[0:15] [music]

[1:48] We call this uh meeting of the loin rock

[1:51] board of adjustment to order. I need

[1:54] these springs. I'm the chair. This is

[1:55] Mr. Jerry Starns, Mr. Steven Schiller.

[1:59] To my left is Miss Sarah Murphy, and Mr.

[2:01] Brandon Walker.

[2:03] Um,

[2:08] I thought we were going to elect

[2:09] officers tonight, but we are not. The

[2:13] foreign code says we're to elect our

[2:16] officers once a year. The only officers

[2:18] we have is the chair and the vice chair.

[2:21] And Mr.

[2:22] Rothrock

[2:24] um educated me that

[2:27] um new members are in a chair and and a

[2:32] chair and vice versa person selected

[2:34] once new members are installed in March

[2:37] and the current chair serves through

[2:39] that meeting in February if there is

[2:41] one. So we'll wait till the new board

[2:43] members come on if any [snorts] and

[2:45] we'll uh we'll we'll do it in March.

[2:47] Does that sound right Mr. Rothrock?

[2:49] >> Sounds right. Yes sir.

[2:52] And

[2:55] speaking of time, one of our local rules

[2:57] is that if this is still going on at

[2:59] 8:30, we will stop and decide if we can

[3:04] be through by 9:30. And if we're not

[3:06] confident we're going to be through at

[3:07] 9:30, we'll pick a continuence date at

[3:09] 8:30 and we'll leave then. The the goal

[3:13] is to never be here past 9:30.

[3:16] So keep your eye on the clock. If it

[3:20] hits 8:30 and I don't see anything,

[3:21] somebody pipe up and say, "Let's let's

[3:23] talk about the time." First thing we

[3:26] need to do is approve some minutes

[3:29] from our

[3:31] October 23rd, 2025

[3:35] meeting. Um,

[3:39] have all members of the board received a

[3:41] copy [clears throat] of those minutes?

[3:43] >> Does anyone see any errors or omissions

[3:46] in them? I did not. Anyone shaking their

[3:50] hand? No. Um, do I hear a motion to

[3:53] accept the uh minutes from the October

[3:56] 23rd, 2025 meeting?

[3:58] >> We accept.

[4:00] >> Mrs. Starns makes that motion. I second

[4:03] it. All in favor of approving the

[4:05] October 23rd, 2025 minutes as written,

[4:08] say I. I. And they are accepted and

[4:12] we'll move on.

[4:16] » [clears throat]

[4:22] » I had printed

[4:26] uh

[4:29] the North Carolina Court of Appeals

[4:31] case, Chad Frasier versus Town of

[4:33] Blowing Rock. I had a copy of the case

[4:35] printed for every board member and some

[4:39] um some notes I wanted to go over. Did

[4:43] anybody get a copy of that? Yeah. Um,

[4:47] and this is strictly for the the board's

[4:49] edification. Some members of the public,

[4:51] just be patient with us. This is the

[4:53] only time we get together.

[4:55] [clears throat]

[4:57] In the Frasier versus Town of Blowing

[4:58] Rock case before the North Carolina

[5:00] Court of Appeals, the court went over

[5:03] the history of the town's attempts to

[5:05] regulate temporary rentals,

[5:08] uh, which started in 1984.

[5:10] You see that history described in the

[5:12] factual and procedural background

[5:14] section of the case of the Fraser case.

[5:18] Later in the case, [clears throat] in

[5:19] the analysis section, starting on page

[5:21] seven,

[5:23] the court made various conclusions and

[5:25] statements of law including on page

[5:29] eight, the free use of property is

[5:31] favored in our state. [clears throat]

[5:35] Next, zoning ordinances are

[5:37] interrogation of the right of private

[5:39] property and where exemptions appear in

[5:41] favor of the property owner, they must

[5:43] be liberally construed in favor of such

[5:45] owner. That was on page eight of the

[5:47] case.

[5:49] Because zoning regulations are in

[5:51] derrogation of common law rights, they

[5:53] cannot be construed to include or

[5:55] exclude by implication that which is not

[5:58] clearly their expressed terms.

[6:02] The next one says, "When there is

[6:03] ambiguity ambiguity in a zoning

[6:06] regulation, there's a special rule of

[6:08] construction requiring the ambiguous

[6:10] language to be construed in favor of the

[6:13] free use of property.

[6:16] Wellfounded doubts as to the meaning of

[6:18] obscure provisions of a zoning ordinance

[6:21] should be resolved in favor of the free

[6:23] use of property. Our juristp prudence is

[6:26] clear that in the event of doubts or

[6:28] ambiguity, zoning regulations are to be

[6:30] construed in favor of the free use of

[6:33] property.

[6:39] The U

[6:40] Court of Appeals agreed with the

[6:42] Superior Court judge who heard the case

[6:45] when it was appealed over to the

[6:47] Superior Court in Boone when he said

[6:49] ambiguity can leave regulation in a

[6:51] state of uncertainty which in turn left

[6:54] the rights of land owners to the

[6:56] unguided discretion of the board of

[6:58] adjustment. That hurt

[7:02] the town properly. The town started

[7:05] properly regulating short-term rentals

[7:08] of less than 28 days for the first time

[7:12] on August 13th, 2019.

[7:15] The town's ordinances existing prior to,

[7:18] and this is me talking, this is no

[7:20] longer the court of appeals. The town's

[7:22] ordinances existing prior to August 13,

[7:25] 20, 2019 did not properly regulate I'm

[7:30] sorry, this is the court of appeals did

[7:31] not properly regulate short-term rentals

[7:33] of less than 28 days.

[7:37] Um, I noted there's a typographical

[7:40] error on page 11 of the case regarding

[7:42] the date of enactment of that new

[7:44] effective short-term rental ordinance.

[7:46] the date August 19th, 2019. In the first

[7:49] sentence of that last paragraph,

[7:52] >> great date is August 13, 2019.

[7:56] The Court of Appeals then said

[7:58] short-term rails were not regulated by

[7:59] the town until [clears throat] the 2019

[8:02] amendment, August 13th.

[8:05] Uh they noted the burden of proving the

[8:08] existence of an operation in violation

[8:10] of local town ordinance, zoning

[8:12] ordinance is on the town.

[8:15] Ordinarily, once the town meets its

[8:16] burden to establish the existence of a

[8:19] current zoning violation, the burden

[8:21] approved shifts to the land owner to

[8:23] establish the existence of a legal

[8:25] non-conforming use or other affirmative

[8:28] offense defense. The defendant of course

[8:31] has the burden of establishing all

[8:32] affirmative defenses whether they relate

[8:34] to the whole case or only to certain

[8:36] issues in the case. As to such defenses,

[8:38] he has the laboring ore. The city had

[8:41] the burden of proving the existence of

[8:43] the operation of an operation in

[8:45] violation of its zoning ordinance.

[8:48] Um the case tonight is not about a

[8:52] violation.

[8:54] Uh it's about trying to establish

[8:57] um short-term rentals. It's not a

[9:01] violation. We're not hearing a

[9:03] violation. The court of appeals noticed

[9:06] that section 16-2.2 of the blowing rock

[9:08] land use ordinances defines a

[9:10] non-conforming use as a non-conforming

[9:13] situation that occurs when the property

[9:15] is used for a purpose or in a manner

[9:17] made unlawful by the use regulations

[9:20] applicable to the district the zoning

[9:22] district in which the property is

[9:24] located.

[9:28] Referring to sections 16-8.1

[9:30] and 16-8.6 six of the land use

[9:33] ordinances. The court continued,

[9:35] "Non-conforming situations that were

[9:37] otherwise lawful on the effective date

[9:39] of this chapter may be continued

[9:40] [clears throat]

[9:41] provided the grandfather non-conforming

[9:44] use is not discontinued for a

[9:47] consecutive period of 180 days or

[9:49] discontinued for any period of time

[9:50] without a present in intention to

[9:53] reinstate the non-conforming use." That

[9:57] was on page 16 of the Frasier case.

[10:04] The court concluded that the effective

[10:06] date of the chapter was 13 August 2019.

[10:10] And since the time when Fraser bought

[10:11] the property on 29 June 2016, there had

[10:15] been no 180day period. He did not rent a

[10:18] unit for less than 28 days.

[10:21] The violation notice that Fraser

[10:22] received from the town was dated 13th

[10:24] September 2019. The court concluded that

[10:27] Frraasier had made out a primmaacy case

[10:29] of non-conforming use under the town's

[10:31] ordinances. The the court further

[10:34] concluded that Frraasier succeeded in

[10:35] his claim of grandfather non-conforming

[10:38] use when the court said the board of

[10:40] adjustments denial of Frasier's claim of

[10:42] grandfather non-conforming use was

[10:44] incorrect.

[10:46] So to kind of summarize that case,

[10:49] Fraser vises the property in question on

[10:52] 29 June 2016. Since that time, there had

[10:55] been no period of 180 days when Frasier

[10:58] had not rented the property for less

[11:00] than 28 days. He was actively renting

[11:02] it. Almost three years goes by when the

[11:06] when Blowing Rock enacts short-term

[11:07] rental restrictions on 13 August 2019.

[11:12] Up until that day, Blowing Rock has not

[11:14] had an effective short-term rental

[11:16] regulation ordinance to Fraser's use,

[11:19] could be said

[11:21] to be conforming or legal conforming.

[11:25] So, there was no law about short-term

[11:27] rentals until August 13th,

[11:30] 2019.

[11:32] Um,

[11:34] so he was entitled to do it. There was

[11:36] no law against it. On that day, 13

[11:39] August 2019, his use became legal

[11:42] nonconforming because he's

[11:44] grandfathered. And since his purchase of

[11:46] the property in 2016, there's been the

[11:48] period of 180 days when he didn't do a

[11:51] rental of less than 28 days.

[11:55] Um,

[11:59] private property rights obviously are

[12:01] very very important in the United States

[12:03] and in the state of North Carolina. and

[12:05] the courts uh jealously defend those

[12:09] private property rights.

[12:12] Um,

[12:14] so basically,

[12:16] um, I think what we've learned from this

[12:19] is,

[12:21] um, the or the ordinance in question has

[12:25] to be clear, has to be understandable,

[12:29] can't be ambiguous,

[12:32] and if it is ambiguous or hard to

[12:34] understand, um, we can't guess at it.

[12:39] Um,

[12:41] unfortunately ordinances aren't always

[12:43] as clear and u unambiguous as we would

[12:46] like, but we got to take the the law as

[12:48] it comes to us and in the close calls

[12:51] the land owner wins.

[12:56] Anybody got any questions?

[12:59] All right, let's move past that.

[13:05] and uh

[13:08] turn to the appeal we have scheduled for

[13:11] tonight.

[13:14] and

[13:22] find my checklist.

[13:34] » All right, Stephen. What'd you do?

[13:42] What are you looking for?

[13:43] >> My checklist.

[14:05] Let me see if I got

[14:09] It was here a minute ago.

[14:31] All right. This is

[14:39] [clears throat]

[14:40] here's case number 2025-01.

[14:44] Um

[14:48] the applicant or the appellant

[14:52] is Rockpine Reynolds LLC

[15:00] and

[15:10] Put that over there.

[15:31] The u the minutes

[15:36] will be kept by Miss um Wanu over here.

[15:41] And

[15:43] I noticed that the person that signed

[15:45] the application

[15:46] or signed the appeal notice is Mr. Chad

[15:50] Hollister. Is Mr. Hollister here?

[15:52] >> Yes.

[16:09] And it looks like you filed and signed

[16:11] the appeal on November 20th, 2025, Mr.

[16:15] Hollister.

[16:17] Uh the appeal

[16:19] >> the date that you sign the uh appeal

[16:23] notice or the appeal.

[16:25] >> That's what it says in yes

[16:27] real quick.

[16:28] >> Okay.

[16:30] >> That sounds about right though.

[16:31] >> Okay. All right. Um the applicant is

[16:35] Rockpine Reynolds LLC

[16:39] and the authorized representative is

[16:41] Ched Hollister. Is that correct?

[16:43] >> Yes.

[16:44] >> Okay. [snorts]

[16:45] Um,

[16:47] did you receive a copy of the

[16:50] uh staff report prior to tonight?

[16:54] >> Yes.

[16:54] >> Okay. Did all the board members get a

[16:56] copy of the staff report before tonight?

[16:59] >> Yes.

[16:59] >> Okay. All right. [clears throat]

[17:01] Um,

[17:05] I went through it when I got it. The

[17:07] purpose of the staff report is to kind

[17:09] of get us up to speed on what this is

[17:11] about so that we can kind of get

[17:13] prepared, the board members get prepared

[17:16] and know what the issues are and

[17:18] research those and know what ordinances

[17:21] and law is involved.

[17:24] Um,

[17:27] I went through it and I got a little bit

[17:28] confused because at one point in here

[17:31] you said you were the owner of the

[17:32] property or and then another point in

[17:36] here Mr. I think it was James Hollister

[17:38] said he owned the property. Who owns the

[17:41] property?

[17:42] >> Rock Pine Reynolds LLC owns the

[17:44] property.

[17:45] >> Okay. Who runs Who owns Rock Pine

[17:47] Reynolds LLC?

[17:49] >> My father James.

[17:50] >> Okay. So there might be a typo or

[17:53] something.

[17:55] I've managed the property.

[17:56] >> Okay.

[18:05] [snorts]

[18:10] » Um, are you a licensed attorney at law,

[18:13] Mr. Hollister? No.

[18:28] » [snorts]

[18:32] » Um, [clears throat]

[18:34] Mr. Hollister. Well, let me let me stop.

[18:36] Is there anyone here

[18:39] uh that feels like they should be a

[18:42] party to this case?

[18:44] Anyone here that feels like they should

[18:46] be a party?

[18:47] >> Uh, yes. Miss Garrett.

[18:48] >> My name is Chelsea Garrett. I'm here

[18:50] with my law partner, Brian Martin from

[18:51] Gil Mosley Law Firm, and we do represent

[18:54] several owners who would like to

[18:55] intervene in this hearing um if it goes

[18:58] forward tonight.

[18:59] >> Well, that's it's going to it's going to

[19:00] go forward. Let's

[19:03] um let's take them one by one and uh

[19:06] let's see if they meet the requirements

[19:07] for standing.

[19:12] So

[19:17] um I actually do have one preliminary

[19:20] matter um I would like to ask um and and

[19:24] that is I I could not find a copy of any

[19:26] rules of procedure or anything that the

[19:29] board had adopted online. I might have

[19:31] overlooked them. Um but I was under the

[19:34] impression that there were rules.

[19:37] >> Just a few. [laughter]

[19:38] >> Okay. And that one of them pertained to

[19:40] affidavit. Yes.

[19:41] >> Okay.

[19:42] >> Yes.

[19:42] >> Okay.

[19:43] >> Are you familiar with the wording of

[19:44] that?

[19:44] >> I'm just I vaguely recall that being an

[19:47] issue in a prior hearing years ago that was a fairly new rule and so I just

[19:50] wanted to hear about it.

[19:53] >> Right. Um I think I' I've got a copy of

[19:55] it right here.

[19:57] >> It's number three.

[19:59] >> And are they online, Mr. Petra?

[20:02] >> We're working on that. I don't know if

[20:04] that

[20:04] >> that's fine. I don't mind that they

[20:05] aren't. I just hope I didn't overlook

[20:07] them that well. So,

[20:09] >> no, they're available to the public, but

[20:10] I I think we're belated in get getting

[20:13] them online.

[20:14] >> I didn't mean to ask for report before

[20:16] tonight, so that's my fault.

[20:25] » Sworn affidavits. This is a rule we

[20:27] adopted back

[20:30] in 23 20 I'm sorry, [clears throat]

[20:33] 2021.

[20:35] Sworn affidavit. Introduction of sworn

[20:37] written affidavit into the record of a

[20:39] board hearing where the afanten of the

[20:41] statement is unavailable for

[20:43] cross-examination under oath or

[20:45] affirmation and where no hearsay

[20:47] exception for admissibility under the

[20:49] North Carolina rules of evidence exists

[20:51] is discouraged as incompetent evidence.

[20:54] Any introduction into the record of such

[20:57] hearay evidence shall be at the sole

[20:59] discretion of the board. That's the

[21:01] rule.

[21:04] Um,

[21:08] with that, I guess before I really say

[21:09] anything else about that, we should go

[21:11] ahead and um I'll bring up one witness

[21:13] at a time for intervention and see if

[21:15] the board approves. Um,

[21:17] >> Miss Garrett, do you want to review the

[21:20] uh rules of procedure for the board

[21:22] prior to doing this motion or anything

[21:25] further?

