It might work a little better. I think they said that one was full, so we're shifting in here. It's been a while. Good point. Ready? Welcome, everyone, to the September 10, 2019 City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals. My name is Chuck Salley, and I serve as Chair of the Board. At this time, I'd like to introduce the other members of the board. To my far left is John Gregory. Next to John, Josh Speed. My immediate left is Gene Deakins, and to my immediate right is Marcellus Primus. And next to Marcellus is George Schaefer. I'd also like to introduce the staff that will be helping us today, Rachel Bailey, the zoning administrator, and Hope Hasty, the deputy zoning administrator. Andrew Wolfe and Erica Hyann will also be helping today. 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. You'll also need to come to the podium to speak. No testimony will be taken from the floor. When you come to the podium, state your name, and please speak clearly into the microphone because the meeting is being recorded. Applicants with cases before the board are allowed in a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant. This time limit 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 a spokesperson for an established body or group of three or more people. The applicant then has five minutes for rebuttal. The board reserves the right to amend these limits on a case-by-case basis. Those of you who plan to speak must be sworn. So if you're here as an applicant or here to speak in any case, please stand at this time and raise your right hand. Do you affirm or attest that the testimony you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? This time I'd like to turn the meeting over to Ms. Bailey. Good morning. A few housekeeping matters before we get started. Just a reminder to anyone who is planning to speak this morning, make sure to speak into the microphone. And if you haven't signed in, there's a sign-in sheet to the right of the microphone, so make sure to put your name down after you speak. So just a reminder to the board members, just make sure your microphones are on as well if you're speaking. So, and items number five, seven, eight, nine, 10 and 11 have been deferred. So item number five is the special exception to construct a cell tower. And items seven, eight, nine, 10 and 11 are special exceptions to permit cell nodes all deferred. And item number 14 at 93 Tommy Circle has been withdrawn. The Board of Zoning Appeals 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 wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed and considered during the meeting. The Board then approves the remaining consent agenda items. So, and just as a note, Mr. Dinkins has recused himself from one of the matters on the consent agenda, so he is going to just recuse from voting on the consent agenda as a whole. The first item is the approval of the August 13th, 2019 minutes. Item number two, which is case 2019-0057 for TMS 11204-0202, 11204-0206, 11204-0207, and 11204-0242-4301 South Assembly Street and properties on Ferguson Street and Dryfus Road. This is a variance to the maximum setback requirement for a mixed use development in MX-1. Item number three, which is case 2019-0058 for 923-917-915-913 and 905 Walnut Street, Pendleton Street, and part of Hardin Street. This is a special exception to permit a parking lot in a residential district. And item number four, which is case 2019-0059 for 950-948 946-944-942-940-938, 936-934-930-926 Hardin Street, and 923-917-915-913-905 Walnut Street in 2100 Pendleton. This is a variance to the off-street parking requirement for a mixed use development. That is all on the consent agenda today. Does anybody in the audience or on the board wish to have any of these items removed from the consent agenda? Otherwise, the board will be voting on those. All is one vote. I see no one. I'd like to make a motion that we approve this consent agenda subject to all comments of staff. Motion to second, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. We'll move on to the regular agenda. The first item is number six. Case 2019-0049 for 3727 Kaiser Avenue. This is a special exception to permit a residential care facility. If the applicant is present, she is welcome to come forward and approach the microphone. Is the applicant present for Kaiser Avenue? If the board wishes, you all can make a motion to hear it at the end if you'd like to give the applicant some time. I'd like to make a motion that we hear the 3727 Kaiser Avenue case after the other two. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right, we will move on to item number 12 on the agenda. This is case 2019-0055 for 7015 Mirror Lake Road. This is a special exception to permit a residential in-home daycare. If the applicant is present, they're welcome to come forward to the microphone. Good afternoon, please state your name. Evelyn Stitt. Are you familiar with the application and the criteria that the board has to go by in order to approve or deny your request first? I really clear on that. You can explain. Did you fill out an application? Yes, sir. Would you have a copy of it? Well, Rachel, can you give her a copy of it? And could you please explain to us what your, why you meet the criteria related there? I grab my glasses right quick. Yep. Description of my request is an in-home daycare from birth to school age children before and after school care. Maybe every other weekend, something like that. Supervised by DSS, supervised in my house. They'll never be alone without supervision. I have a fifth in backyard where they'll play no danger in going across the street, running in the street or in the front yard. They'll always be supervised. There's no reason and I don't foresee any clutter as far as cars moving or coming in and out of my house. Sometime I will not even have six kids, but I'm allowed, I can be allowed to have six kids and I've done this before. I've done it for three years in my home and that's my livelihood.  Well, I have three children waiting for me on the waiting list now, they're infants and one mother goes to work, has to be working seven so she'll drop her baby off about 6.30. I got another lady that has to be working nine so she'll drop her baby off at eight and I got one parent that works seven p.m. to seven a.m. so that's a whole different evening time. I see. Do you normally have a lot of people at the same time coming in and out of your? No. Do you have a circular driveway or is it a? No, I have a pull-in driveway, I have a carport and another, I have room for two car garage. So, both sides are usable. Gotcha. You mentioned this. And being governed by DSS, you know, they're allowed to drop in at any time and check the surroundings, the area, the neighborhood, the backyard. I don't have any equipment back there yet that I'm working on getting some. Back there from the play where I have toys. I have educational stuff for them. I've done it for three years, like I said before and I will be allowed to have one person help me with the kids because I'm playing on them at least three infants. Do you have DSS approval right now for? No, this is the first step here. And then they said. Then you only need to get that after, if you get the experience. Why is it to bring the next paperwork over to them? You mentioned that you've done this before. Was it at this facility or? No, Cleveland, Ohio. I did it for four years out of my home there before I moved to South Carolina. You mentioned this was the first step. What are the other steps to beyond this one? Okay, zoning board, fire marshal. And then I would take those two statements to the DSS and they would sign me a worker. It's taking me along the steps because here's a little bit different. With them, I was with the county and I worked with the county and I had county clients or whomever but it was like, this I've never done before. I never had to go through this before. I guess because I was in a residential area and I thought it was now, but I do those three things and I go back and see them and they'll start me a case. But the zoning fire marshal has to be done first. Okay. Is anyone in the audience here to speak for or against this application? Would you approach the podium please? Thank you, Mr. Stitt. Yes, ma'am, I'm asking if anyone's here to speak in favor or against this application. Would you please approach the stadium? I apologize if you couldn't hear me. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I've had trouble. There's an echo and it's affecting my hearing aid but I'm Ron Childress. I'm a property owner. We reside in this sub-development but I'm also the owner of the adjacent property 7011 and of Mirror Lake itself. It's not really a lake, it's just a pond. The house we live in was the home built by the original developer a half a century ago. Because of the time limits, I can't touch on everything that's in my memo but it's in your package. I do wanna address my particular problem with the property ownership of 7011 and the Mirror Lake. 7011 is not developed. It's immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. It can't be developed. The spring that feeds the pond is located. So 7011 is basically a jungle. It's full of critters, full of snakes and rats. 20 years ago, when I was 20 years younger, the owners of the Nivens family asked me to come down and clear it out if I could because of the problem of snakes and rats and it was the same fence that was there then that is presently on the location. Single-handedly, I cleared out the underbrush but that property, 7011, is going to be undeveloped and full of noxious animals from now until eternity. Fence that's presently there is four feet high which is our requirement here. But you need a wire fence to keep the critters out of the backyard and the front yard is not fenced at all. This creates a hazard under question criterion four of the special exception rules. This creates a hazard to the children that will be served. The people who live in the community know that the pond is dangerous but children on that property could easily run across the street, wind up in the pond or in the jungle and I would ask that this special exception, if it's granted, you're gonna hear from other homeowners, this development has been there 50 years. I would ask that if you do elect to grant this exception, you specifically instruct the applicant to build a fence suitable to keep critters off the property. Now the application itself and I've gone into some detail in my presentation about the application. This is the horse, this is the cart before the horse. We have no evidence that the limited liability company God's Little Angels has been established checking the record this morning, it's not there. There is no evidence that this applicant has even applied for a license. And one other criteria is that if I might read it to you, you know it very well, 17265, before granting a special exception for establishment of a daycare center or kindergarten, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall receive a determination that the facility meets the requirements that forth in the rules and regulations relating to licensing daycare facilities and childcare centers in the State Department of Social Services. We haven't started yet. And if the exception is granted, I'm afraid we're gonna have to save us all a lot of trouble because this affects the safety of the children and my liability owning 7-Eleven and the Palm. Thank you, Mr. Children for your testimony. Rachel, what does the ordinance say about that? Well, obviously we're hearing it first and then she's going to get approval, but according to Mr. Childress, his statement says that we're supposed to already, she's supposed to already have that before she gets her appeal. DSS will not give it to them without the Board approving it first. They have to have zoning confirmation. We have to provide a letter that it's gone before the Board of Zoning Appeals, but no business license and zoning approvals. So, because zoning has to sign off on the business license, we do not do that without proof of DSS confirmation. Gotcha. So this is just one step in the puzzle. If DSS does not approve it, it does not get approved by zoning. Is there any ordinance about a vacant lot and whether it can harbor vermin and mats and mice? Not in the zoning. Is anyone else here to speak in favor against this application? Yes. Please come forward to the podium. My name is Virginia Sanders. I live on the next street that the applicant is applying for this exception. This subdivision is made up of 75 homes. There are still lots of people living in this subdivision who's been there since it was built. I've been there 75 plus years. We have strived hard to maintain the culture and the character of a neighborhood. It's very easy for a neighborhood to go downhill. You've got a cold group of people in this neighborhood who has fought to maintain that. The applicant has only lived in our neighborhood for less than a year. She closed on her house on December of 2018. I feel that as a neighborhood of 75 homes and one applicant is going to come in and change our neighborhood. If one exception is given, what's to say that Charles down the street or Peter across the street doesn't say, if you let this applicant come in and operate a business, why can't someone else come in and operate a business? I'm appealing to you as homeowners. You live somewhere and you wouldn't want someone to come into your neighborhood and do that to you. The city of Columbia is working hard to maintain its culture and its character.  And especially for us being so far away even though we are in the city, we are quite a distance from the city of Columbia. And you tend to forget about us. But we are there and we are working for the city of Columbia to maintain quality. And we're asking that you allow us to do the same thing in our neighborhood. Put yourself in our position. How would you feel about this if someone who has no skin in the game comes into your neighborhood and wants to change the quality and the character? And I have a question also. Yes, ma'am. Mike, well, I have a comment, not a question. Okay. I have been told that a person could keep children in their home as long as it's five children or below without going through this spatial exemption and changing the character of the neighborhood. I would like for you to look into, I would like for you to look into that before a decision is made. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your testimony. Before you leave, one quick question for you. Do you believe the applicants' proposal for a special exception could have any benefit to the neighborhood and surrounding? No, none. If we allow one exception, what's to say to someone else? There are two vacant houses in our neighborhood right now for sale because the people were seniors and they had to move into nursing homes. A person died. No, there are three vacant houses in the neighborhood. Understood. And new people are moving into the neighborhood. I don't think the applicant really understood of the implications or the ramifications of what her application was going to do to the neighborhood. I really don't, she didn't do this intentionally. Okay, thank you. But one, and one other thing, would you please look into this about her being able to keep five children in the house without this rezoning. Thank you. I'm gonna comment. Would you please do? The current ordinance does not allow that. It doesn't matter if it's two children or eight children. They have to go through this special exception. And I also just wanna comment, this is not a rezoning. It's going to remain single family residential. This is just allowing a home occupation, which is allowed, many home occupations are allowed without special exceptions, but there's certain ones such as daycares that have extra conditions. And that is why it comes before the board. But it's not changing the district to commercial. But do you not think that by allowing the first person to get this exception, it would be easier for the second and the third person to pee back on what you allowed the first person to get? That's not for me to decide. Well, that's why we feel that once you do one. I will refer you to criteria number five, which is explain how the establishment of the proposed special exception does not create a concentration or proliferation of the same or similar types of special exceptions or use, which concentration may be detrimental to the development or redevelopment of the area in which the special exception uses proposed or to be developed. So that is actually a criteria. If there was one there, it would be, I'll think, more difficult to get another one. So you're saying that a second person or a third person coming along and asking for this, this one would not have any bearing on this? It would have a bearing on it. The fact that there was already one established there would have a bearing on whether another one could be put in the same neighborhood. Okay. I just wanted you to understand that. Thank you very much, but I just want you to put yourself in our place. If this happened to you, how would you feel about it? You'd be right up here where I am opposing. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to speak? Councilor for letting me speak today. I'm representing the Strat Haven Forest Homeowners Organization. Could you say your name too? I'm sorry, it's Lucy Hoey. Thank you. I live just down the street from 70-15 Mirror Lake Road. We've been in the neighborhood 32 years and I currently am a board member of the Homeowners Organization. I'd like to just present the petition that we drafted with a number of signatures on it. And we are not against Mrs. Stipp moving into the neighborhood and we understand everyone wants to have their own livelihood. I know that she works at the hospital now and she'd like to open this day care, but we're just asking the board to consider the 75 other homeowners in the neighborhood and what we've tried to preserve in our neighborhood. Additionally, I do want to also ask you to take the covenants that are associated with the land in the neighborhood. And I'd like to read, if I could, section four of the covenants. All lots in the said tracks shall be known and described as residential lots and no trade, business, industrial activity, commercial activity of any nature whatsoever shall be carried on by any firm, person, or corporation on any lot or lots in the subdivision hereafter described. These covenants were put in place when the subdivision was originally established. The covenants go with the land in the subdivision. I'd like to also offer these covenants as information for the board. So with these covenants in place and we have kept them in force, they were renewed by Mr. Elliott who also lives in the subdivision. We have a new home that is being established and those covenants will be attached to the deed and reestablished at that time. Have these been recorded? I apologize, they were recorded with Mr. Elliott's deed. That much I know. Question for you, did the applicant meet with the Hummer Association about this request? No, she did not. I know that when I spoke to Ms. Erica Hyen, she had indicated to me that she had encouraged the applicant, Ms. Stitt, to meet with us, to talk to the neighbors. The first we heard of any of this was when the yellow zoning sign showed up in the front yard. Understood. I do have to interject. Once zoning is made aware of covenants and restrictions of a neighborhood that may prohibit something, we do have to honor those. I would like to, this is not the norm, but I would like to have an opportunity to research them to see if they are in fact recorded, because if they do apply, that does hinder the board from approving this special exception if it's restricted by covenant. So you're requesting the board defer this matter until you can look into it further? If the board agrees, I would like to be able to look into it and then update the applicant as to whether we can move forward with this, now that I'm aware of these covenants. I'd like to make a motion that we defer this matter until the zoning administrator can look further into the potential of deed restrictions on the lot. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you, ma'am. All right. The next matter on the agenda is item number 13. This is case 2019-0056 for 3017 and 3023 Millwood Avenue, also known as 3011, 3011 unit B, 3013, 15 and 19 Millwood Avenue and 1011, 1011 unit B and 1015 Butler. And this is a special exception to permit a drive-through for a restaurant use. The applicant is present and is welcome to come forward. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of board. My name is Robert Fuller. I'm an attorney in Columbia representing the developer who has applied for the special exception in order to produce a building on site that will have a drive-through accommodation for a service window for Starbucks-branded restaurant on the site. As you are well aware, every drive-through application in the city of Columbia comes to you for a determination of suitability for its own site use at that location. We have in the packet that was filed with the application a site diagram that displays the orientation of the site to accommodate the drive-through activity. I would say in the outset that this is not a change of the zoning characteristic of the corner. It has been a commercial corner for decades. It is an opportunity to raise the buildings and improvements on the site to totally reorient it to the new use, including utilization of the building, its placement and the drive-through accommodation where it is located on the site. We addressed that in the application and I would be pleased to go through some of those items if you would permit that to explain why the orientation on the site, the building on the site and the location itself is satisfactory and suitable for a drive-through utilization. First of all, as you see from the site diagram, drive-through would be on the western end of the building. It is offset from the back property line that is bounded in the site designed by an eight foot high wooden fence which will constitute a sound buffer and a site buffer. It is next to a 15 foot buffer yard inside the site and then the site driveway of about eight feet is adjacent to the buffer yard. So there is a space differentiation between the actual drive-through for the laying on the site and the accompanying homes on the other side of the property line of 45, 50 feet. There's not a close accommodation there that is gonna be in terrible jeopardy. The first criteria will not have a substantial adverse impact on vehicular traffic. The site is served by right in, right out on Millwood Avenue, it's served on Butler Street by the ability to get onto the site. You will see by the diagram that the cleared site with the parking provisions on it will enable the queuing of a drive-through on this site to accommodate at least eight or 10 automobiles in the driveway and with more onsite accommodation so there is unlikely to be any difficulty in servicing that wonder or causing conflict with adjacent traffic going in any of the directions on that site. The approval of DHEC and the city engineer have already been discussed and secured for the site design. The will not have a substantial adverse impact on adjoining properties for those reasons and one of the reasons we suggest this is the size of the site itself. It has simply been used by a hodgepodge of commercial uses on the site. This will identify, centralize, and locate the activity and will make it more cohesive in its utilization on the rather large site. There's not gonna be any substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic character of the property because it will be all new construction constructed in accordance with the city's requirements and standards, the building code, all of the requirements to replace everything that is now on the site. Whether people think some are good, some are not so good. It's accommodated, the site now accommodates a variety of on-site buildings that are not particularly unique with the exception of one that is characterized as something that might be worthy of preserving. There's no adverse impact on public safety and it will not create a nuisance in the sense of that term as a term of ardent law. The public safety concern on that corner would be enhanced by the removal of the obstructions to site line at and on the corner of Millwood and Butler and Carlisle where they all converge so there's an ability to get on and off the site with greater visibility than would exist on the current site if the buildings remained as they were. It will not create any kind of concentration or proliferation of an event. There's a one drive-through facility in the near vicinity of here at the Duncan Donuts. The city requires a special exception review for any and all drive-throughs. There are banks that have drive-throughs, there are drug stores that have drive-throughs, but there is not anything like a concentration or proliferation along the Millwood corridor or at or near this intersection. This is a requirement for review so at this stage there are very, very few additional drive-throughs that would have much similarity to this particular location on this property. The underlying district goals and requirements, this has been a commercial property as Shandong Greenhouses for many, many decades. The Tokonaka family has operated on that corner a number of different businesses to tenancies. It was used by the family business for years. Some of it has become residential, some of it has remained commercial, all of it is in a location that is a dramatically commercial location of arterial service for downtown Columbia from the adjoining suburban districts. The possibility of proliferation of this kind of use is not very likely on Millwood or in close proximity to these neighborhoods because the size of the lots available simply does not likely permit it and this lot is uniquely large enough to accommodate it. It's not gonna change the characterization or the identity of the neighborhood surrounding because everything on Millwood is already commercial. It has accommodated the proximity to single family and multifamily locations of residences in very near proximity for many, many years already this is not an intensive utilization, it's a different utilization. The drive through service is an accommodation that will attract passer by traffic to come in and pass through but it is not going to be a situation where there's any direct correlation between the drive through accommodation and a change in the character of the commercial identity of the corner. Permitted uses in the area are manifold, everything from insurance offices to Dunkin Donuts, to bicycle shops, to every other retail that you can imagine. So it is, that's what the Millwood cart is designed for. The offsite locations for food and other services fit the neighborhood pattern. Neighborhood restaurants come and go, crave and others along there. Some don't survive, some do, but it's not a radical departure in any way for the use of the neighborhood. And the site ultimately we suggest to you is simply in and of itself large enough to accommodate everything that is presented to be on that site in a reasonable and a commodious manner that will not disturb but will in fact enhance that neighborhood area. And we present it as being totally reasonable. I have had no contact from anybody in opposition to the drive through. There are people who have contacted me about concern for the corner, preservation of one building on the site but there has not been to our knowledge any groundswell of concern about the location of the Starbucks per se at that location. And difficulty with the accommodation. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Fuller. I have a quick question for you. There is an existing hedge of Leland Cypress that runs down the property line and it's shown on the 3D site plan that was presented to us. Is that, his property is that owned and is that intended to be left? Mr. Harp is the principal of the developer and he can address that. Thank you. Good morning, my name is Stan Harp. I'm the developer of the proposed Starbucks development on Millwood and Butler Street. Mr. Fuller, thank you for bringing that up. The fence, the Leland Cypress, are owned the property that Wayne Smith built 17 years ago. Unfortunately, they are intruding at a leaning angle over to my piece, which I intend to leave there as a buffer. There is a six foot green coated chain link fence that is owned the seven units behind there. And so we're coming from the property line. I have met with the city's landscape architect to say where do I need to put my fence because I don't want to put my fence to where it comes and clips the trees. So he said there's a little room that we can navigate that in there. And I have, I would defer my time if I may to maybe answer some of the other questions that some of the people might have. What may have, any other questions from the board? Do you have any information or data that would help us understand what percentage of business Starbucks does through the drive through or how many vehicles we're talking about on a daily basis coming through and idling between the new building and the existing residential houses? No, I don't. You know, the existing housing's behind there years ago was C3. It was brought to the city I think 17 years ago and the zoning was changed to RG2 for the cluster housing. So all of those