[music]
We call this uh meeting of the loin rock
board of adjustment to order. I need
these springs. I'm the chair. This is
Mr. Jerry Starns, Mr. Steven Schiller.
To my left is Miss Sarah Murphy, and Mr.
Brandon Walker.
Um,
I thought we were going to elect
officers tonight, but we are not. The
foreign code says we're to elect our
officers once a year. The only officers
we have is the chair and the vice chair.
And Mr.
Rothrock
um educated me that
um new members are in a chair and and a
chair and vice versa person selected
once new members are installed in March
and the current chair serves through
that meeting in February if there is
one. So we'll wait till the new board
members come on if any [snorts] and
we'll uh we'll we'll do it in March.
Does that sound right Mr. Rothrock?
>> Sounds right. Yes sir.
And
speaking of time, one of our local rules
is that if this is still going on at
8:30, we will stop and decide if we can
be through by 9:30. And if we're not
confident we're going to be through at
9:30, we'll pick a continuence date at
8:30 and we'll leave then. The the goal
is to never be here past 9:30.
So keep your eye on the clock. If it
hits 8:30 and I don't see anything,
somebody pipe up and say, "Let's let's
talk about the time." First thing we
need to do is approve some minutes
from our
October 23rd, 2025
meeting. Um,
have all members of the board received a
copy [clears throat] of those minutes?
>> Does anyone see any errors or omissions
in them? I did not. Anyone shaking their
hand? No. Um, do I hear a motion to
accept the uh minutes from the October
23rd, 2025 meeting?
>> We accept.
>> Mrs. Starns makes that motion. I second
it. All in favor of approving the
October 23rd, 2025 minutes as written,
say I. I. And they are accepted and
we'll move on.
» [clears throat]
» I had printed
uh
the North Carolina Court of Appeals
case, Chad Frasier versus Town of
Blowing Rock. I had a copy of the case
printed for every board member and some
um some notes I wanted to go over. Did
anybody get a copy of that? Yeah. Um,
and this is strictly for the the board's
edification. Some members of the public,
just be patient with us. This is the
only time we get together.
[clears throat]
In the Frasier versus Town of Blowing
Rock case before the North Carolina
Court of Appeals, the court went over
the history of the town's attempts to
regulate temporary rentals,
uh, which started in 1984.
You see that history described in the
factual and procedural background
section of the case of the Fraser case.
Later in the case, [clears throat] in
the analysis section, starting on page
seven,
the court made various conclusions and
statements of law including on page
eight, the free use of property is
favored in our state. [clears throat]
Next, zoning ordinances are
interrogation of the right of private
property and where exemptions appear in
favor of the property owner, they must
be liberally construed in favor of such
owner. That was on page eight of the
case.
Because zoning regulations are in
derrogation of common law rights, they
cannot be construed to include or
exclude by implication that which is not
clearly their expressed terms.
The next one says, "When there is
ambiguity ambiguity in a zoning
regulation, there's a special rule of
construction requiring the ambiguous
language to be construed in favor of the
free use of property.
Wellfounded doubts as to the meaning of
obscure provisions of a zoning ordinance
should be resolved in favor of the free
use of property. Our juristp prudence is
clear that in the event of doubts or
ambiguity, zoning regulations are to be
construed in favor of the free use of
property.
The U
Court of Appeals agreed with the
Superior Court judge who heard the case
when it was appealed over to the
Superior Court in Boone when he said
ambiguity can leave regulation in a
state of uncertainty which in turn left
the rights of land owners to the
unguided discretion of the board of
adjustment. That hurt
the town properly. The town started
properly regulating short-term rentals
of less than 28 days for the first time
on August 13th, 2019.
The town's ordinances existing prior to,
and this is me talking, this is no
longer the court of appeals. The town's
ordinances existing prior to August 13,
20, 2019 did not properly regulate I'm
sorry, this is the court of appeals did
not properly regulate short-term rentals
of less than 28 days.
Um, I noted there's a typographical
error on page 11 of the case regarding
the date of enactment of that new
effective short-term rental ordinance.
the date August 19th, 2019. In the first
sentence of that last paragraph,
>> great date is August 13, 2019.
The Court of Appeals then said
short-term rails were not regulated by
the town until [clears throat] the 2019
amendment, August 13th.
Uh they noted the burden of proving the
existence of an operation in violation
of local town ordinance, zoning
ordinance is on the town.
Ordinarily, once the town meets its
burden to establish the existence of a
current zoning violation, the burden
approved shifts to the land owner to
establish the existence of a legal
non-conforming use or other affirmative
offense defense. The defendant of course
has the burden of establishing all
affirmative defenses whether they relate
to the whole case or only to certain
issues in the case. As to such defenses,
he has the laboring ore. The city had
the burden of proving the existence of
the operation of an operation in
violation of its zoning ordinance.
Um the case tonight is not about a
violation.
Uh it's about trying to establish
um short-term rentals. It's not a
violation. We're not hearing a
violation. The court of appeals noticed
that section 16-2.2 of the blowing rock
land use ordinances defines a
non-conforming use as a non-conforming
situation that occurs when the property
is used for a purpose or in a manner
made unlawful by the use regulations
applicable to the district the zoning
district in which the property is
located.
Referring to sections 16-8.1
and 16-8.6 six of the land use
ordinances. The court continued,
"Non-conforming situations that were
otherwise lawful on the effective date
of this chapter may be continued
[clears throat]
provided the grandfather non-conforming
use is not discontinued for a
consecutive period of 180 days or
discontinued for any period of time
without a present in intention to
reinstate the non-conforming use." That
was on page 16 of the Frasier case.
The court concluded that the effective
date of the chapter was 13 August 2019.
And since the time when Fraser bought
the property on 29 June 2016, there had
been no 180day period. He did not rent a
unit for less than 28 days.
The violation notice that Fraser
received from the town was dated 13th
September 2019. The court concluded that
Frraasier had made out a primmaacy case
of non-conforming use under the town's
ordinances. The the court further
concluded that Frraasier succeeded in
his claim of grandfather non-conforming
use when the court said the board of
adjustments denial of Frasier's claim of
grandfather non-conforming use was
incorrect.
So to kind of summarize that case,
Fraser vises the property in question on
29 June 2016. Since that time, there had
been no period of 180 days when Frasier
had not rented the property for less
than 28 days. He was actively renting
it. Almost three years goes by when the
when Blowing Rock enacts short-term
rental restrictions on 13 August 2019.
Up until that day, Blowing Rock has not
had an effective short-term rental
regulation ordinance to Fraser's use,
could be said
to be conforming or legal conforming.
So, there was no law about short-term
rentals until August 13th,
2019.
Um,
so he was entitled to do it. There was
no law against it. On that day, 13
August 2019, his use became legal
nonconforming because he's
grandfathered. And since his purchase of
the property in 2016, there's been the
period of 180 days when he didn't do a
rental of less than 28 days.
Um,
private property rights obviously are
very very important in the United States
and in the state of North Carolina. and
the courts uh jealously defend those
private property rights.
Um,
so basically,
um, I think what we've learned from this
is,
um, the or the ordinance in question has
to be clear, has to be understandable,
can't be ambiguous,
and if it is ambiguous or hard to
understand, um, we can't guess at it.
Um,
unfortunately ordinances aren't always
as clear and u unambiguous as we would
like, but we got to take the the law as
it comes to us and in the close calls
the land owner wins.
Anybody got any questions?
All right, let's move past that.
and uh
turn to the appeal we have scheduled for
tonight.
and
find my checklist.
» All right, Stephen. What'd you do?
What are you looking for?
>> My checklist.
Let me see if I got
It was here a minute ago.
All right. This is
[clears throat]
here's case number 2025-01.
Um
the applicant or the appellant
is Rockpine Reynolds LLC
and
Put that over there.
The u the minutes
will be kept by Miss um Wanu over here.
And
I noticed that the person that signed
the application
or signed the appeal notice is Mr. Chad
Hollister. Is Mr. Hollister here?
>> Yes.
And it looks like you filed and signed
the appeal on November 20th, 2025, Mr.
Hollister.
Uh the appeal
>> the date that you sign the uh appeal
notice or the appeal.
>> That's what it says in yes
real quick.
>> Okay.
>> That sounds about right though.
>> Okay. All right. Um the applicant is
Rockpine Reynolds LLC
and the authorized representative is
Ched Hollister. Is that correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. [snorts]
Um,
did you receive a copy of the
uh staff report prior to tonight?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Did all the board members get a
copy of the staff report before tonight?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. All right. [clears throat]
Um,
I went through it when I got it. The
purpose of the staff report is to kind
of get us up to speed on what this is
about so that we can kind of get
prepared, the board members get prepared
and know what the issues are and
research those and know what ordinances
and law is involved.
Um,
I went through it and I got a little bit
confused because at one point in here
you said you were the owner of the
property or and then another point in
here Mr. I think it was James Hollister
said he owned the property. Who owns the
property?
>> Rock Pine Reynolds LLC owns the
property.
>> Okay. Who runs Who owns Rock Pine
Reynolds LLC?
>> My father James.
>> Okay. So there might be a typo or
something.
I've managed the property.
>> Okay.
[snorts]
» Um, are you a licensed attorney at law,
Mr. Hollister? No.
» [snorts]
» Um, [clears throat]
Mr. Hollister. Well, let me let me stop.
Is there anyone here
uh that feels like they should be a
party to this case?
Anyone here that feels like they should
be a party?
>> Uh, yes. Miss Garrett.
>> My name is Chelsea Garrett. I'm here
with my law partner, Brian Martin from
Gil Mosley Law Firm, and we do represent
several owners who would like to
intervene in this hearing um if it goes
forward tonight.
>> Well, that's it's going to it's going to
go forward. Let's
um let's take them one by one and uh
let's see if they meet the requirements
for standing.
So
um I actually do have one preliminary
matter um I would like to ask um and and
that is I I could not find a copy of any
rules of procedure or anything that the
board had adopted online. I might have
overlooked them. Um but I was under the
impression that there were rules.
>> Just a few. [laughter]
>> Okay. And that one of them pertained to
affidavit. Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Are you familiar with the wording of
that?
>> I'm just I vaguely recall that being an
issue in a prior hearing years ago that was a fairly new rule and so I just
wanted to hear about it.
>> Right. Um I think I' I've got a copy of
it right here.
>> It's number three.
>> And are they online, Mr. Petra?
>> We're working on that. I don't know if
that
>> that's fine. I don't mind that they
aren't. I just hope I didn't overlook
them that well. So,
>> no, they're available to the public, but
I I think we're belated in get getting
them online.
>> I didn't mean to ask for report before
tonight, so that's my fault.
» Sworn affidavits. This is a rule we
adopted back
in 23 20 I'm sorry, [clears throat]
2021.
