 The Board of Zoning Appeals, members, staff, and guests. We ask for your patience during this virtual 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 via Zoom. Some are using video and all will be using audio. I'll unmute applicants when their case is called or I will ask them to unmute themselves. Everyone, just please be aware of your audio and be mindful of anything in the background just to eliminate distractions. The public may participate today in a number of ways. So they can watch via city TV. They can submit statements via email, call in on the phone or log into publicinput.com. To watch, you can go to youtube.com slash user slash Columbia SC government or go to the main website for the city and there will be a ticker at the top that you can click to view the live stream. Public may submit letters and statements via email to COC board meeting at Columbia SC.gov. That email is monitored during the meeting and those emails and letters will be read into the record by staff up until the time board goes into discussion on the matter. You may call in at 1-855-925-2801. And when prompted, you'll enter the meeting code 9431 and there are a few options. You can hit star one, which allows you to stay on the line and listen to the audio. Star two, if you're not able to stay on the line, you can record a voice message that will be read into the record or played into the record. And star three allows you to be placed in a queue to speak live when prompted. Just make sure to wait until your specific case is called to hit that star three. You can also stream at publicinput.com slash COCBOSA dash February. And just a reminder, if you're participating by phone while also streaming on your computer, mute the audio on your computer so that you don't get the feedback. And there is an audio delay between Zoom and the live recording. So if you notice that we pause every once in a while, it's just to let the audio catch up. And I'll go ahead and do roll call. Mr. Dinkins. Here. Mr. Gregory. Here. Sorry. Okay. Mr. Primus, I think was gonna be absent. Ms. Stevens. Here. Ms. Spenner. Here. Mr. Gignard. Here. We have a quorum. Applicants with requests before the Board of Zoning Appeals are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include, but is 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 applicant, such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the Board of Zoning Appeals or staff regarding requests. 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 rebuttal. The Board reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case-by-case basis. All right. And before I get going on the consent agenda, I do just want to make a couple of announcements. The case for 3624 Rosewood has been deferred by the applicant until the April 1st agenda. Again, the Rosewood case for the special exception for the cell tower has been deferred to April 1st, so we will not be discussing that today. And 2,900 Midwood, the special exception for alternative surface, has been withdrawn by the applicant, so that will not be discussed today as well. Moving forward with the consent agenda. The Board uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial 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 items. We have the approval of the January 7th, 2021 minutes. Case 2020-0087 for 919 True Street Unit D. This is a special exception to permit a daycare facility. Case 2021-0001 for 7451 Garner's Fair Road, a portion of that parcel. It's a special exception to establish an automotive repair service. Case 2021-0003 for 919 True Street Unit I. This is for a special exception to permit a barber shop. Same address, 919 True Street B5, special exception to permit a beauty shop. 3725 North Main Street, this is a special exception to permit an alternative parking surface. And I just wanna note that it's actually a temporary alternative parking surface. We're back to 919 True Street. This is case 2021-0009, special exception to permit a miscellaneous retail store. It's an arts and crafts store. Does anyone wish to have a case removed from the consent agenda prior to- You are in the meeting. Anyone is welcome to submit comments via COC board meeting at columbiasd.gov. So I will be monitoring the email and Andrew is monitoring public input so he can let us know if there's anyone on the line. I don't see any new emails for the consent agenda. So we'll wait for Andrew to let us know if anyone's on the phone. Hi, Rachel. I do not have any callers on the line right now. All right, thank you. Okay, thank you. At this time, I'd like to ask for a motion regarding the consent agenda. So moved. Or moved to approve the consent agenda. Subject to all staff comments. Subject to all staff comments, yes. Is there a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion passes. All right. And just to note, any of the applicants from the consent agenda on the line, you all are welcome to exit the meeting. All of those cases have now been voted on. We'll move on to our regular agenda. So we will use the following outline for the regular agenda. I will introduce the case. I will pass it over to the applicant to give a presentation on their request. The board can ask questions at any point. The public will be allowed to participate via email, voicemail, or phone comment. The applicant does have the opportunity for a rebuttal after public comment. And then we go into forward discussion. That's a duplicate, sorry. All right. The first case is case 2021-0002 for 1225 North Beltline Boulevard. This is a variance to the maximum fence height requirement within a secondary front yard. If the applicant is here, they're welcome to unmute themselves and just give us a rundown of their request. Yes, I'm here. So this is Michael Camus. And all I'm looking for is this fence will go back in the same location that it was initially in, but there was a four-foot garden fence there. And what I am proposing is a six-foot wooden privacy fence that's stick built and constructed that it won't extend obviously to the front of the house. It just kind of covers that secondary front yard slash side yard area and will tie in and just be kind of uniform with the entire fencing of the property. Spoken to both of my adjacent neighbors and both are very pleased with what I've done there that it's gonna tie into. And I think Sarah Poe who was the neighbor from one side of me actually wrote an email in support of it as well. And so just kind of same deal, kind of be tucked in behind some mature landscaping and kind of in keeping with other houses in this area. And it's kind of a similar