[21:26] >> Um, it might be good for me to look at

[21:28] them just to make sure and and also for

[21:29] Mr. Hollister to see them. Um

[21:32] >> he he does already have a copy. He

[21:35] should have already received a copy

[21:36] earlier.

[21:37] >> Um I have it pulled up here. I don't

[21:38] have a printed copy so much, but you

[21:41] want to look at it real quick. I'm sure

[21:43] >> Sure. Or if you want to email it. I

[21:44] think I have

[21:44] >> Yeah, that's fine. I'll just

[21:46] >> That' be okay. Thank you.

[21:47] >> Sure.

[21:48] >> Well, if it's going to speed things up,

[21:49] I'll hand you written copies. How about

[21:50] that?

[21:50] >> That's even better.

[21:51] >> That's fine.

[22:05] Just I need them back.

[22:33] This is called cleaning up the cockpit.

[22:49] Sure.

[22:52] Okay. So, with that said, um, now that

[22:54] I'm at the microphone, I'll just repeat.

[22:56] My name is Chelsea Garrett. I'm here

[22:58] with Brian Martin from Deal Mosley Law

[22:59] Firm. We represent several property

[23:01] owners that receive notice that are

[23:03] within 150 ft of the property. Um,

[23:05] that's the subject of the hearing

[23:07] tonight. Um, and they we believe qualify

[23:10] as having special damages and should be

[23:12] allowed to intervene. the first owner.

[23:14] Um, I'll just call up um Sarah.

[23:19] >> If you want to come up here real quick.

[23:21] [clears throat]

[23:27] » Yeah, we're going to need to get her

[23:30] sworn in.

[23:31] >> You want to go ahead and get all your

[23:32] folks sworn in?

[23:33] >> Yeah, we could. Why don't we have

[23:34] >> just Sarah, Chris,

[23:38] and I think that was and Ross

[23:41] >> or

[23:42] just want to be

[23:44] chairman.

[23:45] >> I think the three of you guys

[23:46] >> do you want to before we get too far

[23:48] into this questions about potential

[23:50] conflicts knowledge?

[23:52] >> That's that's a good idea. Let's let's

[23:54] do that. Um let me interrupt you, Miss

[23:58] Garrett. Well, they're all ready to be

[23:59] sworn. Let's go ahead and do that.

[24:04] » I think you got all hand

[24:12] Put your left hand on the bottom and

[24:14] raise your right.

[24:15] >> Oh, raise your right.

[24:16] >> Raise your right.

[24:17] >> There you go.

[24:18] >> Left and raise your right. There we go.

[24:20] Do you solve to the others? You shall

[24:22] give this body this matter shall be the

[24:25] truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

[24:26] truth.

[24:32] [snorts]

[24:33] >> Um, so just to preface my questions, um,

[24:36] >> let me let me do a couple things. Sure, Sure. Um, Mr. [clears throat]

[24:39] Walker's reminding me of it. Just to

[24:41] make sure we get these in before we go

[24:43] any further. Um,

[24:47] all the board members have received the

[24:50] um staff report. Did any of the board

[24:54] members drive by the property in

[24:55] question? We're able to do that, but

[24:58] let's ask who did. I did. I did.

[25:01] [clears throat]

[25:01] >> M. Okay. Mrs. Starns did. Mr. Schiller

[25:04] did not.

[25:05] >> I did.

[25:06] >> M. Murphy did. Mr. Walker.

[25:08] >> I did. I'd also like for everybody's

[25:10] benefit. I I'm one of the neighbors who

[25:13] received notice.

[25:14] >> Okay.

[25:15] >> I'm within that 150 ft.

[25:18] >> Okay. All right. Having received that

[25:20] notice, do you have any bias or um

[25:24] [clears throat]

[25:25] preconceived notions going into this?

[25:27] >> No, I don't.

[25:28] >> Okay. Um

[25:32] let's talk about conflicts and bias. A

[25:35] board member on this case must not

[25:37] participate or vote in any manner that

[25:38] would violate an affected person's

[25:41] constitutional right to an impartial

[25:42] decision maker. Imperible impermissible

[25:45] violations of due process include not

[25:48] disclosing any exparte communications a

[25:50] member had prior to the hearing. Anybody

[25:53] have any prior to the hearing

[25:55] conversations about [clears throat] this

[25:57] case with anyone?

[25:59] >> Okay. Everyone says no. A me a member

[26:03] must not have a fixed opinion prior to

[26:05] this hearing as to whether the

[26:06] particular variant should or should not

[26:07] be granted. Uh does anyone have a fixed

[26:10] opinion prior to this hearing as to

[26:12] whether the I'm sorry this isn't a v a

[26:15] variance whether this appeal should be

[26:17] granted. Anyone have any preconceived

[26:19] ideas about that? Everyone says no

[26:23] they don't. [clears throat] Um,

[26:27] a member must not participate in this

[26:29] case if the member has any close familia

[26:31] bu business or other close relationship

[26:33] with the person involved in this case.

[26:35] Anybody have any such connections to

[26:38] this case? I do not.

[26:40] >> I'm seeing no from everyone else. And a

[26:43] member must not have any financial

[26:44] interest in the outcome of the case. I

[26:46] don't. Anyone have?

[26:48] >> No.

[26:48] >> They all say no. So, we'll move on.

[26:53] The uh court of appeals has said that we

[26:58] um

[27:00] should let everybody know what our

[27:01] procedures are and how we operate. I'm

[27:03] going to do that right now. This hearing

[27:05] is a quasi judicial hearing. It's

[27:08] conducted according to the rules and

[27:09] laws pertaining to quasi judicial

[27:11] hearings. It will have all the essential

[27:13] elements of a fair trial. Parties will

[27:16] have the opportunity to give evidence,

[27:17] cross-examine witnesses, inspect

[27:20] documents, and testimony shall be under

[27:21] oath. The board's findings will be based

[27:24] upon substantial material and competent

[27:27] evidence. [cough] The North Carolina

[27:28] [clears throat] Court of Appeals has

[27:30] said that the decision decision of a

[27:32] board such as this must be based upon

[27:34] substantial competent and material

[27:37] evidence and North Carolina General

[27:40] Statute 160D-46J

[27:44] says the same thing. Substantial

[27:47] evidence is defined by the court of

[27:48] appeals as that which a reasonable mind

[27:50] would regard as sufficiently supporting

[27:51] a specific result. The court's also said

[27:54] is such relevant evidence as a

[27:57] reasonable mind might accept as adequate

[27:58] to support a conclusion. Material

[28:01] evidence has been said to be evidence

[28:02] having some logical connection with the

[28:04] consequential facts. Incompetent

[28:06] evidence is generally defined as

[28:08] synonymous with admissible evidence. It

[28:11] follows the rules.

[28:13] We are supposed to follow the North

[28:15] Carolina rules of evidence. The rules

[28:16] used in the North Carolina General Court

[28:19] of Justice.

[28:20] The type of evidence question that most

[28:22] often comes up is hearsay evidence.

[28:25] Hearsay is a verbal or written statement

[28:27] made prior to the hearing in the

[28:28] declarant is not here or on the

[28:30] telephone to testify under oath. The

[28:33] rules say hearsay is not admissible

[28:35] unless allowed under statute or by the

[28:38] rules. And the rules have a number of

[28:41] exceptions that will allow hearsay to be

[28:43] admitted into evidence. Probably the

[28:46] most used exception to this rule against

[28:48] hearsay is the exception for statements

[28:50] that were made outside the hearing by a

[28:52] party opponent. The party opponents here

[28:55] today are the appellant and the town and

[28:58] there may be an intervenor. We'll see

[29:00] shortly. They're opponents and what they

[29:02] or their agents or employees have said

[29:04] outside the hearing is admissible as a

[29:06] statement by a party opponent. It's a

[29:08] hearsay exception.

[29:14] We, the board, cannot make critical

[29:15] findings of fact based on hearsay. And

[29:18] if we hear what sounds like inadmissible

[29:20] hearsay being offered into evidence, we

[29:22] shall stop and discuss that situation

[29:25] with the parties.

[29:28] Um,

[29:32] yeah, Mr. Hollister up. Our minute taker

[29:36] is Miss Allison Wanu over here. She

[29:40] works for the town. She actually works

[29:42] for Mr. Rothrock. Do you have any

[29:44] objection to her keeping the minutes of

[29:46] this meeting?

[29:47] >> No.

[29:48] >> Okay. All right. Mr. Rothrock, do you

[29:51] have any

[29:52] objection to your assistant keeping the

[29:54] minutes of this meeting? No.

[29:55] >> Okay. All right. Miss Garrett, thank you

[29:57] for your patience. If you would

[29:59] continue.

[30:01] >> Thank you. So, um, as you guys have may have dealt with before, the um um

[30:09] because this is quasi judicial, the

[30:11] North Carolina statute 160D

[30:14] does not allow anyone other than the

[30:16] applicant and the board to present

[30:17] evidence unless they intervene. That is

[30:20] why um we are making an oral motion to

[30:22] intervene. Uh and in order to intervene,

[30:24] we have to show we would have standing.

[30:26] The standing is determined under

[30:29] 160D1402.

[30:31] Um and uh that states that

[30:37] um following persons have standing. Um

[30:41] that would include uh of course an owner

[30:44] in the property which is here. Uh and it

[30:48] includes any other person who will

[30:49] suffer special damages as a result of

[30:51] the decision being appealed.

[30:53] um and courts have in North Carolina

[30:56] have consistently considered some

[30:58] evidence of um special damages to be the

[31:03] fact that the ordinance already provides

[31:05] that folks within 150 ft of the subject

[31:07] property have special interest such that

[31:09] they've received special um direct

[31:11] notice. But that is some evidence that

[31:13] they would um by virtue of the town zone

[31:16] ordinance um be um separate and viewed

[31:20] separately from general community

[31:21] members that might want to come in and

[31:22] just speak to any application. Uh on top

[31:25] of that though um I would ask each

[31:27] property owner here to um state

[31:29] [clears throat] their proximity to

[31:30] property and what their concerns are.

[31:32] Um, I believe it's clear under the law,

[31:35] um, and, um, I think due process rules

[31:39] would, um, support allowing these

[31:42] particular owners to intervene. So, I'll

[31:44] just let them speak as to their

[31:46] particular proximity. Um, so, Miss

[31:49] Frederick,

[31:50] okay, good. Um, you give the board your

[31:53] full name.

[31:54] >> Sarah Freric.

[31:56] >> Can you spell your last name?

[31:58] >> F as in Frank. R E R I C HS

[32:04] >> C HS Okay.

[32:09] » Um Okay. And Miss [clears throat] Raric,

[32:11] uh where do you where is your property

[32:13] um here in Rock?

[32:14] >> Um it's 491 Chestnut Drive. So, two

[32:17] doors away.

[32:17] >> Two doors away.

[32:18] >> Okay.

[32:19] >> And um is it a single family residence?

[32:22] >> Yes, it is.

[32:23] >> Okay.

[32:23] >> And when did you purchase the property?

[32:25] >> October

[32:27] 2023. Okay. And when you purchased the

[32:31] property, did you inquire as to whether

[32:34] short-term rentals were permitted um at

[32:37] your property or anywhere near you?

[32:39] >> I did.

[32:39] >> Okay. Who did you ask?

[32:40] >> Um our realtor, Ruth.

[32:43] >> Okay. Uh and what were you told?

[32:45] >> Um we were told that there was an

[32:46] ordinance that um prohibited short-term

[32:49] rentals.

[32:50] >> Okay. Um and was that a factor in why

[32:54] you purchased this property?

[32:55] >> Absolutely. Would you have purchased the

[32:56] property if you had been told otherwise?

[33:00] >> You know, I can't answer that, I guess,

[33:03] because I don't know what I would have

[33:04] done back then, but I would like to say

[33:07] I wouldn't because I like, you know, I

[33:09] like my neighbors. I like the spirit of

[33:12] the neighborhood. I like having neighbors. I like knowing

[33:17] my neighbors. I like knowing who's going

[33:18] to be there if I get in trouble. But if

[33:20] I fall down on the ice, I like knowing

[33:22] who they are. So, um I would say that I

[33:25] wouldn't buy it, but you never, you

[33:26] know, I can't go back.

[33:27] >> So, what are your concerns related to

[33:30] having short-term rentals um as a

[33:32] neighbor?

[33:33] >> Well, um I do

[33:36] short-term rentals frequently throughout

[33:38] the years in different places in the

[33:39] United States, in the country. Um so, I

[33:41] know what it's like to have a short or

[33:43] to go to a short-term rental. And I'm

[33:46] not, you know, I'm not bad to the

[33:47] property yet. I don't fear that. But it

[33:50] is a different feel. You don't know your

[33:53] neighbors. You don't know. I can't call

[33:55] them up. Like, you can look out the

[33:56] [clears throat] window and see what

[33:57] Bill's doing. I don't, you know, I don't

[33:59] know them because it's somebody

[34:01] different all the time. So, it just

[34:02] gives it a different feel, a different a

[34:04] different feel.

[34:05] >> Okay. Um,

[34:10] do you have any concerns about impacts

[34:13] of the um of a short-term rental as

[34:15] opposed to a permanent resident?

[34:19] Um, well, I have a concern about it

[34:22] impacting the value of my home. Okay.

[34:25] >> Because I would not have paid what I

[34:27] paid for that house had I known it that

[34:31] there could be other short-term rentals.

[34:34] Okay.

[34:34] >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any

[34:36] further questions. Does the board have

[34:38] any?

[34:40] >> Does any board member have any questions

[34:41] for Miss Frederick? Is that what you

[34:44] said?

[34:46] >> Thank you. Um, Mr. Chad Hollister may

[34:50] want to ask her a question. I don't

[34:53] know.

[34:56] [snorts]

[34:56] >> Please say your name. Mary Lee Howell.

[34:59] And where

[35:00] >> I'm sorry, real. What was it?

[35:03] >> Mary Lee. L E I G H Howell. H O W E L L.

[35:09] >> Okay. Thank you.

[35:11] >> And um Miss How, where is uh your

[35:14] property located?

[35:16] 50 feet behind them.

[35:18] >> Okay. What is the address of your

[35:19] property?

[35:20] >> We are 135 Pine Village. So, we are the

[35:23] very first townhouse you get to on Pine

[35:25] Village.

[35:26] >> Okay. Um and um do you have you said 50

[35:30] ft. Do you have a clear view of the

[35:32] subject property?

[35:33] >> Oh, yeah.

[35:34] >> Okay. And are there are there any

[35:37] porches or decks or patios?

[35:39] >> There's one balcony. Um I mean theirs,

[35:43] right? Yeah. one balcony um that's

[35:45] directly in front of our floor

[35:47] [clears throat] and then the entrance to

[35:49] a basement apartment is also there.

[35:50] >> Okay.

[35:52] Um and

[35:55] what um do you [clears throat] have

[35:57] concerns about the um subject property

[36:00] being allowed to be used for short-term

[36:02] rentals?

[36:02] >> I've got at least three. Let's start

[36:04] with light, noise, and property value.

[36:08] Um the light thing being that when when

[36:11] they come around the end of the parking

[36:13] lot, the parking lot also sits directly

[36:15] in front of us. So if that means

[36:17] somebody comes up at night, it means

[36:18] they shine their headlights directly

[36:20] into our primary bedroom on the first

[36:22] floor. Um which is not fun,

[36:25] understandable.

[36:27] Um so we prefer that to be as little as

[36:31] possible.

[36:32] Um the second would be noise. We have a

[36:36] wonderfully quiet neighborhood on

[36:39] Chestnut Street. Um, and

[36:44] I own real estate. I've short-term and

[36:46] long-term rented and I can tell you the

[36:47] difference in the renters and what

[36:50] they're like.

[36:51] So, [clears throat] my second would be

[36:53] the noise thing. My third is property

[36:55] value. I've been investing in property

[36:57] for more than 20 years. I've had

[36:58] property in Blowing Rock since 2017. We

[37:01] have two places. And I can tell you that

[37:02] wealthy people do not like to buy STR

[37:05] friendly neighborhoods. Period.

[37:09] >> Okay. Any other questions?

[37:16] » Questions?

[37:18] >> No.

[37:18] >> Any board member have any questions?

[37:20] >> Mr. Hollister.

[37:23] >> I miss how if you're within 50 ft, did

[37:26] you receive the formal notice from the

[37:28] town?

[37:28] >> Can you say?

[37:29] >> Sorry. Did you receive the formal notice

[37:31] from the town?

[37:32] >> Yes. Yes, we did.

[37:40] » Please state your name.

[37:41] >> Chris Kemper.

[37:43] >> And you want to spell that?

[37:45] >> K E M P E R.

[37:47] >> I'm sorry.

[37:49] >> K E M P E R.

[37:54] >> Thank you.

[37:56] And um do you have property um that

[37:59] Well, let me ask first. Did you receive

[38:00] the notice from the town? We did.

[38:02] >> Okay. And where is your property

[38:04] located? [clears throat]

[38:05] >> 143 Pine Village. We're right next door

[38:08] to Merly How and 60 ft from the

[38:12] property?

[38:13] >> Okay. Um and when you purchase your

[38:17] property, um by chance, did you inquire

[38:20] about the ability to do any short for

[38:22] any short-term rental? [clears throat]

[38:24] >> We did. Okay.

[38:25] >> And we were told that they weren't

[38:26] allowed.

[38:27] >> Okay. Um, and when did you purchase your

[38:30] property?

[38:31] >> March of 2021.

[38:33] >> Okay. Um, since you purchased your

[38:36] property, are you aware of any

[38:37] short-term rentals at the subject

[38:38] property?

[38:39] >> I am not.

[38:42] >> And what concerns do you have regarding

[38:44] whether short-term rentals would be

[38:46] allowed at the subject property?

[38:48] >> It's the same concerns we've heard from

[38:49] the other two owners. Um, we have those

[38:51] same concerns. you know, property

[38:53] values, noise, um, not knowing who's

[38:56] coming in and out, safety. I do have

[38:59] three kids, so that's always a concern.

[39:02] Um, not to say that it would be rented

[39:05] to anybody of of danger, but, you know,

[39:07] it's still a concern. So,

[39:10] >> um, do you have concerns at all about

[39:12] your value? Absolutely. Okay.

[39:14] >> Yep. Absolutely.

[39:16] >> Okay. [clears throat]

[39:18] >> No further questions for Mr. Ker from

[39:20] me. Well, you say you have concerns

[39:22] about your value. Tell us more about

[39:24] that.

[39:24] >> Well, just it's the same thing that the

[39:26] previous owners mentioned is that when

[39:28] you have the short-term rentals, is that

[39:29] you can run the risk of your property's

[39:31] values going down. And like a lot of the

[39:33] previous people that spoke, is that we

[39:35] didn't buy, you know, in Blowing Rock,

[39:38] especially where we bought so we could

[39:40] see our property values go down because

[39:41] of an ordinance that was misunderstood.

[39:46] Okay.

[39:47] >> Would you have paid the same thing for

[39:49] your own property had you known

[39:51] short-term rentals were allowed close

[39:54] by?

[39:55] >> So, I go back to the same thing that

[39:57] Sarah said is that I don't know. I don't

[40:01] know that I would I would my gut tells

[40:03] me that I wouldn't, but I I can't answer

[40:06] that honestly without

[40:11] » any board member have any more

[40:12] questions? Mr. Hollister, any questions?

[40:16] Thank you. Thank you very much.

[40:19] >> Anything else, Miss Gar?

[40:20] >> No, those would be the um three owners

[40:23] we believe qualify standing to

[40:24] intervene.

[40:27] >> Board members, we'll have to

[40:30] discuss this for a minute and then take

[40:31] a vote. I'm looking at

[40:35] are literally handbook the quasi

[40:37] judicial handbook a guide for boards

[40:39] making development regulation decisions

[40:42] written by the UNC school of government

[40:45] the professors there you've heard me say

[40:47] many times they're they're the guys that

[40:50] teach the legislators in Raleigh about

[40:52] lane east law they are the people that

[40:55] helped to write the laws I'm looking at

[40:58] their book

[41:00] and they have gone over the laundry list

[41:04] as Miss Garrett did of ways you can

[41:06] become a party. You have to have

[41:09] standing. And if you're alleging special

[41:13] damages,

[41:14] uh it's got to be

[41:17] um

[41:25] it's got to be fairly substantial.

[41:29] Um

[41:32] common denominator here with the three

[41:34] folks that want to come in as parties or

[41:37] they're afraid of their property values

[41:38] going down. Um,

[41:42] and not to be disrespectful, the book

[41:45] does say vague and they're citing a

[41:47] case. I'll give the site in a minute.

[41:49] Vague general allegations of decreased

[41:51] property value are insufficient. And

[41:54] then they cite Lloyd versus town of

[41:56] Chapel Hill found at 127 North Carolina

[42:00] appeal. uh fields at 347 [snorts]

[42:05] uh 489 Southeast 2nd page 898 from 1997.

[42:11] Um

[42:14] the um

[42:18] secondary impacts of noise and the light

[42:21] and not knowing who's over there are

[42:24] obviously concern. Um I'm I'm

[42:35] worried we might get be getting too far

[42:37] over our skis if if we allow these

[42:39] people to to come in. What What do I

[42:42] don't know. What do you think?

[42:44] >> So [clears throat] was proximity alone u

[42:48] reason to say they have standing?

[42:51] No, you got you got you got to allege

[42:53] some hurt, some some harm proximity

[42:56] alone. Okay. No. Um, [snorts]

[43:05] » may I respond to one thing?

[43:08] >> Absolutely. We would love all the help

[43:10] you can give us.

[43:10] >> I I was looking for it. Um, I'm trying

[43:12] to find it. Um, my recollection is on

[43:15] the issue um of the property values. Um

[43:19] that is absolutely right as to um

[43:24] general speculation regarding values but

[43:26] there is case law that does state and I

[43:28] don't know how that's phrased in the

[43:29] book Mr. Springs [clears throat]

[43:31] >> um but I I want to say there's a

[43:32] distinction which is that an individual

[43:34] property owner is permitted to give an

[43:36] opinion as to the value of their own

[43:38] property. Um so um there is a case that

[43:43] says that um there's a limited scope

[43:46] that individual property owners allowed

[43:48] to say. So even though the property

[43:49] owner themselves has not performed

[43:51] evaluation

[43:52] cannot say that there is a specific

[43:54] demunition value that's going to occur

[43:56] to say that they may may or may not have

[44:00] purchased their property may or may not

[44:02] purchase it again would may or may not

[44:03] have paid that same amount had they

[44:05] known that. um I believe to be

[44:09] sufficient on that on that point. I

[44:11] would also say for what it's worth from

[44:15] a due process standpoint in my

[44:16] experience based on the case law um

[44:21] there's

[44:24] I believe the courts fairly liberally

[44:26] construe as long as there is number one

[44:28] the proximity that they are they are

[44:31] distinguished these owners are

[44:32] distinguished from someone two miles

[44:35] away from coming in and just saying they

[44:37] don't like short-term rentals um because

[44:39] they would personally

[44:40] visibly see the use of the property and

[44:43] experience the use of the property,

[44:45] good, bad, or otherwise. Um, so I

[44:48] [sighs] I would submit and I'm not

[44:50] saying I'm not saying this next

[44:51] statement because I would ever even

[44:53] encourage it or that the clients would

[44:54] ever want to do it. I believe based on

[44:56] the law that they would have grounds um

[44:59] for a denovo review of the question of

[45:02] intervention

[45:03] um and that boards generally are on the

[45:06] side of allowing it, but that's been my

[45:08] experience. It doesn't mean you have to.

[45:10] So

[45:11] >> Eie, I'm not aware of such a case. Um

[45:14] but if you

[45:16] >> I don't know if you have access to it,

[45:17] but

[45:18] >> you're you represent the town, right?

[45:20] >> Correct.

[45:20] >> Let's make sure we have the players,

[45:21] right?

[45:22] >> Correct.

[45:22] >> And um Sure. weigh into it.

[45:25] >> Okay. Um, well, if you were to uh look

[45:28] to general statute 160D-1402,

[45:33] » right,

[45:34] >> J3

[45:36] A.

[45:37] It says that the term competent evidence

[45:40] as used in this subsection shall,

[45:43] regardless of the lack of a timely

[45:45] objection, uh, not be deemed to include

[45:48] the opinion testimony of lay witnesses

[45:51] as to any of the following. A is the use

[45:55] of property in a particular way

[45:57] affecting the value of other property

[46:01] and it doesn't specify anything beyond

[46:03] other property.

[46:04] >> Give give me give me the number of

[46:05] [clears throat] the statute again. What

[46:06] was it? 1402. 1402

[46:10] J3

[46:11] A.

[46:32] [clears throat]

[46:34] Yeah, that statute says the um

[46:38] competent evidence is not to be deemed

[46:40] to include the opinion testimony of lay

[46:43] witnesses as to any of the following. Uh

[46:47] the use of property in a particular way

[46:48] affects the value of other property.

[46:51] Um

[46:58] anything from any other board member?

[47:01] [clears throat]

[47:02] Does Chelsea have the case law?

[47:04] >> I'm looking for it right now. Um

[47:10] trying to get my hot spot to work.

[47:12] >> This is the new 160D, Miss Garrett.

[47:17] I have the statute pulled up, but what

[47:19] I'm saying is the case law, my

[47:20] understanding of the case law is that

[47:22] statute says lay person's opinion of

[47:24] value and the case provides an exception

[47:26] that if you're the owner of the property

[47:28] that you are not a lay person giving

[47:30] back opinion on someone else's value. So

[47:32] that's what I'm look for.

[47:34] >> Okay. All right.

[47:44] I just think fellow board members that

[47:46] somebody

[47:48] um [clears throat] even if they were

[47:50] allowed to give an opinion of what their

[47:52] property is worth to speculate as to

[47:55] what having a short-term rental house

[47:58] nearby is going to do to their property

[48:00] value. And that's just that's just not

[48:02] something a lay person is ready to do.

[48:05] Um,

[48:08] I just don't think it's um

[48:14] where we should go. Anybody have any

[48:16] other

[48:18] >> I see where you're coming from, but I

[48:20] think if she comes up with a case law,

[48:22] we have to consider that as well because

[48:24] >> Yeah.

[48:25] >> We don't want to be put in a position

[48:26] where we aren't giving the people

[48:28] >> the voice.

[48:29] >> Yeah.

[48:52] What is that?

[48:57] Sure.

[49:03] [clears throat]

[49:28] Sorry, I'm screwed.

[49:29] >> I like I like having

[50:02] Get it away from me.

[50:17] [snorts]

[50:18] What does this mean?

[50:23] proximity is

[50:26] you can factor that in but it's not

[50:28] enough just because you're right close

[50:30] by

[50:31] >> but I just didn't mean that they're

[50:32] saying there I'm just trying to

[50:34] understand what that means

[50:40] » it's not

[50:44] true

[50:46] that's true I have Um [clears throat]

[50:52] so um one of the Mr. brought up the um

[50:58] school of government which is I agreed

[50:59] an excellent resource. They have lots of

[51:01] blogs and articles and things

[51:03] interpreting case laws that comes out.

[51:04] Um one of them is um a blog from Adam Love Lady. Can the

[51:11] neighbor speak? Can the neighbor appeal

[51:12] standing in quasa judicial hearings? Um

[51:15] it discusses a couple cases. One of them

[51:18] is um the um Mangum versus Raleigh Board

[51:24] of Adjustment case which says proximity

[51:27] is a factor in standing but not

[51:28] determinative as noted in the case of

[51:31] Mangum versus Raleigh Board of

[51:32] Adjustment which is a case from 2008 um

[51:35] Supreme Court. Um while proximity in and

[51:39] of itself is insufficient to grant

[51:40] standing, it does bear some weight on

[51:42] the issue of whether the complaining

[51:43] party has suffered or will suffer

[51:44] special damages distinct from those

[51:46] damages um to the public at large. And

[51:50] in Mangum, the court allowed the

[51:52] interveners um the the the the board at

[51:56] the first level and then of course on

[51:58] appeal affirmed the um intervention

[52:01] stating that um

[52:04] uh let's see that they had standing um

[52:08] based on a combination of proximity and

[52:10] potential injury. The inter interveners

[52:13] own property contiguous to the subject

[52:15] property which we have here or in the

[52:17] immediate vicinity. Interveners access

[52:20] their property by one road, the same

[52:22] road accessing the subject property and

[52:24] the proposed increase in density on the

[52:26] subject property. That's an increase in

[52:28] density issue, but they testified as to

[52:30] traffic, light pollution, noise and

[52:32] other related pollution. So in that

[52:34] case, there was there was no reliance on

[52:37] even dimmunition and value testimony. It

[52:40] was purely concerns regarding light

[52:42] safety, noise, traffic, light pollution.

[52:44] Um,

[52:46] so, um, that [clears throat] again,

[52:48] that's the Mangum versus,

[52:51] um, Raleigh Board of Adjustment. Let's

[52:54] see if I can find another one.

[53:02] Wouldn't Wouldn't you agree that the the

[53:05] [clears throat] building has four units?

[53:07] Wouldn't you agree that there going to

[53:09] be four families there at some point

[53:12] regardless and they're going to all have

[53:13] cars and they're all going to be human

[53:15] beings and make some noise?

[53:18] [snorts]

[53:18] >> Well, that's true. But I think I I guess

[53:21] if what you're saying is that is that

[53:23] short-term rentals

[53:25] or have the same impact that regular

[53:27] permanent residents do. Your own

[53:30] ordinance says the opposite. your own

[53:32] ordinance regulates short-term rentals

[53:33] and specifically says because of the

[53:35] negative impacts of short-term rentals.

[53:37] So the town is utterly determined as a

[53:38] matter of law that short-term rentals

[53:40] have a distinct impact from as per from

[53:42] permanent. And I would also just say

[53:44] this, if you think about it from this

[53:46] perspective, there is this process of

[53:48] intervention. We have to go through

[53:49] this. I understand we have to show

[53:50] certain um at least make a good face

[53:53] showing of certain special damages.

[53:56] There's really if you could argue that if you continue on

[54:03] the I think the the rationale that

[54:05] you're taking then nobody's going to be

[54:06] able to approve special damages or ever

[54:08] intervene in a case of this type again

[54:11] because what are going to be the the

[54:13] impacts are always going to be concerns

[54:15] exactly as what were stated. So it's

[54:18] increase in use um there but those

[54:21] impacts have already been identified by

[54:22] the ordinance as existing. So those are

[54:25] in fact impacts as a matter of of law in a sense because the ordinance is law.

[54:32] Um did you want to say something?

[54:36] >> Okay. Um and other than other than you

[54:41] know them being worried [clears throat]

[54:42] because it's not an ongoing use right

[54:44] now. um which is a whole another issue

[54:46] as to whether it should be

[54:47] grandfathered, but because the

[54:49] short-term rentals aren't there now,

[54:50] they can't speak to what the current

[54:52] impacts are because there aren't

[54:54] short-term rentals. So, this is

[54:56] necessarily that evidence is going to

[54:57] have to be in the nature of what it is,

[55:00] which is concerns, legitimate concerns.

[55:02] But that's why I say we're not talking

[55:04] about somebody that lives down the

[55:05] street that's going to complain there

[55:07] going to be more cars on my road. This

[55:10] is talking about I live and can I if you

[55:13] can hear your neighbor barbe barbecuing

[55:16] on their deck and now it's not your

[55:18] neighbor. It's going to be potentially a

[55:20] different person every few nights.

[55:22] Groups of people and the impacts that

[55:24] the ordinance talks about are the fact

[55:25] that short-term rentals brings groups. It brings groups more

[55:31] than just one or two people um you know

[55:34] celebrating special occasions etc. And I don't have that pulled up, but I can

[55:38] because it is in the ordinance as to

[55:40] what the impacts are.

[55:47] » Uh Mr. Hollister, do you want to weigh

[55:49] in on this? Do you have anything to say?

[55:53] >> I really don't.

[55:55] >> Okay. Mr. Patrick, do you have anything

[55:57] you want?

[56:01] » Well, we'll have to vote on it. to all

[56:05] board members. It's um

[56:07] >> Chelsea, you're still looking up case

[56:09] law.

[56:09] >> Um well, Mr. Martin just brought me a a

[56:12] case. I was just going to I mean, and

[56:13] this is a little bit of a one-off, but

[56:16] it does help with the context of the

[56:18] property value issues. Um

[56:19] [clears throat]

[56:20] and that's where again, all of these all

[56:24] have slightly different context, so just

[56:25] acknowledge the context of this case is

[56:27] responsible citizens in opposition to

[56:29] the flood plane ordinance versus the

[56:31] city of Asheville. um in in that case

[56:35] which is still good law and um it was a

[56:39] Supreme Court case from 83 actually um

[56:43] there are contexts where um owners can

[56:46] testify

[56:48] as to the value and I'm going down to

[56:51] the um

[57:14] So owners of properties in that case

[57:16] again just to give context that was

[57:18] owners challenging a zoning ordinance.

