDN'T HIGHLIGHT THEM IS BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE NOTICE OF ACTION, WHICH IS THE LAST TWO PAGES OF THE DOCUMENT, THE BOARD VOTED TO APPROVE THAT APPLICATION PROVIDED THAT ALL REFERENCE TO DILAPIDATED OR OTHERWISE POOR CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY BE REMOVED.
SO THAT LEAVES YOU WITH ONLY ONE MATTER THAT THE TOWN DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR CRITERIA ONE.
AND THAT'S THE FACT THAT, WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE A MINOR ARTERIAL THERE, SO YOU CAN'T DO ANY OF THOSE USES.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S AN UNUSUAL EXTRAORDINARY CONDITION.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT CONSTITUTES THE HARDSHIP.
THAT'S 180 DEGREES FROM WHAT THE TOWN STAFF'S POSITION IS NOW.
AND WE THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE AT LEAST SOME SORT OF CONSISTENCY IN THE TOWN'S THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS OR IS NOT AN EXTRAORDINARY EXCEPTIONAL CONDITION.
AND WE THINK THAT THE, THAT SAME CRITERIA IS APPLICABLE HERE.
WE THINK THAT IS A VALID CRITERIA BASED JUDGMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION.
AGAIN, I'M NOT GONNA GO BACK THROUGH EVERYTHING.
UM, AS FAR AS TRE YOU WORKING ON THE 23? UH, IT IS, YEAH, BASED ON THE UH, GIS ACRES, IT WOULD BE 25, BUT I'M GONNA SAY THEY PROBABLY HAD THE SURVEY GSS ON ALL ACCURATE.
SO 23 IS PROBABLY OR 23 UNITS, CORRECT? YEAH.
MS. BAYLESS, YOUR, YOUR QUESTION, I MEAN, THERE WAS AN APPLICATION TO BUILD THREE UNITS, THREE LAWN UNITS
[00:20:01]
THERE ONLY TWO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, BUT THAT COULD ALWAYS BE CHANGED.AND THE, THE OWNERS CAN COME BACK AND ASK FOR A 23 LOT SUBDIVISION OR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIALS PERMITTED THERE.
THEY'VE GOT TWO, THEY COULD BUILD A 21 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.
THAT SORT OF USE IS GONNA GENERATE FAR MORE TRAFFIC THAN WHAT THE PROPOSED USE IS.
AND IF THE, IF THE INTENTION OF RESTRICTING THAT USE TO A MINOR ARTERIAL IS TRAFFIC BASED, THEN WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THE TOWN WOULD ALLOW A HIGHER GENERATING TRIP RATE UNDER THE BUYRIGHT USES? AND I, AND I SUSPECT THAT A WATERPARK WOULD GENERATE A WHOLE LOT MORE ALSO AS OPPOSED TO THE LOWER TRIP GENERATION RATE, JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON A MINOR ARTERIAL.
WHEN WE THINK THE TOWN STAFF IS OFF BASE ON THIS, WE THINK THIS IS AN APPLICATION THAT OUGHT TO BE APPROVED.
UH, AND IF Y'ALL DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR ME, UM, MR. PRESCOTT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FOR MR. WILLIAMS QUESTION? YES.
SO I THINK IN YOUR MATERIAL, YOU SAID, UM, YOU, YOU ESTIMATE YOU NEED PARKING SPACES FOR 80 CARS.
UH, I THINK UNDER THE TOWN'S CODES WOULD BE 67.
NOW I THINK THE SITE PLAN DOES PROVIDE FOR APPROXIMATELY 80 PARKING SPACES, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR AN OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE OTHER THAN A WATERPARK, THEN YOU COME TO THE, AND YOU LEAVE THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, YOU END UP AT 67 SPACES.
IT'S A MINIMUM NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED.
SO PRESUMABLY IF THERE WAS A WEDDING OR THESE CARS WOULD BE COMING AND GOING, CORRECT.
MOSTLY AT THE SAME TIME HE COMES TO THE EVENT, CORRECT? MM-HMM
AND THAT'S WHY WE SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA GENERATE APPROXIMATELY 134, WHICH IS 67 TIMES TWO TRIPS ON A WEEKEND WHEN THERE IS AN EVENT THERE, AS OPPOSED TO THE 202 OR 232 WEEKEND TRIPS THAT 23 DWELLING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY WOULD GENERATE.
SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO MANAGE TRAFFIC, WELL THEN YOU WANT THIS PARTICULAR USE.
YOU DON'T WANT THE RESIDENTIAL USE, BUT IF IT WAS RESIDENTIAL, IT WOULD BE ON AN AD HOC CAR HERE AND THERE, A PARKING LOT AT AN EVENT.
THEY DON'T BE COMING AND GOING APPROXIMATELY AT COMING AND GOING APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME.
IF, IF THEY COME OVER AN HOUR PERIOD, THAT'S ONE CAR A MINUTE.
UM, I GUESS FIRST IS WHERE IF YOU COULD SHOW ME, I MEAN I'M, I'VE READ EVERYTHING YOU SUBMITTED.
UM, WHERE IS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, THIS APPLICATION? WELL, THERE, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE WHAT IT, WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES IS A SHOWING THAT YOU MEET THE FOUR CRITERIA.
AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN, AND, AND THE HARDSHIP IS THAT BE BECAUSE OF THESE, BECAUSE OF THESE ODD RESTRICTIONS OF THE CODE.
THE HARDSHIP IS IS THAT JUST LIKE IT WAS BACK IN 2022, THE LACK OF A MINOR ARTERIAL STREET IN THE AREA OF THE SUBSTITUTE MV FOR RD DISTRICT, WHICH ELIMINATES ANY USE THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE SONY DISTRICT IF THEY WERE LOCATED ON A MIN MINOR ARTERIAL STREET.
SO THE, THE INABILITY TO IMPLEMENT THAT PARTICULAR USE AND, YOU KNOW, AND THE CODE DOESN'T SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PROHIBITED FROM USING YOUR PROPERTY.
IT SAYS YOU ARE PROHIBITED OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICTED IN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME PRETTY EVIDENT THAT IF YOU HAVE A USE THAT IS CONDITION SPECIFIC, THAT RESTRICTS THE USE, THAT GENERATES LESS OF AN IMPACT THAN OTHER BUYRIGHT PERMITTED USES.
THAT THAT'S NOT A, THAT'S A, THAT'S A HARDSHIP THERE BECAUSE THE TOWN IS SAYING NO, YOU CAN'T IMPLEMENT THE LOWER IMPACT USE.
IF YOU'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING, GO AHEAD AND DO THE HIGHER IMPACT USE.
SO, BUT, BUT THEN ISN'T, ISN'T YOUR ARGUMENT THEN IF, IF YOU WILL, AND REALLY ONE OF THE, I MEAN YOU'RE PRES PRESENTING THE ARGUMENT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH YOUR APPLICATION.
THE ARGUMENT IN ESSENCE IS A POLICY ARGUMENT THAT, THAT THE LAW SAYS THIS, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT APP THAT'S, THAT'S IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE.
SO YOU, BUT THEN YOU'RE ASKING THE BZA TO ENACT POLICY.
I'M ASKING YOU TO FI I'M ASKING YOU TO FIND THAT THIS APPLICATION MEETS THE FOUR CRITERIA REQUIRED REFINING FOR A VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE APPLICATION.
UM, MR. CRYSTAL? YEAH, CHET, IF, IF, IF THIS WAS APPROVED FOR OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL USES, IT, IT WOULD NOT ONLY BE FOR THIS PARTICULAR VENUE, THEY COULD USE IT FOR ANY OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL USE, WE'RE FINE WITH PUTTING
[00:25:01]
CONDITIONS ON IT THAT LIMITED TO THESE SORTS OF PARTICULAR USES WITH NO MORE THAN 200 ATTENDEES.AND GOING BACK TO THE 2002 APPLICATION, THERE WAS A CONDITION PLACED ON THE APPROVAL OF THAT VARIANCE ALSO.
SO IT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN YOUR AUTHORITY TO SAY, YEAH, WEDDINGS, UH, YOU KNOW, FUNDRAISER EVENTS, I THINK WE LISTED SEVERAL OF THEM IF YOU WANNA RESTRICT IT TO THAT, THAT'S, WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT, RIGHT? YES.
I MEAN THERE, THERE'S SORTS, ALL SORTS OF WAYS TO CRAFT THAT SORT OF CONDITION TO PROTECT WHATEVER YOU THINK NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED.
