 All right, good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to today's May 4th, City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals. I am John Gregory, chair for the board, and will be serving as chair for today's meeting. This time I'd like to introduce the other board members. Marcella has promised to my right. Charar Deval to his right. We have Catherine Finner to my left. Celia McIntosh to her left, and Davis Whittle on the far left. I'd also like to introduce the staff that assist the board. Hope Hasty, zoning administrator. Erica Hyen, deputy zoning administrator, and Skye Robinson Barnes, land use board coordinator. The board is charged with hearing applications for special exceptions, variances, and administrative appeals. All testimony is recorded for the record, and anyone wishing to speak will need to be sworn in and come to the podium to speak. No testimony can be taken from the floor. When you come to the podium, state your name and please state clearly into the microphone because this meeting is being recorded. Applicants with cases before the board are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant. This time does not include any questions asked by the board or staff regarding the case. Any member of the public may address the board in intervals of three minutes or five minutes if by a spokesperson for an established body or a group of three or more. The applicant then has five minutes for a rebuttal. The board reserves the right to amend these limits on a case by case basis. All right, so we're gonna swear in those who wish to speak. So those of you who plan to speak must be sworn. If you are here as an applicant or here to speak in any case, will you please stand at this time? Would you please raise your right hand? All right, do you affirm or attest that the testimony you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? All right, thank you, y'all can be seated. At this time I will then turn, I will turn the meeting over to Ms. Hastie. Thank you, good afternoon. We will start with the consent agenda this afternoon. The first item is the approval of the meeting minutes from April 6th. And the next item is case 2023, 0012 SE 805 Gervais Street unit A. It's a special exception request to permit a type two eating and drinking establishment. And at this time, would any members of the board like to remove an item from the consent agenda? All right, I see none. If someone on the board would like to make a motion to approve the minutes. I move that we approve the entire consent agenda subject to staff comments. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor state aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, seeing none, motions approved. Thank you. Okay, moving on to the regular agenda. We just have one item on regular agenda this afternoon. It's case 2023, 0011 AA. It's 2002 Green Street unit E. And it's an administrative appeal to the zoning administrator's decision to approve a tattoo establishment. And the appellant is here to present his case and the applicant for the business license is here as well. Okay, with the applicant, please come to the podium. Hey, how's it going? Hey, how's it going? Would you please state your name for the record? Yeah, my name's Sushil Patel. Thank you. Just go ahead and start up. Yeah, go ahead and proceed. All right. Please accept this as my formal request to motion an administrative appeal of the approval for an applicant's business permit to open a fourth tattoo shop on Green Street as a non-conforming use. The proposed location was previously used as a piercing shop where the applicant is now proposing to use it as a tattoo shop. Although they fall under the same zoning category as body piercing or tattoo, they are technically two different use requests indicated by the conjunction or. The relevant code section I'm referring to is found under the section of principle uses slash standards for specific principle uses. It reads as follows, body piercing or tattoo establishment. A body piercing or tattoo establishment shall be located at least 100 feet from residential zoning districts and at least 1,000 feet from any other body piercing or tattoo establishment and the INS-FJ district. The keywords to pay attention to are or and shall as defined in the UDO. In stating my case, I will also define the standards for specific principle use. This is the city's new zoning requirements for an applicant of a body piercing establishment or a tattoo establishment to obey. It was designed to distance any future hopeful tattoo shop or body piercing shop from another tattoo shop or body piercing shop by at least 1,000 feet and 100 feet from residential zoning. Its purpose is to prevent clusters of tattoo shops from forming and also clusters of body piercing shops from forming. I don't mean to interrupt. We've gotten the case prior to this so we've all, you know, should have read all this so we've already read all this. You know, I certainly appreciated you reading it. I know it's a lot and I wrote and, you know, I just don't want to summarize some things. Just go talk about some