[57:20] Okay. But owners of properties which

[57:23] were allegedly subject to a zoning

[57:24] ordinance that allegedly affected a

[57:26] taking of property without just

[57:28] compensation were qualified to testify

[57:30] respect the damaging effect of that

[57:32] ordinance on the value of their

[57:34] properties. And though the trial court

[57:36] in that case excluded that testimony

[57:39] which was error

[57:41] um the court determined that that error

[57:44] um [clears throat]

[57:45] would not necessarily have been

[57:47] prejuditial. So that was the context of

[57:48] how it's discussed. Point is an owner

[57:51] can testify as to the value of their own

[57:53] property. Now you can decide on what

[57:54] weight you give to that and all that in

[57:56] all those contexts, but this is not a

[57:58] lay person giving an opinion of value

[58:01] the same way you would exclude somebody

[58:03] who is not qualified as an expert

[58:04] because they're allowed to give an

[58:05] opinion of their own property's value.

[58:08] So

[58:09] >> I'm scared.

[58:10] >> But again, I don't think we even need

[58:11] that. I don't I honestly I would I would

[58:14] rest on all the other impacts. So

[58:16] >> what's the number for that case? uh

[58:19] >> uh 308 and C255.

[58:23] >> Thank you.

[58:24] >> But again, I don't I I honestly think

[58:30] I don't want to get too far into the

[58:32] weeds on the value issue because if you

[58:33] want to even ignore that, that's fine. I

[58:36] think the impacts um the other impacts

[58:40] are sufficient.

[58:43] Let me read what uh

[58:46] the school of government said about

[58:48] secondary impacts.

[58:50] The individual alleging standing must

[58:53] show secondary adverse impacts

[58:55] particular to his or her property. For

[58:57] example, impacts related by traffic,

[59:00] parking, security, storm water runoff,

[59:03] littering, and noise may be key factors

[59:04] in depreciating property values. The

[59:08] essential element is a credible

[59:09] allegation of harm to the use and

[59:12] enjoyment of a particular property.

[59:16] And then I'll I'll go back and say vague

[59:19] general allegations of decreased

[59:20] property value are insufficient.

[59:25] The essential element is a credible

[59:27] allegation of harm. I I just

[59:31] um

[59:34] we'll see how the board

[59:36] >> but and I would just say you keep coming

[59:37] back to the value those other impacts

[59:39] don't have to be impacts on the value.

[59:41] They can be impacts on employment. It

[59:43] doesn't have to be a value impact. So,

[59:46] um I I'm going to go find where what section is the short-term rental

[59:53] article

[59:56] » 10

[1:00:00] towards the end.

[1:00:02] I think it's 10

[1:00:08] rules.

[1:00:26] 10 16-10

[1:00:29] 12

[1:00:34] in fact

[1:00:40] right

[1:00:51] All right, Mr. Patrick.

[1:00:54] >> All right, fellow board members. Um,

[1:01:00] we're going to do a motion and a vote as

[1:01:02] to whether and we'll take these folks

[1:01:05] one at a time

[1:01:07] have met their obligation for standing.

[1:01:10] I think you get the idea. It can't be

[1:01:15] big and

[1:01:18] very speculative. It's it's it's got to

[1:01:21] be a very credible um

[1:01:26] allegation of special damages.

[1:01:29] Um,

[1:01:36] [snorts] so from the first uh person

[1:01:38] that came up, Miss Fence,

[1:01:42] forgive me on that. Uh, I'll note that

[1:01:46] um,

[1:01:46] >> Mr. Springs, uh, somebody in the back

[1:01:48] here to speak up a little bit. Okay.

[1:01:50] Microphone.

[1:01:54] Um,

[1:01:56] we'll start with Miss Freric's. Um, I'm

[1:02:00] going to note that um, maybe I didn't

[1:02:02] take good notes, but it's the damage to

[1:02:05] property values that is the most Well, I

[1:02:08] think that's pretty much all she hung

[1:02:10] her hat on on that.

[1:02:11] >> No, I specifically didn't. I

[1:02:13] specifically just repeated several times

[1:02:15] that you could throw out the property

[1:02:17] value argument and then we have other

[1:02:18] negative impacts.

[1:02:20] >> Okay. I didn't hear any any other

[1:02:21] impacts from this frag. Do you want to

[1:02:23] reopen her direct examination?

[1:02:26] >> Um,

[1:02:27] >> I heard her talk about property value,

[1:02:28] but I didn't hear hear anything else.

[1:02:30] >> Well, she she spoke to being concerned

[1:02:32] about generally about safety um from

[1:02:36] living from having not knowing neighbors

[1:02:38] and having strangers be down the street.

[1:02:40] So, or two doors down, but that was that

[1:02:42] was it. I apologize, Mr. Spring. I

[1:02:44] thought you were referring to I didn't

[1:02:47] realize you're referring to Miss Fair. I

[1:02:48] didn't hear who you were speaking.

[1:02:50] >> I'm sorry. I'm I'm a mumbler. Um, fellow

[1:02:53] board members, all I heard her say was

[1:02:56] she was worried about property bays.

[1:02:58] Anybody hear her say anything else?

[1:03:00] >> Her safety.

[1:03:01] >> Yeah, I heard

[1:03:03] >> safety as in the context of knowing her

[1:03:06] neighbors if she were to slip in the

[1:03:08] ice, for example.

[1:03:10] >> Okay.

[1:03:15] » All right. We'll take them one by one.

[1:03:19] Um,

[1:03:22] the motion has to either say she she um

[1:03:25] established standing or she hasn't. Uh,

[1:03:28] I'll say I got to pick one or the other.

[1:03:30] I'll pick has established standing. And

[1:03:32] if you don't think so, you can say no.

[1:03:34] So, make a motion that we find Miss

[1:03:37] Sarah Fry

[1:03:39] um has established standing to enter

[1:03:41] into the case before us. Is there a

[1:03:43] second?

[1:03:44] >> I second it.

[1:03:46] >> And Mr. Sher seconds. Um,

[1:03:51] >> I can't hear anything. Nothing.

[1:03:53] >> I'm doing the best I can. [laughter]

[1:03:55] >> Do those just record or do they also

[1:03:57] >> I don't

[1:04:01] I'll try to speak up. Um,

[1:04:05] >> all those.

[1:04:07] >> No, I don't think

[1:04:15] » you can hear it.

[1:04:16] >> All right. Is that better?

[1:04:17] >> Yes. Yeah.

[1:04:19] >> Okay.

[1:04:19] >> M. Are you closing discussion?

[1:04:22] >> Um I I'm [snorts] sorry. I was going to

[1:04:26] do Do you have further?

[1:04:27] >> I'd just like to discuss.

[1:04:29] >> Sure. Let's go. Let's Let's go back

[1:04:31] before I withdraw the motion and let's

[1:04:34] have further discussion on Miss U. Sarah

[1:04:37] Fri's situation. Mr. Mr. Walker,

[1:04:40] >> I'm talking more in general.

[1:04:42] >> Okay. Go ahead. If I go back to 1402

[1:04:46] J3A,

[1:04:49] um it says

[1:04:53] well it says two things in particular.

[1:04:55] Use value of your use impacting other

[1:04:59] property value of your property and

[1:05:02] specifically says increased behavior and

[1:05:04] traffic are both conclusively

[1:05:06] incompetent.

[1:05:08] conclusively.

[1:05:10] Um,

[1:05:12] and it's in general what I've heard is

[1:05:14] personal safety, light, noise, and then

[1:05:18] property. All of which to me are vague.

[1:05:21] Light, noise, safety. That's all vague

[1:05:23] to me and leads into property value.

[1:05:26] Seems like secondary

[1:05:28] um concerns

[1:05:32] um

[1:05:34] or hypothetical concerns.

[1:05:38] Um, I think they're legitimate concerns,

[1:05:41] but I ju I just don't think there's

[1:05:45] been enough put before us to to get to

[1:05:48] grander standing.

[1:05:51] >> Anybody want to see if anybody had any

[1:05:53] other

[1:05:53] >> I think the uh the idea

[1:05:57] what all that noise is. Um, I live in

[1:05:59] I'm a full-time resident in a Chhatola

[1:06:01] condo and there are short-term rentals

[1:06:03] all around me. And I can tell you from

[1:06:06] my experience that there is additional

[1:06:08] noise

[1:06:10] and

[1:06:13] unsettled things compared to a full-time

[1:06:15] resident or a like a person who lives in

[1:06:18] Florida and comes up in the in the

[1:06:20] summer compared to a short-term rental

[1:06:22] where you sometimes have multiple cars,

[1:06:24] multiple people

[1:06:27] um and uh making a significant amount of

[1:06:31] noise more than a person that just lives

[1:06:34] there. They might drive up, take their

[1:06:35] groceries in for a short-term rental.

[1:06:38] You're going to have more activity and

[1:06:41] it can be disruptive. Um, but it's not

[1:06:44] necessarily. So, my wife and I rent

[1:06:46] Airbnbs and we try to be, you know,

[1:06:48] courteous and, yeah, we unload a whole

[1:06:50] bunch of stuff out of our car. We're

[1:06:52] going in and out. Um, and that can be,

[1:06:55] you know, disruptive to someone who is a

[1:06:58] full-time resident or, you know, not

[1:07:01] renting their place out. So for me,

[1:07:04] [clears throat] I hear these three

[1:07:05] people and I think they have standing

[1:07:08] just based on my own experience. Now,

[1:07:10] the law is another another issue, and

[1:07:13] there could be fine lines that we need

[1:07:15] to delineate,

[1:07:17] >> but to me, just the idea of a short-term

[1:07:20] rental means additional impact on the

[1:07:23] neighborhood, cars coming and going more

[1:07:26] frequently, people coming and going more

[1:07:28] frequently, and potentially, you know,

[1:07:31] loud parties.

[1:07:35] C can you read what the town says?

[1:07:38] >> Yes, please.

[1:07:39] That's okay. I know it's a little out of

[1:07:41] order track. Um, so this the section

[1:07:46] 16-10.2.12

[1:07:49] short-term rentals. The board finds that

[1:07:51] short-term rentals are an appropriate

[1:07:53] use given the residential resort

[1:07:54] character of Rock's planning

[1:07:56] jurisdiction, provided that specific

[1:07:58] controls are in place to regulate

[1:08:00] parking, trash, noise, tenant safety,

[1:08:02] and other related effects, thereby

[1:08:04] protecting neighborhood property values

[1:08:06] and the health, safety, and general

[1:08:07] welfare of town citizens and visitors.

[1:08:10] that specifically finds that that means

[1:08:15] that short-term rentals have specific

[1:08:18] impacts on parking, trash, noise, tenant

[1:08:20] safety, and other effects that will have

[1:08:22] impacts on property values, health

[1:08:24] safety, and general welfare. So, I I

[1:08:26] understand what Mr. Walker is saying,

[1:08:28] and I don't disagree, but it isn't all

[1:08:31] necessarily tied to values. It is those

[1:08:34] are impacts that we have been permitted

[1:08:37] the law has allowed the the town to find

[1:08:40] are make short terminals different from

[1:08:43] permanent residential use. The other

[1:08:46] thing is they are the testimony has to

[1:08:49] be speculative. Again, you're talking

[1:08:50] about a use that doesn't currently

[1:08:52] exist. That's like saying you're not

[1:08:54] allowed to testify to the impact of a

[1:08:55] proposed hotel because it's not there

[1:08:57] yet.

[1:08:59] It's not happening right now. So, they

[1:09:00] are speculative. They have to be.

[1:09:02] There's no way for you to get better

[1:09:03] evidence of that. So, I'm those with I'm

[1:09:07] in my humble opinion, those are not

[1:09:09] reasons to deny standing because they're

[1:09:11] impossible [snorts] to prove.

[1:09:18] » Should we go back to

[1:09:21] » All right. Have we closed discussion?

[1:09:24] >> No. I the the town has passed this

[1:09:28] ordinance saying they think short-term

[1:09:31] rental is different.

[1:09:34] >> How can we stand up here and say they're

[1:09:36] wrong?

[1:09:41] » Well, I think I think

[1:09:43] >> we're doing opinion. The town has

[1:09:45] already passed this ordinance.

[1:09:48] I mean, to me that's different

[1:09:51] subjects. We're speculating

[1:09:56] and they've already made the case for

[1:09:58] short-term rentals need special handling

[1:10:01] and I don't know what kind of special

[1:10:03] handling they get here. So,

[1:10:05] >> well, we can't say because of the town

[1:10:08] made that pronouncement that all

[1:10:11] um standing shall be allowed. We can't

[1:10:14] go

[1:10:16] >> there. We have it's it's a very factsp

[1:10:18] specific situation. We got to look at

[1:10:20] this case. each one of these three

[1:10:22] people their what they say their

[1:10:24] situation is.

[1:10:26] Um

[1:10:30] is there anyone who might say if these

[1:10:32] people don't have standing then no one

[1:10:34] does.

[1:10:39] » Yeah.

[1:10:42] » Say that again.

[1:10:44] >> But if these people don't have standing

[1:10:46] then really no one does. They live

[1:10:47] within 50 ft.

[1:10:49] I'm asking a different question. Why is

[1:10:52] why the town do this if those people

[1:10:54] don't have staff? They have to have

[1:10:56] staff.

[1:11:00] » I think so.

[1:11:04] » All right. Well, let's go.

[1:11:05] >> It's not five people making a decision.

[1:11:07] The whole town has elected people and

[1:11:10] asked to short-term rules get handled

[1:11:13] differently.

[1:11:16] I we can have opinions.

[1:11:18] I don't even know whether they have a

[1:11:20] different PE property owners association

[1:11:22] to handle these issues.

[1:11:26] >> And Kevin, can you speak to why we send

[1:11:28] out notices to all the people within a

[1:11:30] certain proximity

[1:11:32] of the property? [clears throat]

[1:11:33] >> Well, simply the statute is required.

[1:11:35] >> Okay. But hopefully there's a reason

[1:11:38] behind it.

[1:11:39] >> Yes.

[1:11:40] >> All right. Well, let's move on. I don't

[1:11:43] think I'm trying to make a case either

[1:11:44] way. I'm saying the town already had

[1:11:46] this opinion, so we have to say they

[1:11:49] have a standing

[1:11:50] >> or the town wouldn't have this ordinance

[1:11:52] or whatever this is called.

[1:11:57] » All right, let's take them one by one.

[1:11:59] Um,

[1:11:59] >> I've got one more.

[1:12:01] >> Sure.

[1:12:01] >> Comment.

[1:12:02] >> Sure.

[1:12:02] >> Mr. Schiller, gave his personal opinion

[1:12:09] based on Chola and where he lives about

[1:12:13] again for him it wasn't hypothetical but

[1:12:16] it was all uh secondary impacts is that

[1:12:20] even

[1:12:21] admissive here his personal opinion

[1:12:28] well our discussions

[1:12:30] uh have to be in public and he expressed

[1:12:34] Yeah,

[1:12:36] >> but his personal opinion sounds to me

[1:12:38] like a [clears throat]

[1:12:39] potential predisposition to where this

[1:12:43] heads.

[1:12:44] >> That's a predisposition to allowing

[1:12:46] standing because there there is an

[1:12:49] impact. I mean, I I had seen the impact.

[1:12:51] So, I just project that onto other

[1:12:53] people. They're going to have a similar

[1:12:55] they've come forward because of the

[1:12:57] notice. They want to speak. they want to

[1:13:00] say, you know, in opposition to the

[1:13:03] short-term use because of the potential

[1:13:06] impacts. I see the impacts. Now, I made

[1:13:09] it's [clears throat] my opinion that

[1:13:10] it's an impact.

[1:13:12] Um, but, you know, it's

[1:13:16] >> banks. I just want to clarify.

[1:13:18] >> Yeah, sure. Sure.

[1:13:19] >> It's my

[1:13:20] >> I agree.

[1:13:23] >> We've kicked it around. Let's see how

[1:13:25] the vote does. I have a pretty good idea how we go, but I move

[1:13:30] that um

[1:13:33] we find that Sarah Fry

[1:13:36] um has established

[1:13:39] um special damage is sufficient to have

[1:13:41] standing in this case. Do I have a

[1:13:43] second?

[1:13:44] >> I second.

[1:13:45] >> Mr. Schiller seconds.

[1:13:47] Um all those in favor of finding that

[1:13:51] she has established standing say I.

[1:13:54] >> I. All those that think she has not um

[1:13:59] shown sufficient special damages say no.

[1:14:02] So it's 3 to two

[1:14:08] and so she has standing.

[1:14:11] Um moving to Mary Lee Howell.

[1:14:14] Um

[1:14:15] >> so you voted no.

[1:14:16] >> I voted no.

[1:14:18] >> Okay. It's three

[1:14:25] She has standing.

[1:14:26] >> I just didn't hear his.

[1:14:27] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I said that. It's

[1:14:29] three. It's three to two.

[1:14:32] Um

[1:14:34] on Mary Lee How? Anyone have any

[1:14:36] discussion on on her situation and her

[1:14:40] u special damages? Anything further?