people that bought there knew that they were abutting a C3 piece of property when they bought that. But back to your question on the how many trips go through there a day. I don't know. I hope it's a lot. And looking at the diagram I pointed out that there is an accommodation factor there in many drive through lanes there is there's a no stacking opportunity. This location affords a minimum of eight or 10 cars being stacked in the specific driveway for the drive through with much more overflow onto the site itself. So the intrusion off the site of any stacking related to the drive through will be remote. Yeah, my question had less to do with whether the design accommodates stacking and more to the impact of emissions and noise from idling cars between the building you're proposing and the residential component. And I guess my question is really you didn't receive any questions specifically related to the drive through mine is very much specific to that. And I'm just curious particularly related to criteria number two which addresses sort of noise vibration fumes those types of things. If it's your contention that when compared with the development without a drive through that the impact of emissions and noise is negligible. Let me answer that I hear where you're going. We have 31 feet, 33 feet from the edge of our property to our property line. Then there's another 26 feet. There's Leland Cyprus. There's a cyclone fence. There's gonna be a wooden fence. And Starbucks has taken it to a different level from many, many years ago on the decimals that they put out when you pull into a drive through. Existing now you have a butler building back there with eight air condition units that hum all day. You have a dog place that has dogs that bark and do whatever. So I think it's a pretty fair trade off from the noise factor of what Starbucks would be to the existing conditions. Would you say that also about the negative impact of vehicular emissions with cars idling in a drive through? I think so because I think dogs excrete and that has an impact. Yes. I've passed this site many times over the past 20 or 30 years. The building that's located very close to Carlisle Street on the corner there. That's at one time that was a cleaners or still is a cleaners. Not cleaners with the drive through. That's right. That was just going on memory. Doesn't that have either a pull up window or a drive through or something now? Yes. Very close to the roadway, I'll say. I'll step away and. Any other, any other questions? Thank you for your testimony. Is it anyone here to speak in favor or against this application? Would you please approach the. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I'm Jay Bender. I live in the neighborhood. This is on one of my walking routes. I'm by there three times a week on foot. My wife has a house on Daily Street. The gallery that is foolish enough to display my paintings is on Carlisle Street. I'm in that vicinity regularly. There's not enough business at that drive through dry cleaner to notice that it's even there. We're talking about a special exception at one of the most dysfunctional intersections in Columbia. Now, the purpose of the zoning. According to the ordinance is to promote public safety and lessen congestion in the streets. Now, this is a C3 zone. It's very clear that it is a commercial area, but there's a reason that the ordinance requires a special exception for a drive through. And the first criterion is the special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on vehicular traffic or vehicular and pedestrian safety. I understand there's been a traffic study made by the department of transportation. I would remind you that those are the people who designed malfunction junction. I suspect they have never been at this intersection in rush hour when the people coming from East Columbia drive 50 miles an hour through the Drear school zone and continue the Millwood 500 all the way down to Gervais Street. The city has eliminated traffic law enforcement on Millwood. Every morning, there is a series of near misses at Butler and Carlisle. Carlisle is a through street. Butler has a stop sign at Carlisle and another stop sign at Millwood. The sign before Carlisle coming down Butler is large because it's generally ignored. And the yield sign at Millwood and Carlisle is generally ignored at your own risk because of the speed of the people coming down Millwood. The proposed special exception will not have substantial adverse impact on public safety or create a nuisance. I think it will create a nuisance with traffic. It won't create a concentration of proliferation of a similar business. This proposed Starbucks drive through is three tenths of a mile from another drive through that creates a traffic hazard where Millwood and Devine divide across the street from Drear High School. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. I just think this is inconsistent. And if I might take another 10 seconds, I would say that if you're going to allow a special exception, put a condition on it that does not have entrance or egress off of Butler Street because I think that's gonna exacerbate the problem with the intersection with Sims. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to, before we take another application because of a fairly complicated matter that Mr. Bender brought up, unlike for the, if applicant could come back and talk about the traffic and what they've perceived about that and how they intend to do it, I think that would be something that would well serve the board. Don't mind. Thank you. We retained a highly recommended company to do a traffic study for us. It was presented to South Carolina DOT and it was also presented to David Brewer, I believe, which is the city traffic engineer. All parties have signed off on it. They ask us to have a write-in, write-out which we have done on Millwood. We've eliminated the drive, the three drives on Millwood, one of them being the dry cleaners. Butler Street has no curb on it now and you can enter it however you see fit the main question that the DOT wanted us to do was to put the rage median in Millwood which lines up or takes the quick left off of Millwood coming into town to Sims, which we've agreed to do. And so I think when you have professionals doing your traffic studies, whether malfunction junction works or not, this stated in their trips based on the uses that we had was an acceptable use. So there basically is only now going to be one write-in, write-out curb cut on Millwood and that will have a five inch raised median that would prevent traffic from turning left on Millwood into that same driveway. So with one write-in, write-out, then you would have one more median that would go on to Butler that would allow traffic to go left or right in that situation. Mr. Chairman, it's not a median. That would be just an access point. A curb cut that provides two-way traffic on Butler. And I don't think that the, I don't remember what the traffic count was on Butler Street, but it was minimal. Mr. Chairman, too, that curb cut on Butler Street will actually be a curb cut. It will eliminate the access onto the property wherever you want the meander on. It is an entrance point, an exit point. Thank you. I do have a question about the traffic component. So, and it's because I don't know personally to answer this question. Since we're considering the impact that just specifically the drive-through has relative to traffic, when compared to a building that doesn't have a drive-through, can you speak to when looking at a traffic study that includes a drive-through, does that increase the amount of cars or the type of density, frequency that you have to consider when doing a traffic study? Like, what is the difference that the drive-through, what's the impact that it has in terms of a traffic study? That's a relatively good question and that's why we hire engineers to do those and they came up with the report. They presented it to our South Carolina Department of Transportation, which they have numerous people look at it and they looked at it and said that the trips with what we've done would be adequate. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor against this application? Morning. I'm John Shearer. I'm a resident of the Melrose, Oklahoma neighborhood and I have been for the past 17 years. Like my fellow residents, I am committed to the vitality of our neighborhood holistically and that includes commercial properties that largely define aspects of the peripheries such as Millwood Avenue. My comments today largely going to concern only design and safety, more so than the preservation of the architecturally significant former floor shop today known as the Bird House. For the past 12 years, I've lived on Daly Street, one block east of proposed new development during that time. I've defied the odds too, on foot and in my car negotiating the perils of the intersection of Carlisle and Millwood and Sims and Millwood, both of which will doubtless be impacted by increased traffic from what can be assured to become a hot spot of activity throughout the day. We know that this is going to be a very successful venture particularly with Starbucks as the anchor tenant. This is going to exacerbate already bad traffic issues and it's going to impair a lot of folks including the students at Drear who each day take their lives in their own hands trying to cross that major artery as we've said coming in and out of Columbia. As it's currently designed, the building set back from the road kind of reflects the approach and approach rather that privileges automobiles over pedestrians and a better design which orients the building closer to Millwood Avenue may offer some traffic calming measures that could be amplified by a redesigned drive-through. Couple that with the pedestrian traffic light and pedestrian crossing at Sims, Millwood intersection and we'll have perhaps a win-win situation. If the developer really wants to make the best effort to embrace the interests of the neighborhood, neighborhoods proximal to the parcel and the larger cultural heritage of the city, arrive at a more creative design, one that integrates the distinctive mid-century modern Pagoda style building that is a tangible link to the token aga family's impact on generations of citizens. I think we can just come up with a better design. This is kind of a cookie cutter design. I understand their traffic implications. I understand there's ingress, egress and issues but I'm just like to see if we can look at this in a more holistic fashion. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Would anybody else like to come to the podium? Good morning. My name is Lee Ann Cornagay and I am a longtime resident of Melrose Heights My family's lived there for over 30 years so I spend a lot of time in the neighborhood. Spent a lot of time trying to get out on Millwood Avenue. It's very difficult. You can usually only turn right off of Millwood Avenue coming from the Melrose Heights area. I'm just very passionate about the neighborhood and what happens to that quarter. We've been talking about that quarter for a good while now and are finally getting to a point where we want to see some type of master plan for development. We think that's very important. We're very excited about potential development. I think if Starbucks is looking at us on Millwood Avenue that's a great thing. That's a very positive thing. But we would like to see something go in there that is pedestrian friendly, that serves the neighborhood and safety is a big issue for Millwood Avenue. A lot of traffic. We see that all the time. We see the students coming from Drear. It's a very, very active and sometimes super dangerous spot. We've just gotten the light put in down closer to the Jervay Corridor where there were a lot of accidents. People were killed. So we're seeing some good progress and we'd love to see more good progress. That little iconic building has nothing to do with this meeting, I understand, but there is a building that sits on that space that is an icon to many people in Columbia and it's something people feel passionate about. Wouldn't it be super sweet if there was some adaptive reuse of that? I understand it has nothing to do with the zoning for the drive-through. Not sure if a drive-through is the right thing for that space. I just think it's something that needs to be thought about and I think that it needs to be something that hopefully the neighborhood can have some sort of say into as far as how this all operates. We're gonna be the ones visiting that as well, that property as well, hopefully, and we just want it to be thoughtful and considerate of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I'm Martha Fowler. I live in Melrose. I was chairman of the traffic committee that discussed whether or not we needed to lower the speed limit throughout our neighborhood and to add speed humps. We added, I wanna say it was 26 speed humps and lowered the speed limit because we are having a serious problem with people flying through the neighborhood. We have had a lot of near misses. We've had deaths on Millwood. It's a tough intersection. We also though have been meeting with the city for about a year asking for development and we thoroughly encourage development on Millwood. I adore the Tokenado family and think that they are wonderful. We love that little building and hate to see it go but that's not what we're here to discuss today. We're here to discuss whether or not it's safe to do a special exemption for a drive through. I personally think that we could do it in a more thoughtful process that would save lives and I am concerned about the traffic study. I've been told that DOT did a traffic study. I have not been told that the city of Columbia did a traffic study. I do know that Dave Brewer did a huge traffic study on our entire neighborhood and found that it had a lot of traffic and a lot of people driving too fast and the city of Columbia, the traffic engineering and our city council, voted to try to do something to make it better. We would appreciate it if you would consider, let's think about this in a thoughtful process. We would love to have Starbucks. We would love to have more development and more thoughtful development all up and down Millwood. I have serious concerns about where you have four streets all coming into one corner. If any of y'all have driven Sims to Millwood, it's not easy. Carlisle to Millwood is not easy. Butler is not easy. You have a perfect storm there with four streets coming into that intersection. I really would like for y'all to think very seriously and we'd love to have input into what the developer wants to do. We'd love to help. We want nothing but the best for our neighborhood and that includes safety. Nobody has brought up that Drear is putting in a new stadium. It's being constructed right now. It's gonna mean more traffic. It's gonna mean more people. It's gonna mean more kids out doing after-school activities. Please think about it. Thank you. Councilman, my name is Frances Miller. I am the owner of Bloom Coffee which is located at the 2,800 block of Divine Street. It's about 0.4 miles away and I just wanted to say, first of all, that Starbucks and all of my research looking into opening a coffee shop, I knew I wanted an independent, not a franchise, but Starbucks gets about 500 customers. On average a day, 40 to 60% of those are going to be the drive-through customers which can easy math, puts you at about two to 300 cars going through there per day, just to add to this. All I wanted to get up here and say was to please remember your local businesses when you add a chain store anywhere in a mile of local business. You are killing us a little bit. But also on the safety aspect, just wanted to throw out the facts there because I have done my research on that part. So you would be adding an extra amount of cars there as well and putting a drive-through and really makes it even more convenient as if Starbucks wasn't already. So please just remember your local businesses in this decision and your high schoolers and all the people that live in that neighborhood. That was all. I think I'll make the right decision. Thank you for your testimony. My name is Fred Easley and I've lived in Melrose over 30 years and I'm going to be the antithesis to what you've heard. Actually in favor of this development. The reason is I have three 17 year olds that live in my house and they all love Starbucks. They go to Starbucks to study. They meet their friends at Starbucks. They have to go to Trenton Plaza. They have to go to Target. They cannot go to Five Points because that's overrun by college students. So it would make my life more convenient if it was a little bit closer, at least I'd know where they were most of the time. Going to some of the things, like in number one, a substantial adverse impact on vehicular traffic. The number of cars that go up and down Millwood isn't going to change because there's a Starbucks there. That number is going to stay the same. The difference is you won't have cars trying to cut left to get into Dunkin Donuts going across three lanes of traffic. The other thing is from the pedestrian standpoint, you won't have kids crossing from Drear crossing five lanes of traffic trying to get to a Dunkin Donuts to get donuts or coffee.  That literally has been done within the last year for that express purpose. So from that perspective, and also looking at DOT, I'm pretty sure they are capable of looking at it and making a determination about what would be best in regard to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Whether it's going to have a substantial impact on adjoining properties. I think the city only requires 10 feet, I believe, isn't it, from adjoining properties or something and this is owning area. It depends on the use. Okay. But it's my understanding that there's over 30 feet differential between the nearest properties and that. So there's a lot of things to look at here but I personally would like to see the Starbucks there. I served on South Columbia Development Corporation Board for many years. I served on the Board with Columbia Development Corporation and honest to goodness, we could not pay people to come to Millwood. We could not. And now we have an opportunity for Starbucks and when Starbucks comes in, more people will follow and we will see that development come along. And I think that this is the positive aspect for the Millwood Corridor and that will help lead the discussion for further study. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. I'm Emily Jones. I've resided 821 Rickenbaker Road and I drive this corridor down Carlyle and Millwood about four times a day. I believe the project as proposed does not satisfactorily meet the criteria for a special exception. It seems like an imposition of a more suburban development pattern that detracts from the general character of this in-town neighborhood. In the four blocks section on the north side of Millwood, basically from Gladden to Daly, which surrounds the parcels in question. There are 16 other commercial parcels. Only five of these have parking taking up the full frontage. So this corridor seems to be at a tipping point, if you will. And I think you should be encouraging more pedestrian friendly in an urban development pattern along here. That would put buildings at the street with parking either behind the building or to the side in a way that the majority of the other parcels in this immediate area have been developed. As far as the drive-through component, I would also question the effect on pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns. The numerous drear students walking along Millwood every morning. I've witnessed many instances of both distracted driving and distracted walking as I wait at the corner of Millwood and Carlisle. I was involved in a near-miss rack in which a westbound vehicle on Millwood swung away from me and into the parking lot of the dry cleaners stopping about five feet from that structure. The proposal would seem to just really increase the potential for early morning conflicts. As far as the queuing, I would also question that there's probably adequate room for queuing before the window, but I think there will be congestion as drivers pick up their order and try to pull out onto Millwood. I think you're gonna have a real clog in that circulation pattern. What could be more pedestrian friendly than a coffee shop, as the previous speaker mentioned? What could be less pedestrian friendly than a drive-through coffee shop? It's more suited to an interstate highway exit or a commercial strip center. Just seems like it's the two-notification of Millwood that I think really needs to be a big concern. I would also mention the demolition of the structure, housing the birdhouse business as a net loss. It's a quirky landmark that makes an in-town neighborhood distinctive. It's in these small incremental losses that community character is slowly compromised. I also hope an alternative. Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it. Adverse impact on aesthetic character, traffic and safety, and incompatible with the adjacent uses. Thank you. Would anybody else like to approach? Would you like to? My name is John Epps. I've owned a commercial real estate on the 2800. Block of Millwood since the early 80s. I've seen the growth of Millwood in especially in the past three or four years, what's happened there, and hope it will continue. And I'm in favor of this variance with Starbucks and the drive-through. I live approximately four blocks behind the proposed location. Often come, use butlers, one of my routes to work. I would see little or no problems with that, but just wanted to say that I'm in favor of this. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else? Good evening, Austin Rhodes. I believe I represent probably the only business owner on Millwood. Is there anyone else here that owns a business on Millwood? You're prepared? Yes, sir. Yeah, so. Yeah, you will. I believe it's pretty simple. If the people who are employed by the state to do their job have done a study that shows it's safe, I got into the conversation to find out if it's a safety issue. If they can be proven that it's not a safety issue, I believe it's only gonna rise all the boats, a rising tide lifts all boats. I think that it's gonna be positive for our neighborhood. I think this is a good opportunity to begin the conversation of what Millwood will be in 10 years. I'm one of those stereotypical millennials that travel quite a bit domestically and internationally. Millwood, it's a heck of an opportunity to develop that you have not a clean slate, but you have a lot of opportunity to redevelop some of the existing structures and a lot of vacant lots. If we're talking about safety, I think the biggest safety issue, I go to Dunkin' Donuts, I'm a caffeine fanatic. That's a heck of a danger right there. But also close to my office on the 2600 block, I see people slamming on brakes to mis-pedestrians all the time. So if it's, I mean, I don't know. I've never seen, I've had a business there for two years. I've never seen a cop pull over someone for speeding. So my question would be where are the police? So that's all I have to say, thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or against this application in the audience? With the applicant, please come back to the study, podium. Thank you guys for being in your situation before. And what we hear is the small minority of people are the loudest. I think the traffic study in itself is sufficient. I think you have seen, I've seen several, probably 15 different letters of commercial owners up and down Millwood that have expressed interest in having this there. Rachel, I'm assuming that you got the letters to them. We go from the used car lot to Midas muffler, to a real estate office, to a state farm agent, from a multi-tenant building. It's a hodgepodge of development up and down Millwood. And this, I think, will elevate what needs to happen down the road. So I ask that you consider this and let's move forward. The alternative is C3 has a lot of different uses that can go in there that doesn't have to have any approvals. Some of them can be a hell of a lot more offensive than what I'm trying to do. And that's just a permitting process. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members, unless you have specific questions of us, I think we simply submit to you that this is a project that has been well thought out. It's in a location that many people are familiar with. It has opportunities, it has difficulties. But the same tide will raise all the boats. A good project here replacing a failing project composite there would be good for Millwood, Carter, whatever the future brings. And the traffic considerations are being dealt with and will have to be dealt with. Thank you for your consideration. Are there any, before you all leave, are there any questions from the board to the applicant? Great, thank you very much, gentlemen. Any board discussion? I just have a comment. I mean, I've been sitting here listening to everybody and certainly empathetic towards everybody's viewpoint. I'm sitting here trying to figure out another way to lay it out knowing that Starbucks is gonna require a drive-through. I'm just having trouble seeing another way to do it. I was trying to see if there was a way to put it more on Butler Street or more on Millwood. And I think DOT's already requiring a write-in write-out on Millwood, so they've already recognized the potential for traffic and are engineering that control into the design. Just some thoughts that I've had while people have been discussing a lot. Yeah, certainly a good discussion today. I'll sort of echo some of John Gregory's comments. You know, when you look at the geometric design of the site, they're removing the building or a couple of the buildings that are very close to Carlisle and Millwood and they're pushing all this back into a fairly large site for a commercial area like this. So when you look at that, coupled with the reduction of ingress egress points on the DOT roadways and then you look at the raised median in Millwood that's gonna cut down on people turning left into the site as you can presently do. And then if you also, if you look at the extreme traffic that currently exists in Millwood Drive today with the current site, I think I would argue that you're looking at a potentially better traffic situation even with the drive-through. I think we heard some testimony regarding, you know, somebody stated earlier that they believe that the effects of this drive-through would be negligible on Millwood and I would agree as well because I think you are still gonna have on this main corridor, you're gonna have a lot of people, I don't know how many thousand cars a day, but traveling Millwood, it's just gonna be a, in my opinion, a better site. We've got an improvement. You've got a main corridor here in the city that we've got a huge national developer offering to come in and put a really nice new facility that I think will benefit the neighborhood and I think we're looking at an improvement here. Thank you. I agree, I think that this development really is what needs to happen on the Millwood corridor. I'd like to point out that the existing commercial development between Butler and Daily Street, which is about the same land area as this property has no less than six curb cuts that go into Millwood Avenue and allow traffic to go left or right. So the fact that this development has one right in, right out on the Millwood Avenue, I think shows very clearly that it's been thought out that the traffic issues on Millwood do require this type of development. I'm sure that Mr. Hart didn't want, would much rather have to go every way, but he is basically relying on the traffic engineers that are saying, you know, this is what you need to do to make this a viable development. I think that the buffer is more than adequate for the drive-through, I'd like to point out that I did go like three days ago to this drive-through at Starbucks at Paulies Island and the technology on that is incredible. He's just like, it's not even this loud, it's like talking to a person, having a conversation face-to-face. The clarity is incredible, it's not like, when this ordinance was basically put into place, there was the, we were talking about drive-through speakers with big speakers that blared out so that people could hear it and it's just completely changed and certainly reduced the level of noise and the nuisance thereof. So that being said, if there's no other comments, I'd like to make a motion. I actually do have a comment. I actually think this is a really solid application. I have real issues with criteria number two. I'm sure it would not surprise anybody in this room to know that there have been multiple research studies on the negative impact of exhaust and noise from cars idling in drive-thos. And to say that the impact is negligible means that you don't believe science and research. And I don't buy that. So, I mean, to say that this proposed special exception specifically related to the drive-through component will not have an adverse impact on adjoining parcels in terms of environmental factors is false. It will. And so the question is, does that mean we never allow drive-throughs and I think the answer to that is no. Does it mean that there are some sites that are particularly troublesome in terms of adjacencies? I think the answer is yes. And this is one of those because 