 Great. Everyone. Yes, there's one round. You want us to just talk from here? Is that? Probably reasonable. Good. Yes, we'd ask anyone who's speaking at any time to please do so at the podium. Just in case the people are watching. People. I'd like to hand up. The half of David. Can I have copies? Should I give you the original? Yeah. You can do whatever you want. Thank you. All right, may it please the committee. Thank you. My name is Dave Belding. I'm an attorney here in Columbia. I represent Mr. Ali Salim, who has a. Operates a store down on 701. Jervais Street unit 130 in the Vista called. AJ seven start tobacco and vape. And we're here because. We're appealing the denial of the issuance of a business license. I have given you the affidavit sworn affidavit of Mr. Salim with some documents that he presented to me. Basically showing that he's been in business for over a year. I'll call Mr. Salim up to authenticate the affidavit, but just in some reform that would essentially be his testimony. Naturally. Any questions, he'll be happy to answer them. Basically, what happened is this. Mr. Salim owns a number of tobacco and vape stores in Richland County. As a matter of fact, and it's some in North Carolina and in Virginia. He found a location down on Jervais Street near where the gets to build it. If you know where the gets to build this to guild building their offices are they're in the same building right in there on 701 Jervais. He has an accountant and he's mentioned in here. He has an accountant that takes care of all the bookkeeping for all of his locations and does a number of administrative things for him. When he found this location down on Jervais Street, he entered into a lease. The lease is attached to this affidavit. He wanted to go ahead and open up a store. They looked. It was a permitted use in the general commercial zone at the time. And he had Mr. Saudi get all of his documentation together. He formed a new LLC, got a new federal ID number, went down and got a state retail license. Did all the filings with Secretary of State's office. And he checked several times with Mr. Saudi to make sure that they had everything. And he was informed that everything was in place. When all the licenses went up on the wall, they opened up. I don't know the exact date. It was sometime in May of 2022 with no knowledge that again, he has 14 other stores that he runs. So he's going around and most of the time he's checking on the daily operation of all of his businesses. He never knew there was a retail license on the wall. He never knew that there wasn't a Columbia City business license on the wall. He had never opened up in the city of Columbia. He's been open in Richland County. He operated there for seven months with no problems. There aren't any law enforcement nuisance problems of any kind. He's just a Vista vendor. And when he was, someone came in, we believe from the business license office in December 19th of 2022 and said, where is your business license? And they said, well, here it is right here. But it was the South Carolina retail license, not the Columbia City business license. And he was informed that that's not the business license. So he came down immediately to apply for one and was told that we can't do it now because, and I'm sure this would be the testimony of the city officials because straightforward, there was a pending ordinance that had been introduced on October the 4th. After he had already been open for five months that said they wanted to zone and regulate the tobacco and vape shops in the city of Columbia. Because of that pending ordinance, it did not pass through zoning. And therefore, as I understand it, the city business license manager could not issue a business license because it didn't have the approval of zoning. For all other purposes, of course, he's in general commercial. The problem is, is there is a the pending that was pending. I understand it got enacted in, I think, January has a pretty large setback. If you want to call it distance requirement, it's a thousand feet in the municipality, which is pretty long way and long by a lot of standards. But that's what the city ordinance says. There is a another type of vape store that's approximately 300 feet away. It's on the other side of the street. It is a different type of store in that Mr. Salim store sells tobacco and vape products for off-premise use. There is no consumption at his store. The store, the location across the street, as I understand it, just in the affidavit, but this is what we hear is that they are only open three days a week and it is an on-premise vape lounge where people buy and consume vape products there. So they're two different type of businesses. Honestly, under the ordinance, it doesn't seem to make much difference what type of vape lounge or vape store you are, but they are two different types of businesses. When he opened his business, it would still have been permitted. If he had known before by October the 3rd of last year that he did not have a business license and had come down and applied, he would have been granted a license. I think that's not in dispute. He just was late getting it done. He got his application in on the 19th and was given a telephone denial in December and then a formal written notice in March of this year, three months later. Mr. Salim, he gave me all of the testimony and I had it typed up and there's attached to it just some documentation showing that his LLC was formed in April of last year. Secretary of State's office, we have their copies that in May 1st of last year, he was issued the retail license by the Department of Revenue. There's a copy of the application which is dated 12, 19 of 2022. The same day he