Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

City of Greenville in collaboration with

The meeting will now come to order. Welcome to the July 21, 2026 meeting of the City of Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is John Collins. I'm the chair of this commission. Grice, will you do the invocation?

Yes. Let us pray. Dear Lord, thank you for bringing us here together tonight. Give us wisdom. Discuss the matters on the agenda. Or let us have your best decision in mind and guide our conversations. In your name I pray. Amen.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

John Collins.

Present.

Carlos White.

Here.

Kimber Stone. Thomas Remington.

Here.

Spencer Newton.

Here.

Alan Thomas. Clayton Self. William McCurry. Brad Carter. Toya Jacobs. Anika Royal. Here. And Grice Bell.

Here.

We have quorum.

Thank you. And I'd like to welcome Spencer to the commission. All right, our next item is approval of the agenda. I don't know of any reason to move items around. So if somebody will move to approve the agenda.

Motion to approve. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approving the agenda say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, approval of the minutes. You've all been presented in advance with the minutes from the June 9, 2026, and June 16, 2026 meetings, and have had an opportunity to read and review the minutes. Are there any questions or corrections?

Motion to approve the minutes. Second.

I'll take that two cents.

Ah. It could be more than that.

You move to approve both? Move to approve both dates.

Second.

We have a motion to approve both sets of minutes. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Is that okay?

I need a second.

Yeah, Thomas. Thomas, give a second. All those in favor, say aye. We already did that, right? Okay. Opposed, say nay. All right. We're good with the minutes. All right. New business. Request by P-O-B-O-L-L-C to rezone a total of 56.3694 acres from R-A-20, residential agriculture, to I, industry, for track 1, 47.5794. 47.5795 acres to O-CA office conservation overlay for track 2, 8.6062 acres and to O office for track 3, 0.1837 acres for the property located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Old Creek Road and Tram Lane. Staff presentation by Shantae Goovey.

So this property is located in the northeastern quadrant of the city is shown by the red star. And then this is an aerial photograph. So the property is along Old Creek Road. When we get to the survey, I'll kind of go through the tracks. It's just a little bit easier. But we do have track one, which is the largest. Track two runs around the periphery. And then track three, I've got a little blow up of that so you can see what it looks like. And then this is Martin Luther King Jr. Highway. So this is a blow-up of track three. You can see it's just sort of a little trapezoid shape. It's hard to actually see on the aerial, so we just wanted to blow it up for you a bit. And now I'll go through the requested zoning. So the total is 56 acres. Track one is the largest, and the requested zoning is for industry, and it's about 48 acres. Track two, which runs around the periphery, about eight and a half acres. The request is for office-CA, which is conservation area overlay. I've got a slide to talk about that in a second. And then track three, which is just down here in the bottom, very small, almost two-tenths, and it's just plain office. So this is a photograph of the property, Old Creek Road. So Martin Luther King Jr. Highway would be to your right hand side. This property is located near an activity center. Again, this is just where we would expect some sort of activity, whether it be commercial or industrial. So under the current zoning, which is already 20 at full build out, the expectation for trips would be approximately 1600 and at full build out under the industrial zoning, it would be about 15, 1550. So at the end of the day, it's a net reduction of 42, 43 trips. So since it was a net reduction, then we didn't give you the full traffic study like we normally do. Cause again, it's a decrease in traffic. This property is not located in a special flood hazard area. There is a potential for jurisdictional wetlands, buffers, and streams. It's located in the Johnson Mill Parkers Creek Watershed, and if stormwater rules apply, it will require 10-year detention. So for the zoning, so the property is currently RE20. uh... the request very easily track one is for uh... industry track two is for office with a conservation area track three is plain office so this is a section out of the UDO this specifically deals with conservation area overlay this is nothing new we've had it in the old ordinance we've brought it forward doesn't get used a whole lot but at the end of the day uh... the purpose is is that the overlay has the force of zoning just like on any other piece of property. But what this does is when you add the CA overlay, it prohibits any kind of building structures or parking in that area. So that strip that wraps around the bigger parcel would not have buildings or parking in it. And then just a little bit further in the UDO, it talks about it should be under undeveloped and vacant and again not for use for any kind of building and it should be at least a hundred feet at its narrowest dimension. So why did the applicant do this? The future land use plan recommends industry and logistics, which is in gray. And then you'll see you have the green, which is potential conservation area and open space. And then that transitions out into residential. So the green on the map really serves two purposes. It serves a purpose for one, potential environmental constraints, and then two, to have some sort of a buffer between the industry and the residents residential and so that's why on the edge of the property you can see they've picked up the conservation overlay so that was the intent. So in staff's opinion the request is in compliance with the future land use plan. Staff recommends approval and I will be glad to answer any questions that you might have

Yes. So track two is the opening?

Yes.

Can you go back? I was kind of curious when you say that. So, all right, that makes sense.

So that's the buffer. That is a specific buffer. So no buildings, no parking from the industry. Essentially, it should stay in its natural state i think there might be some trees along there but essentially it shouldn't be developed that's the intent behind it i wrote it out there i was just trying to figure out like how would that work okay any other questions for ms gooby thank you

The public hearing is now open. The first speaker will have five minutes with each additional speaker having three minutes until 30 minutes has expired. Is there anyone present to speak in favor of this request? Sir, if you could state your name for the record, you'll have five minutes.