MR. WAVES, WHEN I LOOK AT THE FOURTH CRITERIA MM-HMM
UM, WE HAVE IN RESPONSE TO THAT, THE LETTER THAT WAS EMAILED APPARENTLY BY MS. CHAPLIN MM-HMM
THAT SETS FORTH THE OBJECTIONS, UM, BY A GOOD NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO HER LETTER? I I'D POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER BUYRIGHT PERMITTED USES THAT COULD GO ON THAT PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE ONEROUS, MUCH MORE OVERBEARING, MUCH MORE PROBLEMATIC FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WHAT WOULD THOSE BE? A WATERPARK 23 DWELLING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY? WELL, I'VE LOOKED AT THAT PROPERTY IN, IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE KIND OF SMALL 23 UNITS I THINK.
BUT IN ANY EVENT, UM, YOU WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALL, IF THERE WAS A WATER PARK THERE, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE 60 TO 70 CARS ARRIVING WITHIN A 15 MINUTE SPAN OF EACH OTHER AND LEAVING AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME.
I MEAN THAT'S, THAT, THAT IS A DIS DISTINGUISHING FEATURE FROM, FROM, UM, UM, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN FOR AN EVENT SPACE.
BUT I SU I PAUSE IT TO YOU THAT YOU'D HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN 67 THERE OVER THE ENTIRE DAYS PERIOD.
I THINK THE IMPACT WOULD BE MUCH, MUCH GREATER.
WELL, THERE'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACE WHERE PARKING ISN'T THERE.
SO THERE HAS TO BE A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT WOULD COME IN.
I CONTINUALLY TOOK, I CONTINUE TO BE AMAZED AT HOW CREATIVE LAND PLANNERS CAN BE.
AND, AND AS AN ATTORNEY, YOU, YOU'RE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WHILE CONSISTENCY, UH, MAY NOT BE THE HOBB GOBLIN OF SMALL MINDS, UH, MEMBERSHIP ON BOARDS CHANGES SURE.
WELL THE, AND THE LMO HASN'T CHANGED IN THAT PAST, IN THE FULL AT FOUR PERIOD.
THE WAY FOLKS INTERPRET THE LMO MAY CHANGE AND CONSISTENCY HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED ON THIS ISLAND OVER THE COURSE OF, UM, DECADES AS FAR AS I CAN TELL IN WHAT IS PERMITTED AND WHAT IS NOT.
UM, SO WE'RE NOT GUIDED BY PRECEDENT AND OUR RULES DO NOT REQUIRE THAT WE, UH, ADHERE TO PRECEDENT.
BUT I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE TOWN STAFF'S POSITION, WHAT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST AND IF, AND THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY CHANGE IN THE CODE, AND IF THAT WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL CONDITION FOUR YEARS AGO, YEARS AGO, I KNOW OF NO REASON WHY IT'S STILL NOT AN EXTRAORDINARY EXCEPTIONAL CONDITION.
SO FOUR YEARS AGO THOUGH, THAT APPLICATION WAS FOR THE MINI GOLF IN THE RESORT DISTRICT? CORRECT.
THIS IS NOT A RESORT DISTRICT.
BUT IT'S THE, THE, IT'S THE EXACT SAME USE UNDER THE CODE OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL COMMERCIAL USE OTHER THAN A WATERPARK, BUT AN EVENT VENUE GENERATES A LOT MORE NOISE AND DISTURBANCE THAN A MINI GOLF COURSE DOES, POSSIBLY.
WITH BANDS AND MUSIC AND DJS AND LIGHTS AND ALL THAT OTHER KIND OF STUFF.
I MEAN, I KNOW WHEN I HAVE A PARTY,
ARE THERE EVENTS CURRENTLY BEING HELD ON THIS PROPERTY? THERE HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST, YES.
AND WHAT SORT OF EVENTS HAVE BEEN HELD ON THIS PROPERTY? I'LL LET MR. PRESCOTT DRESS UP.
UH, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, UH, MY NEPHEW, I HAD HIS WEL WELCOME PARTY THERE BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 24, 20, 24, BEFORE I REALIZED THERE WERE ANY RESTRICTIONS.
SINCE THEN, WE'VE DONE TWO WEDDINGS WITH 50 PEOPLE AS SUGGESTED, 45 AND 50 RIGHT NOW.
EVERYTHING'S IN A HOLDING PATTERN.