of the highlight points. Okay, so 1,000 feet, let me see. This is the city's new zoning requirements and applicants business permit was approved for tattoo shop. So the applicant's business permit was approved for a tattoo shop to open within less than 15 feet of our tattoo shop. The new law states that there shall be a 1,000 foot distance between tattoo shop or body piercing shop. By approving the applicant to override the new 1,000 foot rule this would prevent, this would not prevent a cluster of tattoo shops but create one. I know you said don't read through it, it's kind of hard. I came up here wanting to read through it because I don't want to miss anything that's important. Would you mind if I tried to summarize it? That would be awesome, I appreciate it. Yeah, I don't want to say I don't want to. It seems to me what you're saying is is that there's a tattoo shop that has been approved that is very, very close to your shop. Like steps away. Exactly, and in fact, but whereas the code requires 1,000 feet. Yes. And that you have said that while a body piercing shop is a different use, which is obvious, you make the point that a body piercing shop does not require the level of parking time that you would require for a tattoo shop, for example, and you're concerned about parking in the area and other similar things. Is that approximately where you're coming from? Are there other? That's one of them. That's one reason the parking trash is an issue already because there's apartments above us and the trash you gets backed up like regularly already and tattoo shops generate a lot of trash, probably a lot more than body piercing, along with requiring because there's more blood involved. There's more cleaning involved, everything. There's more customers. So those are two issues. Another issue, there's already three shops. Can I ask a question then? I'm sorry. With the blood stuff, isn't that, would that not be a separate disposal situation because it's a biohazard? Right, we have all that sorted out already through DHEC, like we have a separate situation for all that for biohazardous materials and stuff. So I'm just, there's already three, there's already three shops within feet of each other. We can all see each other. So like adding a fourth one is, and adding one right next door to me and also the applicant that is trying to open up one directly next door to me in defiance of the 1000 foot rule. She still wants to press for this and she actually owns the tattoo shop across the street. So she already has a business down there and she wants to open up another one directly across the street from her own and next to mine. And it's pretty unreasonable. That's a lot of, the whole block is pretty much nothing but tattoo shops then. And they're right within so many feet of ours when the new law states that you gotta be a thousand feet and and or while body piercing, it says body piercing or tattoo establishment. So or also means that they could be used interchangeably. And one of the things that I found in here that was really good was when it talked about, let me see, the subsection, standards for specific principle uses. And it talks about how or means one or the other can be applied in the case and means they both had to be applied like eating and drinking. But this is tattoo or body or piercing because you can't do both in the same establishment. First of all, in South Carolina, they won't allow you to do tattoo and piercing. So for them to try to use it and try to slide in as a non-conforming use because it was a piercing shop, well, it's not the same use. It's technically not the same use. Even the state doesn't acknowledge it as being the same use. You have to have two separate entrances. It's not even the same business. There's a whole separate set of dynamics that go with tattooing than with piercings. So for it to try to be used to slide in past the new rule because it was previously a piercing shop is it doesn't line up with, it doesn't meet the criteria, you know? So that was, that's basically the summary of it all. And I went in the UDO and I looked at the definitions for and or and it said that, you know, all indicates that and indicates that all connected items, provisions or events apply or indicates that one or more of the connected items, conditions, provisions or events apply and that they're able to be used interchangeably. So that's, I mean, it just goes into fines and an or for you right there. And it's used every time throughout the UDO when referring to tattoo or body piercing. It's not tattoo and and there was one, there was one part of this that I thought some did a pretty good too was a, let me see. Give me one second. Under the new law. So under the new law, can a body piercing shop open up next door to another body piercing shop? No. Can a tattoo shop open up next door to another tattoo shop? No. Can a body piercing shop open up next door to a tattoo shop? Yes. Can a tattoo shop open up next door to a body piercing shop? Yes. Why? Because neither one of the specific principle uses interferes with the other, you know, and that that summed the