 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, members, staff and guests. We ask you to be patient during this hybrid meeting. Multiple staff members are behind the scenes to make sure all applicants and citizens are able to communicate with the board at the appropriate times. Board members and applicants are participating in person. The public is able to participate in person or via virtual options. The public may stream the meeting through city TV accessed at www.youtube.com slash user slash Columbia SC government. The public may also submit letters and statements via email to COC board meeting at columbiasc.gov. Leading up to and or during the meeting as this account will be monitored during the meeting. Emails and letters will be read to the record by staff. The public may participate via phone by calling 1-855-925-2801. When prompted, please enter meeting code 2327. Those participating by phone will receive three options. Star one will allow you to listen. Star two will allow you to record a voice message that will be read into the record. Star three will allow the participant to be placed in a queue to speak live when prompted. At any time while listening on the call, you can hit star in your chosen option. Please wait until your case is called to hit star three. The meeting can also be streamed at publicinput.com slash COCBOSA dash NOB2021. If participating by phone while also streaming the meeting on computer, please mute the audio on your computer and only use the phone audio so as to avoid audio issues when being patched into the Zoom meeting to speak. There's a large audio delay between Zoom and the live recording on cityTV and publicinput.com. We'll be pausing at certain times to allow the audio to catch up and give citizens time to submit comments. And now we'll proceed to the roll call. Mr. Dinkins. Here. Mr. Gregory. Here. Mr. Primus. Here. Ms. Spenner. Here. Mr. Ganyard. Here. And Ms. McIntosh is absent today and you have a newborn member as well, Mr. Charar Duvall. And I believe Mr. Duvall is observing this afternoon via Zoom but will not be voting on the cases. Okay, applicants with requests before the Board of Zoning Appeals are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but it's not limited to an overview of the project, case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicants such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the Board of Zoning Appeals or staff regarding the request. Any member of the general public may address the Board in intervals of three minutes or five minutes if by a spokesperson for an established body or for a group of three or more. The applicant will then have five minutes for a butthole. The Board reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case by case basis. Those of you who plan to speak must be sworn at this time if you are here as an applicant or here to speak on any case, please stand at this time and raise your right hand. Okay, do you affirm or attest that the testimony you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? All right, thank you. To the consent agenda, the Board uses the consent agenda to approve noncontroversial or routine matters by a single motion and vote. If a member of the Board or the general public wishes to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed and placed on the regular agenda. The Board then approves the remaining consent agenda items. And just to make a note before we begin, case number two, 800 Fuji Street, that is 2021-0088SE. That has been administratively withdrawn. And then later in the regular agenda, case number five, 639 Elmwood Avenue, that is 2021-0091-SE has been deferred until the next Board meeting. To begin with the consent agenda, we'll start with the approval of minutes from the October 7th, 2021 Board meeting. And the first case on consent is 2021-0095-SE. That's 1220 Woodrow Street. It's a special exception to permit an elementary school and daycare. And the second item on the consent agenda is 2021-0096-V. It's 1220 Woodrow Street as well. And it's a variance to the minimum off-street parking requirement for an elementary school and daycare. And that concludes the consent agenda. We will pause to give time for the audio to catch up and for citizens to submit comments via COC Board meeting at Columbia SC.gov. Okay, let's just state for the record, do any members of the Board or any members of the public wish to have any items removed? All right, very good. I'd like to ask for a motion. I move that we approve the consent agenda. Subject to staff comments. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, motion passes. Use the following outline for regular agenda items. Staff will introduce the case. The applicant will then have 10 minutes to make the presentation. The Board may follow the questions. The public will be allowed to participate via email, voicemail, or phone comments. The applicant will then have five minutes for rebuttal and the Board will take action. The first item on the regular agenda is 2021-0093-B. It's 4102, Parkman Drive is a variance request to the maximum fence height requirement. And for this one, the applicant is, I believe, in the Zoom call and will participate that way due to illness. Hello. Yes. Yes. Okay. Our home is the Fertile Supportment Drive on Beltline Boulevard. Beltline is a major thoroughfare with heavy truck, car, and motorcycle traffic. The steep downhill and uphill and the blocks below our lots elevation encourages higher speeds and therefore higher road noise. The distance between residence B and residence C is 126 feet. The four-foot fence at the lower end of the yard of residence B offers no barrier to either sight or sound the traffic on Beltline. The 126-foot gap between the houses offers a large opening for both traffic noise and sight. The vehicles are clearly visible as are their lights at night. Because our home is located well above the open gap, in order to walk the sight and sound of the traffic, the fence height needs to be 10 feet at the back of our