Good evening, board members. Ken Malpus, representing POBO. What you have before you tonight is what, after meeting with the Boutelais and Mr. Rizek and Mr. Thayer, who both have easements along that tramway, the The office part without the conservation easement is so that access can still be allowed because if you had it across the whole width, a drive is not allowed that's being used for the easement. After meeting with them, there was three more things agreed to that this industrial property would not tie into that tramway. The main purpose, well, the origin of this is The property owner to the south wants to buy an additional 60 feet so he can take the rear of his property and go back out to 60, 80 feet. Some of this hadn't been finalized on that yet. and that the driveway for the addition would be 100 foot back from his fence, so it would not be close to the residential in the back. Other than that, I'll be glad to answer any questions. I think it's pretty straightforward. And the origin of the conservation easement was after the meeting to add the 100 foot to it to protect the adjacent residential areas.

Any questions for Mr. Malpas?

No, you already answered it. Cause I rolled out there. I was really trying to just picture what was going on out there and you just explained everything to me.

So there is a recorded easement for the two parties in the back. And that was the purpose of leaving that point of three or whatever that acreage was. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else present to speak in favor of the request? Seeing none. Is there anyone present to speak in opposition to the request? Seeing with no other speakers, the public hearing is closed. I'll turn it over to the board for discussion or motion. Full language.

Motion to approve. Motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to advise it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and to adopt the staff report which addresses plan consistency and other matters.

Second. We have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Motion passes. All right. The next one is a longer one. Should have brought a water bottle for this. Request by the Community and Development Services Department to amend the Unified Development Ordinance, UDO, to add definitions and standards for the short-term rental homestay and short-term rental whole house lodging uses and adding these uses to section 313, table of uses as permitted uses in the following zoning districts RA20, residential agricultural, R15S, residential single family, R9S, residential single family, RXS, residential single family, R9, residential, R6, residential, R6A, residential, R6MH, residential mobile home, TH10, tiny home community. MR, Medical Residential, MRS, Medical Residential Single Family, OR, Office Residential, CD, Downtown Commercial, and CDF, Downtown Commercial Fringe. Staff presentation by Shantae Gooby.