Sworn affidavit. Introduction of sworn
written affidavit into the record of a
board hearing where the afanten of the
statement is unavailable for
cross-examination under oath or
affirmation and where no hearsay
exception for admissibility under the
North Carolina rules of evidence exists
is discouraged as incompetent evidence.
Any introduction into the record of such
hearay evidence shall be at the sole
discretion of the board. That's the
rule.
Um,
with that, I guess before I really say
anything else about that, we should go
ahead and um I'll bring up one witness
at a time for intervention and see if
the board approves. Um,
>> Miss Garrett, do you want to review the
uh rules of procedure for the board
prior to doing this motion or anything
further?
>> Um, it might be good for me to look at
them just to make sure and and also for
Mr. Hollister to see them. Um
>> he he does already have a copy. He
should have already received a copy
earlier.
>> Um I have it pulled up here. I don't
have a printed copy so much, but you
want to look at it real quick. I'm sure
>> Sure. Or if you want to email it. I
think I have
>> Yeah, that's fine. I'll just
>> That' be okay. Thank you.
>> Sure.
>> Well, if it's going to speed things up,
I'll hand you written copies. How about
that?
>> That's even better.
>> That's fine.
Just I need them back.
This is called cleaning up the cockpit.
Sure.
Okay. So, with that said, um, now that
I'm at the microphone, I'll just repeat.
My name is Chelsea Garrett. I'm here
with Brian Martin from Deal Mosley Law
Firm. We represent several property
owners that receive notice that are
within 150 ft of the property. Um,
that's the subject of the hearing
tonight. Um, and they we believe qualify
as having special damages and should be
allowed to intervene. the first owner.
Um, I'll just call up um Sarah.
>> If you want to come up here real quick.
[clears throat]
» Yeah, we're going to need to get her
sworn in.
>> You want to go ahead and get all your
folks sworn in?
>> Yeah, we could. Why don't we have
>> just Sarah, Chris,
and I think that was and Ross
>> or
just want to be
chairman.
>> I think the three of you guys
>> do you want to before we get too far
into this questions about potential
conflicts knowledge?
>> That's that's a good idea. Let's let's
do that. Um let me interrupt you, Miss
Garrett. Well, they're all ready to be
sworn. Let's go ahead and do that.
» I think you got all hand
Put your left hand on the bottom and
raise your right.
>> Oh, raise your right.
>> Raise your right.
>> There you go.
>> Left and raise your right. There we go.
Do you solve to the others? You shall
give this body this matter shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
truth.
[snorts]
>> Um, so just to preface my questions, um,
>> let me let me do a couple things. Sure, Sure. Um, Mr. [clears throat]
Walker's reminding me of it. Just to
make sure we get these in before we go
any further. Um,
all the board members have received the
um staff report. Did any of the board
members drive by the property in
question? We're able to do that, but
let's ask who did. I did. I did.
[clears throat]
>> M. Okay. Mrs. Starns did. Mr. Schiller
did not.
>> I did.
>> M. Murphy did. Mr. Walker.
>> I did. I'd also like for everybody's
benefit. I I'm one of the neighbors who
received notice.
>> Okay.
>> I'm within that 150 ft.
>> Okay. All right. Having received that
notice, do you have any bias or um
[clears throat]
preconceived notions going into this?
>> No, I don't.
>> Okay. Um
let's talk about conflicts and bias. A
board member on this case must not
participate or vote in any manner that
would violate an affected person's
constitutional right to an impartial
decision maker. Imperible impermissible
violations of due process include not
disclosing any exparte communications a
member had prior to the hearing. Anybody
have any prior to the hearing
conversations about [clears throat] this
case with anyone?
>> Okay. Everyone says no. A me a member
must not have a fixed opinion prior to
this hearing as to whether the
particular variant should or should not
be granted. Uh does anyone have a fixed
opinion prior to this hearing as to
whether the I'm sorry this isn't a v a
variance whether this appeal should be
granted. Anyone have any preconceived
ideas about that? Everyone says no
they don't. [clears throat] Um,
a member must not participate in this
case if the member has any close familia
bu business or other close relationship
with the person involved in this case.
Anybody have any such connections to
this case? I do not.
>> I'm seeing no from everyone else. And a
member must not have any financial
interest in the outcome of the case. I
don't. Anyone have?
>> No.
>> They all say no. So, we'll move on.
The uh court of appeals has said that we
um
should let everybody know what our
procedures are and how we operate. I'm
going to do that right now. This hearing
is a quasi judicial hearing. It's
conducted according to the rules and
laws pertaining to quasi judicial
hearings. It will have all the essential
elements of a fair trial. Parties will
have the opportunity to give evidence,
cross-examine witnesses, inspect
documents, and testimony shall be under
oath. The board's findings will be based
upon substantial material and competent
evidence. [cough] The North Carolina
[clears throat] Court of Appeals has
said that the decision decision of a
board such as this must be based upon
substantial competent and material
evidence and North Carolina General
Statute 160D-46J
says the same thing. Substantial
evidence is defined by the court of
appeals as that which a reasonable mind
would regard as sufficiently supporting
a specific result. The court's also said
is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion. Material
evidence has been said to be evidence
having some logical connection with the
consequential facts. Incompetent
evidence is generally defined as
synonymous with admissible evidence. It
follows the rules.
We are supposed to follow the North
Carolina rules of evidence. The rules
used in the North Carolina General Court
of Justice.
The type of evidence question that most
often comes up is hearsay evidence.
Hearsay is a verbal or written statement
made prior to the hearing in the
declarant is not here or on the
telephone to testify under oath. The
rules say hearsay is not admissible
unless allowed under statute or by the
rules. And the rules have a number of
exceptions that will allow hearsay to be
admitted into evidence. Probably the
most used exception to this rule against
hearsay is the exception for statements
that were made outside the hearing by a
party opponent. The party opponents here
today are the appellant and the town and
there may be an intervenor. We'll see
shortly. They're opponents and what they
or their agents or employees have said
outside the hearing is admissible as a
statement by a party opponent. It's a
hearsay exception.
We, the board, cannot make critical
findings of fact based on hearsay. And
if we hear what sounds like inadmissible
hearsay being offered into evidence, we
shall stop and discuss that situation
with the parties.
Um,
yeah, Mr. Hollister up. Our minute taker
is Miss Allison Wanu over here. She
works for the town. She actually works
for Mr. Rothrock. Do you have any
objection to her keeping the minutes of
this meeting?
>> No.
>> Okay. All right. Mr. Rothrock, do you
have any
objection to your assistant keeping the
minutes of this meeting? No.
>> Okay. All right. Miss Garrett, thank you
for your patience. If you would
continue.
>> Thank you. So, um, as you guys have may have dealt with before, the um um
because this is quasi judicial, the
North Carolina statute 160D
does not allow anyone other than the
applicant and the board to present
evidence unless they intervene. That is
why um we are making an oral motion to
intervene. Uh and in order to intervene,
we have to show we would have standing.
The standing is determined under
160D1402.
Um and uh that states that
um following persons have standing. Um
that would include uh of course an owner
in the property which is here. Uh and it
includes any other person who will
suffer special damages as a result of
the decision being appealed.
um and courts have in North Carolina
have consistently considered some
evidence of um special damages to be the
fact that the ordinance already provides
that folks within 150 ft of the subject
property have special interest such that
they've received special um direct
notice. But that is some evidence that
they would um by virtue of the town zone
ordinance um be um separate and viewed
separately from general community
members that might want to come in and
just speak to any application. Uh on top
of that though um I would ask each
property owner here to um state
[clears throat] their proximity to
property and what their concerns are.
Um, I believe it's clear under the law,
um, and, um, I think due process rules
would, um, support allowing these
particular owners to intervene. So, I'll
just let them speak as to their
particular proximity. Um, so, Miss
Frederick,
okay, good. Um, you give the board your
full name.
>> Sarah Freric.
>> Can you spell your last name?
>> F as in Frank. R E R I C HS
>> C HS Okay.
» Um Okay. And Miss [clears throat] Raric,
uh where do you where is your property
um here in Rock?
>> Um it's 491 Chestnut Drive. So, two
doors away.
>> Two doors away.
>> Okay.
>> And um is it a single family residence?
>> Yes, it is.
>> Okay.
>> And when did you purchase the property?
>> October
2023. Okay. And when you purchased the
property, did you inquire as to whether
short-term rentals were permitted um at
your property or anywhere near you?
>> I did.
>> Okay. Who did you ask?
>> Um our realtor, Ruth.
>> Okay. Uh and what were you told?
>> Um we were told that there was an
ordinance that um prohibited short-term
rentals.
>> Okay. Um and was that a factor in why
you purchased this property?
>> Absolutely. Would you have purchased the
property if you had been told otherwise?
>> You know, I can't answer that, I guess,
because I don't know what I would have
done back then, but I would like to say
I wouldn't because I like, you know, I
like my neighbors. I like the spirit of
the neighborhood. I like having neighbors. I like knowing
my neighbors. I like knowing who's going
to be there if I get in trouble. But if
I fall down on the ice, I like knowing
who they are. So, um I would say that I
wouldn't buy it, but you never, you
know, I can't go back.
>> So, what are your concerns related to
having short-term rentals um as a
neighbor?
>> Well, um I do
short-term rentals frequently throughout
the years in different places in the
United States, in the country. Um so, I
know what it's like to have a short or
to go to a short-term rental. And I'm
not, you know, I'm not bad to the
property yet. I don't fear that. But it
is a different feel. You don't know your
neighbors. You don't know. I can't call
them up. Like, you can look out the
[clears throat] window and see what
Bill's doing. I don't, you know, I don't
know them because it's somebody
different all the time. So, it just
gives it a different feel, a different a
different feel.
>> Okay. Um,
do you have any concerns about impacts
of the um of a short-term rental as
opposed to a permanent resident?
Um, well, I have a concern about it
impacting the value of my home. Okay.
>> Because I would not have paid what I
paid for that house had I known it that
there could be other short-term rentals.
Okay.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any
further questions. Does the board have
any?
>> Does any board member have any questions
for Miss Frederick? Is that what you
said?
>> Thank you. Um, Mr. Chad Hollister may
want to ask her a question. I don't
know.
[snorts]
>> Please say your name. Mary Lee Howell.
And where
>> I'm sorry, real. What was it?
>> Mary Lee. L E I G H Howell. H O W E L L.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> And um Miss How, where is uh your
property located?
50 feet behind them.
>> Okay. What is the address of your
property?
>> We are 135 Pine Village. So, we are the
very first townhouse you get to on Pine
Village.
>> Okay. Um and um do you have you said 50
ft. Do you have a clear view of the
subject property?
>> Oh, yeah.
>> Okay. And are there are there any
porches or decks or patios?