was told that he needed one. We have a copy of his lease, just the front page. I didn't think you all needed all 24 pages of the lease, but the front page showing that he's been renting since March of 2022 at that location. He had given me a copy of his utility payments showing that he was operating and in business last year in May. I spent 10 years working for state government. I understand rules and regulations and it's hard because government, we try to find ways to take care of the most people for the best that we can as much as we can, but there's always going to be things that don't quite fit for some reason and we do have the ability with City Council to have an exception be made in a case where it is worthy and I'm here to just explain to you why I think Mr. Salim's situation is worth overturning the business license manager's decisions and giving him a business license at this location. First of all, it's clearly excusable neglect. There's no one's claiming that he was trying to get around the law. He didn't even know about it. He also didn't know he didn't have a business license, which is neglect, probably excusable, but point being that he had entrusted that to his accountant to take care of and the accountant got everything else but that. I think if they were to be given a business license at that location, the impact would be de minimis on any of the city's policies. I mean, they're already there. It's only a question of the time and he missed the time, but actually the ordinance did not get actually enacted until January, but there is a thing called the pending ordinance doctrine that was relied on by the business license office. In that case, it goes back to a case called Sherman versus Rivas. That was a sign case, you know, and those of you who know about sign cases and billboards, the parties in that case knew there was an ordinance pending that would prohibit signage. So they ran in to get a building permit quickly to try to circumvent the ordinance. That's not what's going on here. This is complete ignorance of the fact that this ordinance was even pending. It was permitted in that location. And the only problem we have is a different kind of vape store within a thousand feet. He had good faith reliance upon what he knew about the ordinances in the city of Columbia. He was in a general commercial zone. Everything was permitted. Everything was licensed. So there was no intent to try to get around anything. He has, we have in his after David, we have proof that he has spent a lot of money to get into business at this location. He's got employees that will lose their jobs. He wants to be a good member of the community. He wants to be a good vendor in the Vista. It fits in. I don't know policy wise how an empty storefront helps the city any more than this. But we are here essentially had in hand to ask this, that he be granted a business license because he in good faith opened up wasn't trying to circumvent anything. And he in good faith opened up and operated for seven months before anyone even told him that there was this problem. I mean, if he had known about it two months earlier, he had walked in and paid the $50 or whatever the business license fee is and we wouldn't be here. So what we have is a timing issue is all. So I would like to ask him to come up and answer a couple of questions that I asked him. Would that be okay, Mr. Brown? Okay, thank you. Ali, come up here. They're going to. Let's do that. Mr. Celine, would you raise your right hand for me? Can you promise or affirm to tell the truth? The whole truth enough about the truth in this proceeding? Yes. Thank you. Please take your full name for the record. My name is Ali Saleem. Would you spell it? A-L-I. Last name S-A-L-E-M. Okay. How long have you been living in South Carolina? Two and a half years. Okay. Where are you from, Rachel? Yemen. Yemen? Okay. What is your immigration status? Citizen. When did you get citizenship? I was a citizen. I came as a citizen. Oh, you were an American citizen already? Yes. Okay. My father was a citizen, too. Your father was American. Yeah. All right. Where do you live right now? Blythewood. Okay. Is that in Richardson County? Yes. Okay. And you heard me talking. Let me ask you. Did you sign this affidavits that I've presented today? Yes, I did. And you did not type it up, did you? No. Okay. Did I have that thing here for you? Yes, sir. Is the information in here correct? Is this information that you gave me? Yes. Are these attachments real? Are they legitimate? Are real attachments that show that you've been in business? Yes. Okay. Do you have any problem with your LLC? Is it still a limited liability company in Goodstanding? I have no problem with any paper except the city license. Okay. Did you know that, when did you find out that you did not have a city business license? When they came and told me that. Okay. December the 19th of 2000. Yes, sir. Okay. Did you think you had a business license? Yes, I did. Okay. And why did you think that? Because all my stores, the same guy that do it for me does that one too. Has he ever missed getting a business license? Sure. Okay. Did you have any reason to think he hadn't done everything? No. Had you looked to see on the wall the things that were up on there? No. Okay. Did you know there was licenses posted up there? Yes. Do you know what a city business license looks like? I know what Richland looked like, but I haven't seen them. I haven't had a store in the city. Okay. Is your first store open? That's my first one. Okay. Have you spent a lot of money getting open? Yes. So first one I opened, I spent 350,000. First store? First store. Four-stored. Four-stored. That one, yes. Oh, you spent 350,000? 