So before we get to this I just want to talk a little bit about the the purpose of this text amendment so it is to establish a short-term rental and we'll talk about what that means here in a second to establish it as a use what zoning districts it's allowed in and then some standards that come along with that so there's two different definitions for short-term rentals this is i'll say a little bit of an industry standard as far as the name and the intent if you've stayed at a short-term rental typically the most popular right now or verbo or airbnb there are other off shoots of them at the end of the day it's still the same thing no matter what platform you use the short-term rental homestay is essentially when you're staying in a house or an apartment, a tiny home. I've even seen a yurt, if you will, that's an Airbnb. And it's when you're staying with the host. And then if you have the whole premises to yourself, then that's what's called a short-term rental whole house lodging. So when you hear homestay, you have the host with you. They're staying in another part. And then the whole house lodging is exactly what it sounds like. The host is not on the premises. For the bottom one, when it talks about the whole house lodging, this is a residential use. So this is not a hotel, a motel, or a bed and breakfast. Those are totally separate uses. So this is a map. There is some websites out there where you're actually able to gather data on short-term rentals. It may be if you're interested in having a short-term rental. So we were able to use this website that we were able to determine with some approximation the current locations of short-term rentals here in Greenville. These are ones that are only listed on Vrbo and Airbnb. We try to take out the duplicates because you can advertise them on different platforms. And then on the right-hand side, we're just showing you the districts that they're located in and then the number of units. And so right now we're about 270 units. So now I'm going to talk about the standards for the short term rental homestay or when you're staying with the host. A lot of these same standards are going to apply. So I'm going to go through them first and then we'll talk about what standards are additional with the whole house. So for a short term rental homestay, First of all, recognize we already have short-term rentals in existence, so we've got something in here that'll take care of that. But this would be for new short-term rentals. The owner or the operator would need to get a zoning compliance permit. This is a very simple one-pager. It doesn't take an attorney to fill out the permit application, but they would need to get a permit. No sort of exterior advertising on the outside of the unit. You know how sometimes you go to the beach and they've got the name of the house or something like that. Other than the address, there's no sort of advertising. The owner or the host would also need to have, and this would be submitted with a permit application, a certificate of insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 in liability insurance. And so that would be, you know, a million is pretty typical standard rate when you're doing liability insurance. Also, no sort of special events or gatherings in excess of the registered guests. So sometimes you may have a situation where it's a party or something like that. And so this is to try to limit an excessive number of people. So for any existing short-term rentals this text amendment is slated to go to Council August 13th and so what this does is this gives a whole year 365 days for any existing ones if they do want to continue to also get the permit. Same rules apply but it does give them a grace period of a year in order to do the paperwork that they would need to do. And then one last thing that we'll talk about and the the intent behind this is really is that short term rentals are good neighbors within the neighbors that they reside. So when you think of potential side effects it could be excessive noise it could be illegal parking such as parking all over the yard or maybe blocking the street or maybe even some trash and debris and so the intent is that short-term rentals again act and operate as a good neighbor so this last standards just talks about that if a short-term rental receives more than 3 and it can be citations it doesn't have or warnings either one for things such as the noise trash debris and illegal parking within a 12 month period then they can have their permit revoked now this is not intended to be punitive it's intended that if you do have perhaps a bad situation with a set of guests. This isn't an automatic. It's really just trying to keep the host and the operators responsible for the unit that they're renting. The very last sentence talks about citations and I'll get to that here in a few slides. I wanted to get through the standards. So you're gonna see we're now switched over to the whole house lodging or without a host. You see there's the very same standards that we just talked about. And now we get to the difference. The city of Greenville already has a standard that if you have a rental property, in Greenville and you do not reside in Pitt County, then we have a contact for whom to get in touch with that's local if there were some issue. If it were in terms of a regular rental, let's just say the fire sprinkler system broke and you've got water spewing everywhere, it's a way for the city to be able to get in contact with the property manager, the rental company, to say you've got a problem. So we want to use that same tool that we have for short term rentals where maybe someone owns the house in Greenville but they reside in Raleigh. And what this does is this is just saying Mr. Collins lives in Pitt County and he's going to be the person that if there is a problem you can reach out to him because I live in Virginia. It's a one pager. It's name. address and how to get in contact with you phone number email the other thing that this would be used for would be again if there is an excessive or an over-the-top situation maybe this is a house in a single-family neighborhood things have went a little awry Things aren't getting under control. We have some sort of a local contact to get in touch with. If I'm in Virginia, I may not have a clue anything is going on. And then again, this is just saying that if you switch contacts, you let us know who the new contact is. So, this is out of the UDO. This is just for citations, and this just gives you the citation schedule. So, if there were a situation were to arise where a citation would be assessed, the first violation is $100. The second violation, and that's within one year of the first, escalates to $250. Third violation again within 365 of the first violation escalates to five. This is the table of uses. So this is showing you all the different zoning districts in the city. And so both of these uses, no matter if it's with the host or without the host, would be permitted uses in the residential zoning districts. So if you look across and wherever you see a red P, then that means that these uses would become permitted by right. So not a special use permit, but a zoning compliance permit. And you'll also notice that districts that are non-residential, medical office, industrial, those are not included because that's typically not where you would have a short-term rental located. So in staff's opinion, this request is in compliance with a comprehensive plan, specifically Chapter 5, creating complete neighborhoods, goal 5.1, which is strong existing neighborhoods. This says Greenville will have strong established neighborhoods with support for neighborhood organizations, high-quality housing, unique character, and a robust integration with the rest of the community. So with that being said, staff recommends approval, and I'll be glad to answer any questions.

I have one about the advertising. I'm curious what constitutes advertising, because you mentioned having a sign with a name. Lots of... maybe not so much around here, but like at the beach, lots of houses will have a sign, the name for the place, right? Is that permitted as long as you don't have like a phone number or something?

The address of the location so that you know where you're at. And then typically in most short-term rentals I've stayed in, typically there's contact information on the inside when you get in if you have issues, but it would be restricted to the addressing of the unit.

So you couldn't have a name like... That's correct. Okay. All right. I don't know if anybody does that around here, but there's a lot of them. Like if you go out to Atlantic Beach and...

Very popular, yes.

All right. What brought on this? I'm just curious about it.

This has been a discussion item with council through the years. This was something that was discussed a couple years ago. It was brought back up. I think that there are times when you have a few bad apples and you have one or two properties that are really causing trouble a little harder to nip it in the bud so you have to think of it more holistically so that's why again this isn't intended to be punitive but it is intended to get us um complete contact information if there is an issue and then also that if we do have a history of having some issues we have we have a way of knowing what properties that that would um that the outside the effect of properties.

Right.

And we did have two or three people come to city council and complain about a couple Airbnb Airbnb Airbnb circumstances where they were disruptive. They were they were stating it was kind of ruining their quality of life. I know city council member protein foreman and Hardy have really taken like a concerted effort to address code enforcement and housing and stuff. So that's kind of what the precipice for all this was. and the way it's been crafted and fashioned is about as legally defensible as we can prepare it, essentially, because this is kind of a lot of murky, kind of gray area for the most part.

Right, I wrote a list because I was wondering, I'm like, is this legal? And the reason why I was asking that, Because when you say a permit has to be submitted, but what would be on a permit that would exclude someone from even being able to do it?

Nothing other than just kind of documentation in general for it being an Airbnb.

Again, it just gives us.

It's essentially so the city can be aware of what's happening, what's going on, without it being like a complete annual kind of registration, which is not allowed under the law. and and what is the need for the extra insurance considering that someone would already have homeowner insurance anyway again there's kind of limitations in regards to what kind of investigative kind of responses we can do whether it be like smoking all this kind of stuff as far as safety is concerned so i think from the city's perspective ensuring that they have that type of insurance just as kind of a failsafe because because it's operating

As residential, but not really.