[1:14:43] >> Are we are we're voting whether she has

[1:14:45] standing or not? What's the specific?

[1:14:47] >> Yeah, I' I've got to make the motion.

[1:14:49] either didn't make her case or didn't

[1:14:51] make it did or did not. I I'm just

[1:14:54] choosing to make the motion that she did

[1:14:57] establish standing.

[1:14:59] >> And if you don't think she did, you'll

[1:15:00] say nay like I did on the last one. Um

[1:15:03] so I make a motion that we find that

[1:15:05] Mary Lee Howell has established

[1:15:08] sufficient uh special damages to

[1:15:10] establish standing. Is there a second?

[1:15:14] >> Second.

[1:15:14] >> And Mr. Scher second that. And all those

[1:15:18] finding that Mary Lee Howell has uh

[1:15:21] produced sufficient evidence that she

[1:15:23] has special damages and deserves

[1:15:24] standing say I. I.

[1:15:27] >> We said that's three. All those that

[1:15:29] feel like um she has not produced enough

[1:15:32] to u deserve standing say nay.

[1:15:36] >> Nay. That's two. So she is she does have

[1:15:39] standing. She's allowed to come into

[1:15:41] this case as does Sarah Fri. Moving to

[1:15:44] Chris Kemper. Uh, any more discussion on

[1:15:47] Mr. Kemper's situation?

[1:15:49] All right. I make a motion to find that

[1:15:52] Mr. Kemper did produce evidence of

[1:15:55] special damages such that

[1:15:58] um, he deserves to come into this case

[1:16:00] as a party. He has standing. If you

[1:16:04] think he does, say, u,

[1:16:06] >> oh, I'm sorry. Do I have a second?

[1:16:09] >> Mr. Scher again is the second. Um all

[1:16:12] those that feel like he has established

[1:16:15] standing say I.

[1:16:17] >> Okay.

[1:16:18] >> And all those that feel he has not say

[1:16:20] no. Nay. It's 3 to2 again. So he is

[1:16:23] allowed to come in as a party. [snorts]

[1:16:28] All right. Moving along.

[1:16:34] Let's swear um all the witnesses, the

[1:16:38] potential witnesses that haven't been

[1:16:40] sworn in yet. Let's have let's do them

[1:16:41] as a group if we could come on up.

[1:16:56] » The evidence you shall give this body

[1:16:58] and this matter shall be shall be the

[1:17:00] truth, the whole truth and nothing but

[1:17:02] the truth.

[1:17:20] All right, we'll start with the uh town

[1:17:23] of Blowing Rock

[1:17:25] and

[1:17:27] the person that's going to state their

[1:17:30] case. Come on up.

[1:17:36] one point in order just the order of

[1:17:38] evidence but um that the appeal by Mr.

[1:17:42] Hollister, which I think he has the

[1:17:44] right to go first, but from a

[1:17:46] evidentiary standpoint, I I have a

[1:17:47] question about whether we are going to

[1:17:49] be talking about this property as one

[1:17:52] property or four. And the reason for

[1:17:54] that is that these are four legally

[1:17:57] distinct real estate units that were

[1:18:01] acquired in one deed, but have been

[1:18:03] previously owned based on their chains

[1:18:05] of title by multiple different owners

[1:18:07] individually, sometimes together,

[1:18:08] sometimes separately. and that each unit

[1:18:13] and the history of rentals and whether

[1:18:14] any one unit should qualify has to be

[1:18:16] taken separately. It's not the property

[1:18:18] as a whole. These it's not an apartment

[1:18:20] building. These are separately. You

[1:18:22] could convey any one of these units in a

[1:18:24] separate deed to someone else. Um and

[1:18:26] they they were owned separately and

[1:18:28] could have been rented long-term or

[1:18:29] short-term separately for whatever the

[1:18:30] history may be. So, I think they have to

[1:18:32] be taken separately.

[1:18:39] Let's um [clears throat]

[1:18:42] Okay. Well, let's call that a motion and

[1:18:44] let's let's see what Mr. Hollis if Mr.

[1:18:47] >> That's really fine. I just wanted to

[1:18:48] make that clear up front because I don't

[1:18:50] I think it's viewed a little it's sort

[1:18:52] of lumped together in the appeal and um

[1:18:56] that's it. Thank you.

[1:19:00] >> We'll get Mr. Hollister to speak to

[1:19:02] that. Let me look

[1:19:04] for something.

[1:19:18] » We got to get some advertising. We got

[1:19:20] to get people to We got to get

[1:19:28] what we got,

[1:19:30] too.

[1:19:32] for you.

[1:20:00] » Well,

[1:20:02] It's one It's one property. Eie, do you

[1:20:06] want me to um lead off and go through

[1:20:10] the staff report and then y'all can

[1:20:12] decide how you want to

[1:20:13] >> Let's Let's Let's go ahead and get this

[1:20:15] addressed. Now, I'm looking for uh some

[1:20:19] ordinances that may

[1:20:22] pertain

[1:20:35] » [snorts]

[1:20:41] » Um,

[1:20:45] I'm looking at Blowing Rock Ordinance

[1:20:48] 16-8.

[1:20:57] 16-8.6

[1:20:59] 6.2

[1:21:02] and I've got some extra copies of it if

[1:21:04] um

[1:21:08] if any of the parties would

[1:21:13] Mr. uh Hollister, would you like a copy?

[1:21:20] » Mr. Roth rocker, you want a copy?

[1:21:22] >> I gave him out. He has a copy.

[1:21:30] Okay. All right. Um,

[1:21:40] Mr. Garrett, I'm I'm looking at

[1:21:43] section

[1:21:45] 16-8.6.1.

[1:21:47] If the principal activity on property

[1:21:49] where a non-conforming situation other

[1:21:51] than a non-conforming use exists is

[1:21:59] [snorts]

[1:22:00] well

[1:22:03] short-term rentals is a use.

[1:22:15] I'm sorry.

[1:22:16] Look one one notch down 16-8.6.2

[1:22:21] for purposes of determining whether a

[1:22:23] right to continue a non-conforming

[1:22:24] situation is lost pursuant to this

[1:22:27] section. All of the buildings activities

[1:22:29] and operations maintained on a lot are

[1:22:31] generally to be considered as a hold.

[1:22:34] For example, the failure to rent one

[1:22:37] apartment in a non-conforming apartment

[1:22:39] building for 1880 days shall not result

[1:22:43] in a loss of the right to rent that

[1:22:44] apartment or space thereafter so long as

[1:22:47] the apartment building as a whole is

[1:22:49] continuously maintained.

[1:22:54] » [clears throat]

[1:22:56] » At any rate, let's um

[1:23:05] let's see if Mr. Hollister can shed some

[1:23:07] light. Can you come up, Mr. Hollister?

[1:23:09] >> Sure.

[1:23:34] Okay. Who who is the owner of the

[1:23:36] property now? Rock

[1:23:37] >> Rock Primals

[1:23:39] LLC.

[1:23:48] » And it's and it's owned by James

[1:23:52] Hollister.

[1:23:52] >> Yes.

[1:23:58] When did Rock Pine Reynolds buy

[1:24:02] uh the property at

[1:24:06] Believe we closed the first week of

[1:24:07] September of 2025.

[1:24:11] >> Let's see. Let me get the address right.

[1:24:13] 439 Chestnut Drive, units A, B, C, and D

[1:24:17] in Blowing Rock.

[1:24:19] U Rock Pine Reynolds bought it when? I

[1:24:22] don't know the exact date, but it was

[1:24:24] around the first week of September of

[1:24:25] 2025.

[1:24:27] I forget the exact date.

[1:24:34] » When I was trying to figure out who the

[1:24:35] owner was, cuz you you had said you were

[1:24:37] the owner, uh, I check the land records

[1:24:42] and I see

[1:24:44] that property being sold.

[1:24:47] Um, I see George R. Kalis and Steven G.

[1:24:50] Buchanan selling their property [snorts]

[1:24:52] Rock Pine Reynolds

[1:24:54] on

[1:24:56] August 28th, 2025. Does that sound all

[1:25:00] right?

[1:25:00] >> That sounds right. Yes.

[1:25:10] » Bought all of the units. All four units.

[1:25:12] >> Yes. Okay.

[1:25:17] Um,

[1:25:23] Miss Garrett, do you have any questions

[1:25:24] for Mr. Hollister?

[1:25:27] >> Um,

[1:25:30] well, Mr. H want to present his evidence

[1:25:32] and I can ask questions after that.

[1:25:34] >> No, you we're talking about your

[1:25:36] concern, which I'm not quite clear on

[1:25:38] about these four units.

[1:25:41] >> So,

[1:25:42] I think it's more of a legal point than

[1:25:45] anything. Um

[1:25:47] because these units, it's not an

[1:25:49] apartment building. Um and because these

[1:25:51] units have been separately conveyed and

[1:25:53] owned through the course of there could

[1:25:55] be one that was never short-term rented

[1:25:56] ever. How could that possibly qualify

[1:25:58] for grandfathering? How could you

[1:26:00] possibly say that the entire property

[1:26:01] can be grandfathered?

[1:26:03] So, you have to be able to prove each

[1:26:05] one was whichever ones he proves can be

[1:26:07] grandfathered grandfathered.

[1:26:16] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hollister.

[1:26:18] >> Does the town have any questions? So,

[1:26:20] Mr. Hollister,

[1:26:22] >> as far as Chelsea's motion,

[1:26:28] » do you have a motion? It's not so much

[1:26:30] motion as it is I think it it

[1:26:34] if if I guess the only context I know

[1:26:37] how to how to [snorts] say this is if

[1:26:40] this were to go to a court for on appeal

[1:26:43] by him or us

[1:26:44] >> right

[1:26:45] >> the question would be was there

[1:26:48] competent material evidence below and if

[1:26:50] there's not evidence of grandfathering

[1:26:53] if you only receive evidence of

[1:26:54] grandfathering on one unit for example

[1:26:57] and I don't even know what the evidence

[1:26:58] is going to

[1:27:00] I would submit you don't have evidence

[1:27:03] to conclude that three other units are

[1:27:05] grandfathered. And I'm just trying to

[1:27:07] limit the issues we have to argue about

[1:27:09] on appeal if that were to happen.

[1:27:10] >> Okay.

[1:27:11] >> Because that is I I think important.

[1:27:14] These are four distinct legal units. Um,

[1:27:18] so and unlike like a Royal Oak

[1:27:20] situation,

[1:27:22] you know, um,

[1:27:25] I I think it's the same. I I also think

[1:27:28] unfortunately for all of us, no

[1:27:30] ordinance drafting is a hard thing and

[1:27:32] it's hard to contemplate every possible

[1:27:34] scenario. Now that we're faced with this

[1:27:36] scenario, I think you'd all agree that

[1:27:37] that's not well worded

[1:27:40] because obviously you wouldn't say that

[1:27:42] all all buildings on an entire property

[1:27:44] if one building was rented means all

[1:27:46] buildings can be rented and

[1:27:47] grandfathered. I'm sure that wasn't

[1:27:49] intended, but that's what it says. And

[1:27:51] I'm just making the point I don't think

[1:27:53] that that's what was intended by that

[1:27:55] clause. I don't know that it really

[1:27:56] matters until he's presented evidence

[1:27:58] because the evidence will control

[1:28:00] whether something had a history of of

[1:28:02] short-term rental or not. and you can

[1:28:04] make that decision later if you decide

[1:28:05] to green card or something. I just

[1:28:07] wanted to make it clear. I don't think I

[1:28:09] think our position is that's not you

[1:28:11] can't treat it. You can't lump it all

[1:28:12] together is our position. You guys don't

[1:28:14] have to position. So I

[1:28:17] >> I have a question and observation as

[1:28:20] well. Uh so looking at that statute, the

[1:28:24] word that I hone in on is apartment

[1:28:28] um as opposed to any other

[1:28:30] classification of a residence. Uh but

[1:28:34] the question that I have for Miss

[1:28:35] Garrett is are you suggesting that we

[1:28:37] bifurcate this into four separate

[1:28:42] hearings?

[1:28:44] >> No, I don't mind for for Mr. I don't

[1:28:47] want unless Mr. officer wants to do

[1:28:50] something different. I don't want him to

[1:28:51] feel like he's got to present anything

[1:28:52] differently,

[1:28:54] but I don't want to bring I didn't want

[1:28:56] to wait to bring this up at the end of

[1:28:57] all the evidence. I felt like it was

[1:28:59] only fair to say we don't think and

[1:29:02] we'll be arguing that you have to show

[1:29:05] short-term rental use on each unit, not

[1:29:09] just one unit at some point to qualify.

[1:29:12] Um, and I don't I don't think it's fair

[1:29:13] in that at the end.

[1:29:15] >> Okay. Well, thank you. All right, Mr.

[1:29:19] Hollis, you can just sit back down.

[1:29:20] Thank you. We're going to lead off

[1:29:22] [clears throat] with the town and

[1:29:24] they're going to make their presentation

[1:29:27] and then we'll uh

[1:29:31] move on [clears throat] to Mr. Hollister

[1:29:32] and then to the uh three interveners.

[1:29:35] All right. Ready?

[1:29:36] >> Sure.

[1:29:37] >> Okay.

[1:29:41] I want to read this into the record and

[1:29:44] the attachments and exhibits are

[1:29:47] included as part of that and referenced

[1:29:49] in the staff report and I'll just read

[1:29:50] it into the record

[1:29:53] >> and then answer questions after.

[1:29:55] >> All right. Let me let me let me say one

[1:29:57] thing. The uh the staff report is not

[1:30:01] evidence. it it's sent out to get us up

[1:30:03] to speed on the case so that we can get

[1:30:05] familiar with it um and not be hearing

[1:30:08] about what kind of case it is for the

[1:30:10] first time tonight. It's not evidence

[1:30:13] and if somebody wants some part of the

[1:30:15] staff report to be evidence that we

[1:30:16] consider in our decision they need to

[1:30:18] say I want this to be in evidence.

[1:30:23] Um [clears throat]

[1:30:24] all right, Mr. Mrock

[1:30:27] I'm sorry I interrupted you. Go ahead.

[1:30:30] Rockpine Reynolds LLC has appi appealed

[1:30:33] a final administrative decision which is

[1:30:35] included as exhibit A sent to Chad

[1:30:38] Hollister as a registered agent of

[1:30:40] Rockpine Rentals LLC on November 13th,

[1:30:43] 2025.

[1:30:45] The administrative decision dated

[1:30:46] November 13, 2025 denied Rockpine

[1:30:50] Rentals LLC's request to allow

[1:30:52] short-term rental at his property at 439

[1:30:55] Chestnut Drive in Blowing Rock. The

[1:30:57] subject property is zoned R6M multif

[1:31:00] family

[1:31:04] where short-term rental is not

[1:31:05] permitted. The property is further

[1:31:08] identified by Waga pin 28079651920000.

[1:31:15] Mr. Hollister presented information to

[1:31:17] the town after Rockpine Reynolds LLC

[1:31:20] purchased the condominium building at

[1:31:23] 439 Chestnut Drive, units A through D

[1:31:26] from Greg Buchanan and George Collus in

[1:31:29] August 2025.

[1:31:31] The information and request from Mr.

[1:31:33] Hollister claimed through an affidavit

[1:31:35] that Mr. Collis rented units on a

[1:31:38] short-term rental basis less than 28

[1:31:40] days prior to 2019.

[1:31:43] Once the town modified the zoning

[1:31:45] ordinance in August of 2019, consistent

[1:31:47] with the North Carolina Court of Appeals

[1:31:49] decision related to short-term rentals,

[1:31:52] Mr. Collus claimed the town informed him

[1:31:54] he could not continue with short-term

[1:31:56] rentals.

[1:31:58] Planning staff is not aware of Mr.

[1:32:00] Collus ever renting units on a

[1:32:02] short-term basis, and we have been

[1:32:04] provided no evidence that indicates Mr.

[1:32:07] Collins did. To our knowledge, it does

[1:32:09] not appear that short-term rentals ever

[1:32:11] happen at 439 Chestnut Drive, and no

[1:32:14] occupancy tax receipts are available

[1:32:16] that would indicate compliance with the

[1:32:17] town's occupancy tax laws for any

[1:32:20] rentals less than 28 days. Further,

[1:32:23] planning staff is not aware of ever

[1:32:24] having a conversation with Mr. Collus,

[1:32:27] informing him that short-term rentals

[1:32:28] were no longer permitted at his

[1:32:31] property.

[1:32:33] Even if Mr. Collus had rented short

[1:32:35] terms had short-term rentals on the

[1:32:37] subject property prior to 2019

[1:32:40] which the planning staff contends that

[1:32:42] the applicant has failed to prove. The

[1:32:44] applicant produced evidence that runs

[1:32:46] counter to its request confirming that

[1:32:49] no short-term rental activity has

[1:32:51] occurred on the subject property since

[1:32:52] 2019.