whole thing up for me but everything else, you know, just pretty good. Yeah, thank you. Summed it up good with all that. Okay. Before we ask you to take a seat and ask anyone in the audience to come up. Does any members of the board have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Okay. Yeah, thank you. All right. Thank you. All right, would anyone in the audience like to speak to this case? So yeah, please come up. Good afternoon. Would you please state your name for the record? Hi, my name is Stephanie Malora Bailey and I own Southern Cypress Tattoo in Five Points. And it is against my business that this appeal was made. So I just wanted to address a few things. It has been my dream for so long to be a small business owner. And much to my absolute joy, I became a small business owner in Five Points and my business has grown exponentially even through fighting the pandemic and everything that we had to go through that. And I ended up having more artists that wanted to work for me than I had space with. And I spent almost a year trying to locate a second location. And then I found out that that unit was gonna be available and it made perfect sense to have both my units right next to each other and across the street from each other so that my team can function as one. And this would actually put me at the same size as the two tattoo shops that are located on either side of me. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. As far as parking goes, I actually have an agreement with Andy's Deli and I have the code to their parking lot where my clients are allowed to park and I let them in and out at the end of the night as far as the trash shoot goes. I share a building with Sickle and Moon Tattoo which is the plaza directly across. And they're the same size that Sushul's tattoo shop is, mine being half the size, we've never had a problem with the trash plus I don't think DHEC would approve us if there were any concerns about us being able to maintain proper cleanliness and sanitation. Okay. I guess one question I had, were you aware of the 1,000 foot requirement? Not when I signed the lease. I did. The lease or the lease next door to Mr. Sushel? The Unitee lease, the new one. I was not, he's kind enough to come and inform me that that had been a thing. So I reached out to Greg Williams, small business liaison and to see if there was anything that could be done. I worked with the director of economic development, Ryan Coleman, where I attended one of the committee meetings and it was determined that there was a grandfather clause that existed on that property for 12 months after the end of the previous business license to open up the same or an equivalent business in that unit and it only last 12 months. So that is why I got the approval to open up the tattoo shop there as tattooing is not the same as piercing but it is an equivalent industry. Okay. I appreciate it. Do anyone have any questions, comments for the rebuttal? Or for the public response? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sushel, would you like to come up and you have five minutes if you'd like it to rebut that, but... Okay, I'm just gonna run through the last part of it. So it's not gonna be, and it's just gonna state the issues about our business already that we face, okay? So... Sure, you got about four and a half minutes. Four and a half minutes now, right? Okay. It's fair to consider the oversaturation with a number of tattoo shops which are already established on grain street, which is three, including ours. In 2014, an identical zoning issue took place in Columbia where there were three established tattoo shops while a fourth proposed tattoo shop requested to open on the same street. The fourth shop's approval for a permit was declined for a reason that it would have been one too many shops within feet of one another creating an oversaturated market. The zoning board member at the time, Patrick Hubbard, was quoted for saying the following, I don't see in the testimony that the market for tattoo establishments is underserved to need yet another one and that it would have been one tattoo shop too many in the area. So the new law actually reinforces what he was stating in 2014 zoning decision. The tattoo shops on green street are located even closer in proximity to one another than the tattoo shops were in the reference 2014 decision. Those shops also had a four lane highway in between them with heavy traffic flowing nonstop and great visibility. Some shops even had parking lots. We on the other hand on a slow side street in five points with neighborhood style traffic that can be very seasonal. Also parking meters are becoming more and more of a challenge employees and customers get ticketed often. Recently, Andy's deli is no longer offering the option for paid parking pass. They're closing time to the public. Even though I know they said they worked something out. This is just something I've seen him experience our neighboring business already experienced with him as far as parking goes. And he did not let them in. It is a challenge not only for our staff but also our