So it kind of muddies the water in regards to what we can do from an enforcement perspective. This way there's some assurances that there will at least be something covered if something were to happen. And I think, I don't think Raleigh does it, but I think Asheville does. There's a couple other locales when they're trying to regulate short terms that have that insurance requirement.

There was no standard before this for any of those.

Right, so that's the only reason I'm asking because For example, and it just happened to have been brought up, a person that literally just bought some property here and was at the table talking. He was like, he's going to Airbnb it out. I was like, well, that sounds like a good idea. But then when I see this on the agenda, I'm like, I didn't say anything. But he doesn't stay here. So I'm like, how does that work?

Again, it's kind of something throughout the state. I think everybody's kind of trying to finagle and try to see what they can do to address it or put some safeguards in place. Obviously, 10 years ago, the amount, this year volume, the number of this was way less than it is now. So I think now that there are starting to be some kind of community disruptions or people that might be a bad neighbor, the idea is just having some check in place so you can have a response. Because a lot of this stuff doesn't rise to a criminal offense or anything like that. It's really, as she stated, being a good neighbor, being responsible, making sure somebody's going to cover whatever damage is going to be in place, something like that.

You can be his designee. But after the third offense, what happens after that? Do they get pulled from being able to do it? And if so, how does that work? I'm just curious.

From a planning side, which is where the permit resides, First of all, we would rather have voluntary compliance. Make you aware of the issues. Maybe you didn't know that you were having some renters coming through that were a little obnoxious, a little loud. put them on notice. Um, and then again, and again, the intent is not to be punitive, but it is to maybe screen your, uh, renters a little bit more, maybe reach out to your neighbors that if there is a problem, there is a way that they can reach you. Um, You know, of course, if you are a neighboring property, you have the ability to call the platform yourself and they all have policies where they can revoke the listing. So this is just sort of a two prong. You can go through the platform and then we also have a tool as well. And again, it's not intended to be punitive. but it would certainly be, I guess what one could call a counseling session on their permit.

And I get it. I mean, I know everybody wants their quality of life to be protected. It's just that if you have a I'm just thinking if you have a neighbor and you have your grandkids with you that are out in the yard screaming during the daytime, that neighbor might not like that. Then he calls and that's $50.

Yeah, but you're talking about a dispute with your neighbor in regards to the behavior of their family rather than a neighbor that might be using their house as a commercial aspect of it. So it kind of changes the... we might be a lot more patient with somebody's child or their grandchild than somebody running a business every weekend and having people coming in and again i mean that's kind of the reason for the treatment and again i you know as i think we've discussed several times throughout this commission uh none of this is ever punitive it's always kind of complaint based trying to just remedy the behavior if somebody reaches the point where they've had that many violations and they've been fine and it's still not i mean at this point there's probably criminal stuff you're trying to revoke the permit but you never hope to get to that it's kind of like with special use permits uh you know you technically can revoke those i don't think we ever have the entire time i've represented the city so again it's not something we ever want to do it's just A bullet in the chamber, so to speak.

Right. And this mainly applies to the whole housing, not the, like, if you were in the house with the person, right? Because you'd know what's going on.

Hopefully. I would think that the majority of this probably would come with the ones without hosts on site. but at the end of the day they're both in the same bucket and they both have the same standards that they have to comply with the only real difference would be to have a local contact but other than that they really have parallel standards so with the three violations

Code enforcement has discretion on whether or not to issue that violation, correct? Or whoever gets called.

Yeah, usually there would be an investigation filing a complaint. They would show up. They would see if there's validity to it. They would document it. And then if there is a violation, there's usually notice, opportunity to be heard, due process protections, appeal rights, all those types of things.

The reason I ask is exactly what you were saying about if somebody is renting your house and you have your family out and they're being allowed, even your neighbor is just being rude about it, that would be up to them. But also, the third violation doesn't guarantee

being the permit being revoked right right it just allows me okay that's right okay and i will say too i mean you can see we kind of it's been fashioned to where warning and citation are kind of used the same those don't necessarily carry the same legal um significance but at the same time it'll be the discretion of whoever's investigating to show up and say we think this is valid we're going to give you a warning that's not going to carry a punitive civil cost you're not going to pay us any money or anything but like you're on notice this isn't okay yeah so that's kind of how we'll see it shake out but ultimately just like anything if this needs to be adjusted if we need to reevaluate if we need to take something back you guys we absolutely will all right thank you so the the short-term rentals they've never been held to a certain standard before this it has not been defined as a use for the city So there's been no real bucket to put it in, essentially. And again, 10 years ago, it was like maybe five. There's only a few people doing it. Now it's kind of becoming such a thing where there's an attempt to kind of regulate it. Does that make sense? And the legislature could just come up in like six months and change all of this. I'm sure it will happen. It's been a source of a lot of debate. Thanks. And every remaining item does have that language. All right.

All right. The public hearing is open. The first speaker will have five minutes with each additional speaker having three minutes until 30 has expired. Is there anyone present to speak in favor of this request? Is there anyone present to speak in opposition to this request? With no other speakers, with no speakers, the public hearing is closed, and I'll turn it over to the board for discussion or a motion.