lot and the lower end on the side towards Beltline. At the upper end of the backyard, the distance between residence A and B is 25 feet. It is open and serves as a channel to focus the road noise directly to the side of our den. The fence at that point would need to be eight feet to act as an effective sound barrier. The owner of residence A has no objection to the proposed height. If the construction of the fence is allowed, our plan is to stay in a deep green or blending in color, if you will, with the existing vegetation and a style accompanied by the picture, shown in the picture. I believe this will make it attractive as well as functional. I thank you for your time. Okay, thank you. Your home located on Parkman, it's near Beltline, but it's not immediately adjacent to Beltline Boulevard right away, is it? It's not sitting on Beltline. The, I guess I can see what you're looking at. It is, there's a small house to, if I'm looking out Parkman to my left, that house is directly on Beltline. Then there's a home behind that one. And then there's open area and a rental house behind me. The area to Beltline is very open. I mean, the lights, the noise, the deer come through there. If that helps, if that explains it. It does. I guess it's the gap between the houses that are located on Beltline that's causing such a additional noise. Is 10 feet, 10 feet is a pretty tall fence. I mean, really not try to avoid that if at all possible. How did you come up with 10 foot fence site? We had several people that built fences to come and look. We also sort of measured it with those people to look at it. The problem is our house, the topography is such that our house is the highest house anywhere in this area. It was built by a guy they called a commander in 1940. And I'm sorry, I'm not very technologically savvy, but behind my house was originally a garden, which he set up that was full of camellias and old plants that he either imported or brought in, mostly camellias and native plants. We cleared that area out because it had become a jungle and not a safe place to be in order to restore the house to what it should have been in the beginning. And when we did that unwittingly, it opened that up to noise and light and sound for everybody, our neighbors and us. But to answer your question is by far, we set up higher than anyone else. I'm a little concerned. I'm reading the criteria for variance requests and it says they're not the result of your own actions and yet it appears that you're clearing vegetation has resulted in your having these noise problems. Well, we didn't, if I may, we didn't clear actually vegetation. What we cleared was a ton of poison ivy and wisteria that was overgrown and killing the native plants. That's still vegetation. Okay, is it not possible to plant trees or I'm thinking leal and cypress or some sort of buffer planting? You could, but there would not be, it wouldn't be tall enough to really give the sand barrier that's needed. And the noise has always been an issue. I mean, it's not that the noise, the noise has been a problem since we moved here. The lights have been a problem. It's just just more noticeable now. And so in keeping when you mentioned leal and cypress, we were trying, I've been working with a guy that does kind of conservator, I guess, of old plants to not put in plants that wouldn't have originally been there, leal and cypress wouldn't have originally been there. It would have been camellias. I mean, I have camellias back there now that are probably 10 feet tall. And I would love to bring in plants, but it wouldn't afford the quiet nor the privacy. Ms. Reisinger, you said the fence at the lower portion was four feet. How tall is the fence that runs parallel to the lower belt line currently? And how tall is that wooden fence that is between you and your neighbor? I believe it's eight feet. I apologize, my husband did some of this and he is unfortunately ill right now, but that fence is falling down in part. And so in an effort to give barrier and privacy, we had a surveyor come in and just to make sure that where the lines were, that we didn't want to end up with anybody else's property or cause anybody a problem. I think he's got it noted here, existing eight foot fence, John, you see that? That's what I was trying to find. I think that says something on there underneath it. So that's eight foot on both sides? On the other side? Between you and Jeannie Schroedner? Jeannie's fence is a chain lint fence that we would probably leave in place. In fact, one of the reasons I believe that fence remains is that she's hoping that our fence will block the noise from the street because she experiences that as well. I'm just concerned. We've got these new variance requests and some of it's probably the old stuff. I just wasn't paying attention earlier. But I mean, these conditions do seem to apply to any of the other houses in the area. We first moved to Columbia. We lived in a house on Parkland Drive, I think, perhaps across the other side of Beltline and you could hear the noise and you could hear when the boom box cars would roll by and that. It seems like these conditions do apply to other properties in the vicinity. Part of the reason you're having a problem is because you cleared away the vegetation and that you could deal with it by planting other vegetation but you don't want to plant that vegetation. So it's just a little bit, I don't know. Well, respectfully, it's not that I don't want to plant it. It's that I'm trying to get some privacy in here now and the plants that we would put in are fairly selective to come by. Again, I'm trying to restore this to what it was. But as far as the lights, I think it may be a bit more unusual because the way the slope runs up the street, the car lights run directly into the back of our house. I mean, it's always been that way. We're just trying to figure out a way to deal with that that helps everybody. Any other questions from the board? All right, thank you for your testimony. Is anyone, any members of the