350,000, yes. Okay. All right. Did you do that believing that you were operating in a location that was permitted? Yes. I know it was commercial, and that's why I got it. Okay. Did the people that lease you the property tell you that there was any problem coming with baked stores? No. Do you still have a lease at that location? Yes. Okay. Do you have any problems with that? No. Were you in any way trying to get around the baked ordinance by not getting a business license? It was in no ordinance before. What, sorry? It was in no law. Okay. Before like that. Okay. Did you, you did know that you were supposed to have a business license open? Yes. But your understanding was that you had one that didn't gotten for you? Yes. Is that right? Yes, sir. Okay. Did you tell this committee about why you think you need, could deserve to have a city business license? I mean, I just want to go the right way and I just want to fix the papers and being a right track. Okay. And when you found out that there was a problem, how long did it take you to get down the city business license? The next business day. Okay. Thank you. No further questions, Ms. Brown. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Slim, you don't own the building. No, sir. Did you have any alternative locations that you looked at before you opened that shop? No, I was just looking at that one for that moment. And I had the other, I had a couple other shops that I was fixed into. Where do you currently reside? Where do you live? Blyford. In Blyford. Yes. Yes. Do you have anything? I think so. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as you know, I might come up with the city legal department and I'm here to represent the city's position in this matter. We are operating under an ordinance section 1146, which deals with appeals to council or its designee, this committee being the designee of council to hear this matter. And then in paragraph B, it refers to the hearing in which the committee will be able to be able to take testimony and evidence on the nature of the appeal. After hearing Mr. Belding, I realized that there are very few facts that we all don't agree on. We all pretty much agree to what happened. Mr. Slim opened his business, didn't have a business license. This was the first time I heard today that it was due to his accountant, but the city is not in the business of being nosy into other people's business affairs. The city council in October of 2022 passed a resolution under the pending ordinance doctrine that it was going to consider a tobacco and vape ordinance and attached a proposed tobacco and vape ordinance to that resolution which said that tobacco and vape stores could not be closer than 1,000 feet. That was discussed by council. It was covered in the media, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. It was properly noticed that in January there were public hearings on that. It was introduced at the beginning of February in 2023 and enacted in the second reading, I believe, unanimously in late February of 2023. I think February 21st of 2023. I understand Mr. Slim's argument, but a business doesn't exist to the city if we don't know about it. And we know about it when somebody gets a business license. His operation without a business license from June until December, it cannot be considered a continuing use, a nonconforming use because it was an illegal business at that point as far as the city is concerned. I understand as a businessman, especially with many historians that he relied on his accountant, but that's a discussion that he has to have with his accountant as to whether or not his accountant did something wrong. With regards to the city, he had no business license. So at the time that council passed the resolution saying we're going to consider this zoning ordinance, he was not a legal business. He then applied in December. And the facts that Mr. Bilden gave, we substantially agree with. A building license inspector went to his business, saw it, said you don't have a license, gave him an application to apply for a license. He applied for the license, pursuant to business license workflow. He went to zoning. Zoning was able to determine that there wasn't just one, but two vape stores within a thousand feet of his store. There was a business called Cure and a business called Infusion. And both of them were less than 500 feet away, basically on the other side of Jervay Street. So there were actually two businesses that would have not allowed him to proceed. The denial was held until it was determined that the ordinance would pass because clearly if council didn't pass the ordinance, he would be entitled to a business license. But council did pass the business, the vape ordinance. And so his denial was given at that point. The law is on our side on this. Literally yesterday, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a case called Any Creations Versus the City of Myrtle Beach in which they upheld the city of Myrtle Beach's tobacco and vape ordinance. And their ordinance banned tobacco and vape stores throughout downtown Myrtle Beach, not a distance matter. The court reaffirmed that that is the appropriate police powers of municipality. In addition, the court went a little bit further. There is law in South Carolina that says that under the pending ordinance doctrine that if a business was in existence at the time, it could end, then the pending ordinance doctrine was kicked in. I'm phrasing this very badly because my brain is working faster than my tongue. Let me try that again. There is law in South Carolina that if that a business could be a nonconforming use despite the pending ordinance doctrine, okay, except that it's very clear the