What kind of motion is this? Long, long. All right. Go for it. Motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to advise that, although the proposed amendment, oh, that's not it. So where are we at? You got it? All right. To approve. Motion to recommend approval of proposed amendment to advise that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and to adopt the staff report which addresses plan consistency and other matters.

Second.

Second.

We have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. Motion passes. Next item, request by the Community and Development Services Department to clarify the required number of professional security personnel in alcohol establishments, bar, bar 2022, microbrewery, and microdistillery that provide amplified entertainment after 11 p.m. Staff presentation by Shantae Gooby.

I will try to keep this as short and sweet as I can with giving you an explanation for why we're back with this. In December, I brought a text amendment that was the intent was to standardize, if you will, the standards for those four different what I call alcohol establishments at the end of the day. They all have the ability to have mixed beverages permit. And when I did that, what came out at the council meeting was that my language didn't actually make sense. And I'm going to show you that language in a minute. I brought it back to council in May. And at that meeting there was some discussion about perhaps the standards were a little burdensome. so after some discussions i'm bringing it back to you with the same language i brought with the corrected information at the end of the day if any of those four types of uses have amplified entertainment after 11 pm then they do have to have security personnel UDO basically says amplified entertainment is any type of music or other entertainment delivered through and by an electronic system. Microphone, cell phone, it's kind of wide open. And so what I had originally brought was it broke it down into the occupancy of the building. And you'll see I've got a red circle there where it says one. and then at the bottom I have a sentence though that says you shall employ no less than two well that doesn't work so I brought back the amended language that basically says occupancy in the building from one to two hundred requires two personnel i still have the same sentence in there that says shall employ no less than two security guards and so i'm bringing that back to basically fix it because the original language didn't make any sense Again, as I've talked about, this only applies to these uses, only applies if they had amplified entertainment after 11 p.m. And this is the same reasoning that I used before. Staff recommends approval based on the comp plan. There's two different ones. policy 4.31, which says modernize and diversify the local economy, support growth in a variety of employment opportunities and businesses. and also encourage business growth within the incorporated areas and expand and diversify Greenville's tax base. And then the last one just talks about policy 1.4.4, which talks about support and control of uptown nightlife. These uses are allowed citywide, but it does talk about having rules and regulations still allowing these uses But at the end, it says this does not mean nightlife activities need to be allowed to run out of control. Appropriate standards for these businesses should be enforced so that uptown can be enjoyed safely and responsibly. So those are the two different things I cite. With that, I'm glad to answer any questions. But again, staff recommends approval. And I apologize for having to bring this back twice. I'm sorry.

I just got one question. So security and bouncer is the same thing, right?

No. The security personnel that we have here is actually defined and described in general statutes. And so it is more of a security officer that is certified and has training unlike a bouncer. A bouncer is a more... rudimentary term. I don't think there's a lot of teeth with that title. This does have specific qualifications for what's called security personnel, right?

So that's where the variability goes. And if that's the word that they were using, Because the people who have those permits on insurance, when they have the questions asking, do you have bouncers, do you have security, and if security have the car, then their insurance goes up.

There's a different level. It's a different expense, but also a different level of, I would say, training and education, depending on what the people with those titles have.

Right. So, and the reason why it would be a burden on a business, especially a small business that probably has, I don't know, you have one security guard, but say they only have 15 patrons at the 11th, but that security guard, because he knows he's going to get $140 an hour, you know, versus these guys just hanging out in there and not really buying anything. So now that business is not even going to thrive at all. And not only that, his insurance is going to be high because once you say security, the word security on that application, the word bouncer when you check those boxes determines it's going to be $12,000 a year versus $8,000 a year. So that's going to be a lot. That's going to be a lot. And that's probably why a lot of people was complaining because I didn't know that because I'm thinking like, okay, a bouncer because they – The Greenwood Police, they offer the balance of training. And so we have to go down there and let the people.

And this would be much more in the form of an off-duty police officer as far as to meet the security requirements.

But they don't always take the shifts.

That's correct. You can go through a private security company.

And that's where it's going to really get expensive for an entity to try to thrive. So those words can't be changed on this amendment as far as security versus bouncer?

No, I think the way it's defined is very purposeful because they want them to have those qualifications and that training. The dollar amount you stated, would you say $130 an hour?

Yes, for security. Yeah, that's if they even do it.

When we talked about it in meetings and when I looked it up, it was like 40 or 50. And that's for like an off-duty police officer.

But off-duty police officers don't always take the shift. So now you're in violation.

I don't know where you got that rate, but it was three times.

No, I'm saying security. I'm not saying extra duty solutions as far as the Greenwood Police Department.

I'm just letting you guys know, council had discussed the price and the burden on business owners and the rate that they had discussed was... about a third of what you discussed. Maybe there's a disparity in that amount.

No, it really is because I'm really boots on the ground when it comes to that. I'm pretty much speaking from what I know. It's a big difference, especially on your application for your insurance. And also when you put your business in that portal for an officer to take that shift, if that officer doesn't take that shift and now that business becomes in violation because they don't have security.

Right.

Right. So now he can't, he's saying he can't open his doors because nobody took the shift. So now he's hanging in the balances. So this, this is going to be a real, real kind of sticky little situation for any businesses trying to thrive based off of extra duty solutions or any security company.

Well, and this is new moving forward. So this isn't for any in the past. And again, only for amplified entertainment after 11.

Right.

So you can be open until 11 with nobody.

Right.

But you can't play any music, though. It just has to be us in there talking at 11. Before 11. If he cannot afford. or if an officer doesn't take that shift to come and be a security at his door. So that's very tough, man.

Well, just for the commission's edification, I mean, they had some pretty significant discussions about this. And obviously, as you're probably aware since you're in the business, just with the bouncers as opposed to security personnel or law enforcement, the bouncers, I mean, just from my criminal work for the last 10 years, there's been countless incidents between bouncers and patrons and stuff like that. the public safety aspect i think is the biggest concern at least for council in regards to how they gave that direction i think they felt the dollar amount whatever it was going to correspond to made sense in regards to the operation and the risk to public safety so again you have you're right with your vote you can also with the motion include a note to council in regards to the concerns about that i think that's all fair play but they did discuss the financial burden i do think there's going to be some small businesses that you know that could be a hit uh But I think the protection of life, protection, you know, these hours and those circumstances, I know you've expressed it before, that being familiar with out of danger is like me. So that's how they discussed it.

So this is bars from here on out opening?

Yes, because right now we would default back to the one, right, with the language that's a little messed up. We would defer in someone's favor and not do it the other way.

But in the last one, were they referred to as professional security or were they just bouncers?

Oh, it's always been professional security. Yes, that has not been.

And what qualifications does that require?

I don't have it memorized, but I think they have to take a class, do some training, they have to be a certain age.

So that's not included in the Greenville bouncer training?

Yeah, I don't know if the bouncer training mirrors it to the same. I do know the bouncers downtown. There's been a conservative effort in recent because of all these issues. I'm kind of describing they have had some more training. They have changed the policies a bit. I don't know if it directly mirrors how they would do security personnel with statutes, but they're obviously aware of what those requirements are and could attain that.

If this helps an off duty police officer fulfills those requirements, meaning An officer could be a bouncer, but a bouncer can't be a security personnel. Does that help?

Absolutely. Yeah.

I guess I just have one question. You said the council sent it back to you about the burden.

what changed because i didn't see anything about anything that changed between council sending it back and it coming here it was the discussion was when it came down to having two officers minimum that that could be burdensome sure and so there was a discussion at one of the council workshops about okay is requiring two officers minimum two officers two officers um burdensome. But again, an off duty police officer will run you $50 an hour. Um, if your bingo trivia night runs from 11 to 12 30, that's one and a half hours times two times two. Right. Um, and so in the end with the, um, idea of having Public safety and the fact that these establishments can all have not only wine and beer, but they can have mixed bath. That was part of the rationale for if it's going to be after 11. then this kicks in and i didn't mean in that regard i meant literally just in the wording what changed because the burden i think it was just the number right yeah because it originally said one to one to 100. yeah i thought we had already voted on the one to two we did we did that's what i'm saying and it wasn't until council someone said do you realize you've contradicted yourself

Gotcha. Y'all voted with no one realizing there was an error in the previous. Gotcha.

OK. Because this is the third time we voted on this.

Yes. Yeah. I just want to make sure I was I was right. Yeah.

And council members just again to kind of relay the same concerns as well as he was very cognitive. This could be a burden on small businesses. Ultimately, what they said all know is if it was if you had one rather than two, you couldn't cover both interests and stuff. And at this time of night. So, I mean, again, I think they kind of struggle with determining what was going to that balance is going to be. But that's what they said.

I was mostly just wondering why.

Yeah. Yeah. Trust us.

We were all sure everybody had that thought.

Any other questions for staff? All right, thank you. The public hearing is open. The first speaker will have five minutes with each additional speaker having three minutes until 30 minutes has expired. Is there anyone present to speak in favor of this request? Is there anyone present to speak in opposition of this request? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed and I'll turn it over to the board for discussion or a motion.

The only thing I have to say about it is that the extra duty solution that employs the police officer is a very great tool to use. Unfortunately, the police officers don't always take the shifts. So every business downtown can apply for those officers to come and be in those positions and fill them in and be willing to pay them, but that don't mean the officer's going to take the shift. And I guess my thing is, what happens when the officer don't takes the shift? Is that place not allowed to open? These new businesses that come, they can't open for that night because you only get like a 48-hour window. The officer can actually call in and say he don't want to work, that he might be sick or something. So it's just a lot of variables that goes along with this tax amendment. That just really needs to be readdressed. So we can attach. That's just my little thing on it. I can vote. You guys can vote. And I'll just vote my part. But I'm just having a discussion.