WE'VE GOT, UM, QUITE A FEW PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THERE AND I'VE BET EVERYBODY ON THE HOLDING PATTERN UNTIL WE GET A DECISION TODAY TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEY'RE GONNA DO THAT OR NOT.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS IN MY, WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF THE LIMITATIONS IN THE LMO, UH, IN TERMS OF
[00:30:01]
THIS BEING USED AS A COMMERCIAL SPACE? WELL, I MET WITH, UH, TRALO AND THEM.WHEN WAS THAT? OH, I CAN'T REMEMBER TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
HE SAID, HE SAID WE MET, I, I CANNOT REMEMBER WHEN HE JUST TOLD ME AT THAT TIME IT WAS GONNA BE A HARD ROAD TO GO WITH WITH THIS.
UM, THE MINOR ARTERIAL WAS A MAJOR HOLD UP IN THIS.
DO YOU THINK THAT MEETING WAS WITHIN THE LAST YEAR? YES.
SO YOU'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY SINCE 20? NO, MR. PRE.
YEAH, MR. PRE I THE PROPERTY DOESN'T, THE PROPERTY DR.
MRS WESTON OWNED THE PROPERTY.
UH, UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I JUST SHOULD LET MR. PRESCOTT MAKE HIS PRESENTATION.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. WILLIAMS? OKAY, FINE.
UH, MAY JUST KIND OF BRIEF, UH, NO, NONE OF Y'ALL, UH, DOUBT ANY OF Y'ALL KNOW ME.
UH, LITTLE, UH, LITTLE COUNTRY NATIVE ORIGINAL IN SOUTH CAROLINA ON THE ISLAND A LONG TIME.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, MY FATHER BROUGHT THE OVER THE FERRY BEFORE THE FIRST SWING BRIDGE WAS BUILT.
HE CAME OVER ONE DAY A WEEK AND SOLD FISH TO NATIVE ISLANDERS OF ATLANTA WARLOCK TWICE A EVERY TWO WEEKS HAD COME OVER WITH A PANEL WAGON SELLING HOME GOODS.
SO I'VE BEEN COMING, TWO SAID EIGHT WAS A DIRT ROAD.
THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF MY HISTORY.
UH, I'VE BEEN ON THE ISLAND FOR, EXCEPT FOR GOING TO USC FOR FOUR YEARS.
BEEN ON THE ISLAND ALL OF MY ADULT LIFE.
UM, MY DEAR FRIEND, FORMER ME OF TOM PEOPLES HAD ME SERVING FOUR TERMS ON THE ATAC COMMITTEE WHEN I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE TIME TO DO IT IN THREE TERMS OF THE PRESIDENT OF HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION.
SO I'VE GOT A STRONG BACKGROUND HERE ON THE ISLAND.
I OPENED MY OWN BUSINESS IN 1984, INDEPENDENT BUSINESSMAN, UM, STILL GOING STRONG, BUT THIS PROPERTY, UH, SOME OF Y'ALL HAVE SEEN THE PROPERTY AND I HAVE SOME DRONE FOOTAGE.
I THINK IT'S A VERY UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY ON HILTON HEAD ISLAND THIS DAY AND TIME.
YOU DON'T FIND TWO AND 2.13 ACRES FENCED IN ON THE WATER WITH A CEMETERY ON ONE SIDE, A VACANT LOT ON THE OTHER SIDE.
AND VERY, VERY MINIMAL RESIDENTIAL IMPACT WHERE YOU CAN HAVE AN EVENT.
UM, ALL OF THE GATED COMMUNITIES WRITE TERMINOLOGY THERE.
THE GATED COMMUNITIES ARE RESTRICTED TO RESIDENTS AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE RESIDENCE.
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, C PINES MAY BE THE ONLY ONE THAT RENTS, UM, TWO PEOPLE OTHER THAN RESIDENTS.
I'M NOT POSITIVE ABOUT THAT, BUT I KNOW FROM HILTON HEAD PLANTATION, FORT ROYAL SHIPYARD, UH, INDIGO RUN, THEY ALL REQUIRE THAT.
SO THERE'S NOT MANY, UH, UH, VENUES AVAILABLE EXCEPT THE HONEY HORN, UH, COASTAL DISCOVERY MUSEUM AT HONEY HORN, WHICH I HAVEN'T CATERED THERE QUITE A BIT.
AND I HAD SOME SHEETS THEY'RE BOOKED.
I REACHED OUT TO MICHELLE COOK AND THEIR BOOKED ALMOST SOLID ALL OF 2026.