clientele. Body piercing customers needed parking space for 15 minutes while tattoo customers needed parking space for four hours. All meters have a maximum time limit while some even require you to switch spaces after a specified amount of time. Towing is strictly enforced which causes a sense of anxiety and even panic at times for our clients. Some have even came back saying they've been towed. It's a huge challenge. The trash shoe we would have to share already gets backed up once a week due to trash overflow in the dumpsters below between the five stories of apartments above us and the commercial units beside us. It can be a real obstacle just to get rid of our trash. Tattoo shops also generate much more trash than piercing shops. We go 20 between 10 and 15 rolls of paper towels a week from tattooing four to six packs of trifold towels from a hand washing, multiple packs of paper including stencil paper trash, food trash from both employees and customers. We currently have four artists. Each artist booth had a trash can. The shop has three and the bathroom has one. We change all of them daily while the trash shoot and dump situation backs up regularly. These, and we've been there for seven years so we know all about it. These are a few of the obstacles we currently face on Green Street with residential and commercial trash and with parking between the three existing tattoo shops plus the body piercing shop, which is across the street. Adding a four tattoo shop would definitely define it as a cluster, which is what the new law is attempting to prevent. I'm requesting the reevaluation of all the deciding factors and that the request to open the four tattoo shop on Green Street be declined. I'm not only invested as a business owner, but I have also worked earnestly over the last seven years to purchase the property. Last year I resigned as an active board member with Wolf and Taylor. I was involved in the restoration and preservations of Place on the Green, which has been a landmark in the five points area for decades. I forgot one last part if I got any time left. Yeah, you got two minutes. Okay, sorry about this. Where are you flippin' to in the keep up? Not even sure, somewhere in there. I know it was a lot in, oh yeah. The other critical factor being considered is that the applicant already has a tattoo shop directly across the street. And now wants to open one next door to us by reason of expansion. Usually when this term is used in business, it means a second location is opening on the other side of town, a different county or a different state. This is the first time I've heard it used to describe opening up across the street from yourself. And that was, that was all right. Thank you very much, Mr. Schuchel, yep. Thanks, guys. Okay, all right, testimony's closed. We heard from the applicant, we heard from the public, and we heard his rebuttal. So let's begin board discussion. Could I ask a question of the Boarding and Zoning Administrator? You approved the application was that because it was a non-conforming use, it was basically grandfathered in? Yes, because a piercing studio was there before. And as you can see in that table, it's grouped under the same use category, body piercing or tattoo establishment. And so there was a current business license for the piercing studio. It actually expired in April of this year. Okay, thank you. All right, who, Catherine, you wanna be, or sorry, you wanna begin, Celia? Can I ask a question? Sure. Not even sure how it is. Yeah, would you, who do you wanna ask a question of? The? The response, the responder. Were you? Yeah, I guess she's a respondent. I'm not sure. Yeah, if I have you. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, ma'am. Because it's a procedural question as to how you would run your two businesses. Are they named the same? How do you schedule appointments? How do you? Yes, they're both, they're both Southern Cyprus tattoo. They're gonna be under the same, I'm an escort. So it'll be under my escort. It'll just be two separate locations, which will both have to be inspected and licensed with DHEC. And I'm very fortunate that I have amazing staff and I will have a shop manager in charge of the shop that I'm not at currently. In tandem, we communicate. Because I think communication's important. We kinda joked about having walkie-talkies, but in all seriousness, it would be the same system. We use square appointments, so we can see all of our artists and what their appointments are and the charging system is all the same, taking credit cards or debit cards. You would get our front desk. No, you would get our front desk, Tyler, and he would determine which artist you're best suited for depending, do you want Japanese, do you want realism, stuff like that, and then he would book your appointment, taking a deposit through our square system, and he would let you know which artist and where you need to be. So while we have you here, is there some reason why you couldn't just find a location somewhere else for your second one? Yes, I actually hired a broker about a little over a year ago now to try to