public wish to speak on this matter? Okay, could we please check and see if we've got any callers or any emails that have come through? I could pause just a moment. There's about a 30 second delay but so far I do not have any callers. Okay, so it doesn't sound like we've got any public input on this matter so we'll move into four discussion. Who wants to start? I sympathize with what she's trying to do. But just for what it's worth, camellias are not native plants either. I mean, I sympathize with what she's trying to do very much but I am concerned because when we go down the criteria, it does appear that these conditions more or less apply to other properties in the area. In fact, by her own intention, her neighbors also have lights shining on them and that they are in fact the result of her own actions. Had she left the vegetation in place, she could have potentially staged the removal or something like that. I just have a problem with that. I mean, I do sympathize with where she's coming from and I imagine it probably wouldn't hurt anybody although I think a 10 foot fence is extremely high. Yeah, my thoughts on this are, it came before us, I guess, to have a board discussion and I think 10 foot is probably egregious, but I wouldn't mind trying to see if she'd do like an eight foot, something that just doesn't seem quite so, just in your face. And then plant some vegetation with it, plant some trees with it, something that will grow in over time to minimize the, just looking at a tall fence. What is the fence height that is permitted? Seven. Seven feet along the side. Seven feet along the side. So of right, she could do seven feet, which would go a long way. It's not perfect, but it would go a long way and then with the judicious use of shades in the house. Well, we've granted them before, but the other properties I can recall, face belt line were immediately adjacent to it. I realized what she's saying, this is close and I certainly believe her with the sound and the lights and that makes sense, but there is a difference when you're in the interior of the neighborhood versus on this main thoroughfare through the city. 10 sounds kind of high to me too, y'all. I mean, that's big fence. And also, non-conforming use is not at grounds. Other non-conforming uses are not at grounds for granting this variance either. So, and you may have been, they may have been granted under previous code as well. I mean, they obviously were granted the previous code, but the standards could have been different as well. Could have been. Well, can we, I mean, I'd be fine with eight. Okay. Well, let's bring the applicant back up virtually and let's let John talk to her about a possible reduction in their request. Ms. Rosenberg, are you there? I'm here. Did you hear our discussion? I did. I did. What are your thoughts on eight foot? Does 10 foot seems egregious to us? I understand. I guess my thoughts are, I have measured it myself and run a line and eight foot really doesn't get over the fences that are already in place in the spots and it doesn't walk much of what's there. The topography is what makes it odd. It's not, I understand the point about being on belt line, but the house sits very high. That's not something I did. It's just the way it was built. And I guess the road was built. I'm sure it was never planned that it was gonna be a four lane there when it was built in 1940. I think there is a very small set of houses, if any others in this area, that would meet the unique place where my house sits. I think it is a new sense of the lights and the noise. I don't think it's a detriment to anybody else. It would blend in well. It's for the person who used to make the home and now and for future home. And so when looking at what was minimally necessary and talking to fence builders, you know, eight foot, just it, when you look out the back, you're still seeing everything, including the neighbors. And so we were trying to come up with something that gave everybody privacy and sort of existed harmony. But it's that eight foot chain link, correct? The chain link fence, I believe, is eight, I'm not sure. Plan it showed eight foot. Okay, I'm sorry, if that's what it says, that's what it did. Chain link fence along here. So even with the wooden fence, where light wouldn't come through the wooden fence as much as a chain link, you're saying that that doesn't make a difference. That's the difference in height. The problem is the height of the house. And I'm so wish that, I mean, if you stood in my house and the head of my yard, you could see you're a full, a six foot person can be standing in the back and see sort of straight out over into belt line. And that's at the top of the hill. If they're standing at the bottom, you know, the road actually, I think there's a cut through in between one of the properties next door. So again, after much consultation, that's what we were advised. And if we wanted to try to make it a fence that would render what we needed, which was blockage of the light and the sound, as it acts as a barrier. In a way that plants won't do. But you said it only became evident when you cut the plants away. I may have said that and I apologize. I have had a great life lately and I have not had much sleep. So if I said that, that was not quite accurate. The sound and the light has always been an issue. The problem was that vegetation, not vegetation, poison ivy, plants, snakes, different things were taking up habitat there. And that was not something I thought was good for the neighbors or for us. So we carefully with consultation with Sox and Freeman, different fence companies talked about what we thought would be good and sought to preserve all vegetation that was useful or healthy. However you want to look at that. Okay, thank you. And if I can add one more thing that may or may not help you, because of the, I think at some point, I've been told I don't know this to be a fact. There was a cut through with property sold from one place to another that are the properties that are