AND WEDDINGS, A FEW OTHER EVENTS INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, THE HERITAGE PARKING, SO THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF PLACES AVAILABLE AND ONE FOR SHORT KEY WAY OFF OF ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
AND THE ONLY, IT SEEMS LIKE THE ONLY RESTRICTION THAT SEEMS TO BE IS THIS, UH, MINOR ARTERIAL STREET, BUT IT'S A PRIVATE, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC VENUE.
IT'LL BE PRIVATE INVITATION ONLY AND SOME A 200 IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE A LARGE ONE LARGE.
THERE, THERE WOULD PROBABLY, THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE A LESSER NUMBER.
BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE BARKER FIELD THAT, THAT'S THE CORNER OF BEAL AND MITCHELLVILLE ROAD, TWO TENTHS A MILE DOWN THE ROAD.
NEITHER ONE OF THOSE ARE MINOR ARTERIAL AND THEY DRINK, GENERATE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC THAN WE WOULD AT ONE 40 SHORT KEY WAY.
UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, MY BUSINESS WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS IF I DON'T GET THIS VARIANCE, BUT I'LL SURVIVE.
BUT WHAT'S REALLY GONNA BE IMPACTED, A LOT OF FUTURE BRIDES AND GROOM THAT ARE LOOKING INTO THIS PROPERTY, TRYING TO FIND A LOCATION ON THE LOW COUNTRY WATERFRONT, MAJESTIC OAKS, THEY CAN GET MARRIED, HAVE THEIR DREAM, DREAM WEDDING IN THE LOW COUNTRY.
AND THAT'S JUST ONLY PLACE THAT THAT'S EVEN POSSIBLE REALLY IS HONEY HORN.
AND, UM, I JUST, AND YOU KNOW THIS, WE HAVE A DRONE FOR YOU TO SHOW YOU WHAT I THINK IS A LIMITED RESIDENTIAL IMPACT
[00:35:01]
AND WE FOLLOWED THE, WITH THE EVENTS WE'VE DONE THERE, WE'VE FOLLOWED TOWN RULES.UM, ALL THE PARKING HAS BEEN ON SITE.
THERE'S, I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS FOR THE FEW THAT WE'VE HAD.
AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE MAIN THING IS THIS MINOR ARTERIAL ROAD AND BEING A PRIVATE BY EVENT ONLY IS GOING TO BE LIMITED.
IT'S NOT MORE THAN JUST IF IT WAS A PUBLIC MINI GOLF COURSE, WHATEVER, IT'D BE WIDE UP.
YOU'D HAVE PEOPLE COMING, GOING ALL TIMES A DAY.
IT'S LIKE A HECK OF A LOT MORE TRIPS THAN WE INVITED PERSONAL, UH, VENUE AND EVENT.
BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S, THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
AND ALL I'M GONNA SAY IS I THINK IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY.
IF Y'ALL SEE THIS DRONE FOOTAGE, MAYBE YOU'LL SEE, SEE WHAT LITTLE IMPACT I THINK IT HAS.
IT'S A LOT OF OPEN SPACE AND EVERYTHING'S FACING OUT TOWARDS THE WATER.
A LOT OF THE NOISE AND SOUND WILL GO ACROSS PORT ROYAL SOUND.
IT MAY HIT VIEW FOR THE PORT ROYAL OR ST.
SO MR. PRESCOTT, MR. PRESCOTT, UM, DO YOU HAVE A, YOU KNOW, UM, I'M ASSUMING YOU HAVE A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH STEVEN AND LISA WESTON, THE, THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, ARE YOURE, ARE YOU RENTING THIS FROM THEM OR THEY, DID THEY HIRE YOU TO DO THIS VENUE? NO.
WHAT, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT?
I JUST MET THEM ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.
AND THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD, THEY, THEY WOULD RENT THE PROPERTY AND I WOULD CATER THE EVENT IN THIS TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES.
THEY WOULD, UH, THEY WOULD COLLECT THE RENTAL INCOME.
SO THEY WOULD COLLECT THE RENT FOR THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, IF FOR A PARTICULAR VENUE AND THEN YOU WOULD PROVIDE THE CATERING SERVICES.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE MR. CHAIRMAN FOR THE MOMENT.
YOU, ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE APPLICANTS? NO, SIR.
DOES TOWN STAFF WISH, UH, TO GIVE ANY REBUTTAL? YES, PLEASE GET ALL MY STUFF AT YOU.