find me a location. Actually, Mike Fitz from Post and Courier is here today and he did an article about it. He called 25 locations and out of the two locations, or out of the 25, only two even agreed to consider putting a tattoo shop in there. I serve on, I'm very passionate about Five Points. I serve as one of the directors of the Five Points Association. I agree that we need significant parking infrastructure done and all of those things that Mr. Patel said, but when I knew this unit was gonna be available, at the same time, Mr. Patel was also trying to get the unit, but they decided to go with me instead and it was just after a year of fighting and trying to find a location, that just seemed like the right fit so I could still be a part of this community on a day-to-day basis. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you, have a seat. Celia, you wanna start with more discussion now? I certainly realize that there is multiple tattoo shops in a close proximity. However, from just reading through this and understanding how everything's written, it technically is allowed as a non-performing use under the way it's laid out. So that's really my viewpoint on it. So I don't know if anybody has any cat food on that. Yeah, I guess I have a different opinion which is that I think Mr. Patel made a pretty persuasive case that or means, or, I mean, it's like, wow, dude, you should go to law school, I mean, it's really good. But he made a good argument that it's body piercing or tattoo because you can't have them both in the same place. They happen to be in the same category under the zoning code, but DHEC won't let you have one in the same place. So it's either, it's either or a situation. So I think he, according to the rules, it doesn't make it interchangeable, which was his point, but that's also what's in black and white. Like it's not, it has to be piercing or tattoo, but it can't be right next to another piercing place or another tattoo place. I think where I'm hung up at is, it's not a new business. It's the same business, right? She's just expanding. Yeah, it's just not opening a separate business. So the number of tattoo shops on the streets don't change. It's still three shops. It's just that one has two locations on the same street. That's why I'm kind of hung up at. That's a good point. I think that was still his point, right? That was your point, right? Because I think Mr. Patel is right. And the paperwork is in black and white that it can't be less than a thousand feet, can't be two tattoo shops right next to each other. I mean, it's pretty black and white, but it's not a new shop. It's an expansion of the same shop. So Captain, I like your legal expertise on that. Yeah, that's a good point. Well, no, I think you're, I'm not the lawyer for the board, but I think you make a very good point, which is it's not actually a new business. It's an expansion of an old business, but it is at a different site. I think maybe if Mr. An alternative hypothetical was if Mr. Patel had been able to expand to the bay next to him, that looks like an expansion. Whereas she's coming across the street with a different name, but it's all the same use. Same name, right? Same name. Yeah, same name, same name, but across the street. So it's like, it doesn't say, oh, what is the name of Mr. I can't remember the names at the different places, but by the way, I'm passionate about five points too, and I live up the street, and I don't think we need to have a whole lot of things, but is this common, do businesses expand across the street? I've certainly seen that before in Columbia, where businesses expanded across the street, where they have, maybe they have a restaurant on one side and then on the other side, they might have like an expanded seating area. It's not common. Well, I mean, I know Rosewood Dairy Bar did one next door to it, but not across the street. I mean, I think it was across the street. It's a little trickier. I'm trying to think of that place where they had a, it was like a barn grill, and then they had an expanded parking area across the street. And relevant to the parking issue, just to jump a little bit, the mayor is always pointing out how there's all this wonderful parking in five points, you just have to walk farther. Yes. The parking is on the other side of Hardin Street, but the mayor seems to think it's a really great deal, and that's why there was a discussion to try to put a parking garage where the Wells Fargo Bank is, the corner of Saluda and Blossom, and the mayor didn't want to do that because he said there's plenty of parking, that parking being on the other side of Hardin Street, but in any event, there's a parking lot over on Pavilion, there's some other parking, all of which is on the other side of Hardin Street, but if you're getting a tattoo, you might be inclined to walk a little farther, I suppose. I don't know if it's a parking issue as much as it's more of a rule issue. Yeah, I'm just saying that that was one thing that was brought up was the question of whether there was adequate parking, and I don't know that that, I think that... I