on either corner of me in the back. That leaves an alley open to belt line. And recently during a hospitalization of my husband's, we were away for a while. When I got back, a person that I believe rents behind us came to the door and said, you have a dead deer in your backyard. And so, deer, as you know, I grew up in the country in Leesville. So deer can jump pretty high. They can clear most fences. So we were also looking to avoid that because that was a fairly large expense to get the animal disposed of. And I'm sorry it happened, but there's just nothing there to stop them. All right, thank you for your testimony. So the question for staff, if this request were to fail today, the applicant, they could re-approach at some time in the future and request a lesser fence site. Is that correct? Yes, yes. Because John posed a good question. It sounds like they're not, it's really not what they wanna do. And certainly understandable is their request. I just wanted to throw that for the record. Okay, so I'm looking at the Topo on the County GIS. And she's correct. Obviously, she testified. So their house does sit on a knoll and it does slope off a good bit towards the rear of the property. So it's a reasonable request from that respect. But the problem that we have here in addition to Caffinich request is this dwelling, I guess it would be to the south that actually fronts belt line. The Topo keeps going in that same direction. If we allow them to erect this 10 foot fence there, if you're sitting in this neighboring property's home, the fence is gonna look like a 15 foot wall. It's too high. It's too high. It's a reasonable request, but due to Caffinich request and due to the Topo exactly like she said, it's too high for the surrounding property. So simple like to sum up board discussion with that unless anyone has anything else to add, let's, I'd like to ask for a motion. I'm so good with eight. Well, we can't do eight because the applicant didn't do eight. So eight, that's not on the table. So let's get a motion. I move that we deny the applicant's request. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion is second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion fails. Next case on the regular agenda. It's 2021-0094 508 South Walker Street and it's a variance request to the minimum front yard set back to permit a covered porch and the applicant is here to present his case. Thank you. Please approach. Hi, how are you all doing? Good, good. Can you state your name for the record? Dustin Whitehead. My floor is yours. Okay, cool, thank you. I, my wife and I moved to Columbia about two and a half years ago for me to teach at the University of South Carolina. I teach in the Vita program and we found our home in Rosewood on Walker Drive. We love it, love our neighbors. My wife just put together a block party. Last weekend we invited everybody in the surrounding streets and had a good time and we really get along. And we've found after living in the home for a couple of years that we really enjoy being in the front yard and chatting with people that live in the neighborhood with us. And you know, it creates community. And we have a porch, we have a, not a porch swing. A swing hanging from a tree. We, you know, and I don't know, it's just, there's not really, there's a picture of the front of the house there's not really, there's just steps, two steps that go up into the front of the house. There's not really anywhere to be. So we just typically sit in chairs in the front yard and we really, yeah, just like to add a small porch just to be able to somewhere that's covered so that when we have a stroller, we have three kids, one of them's baby. Somewhere to put the stroller where it's not getting rained on. And then maybe, you know, a couple of chairs out there, not a big porch, just, you know, two chairs and space for soccer cleats and stuff like that. And yeah, our neighbors, many of our neighbors across the street and on the same side have little porches. Our house just wasn't designed with one, which is, you know, it's still a beautiful old classic, you know, 1920s, you know, Columbia style brick house. We love it. We just, you know, want to do this little addition. So another thing that happened is that two of our trees, I don't know the big trees, oak trees, I guess they get, a lot of them have been getting chopped down in our neighborhood because they're old and they're coming problematic or whatever. Two right in front of our house got cut down. See, these are our neighboring homes here that all have porches, some examples. But yeah, those two big trees got chopped down right up front. We want to do some yard work to make it pretty and match the neighborhood. We feel bad, all of our neighbors have such a beautiful view. Or we have such a beautiful view of all of our neighbors' homes, but our house doesn't look so good because it's got two recent chopped down trees that like sort of patches of dirt. But before we can do that work, we really want to see if we can get this porch thing. Yeah, thank you for your consideration. Sure. What is the difference in setback? Yeah, I have that. Is that not on there? I'm sorry. Oh, I'm great question. 