UM, SO I DID WANT TO JUST BRING A COUPLE POINTS UP AND, UH, AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOARD HAD ALREADY ADDRESSED A FEW THINGS.
SO, UH, I JUST WANNA REMIND, UM, EVERYBODY THAT SECTION 10 OF THE BZA RULES AND PROCEDURES TALKS ABOUT SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS AND BRIEFS AND HOW THEY'RE TO BE SUBMITTED.
THE TOWN STAFF WAS NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE BOARD UNTIL FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE MEETING.
UM, AND IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES AND PROCEDURES.
A SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN SUBMISSION OR LEGAL BRIEF MUST BE DELIVERED ONE HARD COPY OR ONE SENT VIA EMAIL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD NO LATER THAN 8:00 AM FOUR DAYS, FOUR BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE THE PUBLIC MEETING DAY.
IN ORDER FOR THE SECRETARY TO DISTRIBUTE SUCH INFORMATION TO EACH BOARD MEMBER BY THE CLOSE OF THAT BUSINESS DAY TOWN STAFF OR THE OPPOSING PARTY HAS TWO BUSINESS DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION TO RESPOND IN WRITING.
AND SO WE WERE NOT AFFORDED THAT OPPORTUNITY, JUST TO MAKE YOU AWARE.
UM, ANOTHER THING I WANTED TO, TO HIGHLIGHT REAL QUICK WAS TALKING ABOUT THE VARIANCE.
IN GENERAL, WE KNOW THIS, BUT JUST FOR THE PUBLIC.
UM, SO A VARIANCE MAY BE GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IF IT CONCLUDES THAT THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF ANY APPROPRIATE DIMENSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR DESIGN PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN, IN THE ELMO WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
UM, SO UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS NOT DEFINED IN THE LMO.
AND IT'S ALSO TALKING ABOUT CASE SPECIFIC.
THAT'S WHY IN THE VARIANCE APPLICATION YOU REQUIRE A SITE PLAN BECAUSE EACH VARIANCE IS SPECIFIC.
SO WE, WE DO DO OUR RESEARCH, WE DO LOOK AT PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY, BUT WE DON'T COMPARE IT AND WE DON'T, UM, AGGREGATE DATA TO, TO REVIEW ANY KIND OF PRECEDENT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS VERY SPECIFIC TO THE PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE IN THE LMO, IT'S TALKING ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.
UM, WANNA MAKE ANOTHER POINT OF CLARIFICATION, UM, SMALL, BUT JUST WANTED TO SAY IT, IS THAT IT'S NOT WHAT THE TOWN WANTS.
IT'S, IT'S NEVER ABOUT WHAT THE TOWN WANTS.
[00:40:01]
WE TRY TO ADMINISTER THE LMO AND WHAT THE LMO SAYS.AND SO THERE, I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
ALSO, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS WHAT GIVES US GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION THAT INFORMS THE ZONING RULES AND REGULATIONS.
AND THOSE USE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE THERE TO PREVENT CONFLICTS.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT BRINGS US HERE TODAY IS THE USE SPECIFIC CONDITION.
AND WHOEVER PENNED THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUT THAT USE SPECIFIC CONDITION IN THERE FOR SOME REASON.
SO I WOULD HOPE THAT THE BOARD WOULD APPRECIATE THE WEIGHTINESS OF THAT.
CAN I ASK STAFF FOR A QUESTION, COLLEY ON THE OVERLAY OF THE PROPERTY, I'M LOOKING AT IT IN OUR PACKET, IT'S 23 OF 39.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ADJACENT, ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE.
BECAUSE WHAT I, I MEAN, I WENT TO THE PROPERTY AND WHAT I THINK I SAW AND WHAT I HEARD ARE DIFFERENT.
UM, SO WE HAVE THE, THE MITCHELLVILLE, THE BLUE THAT IS THE SECTION ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET.
WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL RM EIGHT, AND THAT BROWN TURNS INTO A LIGHTER BROWN, THE RM 12.
BUT I, AND MY QUESTION IS NOT ABOUT THE WHAT'S ZONING, BUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY THERE.
IT LOOKED TO ME TO BE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS ADJOINING THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY.
LIKE WHAT'S CURRENTLY DEVELOPED IN THE AREA.
UM, BECAUSE HE SAID IT WAS A VACANT LOT IN THE CEMETERY IF I HEARD.
SO THAT'S WHAT SAID, I WONDER WHICH ONE, THERE WE GO.
THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO SEE.