If you guys want to include commentary or note that says, like, as part of your motion, we would like you to look at the number or the impact on small businesses or something along those lines. Cool. But obviously, if the commission votes against it, that's your message to council that you don't support. Right. So we usually just prefer the up-down because that makes it simple. But obviously, we can ship staff and be present at a council meeting. We can obviously relay all these concerns. And again, I mean, it doesn't have to be a police officer. There can be security personnel that's not law enforcement officers. But law enforcement officers, by statute, immediately qualify as security personnel. So again, I think there's agencies. I think he's probably more familiar with the procedure of hiring and getting them there and all that kind of stuff. We just know it's not directly like you have to get an off-duty cop. So just to be clear. But that's the most kind of thing.

Would you mind switching back to the chart

with the numbers this chart this is this is the new one yes this is what you're approving so this says just up here at the top so your GS 74 74 C that's the actual language that talks about what qualifies you and then what this this chart says is that it's based on your occupancy. So not that you have five people that night, but your occupancy. So if you have up to 200, as far as your CEO is concerned, then you would have two personnel again, only required amplified entertainment after 11. So your two security personnel would be there. They would be there until you close. This would allow you to have one person inside, one person on the outside, whether it be parking lots or just dispersing of the crowd. And then you can see the numbers go up one for every 100. And not to sound snarky, but if your security personnel called out that night, I mean, obviously you could still open, but maybe you couldn't have trivia night. Doesn't keep you from opening your doors. It's the amplified entertainment. Right, right, right.

So you can't reach your maximum potential for that night.

That's right.

And all I'm saying, everybody would love to have GPD doing their thing. I mean, it's the most beautiful thing in the world. GPD, extra duty solution, is the cheapest when it comes to that. Other security companies are very expensive. That's when I mentioned the 120. So that's all I was saying. But it's an up and down vote. We can do a commentary, and I would love to put my little commentary in there.

And that was also my question. With the establishment, the bar, who is paying either GPD or private security?

If off-duty is still paid by the establishment, it would not be Officer Tom Smith. It would be Tom Smith's security personnel. So that money doesn't, it's not an agreement.

So they don't really have any legally, like it's not binding for them to come into work that night is what he's saying.

No, they don't have to. So you're not going to lose your job? You have, I don't know, Peter's Tacos and entertainment.

Couldn't you have a contract with a security agency to provide our stuff for a year? I mean, is that possible?

No, they don't.

They don't do that?

I guess my question, too, is, like, what's the... I mean, if you have 500 people in a bar, how many bouncers do you typically have? Like, I guess is the number... less for security people compared to bouncers. Would it even out? Let's say you have 200 people, but normally you're paying five bouncers $10 an hour. You could just have two guys you're paying $20 an hour. Not to take over the floor.

The difference is the off-duty police officer doesn't have to take the shift. I was just looking at it. The bouncers are going to be, but they're not security. The bouncer is going to show up.

What happens if a bouncer doesn't show up?

You're still going to have a lot of them. You can get them. All you have to do is just promote it and then send them through the training.

So anybody could just show up and be the bouncer?

No, not anybody. You're going to be selected because it's your business to represent them. But once you get them, you send them through the training at GPD, and then you just bring them on. They get a two-year certificate saying that they did the training and stuff like that. But as far as security companies and stuff like that, security companies are, in my opinion, Um, they, they really look at the situation and just inflate their prices. That's just my opinion, but we can vote on this up and down and I just put my commentary.

Well, the commentaries only include if it's with the boat. So if you vote against this, for instance, and everybody else doesn't feel the same way, that wouldn't be as like part of the message to the council.

It'd be part of the motion to say approve, but with this.

Yes. Assuming everybody agreed.

Yeah.

So you would need the language, and then you would modify it to conform to whatever message you want to add.

You want to make a motion to approve and add a recommendation?

I'd like to see some numbers run or something to see the economic impact on small business owners, but that's just my two cents.

There's going to be a wild disparity, I would think. You think? Yeah.

We don't know what their intake is. Does that make sense? Yeah. If they work around trivia night on Thursdays, We don't know if that's an extra 500 in their pocket or an extra 50 in their pocket.

I think we also have to look at this and remember that a lot of the bars that we have in Greenville are not small bars.

Right.

And these requirements, I mean, think about going to Dirty Dance. I don't know what their occupancy is, but we're requiring four, you know, let's say it's 400. We're requiring four personnel to be there that have teeth to their actions when, in fact, we have instances of roofing and all these other crimes that bouncers can't enforce other than throwing somebody out. Right. so i think if we're looking at it from public safety i think it is a it is a thing on smaller businesses it is a burden but i think on the larger businesses and the ones that might have more issues um particularly surrounding college students maybe it's not that bad of an idea and i think that it yeah i think the smaller businesses might have a problem but i think that there are resources to help with that i i.e off-duty police officers if they take the shift

But again, this is not retroactive. Right. So they're doing business as they've normally done business. It would only be new.

Well, and I think if an off-duty police officer accepts a shift, they'll show up for the shift, providing no extraneous circumstances.

Well, sometimes that doesn't happen either. But we can go ahead and vote. I'm really just putting everything.

Well, we need a motion. So if you want to make, you've got the concerns. One last thing.

Sorry, I know this is probably stated. It's one, so it's an increase of security personnel.

Clarification.

Okay, I see.

It was going to just be one, now it's two. But the previous verbiage and language in the thing said one and two. So it was kind of like, it's really just remedying that issue. It's just to correct mixed messages in the ordinance.