thing. The houses along Beltline Boulevard have suffered a little bit because of that traffic volume and sealing off from that noise kind of gives you a better access to that side yard and better use of it. Okay, thank you very much. Seems to be a fairly straightforward request. Do we have any questions from any members of the board regarding this item? Is there any way we can ensure that the landscaping, the beauty buffer, because it does look nice if it were there is maintained or is preserved? And I don't know other than writing something into it. So there's a layer of golden unanimous that's actually gonna be in the front portion of the fence. It was overgrown with wisteria and smile act and some other kind of really invasive vines that have had to trim back some. I've probably got the unanimous down to a height of about four feet right now. So upon construction, it's gonna actually protrude over that elevation. Now the intent is to stain this fence white and it'll match the property. But the truth is I don't know how to ensure it, but I can just declare that it is my intent to actually grow this landscaping back up to a height equivalent or even over the top of the fence. So I put a swimming pool in the backyard and so I need it for security sake for sure. But that added height and that noise buffer will certainly help myself as well as both adjacent property owners. Sure, I guess what I'm just saying is I'd like to see in the approval some statement that some manner of natural landscaping and I don't even know how to phrase that would be maintained because I think it's a very good idea to have something there. I mean, it not only helps you in from a sound buffer perspective, but I just don't want some future owner to come in and say, I don't wanna mess with this, this is a pain in the neck and then all you have is a fence there. Is that possible? Rachel, is that something we can put in? Is that? Yeah, the board has the authority to add a requirement for some kind of natural screening to be maintained along with the fence. So I mean, that's definitely something that you all could do if you being fit. I'm certainly fine with that. Once again, as I'm the owner, I certainly have no intent of doing it. It's not a flip property, my family lives here. So for me, it's really more of a general improvement for kind of the neighborhood and kind of hoping to help build up the financial base of that corridor right there. Sure, I mean, I think it's a great project. I'm more thinking about down the road. Sure, and I understand that Charles interests just to kind of protect that and protect the long-term aspects of it. I'm not opposed to that being written in. You tell me. Okay, do we have any other comments or questions? I guess specifically questions for the applicant from the board. Okay, well, I don't have any questions regarding this matter. Rachel, can we please check and see if we have any public comment or input? Sure. I do have an email from a neighbor that I'll read into the record. My name is Sarah Pope. I share a property line with 1225 Beltline Boulevard. I support my neighbor Mike Kimmas's request for a fence height variance. I have been at this address for 35 plus years and there's always been a very ugly wire fence along the spot he is proposing to place the new fence. His plan is for a very attractive fence that I believe will help with the traffic noise from Beltline Boulevard. Over the years, the traffic on Beltline has increased exponentially. I believe this higher fence will help to cut down on some of the traffic noise. I ask that you grant this variance. Sincerely, Sarah Pope. So, and I do not see any other emails, so I will turn it over to Andrew to see if anyone's on the line. Rachel, I do not have any callers on the line. All right, thank you. Okay, well, seems fairly straightforward. At this time then, let's move into a probably short board discussion. I'd like to see the natural buffer included, the requirement for natural buffer be included if, but I don't, I mean, I can live without it. I just think it would be a nice thing since it's already there anyway. Yeah, I mean, I don't know, Catherine, I don't disagree with you, but at the same time, here we are. We're the applicants asking for us to allow them to construct this taller fence. It's not like I agree with you when we're looking at reducing a buffer, a landscape buffer for commercial development or residential or whatever, but in this case, I mean, I'm not against it. I'm not gonna vote no if you write that into your motion, but it seems like it's unnecessary to me in this case. I mean, here they're gonna build a fence that's taller than the allowable height without a variance anyway. So I just kind of hesitate to impose that on the property and I know he's agreeable to it and said that he would and that's fine. And again, we can write that in if you want to, but my personal opinion is that's just not needed in this case. I'm just thinking it's already there. I'm just asking for it to be maintained for future owners, but I mean, right now that's a nice attractive area. I think it's definitely an improvement. What he's doing is clearly an improvement on the space and certainly the other properties along that strip of North Belt Line have tended to vary from pretty rough to rather nice fancy, and he looks like he's moving it into the nicer area. And as a reason to expect it would be maintained that way anyway. I don't really care one way or the other either, so. So just to make a note too, I mean, the plans that are part of the case record do notate a partially obscured by existing landscaping. So I mean, that's part of the record, regardless. So if you wanted it to be more specific than that, you're welcome to include that. But I mean, there is some language already part of it about existing land. So nevermind, that's fine, that's fine. Well, Catherine, I was gonna back you up. I like the natural barrier because there's a property right down the road from that 1403 that got natural barrier and now it's a brick wall, but it's fantastic looking. And then you see an old fence where the staining hadn't been maintained and it looks like pixie sticks and there's no natural barrier barrier. So. All right. I like the natural barrier personally. Okay. Well, it's already there. I get what you're saying. It's the current landowner. Huh? It's certainly no current burden for the current applicant. The current applicant tends to maintain it. And I think you're right, they do end up, some of these can end up looking pretty ratty going down the road. So at least