UM, THE LOTS LOOK UNDEVELOPED WITH A FEW PARCELS SURROUNDING IT.
WE CAN SEE, UM, HOMES NOT ALWAYS SINGLE FAMILY THOUGH, ESPECIALLY ACROSS THE ROAD WE SEE A COUPLE MULTI-FAMILY HOMES.
AND THEN HAMMOCK BREEZE, THAT SUBDIVISION IS A LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH OF THAT.
UM, AND THAT IS EXPLAINED THROUGH THE ZONING, THE GRAPHIC THAT WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT WITH THE RM EIGHT, THE RM 12, THE PD ONE IS, IS OVER THERE.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO SOME, UH, PARK DESIGNATED LAND OVER THERE AS WELL.
DOES THAT, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
I, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I SAW.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
HAVE SOMETHING IN, IN REBUTTAL TO WHAT WAS JUST SAID FROM TOWN STAFF, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.
WITH RESPECT TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS.
I MEAN, IF I WAS DOING AN ADDITIONAL BRIEF OR GIVING YOU NEW INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT ALREADY IN YOUR OWN RECORDS, THEN YEAH, I THINK THAT TIME PERIOD IMP APPLIES.
THE, THE TWO, THE DOCUMENTS THAT I GAVE YOU THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED, THAT'S PART OF YOUR RECORDS ALREADY.
IT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD AND IT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT'S A SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION HERE.
SO JUST FROM WHAT YOU SAID, UH, MR. WILLIAMS, SO YOU SUGGESTING WE SHOULD DISREGARD IT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC RECORD? OR, OR, OR WE SHOULD FOCUS ON IT? NO, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.
YOU SHOULD TAKE NOT JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT, BUT YOU SHOULD TAKE NOTICE OF IT BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S PART AND PARCEL OF WHAT Y'ALL HAVE ALREADY DECIDED.
SO NOW WE'VE HEARD FROM, UH, THE APPLICANT FROM TOWN STAFF.
UM, ARE THERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION? AND IF SO, PLEASE STEP UP AND, UH, JUST, UH, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND, UH, AND IT'S THREE MINUTES PER PERSON.
I OWN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO 1 25 SHARK KEYWAY.
I AM HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN FIRM OPPOSITION TO VARIANCE VAR 0 0 2 6 7 5 DASH 2025.
I AM REPRESENTING A LARGE GROUP OF NEIGHBORS AND HISTORIC LANDOWNERS, INCLUDING BROWN CHISHOLM, GATSON, WASHINGTON.
THERES JENKINS AND JONES FAMILY WHO SHARE THE SAME GRAVE.
THE LAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE IS CLEAR.
COMMERCIAL RECREATION MUST HAVE ACCESS TO A MAJOR AUTO STREET.
SORRY, THIS ISN'T JUST A TECHNICALITY, IT'S A SAFETY REQUIREMENT.
SHARK KEY WAY IS A LOCAL ROAD.
IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO SERVE AS A COMMERCIAL ARTERY FOR ANY OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITY.
BYPASSING THE RULE, YOU ARE INVITING CONGESTION, NOISE, SAFETY RISKS DIRECTLY INTO OUR FRONT YARDS.
[00:45:01]
WE LIVE IN THE MITCHELLVILLE DISTRICT.THIS AREA IS DEFINED BY ITS HISTORIC AND ITS QUIET RESIDENTIAL NATURE.
INTRODUCING A COMMERCIAL USE THAT DOESN'T MEET THE TOWN'S OWN ACCESS STANDARDS THREATENS THE VERY CHARACTER WE SPENT GENERATIONS PRESERVING THE, TO GRANT A VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT MUST PROVE A UNIQUE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
HARDSHIP SEEKING A VARIANCE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S MORE CONVENIENT OR PROFITABLE TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL FACILITY WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG IS NOT A HARDSHIP, IT'S A CHOICE.
IF YOU GRANT THIS VARIANCE TODAY, YOU ARE TELLING EVERY RESIDENT OF HILTON HEAD THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE LMO ARE NEGOTIABLE.
WHENEVER A DEVELOPER ASKS YOU WOULD BE SETTING A DANGEROUS PRESIDENTS THAT WILL BE CITED BY EVERY DEVELOPER WHO FOLLOWS.
I JUST WANNA SAY AGAIN ALSO THAT THERE ARE PROPERTIES ALL AROUND THIS PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND, UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS A GRAVEYARD RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
I HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS IN THAT GRAVEYARD, INCLUDING MY MOTHER.