15 feet of... Yeah, we'll get proposing seven feet instead of 15. Seven feet instead of 15. So taking up eight feet with porch. Yeah. Okay. Which is, I understand that you can do that if you don't do it overhead, but because you want to do the roof over, it's what, why we have to do the variants. So it's the covered porch in the trees, okay? No, that's right. Thank you. All right, so we were sort of in the last discussion. We're looking, when we're asked to judge these cases, there's some wiggle room, but we're really asked specific, we're asked to follow specific guidelines here for variance requests. And I guess the first one, which you didn't address, and I'd like this to be a good opportunity for you to address it. What are described as extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property? Well, I, maybe just the choice to put the bulk of like the property so far, or the building so far forward, it's not common on the street. And yeah, like, I mean, I did say there are a lot of houses that have porches and ours doesn't, so that makes it unique. I mean, literally the houses on both sides and then six houses across the street all have porches, right? So it's not like there's like here and there, there aren't. And then also, we got signatures from pretty much everybody, I think almost everybody on our street on that block, you know, they're all in favor, you know, and support it. Well, yeah, and that's good. I think I would agree with you. So I think the extraordinary and exceptional condition is this house was constructed a long time ago and it's constructed very close to the road right away. And it doesn't generally apply to some of the other properties because some of these pictures, the homes appear to be offset further. Yeah, yeah, and they have porches, which he doesn't have. What year was your home constructed, do you know? Built? In 19, I wanna say, I know it was the 20s, I think it was 24 or 28. So it certainly predates any zoning ordinance that we have now, probably one year, such then then, so. Okay, well, any questions for that? I mean, I would add that it does seem that this would, this would be, in fact, not only would it not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare, it would contribute to it because they'd be sitting out front and we all know that's supposed to be a good thing. You know, sitting out front using the street and so on. Yeah, yeah. Oh gosh, what's our contractor's name? I'm not sure. You mean like, is what's it gonna be made with? Yeah. It'll match the home, so it'd be break with like the cement flat, you know, and then wood, I think, probably pillars. And she's talking about moving, I don't know if this is a picture of the front of our home, but she's talking about moving the, we have to redo our roof because our roof is old. So we're gonna do this in conjunction with that and move the sort of be just over, so it's over the triangle, I don't know what to call it. Gate. Gate, yeah. Move it over so that it's over the porch. It's like, you know, looks like it's natural to the home. Sounds like it'd be like a Shandon, a lot of houses in Shandon that I know of that are like that in the middle of Monroe there, in the middle of Duncan. Yeah, okay, any other questions for the applicant? All right, thank you for your testimony. Yeah, sure. Okay, is anyone here to speak either for or against this matter? Okay, can we please check for public input, either by phone, email, text, whatever? I do not have any callers. Okay, well, this brings us to the board discussion point. We saw, we did see a lot of support letters from the surrounding neighbors. That's always a good idea to do that. Certainly applaud you for that effort. Anybody have any thoughts? Do we have it? No, I mean, I'm with you if the neighbors are in support and they don't mind something closer to the right, I'm gonna see a problem with it. And you still got seven feet back from the road, even after they build the porch and. Yeah. That's not much. That's not. That's not where you live, but yeah, that's true. That isn't a whole lot. That's not much, but you know, in a neighborhood like Rosewood or Shandon, it is nice to have a front porch and a real sense of community in these neighborhoods. So, you know, the applicant test fathers sitting outside and just porches in the front yard, or excuse me, chairs in the front yard. It should be nice to have a covered porch to sit on and prove the area. So I certainly don't have any problem with it. No problem. All right, well, that sounds good. Let's ask for a motion. Again, I move that we approve subject staff comments. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, motion passes. Good luck with it. Go ahead. We're gonna excuse Marcellus for a couple of minutes for personal matter, but we're gonna, let's proceed with the meeting. We have court. Moving on to the next item. 2021-0097 1029 lights lane. It's a request for a special exception to permit an alternative parking service. And the next case is also for the same address. And the applicant is here to present. Okay. Hello, I'm Stacy Allen. I am, my husband and I are purchasing this property. So I have permission from the current owner, Alphonse McCutcheon, to speak at the Bozum meeting today. Thank you. Saw your letter babies. Thank you. Okay, great. So what we're asking for is we're asking for a special, they kind of go hand in hand with the items too, but a special exception to permit alternative parking surface. Currently, we had a company come out to take soil samples there and the property is an existing building. It has never been COed. And so we're working towards that. And part of that COing is putting in the appropriate parking area as well as landscaping that still has not been finished. So we're kind of taking over that baton. And with that, we, as we've been researching it, the soil samples came back that it had already been excavated and there's substantial bedrock there on that property. Under the CAC code guidelines, it says that it should be a solid surface. But in this particular case, it's just not cost effective to be able to do something like that for this type of property. And so we're asking for a variance to continue. There's currently cement there and it does abide by all the different codes. There are currently handicapped parking spots. This is going to be a contractor's office. So we don't intend that we're gonna even have many customers that come on property, but should there be, we do have the appropriate parking for them. And so what we're gonna do is we're gonna extend the concrete that you see there all the way out in front of the garages because there's that area in front of the garage unlike the rest of the property is very mushy. And so the guy that did the soil samples and also civil engineer, I have civil engineer here, you have questions that I can't