50 feet away you have residential houses, you have houses. And if you don't think that it's gonna have an impact on that community and the people that live 50 feet away from there, that is just not the truth. So I don't know how any one can say that relative to criteria number two that this meets that criteria. Thank you, George. Is there any other comments? I'd like to make a motion that the applicant based on his testimony and application has proven that he meets all the criteria for a special exception. And would like to make a motion to approve this request for special exception subject to staff comments contained in the application. Second. We have a first and a second. Motion and a second. I would say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Motion carries. We will return to item number six on the agenda. This is 3727 Kaiser Avenue. If the applicant has arrived, she can come forward. Good morning. Were you here for this wearing in part of it? No, I was. Okay, so this need to be worn in. I do apologize for being late. That's perfectly okay. Worked out just fine. All right, so I'm just, would you state your name please? My name is Sophia Thompson, Cupid. Okay, would you raise your right hand? Do you affirm or attest that the testimony you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Sir. Thank you. So are you familiar with the criteria that you filled out that you need to meet for this special exception? Yes, sir. Could you go through those for us, please? Sure. Okay, so I purchased a property at 3727 Kaiser Avenue. It is newly renovated properly. In fact, it's still being renovated at the moment. It's almost, you know, the process is almost completed. I'm requesting a special exception to allow the establishment of a residential care facility with this property. Once inspected by the DHAC, the case of property will hopefully be able to allow a seven to 10 bed facility based on their criterion rules. That's what I'm just, you know, assuming that they will allow seven to 10 bed facility. It could be less. Providing supportive and, providing supportive and assistant living services to individuals in need of non-critical care. So the purpose of this particular property is to provide non-critical care to residents, male or female. Our main goal is to ensure that our highly trained and screen staff that we will hire tend to the housekeeping needs, maintenance and cooking needs of the residents. As far as the substantial adverse impact on the vehicular traffic, that should not be an issue. The property basically ends towards the end of the road, like almost a colisec, if you will, but not quite a colisec, and the driveway kind of wraps around the property, which will accommodate up to five to six vehicles. 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. In fact, approval of the variance will add character and cleanlessness to enhance the quality of life within the neighborhood as we have to be in compliance with the health rules and regulation of DHEC and the district as well. So, you know, this future facility complements and will complements the existing structures within the community and will not be detrimental to the public welfare and wellbeing. Adverse impact on the aesthetic character and the surrounding area as the property was recently, as I said, it's going through that renovation process, it's almost there. It's hopefully will, well, it looks beautiful, it's new, and it's taken an old building built in the 1950s and completely renovated it, so it's gonna be refreshed and it has an enhanced look. We have not changed the exterior portion of the building. We've just basically worked on most of the inside, but it does have some sightings to it, and that has been updated as well. It has a new roof. Basically everything has been updated within the home. Granted a special exception for the 37 kinds, a property will not have a substantial adverse impact on public safety or create nuisance conditions detrimental to the public interest. In fact, it will do quite the opposite. The facility will be secure with five to, well, four to five cameras or more if needs be. The interior will have two to three cameras installed and lights will be placed all around the property. All well-trained caregivers and staff will work on a 12 hour rotation basis to provide 24 hour personal care to the residents, which will aid in maintaining peace and order, not only for the residents who will reside at the facility, but for the community at large. The establishment of the proposed special, exception will create a concentration, will not create a concentration of proliferation of the same or similar types of use that will enhance and improve the Belvedere community and not be detrimental to the development or redevelopment of the area. So why choose that particular area? It's basically, well, the price on the property, the pricing was pretty much what attracted me to it. We actually had intentions of living there. It's a community we will actually have thoughts of living there, but then we just decided to reach out to the community at large and those surrounding individuals who don't or can't afford the typical high prices with these additional residential cures that's surrounding that particular area. They're very high cost and it's very difficult to afford those. So that's the reason why we're actually going into this particular project. The nearest facility is about 12 miles away from Kaiser. And so this would be ideally perfect because in addition to that, there's a hospital that's pretty close to that residence, kind of lost my place there. And so that would make that ideal. The proposed special exception is consistent with the character and intent of the underlying district as indicated in the zone and district description. Furthermore, for several years, the Belvedere community has allowed two other companies to perform business within the Belvedere community. So actually allowing the residential care facility to be a part of the community is not something that's not allowed. We do have a multi complex building and a daycare in that same community as well, the early learning daycare center. So my proposed special exception is appropriate for its location and compatible with the permitted uses adjacent to and in vicinity of the property as we are requesting to provide long-term affordable care to individuals. This location will also give us the ability to have immediate access to Presum Health Richland Hospital, which is very close to that location. The proposed special obsession will not adversely affect the public interest. In fact, I have spoken to several community members and neighbors who live adjacent to the property and they have agreed with me. They are a few that are against it and I think once they understand the purpose of why we're doing this, hopefully they can come on board. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mayor. Any questions from the board? Okay, would anybody else like to speak in favor against this application? Please approach the podium. Good morning. I'm kind of a horse this morning. My name is Diane Wally. Diane Wally. I've lived in this area for 45 years and in 2004, we had the same problem where we are resident in the Bevedere area. I'm the president. We have 655 houses and the main thing is we stopped the business that's coming in because we want our neighborhood to be a good neighborhood. We're trying to improve our neighborhood. We do have nursing facilities around there on the Beltline area and one-on-two-nots area is a facility there and one on Cushman and I want our neighborhood to stand up, people to stand up. We're against it. We're trying to improve our area. I hate I can't hardly talk today. I know I can talk better than this, but they are against it and we are an area that's trying to improve our area. We already fighting other elements in our area. We don't need any more. We want to be a home owners. We have our association and she has not contacted me. One person called me and I told them that it was a zone for businesses to come in because the daycare wanted to come in. We stopped that. We already have daycares in our area. That's all I have to say because I'm about to lose my voice. I've been talking all week. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Would anybody else like to approach the podium? Good morning and thank you for this opportunity. My name is Florence Butler. I've been a homeowner in the Belvedere area for the last 40 years. I would like for you to deny this special exception on the fact that Ms. Sophia Thompson Cupid was not forthright in all of her information. She stated lastly that she spoke with some neighbors and she had positive feedback, but unfortunately Ms. Cupid spoke with some of these people at 3 p.m. yesterday afternoon. We have a community meeting that is held every second Thursday at six o'clock. We have an out of Belvedere. So she had opportunity to present this to the community as a whole. She spoke briefly about us having a daycare and an apartment there. She's not aware of the fact because she bought a house in Belvedere but she's not a residence of Belvedere. Had she lived in Belvedere, she would have known that when we petitioned the city to come into the city that that daycare was already in operation. So we weren't gonna ask the people to close and move somewhere else. So that's how come there is a daycare inside of the community. As for the apartment, the apartment is on the outskirt of the community. Her residential care, she led some people to believe that it's gonna be a senior place and it's stated on number eight that they would be a senior. But I work for the Department of Disability and Special Needs and I know they're group homes, assisted living and residential care. When you come to residential care that a majority of patients that are in residential care comes from the Department of Mental Health, she states that she would have cameras inside the building. You cannot have cameras inside of a building. That's a privacy act. The only time it's allowed if you have forensic patients there. So that lets you know that it'll be a safe house for people just coming from the mental institution or the penal system after doing their time. I personally will not feel safe having these people here. We are residents of senior citizens. We enjoy the city living with a country atmosphere. Yes, she bought a house because she stated it was cheap. She planned to live there but then she decided to make it out of a business. I'm sorry to say, Belvedere is not in the business. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good morning, sir. My name is Milton Brown. I'm a resident next to the house that's in question now. I spoke with Ms. Cupid and I was just so glad to ask for someone to purchase the house. Wasn't sure who was gonna be my neighbor but when the first house was purchased, I thought it was gonna be for her and her family to live there. After getting all of this other information on what's gonna go on in the house, I don't feel comfortable with that being assisted living place right there. Our next door tour, I have grandkids that come with me. I've just seen some of the places and people get out and get away.  They say that the curb right there is from Whale Court in Kaiser is not a little traffic hazard. It is and if they get out there, they can be hurt. I'm more afraid that what they might do if they get over on my side and that's all I wanted to say. Thank you so much. Anybody else like to approach the podium speaking this matter? Strivelling and I'm glad to hear about this because Ms. Cupid spoke to me as well. According to Ms. Cupid, she and her family was to move in. But then all of a sudden, it becomes, you know, a home for, you know, first she said senior citizens, now I'm hearing something different. I'm a senior myself. And I told her, I said, well, I'm not doing anything. If you get a senior citizen home, because she says she was gonna keep her form a job, right? Which is a school teacher. I don't mind doing a couple of hours, you know, getting contact with me, right? I'm right there across the street, right there. And she said that would be good. Now all of a sudden she's doing something different. What is it that she wants to do? You know, she claims she brought the house for a low price, but she had to go in so much debt to get it up to process. But that's her problem, that's not our problem. That's not to put our lives, to me it's putting our lives in jeopardy because I got Kaiser on the backside of my house, which a lot of us do. My Kaiser part is cut in, you can walk right through my back and come through Webcourt. This is where I'm at. She's on the curb of Kaiser and I'm in the corner right down the street, Webcourt. So she's putting all of our lives in danger. She doesn't know, she just got here. You know, I'm not blaming her, but you don't know you need to find out. Okay? And I thank y'all for handing me out today. Thank you ma'am. Would anybody else like to approach the podium, speak in this matter? Good morning. Morning. My name is Yvonne McCoy and I'm a resident of Belvedere community. We have been working very hard to get our community up to speed. We are not too far from the new ballpark. It's a lot of good things that's going on in our area and we would like to keep it that way. And having a community business, a residential care facility, it would just not go with what we're trying to do in Belvedere. Thank you. Thank you ma'am. My name's Arthur Butler and I'm the vice president of the community organization. And I just wanted to say, I remember she's saying something about the nursery being there, but like they said, that nursery's been there for at least 50 years. And it's been there when we got there, when we got into the city, which was in 1998, that nursery was there and as well as the apartments. But also, we're seeing that even if you, the neighbor which was next door and I talked to them all and they once said, she said like, okay, when we talked to Ms. Cupid, she said that we're gonna do this and that. I've never once said anything different because I'm, I was so happy because someone was moving into the house. Then she said, the neighbor, she said, well, I had problems with the people, with the one person that was living there before, but now you're talking about putting a side, we are making a sidewalk, a metal road that comes around the back part of it and go out the other side, which is she's doing a circular driveway. And a circular driveway would create problems for one both sides, from one side as well as the other. And she said, and we've had some problems before, but once we talked to her, when she said, I'm your new neighbor, we were so happy because of the fact that we had a new neighbor. But then after the more she talked, the more I listened, I realized that she was not going to live there. She just would disbind property for business. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Anybody else like to come to the podium and speak? Would the applicant like to come back to the podium? Yes, ma'am. So when I actually proposed this to several of the residents, I knew exactly what I was getting into. I made it very clear that it was going to be for residents. It's a residential facility. And so it wouldn't exclude anyone who are within, you know, certain age group. So it's residential, you know, and it's non-critical care. So it doesn't mean that that particular person is going to be mental. And I would by any no means or, you know, in any way or form bring in someone that's going to be detrimental to an area that I would still consider my home as well. As far as the gentleman saying how he got no call, the president saying she was not called, I reached out two times and left messages and no call was returned. So I was able to go through and go around the neighborhood and speak to several individuals about that. As far as the safety of the property, yes, it's open and, you know, it wraps around, the driver wraps around the property. We were thinking of actually putting up a private fence to make sure that the residents are secure.  This is, you know, to give them a safe haven, to have them, you know, have a safe place in the clean environment to rest. And it's fenced in.  And so those are my issues that I, you know, would like for you to think about as well. So you do not live at this address? Well, we were trying to live at the address, but the construction process became so drawn out and long. And so I ended up changing my mind and we were trying and they just, it just takes forever for them to, we're actually, the building is, was basically being brought up to code, if you will. So we have put in water system into the property, pumped a lot of funds into it to get it up and running. It's just, we were told to come first to you to get that variance. And then from here to DHEC and et cetera, et cetera. So we were just trying to follow the right path to make sure, you know, we're doing it the right way. So do you have any experience running this type of stuff? I've been training over the years. I've lived in North Carolina and I got my training to rally and I'm a teacher and I wouldn't, you know, talk about training. Let me just back up a little bit. As a teacher, I wouldn't do anything to break the law. You know, I uphold order and law in my classroom on a daily basis.  So as far as experience, yes, my training started not fully yet because I'm not licensed yet, but I started my licensure process back in Raleigh a few years back and then I actually decided to move to South Carolina. So that abruptly kind of ended my certification because I was moving to South Carolina. I was told that I had to be licensed at that particular state if I'm gonna run a facility. So when I decided to move to South Carolina. Did you run one in North Carolina? I need a process, sir. Did you run a facility in North Carolina? No, I got trained there. And then when I was about to run a facility there, I had, I moved and decided to teach in South Carolina. And so I started to recertified here doing the trainings and so on and so forth. So it's nothing that's uncommon to me. Chairman, I don't think the request is unreasonable, but there's clearly a lot of adverse opinions to it and almost suggest that try to talk to the neighbors and see if there's anything they can discuss. And if not, but I just have a hard time approving it with this many people not in favor of it who live right around it. Well, it's clearly right in the middle of a single family residential neighborhood in which we're talking about a use that would allow up to 10 non-related residents to live in that facility. And so, from my standpoint, I'm looking at the criteria six and seven and eight, which explain how the special section is consistent with the character intent of the underlying district as indicated in the zoning district description with any applicable zoning overlay districts and requirements and also number seven, which is the, is it appropriate for its location and compatible with the permitted uses adjacent to the vicinity of the property? And then, you know, number eight, once again, and that's based on the number of people that are here concerned, is it really not adversely affecting the public interest? And I'd say that it just doesn't meet that criteria. I would make a motion that we deny this request for a special exception, that the applicant did not meet the requirements for a special exception in her testimony or in her written application. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. There's no other business on the agenda. I make a motion that we adjourn. A second. All in favor say aye. Aye. We adjourned.