if we had a natural maintained, well maintained, we call it well maintained landscape buffer. Will they maintain buffer of landscaping materials? No, another thing to consider, not at all trying to be the anti-buffer guy because I mean, I'm not, and I like it, but this fence is most likely gonna go on the very close to the property line or the edge of the right of way. The buffer may be located within the right of way. And if it is, and the city or DOT comes and clears it, then what are we gonna do? So just throwing it out there, I think it's excessive, but again, I'm good with it. I mean, I think that if DOT takes it, there's a taking of some sort, permissive or with a consent of the landowner or by amending the pain. I don't think it's a taking. What I'm saying is the fence is most likely located on the property line and the right of way line. The buffer may be located off of the applicant's property. That's my point. You see, maybe just throwing it out. Anyway, I think we're getting hung up over on that. Yeah. I really do, not really worth us getting into. So anyway, is there any other board discussion? Any other specific questions or anything regarding this matter? I think it sounds good to me. Okay, at this point, let's get a motion from someone, buffer or no buffer, let's get a motion either way. Gatham, you wanna make a motion? You go ahead. But you're gonna say it so much better. Okay, I move that we approve the applicant's request subject to staff comments and with the proviso that to the extent possible, that's not good. That the existing landscape buffer be maintained or improved so long as the right of way may is where it is now, something like that. Words to that effect. Help me out here, Rachel. You can make that sound like I'm a terrible dictator. I can write it, but I can't talk it. I'll give you a stop, pal. You just want it to be locked in that it remains partially obscured by existing landscaping. Partially obscured by natural landscaping. At least. I'm just reading off of the sketch by the applicant. Sure. I think existing might not be what we were looking for, but a natural buffer of landscaping or a buffer of natural materials, a buffer of natural plant materials. Okay. All right, very good. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, very good. Motion passes. Thank you very much, Mr. Keynes. All right, guys. Thank you, folks. And I certainly understand your concerns and I'll do my best to be a good steward while I'm here. Very good. Thank you. Go your pool. All right, thank you. All right, the next case on the agenda, similar. It's case 2021-0005 for 231 South Bull Street. This is a variance to the maximum fence height requirement in a side yard. If Mr. Chadwick is on the line, welcome to unmute himself. And explain his application request. Good afternoon, everyone. Can y'all hear me? Yes. Perfect, thanks. I'd like to start by thanking the board for their time and consideration today. In respect for that, I'll keep this as short and sweet as possible. I live in the Hollywood Rose Hill neighborhood off Rosewood Drive. And if you're familiar with the area, you know that Hill itself helps define our neighborhood. But because of that, very few houses that sit on that ground are level with one another. As it pertains to this case, I have an existing six foot tall wooden fence on my side yard that sits low relative to the rest of the property due to being on a slope. Because of that, the fence is just above waist high if you were to stand on the usable part of the yard near the house. And I'm here today to seek a variance to section 17-277 for an additional two feet of decorative lattice above my existing fence line to adjust for elevation and height disparity between the fence and the property. In our neighborhood strict adherence, these fence height limits is more fair to some than others due to our unique topography. And I hope you'll agree that initial two feet of allowance will help rectify this. I've spoken to the neighbors on the shared side of the property in question and they're also in favor of the additional two feet for privacy purposes for their sales as well. I've attached written descriptions of the relative site line and height disparities but I'd be glad to answer any questions about the particulars of this project if anyone has any further questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chadwick. Very well written application. Did a very good job answering the specific criteria for the variance request. A lot of times we ask the applicants to go through them but certainly yours as a matter of record here would be no need to go through them at all. So I think it's very well written. And at this time I'd like to see if any board members have any questions for you regarding the request. I have any questions. Okay, well, you certainly must have done a good job with your application. It is very, very thorough and does a good job addressing our criteria. So without any questions, Rachel, could we please see if we have any public input regarding this matter? Sure, I'm looking at the emails and nothing new on this case has come in. So we will pause a sec for the audio to catch up and then see if Andrew has anyone on the line. Hello, Rachel, I do not have any callers on the line right now. All right, thank you. All right, very good. Well, this certainly seems very straightforward and without any questions that I could, I doubt we'll have any board discussion but let's throw it out there anyway. Anyone wanna say anything or discuss anything? No, pretty straightforward. Yeah, I mean, I was just gonna say for the record, like, I mean, the hardship to me is obvious. The houses are real close together. You're on a little bit of an elevation and you could look straight in one window from another because of that. So it's pretty straightforward. Yeah, it really does and it certainly meets number one, describing the extraordinary exceptional conditions regarding the topography. So it's a good point, John. All right. Well, at this point then, let's get a motion for this matter. Jane, I'll make a motion that we approve this request for variance budget staff comments. Okay, is there a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Very good, motion passes. All right, and just to reiterate, 3624 Rosewood has deferred until the April 1st agenda and 2,900 Millwood has withdrawn. So with that, that completes the business for today. Okay, can we have a motion to adjourn, please? Move the adjourn. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, very much. All right, enjoy your evening.