answer. They're gonna be putting the extending the concrete area there in front of the garages and putting a drain in and so forth. But then from that area where we can't concrete, we need special permission to do crush and run. And according to engineering and they said basically that asphalt would just not stick. I don't know the right words, but it would not be appropriate for this particular area because of the bedrock. Do you have any questions about that? Sure, and thank you. I think you, so that's, I think we all understand exactly what you're trying to do. I think that's a good summary of what you're trying to do. All right, so special exceptions. These are a little different than variances, of course. All right, so we, there's 13 criteria for special exceptions that, and this is straight out of the rules for the board, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall approve an application for a special exception only upon finding that these specific 13 criteria are met. So I think you did a good job summarizing your request, but your application, unless I missed it for whatever reason, did not answer any of the questions. That's because I'm a novice and I wasn't sure. But I do have answers. Okay, and that would be a good time to do it. So in order, any favorable vote by the board is gonna have to get these criteria for special exception on the record. So I was gonna suggest that you either do it now, or if you wanted to defer to take time to gather your thoughts and come back to us. I'm happy to do it now. Okay, that'd be fantastic. So please run through the criteria for the special exception so we can get them on the record in those. Sure. Can I refer to each exception via the number? Okay, sure, no need to read them out. Yeah, just start with number one. So number one, we've spoken with the Zoning Commission and we comply with the zoning. We're not asking for change in zoning. It is zone CAC, and we fall within those guidelines to come in as a contractor's office, which also goes along with number two. So we're not asking for any changes there. We meet those criteria. Number three, it does not have a substantial adverse impact on vehicular traffic or vehicular and pedestrian safety. It's a side street, so it's not on the main thoroughfare. There are no sidewalks in that area. We're not anticipating having significant public input. It's a service business, so we don't have customers that come in. So that statement for number three is true. It will not have a substantial adverse impact. Number four, the shape of our parking lot meets our needs. And again, we have the handicap spots there available should someone come to the property that needs that kind of parking. So yes, there are adequate provisions that are made for parking, for loading and unloading. Number five, this is correct. The proposed special exception does not have a substantial adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of environmental factors, such as noise, lights, et cetera. This property does have a rural property at the back of that property, but the building is such that at the back of the building there is a light currently that's there, but we are going to angle it down so that it doesn't angle out. I've actually met with the resident that lives there at that rural property. And she's actually quite happy that we're taking on this property because it's gonna not be an eyesore anymore. And so at the back of that building, it is basically a, it's a wall because there's no windows, there's no doors, it's just an existing block. Also, I'm gonna be addressing that number four in the next provision about minimum landscape requirements. There's gonna be an eight foot wooden privacy fence put even at the back of the property just to help with those types of things. And that neighbor is very happy about that as well. Number five, the proposed special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of environmental factors such as noise, lights, glare, vibration, fumes, odors, et cetera. And that is correct as well. We're not gonna, we're open Monday through Friday from nine to five. And we go to our customer's houses and properties, commercial properties to service them. So we don't have, we're not gonna have noise and traffic and different things like that at the property. Number six, the proposed special exception will not have substantial adverse impact on the aesthetic character to the area to include a review of the orientation and spacing of the building. This is also correct. We have gone through that we did come upon a little bit of a hang up. What you're seeing there on your screen is the property lines as they are on the GIS map. They're what, we did locate a survey by Lucius Cobb which was not put in record, but it is an official survey. We communicated with the property that's behind the property Mrs. Addie likes. And she didn't even know that this was the boundary line. So she was shocked and surprised. And we agreed to, so we found our lawyers already working on deeds to meet the agreement and we're having surveyors go out to adjust these lines so that the setback of the building is gonna be in compliance. Yes, in compliance and Addie is great. She's, everyone's already signed the papers. Everything's already been put through. In fact, surveyors were there just yesterday doing a topographical survey and a boundaries line survey. And so if anything, it's going to, what we're going to do is going to actually increase property values because of, again when we go to the next thing we'll talk about the landscaping that's being added. And all the neighbors are in agreement with what's being done. Actually, they're very happy about that too. Number seven, let's see. That's not gonna apply. Exactly, no adverse effects. Number eight, again, we're not changing the zoning on this. The building's already in existence and we meet what is currently zoned for. Number nine, again, this is sort of a repeat because we're not changing any of the zoning. Number 10, again, same. It