Commissioners approve 7 requests; but oh the 1 that got away

At a conundrum.

That’s where the Houston County Board of Commissioners found themselves Wednesday during the group’s regular meeting.

On the floor for approval or disapproval – it turned out to be the latter – was Special Exception 1762. At the heart of it was a request by Shawn Smith to operate an Internet business out of his home.

The “business” of the business would be to sell “automotive accessories.” I.e., explained Smith, if someone were looking for a bumper for a Jeep, they would contact him via a request/order form filled out on his website, or by calling him directly (through his contact information being placed on the website) and he would find it (presumably as cheap as possible) through his list of suppliers.

Here’s the twist – not what one would normally consider a twist, but it turned out to be in this case (and ultimately the request’s undoing): No signage (but then that was the case for all of the eight Special Exceptions heard Wednesday). There would be no traffic (this is where it began to differ from the others). No delivery vans, no people coming to or going in or out of his house/neighborhood. The item(s) would be shipped straight from the manufacturer to the customer. He, as he said, was “only the middle man.”

If it sounds like a perfect scenario, that’s what most, if not all, of the commissioners thought too.

The problem? According to the Board of Zoning and Appeals, which recommended “to deny,” it was non-compliance with 95.1.2 of the 95.1 regulation. It states: “The home occupations shall be operated by the members of the family residing on the premises and no article or service shall be sold or offered for sale except as may be produced by the members of the immediate family residing on the premises.” To that end, written to the side of that entry by the Board of Zoning and Appeals was this: “Applicant will not produce articles to be sold.”

Smith, according to the checklist, also did not comply with Section 95.1.12 – there are 21 checklist items. It reads: “Home businesses are small offices, or small-scale retail or service businesses which are clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential dwelling purposes, and must comply with the following standards: … one chair beauty shop or barber shops, minor repair shops, day care …” etc.

That, however, warranted little discussion. The “not produce articles to be sold” did. Approximately 20 minutes worth to be precise.

“I think it’s ridiculous to have them bring it to the house,” said Commissioner Larry Thomson. “If they bring it to the house, that’s counterproductive to what he wants to do.

“I think that section (of the regulation) is too gray,” he added. “I don’t know if it needs to be changed or not, but it doesn’t really cover it as far as I’m concerned.”

“We’ve approved worse,” Commissioner Tom McMichael said. “We’ve approved beauty shops at houses. We’ve approved daycare at houses. But this to me is a whole lot less disruptive in that neighborhood than one of those positions … I think the regulation can stay, but sometimes there needs to be exceptions made to the rule.”

The problem with making an exception to the rule in this case, however, is this – as explained by County Attorney Tom Hall: “What you’re doing here (if they chose to approve) is not overriding (that ordinance). What you’re doing is you’re either saying ‘concur’ or ‘not concur.’

“(However), if you decide to approve this document, then you’re going against what your regulation says. That could be problematic in the future with future requests. That could be also problematic with past requests, because they have been denied based on the same criteria.”

Chief Building Inspector Tim Andrews offered up that part of the problem was the regulation had been written prior to e-commerce really taking off. He also said – somewhat in how the regulation had evolved the way it had – that the Board of Zoning and Appeals had concerns in the past over things like pesticides, etc being delivered to homes – and presumably preventing that from happening.

There was talk of the commissioners sending the request back to the board and asking them to re-look at it. It would have been the second time as it was tabled at the Jan. 7 meeting and sent back to the board. It was also noted that if the request were denied, it could not be resubmitted for six months. But Andrews told the board they had the authority to request an earlier date.

That would accomplish little, Thomson interjected, if the regulation still tied their hands.

Smith, on his behalf, offered to change his business plan to have the product delivered to his home. He said he would put a company label, address label, etc – whatever was necessary to enable him to conform to the regulation.

That initially took root among the commissioners – at one point Commission Chairman Tommy Stalnaker came back and asked the question again: “Would you be willing to change …” to which he again said “yes” – but as the discussion continued, it sort of died on the floor.

In the end, the motion to deny by Commissioner Jay Walker – that made early in the process – was seconded. He and Commissioner Gail Robinson voted to deny the Special Exception. Thomson and McMichael voted to approve. Stalnaker broke the tie – as already noted, to disapprove.

The issue is not dead, however, as Stalnaker also said in the end that he was going to ask two of the commissioners to get with the Zoning and Appeals board to take a hard look at that section of the regulation to determine if it is still viable in today’s business environment.

In other business, the news was not so grim for the other seven Special Exceptions. They were all approved unanimously. One was for a lawn maintenance/landscaping business. One was for a home occupation for a network engineering and consulting business. One was for a cell phone repair business.

One was to allow a trailer to be placed on a property while the owner completed construction/renovation of a building. The only exception was the commissioners decided to limit the extension time after the initial 12-month period had expired – if an extension became necessary – to 12 additional months.

Another Special Exception was for a lawn service business, another one for an alterations (sewing) business, and the final one for a consulting business.

The commissioners also approved a couple of hires – in the arena of operating “heavy equipment.” They approved a one-time adjustment to the Solicitor-General’s salary – a calculating error it was noted – in the amount of $173.34 and they approved a change order for the Moody Road Phase 3 project. That was to increase the contract time from 730 days to 801. The change it was noted in the commissioners’ handout was due to “necessary revisions in the bridge and storm water treatment system structures at no fault to the contractor.” The contract price for the project, according to the handout, remains the same: $4,931,612.63.

And finally, the commissioners accepted the bid from Pyles Plumbing and Utility Contractors for replacing the 16” PVC water line just east of Houston Lake Road with 16” “ductile iron pipe.”

“We’ve had many failures (in the PVC pipe),” said Thomson. “Making it necessary.” He added: “It’s being done in conjunction with the widening project, making it a good time to replace it.”

HHJ News