[1:32:54] Pursuant to section 16-8.6

[1:32:58] six of the town's land use code. Any

[1:33:01] non-conforming use that has been

[1:33:02] continued for a consecutive period of

[1:33:04] 180 days is deemed abandoned and cannot

[1:33:07] be reestablished.

[1:33:09] Here, the alleged non-conforming use has

[1:33:11] been discontinued for a consecutive

[1:33:13] period of at least 180 days starting in

[1:33:16] 2019 at the latest, thus abandoning the alleged non-conforming

[1:33:22] use of the subject property.

[1:33:24] Accordingly, in response to the

[1:33:26] applicant's request for allowance of

[1:33:27] short-term rentals at 439 Chestnut

[1:33:30] Drive, staff denied this request based

[1:33:32] on there being no evidence of prior and

[1:33:35] continued short-term use in an R6M

[1:33:38] multifamilies zoning district where

[1:33:40] short-term [clears throat] rental is not

[1:33:41] permitted.

[1:33:48] Public notice for this appeal was mailed

[1:33:50] on January 19th, 2026 to the property

[1:33:53] owner and adjacent property owners

[1:33:55] within 150 ft. That's exhibit B that's

[1:33:57] in your packet. Has a map and uh and the

[1:34:01] list of addresses

[1:34:04] that were included on that map. property

[1:34:07] was posted on January 9th, 2026 and a

[1:34:10] public notice uh appeared in the Waga

[1:34:14] Democrat on the on January 14th and 21st

[1:34:18] of this year.

[1:34:20] Any attachments that have been provided

[1:34:21] to you, there's a letter of decision

[1:34:23] dated November 13th, 2025. Appeal

[1:34:26] application dated November 20th, 2025.

[1:34:30] Uh Mr. Hollister had provided supporting

[1:34:33] documents of his appeal and those have

[1:34:35] been included as exhibit C.

[1:34:39] Exhibit D is public notice and mailing L

[1:34:41] list and the map. Exhibit E

[1:34:46] aerial map of the subject property here.

[1:34:50] Um subject property is red there as you

[1:34:52] look on the screen. uh zoning map of the

[1:34:56] subject property and then we also

[1:34:58] included

[1:35:00] uh ordinance sections uh that pertain to

[1:35:02] short-term rental and uh I believe part

[1:35:06] of the use table that shows where you

[1:35:08] short-term rentals are allowed and where

[1:35:10] they're not.

[1:35:13] Okay. Um

[1:35:17] couple pictures. This shows the property

[1:35:19] in 2021.

[1:35:21] um

[1:35:25] from the street again in 2024.

[1:35:30] Uh an aerial of the property and we've

[1:35:32] been looking at that most of the night,

[1:35:33] but we can see uh

[1:35:37] the property located here.

[1:35:41] Pine Village where some of the

[1:35:45] neighbors that have spoken is right

[1:35:48] here.

[1:35:50] And

[1:35:52] Everything else on there is

[1:35:54] self-explanatory, I believe.

[1:35:56] >> Uh then we have some code sections that

[1:35:58] I've placed in front of you tonight

[1:36:00] dealing with nonconformities

[1:36:02] and uh abandonment of non-conforming

[1:36:07] uses and situations.

[1:36:13] That's all I have. I'd be glad to answer

[1:36:15] questions. Do you want to put any

[1:36:18] anything in the uh staff report? Do you

[1:36:20] want to put any of those pieces of paper

[1:36:23] into evidence?

[1:36:24] >> All of it.

[1:36:25] Yes, sir.

[1:36:26] >> You would object to that.

[1:36:30] >> Okay. On what grounds?

[1:36:33] >> On the groundification for the affidavit

[1:36:36] to come in based on the rules um

[1:36:39] procedure that witness the stand is

[1:36:42] local and in town. not available.

[1:36:48] >> You're saying it's hearsay.

[1:36:49] >> It's Yeah, the objection is hearsay

[1:36:51] basic and and that it should not be

[1:36:53] admissible. There's not a reason for

[1:36:55] that hearsay to be overcome that that

[1:36:57] Afghan is available.

[1:36:59] >> Okay. Mr. Hollister, what do you have to

[1:37:01] say about that?

[1:37:02] >> I would say it's more that was

[1:37:05] notoriized. I feel it should be

[1:37:08] permitted. Okay.

[1:37:09] >> Mr. Patrick.

[1:37:13] Okay.

[1:37:15] Um

[1:37:18] the affidavit

[1:37:20] unless Mr. uh Collins appears tonight to

[1:37:24] testify

[1:37:26] in person or by phone is hearsay and uh

[1:37:29] will not be putting the evidence.

[1:37:32] Um

[1:37:35] anything else you would object to Miss

[1:37:38] Garrett?

[1:37:38] >> No.

[1:37:40] >> And

[1:37:42] Mr.

[1:37:43] Patrick, you're the one that wants the

[1:37:45] whole package in. So, I'm assuming you

[1:37:48] agree with Mr. Rothrock. [clears throat]

[1:37:50] The whole package with the exception of

[1:37:52] the affidavit comes in. Or do you want

[1:37:55] exclude anything else?

[1:37:58] >> There's nothing else in the packet

[1:38:01] beyond the affidavit that needs to be

[1:38:02] excluded.

[1:38:06] » So, Mr. Hollister, do you feel like

[1:38:09] there's anything in the staff report

[1:38:12] uh that should not be coming in come

[1:38:14] into evidence and be part of our

[1:38:15] deliberations?

[1:38:17] >> Uh some of the statements made about

[1:38:19] seems like they're hearsay that they

[1:38:21] don't recall talking to Mr. Cus about

[1:38:24] anything things [clears throat] like

[1:38:25] that.

[1:38:27] >> Well, that was that was Mr. Rothrock

[1:38:29] talking.

[1:38:29] >> That was a staff report though, right?

[1:38:31] Wasn't you reading the staff report?

[1:38:32] >> Yes.

[1:38:33] >> Okay.

[1:38:34] >> That's me. That's not what you're

[1:38:36] saying. That's me stating it,

[1:38:37] >> right?

[1:38:39] >> And I'll I'll speak to that if you if

[1:38:42] you ask me.

[1:38:42] >> But if the other town employees are not

[1:38:45] here to I can't submit an affidavit, I

[1:38:48] don't know other town employees

[1:38:51] word of saying that they did not talk to

[1:38:53] Mr.

[1:38:54] >> Well, hearay hearsay involves actual

[1:38:58] words.

[1:39:00] If um

[1:39:02] I don't see actual words here, he's he's

[1:39:05] talking in general terms, but

[1:39:08] [clears throat] he's not saying what

[1:39:10] they said what they told him.

[1:39:11] >> Okay.

[1:39:11] >> So, it does hearay deals with the actual

[1:39:13] words or or written words.

[1:39:17] >> Um

[1:39:19] anything else, Miss Garrett?

[1:39:21] >> No. Thank you.

[1:39:22] >> Okay. So, in the staff report,

[1:39:24] everything but the affidavit comes into

[1:39:27] evidence. Um,

[1:39:32] » Mr. Chairman, do we need to vote on the

[1:39:34] affidavit? Because I understand it's hearsay. Um, but uh,

[1:39:39] >> we the rules are on objections that the

[1:39:42] chair makes a ruling and [clears throat]

[1:39:44] if anybody objects to that ruling, then

[1:39:47] we take a vote of the whole board.

[1:39:50] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:39:52] >> You're welcome. Um,

[1:39:57] » my right understanding the board has the

[1:39:59] ability to determine if they want to

[1:40:03] listen to the affidavit.

[1:40:06] >> Well, we can read the affidavit.

[1:40:08] >> Yeah.

[1:40:08] >> And the affidavit's

[1:40:09] >> you can decide what the weight is of it

[1:40:11] >> and um well, it's it's hearsay and we're

[1:40:16] not going to let it into evidence

[1:40:18] because it's here.

[1:40:19] >> Okay.

[1:40:19] >> I think what Mr. Hollister is trying to

[1:40:21] do is object. You just you just said

[1:40:23] that

[1:40:24] >> that the chair makes a decision and then

[1:40:26] unless a party objects the chair's

[1:40:29] decision holds otherwise the objection

[1:40:31] allows discussion. Is that what I

[1:40:33] understood?

[1:40:34] >> Yeah, I guess I I thought I objected to

[1:40:36] Yeah, I thought I objected to not

[1:40:38] allowing the affidavit earlier.

[1:40:40] >> Okay. All right. Do you want a vote of

[1:40:42] the board? You're all right. You're

[1:40:43] entitled to a vote of the board. Um,

[1:40:50] I don't know that we need to put this in

[1:40:52] the form of a motion. What do you think?

[1:40:56] >> It's it's a matter of voting whether we

[1:40:58] accept the

[1:40:59] >> Yeah, I think it's just a straight vote.

[1:41:01] Um, all board members,

[1:41:03] >> would it not need to be a motion that's

[1:41:05] then seconded and open for discussion

[1:41:09] >> amongst us? [clears throat]

[1:41:13] Well, do you want to Yeah, of course.

[1:41:15] We'll discuss if you want to go ahead.

[1:41:18] >> I'll move that we do not accept the

[1:41:20] affidavit because as hearsay because

[1:41:23] it's hearsay.

[1:41:25] >> Is there a second?

[1:41:26] >> Second.

[1:41:27] >> All right. All right. So,

[1:41:30] um,

[1:41:32] what I wanted to discuss now that we

[1:41:34] have the motion is, um,

[1:41:37] you were quoting the North Carolina,

[1:41:40] what's what's the book called? rules are

[1:41:42] cool.

[1:41:43] >> Um you said it's introduction of the

[1:41:46] affidavit is hearsay but it's

[1:41:48] discouraged.

[1:41:50] >> Yes.

[1:41:50] >> Discretion of the board.

[1:41:52] >> Yes.

[1:41:52] >> Um

[1:41:54] so it's not a matter of cannot use it.

[1:41:56] It's a matter of whether we give it any

[1:41:59] weight. Right. [clears throat]

[1:42:02] >> Am I understanding this correctly?

[1:42:03] That's what I'm asking.

[1:42:05] >> Well, we can't accept hearsay.

[1:42:07] >> Well, no. We can accept this affidavit

[1:42:10] and give it the weight that we believe

[1:42:12] it deserves. It's discouraged though,

[1:42:13] but it's not prevented. [clears throat]

[1:42:15] It's not

[1:42:19] » unless I misunderstood what you said

[1:42:21] earlier.

[1:42:22] >> Well, it's it's in the record. It's but

[1:42:24] it's not evidence.

[1:42:27] Um, [clears throat]

[1:42:29] and looking at it, um,

[1:42:33] I would say it's classic hearsay because

[1:42:35] it raises more questions than it answers

[1:42:38] it. I look at it and I go, I want to ask

[1:42:40] all these things of this person and I

[1:42:42] can't. Um,

[1:42:45] because they're not here to testify to

[1:42:47] it. It just raises so many questions,

[1:42:50] you know, carries so many legal issues.

[1:42:52] It's just it's the classic problems with

[1:42:56] hearsay.

[1:43:01] Anything else from any board member?

[1:43:04] Okay. So, um

[1:43:05] >> and I don't I don't know if this bears

[1:43:07] on this case, but in the past we've

[1:43:08] never accepted an affidavit.

[1:43:12] >> Correct.

[1:43:13] [clears throat]

[1:43:14] >> Yeah. They be available on the phone.

[1:43:16] >> Yeah. People have showed up on the phone

[1:43:18] or

[1:43:19] >> Well, if they're on the phone, they're

[1:43:20] not here. we can ask him about.

[1:43:23] >> And again, I don't know if that has any

[1:43:24] weight, but I just or any bearing, but I

[1:43:26] just feel like we've had this

[1:43:28] conversation several times and we've

[1:43:29] always not taken an affidavit.

[1:43:32] >> Years ago, we took affidavits and it was

[1:43:36] such a mess

[1:43:39] um that we passed this rule that we

[1:43:42] didn't say definitively, never ever, but strongly discouraged because

[1:43:46] it it does violate the rules of

[1:43:48] evidence.

[1:43:49] Anything [clears throat]

[1:43:51] further?

[1:43:54] So, we need a vote. I'll let you

[1:43:56] articulate it, Mr. Mr. Walker. If you

[1:44:00] >> I moved that we do not enter the

[1:44:03] affidavit into evidence as here because

[1:44:07] it's here.

[1:44:08] >> Okay. And the second was Miss

[1:44:10] >> was Miss Murphy.

[1:44:12] So

[1:44:14] all those uh in favor of upholding

[1:44:18] uh my ruling that it's uh hearsay and

[1:44:20] will not come into evidence say I.

[1:44:22] >> I. [clears throat]

[1:44:22] >> I.

[1:44:23] >> It's unanimous. So there there we go.

[1:44:27] It's not in evidence. Um

[1:44:32] now everybody gets a chance to question

[1:44:36] Mr. Rothrock. Mr. Hollson, did you have

[1:44:39] any questions of Mr. Rothro? No.

[1:44:42] >> Okay. Miss Garrett.

[1:44:44] >> Yeah.

[1:44:45] >> And

[1:44:47] >> any board member have any questions?

[1:44:49] >> How far back do you retain records for

[1:44:51] the payment of occupancy tax?

[1:45:04] the the I don't know how long we keep

[1:45:07] them, [snorts]

[1:45:09] but I think and Joey might be able to

[1:45:11] correct. I I think we have the ability

[1:45:13] to collect them as far as 10 years.

[1:45:17] That may not answer the question, but um

[1:45:21] those started in 200

[1:45:25] five for the town, I think.

[1:45:29] But how far we can go back or

[1:45:32] [clears throat] the records um

[1:45:37] probably a tax question I can't answer.

[1:45:40] >> Is that a state agency collecting those?

[1:45:42] >> No, the town collects those and

[1:45:46] distributes that to

[1:45:48] well it goes to the TDA and then the

[1:45:51] town gets a third back.

[1:45:55] » Any [clears throat] other questions to

[1:45:56] Mr. Roth?

[1:45:57] >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I do have one thing that

[1:46:00] I think could also be perceived as a

[1:46:02] possible objection. Um, he did um

[1:46:07] that Mr. Hollister did object to certain

[1:46:09] portions of the packet, specifically

[1:46:13] conversations that were maybe held

[1:46:15] [snorts] elsewhere. Um,

[1:46:19] I'll leave it up to you whether you want

[1:46:21] to provide that with the same treatment

[1:46:24] as the other in discussion and

[1:46:28] determination of that amongst the board.

[1:46:34] » I see what you're saying. Um, treat him

[1:46:37] as having objected to my allowing

[1:46:42] >> [clears throat]

[1:46:42] >> um,

[1:46:46] Mr. Rothrock's summary in

[1:46:49] >> yeah I mean not the entire summary but u

[1:46:53] [snorts] Mr. Hollister if I'm

[1:46:54] understanding correctly you were

[1:46:55] objecting to certain portions where Mr.

[1:46:58] references

[1:47:00] other

[1:47:01] >> other town employees that don't that

[1:47:05] don't remember anything.

[1:47:08] >> Well, I forget exactly exactly. Yeah, he addressed that.

[1:47:12] >> Clarify and maybe it might help what

[1:47:14] he's saying is uh when I use the term

[1:47:18] town staff,

[1:47:20] I am referring to

[1:47:24] myself

[1:47:26] and the only other one that has been

[1:47:28] here since

[1:47:30] 2019,

[1:47:32] that would be Brian. And Brian's here if

[1:47:34] he needs to be sworn. But

[1:47:39] >> well, when it involves me making a

[1:47:41] decision or being having conversations

[1:47:44] with Mr. Collins, I can only answer for

[1:47:46] myself and Brian can answer for himself.

[1:47:49] >> Let me go back to Mr. Hollison. Mr.

[1:47:51] Hollison, you've got a copy of the staff

[1:47:54] report in front of you.

[1:47:56] >> Read Read the part you object to. I

[1:47:58] assume you don't object to all of it.

[1:48:00] It's

[1:48:01] >> No, I just

[1:48:01] >> What What part do you object to? that

[1:48:04] specific part where he was referring to

[1:48:06] other town employees and their

[1:48:09] recollection of events.

[1:48:15] » Okay. Planning staff is not aware of Mr.

[1:48:17] Collis over renting units. Is that what

[1:48:18] you're talking about?

[1:48:19] >> Yes.

[1:48:20] >> Okay.