already has the building on there and it is, what we're doing is falling within the guidelines. Number 11, the proposed special exception is compatible with general character, the general character of the district in which it is proposed. Yes, this is correct. The proposed special, number 12, the proposed special exception will not have an adverse impact on the land values of surrounding properties. And again, this is also correct because we will be taking care of it. It will actually probably increase property values. Currently, it's been sitting vacant for six or seven years and just big eyesore with all of the trees and shrubbery and nothing's being maintained. Number 13, the proposed special exception will not adversely affect public interest. It shouldn't have any effect in public interest. Are there any other questions about that? Yeah, and thank you. Appreciate you running through those. I know it's cumbersome and sort of tedious to go through them, but we just, we have to do that in order to get a favorable vote for the record and they were not in the application. So that's why you had to go through it. So thank you very much for doing that. And that makes it a lot clearer. Any questions for the applicant and board? Just so I'm clear, so you're gonna pour a 40 foot pad out from the building going east for that 93 foot. And then once you get past that 40 foot where you're estimated to hit better rock, that's you're doing crushing run to the continuing to go east towards the furthest extent of the parking. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. So like concrete in that picture, pretty much where the grass is and then as you get into the sand, if that's 40 foot away, that's gonna be crushing run. Yes, I believe that's correct. I think the crushing, that existing concrete pad on the right hand side, there'll be crushing run that goes out from there. Could we turn back to the grading plan? It showed it. Yeah, I was trying to look at it. And I've been to it. So Heather, the specific special exception is... It's kind of hard to see at this. Yeah. For the alternatives for the crushing run section only. So the parking pad doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the crushing run. The reason you have to put the crushing run there is because it's got bedrock and you cannot use any other surface there because of bedrock. That's basically... That's correct. Yeah, I get that. Okay. And then that ties in with the interior landscaping of Westroy. Yes, which will be in the next item. And we're gonna take two votes on this, Miss Allen, but we certainly, while you're here, we can discuss. If you'd like to go ahead and discuss the landscaping request, that's certainly fine with all of us. We'll take two votes, two separately. Okay. Okay. Rather than sending you back and doing all that, that way we can do it all at one time. Okay. Yeah, I'm fine with that. So I guess before we do that, do we have any other questions regarding this request for the applicant? All right, well, let's do that then. Let's discuss your next, your variance for the landscaping requirement, and then we'll see about any public comment, have some board discussion, and we'll take two separate motions. Okay. So for the variance, we're asking for transitional buffer yard and alternative compliance. This one in particular is referring to the back of the property, which I slightly touched on. We are going to put an eight foot fence up, and therefore we would like a variance of a 50, 50% of shrubber. Can you point out where the section A that you're talking about, is it on the back side? Like? At the back of the property. On the right here in the picture that we have right now, you're talking about the right where it cuts into this light. Exactly where you're showing. Right. The part where you're changing the property line. Exactly. Okay. We'll be putting the fence on the new property line. And so that will help block any, we're not anticipating any noise and et cetera, but it'll just be a privacy because we are a business and that is a rural piece of property. And so putting a fence there to be able to put a 50% of shrubbery requirement for that particular area. So what is required and what are you doing that's different from what's required? I think the requirement is requiring us to put several trees and bushes and different things in that area. There is a little bit of a problem with that and you can't really tell on just looking at this, but where that new property line is going to sit, there is a slope that goes down into that backyard of that residential person's house. And so if we were to put shrubs and trees there, the water flow that would be coming off there and even just where it's located would not be advisable. There are currently four trees that were planted I'm gonna say six or seven years ago and they did not last there. I believe just, I'm guessing just too much water flow because of where it's located. Let's pause for just a second. These are good details that these are relevant. Let's go back to the summary page. There's three separate variances they're requesting here. It kind of gets to Catherine's question. So before we get in these details which are all important, let's step back for a second and make sure we all understand what you're asking for. So if we could turn this to the front page or wherever it is. Can we kind of go through the three requests? Yes, the three specific requests and then we'll get into details. And we also have our landscape planner here, Scott Holder. If there are any detailed questions regarding the requirements for landscaping that he can answer as well. Okay, thanks. So the first request is to the buffer transition yard along the Northern Property Line. And the other request is to the street protective yard and the third request out of the landscape ordinance is to the vehicular surface area landscaping requirements. Okay, the street protective yard is that gonna be on the side street? Jasper? Jasper likes. Jasper. Okay, so that's the one