Is the home at 3115 Ion Ave. a vacation rental and should selling shares in the property be classified as a commercial enterprise? Members of the Sullivan’s Island Board of Zoning Appeals apparently think so.
Following a Feb. 9 hearing that lasted more than two hours, the BZA agreed with Director of Planning & Zoning Charles Drayton and rejected an appeal filed by Pacaso, which is trying to sell eight fractional ownerships in the property.
According to a Pacaso spokesperson, “Pacaso and other co-owned homes on Sullivan’s Island are not vacation rentals. We are exploring all legal options to challenge this decision.”
In an October 2022 letter, Drayton informed 2 SC Lighthouse, an LLC that owns the home and is controlled by Pacaso, that the town’s zoning ordinances prohibit homes “made available for use, occupancy, possession and sleep accommodations for less than 28 continuous days duration.” At the BZA hearing, he pointed out that the regulations that apply in the town’s single-family residential district “are designed to encourage the formation and continuance of a stable, healthy environment for one single family. … and to discourage any encroachment by commercial or other uses capable of adversely affecting the residential character of the district.”
Attorney Ross Appel, representing Pacaso at the hearing, insisted that the 4,331-square-foot home was neither a short-term vacation rental nor a commercial business. He added that efforts to ban Pacaso from the island are strictly political.
“I want to address the elephant in the room,” he said. “There’s obviously political opposition to what my clients are doing. We’ve seen statements by staff and elected officials in the media. It’s an attempt to shut us down. At the core of it, it’s political. And the town is responding to the politics through this enforcement action. We have to defend that to the full extent of the law, which we are attempting to do this evening.”
“I’m asking you to ignore the politics,” he added. “This board’s sole role tonight is to determine whether the zoning administrator’s Oct. 21 letter is correct under the evidence before you in the record and the definition of a vacation rental as it appears in the town zoning code.”
During the hearing, Appel and members of the BZA sparred over Pacaso’s apparent refusal to share the details of the company’s agreements with the individuals who have purchased shares of the home. Drayton said the town has requested the operating agreement, but “they have refused to provide that to the town.” Appel responded that “We don’t have to provide sensitive company information.”
“We can say, listen, they don’t want to show us the operating agreement and that’s fine. They don’t want to show us the management agreement; that’s fine, too. But what we can see is that it acts as a business,” BZA member Jeremy Graves commented.
In a Feb. 8 letter to the BZA, Appel pointed out that Pacaso’s appeal is based on one question: Is the property being used as a vacation rental?
“The reason is simple and straightforward. No rental transactions are taking place at the property,” the letter said. “The property’s owners and guests are the only people using the property. The property is not being marketed to the public.”
Members of the BZA were not convinced. Chair Elizabeth Tezza pointed out that “whether or not it’s legally a time share, it acts like one. There’s no way in my mind we can say it’s not a commercial activity.”
“What we’re saying is that all of this other activity that you and Pacaso are engaging in is specifically designed to create a vacation location, that every part of that commercial activity you’re doing is generating essentially a vacation rental,” BZA member Jody Latham said.
The motion to deny Pacaso’s appeal passed unanimously.
