Zoning board upholds city interpretation: fenced outdoor pool does not qualify as 'fully enclosed' for home-occupation swim lessons

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 4 upheld a zoning administrator determination that an outdoor pool enclosed only by a fence does not qualify as a "fully enclosed" structure under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for purposes of a home-occupation permit. The decision leaves in place restrictions that prevent a resident business operator from offering on-site private swim lessons at that address unless the activity is moved into a fully enclosed structure or off-site.

Why it matters: The ruling affects a long-running neighborhood dispute in the Lake Catherine area and will require the swim-lesson operator to shift lessons off the property or alter the property to meet the UDO standard. Supporters said the lessons provide an important public-safety service for children, including special-needs students; neighbors said the scale of activity and traffic have interfered with residential use.

The board27s action followed a full hearing that included legal argument, testimony from neighbors on both sides, and an executive-session attempt to obtain legal advice. Attorney Jeffrey Chambers, representing the appellant and property owners, told the board the outdoor pool had been in operation since 2018, that the business had obtained a city business license, and that the city issued notices of violation in 2024 after a new nearby buyer raised complaints. Chambers argued the city27s written interpretation was procedurally defective because an application and completeness determination required by the UDO were not made before the interpretation was issued on July 9, 2025. Chambers also cited common-dictionary definitions and a claimed average sound-level reading of about "30 to 40 decibels" at the property line to argue that the pool use did not create the nuisance the city described. He read part of the code into the record, including the UDO language about outdoor pools: "All outdoor swimming pools shall be completely enclosed by a barrier meeting the requirements hereafter specified," and argued that an existing fence satisfied that language.

Zoning Administrator Andrew Livingood countered that the UDO requires a fully enclosed structure for home occupations 27in the sense of a structure27 (with enclosure on all sides and overhead), and that a fenced yard is not the same as a roofed, fully enclosed structure. "A yard is not a structure," Livingood said during the hearing, arguing the home-occupation standard aims to keep business activities indistinguishable from normal residential appearance and to avoid commercial activity conducted outdoors in yards.

Public comment was split. Resident and former planning commission chair Robert Smith urged the board to "use a common sense approach" and noted other South Carolina municipalities that allow outdoor pools for instruction, while nearby neighbor Jim Bu said the operation had produced parking, traffic and noise concerns and that adjacent residents had not been given adequate notice. Several neighbors, including Michael Hedgecock and Rebecca McLauchorn, testified in support of the swim program and said they had not experienced problems.

The board moved into executive session to try to obtain legal advice and to allow members to discuss the interpretation. Assistant City Attorney Mike Hemlep told the board after executive session that city counsel had attempted to reach BOZA27s attorney but had not been able to and that city counsel did not provide legal advice to the independent board in executive session.

On returning to open session members attempted a motion to reverse the zoning administrator's determination but that motion failed. A subsequent motion to uphold the zoning administrator's interpretation carried on a voice vote. Chair Catherine Fenner explained the board's conclusion in open session: "The structure has to be completely enclosed. The fact that it's got a fence around it is nice, but that's not relevant. The fact that it may or may not create noise... is not relevant. What is apparently relevant... is that it has to be within a fully enclosed structure. It is not within a fully enclosed structure. So therefore, we are denying the motion."

What happens next: The decision upholds the zoning administrator's written interpretation; the operator may pursue alternatives discussed at the hearing such as conducting lessons at an indoor facility or at other pools under contract. The decision does not itself impose criminal penalties, and the transcript records prior notices of violation but not a criminal citation. The appellant referenced an ongoing legal challenge in court seeking declaratory relief related to the city27s actions.

Ending: The board27s ruling resolves a contested local zoning interpretation but is likely to leave the neighborhood and the swim-lesson operator seeking interim arrangements while any court challenges or appeals proceed.