>> There's one balcony. Um I mean theirs,
right? Yeah. one balcony um that's
directly in front of our floor
[clears throat] and then the entrance to
a basement apartment is also there.
>> Okay.
Um and
what um do you [clears throat] have
concerns about the um subject property
being allowed to be used for short-term
rentals?
>> I've got at least three. Let's start
with light, noise, and property value.
Um the light thing being that when when
they come around the end of the parking
lot, the parking lot also sits directly
in front of us. So if that means
somebody comes up at night, it means
they shine their headlights directly
into our primary bedroom on the first
floor. Um which is not fun,
understandable.
Um so we prefer that to be as little as
possible.
Um the second would be noise. We have a
wonderfully quiet neighborhood on
Chestnut Street. Um, and
I own real estate. I've short-term and
long-term rented and I can tell you the
difference in the renters and what
they're like.
So, [clears throat] my second would be
the noise thing. My third is property
value. I've been investing in property
for more than 20 years. I've had
property in Blowing Rock since 2017. We
have two places. And I can tell you that
wealthy people do not like to buy STR
friendly neighborhoods. Period.
>> Okay. Any other questions?
» Questions?
>> No.
>> Any board member have any questions?
>> Mr. Hollister.
>> I miss how if you're within 50 ft, did
you receive the formal notice from the
town?
>> Can you say?
>> Sorry. Did you receive the formal notice
from the town?
>> Yes. Yes, we did.
» Please state your name.
>> Chris Kemper.
>> And you want to spell that?
>> K E M P E R.
>> I'm sorry.
>> K E M P E R.
>> Thank you.
And um do you have property um that
Well, let me ask first. Did you receive
the notice from the town? We did.
>> Okay. And where is your property
located? [clears throat]
>> 143 Pine Village. We're right next door
to Merly How and 60 ft from the
property?
>> Okay. Um and when you purchase your
property, um by chance, did you inquire
about the ability to do any short for
any short-term rental? [clears throat]
>> We did. Okay.
>> And we were told that they weren't
allowed.
>> Okay. Um, and when did you purchase your
property?
>> March of 2021.
>> Okay. Um, since you purchased your
property, are you aware of any
short-term rentals at the subject
property?
>> I am not.
>> And what concerns do you have regarding
whether short-term rentals would be
allowed at the subject property?
>> It's the same concerns we've heard from
the other two owners. Um, we have those
same concerns. you know, property
values, noise, um, not knowing who's
coming in and out, safety. I do have
three kids, so that's always a concern.
Um, not to say that it would be rented
to anybody of of danger, but, you know,
it's still a concern. So,
>> um, do you have concerns at all about
your value? Absolutely. Okay.
>> Yep. Absolutely.
>> Okay. [clears throat]
>> No further questions for Mr. Ker from
me. Well, you say you have concerns
about your value. Tell us more about
that.
>> Well, just it's the same thing that the
previous owners mentioned is that when
you have the short-term rentals, is that
you can run the risk of your property's
values going down. And like a lot of the
previous people that spoke, is that we
didn't buy, you know, in Blowing Rock,
especially where we bought so we could
see our property values go down because
of an ordinance that was misunderstood.
Okay.
>> Would you have paid the same thing for
your own property had you known
short-term rentals were allowed close
by?
>> So, I go back to the same thing that
Sarah said is that I don't know. I don't
know that I would I would my gut tells
me that I wouldn't, but I I can't answer
that honestly without
» any board member have any more
questions? Mr. Hollister, any questions?
Thank you. Thank you very much.
>> Anything else, Miss Gar?
>> No, those would be the um three owners
we believe qualify standing to
intervene.
>> Board members, we'll have to
discuss this for a minute and then take
a vote. I'm looking at
are literally handbook the quasi
judicial handbook a guide for boards
making development regulation decisions
written by the UNC school of government
the professors there you've heard me say
many times they're they're the guys that
teach the legislators in Raleigh about
lane east law they are the people that
helped to write the laws I'm looking at
their book
and they have gone over the laundry list
as Miss Garrett did of ways you can
become a party. You have to have
standing. And if you're alleging special
damages,
uh it's got to be
um
it's got to be fairly substantial.
Um
common denominator here with the three
folks that want to come in as parties or
they're afraid of their property values
going down. Um,
and not to be disrespectful, the book
does say vague and they're citing a
case. I'll give the site in a minute.
Vague general allegations of decreased
property value are insufficient. And
then they cite Lloyd versus town of
Chapel Hill found at 127 North Carolina
appeal. uh fields at 347 [snorts]
uh 489 Southeast 2nd page 898 from 1997.
Um
the um
secondary impacts of noise and the light
and not knowing who's over there are
obviously concern. Um I'm I'm
worried we might get be getting too far
over our skis if if we allow these
people to to come in. What What do I
don't know. What do you think?
>> So [clears throat] was proximity alone u
reason to say they have standing?
No, you got you got you got to allege
some hurt, some some harm proximity
alone. Okay. No. Um, [snorts]
» may I respond to one thing?
>> Absolutely. We would love all the help
you can give us.
>> I I was looking for it. Um, I'm trying
to find it. Um, my recollection is on
the issue um of the property values. Um
that is absolutely right as to um
general speculation regarding values but
there is case law that does state and I
don't know how that's phrased in the
book Mr. Springs [clears throat]
>> um but I I want to say there's a
distinction which is that an individual
property owner is permitted to give an
opinion as to the value of their own
property. Um so um there is a case that
says that um there's a limited scope
that individual property owners allowed
to say. So even though the property
owner themselves has not performed
evaluation
cannot say that there is a specific
demunition value that's going to occur
to say that they may may or may not have
purchased their property may or may not
purchase it again would may or may not
have paid that same amount had they
known that. um I believe to be
sufficient on that on that point. I
would also say for what it's worth from
a due process standpoint in my
experience based on the case law um
there's
I believe the courts fairly liberally
construe as long as there is number one
the proximity that they are they are
distinguished these owners are
distinguished from someone two miles
away from coming in and just saying they
don't like short-term rentals um because
they would personally
visibly see the use of the property and
experience the use of the property,
good, bad, or otherwise. Um, so I
[sighs] I would submit and I'm not
saying I'm not saying this next
statement because I would ever even
encourage it or that the clients would
ever want to do it. I believe based on
the law that they would have grounds um
for a denovo review of the question of
intervention
um and that boards generally are on the
side of allowing it, but that's been my
experience. It doesn't mean you have to.
So
>> Eie, I'm not aware of such a case. Um
but if you
>> I don't know if you have access to it,
but
>> you're you represent the town, right?
>> Correct.
>> Let's make sure we have the players,
right?
>> Correct.
>> And um Sure. weigh into it.
>> Okay. Um, well, if you were to uh look
to general statute 160D-1402,
» right,
>> J3
A.
It says that the term competent evidence
as used in this subsection shall,
regardless of the lack of a timely
objection, uh, not be deemed to include
the opinion testimony of lay witnesses
as to any of the following. A is the use
of property in a particular way
affecting the value of other property
and it doesn't specify anything beyond
other property.
>> Give give me give me the number of
[clears throat] the statute again. What
was it? 1402. 1402
J3
A.
[clears throat]
Yeah, that statute says the um
competent evidence is not to be deemed
to include the opinion testimony of lay
witnesses as to any of the following. Uh
the use of property in a particular way
affects the value of other property.
Um
anything from any other board member?
[clears throat]
Does Chelsea have the case law?
>> I'm looking for it right now. Um
trying to get my hot spot to work.
>> This is the new 160D, Miss Garrett.
I have the statute pulled up, but what
I'm saying is the case law, my
understanding of the case law is that
statute says lay person's opinion of
value and the case provides an exception
that if you're the owner of the property
that you are not a lay person giving
back opinion on someone else's value. So
that's what I'm look for.
>> Okay. All right.
I just think fellow board members that
somebody
um [clears throat] even if they were
allowed to give an opinion of what their
property is worth to speculate as to
what having a short-term rental house
nearby is going to do to their property
value. And that's just that's just not
something a lay person is ready to do.
Um,
I just don't think it's um
where we should go. Anybody have any
other
>> I see where you're coming from, but I
think if she comes up with a case law,
we have to consider that as well because
>> Yeah.
>> We don't want to be put in a position
where we aren't giving the people
>> the voice.
>> Yeah.
What is that?
Sure.
[clears throat]
Sorry, I'm screwed.
>> I like I like having
Get it away from me.
[snorts]
What does this mean?
proximity is
you can factor that in but it's not
enough just because you're right close
by
>> but I just didn't mean that they're
saying there I'm just trying to
understand what that means
» it's not
true
that's true I have Um [clears throat]
so um one of the Mr. brought up the um
school of government which is I agreed
an excellent resource. They have lots of
blogs and articles and things
interpreting case laws that comes out.
Um one of them is um a blog from Adam Love Lady. Can the
neighbor speak? Can the neighbor appeal
standing in quasa judicial hearings? Um
it discusses a couple cases. One of them
is um the um Mangum versus Raleigh Board
of Adjustment case which says proximity
is a factor in standing but not
determinative as noted in the case of
Mangum versus Raleigh Board of
Adjustment which is a case from 2008 um
Supreme Court. Um while proximity in and
of itself is insufficient to grant
standing, it does bear some weight on
the issue of whether the complaining
party has suffered or will suffer
special damages distinct from those
damages um to the public at large. And
in Mangum, the court allowed the
interveners um the the the the board at
the first level and then of course on
appeal affirmed the um intervention
stating that um
uh let's see that they had standing um
based on a combination of proximity and
potential injury. The inter interveners
own property contiguous to the subject
property which we have here or in the
immediate vicinity. Interveners access
their property by one road, the same
road accessing the subject property and
the proposed increase in density on the
subject property. That's an increase in
density issue, but they testified as to
traffic, light pollution, noise and
other related pollution. So in that
case, there was there was no reliance on
even dimmunition and value testimony. It
was purely concerns regarding light
safety, noise, traffic, light pollution.
Um,
so, um, that [clears throat] again,
that's the Mangum versus,
um, Raleigh Board of Adjustment. Let's
see if I can find another one.
Wouldn't Wouldn't you agree that the the
[clears throat] building has four units?
Wouldn't you agree that there going to
be four families there at some point
regardless and they're going to all have
cars and they're all going to be human
beings and make some noise?
[snorts]
>> Well, that's true. But I think I I guess
if what you're saying is that is that
short-term rentals
or have the same impact that regular
permanent residents do. Your own
ordinance says the opposite. your own
ordinance regulates short-term rentals
and specifically says because of the
negative impacts of short-term rentals.
So the town is utterly determined as a
matter of law that short-term rentals
have a distinct impact from as per from
permanent. And I would also just say
this, if you think about it from this
perspective, there is this process of
intervention. We have to go through
this. I understand we have to show
certain um at least make a good face
showing of certain special damages.
There's really if you could argue that if you continue on
the I think the the rationale that
you're taking then nobody's going to be
able to approve special damages or ever
intervene in a case of this type again
because what are going to be the the
impacts are always going to be concerns
exactly as what were stated. So it's
increase in use um there but those
impacts have already been identified by
the ordinance as existing. So those are
in fact impacts as a matter of of law in a sense because the ordinance is law.
Um did you want to say something?
>> Okay. Um and other than other than you
know them being worried [clears throat]
because it's not an ongoing use right
now. um which is a whole another issue
as to whether it should be
grandfathered, but because the
short-term rentals aren't there now,
they can't speak to what the current
impacts are because there aren't
short-term rentals. So, this is
necessarily that evidence is going to
have to be in the nature of what it is,
which is concerns, legitimate concerns.
But that's why I say we're not talking
about somebody that lives down the
street that's going to complain there
going to be more cars on my road. This
is talking about I live and can I if you
can hear your neighbor barbe barbecuing
on their deck and now it's not your
neighbor. It's going to be potentially a
different person every few nights.
Groups of people and the impacts that
the ordinance talks about are the fact
that short-term rentals brings groups. It brings groups more
than just one or two people um you know
celebrating special occasions etc. And I don't have that pulled up, but I can
because it is in the ordinance as to
what the impacts are.
» Uh Mr. Hollister, do you want to weigh
in on this? Do you have anything to say?
>> I really don't.
>> Okay. Mr. Patrick, do you have anything
you want?
» Well, we'll have to vote on it. to all
board members. It's um
>> Chelsea, you're still looking up case
law.
>> Um well, Mr. Martin just brought me a a
case. I was just going to I mean, and
this is a little bit of a one-off, but
it does help with the context of the
property value issues. Um
[clears throat]
and that's where again, all of these all
have slightly different context, so just
acknowledge the context of this case is
responsible citizens in opposition to
the flood plane ordinance versus the
city of Asheville. um in in that case
which is still good law and um it was a
Supreme Court case from 83 actually um
there are contexts where um owners can
testify
as to the value and I'm going down to
the um
So owners of properties in that case
again just to give context that was
owners challenging a zoning ordinance.
Okay. But owners of properties which
were allegedly subject to a zoning
ordinance that allegedly affected a
taking of property without just
compensation were qualified to testify
respect the damaging effect of that
ordinance on the value of their
properties. And though the trial court
in that case excluded that testimony
which was error
um the court determined that that error
um [clears throat]
would not necessarily have been
prejuditial. So that was the context of
how it's discussed. Point is an owner
can testify as to the value of their own
property. Now you can decide on what
weight you give to that and all that in
all those contexts, but this is not a
lay person giving an opinion of value
the same way you would exclude somebody
who is not qualified as an expert
because they're allowed to give an
opinion of their own property's value.
So
>> I'm scared.
>> But again, I don't think we even need
that. I don't I honestly I would I would
rest on all the other impacts. So
>> what's the number for that case? uh
>> uh 308 and C255.
>> Thank you.
>> But again, I don't I I honestly think
I don't want to get too far into the
weeds on the value issue because if you
want to even ignore that, that's fine. I
think the impacts um the other impacts
are sufficient.
Let me read what uh
the school of government said about
secondary impacts.
The individual alleging standing must
show secondary adverse impacts
particular to his or her property. For
example, impacts related by traffic,
parking, security, storm water runoff,
littering, and noise may be key factors
in depreciating property values. The
essential element is a credible
allegation of harm to the use and
enjoyment of a particular property.
And then I'll I'll go back and say vague
general allegations of decreased
property value are insufficient.
The essential element is a credible
allegation of harm. I I just
um
we'll see how the board
>> but and I would just say you keep coming
back to the value those other impacts
don't have to be impacts on the value.
They can be impacts on employment. It
doesn't have to be a value impact. So,
um I I'm going to go find where what section is the short-term rental
article
» 10
towards the end.
I think it's 10
rules.
10 16-10
12
in fact
right
All right, Mr. Patrick.
>> All right, fellow board members. Um,
we're going to do a motion and a vote as
to whether and we'll take these folks
one at a time
have met their obligation for standing.
I think you get the idea. It can't be
big and
very speculative. It's it's it's got to
be a very credible um
allegation of special damages.
Um,
[snorts] so from the first uh person
that came up, Miss Fence,
forgive me on that. Uh, I'll note that
um,
>> Mr. Springs, uh, somebody in the back
here to speak up a little bit. Okay.
Microphone.
Um,
we'll start with Miss Freric's. Um, I'm
going to note that um, maybe I didn't
take good notes, but it's the damage to
property values that is the most Well, I
think that's pretty much all she hung
her hat on on that.
>> No, I specifically didn't. I
specifically just repeated several times
that you could throw out the property
value argument and then we have other
negative impacts.
>> Okay. I didn't hear any any other
impacts from this frag. Do you want to
reopen her direct examination?
>> Um,
>> I heard her talk about property value,
but I didn't hear hear anything else.
>> Well, she she spoke to being concerned
about generally about safety um from
living from having not knowing neighbors
and having strangers be down the street.
So, or two doors down, but that was that
was it. I apologize, Mr. Spring. I
thought you were referring to I didn't
realize you're referring to Miss Fair. I
didn't hear who you were speaking.
>> I'm sorry. I'm I'm a mumbler. Um, fellow
board members, all I heard her say was
she was worried about property bays.
Anybody hear her say anything else?
>> Her safety.
>> Yeah, I heard
>> safety as in the context of knowing her
neighbors if she were to slip in the
ice, for example.
>> Okay.
» All right. We'll take them one by one.
Um,
the motion has to either say she she um
established standing or she hasn't. Uh,
I'll say I got to pick one or the other.
I'll pick has established standing. And
if you don't think so, you can say no.
So, make a motion that we find Miss
Sarah Fry
um has established standing to enter
into the case before us. Is there a
second?
>> I second it.
>> And Mr. Sher seconds. Um,
>> I can't hear anything. Nothing.
>> I'm doing the best I can. [laughter]
>> Do those just record or do they also
>> I don't
I'll try to speak up. Um,
>> all those.
>> No, I don't think
» you can hear it.
>> All right. Is that better?
>> Yes. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> M. Are you closing discussion?
>> Um I I'm [snorts] sorry. I was going to
do Do you have further?
>> I'd just like to discuss.
>> Sure. Let's go. Let's Let's go back
before I withdraw the motion and let's
have further discussion on Miss U. Sarah
Fri's situation. Mr. Mr. Walker,
>> I'm talking more in general.
>> Okay. Go ahead. If I go back to 1402
J3A,
um it says
well it says two things in particular.
Use value of your use impacting other
property value of your property and
specifically says increased behavior and
traffic are both conclusively
incompetent.
conclusively.
Um,
and it's in general what I've heard is
personal safety, light, noise, and then
property. All of which to me are vague.
Light, noise, safety. That's all vague
to me and leads into property value.
Seems like secondary
um concerns
um
or hypothetical concerns.
Um, I think they're legitimate concerns,
but I ju I just don't think there's
been enough put before us to to get to
grander standing.
>> Anybody want to see if anybody had any
other
>> I think the uh the idea
what all that noise is. Um, I live in
I'm a full-time resident in a Chhatola
condo and there are short-term rentals
all around me. And I can tell you from
my experience that there is additional
noise
and
unsettled things compared to a full-time
resident or a like a person who lives in
Florida and comes up in the in the
summer compared to a short-term rental
where you sometimes have multiple cars,
multiple people
um and uh making a significant amount of
noise more than a person that just lives
there. They might drive up, take their
groceries in for a short-term rental.
You're going to have more activity and
it can be disruptive. Um, but it's not
necessarily. So, my wife and I rent
Airbnbs and we try to be, you know,
courteous and, yeah, we unload a whole
bunch of stuff out of our car. We're
going in and out. Um, and that can be,
you know, disruptive to someone who is a
full-time resident or, you know, not
renting their place out. So for me,
[clears throat] I hear these three
people and I think they have standing
just based on my own experience. Now,
the law is another another issue, and
there could be fine lines that we need
to delineate,
>> but to me, just the idea of a short-term
rental means additional impact on the
neighborhood, cars coming and going more
frequently, people coming and going more
frequently, and potentially, you know,
loud parties.
C can you read what the town says?
>> Yes, please.
That's okay. I know it's a little out of
order track. Um, so this the section
16-10.2.12
short-term rentals. The board finds that
short-term rentals are an appropriate
use given the residential resort
character of Rock's planning
jurisdiction, provided that specific
controls are in place to regulate
parking, trash, noise, tenant safety,
and other related effects, thereby
protecting neighborhood property values
and the health, safety, and general
welfare of town citizens and visitors.
that specifically finds that that means
that short-term rentals have specific
impacts on parking, trash, noise, tenant
safety, and other effects that will have
impacts on property values, health
safety, and general welfare. So, I I
understand what Mr. Walker is saying,
and I don't disagree, but it isn't all
necessarily tied to values. It is those
are impacts that we have been permitted
the law has allowed the the town to find
are make short terminals different from
permanent residential use. The other
thing is they are the testimony has to
be speculative. Again, you're talking
about a use that doesn't currently
exist. That's like saying you're not
allowed to testify to the impact of a
proposed hotel because it's not there
yet.
It's not happening right now. So, they
are speculative. They have to be.
There's no way for you to get better
evidence of that. So, I'm those with I'm
in my humble opinion, those are not
reasons to deny standing because they're
impossible [snorts] to prove.
» Should we go back to
» All right. Have we closed discussion?
>> No. I the the town has passed this
ordinance saying they think short-term
rental is different.
>> How can we stand up here and say they're
wrong?
» Well, I think I think
>> we're doing opinion. The town has
already passed this ordinance.
I mean, to me that's different
subjects. We're speculating
and they've already made the case for
short-term rentals need special handling
and I don't know what kind of special
handling they get here. So,
>> well, we can't say because of the town
made that pronouncement that all
um standing shall be allowed. We can't
go
>> there. We have it's it's a very factsp
specific situation. We got to look at
this case. each one of these three
people their what they say their
situation is.
Um
is there anyone who might say if these
people don't have standing then no one
does.
» Yeah.
» Say that again.
>> But if these people don't have standing
then really no one does. They live
within 50 ft.
I'm asking a different question. Why is
why the town do this if those people
don't have staff? They have to have
staff.
» I think so.
» All right. Well, let's go.
>> It's not five people making a decision.
The whole town has elected people and
asked to short-term rules get handled
differently.
I we can have opinions.
I don't even know whether they have a
different PE property owners association
to handle these issues.
>> And Kevin, can you speak to why we send
out notices to all the people within a
certain proximity
of the property? [clears throat]
>> Well, simply the statute is required.
>> Okay. But hopefully there's a reason
behind it.
>> Yes.
>> All right. Well, let's move on. I don't
think I'm trying to make a case either
way. I'm saying the town already had
this opinion, so we have to say they
have a standing
>> or the town wouldn't have this ordinance
or whatever this is called.
» All right, let's take them one by one.
Um,
>> I've got one more.
>> Sure.
>> Comment.
>> Sure.
>> Mr. Schiller, gave his personal opinion
based on Chola and where he lives about
again for him it wasn't hypothetical but
it was all uh secondary impacts is that
even
admissive here his personal opinion
well our discussions
uh have to be in public and he expressed
Yeah,
>> but his personal opinion sounds to me
like a [clears throat]
potential predisposition to where this
heads.
>> That's a predisposition to allowing
standing because there there is an
impact. I mean, I I had seen the impact.
So, I just project that onto other
people. They're going to have a similar
they've come forward because of the
notice. They want to speak. they want to
say, you know, in opposition to the
short-term use because of the potential
impacts. I see the impacts. Now, I made
it's [clears throat] my opinion that
it's an impact.
Um, but, you know, it's
>> banks. I just want to clarify.
>> Yeah, sure. Sure.
>> It's my
>> I agree.
>> We've kicked it around. Let's see how
the vote does. I have a pretty good idea how we go, but I move
that um
we find that Sarah Fry
um has established
um special damage is sufficient to have
standing in this case. Do I have a
second?
>> I second.
>> Mr. Schiller seconds.
Um all those in favor of finding that
she has established standing say I.
>> I. All those that think she has not um
shown sufficient special damages say no.
So it's 3 to two
and so she has standing.
Um moving to Mary Lee Howell.
Um
>> so you voted no.
>> I voted no.
>> Okay. It's three
She has standing.
>> I just didn't hear his.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I said that. It's
three. It's three to two.
Um
on Mary Lee How? Anyone have any
discussion on on her situation and her
u special damages? Anything further?
>> Are we are we're voting whether she has
standing or not? What's the specific?
>> Yeah, I' I've got to make the motion.
either didn't make her case or didn't
make it did or did not. I I'm just
choosing to make the motion that she did
establish standing.
>> And if you don't think she did, you'll
say nay like I did on the last one. Um
so I make a motion that we find that
Mary Lee Howell has established
sufficient uh special damages to
establish standing. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> And Mr. Scher second that. And all those
finding that Mary Lee Howell has uh
produced sufficient evidence that she
has special damages and deserves
standing say I. I.
>> We said that's three. All those that
feel like um she has not produced enough
to u deserve standing say nay.
>> Nay. That's two. So she is she does have
standing. She's allowed to come into
this case as does Sarah Fri. Moving to
Chris Kemper. Uh, any more discussion on
Mr. Kemper's situation?
All right. I make a motion to find that
Mr. Kemper did produce evidence of
special damages such that
um, he deserves to come into this case
as a party. He has standing. If you
think he does, say, u,
>> oh, I'm sorry. Do I have a second?
>> Mr. Scher again is the second. Um all
those that feel like he has established
standing say I.
>> Okay.
>> And all those that feel he has not say
no. Nay. It's 3 to2 again. So he is
allowed to come in as a party. [snorts]
All right. Moving along.
Let's swear um all the witnesses, the
potential witnesses that haven't been
sworn in yet. Let's have let's do them
as a group if we could come on up.
» The evidence you shall give this body
and this matter shall be shall be the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth.
All right, we'll start with the uh town
of Blowing Rock
and
the person that's going to state their
case. Come on up.
one point in order just the order of
evidence but um that the appeal by Mr.
Hollister, which I think he has the
right to go first, but from a
evidentiary standpoint, I I have a
question about whether we are going to
be talking about this property as one
property or four. And the reason for
that is that these are four legally
distinct real estate units that were
acquired in one deed, but have been
previously owned based on their chains
of title by multiple different owners
individually, sometimes together,
sometimes separately. and that each unit
and the history of rentals and whether
any one unit should qualify has to be
taken separately. It's not the property
as a whole. These it's not an apartment
building. These are separately. You
could convey any one of these units in a
separate deed to someone else. Um and
they they were owned separately and
could have been rented long-term or
short-term separately for whatever the
history may be. So, I think they have to
be taken separately.
Let's um [clears throat]
Okay. Well, let's call that a motion and
let's let's see what Mr. Hollis if Mr.
>> That's really fine. I just wanted to
make that clear up front because I don't
I think it's viewed a little it's sort
of lumped together in the appeal and um
that's it. Thank you.
>> We'll get Mr. Hollister to speak to
that. Let me look
for something.
» We got to get some advertising. We got
to get people to We got to get
what we got,
too.
for you.
» Well,
It's one It's one property. Eie, do you
want me to um lead off and go through
the staff report and then y'all can
decide how you want to
>> Let's Let's Let's go ahead and get this
addressed. Now, I'm looking for uh some
ordinances that may
pertain
» [snorts]
» Um,
I'm looking at Blowing Rock Ordinance
16-8.
16-8.6
6.2
and I've got some extra copies of it if
um
if any of the parties would
Mr. uh Hollister, would you like a copy?
» Mr. Roth rocker, you want a copy?
>> I gave him out. He has a copy.
Okay. All right. Um,
Mr. Garrett, I'm I'm looking at
section
16-8.6.1.
If the principal activity on property
where a non-conforming situation other
than a non-conforming use exists is
[snorts]
well
short-term rentals is a use.
I'm sorry.
Look one one notch down 16-8.6.2
for purposes of determining whether a
right to continue a non-conforming
situation is lost pursuant to this
section. All of the buildings activities
and operations maintained on a lot are
generally to be considered as a hold.
For example, the failure to rent one
apartment in a non-conforming apartment
building for 1880 days shall not result
in a loss of the right to rent that
apartment or space thereafter so long as
the apartment building as a whole is
continuously maintained.
» [clears throat]
» At any rate, let's um
let's see if Mr. Hollister can shed some
light. Can you come up, Mr. Hollister?
>> Sure.
Okay. Who who is the owner of the
property now? Rock
>> Rock Primals
LLC.
» And it's and it's owned by James
Hollister.
>> Yes.
When did Rock Pine Reynolds buy
uh the property at
Believe we closed the first week of
September of 2025.
>> Let's see. Let me get the address right.
439 Chestnut Drive, units A, B, C, and D
in Blowing Rock.
U Rock Pine Reynolds bought it when? I
don't know the exact date, but it was
around the first week of September of
2025.
I forget the exact date.
» When I was trying to figure out who the
owner was, cuz you you had said you were
the owner, uh, I check the land records
and I see
that property being sold.
Um, I see George R. Kalis and Steven G.
Buchanan selling their property [snorts]
Rock Pine Reynolds
on
August 28th, 2025. Does that sound all
right?
>> That sounds right. Yes.
» Bought all of the units. All four units.
>> Yes. Okay.
Um,
Miss Garrett, do you have any questions
for Mr. Hollister?
>> Um,
well, Mr. H want to present his evidence
and I can ask questions after that.
>> No, you we're talking about your
concern, which I'm not quite clear on
about these four units.
>> So,
I think it's more of a legal point than
anything. Um
because these units, it's not an
apartment building. Um and because these
units have been separately conveyed and
owned through the course of there could
be one that was never short-term rented
ever. How could that possibly qualify
for grandfathering? How could you
possibly say that the entire property
can be grandfathered?
So, you have to be able to prove each
one was whichever ones he proves can be
grandfathered grandfathered.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hollister.
>> Does the town have any questions? So,
Mr. Hollister,
>> as far as Chelsea's motion,
» do you have a motion? It's not so much
motion as it is I think it it
if if I guess the only context I know
how to how to [snorts] say this is if
this were to go to a court for on appeal
by him or us
>> right
>> the question would be was there
competent material evidence below and if
there's not evidence of grandfathering
if you only receive evidence of
grandfathering on one unit for example
and I don't even know what the evidence
is going to
I would submit you don't have evidence
to conclude that three other units are
grandfathered. And I'm just trying to
limit the issues we have to argue about
on appeal if that were to happen.
>> Okay.
>> Because that is I I think important.
These are four distinct legal units. Um,
so and unlike like a Royal Oak
situation,
you know, um,
I I think it's the same. I I also think
unfortunately for all of us, no
ordinance drafting is a hard thing and
it's hard to contemplate every possible
scenario. Now that we're faced with this
scenario, I think you'd all agree that
that's not well worded
because obviously you wouldn't say that
all all buildings on an entire property
if one building was rented means all
buildings can be rented and
grandfathered. I'm sure that wasn't
intended, but that's what it says. And
I'm just making the point I don't think
that that's what was intended by that
clause. I don't know that it really
matters until he's presented evidence
because the evidence will control
whether something had a history of of
short-term rental or not. and you can
make that decision later if you decide
to green card or something. I just
wanted to make it clear. I don't think I
think our position is that's not you
can't treat it. You can't lump it all
together is our position. You guys don't
have to position. So I
>> I have a question and observation as
well. Uh so looking at that statute, the
word that I hone in on is apartment
um as opposed to any other
classification of a residence. Uh but
the question that I have for Miss
Garrett is are you suggesting that we
bifurcate this into four separate
hearings?
>> No, I don't mind for for Mr. I don't
want unless Mr. officer wants to do
something different. I don't want him to
feel like he's got to present anything
differently,
but I don't want to bring I didn't want
to wait to bring this up at the end of
all the evidence. I felt like it was
only fair to say we don't think and
we'll be arguing that you have to show
short-term rental use on each unit, not
just one unit at some point to qualify.
Um, and I don't I don't think it's fair
in that at the end.
>> Okay. Well, thank you. All right, Mr.
Hollis, you can just sit back down.
Thank you. We're going to lead off
[clears throat] with the town and
they're going to make their presentation
and then we'll uh
move on [clears throat] to Mr. Hollister
and then to the uh three interveners.
All right. Ready?
>> Sure.
>> Okay.
I want to read this into the record and
the attachments and exhibits are
included as part of that and referenced
in the staff report and I'll just read
it into the record
>> and then answer questions after.
>> All right. Let me let me let me say one
thing. The uh the staff report is not
evidence. it it's sent out to get us up
to speed on the case so that we can get
familiar with it um and not be hearing
about what kind of case it is for the
first time tonight. It's not evidence
and if somebody wants some part of the
staff report to be evidence that we
consider in our decision they need to
say I want this to be in evidence.
Um [clears throat]
all right, Mr. Mrock
I'm sorry I interrupted you. Go ahead.
Rockpine Reynolds LLC has appi appealed
a final administrative decision which is
included as exhibit A sent to Chad
Hollister as a registered agent of
Rockpine Rentals LLC on November 13th,
2025.
The administrative decision dated
November 13, 2025 denied Rockpine
Rentals LLC's request to allow
short-term rental at his property at 439
Chestnut Drive in Blowing Rock. The
subject property is zoned R6M multif
family
where short-term rental is not
permitted. The property is further
identified by Waga pin 28079651920000.
Mr. Hollister presented information to
the town after Rockpine Reynolds LLC
purchased the condominium building at
439 Chestnut Drive, units A through D
from Greg Buchanan and George Collus in
August 2025.
The information and request from Mr.
Hollister claimed through an affidavit
that Mr. Collis rented units on a
short-term rental basis less than 28
days prior to 2019.
Once the town modified the zoning
ordinance in August of 2019, consistent
with the North Carolina Court of Appeals
decision related to short-term rentals,
Mr. Collus claimed the town informed him
he could not continue with short-term
rentals.
Planning staff is not aware of Mr.
Collus ever renting units on a
short-term basis, and we have been
provided no evidence that indicates Mr.
Collins did. To our knowledge, it does
not appear that short-term rentals ever
happen at 439 Chestnut Drive, and no
occupancy tax receipts are available
that would indicate compliance with the
town's occupancy tax laws for any
rentals less than 28 days. Further,
planning staff is not aware of ever
having a conversation with Mr. Collus,
informing him that short-term rentals
were no longer permitted at his
property.
Even if Mr. Collus had rented short
terms had short-term rentals on the
subject property prior to 2019
which the planning staff contends that
the applicant has failed to prove. The
applicant produced evidence that runs
counter to its request confirming that
no short-term rental activity has
occurred on the subject property since
2019.
Pursuant to section 16-8.6
six of the town's land use code. Any
non-conforming use that has been
continued for a consecutive period of
180 days is deemed abandoned and cannot
be reestablished.
Here, the alleged non-conforming use has
been discontinued for a consecutive
period of at least 180 days starting in
2019 at the latest, thus abandoning the alleged non-conforming
use of the subject property.
Accordingly, in response to the
applicant's request for allowance of
short-term rentals at 439 Chestnut
Drive, staff denied this request based
on there being no evidence of prior and
continued short-term use in an R6M
multifamilies zoning district where
short-term [clears throat] rental is not
permitted.
Public notice for this appeal was mailed
on January 19th, 2026 to the property
owner and adjacent property owners
within 150 ft. That's exhibit B that's
in your packet. Has a map and uh and the
list of addresses
that were included on that map. property
was posted on January 9th, 2026 and a
public notice uh appeared in the Waga
Democrat on the on January 14th and 21st
of this year.
Any attachments that have been provided
to you, there's a letter of decision
dated November 13th, 2025. Appeal
application dated November 20th, 2025.
Uh Mr. Hollister had provided supporting
documents of his appeal and those have
been included as exhibit C.
Exhibit D is public notice and mailing L
list and the map. Exhibit E
aerial map of the subject property here.
Um subject property is red there as you
look on the screen. uh zoning map of the
subject property and then we also
included
uh ordinance sections uh that pertain to
short-term rental and uh I believe part
of the use table that shows where you
short-term rentals are allowed and where
they're not.
Okay. Um
couple pictures. This shows the property
in 2021.
um
from the street again in 2024.
Uh an aerial of the property and we've
been looking at that most of the night,
but we can see uh
the property located here.
Pine Village where some of the
neighbors that have spoken is right
here.
And
Everything else on there is
self-explanatory, I believe.
>> Uh then we have some code sections that
I've placed in front of you tonight
dealing with nonconformities
and uh abandonment of non-conforming
uses and situations.
That's all I have. I'd be glad to answer
questions. Do you want to put any
anything in the uh staff report? Do you
want to put any of those pieces of paper
into evidence?
>> All of it.
Yes, sir.
>> You would object to that.
>> Okay. On what grounds?
>> On the groundification for the affidavit
to come in based on the rules um
procedure that witness the stand is
local and in town. not available.
>> You're saying it's hearsay.
>> It's Yeah, the objection is hearsay
basic and and that it should not be
admissible. There's not a reason for
that hearsay to be overcome that that
Afghan is available.
>> Okay. Mr. Hollister, what do you have to
say about that?
>> I would say it's more that was
notoriized. I feel it should be
permitted. Okay.
>> Mr. Patrick.
Okay.
Um
the affidavit
unless Mr. uh Collins appears tonight to
testify
in person or by phone is hearsay and uh
will not be putting the evidence.
Um
anything else you would object to Miss
Garrett?
>> No.
>> And
Mr.
Patrick, you're the one that wants the
whole package in. So, I'm assuming you
agree with Mr. Rothrock. [clears throat]
The whole package with the exception of
the affidavit comes in. Or do you want
exclude anything else?
>> There's nothing else in the packet
beyond the affidavit that needs to be
excluded.
» So, Mr. Hollister, do you feel like
there's anything in the staff report
uh that should not be coming in come
into evidence and be part of our
deliberations?
>> Uh some of the statements made about
seems like they're hearsay that they
don't recall talking to Mr. Cus about
anything things [clears throat] like
that.
>> Well, that was that was Mr. Rothrock
talking.
>> That was a staff report though, right?
Wasn't you reading the staff report?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> That's me. That's not what you're
saying. That's me stating it,
>> right?
>> And I'll I'll speak to that if you if
you ask me.
>> But if the other town employees are not
here to I can't submit an affidavit, I
don't know other town employees
word of saying that they did not talk to
Mr.
>> Well, hearay hearsay involves actual
words.
If um
I don't see actual words here, he's he's
talking in general terms, but
[clears throat] he's not saying what
they said what they told him.
>> Okay.
>> So, it does hearay deals with the actual
words or or written words.
>> Um
anything else, Miss Garrett?
>> No. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, in the staff report,
everything but the affidavit comes into
evidence. Um,
» Mr. Chairman, do we need to vote on the
affidavit? Because I understand it's hearsay. Um, but uh,
>> we the rules are on objections that the
chair makes a ruling and [clears throat]
if anybody objects to that ruling, then
we take a vote of the whole board.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. Um,
» my right understanding the board has the
ability to determine if they want to
listen to the affidavit.
>> Well, we can read the affidavit.
>> Yeah.
>> And the affidavit's
>> you can decide what the weight is of it
>> and um well, it's it's hearsay and we're
not going to let it into evidence
because it's here.
>> Okay.
>> I think what Mr. Hollister is trying to
do is object. You just you just said
that
>> that the chair makes a decision and then
unless a party objects the chair's
decision holds otherwise the objection
allows discussion. Is that what I
understood?
>> Yeah, I guess I I thought I objected to
Yeah, I thought I objected to not
allowing the affidavit earlier.
>> Okay. All right. Do you want a vote of
the board? You're all right. You're
entitled to a vote of the board. Um,
I don't know that we need to put this in
the form of a motion. What do you think?
>> It's it's a matter of voting whether we
accept the
>> Yeah, I think it's just a straight vote.
Um, all board members,
>> would it not need to be a motion that's
then seconded and open for discussion
>> amongst us? [clears throat]
Well, do you want to Yeah, of course.
We'll discuss if you want to go ahead.
>> I'll move that we do not accept the
affidavit because as hearsay because
it's hearsay.
>> Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> All right. All right. So,
um,
what I wanted to discuss now that we
have the motion is, um,
you were quoting the North Carolina,
what's what's the book called? rules are
cool.
>> Um you said it's introduction of the
affidavit is hearsay but it's
discouraged.
>> Yes.
>> Discretion of the board.
>> Yes.
>> Um
so it's not a matter of cannot use it.
It's a matter of whether we give it any
weight. Right. [clears throat]
>> Am I understanding this correctly?
That's what I'm asking.
>> Well, we can't accept hearsay.
>> Well, no. We can accept this affidavit
and give it the weight that we believe
it deserves. It's discouraged though,
but it's not prevented. [clears throat]
It's not
» unless I misunderstood what you said
earlier.
>> Well, it's it's in the record. It's but
it's not evidence.
Um, [clears throat]
and looking at it, um,
I would say it's classic hearsay because
it raises more questions than it answers
it. I look at it and I go, I want to ask
all these things of this person and I
can't. Um,
because they're not here to testify to
it. It just raises so many questions,
you know, carries so many legal issues.
It's just it's the classic problems with
hearsay.
Anything else from any board member?
Okay. So, um
>> and I don't I don't know if this bears
on this case, but in the past we've
never accepted an affidavit.
>> Correct.
[clears throat]
>> Yeah. They be available on the phone.
>> Yeah. People have showed up on the phone
or
>> Well, if they're on the phone, they're
not here. we can ask him about.
>> And again, I don't know if that has any
weight, but I just or any bearing, but I
just feel like we've had this
conversation several times and we've
always not taken an affidavit.
>> Years ago, we took affidavits and it was
such a mess
um that we passed this rule that we
didn't say definitively, never ever, but strongly discouraged because
it it does violate the rules of
evidence.
Anything [clears throat]
further?
So, we need a vote. I'll let you
articulate it, Mr. Mr. Walker. If you
>> I moved that we do not enter the
affidavit into evidence as here because
it's here.
>> Okay. And the second was Miss
>> was Miss Murphy.
So
all those uh in favor of upholding
uh my ruling that it's uh hearsay and
will not come into evidence say I.
>> I. [clears throat]
>> I.
>> It's unanimous. So there there we go.
It's not in evidence. Um
now everybody gets a chance to question
Mr. Rothrock. Mr. Hollson, did you have
any questions of Mr. Rothro? No.
>> Okay. Miss Garrett.
>> Yeah.
>> And
>> any board member have any questions?
>> How far back do you retain records for
the payment of occupancy tax?
the the I don't know how long we keep
them, [snorts]
but I think and Joey might be able to
correct. I I think we have the ability
to collect them as far as 10 years.
That may not answer the question, but um
those started in 200
five for the town, I think.
But how far we can go back or
[clears throat] the records um
probably a tax question I can't answer.
>> Is that a state agency collecting those?
>> No, the town collects those and
distributes that to
well it goes to the TDA and then the
town gets a third back.
» Any [clears throat] other questions to
Mr. Roth?
>> Mr. Mr. Chair, I do have one thing that
I think could also be perceived as a
possible objection. Um, he did um
that Mr. Hollister did object to certain
portions of the packet, specifically
conversations that were maybe held
[snorts] elsewhere. Um,
I'll leave it up to you whether you want
to provide that with the same treatment
as the other in discussion and
determination of that amongst the board.
» I see what you're saying. Um, treat him
as having objected to my allowing
>> [clears throat]
>> um,
Mr. Rothrock's summary in
>> yeah I mean not the entire summary but u
[snorts] Mr. Hollister if I'm
understanding correctly you were
objecting to certain portions where Mr.
references
other
>> other town employees that don't that
don't remember anything.
>> Well, I forget exactly exactly. Yeah, he addressed that.
>> Clarify and maybe it might help what
he's saying is uh when I use the term
town staff,
I am referring to
myself
and the only other one that has been
here since
2019,
that would be Brian. And Brian's here if
he needs to be sworn. But
>> well, when it involves me making a
decision or being having conversations
with Mr. Collins, I can only answer for
myself and Brian can answer for himself.
>> Let me go back to Mr. Hollison. Mr.
Hollison, you've got a copy of the staff
report in front of you.
>> Read Read the part you object to. I
assume you don't object to all of it.
It's
>> No, I just
>> What What part do you object to? that
specific part where he was referring to
other town employees and their
recollection of events.
» Okay. Planning staff is not aware of Mr.
Collis over renting units. Is that what
you're talking about?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
Um
he's [snorts] not actually saying what
any words the planning staff said
though,
» but the general inclination is that
there it feels like he's saying that
because the staff doesn't remember
anything that it didn't happen. And that
seems like hearsay to me.
Can
>> I get some clarification? Are you I
understand his general objection to
anything in the packet that is hearsay.
>> Right.
>> Mr. Rock clarified that he says town
staff is referring to himself and other
town staff as present tonight.
>> Yeah.
So,
are there other statements whether
they're general or otherwise that that
you're worried about? Because I
understand what he's saying. I Mr.
Martin and I agree that he referenced
information
that came that was derived from someone
who is not here is hearsay. I don't have
an objection to that. I agree with that.
I just don't know which statements he's
referring to in the packet though.
» This is what you read, correct? I think
this what you read this page.
>> No, I was reading the staff. That's not
this was
>> yesterday. Got you.
» Mr. Rothart, you wrote the staff report. So that
paragraph
um you believe is accurate. It's your
own paragraph.
>> Yes.
>> Um
» if I'm term planning staff,
>> yeah, I'm going to Well, that covers
you. If that's broad and it just needs
to cover me, it can just cover me.
>> I'll leave it between you and your
attorney if you want to bring up Mr.
Bryant Johnson to plug in the other
person and make it um definitively not hearsay. I'll leave that up to you
up for the until that's done. Um,
[cough and clears throat]
I'm going to hold a decision um in
obeyance
for the time being on Mr. Hollister's
objection. Okay. Um,
so you say you have made all of the
legally required notices of this hearing
to private parties in the public.
>> Yes.
the property there at um 4 439 Chestnut
Drive, units A through D, Blowing Rock.
Is that in a short-term overlay
district?
>> No.
Does any other board member have any
questions? Any further questions, Mr.
Rothro?
No. I'm just um
wondering if we had documentation like
occupancy tax returns, payments for tax
collected sometime in 2019.
prior to the passing of the uh of the
ordinance
would that show I mean would that show
that there had been rental activity but
we have no such record
>> we don't have any records
» I sought them out
with staff members that are responsible
for that we did not find anything
and going back to Mr. Hollister that paragraph
um on the first page of the summary by
Mr. Rothrock.
>> Yes.
>> That's your objection. Plan planning
staff.
>> The vess of the planning staff.
>> Okay.
>> Going to put it on the record that it's
him and Ryan.
>> I don't see any problem.
>> Well, we're going to leave it up to the town to decide whether Ryan Johnson
needs to come up and address address
that section. So, Mr. Rosar, there are
no more questions for you. Thank you
very much, sir. Anything else for the
town?
» No,
Mr. Chair,
[clears throat]
>> you're finished with your presentation.
You don't want to put Ryan Johnson up.
>> Well, it is staff's presentation.
So at this point
we don't know what the other person said
to
leave Mr. Rothrock to say planning staff
all planning staff is not aware.
» So should we make a motion
[clears throat] to or should we just
swear them in? That seems like the easy
answer being a bride and having go up
here and ask [laughter]
[clears throat and cough]
you about answer question.
[clears throat]
I just have a question or two with
Brian.
>> Sure.
>> Are you aware of
any conversation that occurred in in
2019 or thereabout that um that is
referenced here in the staff report?
>> No, I'm sorry.
Um, are you aware of
any evidence whatsoever that that
references any conversation that might
have occurred during that time affecting
this property?
>> I'm sorry.
» And for the record, my employment
started [clears throat] 2021.
Are you aware of any
short-term rental activity that's been
occurring on that property since your
hire in 2021?
>> I have not.
Have you received any um
evidence or or any information from
anyone that would suggest that there's
been rental activity there since the day
you're prior in 2021?
>> No, sir.
[snorts]
» I don't question.
>> Miss Garrett, any questions?
Um
I have
one or two. Mr. Johnson,
um did you ever talk with Mr. Collus at
any time about short-term rentals?
>> I have not.
>> Short-term rentals.
Are you personally aware of Mr. Coll
ever renting units on a short-term
basis?
>> I am not aware. No.
>> [clears throat]
>> I have nothing further. Any board member
have any questions of
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Patrick. Anything else for the town?
[clears throat]
» Yes, sir. Not on. [clears throat]
>> Okay. Mr. Hollister, it's your turn now
to make your presentation
and present your evidence.
If you would start out just by stating
your name. Uh Chad Hollister. Okay.
» I'm here. I'm Chad Hollister. I
represent Rock Pine Reynolds. Um as you
heard, my father owns property. I manage
it for him. Um, I wrote a statement just
so it would be clear and concise. And so
to start,
this appeal concerns the denial of a
non-confirming short-term rental status
of for the property at 439 Chestnut
Drive. The material facts are
straightforward. Prior owners George
Polus and Greg Pre Greg Buchanan
operated short-term rentals at this
property well before the town's 2019
ordinance changes. The use ceased only
after they were informed by the town
that short-term rentals were no longer
permitted. There were no voluntary
decisions to stop renting, no intent to
abandon the use, and no affirmative act
inconsistent with continuation of that
use. Under North Carolina, under North
Carolina law, including the Court of
Appeals decision in the Fraser versus
Town of Blowing Rock, a lawful
non-confirming use is not lost absent
voluntary abandonment. Compliance with
government direction is not abandonment.
The affidavit submitted by Mr. Kohas
establishes prior short-term rental use
and confirms that the cessation occurred
solely due to the town enforcement, not
owner intent. For those reasons, I
respectfully request that the board
reverse staff's determination and
recognize the property's lawful
non-conforming short-term rental use.
>> Thank you, Mr.
Real quick. I haven't spoken.
Note for the record, I'm Brian Martin.
I'm representing each of these
interveners along with Miss Garrett.
These interveners would object to uh the
vast majority of what was said right
there says that it's primarily hearsay.
Any reference to what Mr. Collus said,
any reference to uh statements
made to or by uh Mr. Collins, I think
would all fall under that category. Uh,
and I understand that the board could
choose to uh ignore that stuff having
heard it, but I just think we needed to
preserve that objection for the record.
» All right, Mr. Patrick, do you have
anything to say about this?
>> Nothing further beyond what Mr. Martin
said.
>> Um,
so Mr. Hollister, it's sort of like your objection about
the the planning staff. they're
objecting to what
you say happened because they think it's
based solely on hearsay. Let's see if it
is. Um,
do you know of your own knowledge
whether or not these units were um
short-term rentals prior to August 13th,
2019? Do you know of your own knowledge?
>> I do not have firsthand knowledge of
that.
Um,
and I would say nobody in this room has
firsthand knowledge of that.
[snorts]
» Question.
>> Sure. Go ahead.
>> Do we have any um records on on
occupancy tax or anything from the town
standpoint to show that it was ever
uh a short-term rental?
>> No.
» So, is it fair [clears throat] to say
that he has firsthand knowledge,
Kevin?
» I didn't find any evidence of receipts
or
>> Right.
>> Did you acknowledgement of rental at
that location through tax receipts?
» [clears throat]
>> I ask a question.
>> Do you have tax receipts going back? Do
you actually Where's the last tax
receipt that you can bring up?
>> I would ask.
>> I don't know how far back they go or how
far they're kept.
>> So, did you not find any because they
just don't exist? There's no paper
trail.
>> Correct. Okay.
>> So, it's not that they don't exist
because they're there. [clears throat]
Gotcha.
So,
» you had something to say about intent
and abandonment. Can you tell us that
again? I didn't catch it all.
uh basically that the pro the previous
owners never intended to abandon their
right to short-term rent.
Okay.
» Which is based on hearsay.
[clears throat]
>> It's based on the affidavit which you're
considering here.
>> Okay.
But I will say it's a
it was a it's a notorized affidavit. So
you take it for what you want.
>> It's it's it's sworn. Of course it our
evidence, our testimony has to be sworn
and it meets that requirement. It's just
the fact that he's not here. It's
>> I understand.
>> Right.
>> I do believe in a court of law. It's
admissible though. So
>> who says a court of law?
>> Not I know this isn't a court of law but
saying it [clears throat]
if it I mean it is allowed to go into a
regular court that's evidence I believe.
>> Well I might disagree with you there.
Um,
[clears throat]
Mr. Mr. Holl, did you have anything else
to add?
>> I would say that the 180day rule should
not apply here because there was no
intent to abandon. So the only reason
that the 180 day gap exists was because
they were told they weren't allowed to
do it. So it's there was no there was no
intent to not do it. If they were
allowed to have kept doing it, that 180
days would never have lapsed.
Okay,
» M. Garrett, any questions?
>> No, [clears throat] we would just renew
the objection just for purposes of the
record.
>> Um,
well, I sustain the objection. The hearsay of the the affidavit is not in evidence. that document is in
the record that down the road somebody
some judge wanted to see everything to
do with this case it would be there but
it's not in evidence
um Mr. Petri any more questions of Mr.
Hollister
>> no board member have any further okay
thank you Mr. calls.
» Um, Miss Garrett.
» She didn't hear you.
[cough]
>> Mr. Springs. I think at this time um the
interveners would move to dismiss based
on the grounds that there's a lack of
sufficient evidence point basis to meet
the criteria for this grandfather
grandfathering status. Um
the bare bones here would be that
there's some testimony, there's some
evidence um that there were short-term
rentals at any point uh much less of the
180day gap. But there is no evidence
because of what I think were proper
decisions by this board as to what's
not. There is simply no evidence before
this board that there has been
short-term rentals at any time relevant
to this matter. So I just don't think
that the evidence to get to the point of
interveners even putting on evidence
that I just don't think there's enough
evidence to survive to that point.
» Mr. Peter,
>> nothing.
Um,
it's well argued, Mr. Martin, but I
think Mr. Hollister deserves a decision.
Um, we'll take a short comfort break,
bathroom break, and then uh the board
will start to do uh factual findings and
then conclusions of law. So,
[clears throat] bathroom break.
[music]
» [music]
» Heat. Heat.
[music]
» [music]
>> Heat. Heat.
[music]
» [music]
» Heat. Heat. [music]
» [music]
>> Heat. Heat.
[music]
» [music]
>> Heat.
[music]
Heat.
[music]
» [music]
» No [music] word listing. its findings of
fact.
Fellow board members, um, [snorts] stop
me if I say something incorrectly.
Um, and I'll begin. The address of the
property at issue in this case is 439
Chestnut Drive, units A, B, C, and D,
Ling Rock, North Carolina. For
convenience, we shall refer to it
hereafter as the property. The Waga
County PIN number for the property is
2807-96-5192-0000.
[clears throat]
The appellant
is Chad Hollister
representing
Rock Pine
Rentals LLC.
The owner of the property at issue is
Rock Pine Rentals
LLC. The owner of Rockpine Reynolds LLC
is James Hollister
Rock Pine Reynolds LLC bought the
property
from
let's
I think I'll get I'll get it correct.
[clears throat] Uh, bought the property
from George R. Collus
[clears throat]
and Stephen
G. Buchanan,
Rockpine Reynolds LLC. bought the
property on August 28th,
2025.
The property at issue is in Blowing Rock
zoning district R-6M.
The property at issue is not
in a short-term overlay district.
All proper and required notices of this
hearing have been made.
The appellant contacted the Blowing Rock
Planning and Inspector's Office on
October 31st, 2025,
and he asked the planning director,
Kevin Rothrock, to confirm that the
property at 439 Chestnut Drive, units
ABCD, could be used for the use of
short-term rental.
» [clears throat]
>> The planning director informed the
appellant by letter that the property
could not be used for the use of
short-term rentals. The planning
director finding no evidence that the
proper has been used for short-term
rentals since the enactment of the
Blowing Rock ordinance regulating
[clears throat] short-term rentals on
August 13, 2019,
a period of more than 180 consecutive
days.
Blowing Rock Code section 16-8.6
says any non-conforming use such as
short-term rental that was otherwise
lawful when the zoning ordinance was
amended on August 13, 2019 would have
been allowed to continue provided that
the non-conforming us is not
discontinued for a consecutive period of
180 days.
The planning director based his denial
of the palance's request upon blowing
rock section 16-8.6
abandonment and discontinuence of
non-conforming situations when a
non-conforming use is a discontinued for
a consecutive period of 180 days or b
discontinued for any period of time
without a present intention to reinstate
the non-conforming use. The property
involved may thereafter be used only for
conforming purposes.
The appellant is appealing a final
administrative decision.
[snorts]
C exhibit A where in the town of Blowing
Rock's planning director Kevin Rothrock
notified appellent that appellants
request to have the use of short-term
rentals allowed on the property of 439
Chestnut Drive units A B C and D is
denied by the PL planning director. The
date of the denial by the planning
director is November 13, 2025.
The date of the appeal this appeal by
appellent is November 20th, 2025.
The use of short-term rentals became
non-conforming in Blowing Rock zoning
district R-6M
on August 13, 2019. The [clears throat]
Blowing Rock Land Use Code, hereafter
referred to as Blowing Rock Code in
section 16-10.1,
table of permissible uses at use
description 1.620 620
does not allow the use of short-term
rental of a residential dwelling unit in
zoning district R-6M.
Short-term rental, which is a
non-conforming use.
Short-term rental is defined in the
Blowing Rock Code section 16-10.12
as the rental, lease, or offer to make
available any attached or detached
residential dwelling unit or portion
thereof by way of a rental agreement,
lease, license, or any other means,
whether oral or written, for
compensation or consideration for a
duration that is less than 28
consecutive days.
Non-conforming use is defined as a
non-conforming situation that occurs
when property is used for a purpose or
in a manner made unlawful by the use
regulations applicable to the district
in which the property is located.
The blowing rock code ordinance which
says what is required to be in layman's
terms grandfathered is section 16-8.1.
Blowing Rock Code section 16-8.1
says continuation of non-conforming
situations and completion of
non-conforming projects except as
otherwise specifically provided
[clears throat] in this chapter.
Non-conforming situations that were
otherwise lawful on the effective date
of this chapter may be continued subject
to the restrictions and qualifications
set forth in section 16-8.2 2 and
16-8.9.
[clears throat]
The property here
has not been used for the non-conforming
use of short-term rentals since the date
of enactment August 13, 2019 of the
Blowing Rock Code zoning ordinance which
made short-term rentals a non-conforming
use section 16-10.12.
» Yes.
>> Question.
>> Yeah.
>> You mentioned
>> in the last paragraph that you
mentioned, you said 16-8.9.
Is that what you said? Yes, it subject
to the restrictions and qualifications
set forth in section 16.8.2 and 16-8.9.
>> There's not 8.9.
» Here's a three right under that. Is that
if I've got that right. [clears throat]
I was trying to understand the context
of the paragraph
>> 16-8
that's
let me let me find it.
And also 8.2 two
is talking about non-conforming laws. So
maybe it's it's 8.6.
>> Okay. I'm I'm I'm [clears throat]
reading
section 16-8.1.
>> Yep.
>> Subject to the restrictions and
qualifications set forth in section
16-8.2 and 16-8.9.
>> Yeah.
>> You say a 16-8.9 doesn't exist.
>> That's right. It's probably a typo.
>> Um
Well,
>> I'm looking at it, too. I see it there,
too.
>> Okay.
>> I I don't know what that's referring to.
>> Well, it's in the it's in the code, but
we'll leave it in there. If if it
doesn't exist, then it doesn't have many
restrictions and qualifications, I
guess.
» [clears throat]
» So, let me go back. The property here
has not been used for the non-conforming
use of short-term rentals since the date
of enactment, August 13, 2019, of the
Blowing Rock Code zoning ordinance,
which made short-term rentals a
non-conforming use.
Um
that would be se section 16-10.12
up until the date of this appeal
November [clears throat] 20th 2025.
» Anyone want to add any facts? Any board
member?
Okay. All right. I make a motion that we
accept the factual findings as just
stated. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Uh all in favor?
of accepting the factual findings as
I've just narrated them. Say I.
>> I. It's unanimous.
I move that we uh close the evidentiary
hearing at this time. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Seconded by Mr. Walker. Uh all those in
favor of closing the evidentiary hearing
and moving to conclusions of law say I.
>> I. It's unanimous.
The applicable standards
in [clears throat] order for appellent
to establish that the property 439
Chestnut Drive, units A, B, C, D,
Blowing Rock, North Carolina, should be
allowed to have the legal non-conforming
use of short-term rentals
um
in uh in its Blowing Rock R-6M zoning
district. The appellant must show by
substantial material and competent
evidence that a the property was being
used for that use prior to the enactment
of the blowing rock ordinance regulating
short-term rentals
um on August 13th, 2019 and the use was
otherwise lawful. C blowing rock code
section 16-8.1
and B the use continued and there was no
consecutive period of 180 days where
that non-conforming use has been
discontinued. See blowing rock code
section 16-8.6
or the appellet must show a vested right
to have short-term rentals has been
legally established. See blowing rock
code section 16-10.12.1.
The conclusions of law. The appellent
has not pursued a vested right argument
that the property should be allowed to
have non-conforming use of short-term
rentals. Appellant has not produced
evidence of a vested right. So, the
board finds no vested right for the
property to be allowed to non-conforming
use of short-term rentals.
Turning now to whether or not appellent
has produced substantial material or
confident evidence that the legal and
conforming use of short-term rentals had
been taking place at the property prior
to the enactment of the zoning amendment
on August 13, 2019, which made
short-term rentals a non-conforming use
in zoning district R-6M.
The appellant has not presented
substantial material and confident
evidence that the use of short-term
rentals took place at the property prior
to the zoning amendment on August 13,
2019.
[snorts]
» [clears throat]
» The appellant has not produced
substantial material and competent
evidence that after the town of Blowing
Rock began regulating short-term rentals
on August 13, 2019 under Blowing Rock
Code section 16-10.12.
There have been short-term rentals of
the property since that day and there
has been no consecutive period of 180
days where the non-conforming use of
short-term rentals has been
discontinued.
Blowing Rock Code section 16-8.6.3 6.3
provides that when a structure or
operation made non-conforming by this
chapter is vacant or discontinued
at the effective date of this chapter.
The 180day period for purposes of this
section begin to run at the effect at
the effective date of this chapter.
[clears throat]
The town of Blowing Rock through the
Blowing Rock planning director
has
produced substantial material and
competent evidence that there has been a
consecutive period of 180 days when the
property has not been used for the
non-conforming use of short-term
rentals. that use having been
discontinued and the period of
discontinuence has been from the
effective date of the chapter making
short-term rentals a non-conforming use
in zoning district R6M
August 13 2019 up until the date of the
appellance appeal November 20th 2025 and
continuing on to the present day the
evidence includes the appellants
[clears throat]
strike
» [snorts]
» The board of adjustment
finds
that the non-conforming use of
short-term rentals was discontinued for
a consecutive period of 180 days and the
property involved here is ordered of the
Blowing Rock Board of Adjustment to
hereafter be used only for conforming
purposes.
There has not been sufficient evidence
from the appellant that the applicable
standards have been met such that the
non-conforming use of short-term rentals
should be grandfathered and allowed as a
legal non-conforming use at the property
of 439 Chestnut Drive [clears throat]
units A, B, C, and D, Blowing Rock,
North Carolina.
After consideration of the evidence
produced at this appeal hearing, the
Blowing Rock board of adjustment
finds that the Blowing Rock planning
director was correct in his
determination that the non-conforming
use of short-term rentals is not allowed
at 439 Chestnut Drive, units A, B, C,
and D, Boing Rock, North Carolina. The
appellants appeal is not granted. The
board of [clears throat] adjustment did
adopt the above conclusions of law
and I make a motion that uh we adopt the
conclusions of law as just stated. Is
there a second?
>> Second.
>> Mr. Brandon second.
All in favor of adopting the conclusions
of law as I've just stated them say I.
>> I.
It is unanimous.
So the board of adjustment did adopt the
above conclusions of law by unanimous
vote and the board of adjustment
denies
the appellent's appeal by unanimous
vote.
This decision will be put into writing
for approval by all the participating
members of the Blong Rock Board of
Adjustment. This decision is effective
upon filing with the clerk.
Have I forgotten anything?
» I move that we conclude this meeting of
the Blowing Rock Board of Adjustment. Is
there a second?
>> Second.
>> Seconded by Miss Murphy. All in favor of
concluding this uh meeting say I.
>> I.
It's unanimous. And everyone have a
good evening and be careful of the eyes.