got, can I ask a question, I hope? Is this considered a legal use as it is, or a non-conforming use? Like, what's the difference? Well, basically legal non-conforming. Like... It's a non-conforming use. It's non-conforming, but it's legally non-conforming. Right. Because we have that provision in our ordinance for non-conforming uses. Yeah, and so that brings me to this point in section 17 in our packet, 7-2 about expansion and enlargement for non-conforming uses. Where are you at? Very back. If y'all just want to take a look at it. Oh, very good, yes, yeah. Instruct, you know, area occupied by non-conforming use structure devoted to non-conforming use. And non-conforming shall not be in large, expanded in the area there. Occupied and intensified. Is that where you are? Yeah, exactly. But the non-conformity was the piercing parlor. And now it's a different use. Yeah. Though it's in the same category. A restaurant or parking to be expanded because that's what Catherine was saying earlier. Like, because it says right here, may be enlarged into any area of the same structure. Yeah. In which it is located, which was manifested a range of design for such use. Rather, you should not be extended to occupied land outside the structure. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, at some point we are at, I am concerned about the saturation issue. I mean, I think that's a huge thing. I mean. Well, I don't know. I understand. I completely understand. But I think I just, as a small business owner, I certainly have a soft spot for small business owners. However, in this case, I just think they're both small business owners. Right. We've got competing small business. Well, we've got competing small businesses. But just to finish the statement, I just think that in this situation, I think the best thing for her to do instead of breaking code, because if she breaks code, I mean, he could continue to pursue this and wouldn't be in the wrong. I just think it might be in her best interest to find someplace else. Because according to this, she can't expand, if it's in a separate structure across the street, she would have to expand in the same structure. Yeah, I kind of tend to agree with that. Different landlord, different owner, different address, different tax map number. I mean, I think, to me, the thing is the difference between a piercing parlor, a piercing studio and a tattoo studio, that though they are in the same category, they are conjoined by an or and not an and. It's not an inclusive and, it's not an inclusive or, it's either or, but not both, from what the UDO language says. So you can be one or the other, but you cannot be both, plus under DHEC, you can't be both either. So the reason why it was be allowed as a non-conforming use was because it was grandfathered, as we like to say, it was grandfathered in because it's under the same category, but it is in fact a different use. Exactly, it's a different use. If this was another piercing facility, this wouldn't be an issue. It's pretty clear. Across the street, yeah. Yeah. Maybe I view it a little more black and white, but it does join the two uses together on. Right, but there's a definition for the or. That's what Catherine was pointing out. So just because it's in the same category doesn't mean doesn't mean that the word or there means either or, it doesn't mean it can pierce in our tattoo. It means it's gotta be piercing if it's next to a tattoo shop. It can't be a tattoo shop less than a thousand feet from a tattoo shop. Just because it's in the same category doesn't really. Mr. Patel, helpfully, that's what I was saying, he's really good lawyer, whether or not he's a lawyer. He went to the definitions of the UDO, the Unified Development Ordinance. Yes. And he went under the definition section and it says that and, there's a difference between and and or. So you can't, it's not an and, it's an or. A non, not, not and or it's and or it's or, but not both. Wow, this is late in the afternoon. Is it time to make a motion? Yeah, I think we're, I think we can make a motion. If y'all are good with that. Kevin, do you want to try to make a motion on it? I think I have faith in you. Okay, where's the, where's the magic language that we have here? No, she gave you a little, she came up with disapprove or something. Okay. I move that we reverse the decision in whole of the zoning administrator, permitting the establishment of a tattoo parlor at the expansion, the expansion of the tattoo parlor at 2002 Green Street, unit E. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Okay. The board has made the decision to reverse and hold the zoning administrator's decision. I don't know if that's approved or denied or. Yeah, no, it's, it's neither. It's, it's one of these three. Yeah. Yeah. Because it's a different category. Yeah. Okay. All right. I think that's it on the agenda. Anything else? It's the final thing on the agenda. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a motion to adjourn? So we. All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor? All right. Aye. All right. Motion or meetings adjourned.