Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Board denies special exception for Rosewood Drive liquor store after neighborhood opposition

January 03, 2025 | Columbia City, Richland County, South Carolina


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Board denies special exception for Rosewood Drive liquor store after neighborhood opposition
The City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals denied a special exception request to open a liquor store at 1701 Rosewood Drive, Unit A, after neighborhood leaders and residents testified in opposition and the applicant did not appear for rebuttal.

On Jan. 2, 2025, the board considered application 20240022 SE for an establishment of a liquor store in the NAC (Neighborhood Activity Center) district. The applicant was not present when the case was called; the board decided to proceed with the hearing rather than defer, and the public spoke against the proposal.

Jim Daniel, president of the Wheeler Hill Neighborhood Association, told the board that neighborhood leaders were notified late and that the applicant’s project description inaccurately stated there were no other liquor stores within a mile of the proposed site. “There are two. There’s one next to the BP station across from Publix — that’s 0.9 mile — and Tommy and Son at the corner of Hardin and Rosewood,” Daniel said, adding that approval would result in three liquor stores within about a mile on Rosewood Drive.

William Lynn Shirley, past president of the Hollywood Rosehill Neighborhood Council, said he polled his council’s 12 members and received nine responses; all nine opposed the application. Shirley told the board many neighborhood homes are a block from the proposed location and said residents were concerned about convenience for underage purchases and impacts to neighborhood livability.

Board members discussed the special-exception criteria, including whether approval would create a harmful concentration of similar uses. One member cited criterion 8, which prohibits a proliferation of similar uses that could be detrimental to redevelopment, and concluded the proposal did not meet the standard. The board voted to deny the special exception; the motion carried by voice vote.

The record includes written opposition letters from neighborhood residents, including Margaret McGee of 312 South Pickens, who stated she lives three properties from the proposed location. The board’s denial was entered on the record at the meeting; the applicant may pursue any applicable appeal procedures.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee