Residents urge board to deny retroactive permit after bedroom conversions at Hollywood Rose Hill apartments

The City of Columbia zoning board heard residents' objections over retroactive permit requests tied to bedroom conversions and interior work at the Hollywood Rose Hill apartments, where neighbors said converting common stairwells and hallways into bathrooms has effectively intensified occupancy and created safety and parking problems.

The issue centers on whether interior changes — adding bathrooms and reconfiguring two-bedroom units into three-bedroom units within the existing building footprint — constitute an unlawful "intensification" under the city's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Neighbors urged the board to uphold the zoning administrator's denial of retroactive permits; the owner and counsel argued the work did not expand the number of dwelling units or the structure's footprint and therefore is not intensification.

Residents described observable changes and neighborhood impacts. Emily Suski, a Hollywood Rose Hill resident, said, "It has intensified the parking issue and ... This is not something we need to predict. It's something that's already happened since they've added the bedroom to the unit." Catherine Luchak, a past neighborhood association president, told the board that in 2017 a fire in a stairwell had killed a resident and warned removing an egress route raises safety concerns.

Neighborhood leaders pressed the legal and practical points the board must weigh. Guy Jones, who said he has served twice as president of the Hollywood Rose Hill neighborhood council, said the council voted to support the city's denial because the owner's marketing appears aimed at student rentals and "the owner's clear objective here is to rent to students." Jim Daniel, president of the Wheel of Neighborhood Association, said the added bathrooms were placed in what had been shared hall space and that removing the rear stairwell eliminated an intended means of egress.

Speakers also raised parking and traffic impacts. Multiple residents described on-street crowding near Saluda Avenue and nearby park entrances and argued additional bedrooms would raise vehicle counts. John Banes and William Lynn Shirley said that adding bedrooms tends to bring more students and cars to the neighborhood; Shirley noted the neighborhood is already heavily rented.

The appellant's side argued the reconfiguration stays within the building footprint and does not increase the number of dwelling units, parking spaces or the property's legal capacity. In a legal argument the appellant's representative cited the McMaster v. City of Columbia case and multiple UDO provisions, saying the law permits three unrelated occupants per unit and that interior upgrades or better marketing do not necessarily amount to an intensification. The appellant's counsel also said the number of units remains "24 units before, 24 units after" and that the site's parking plan meets the code requirement of 42 spaces.

Board members questioned how the UDO's nonconforming-use provisions apply to interior reconfigurations and to common areas converted to private bathroom space. One board member asked about section citations including an enlargement/expansion provision that allows a nonconforming use to expand into areas of the same structure "which was manifestly arranged or designed for such use prior to the date the use became a nonconformity," and whether that language applies when the property was built as a nonconformity. A commenter argued the property was built as a nonconformity and that the statutory exception therefore should not apply.

After public testimony and attorneys' argument, a board member moved and the panel voted to go into an executive session "for receipt of legal advice." The board's motion to meet in executive session carried on a voice vote; the meeting record shows members answered "Aye." No final decision on the zoning permit or the intensification question was recorded in the public portion of the hearing.

The board has yet to issue a public ruling; it moved to executive session to receive legal advice before any formal decision. The record of correspondence submitted for the case was noted: letters from Mary R. Bull, Susan James, Sally Fisher Lewis, Mary Ann Warner Belser and Eileen Claire were entered into the record.