[1:48:21] Um

[1:48:24] he's [snorts] not actually saying what

[1:48:26] any words the planning staff said

[1:48:29] though,

[1:48:33] » but the general inclination is that

[1:48:36] there it feels like he's saying that

[1:48:38] because the staff doesn't remember

[1:48:40] anything that it didn't happen. And that

[1:48:43] seems like hearsay to me.

[1:48:58] Can

[1:48:58] >> I get some clarification? Are you I

[1:49:01] understand his general objection to

[1:49:02] anything in the packet that is hearsay.

[1:49:06] >> Right.

[1:49:07] >> Mr. Rock clarified that he says town

[1:49:09] staff is referring to himself and other

[1:49:11] town staff as present tonight.

[1:49:13] >> Yeah.

[1:49:14] So,

[1:49:16] are there other statements whether

[1:49:18] they're general or otherwise that that

[1:49:20] you're worried about? Because I

[1:49:22] understand what he's saying. I Mr.

[1:49:24] Martin and I agree that he referenced

[1:49:26] information

[1:49:28] that came that was derived from someone

[1:49:30] who is not here is hearsay. I don't have

[1:49:32] an objection to that. I agree with that.

[1:49:35] I just don't know which statements he's

[1:49:36] referring to in the packet though.

[1:49:41] » This is what you read, correct? I think

[1:49:43] this what you read this page.

[1:49:47] >> No, I was reading the staff. That's not

[1:49:52] this was

[1:49:54] >> yesterday. Got you.

[1:50:19] » Mr. Rothart, you wrote the staff report. So that

[1:50:25] paragraph

[1:50:27] um you believe is accurate. It's your

[1:50:31] own paragraph.

[1:50:33] >> Yes.

[1:50:34] >> Um

[1:50:41] » if I'm term planning staff,

[1:50:44] >> yeah, I'm going to Well, that covers

[1:50:46] you. If that's broad and it just needs

[1:50:48] to cover me, it can just cover me.

[1:50:50] >> I'll leave it between you and your

[1:50:51] attorney if you want to bring up Mr.

[1:50:53] Bryant Johnson to plug in the other

[1:50:56] person and make it um definitively not hearsay. I'll leave that up to you

[1:51:03] up for the until that's done. Um,

[1:51:09] [cough and clears throat]

[1:51:10] I'm going to hold a decision um in

[1:51:13] obeyance

[1:51:15] for the time being on Mr. Hollister's

[1:51:18] objection. Okay. Um,

[1:51:22] so you say you have made all of the

[1:51:26] legally required notices of this hearing

[1:51:29] to private parties in the public.

[1:51:31] >> Yes.

[1:51:34] the property there at um 4 439 Chestnut

[1:51:40] Drive, units A through D, Blowing Rock.

[1:51:43] Is that in a short-term overlay

[1:51:45] district?

[1:51:46] >> No.

[1:52:01] Does any other board member have any

[1:52:03] questions? Any further questions, Mr.

[1:52:05] Rothro?

[1:52:08] No. I'm just um

[1:52:12] wondering if we had documentation like

[1:52:15] occupancy tax returns, payments for tax

[1:52:19] collected sometime in 2019.

[1:52:23] prior to the passing of the uh of the

[1:52:26] ordinance

[1:52:28] would that show I mean would that show

[1:52:30] that there had been rental activity but

[1:52:33] we have no such record

[1:52:34] >> we don't have any records

[1:52:38] » I sought them out

[1:52:41] with staff members that are responsible

[1:52:42] for that we did not find anything

[1:52:50] and going back to Mr. Hollister that paragraph

[1:52:55] um on the first page of the summary by

[1:52:59] Mr. Rothrock.

[1:53:00] >> Yes.

[1:53:00] >> That's your objection. Plan planning

[1:53:03] staff.

[1:53:03] >> The vess of the planning staff.

[1:53:05] >> Okay.

[1:53:06] >> Going to put it on the record that it's

[1:53:07] him and Ryan.

[1:53:10] >> I don't see any problem.

[1:53:11] >> Well, we're going to leave it up to the town to decide whether Ryan Johnson

[1:53:16] needs to come up and address address

[1:53:17] that section. So, Mr. Rosar, there are

[1:53:20] no more questions for you. Thank you

[1:53:22] very much, sir. Anything else for the

[1:53:23] town?

[1:53:28] » No,

[1:53:30] Mr. Chair,

[1:53:34] [clears throat]

[1:53:35] >> you're finished with your presentation.

[1:53:36] You don't want to put Ryan Johnson up.

[1:53:39] >> Well, it is staff's presentation.

[1:53:46] So at this point

[1:53:49] we don't know what the other person said

[1:53:54] to

[1:53:56] leave Mr. Rothrock to say planning staff

[1:53:59] all planning staff is not aware.

[1:54:05] » So should we make a motion

[1:54:06] [clears throat] to or should we just

[1:54:08] swear them in? That seems like the easy

[1:54:10] answer being a bride and having go up

[1:54:11] here and ask [laughter]

[1:54:13] [clears throat and cough]

[1:54:17] you about answer question.

[1:54:30] [clears throat]

[1:54:38] I just have a question or two with

[1:54:40] Brian.

[1:54:41] >> Sure.

[1:54:44] >> Are you aware of

[1:54:47] any conversation that occurred in in

[1:54:49] 2019 or thereabout that um that is

[1:54:53] referenced here in the staff report?

[1:54:56] >> No, I'm sorry.

[1:54:59] Um, are you aware of

[1:55:03] any evidence whatsoever that that

[1:55:05] references any conversation that might

[1:55:07] have occurred during that time affecting

[1:55:09] this property?

[1:55:10] >> I'm sorry.

[1:55:19] » And for the record, my employment

[1:55:21] started [clears throat] 2021.

[1:55:32] Are you aware of any

[1:55:35] short-term rental activity that's been

[1:55:36] occurring on that property since your

[1:55:38] hire in 2021?

[1:55:40] >> I have not.

[1:55:46] Have you received any um

[1:55:50] evidence or or any information from

[1:55:52] anyone that would suggest that there's

[1:55:53] been rental activity there since the day

[1:55:56] you're prior in 2021?

[1:55:58] >> No, sir.

[1:56:04] [snorts]

[1:56:09] » I don't question.

[1:56:12] >> Miss Garrett, any questions?

[1:56:15] Um

[1:56:18] I have

[1:56:20] one or two. Mr. Johnson,

[1:56:23] um did you ever talk with Mr. Collus at

[1:56:27] any time about short-term rentals?

[1:56:29] >> I have not.

[1:56:30] >> Short-term rentals.

[1:56:33] Are you personally aware of Mr. Coll

[1:56:36] ever renting units on a short-term

[1:56:38] basis?

[1:56:39] >> I am not aware. No.

[1:56:42] >> [clears throat]

[1:56:43] >> I have nothing further. Any board member

[1:56:45] have any questions of

[1:56:48] Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.

[1:56:51] Patrick. Anything else for the town?

[1:56:53] [clears throat]

[1:57:02] » Yes, sir. Not on. [clears throat]

[1:57:04] >> Okay. Mr. Hollister, it's your turn now

[1:57:06] to make your presentation

[1:57:11] and present your evidence.

[1:57:13] If you would start out just by stating

[1:57:15] your name. Uh Chad Hollister. Okay.

[1:57:25] » I'm here. I'm Chad Hollister. I

[1:57:27] represent Rock Pine Reynolds. Um as you

[1:57:30] heard, my father owns property. I manage

[1:57:32] it for him. Um, I wrote a statement just

[1:57:35] so it would be clear and concise. And so

[1:57:38] to start,

[1:57:40] this appeal concerns the denial of a

[1:57:42] non-confirming short-term rental status

[1:57:44] of for the property at 439 Chestnut

[1:57:47] Drive. The material facts are

[1:57:49] straightforward. Prior owners George

[1:57:51] Polus and Greg Pre Greg Buchanan

[1:57:53] operated short-term rentals at this

[1:57:55] property well before the town's 2019

[1:57:57] ordinance changes. The use ceased only

[1:58:00] after they were informed by the town

[1:58:01] that short-term rentals were no longer

[1:58:03] permitted. There were no voluntary

[1:58:05] decisions to stop renting, no intent to

[1:58:07] abandon the use, and no affirmative act

[1:58:10] inconsistent with continuation of that

[1:58:12] use. Under North Carolina, under North

[1:58:14] Carolina law, including the Court of

[1:58:16] Appeals decision in the Fraser versus

[1:58:18] Town of Blowing Rock, a lawful

[1:58:20] non-confirming use is not lost absent

[1:58:22] voluntary abandonment. Compliance with

[1:58:25] government direction is not abandonment.

[1:58:27] The affidavit submitted by Mr. Kohas

[1:58:29] establishes prior short-term rental use

[1:58:31] and confirms that the cessation occurred

[1:58:34] solely due to the town enforcement, not

[1:58:36] owner intent. For those reasons, I

[1:58:38] respectfully request that the board

[1:58:40] reverse staff's determination and

[1:58:42] recognize the property's lawful

[1:58:43] non-conforming short-term rental use.

[1:58:46] >> Thank you, Mr.

[1:58:49] Real quick. I haven't spoken.

[1:58:51] Note for the record, I'm Brian Martin.

[1:58:53] I'm representing each of these

[1:58:55] interveners along with Miss Garrett.

[1:58:57] These interveners would object to uh the

[1:59:00] vast majority of what was said right

[1:59:02] there says that it's primarily hearsay.

[1:59:06] Any reference to what Mr. Collus said,

[1:59:08] any reference to uh statements

[1:59:13] made to or by uh Mr. Collins, I think

[1:59:17] would all fall under that category. Uh,

[1:59:19] and I understand that the board could

[1:59:20] choose to uh ignore that stuff having

[1:59:23] heard it, but I just think we needed to

[1:59:24] preserve that objection for the record.

[1:59:28] » All right, Mr. Patrick, do you have

[1:59:30] anything to say about this?

[1:59:32] >> Nothing further beyond what Mr. Martin

[1:59:33] said.

[1:59:34] >> Um,

[1:59:37] so Mr. Hollister, it's sort of like your objection about

[1:59:42] the the planning staff. they're

[1:59:43] objecting to what

[1:59:45] you say happened because they think it's

[1:59:48] based solely on hearsay. Let's see if it

[1:59:50] is. Um,

[1:59:52] do you know of your own knowledge

[1:59:55] whether or not these units were um

[1:59:59] short-term rentals prior to August 13th,

[2:00:04] 2019? Do you know of your own knowledge?

[2:00:06] >> I do not have firsthand knowledge of

[2:00:08] that.

[2:00:10] Um,

[2:00:12] and I would say nobody in this room has

[2:00:14] firsthand knowledge of that.

[2:00:22] [snorts]

[2:00:27] » Question.

[2:00:27] >> Sure. Go ahead.

[2:00:29] >> Do we have any um records on on

[2:00:33] occupancy tax or anything from the town

[2:00:36] standpoint to show that it was ever

[2:00:39] uh a short-term rental?

[2:00:40] >> No.

[2:00:43] » So, is it fair [clears throat] to say

[2:00:45] that he has firsthand knowledge,

[2:00:48] Kevin?

[2:00:52] » I didn't find any evidence of receipts

[2:00:55] or

[2:00:56] >> Right.

[2:00:57] >> Did you acknowledgement of rental at

[2:01:00] that location through tax receipts?

[2:01:07] » [clears throat]

[2:01:07] >> I ask a question.

[2:01:10] >> Do you have tax receipts going back? Do

[2:01:12] you actually Where's the last tax

[2:01:13] receipt that you can bring up?

[2:01:16] >> I would ask.

[2:01:19] >> I don't know how far back they go or how

[2:01:21] far they're kept.

[2:01:24] >> So, did you not find any because they

[2:01:26] just don't exist? There's no paper

[2:01:27] trail.

[2:01:29] >> Correct. Okay.

[2:01:31] >> So, it's not that they don't exist

[2:01:32] because they're there. [clears throat]

[2:01:34] Gotcha.

[2:01:44] So,

[2:01:55] » you had something to say about intent

[2:01:58] and abandonment. Can you tell us that

[2:01:59] again? I didn't catch it all.

[2:02:02] uh basically that the pro the previous

[2:02:05] owners never intended to abandon their

[2:02:07] right to short-term rent.

[2:02:09] Okay.

[2:02:16] » Which is based on hearsay.

[2:02:20] [clears throat]

[2:02:20] >> It's based on the affidavit which you're

[2:02:23] considering here.

[2:02:24] >> Okay.

[2:02:27] But I will say it's a

[2:02:29] it was a it's a notorized affidavit. So

[2:02:33] you take it for what you want.

[2:02:36] >> It's it's it's sworn. Of course it our

[2:02:40] evidence, our testimony has to be sworn

[2:02:42] and it meets that requirement. It's just

[2:02:44] the fact that he's not here. It's

[2:02:46] >> I understand.

[2:02:47] >> Right.

[2:02:49] >> I do believe in a court of law. It's

[2:02:50] admissible though. So

[2:02:54] >> who says a court of law?

[2:02:55] >> Not I know this isn't a court of law but

[2:02:57] saying it [clears throat]

[2:02:58] if it I mean it is allowed to go into a

[2:03:01] regular court that's evidence I believe.

[2:03:05] >> Well I might disagree with you there.

[2:03:09] Um,

[2:03:29] [clears throat]

[2:03:38] Mr. Mr. Holl, did you have anything else

[2:03:39] to add?

[2:03:41] >> I would say that the 180day rule should

[2:03:44] not apply here because there was no

[2:03:46] intent to abandon. So the only reason

[2:03:48] that the 180 day gap exists was because

[2:03:53] they were told they weren't allowed to

[2:03:57] do it. So it's there was no there was no

[2:04:00] intent to not do it. If they were

[2:04:03] allowed to have kept doing it, that 180

[2:04:05] days would never have lapsed.

[2:04:09] Okay,

[2:04:13] » M. Garrett, any questions?

[2:04:15] >> No, [clears throat] we would just renew

[2:04:16] the objection just for purposes of the

[2:04:18] record.

[2:04:19] >> Um,

[2:04:21] well, I sustain the objection. The hearsay of the the affidavit is not in evidence. that document is in

[2:04:30] the record that down the road somebody

[2:04:34] some judge wanted to see everything to

[2:04:37] do with this case it would be there but

[2:04:38] it's not in evidence

[2:04:41] um Mr. Petri any more questions of Mr.

[2:04:44] Hollister

[2:04:45] >> no board member have any further okay

[2:04:48] thank you Mr. calls.

[2:04:56] » Um, Miss Garrett.

[2:05:01] » She didn't hear you.

[2:05:08] [cough]

[2:05:09] >> Mr. Springs. I think at this time um the

[2:05:13] interveners would move to dismiss based

[2:05:16] on the grounds that there's a lack of

[2:05:18] sufficient evidence point basis to meet

[2:05:21] the criteria for this grandfather

[2:05:23] grandfathering status. Um

[2:05:28] the bare bones here would be that

[2:05:30] there's some testimony, there's some

[2:05:31] evidence um that there were short-term

[2:05:34] rentals at any point uh much less of the

[2:05:38] 180day gap. But there is no evidence

[2:05:41] because of what I think were proper

[2:05:44] decisions by this board as to what's

[2:05:47] not. There is simply no evidence before

[2:05:50] this board that there has been

[2:05:52] short-term rentals at any time relevant

[2:05:55] to this matter. So I just don't think

[2:05:56] that the evidence to get to the point of

[2:05:59] interveners even putting on evidence

[2:06:01] that I just don't think there's enough

[2:06:02] evidence to survive to that point.

[2:06:09] » Mr. Peter,

[2:06:10] >> nothing.

[2:06:13] Um,

[2:06:16] it's well argued, Mr. Martin, but I

[2:06:18] think Mr. Hollister deserves a decision.

[2:06:22] Um, we'll take a short comfort break,

[2:06:25] bathroom break, and then uh the board

[2:06:29] will start to do uh factual findings and

[2:06:32] then conclusions of law. So,

[2:06:35] [clears throat] bathroom break.

[2:06:38] [music]

[2:06:46] » [music]

[2:09:04] » Heat. Heat.

[2:09:10] [music]

[2:09:30] » [music]

[2:10:34] >> Heat. Heat.

[2:10:43] [music]

[2:11:10] » [music]

[2:13:39] » Heat. Heat. [music]

[2:14:02] » [music]

[2:15:11] >> Heat. Heat.

[2:15:20] [music]

[2:15:40] » [music]

[2:16:28] >> Heat.

[2:16:36] [music]

[2:16:40] Heat.

[2:16:43] [music]

[2:16:57] » [music]

[2:17:42] » No [music] word listing. its findings of

[2:17:43] fact.

[2:17:46] Fellow board members, um, [snorts] stop

[2:17:49] me if I say something incorrectly.