AND THERE, UM, THERE IS JUST, WE HAVE A VERY NICE, UH, QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, LIKE TO BE AT PEACE.
I ALSO WANNA SAY WE ASKED YOU TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE ON THIS LAND.
PLEASE UPHOLD THIS STANDARD OF OUR LMO AND DENY THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.
ALRIGHT, ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS APPLICATION? NOBODY ELSE? OKAY.
SO NOW PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOW CLOSED AND WE CAN BRING THE DISCUSSION BACK UP HERE.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY, UH, THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS OR, OR SHALL WE JUST, UM, MOVE ON TO A MOTION? HEARING NONE, UM, UH, IF I COULD HAVE A MOTION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, UM, DENY THIS APPLICATION AND ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THAT HAVE BEEN DRAFTED BY STAFF SECOND MOTION.
AND SECOND, UH, ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD BEFORE? UH, I ASK THAT THE ROLE BE CALLED JUST TO COMMENT.
I MEAN, I'M, I'M TROUBLED THAT THE LMO ALLOWS A, A WATERPARK IN, IN THIS AREA.
AND AS MY COLLEAGUE POINTED OUT, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE, THE, THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WAS WOMEN'S IN A RESORT AREA.
THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WHICH HAS A CHARACTER ALL ITS OWN.
AND THIS WOULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THAT COMMUNITY.
UM, YOU KNOW, THEREFORE I'M GONNA BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE, OF THE MOTION.
ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE CALL THE ROLL? I THINK, YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ON THIS IS THAT, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF ATTENTION GIVEN TO THIS ARTERIAL OR THIS MINOR ROAD.
FOR ME THOUGH, THE, THE CRITERIA FOUR OF, YOU KNOW, THE DETRIMENT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
I HONEY HOLD THE, THE SHEET WE WERE GIVEN LISTS 36 DIFFERENT EVENTS ON THE SCHEDULE FOR 2026.
YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE THING FOR, IT'S ONE THING WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR OWN PRIVATE BIRTHDAY OR THAT FOR YOUR FAMILY, BUT I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORS FROM AN EVENT VENUE LIKE THIS THAT WOULD HAVE, I MEAN, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I MEAN, ANYBODY THAT WENT, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE, THAT'S, THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY OF WHICH I THINK A LOT OF BRIDES WOULD LIKE TO BE AT.
BUT I WOULD THINK THAT THE DISTURBANCE ON THE NEIGHBORS AND WHAT THAT DOES FOR THEIR PROPERTY VALUES IS, YOU KNOW, REALLY THE CONCERN I HAVE THE MOST, I HAVE THE, WHERE I HAVE THE MOST CONCERN.
I, I, I DON'T THINK THE, UH, APPLICANT SHOWED ANY UNIQUE HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
AND I THINK IF THIS WAS APPROVED, IT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP ON THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WITH ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AT, UH, ALL THE TRAFFIC OCCURRING AT THE SAME TIME.
PEOPLE COMING FROM AN EVENT WHERE PRESUMABLY THEY'D BE DRINKING AND PARTYING AND THEN ALL GETTING IN THEIR CARS AT THE SAME TIME, IS A RESIDENT IN A RESIDENTIAL
[00:50:01]
COMMUNITY, I THINK WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP FOR THAT COMMUNITY.FOR THE COMMENTS, KAREN, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MS. BAYLESS FOR THE MOTION? MS. FEE FOR THE MOTION.
AND MR. FINGER HUNT FOR THE MOTION.
UM, THE, UH, MOTION WAS GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE BOARD AND THE APPLICATION FOR THE VARIANCE WAS DENIED.
UM, IF WE JUST MOVE ON TO THE REST OF THE MEETING, EVERYBODY IS WELCOME TO, TO REMAIN FOR THE MEETING.
UM, OR NOT THAT, THAT THAT'S YOUR CHOICE.
IS THERE, UM, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY? SO NOT THIS VARIANCE, BUT ANYTHING ELSE? HEARING NONE? I WOULD ASK
[8. Staff Reports]
IF THERE'S ANY STAFF REPORTS.THEN, UH, IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN IF I MAY.
I JUST WANNA TELL Y'ALL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WISH Y'ALL HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND A SAFE, HAPPY, PROSPEROUS, NEW YOU ALL.