court has said over and over again. The exception to that is that this new zoning ordinance affects public health, safety, or welfare. The court literally yesterday said the standard for determining whether it applies to public health, safety, or welfare is whether that is fairly debatable. If there could be differences of opinion, it's enough. The ordinance which you passed along with the other members of the committee, the very first line, it says in the interest of the public's health, safety, and welfare. The ordinance itself says it's in the health, safety, and welfare. Number one, he didn't exist prior to his application in December. I do empathize with him. He sounds like a good businessman who is trying to do the right thing and it sounds like his accountant let him down, but from our standpoint he didn't exist. He did exist because this is clearly, or at least fairly debatable, an ordinance on the public health, safety, and welfare, his continued use would not defeat the pending ordinance doctrine. He didn't apply until December. The ordinance was passed in February, but it had been already announced to the public in October that it was going to be considered. Because we don't really disagree on the facts, I have our business license administrator and our zoning administrator who are able to testify, but I don't think we have disagreements on the facts. So I don't know that the committee needs to hear from them, but I'm happy to do so if you wish. I am. Thank you. Could I just add one thing to that? I do appreciate it. Once again, Mike and I have dealt with each other a lot before and we tend to agree on a lot of things. Yeah, the facts really aren't in dispute. I tried to say that first thing. The point at it is I don't want this committee to get the idea that you are prevented from doing this in any way. City Council has plenary authority to do whatever it wants, okay? Passing ordinances, granting exceptions, overturning decisions, okay? That's in your ballpark, okay? The case that was sought, interestingly, because I just became aware of the case yesterday, too. And interestingly, that's the first time this public health safety and welfare has come up. The Sherman versus Rivas case that everybody used as the pending ordinance doctrine was about billboards. It wasn't about public health, it was about billboards. And people wanted to run in and get permits. But billboards up before they were not allowed in the area being annexed into the city. So I came and I said, you know, we can talk about the law, but sometimes the law allows for exceptions to be made for good reasons. We have a guy here that isn't trying to get around anything. He came to open a store in the city in good faith. And we would ask for the committee to say in this case, because he operated with no problems. And as soon as he found out there was an issue, he came running in here. I think that is the kind of case that is eligible for your consideration as an exception. And we appreciate your time. Thank you very much. So you're technically not arguing a legal argument? No. So you're abandoning the concept of a legal argument? You have no legal argument. The law is pretty darn debatable on this. And I don't think my side is being upheld by the South Carolina Supreme Court. The pending ordinance doctrine is recognized, okay? But like all laws, there can be exceptions. All right. So going back to the beginning of this, it would be reasonable though that a business would think that you should have a city of Columbia license if you're in the city economy. Unless you're in a town like Lexington that doesn't have one. Right. But it's not unreasonable. It's not unreasonable to know that you should have a city of Columbia license. I agree. And you know, and it's like, people are like CEOs of large companies. The buck stops there, but they have people that take care of a lot of things. And that's what he did is relied on a person that had successfully gotten other locations licensed who missed this pretty important step. Are you technically still a business? Yes. Because you're operating an illegal business currently? I mean, when... You might want to go up there. Yeah, come on. That's why I got Mr. Dave to come up here and try to get an appeal for this. If I shut down, I don't know how I'm going to pay rent and tax and stuff like that. That's why I'm still operating. But you're aware that you're operating the business illegally? Yes. Can I just say one thing about that, Mr. Brown? My understanding with city attorney's offices, the filing of the appeal acted as a stay. So we're under a grant from the city of Columbia. You will. I don't think we're intentionally operating illegally anymore. That we've come before the city. We've said we want a license. We want to get this right if there's a fine for filing late. And there's all kinds of extensions people get with government. That's what we were asking for. But being open right now, we understood was by filing the appeal that it stayed that decision and therefore we could operate until such time as this body made a decision. So if this committee decides that you're not in compliance, you're prepared to shut down your store? Unless there's some other legal option to get a stay, we would have to. I'll take that as a yes. Yes, sir. Anybody, any other statements over here? No. Thank you for letting us come by. Thank you. Thank you. I moved to uphold it. Second. All right, so all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. To the ordinance as well as the decision. Thank you. That was second with a question mark. Are you giving me second or second? All right, I'll take this. All right, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.