[2:17:53] Um, and I'll begin. The address of the

[2:17:57] property at issue in this case is 439

[2:17:59] Chestnut Drive, units A, B, C, and D,

[2:18:02] Ling Rock, North Carolina. For

[2:18:05] convenience, we shall refer to it

[2:18:07] hereafter as the property. The Waga

[2:18:10] County PIN number for the property is

[2:18:12] 2807-96-5192-0000.

[2:18:15] [clears throat]

[2:18:18] The appellant

[2:18:21] is Chad Hollister

[2:18:26] representing

[2:18:31] Rock Pine

[2:18:34] Rentals LLC.

[2:18:41] The owner of the property at issue is

[2:18:43] Rock Pine Rentals

[2:18:48] LLC. The owner of Rockpine Reynolds LLC

[2:18:52] is James Hollister

[2:19:05] Rock Pine Reynolds LLC bought the

[2:19:08] property

[2:19:10] from

[2:19:14] let's

[2:19:20] I think I'll get I'll get it correct.

[2:19:24] [clears throat] Uh, bought the property

[2:19:25] from George R. Collus

[2:19:30] [clears throat]

[2:19:33] and Stephen

[2:19:36] G. Buchanan,

[2:19:43] Rockpine Reynolds LLC. bought the

[2:19:45] property on August 28th,

[2:19:48] 2025.

[2:19:52] The property at issue is in Blowing Rock

[2:19:54] zoning district R-6M.

[2:19:58] The property at issue is not

[2:20:03] in a short-term overlay district.

[2:20:06] All proper and required notices of this

[2:20:08] hearing have been made.

[2:20:15] The appellant contacted the Blowing Rock

[2:20:17] Planning and Inspector's Office on

[2:20:19] October 31st, 2025,

[2:20:22] and he asked the planning director,

[2:20:24] Kevin Rothrock, to confirm that the

[2:20:26] property at 439 Chestnut Drive, units

[2:20:29] ABCD, could be used for the use of

[2:20:32] short-term rental.

[2:20:35] » [clears throat]

[2:20:37] >> The planning director informed the

[2:20:38] appellant by letter that the property

[2:20:40] could not be used for the use of

[2:20:42] short-term rentals. The planning

[2:20:45] director finding no evidence that the

[2:20:47] proper has been used for short-term

[2:20:49] rentals since the enactment of the

[2:20:51] Blowing Rock ordinance regulating

[2:20:53] [clears throat] short-term rentals on

[2:20:55] August 13, 2019,

[2:20:58] a period of more than 180 consecutive

[2:21:01] days.

[2:21:05] Blowing Rock Code section 16-8.6

[2:21:08] says any non-conforming use such as

[2:21:10] short-term rental that was otherwise

[2:21:12] lawful when the zoning ordinance was

[2:21:14] amended on August 13, 2019 would have

[2:21:18] been allowed to continue provided that

[2:21:20] the non-conforming us is not

[2:21:22] discontinued for a consecutive period of

[2:21:24] 180 days.

[2:21:27] The planning director based his denial

[2:21:29] of the palance's request upon blowing

[2:21:31] rock section 16-8.6

[2:21:34] abandonment and discontinuence of

[2:21:36] non-conforming situations when a

[2:21:38] non-conforming use is a discontinued for

[2:21:41] a consecutive period of 180 days or b

[2:21:45] discontinued for any period of time

[2:21:47] without a present intention to reinstate

[2:21:49] the non-conforming use. The property

[2:21:51] involved may thereafter be used only for

[2:21:53] conforming purposes.

[2:22:09] The appellant is appealing a final

[2:22:11] administrative decision.

[2:22:13] [snorts]

[2:22:14] C exhibit A where in the town of Blowing

[2:22:16] Rock's planning director Kevin Rothrock

[2:22:19] notified appellent that appellants

[2:22:20] request to have the use of short-term

[2:22:22] rentals allowed on the property of 439

[2:22:25] Chestnut Drive units A B C and D is

[2:22:28] denied by the PL planning director. The

[2:22:31] date of the denial by the planning

[2:22:33] director is November 13, 2025.

[2:22:37] The date of the appeal this appeal by

[2:22:39] appellent is November 20th, 2025.

[2:22:44] The use of short-term rentals became

[2:22:46] non-conforming in Blowing Rock zoning

[2:22:48] district R-6M

[2:22:50] on August 13, 2019. The [clears throat]

[2:22:53] Blowing Rock Land Use Code, hereafter

[2:22:56] referred to as Blowing Rock Code in

[2:22:59] section 16-10.1,

[2:23:01] table of permissible uses at use

[2:23:04] description 1.620 620

[2:23:06] does not allow the use of short-term

[2:23:08] rental of a residential dwelling unit in

[2:23:11] zoning district R-6M.

[2:23:14] Short-term rental, which is a

[2:23:16] non-conforming use.

[2:23:20] Short-term rental is defined in the

[2:23:22] Blowing Rock Code section 16-10.12

[2:23:25] as the rental, lease, or offer to make

[2:23:27] available any attached or detached

[2:23:30] residential dwelling unit or portion

[2:23:32] thereof by way of a rental agreement,

[2:23:35] lease, license, or any other means,

[2:23:38] whether oral or written, for

[2:23:40] compensation or consideration for a

[2:23:42] duration that is less than 28

[2:23:44] consecutive days.

[2:23:46] Non-conforming use is defined as a

[2:23:48] non-conforming situation that occurs

[2:23:50] when property is used for a purpose or

[2:23:53] in a manner made unlawful by the use

[2:23:55] regulations applicable to the district

[2:23:57] in which the property is located.

[2:24:01] The blowing rock code ordinance which

[2:24:03] says what is required to be in layman's

[2:24:06] terms grandfathered is section 16-8.1.

[2:24:10] Blowing Rock Code section 16-8.1

[2:24:13] says continuation of non-conforming

[2:24:15] situations and completion of

[2:24:18] non-conforming projects except as

[2:24:20] otherwise specifically provided

[2:24:21] [clears throat] in this chapter.

[2:24:23] Non-conforming situations that were

[2:24:25] otherwise lawful on the effective date

[2:24:28] of this chapter may be continued subject

[2:24:31] to the restrictions and qualifications

[2:24:32] set forth in section 16-8.2 2 and

[2:24:37] 16-8.9.

[2:24:40] [clears throat]

[2:24:45] The property here

[2:24:48] has not been used for the non-conforming

[2:24:50] use of short-term rentals since the date

[2:24:51] of enactment August 13, 2019 of the

[2:24:54] Blowing Rock Code zoning ordinance which

[2:24:58] made short-term rentals a non-conforming

[2:25:01] use section 16-10.12.

[2:25:06] » Yes.

[2:25:06] >> Question.

[2:25:07] >> Yeah.

[2:25:07] >> You mentioned

[2:25:09] >> in the last paragraph that you

[2:25:10] mentioned, you said 16-8.9.

[2:25:14] Is that what you said? Yes, it subject

[2:25:16] to the restrictions and qualifications

[2:25:18] set forth in section 16.8.2 and 16-8.9.

[2:25:23] >> There's not 8.9.

[2:25:30] » Here's a three right under that. Is that

[2:25:33] if I've got that right. [clears throat]

[2:25:42] I was trying to understand the context

[2:25:44] of the paragraph

[2:25:46] >> 16-8

[2:25:48] that's

[2:25:50] let me let me find it.

[2:26:38] And also 8.2 two

[2:26:40] is talking about non-conforming laws. So

[2:26:44] maybe it's it's 8.6.

[2:26:47] >> Okay. I'm I'm I'm [clears throat]

[2:26:48] reading

[2:26:50] section 16-8.1.

[2:26:53] >> Yep.

[2:26:54] >> Subject to the restrictions and

[2:26:56] qualifications set forth in section

[2:26:57] 16-8.2 and 16-8.9.

[2:27:02] >> Yeah.

[2:27:02] >> You say a 16-8.9 doesn't exist.

[2:27:05] >> That's right. It's probably a typo.

[2:27:07] >> Um

[2:27:09] Well,

[2:27:10] >> I'm looking at it, too. I see it there,

[2:27:12] too.

[2:27:12] >> Okay.

[2:27:13] >> I I don't know what that's referring to.

[2:27:14] >> Well, it's in the it's in the code, but

[2:27:16] we'll leave it in there. If if it

[2:27:18] doesn't exist, then it doesn't have many

[2:27:20] restrictions and qualifications, I

[2:27:21] guess.

[2:27:36] » [clears throat]

[2:27:40] » So, let me go back. The property here

[2:27:42] has not been used for the non-conforming

[2:27:44] use of short-term rentals since the date

[2:27:46] of enactment, August 13, 2019, of the

[2:27:49] Blowing Rock Code zoning ordinance,

[2:27:51] which made short-term rentals a

[2:27:52] non-conforming use.

[2:27:55] Um

[2:28:00] that would be se section 16-10.12

[2:28:04] up until the date of this appeal

[2:28:06] November [clears throat] 20th 2025.

[2:28:11] » Anyone want to add any facts? Any board

[2:28:13] member?

[2:28:15] Okay. All right. I make a motion that we

[2:28:17] accept the factual findings as just

[2:28:19] stated. Is there a second?

[2:28:21] >> Second.

[2:28:23] >> Uh all in favor?

[2:28:25] of accepting the factual findings as

[2:28:27] I've just narrated them. Say I.

[2:28:29] >> I. It's unanimous.

[2:28:38] I move that we uh close the evidentiary

[2:28:41] hearing at this time. Is there a second?

[2:28:43] >> Second.

[2:28:44] >> Seconded by Mr. Walker. Uh all those in

[2:28:47] favor of closing the evidentiary hearing

[2:28:49] and moving to conclusions of law say I.

[2:28:52] >> I. It's unanimous.

[2:28:57] The applicable standards

[2:29:00] in [clears throat] order for appellent

[2:29:01] to establish that the property 439

[2:29:03] Chestnut Drive, units A, B, C, D,

[2:29:06] Blowing Rock, North Carolina, should be

[2:29:07] allowed to have the legal non-conforming

[2:29:09] use of short-term rentals

[2:29:13] um

[2:29:14] in uh in its Blowing Rock R-6M zoning

[2:29:19] district. The appellant must show by

[2:29:21] substantial material and competent

[2:29:22] evidence that a the property was being

[2:29:24] used for that use prior to the enactment

[2:29:27] of the blowing rock ordinance regulating

[2:29:29] short-term rentals

[2:29:31] um on August 13th, 2019 and the use was

[2:29:36] otherwise lawful. C blowing rock code

[2:29:39] section 16-8.1

[2:29:42] and B the use continued and there was no

[2:29:44] consecutive period of 180 days where

[2:29:47] that non-conforming use has been

[2:29:49] discontinued. See blowing rock code

[2:29:51] section 16-8.6

[2:29:54] or the appellet must show a vested right

[2:29:56] to have short-term rentals has been

[2:29:57] legally established. See blowing rock

[2:30:00] code section 16-10.12.1.

[2:30:05] The conclusions of law. The appellent

[2:30:09] has not pursued a vested right argument

[2:30:11] that the property should be allowed to

[2:30:12] have non-conforming use of short-term

[2:30:14] rentals. Appellant has not produced

[2:30:17] evidence of a vested right. So, the

[2:30:18] board finds no vested right for the

[2:30:20] property to be allowed to non-conforming

[2:30:22] use of short-term rentals.

[2:30:27] Turning now to whether or not appellent

[2:30:28] has produced substantial material or

[2:30:30] confident evidence that the legal and

[2:30:32] conforming use of short-term rentals had

[2:30:34] been taking place at the property prior

[2:30:37] to the enactment of the zoning amendment

[2:30:38] on August 13, 2019, which made

[2:30:42] short-term rentals a non-conforming use

[2:30:44] in zoning district R-6M.

[2:30:48] The appellant has not presented

[2:30:50] substantial material and confident

[2:30:53] evidence that the use of short-term

[2:30:55] rentals took place at the property prior

[2:30:57] to the zoning amendment on August 13,

[2:31:00] 2019.

[2:31:09] [snorts]

[2:31:21] » [clears throat]

[2:31:24] » The appellant has not produced

[2:31:26] substantial material and competent

[2:31:27] evidence that after the town of Blowing

[2:31:29] Rock began regulating short-term rentals

[2:31:32] on August 13, 2019 under Blowing Rock

[2:31:35] Code section 16-10.12.

[2:31:38] There have been short-term rentals of

[2:31:40] the property since that day and there

[2:31:42] has been no consecutive period of 180

[2:31:45] days where the non-conforming use of

[2:31:47] short-term rentals has been

[2:31:49] discontinued.

[2:32:04] Blowing Rock Code section 16-8.6.3 6.3

[2:32:08] provides that when a structure or

[2:32:10] operation made non-conforming by this

[2:32:12] chapter is vacant or discontinued

[2:32:17] at the effective date of this chapter.

[2:32:19] The 180day period for purposes of this

[2:32:22] section begin to run at the effect at

[2:32:24] the effective date of this chapter.

[2:32:27] [clears throat]

[2:32:33] The town of Blowing Rock through the

[2:32:35] Blowing Rock planning director

[2:32:38] has

[2:32:40] produced substantial material and

[2:32:41] competent evidence that there has been a

[2:32:43] consecutive period of 180 days when the

[2:32:46] property has not been used for the

[2:32:48] non-conforming use of short-term

[2:32:49] rentals. that use having been

[2:32:51] discontinued and the period of

[2:32:53] discontinuence has been from the

[2:32:54] effective date of the chapter making

[2:32:56] short-term rentals a non-conforming use

[2:32:58] in zoning district R6M

[2:33:01] August 13 2019 up until the date of the

[2:33:05] appellance appeal November 20th 2025 and

[2:33:09] continuing on to the present day the

[2:33:11] evidence includes the appellants

[2:33:13] [clears throat]

[2:33:19] strike

[2:33:23] » [snorts]

[2:33:38] » The board of adjustment

[2:33:42] finds

[2:33:43] that the non-conforming use of

[2:33:45] short-term rentals was discontinued for

[2:33:47] a consecutive period of 180 days and the

[2:33:50] property involved here is ordered of the

[2:33:52] Blowing Rock Board of Adjustment to

[2:33:54] hereafter be used only for conforming

[2:33:56] purposes.

[2:34:01] There has not been sufficient evidence

[2:34:03] from the appellant that the applicable

[2:34:05] standards have been met such that the

[2:34:07] non-conforming use of short-term rentals

[2:34:09] should be grandfathered and allowed as a

[2:34:11] legal non-conforming use at the property

[2:34:13] of 439 Chestnut Drive [clears throat]

[2:34:16] units A, B, C, and D, Blowing Rock,

[2:34:20] North Carolina.

[2:34:26] After consideration of the evidence

[2:34:28] produced at this appeal hearing, the

[2:34:30] Blowing Rock board of adjustment

[2:34:34] finds that the Blowing Rock planning

[2:34:36] director was correct in his

[2:34:37] determination that the non-conforming

[2:34:39] use of short-term rentals is not allowed

[2:34:42] at 439 Chestnut Drive, units A, B, C,

[2:34:46] and D, Boing Rock, North Carolina. The

[2:34:50] appellants appeal is not granted. The

[2:34:53] board of [clears throat] adjustment did

[2:34:54] adopt the above conclusions of law

[2:34:58] and I make a motion that uh we adopt the

[2:35:03] conclusions of law as just stated. Is

[2:35:05] there a second?

[2:35:07] >> Second.

[2:35:07] >> Mr. Brandon second.

[2:35:10] All in favor of adopting the conclusions

[2:35:12] of law as I've just stated them say I.

[2:35:14] >> I.

[2:35:15] It is unanimous.

[2:35:18] So the board of adjustment did adopt the

[2:35:20] above conclusions of law by unanimous

[2:35:22] vote and the board of adjustment

[2:35:26] denies

[2:35:27] the appellent's appeal by unanimous

[2:35:30] vote.

[2:35:34] This decision will be put into writing

[2:35:36] for approval by all the participating

[2:35:38] members of the Blong Rock Board of

[2:35:39] Adjustment. This decision is effective

[2:35:42] upon filing with the clerk.

[2:35:52] Have I forgotten anything?

[2:36:06] » I move that we conclude this meeting of

[2:36:08] the Blowing Rock Board of Adjustment. Is

[2:36:10] there a second?

[2:36:10] >> Second.

[2:36:11] >> Seconded by Miss Murphy. All in favor of

[2:36:13] concluding this uh meeting say I.

[2:36:16] >> I.

[2:36:16] It's unanimous. And everyone have a

[2:36:18] good evening and be careful of the eyes.

Board of Adjustment - Thursday, January 29th, 2026

Transcript