we're asking for variance. Yes, and that's where a lot of the bedrock is located. And again, there are current shrubs there that are just dead, just didn't make it because there's not enough nutrients and so forth in the soil to support that. And so we're asking for variance to not put landscaping in that along that path there. And instead, just add more landscaping to the areas on the left side of the property that have better soil. So you'd be basically providing the same amount of landscaping just in a different part of the property. Yes. Is that, is it possible to do something? Is that, does that comport what you understand it to be? Not being articulate here. Is it, you agree that it's not really reasonable to put any buffered landscape stuff because of the soil conditions or lack thereof? That's correct. The front of the property is probably 75% exposed bedrock all the way to Jasper likes lane. So the street protective yard is supposed to provide that buffer between the vehicular surface area and the right of way. There's just no plantable space there. It's just rock. The previous owner had tried to install plant material but it's essentially just drilling a hole into rock and just placing a plant that's never gonna live. So the area in the rear, the way that the grates were sloped, this sits a little bit higher and the stormwater shoots around the right side of that building and kind of follows that slope. So it looks like everything that they planted previously just got waterlogged and died. Is it possible to put some sort of rain garden there then? Well, so it does eventually go back into the upper left-hand corner, which is the detention pod. And there is a buffer existing that is maintained around the detention pod and along the left side, I guess, the Western property line. So you're saying that all the mitigation that can reasonably be done has been done. That's correct. There is an existing street protective yard along likes lane and there's existing buffers along the Western edge and all the way wrapped around the detention pod. And then they're going to put landscape, the other landscaping that's gonna be put in will be roughly the equivalent of what they would have had to put anyway. So actually it's gonna be better off than having a bunch of dead wood. Correct. And the other landscaping that they're installing is to mitigate the loss of the landscaping from the previous plan. Okay. So it's a wash in terms of landscaping, but it's all gonna live. Correct. Well, thank you for your testimony. It's very helpful for the board. Thank you very much. Okay. I think we all have a pretty good understanding of what they're asking for. Thank you for your testimony. Do we have any other specific questions for the applicant before we move on to the other one? All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this matter? Okay. Don't see any then. So let's check online please and on the phones. I don't see any callers calling in. Okay. So again, just to recap the app, we've had the applicant approach us about this property on Lake Lane and we have two separate items here. We're gonna vote on, we sort of group them all together just because these things do run together. So I guess we'll start then with, we'll have two semi, two short board discussions. Let's start with board discussion regarding the special exception request to permit the alternative parking surface. Is there any, is there anything discussed regarding this, the crushing run? I mean, I don't really have a problem with it, there's no parking there now. It's just that little slab. And it's not like a retail shop for people to be coming and going all day long. We gotta get them off the street quick and get them parked in a spot. I'd almost rather see them not put the crushing run at all, but I guess then that wouldn't be within compliance with the zoning. So why not just leave it like it is? Well. But yeah. The crushing run, I mean, might help with erosion control and all that. Good point, good point. Yeah, I'm a fan of the crushing run. Okay. Well, simple enough. All right, is there any board discussion regarding the variances to the minimum landscaping requirements? There were three of them that they're requesting here, which they did a good job outlining. Seems like we're getting at least as good as we had before and it's the best possible outcome for this property. Yeah. I mean, it's improving the situation. It's located sort of in a rural area. Really, that you wouldn't even think was in the city of Columbia really at the Northwest portion of the county. 48 miles. Honestly. So yeah, it seems to be an improvement. We're gonna have anything to add. Yeah, I'm looking through like old Google GI on the county tax map photos and the parcel before building was there was never wooded. So that shows that stuff historically couldn't go there. I think this is in the slate belt. You know, there's a slate belt that runs through that area from like Aiken through the Northwest. I think this is in the slate area of the county, I believe. Okay. Okay. You're the engineer. Well, I think it's pretty clear then. Like to ask for a motion regarding the special exception to permit an alternative parking service. Yeah, I'll make a motion that we approve the special exception request for the alternative parking service subject staff comments. Second. Okay, we have a motion a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion passes. All right, next we'd like to ask for a motion for the variances to the minimum landscape requirements. Yeah, I'll make a motion that we approve the variances, the multiple variances to minimum landscaping requirements subject to staff comments. Second. Okay, we have a motion a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion passes. Good luck with the project. Very good improvement to the area. It's very good. Good. Okay, we have a motion to adjournment. Don't move. Second. Second. Okay, motion a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. All right, thank you very much.