So if we all approve it, we can send a message. But if we're up and down, we can't send a message.

Well, I think the motion has to include the comment. And then we vote on that.

The up and down is voting on the action.

Or somebody can make a friendly amendment to the motion and say, How about we soften that language or strengthen it or whatever?

Yeah, so the up and down is on the actual language that's presented to you. So you're not going to sit here and modify kind of the language of what's going to go to council on that. Right. What you can do, though, is an up-down vote saying, yes, we approve as presented to us, but we would like the council to be cognizant of the impact on small business owners and the rest of the bounce requirements. Or however you want to frame it.

That sounds great. Let's do that.

And if somebody wants to do that.

Yeah, that's very good.

If somebody wants to make that motion as stated, we can try to do it that way. You want to make that motion? You have to include that language.

Yeah.

I'm happy I'm here. I feel like I need to write something down.

Yeah.

You can take a minute to gather your thoughts or kind of talk it out.

Read the language in your packet. Right. You got that.

The intent, what Scott's saying, is it still has to come from the commission as a body and not write it.

Right. Yeah.

That's it. So if your other commission members agree.

What I would propose is a member, depending on whichever way you want to write, read the language that's required in the packet, and then once you get to the end of that, we can add some additional language. And I'll be right here to coach you through it.

Yeah, you want to go for it? There's no way I'm going to be able to repeat it the same way. Make the motion.

Top one or what?

Yeah.

Motion to approve. approval of the proposed amendment to advise that is consistent with the conference plan to adopt the staff report which addresses plan consistency and other matters and with instruction that the council consider the fiscal impact on small business owners that work you guys

Yeah, that'll work.

Okay.

Change it however you like. Is that your motion then? I just know that this is like, this ain't right, man. It's going to hurt, man.

Well, you guys can vote against it. You don't have to approve it. They can vote. I'm just going to vote.

I'm torn on it.

Well, you made a motion to approve.

I think it needs to happen.

Again, this is all advisory.

add a something in there that I'm not lying to you. I'm just going to tell me saying that maybe we could look at bouncer's as an alternative to to these small things.

So we see smaller his motion as stated with instruction to counsel that they consider the definition of security personnel.

the definition of security person no no no but i got those with instruction to counsel potential costs to small businesses i think i stated that one originally to try to help them out i think with the crux of the issue though is the definition of security

What is the definition of security versus bouncer?

I just know that the bouncer is not qualified to fall under that statute. We're probably a number of hours and a certification.

So how do we word this again? I just kind of threw me off for a second.

It depends on what you guys are trying to say. What I would advise, at least from what I've heard, is the motion as stated, which we still kind of have on the board and not really necessarily finished, with instruction to the council to look at the definition of security personnel.

Correct.

And to examine the fiscal impact on small businesses if you really want to make it fancy. Does that work? You got it? Okay. Now, you can just say as stated. As stated. Now, does anybody second? And I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I don't mean to take up. I'll second. Okay.

All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion of this, or are we ready for a vote? Ready for a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those against, say no. No. Motion passes. This is the most tepid, unanimous support I've ever seen.

We'll be, just so the board knows, though, we'll do everything we can to make sure the council's aware of the concerns that were raised. And again, they had this kind of exact discussion. So I think they're very cognizant of the fact that there might be some small businesses that have an extra burden with this. I don't think anybody really necessarily wants that. It's just that balance between public safety and not. So ultimately, it's their decision. I think you guys have been heard. We'll make sure they kind of are aware of the message we're trying to send with this. But that's about where we're at.

Thank you. Next item is election of officers. And do you have something to say about that?

All right. I think you guys have done this before. Mr. Chair is eligible for reelection, and he's done a great job. Our vice chair is not here tonight. Zach is not here tonight. So the way this generally works is chair will call for nominations. You guys will put forth a nomination. It does not require a second, and then majority vote.

And the vice chair, the vice chair only takes over when.

Right. He fills in for the chair and has the exact same duties when the chair is not there.

Right. So when the vice chair takes this role, vice chair cannot vote. He can just only read off.

Vice chair can vote as long as the chair is here. Right.

But if they're acting as chair, they can only break ties. Right.

And the same rules apply for this. Your vote will break the tie, essentially, if it's for nominations and it comes close. And you can nominate yourself.

Okay. So I'll call for nominations, and I'll say that I am willing to serve again, but if there's somebody who would like to be chair, I would be happy to nominate them, right? Or, right, I would be happy to let someone else take a turn. So I will self-nominate for chair. I second that.

Proceedingly a little defective, but we're just going to roll with it.

Are there any other nominations? Anyone else want to nominate themselves or anyone else for chair?

Perfect.

Okay.

Now you've closed nominations.

Okay, I'll close nominations. And now we vote on the nominations for chair. So what, all those in favor of me? Or by, what is it, not a claim, but an acclamation or something like that? Whatever.

I will defer to the philosophy expert. Okay. We have one nomination for Mr. Collins to be chair again, to return. All those in favor? Aye. He is the new chair. Now we need to do the same thing. We need to do the same thing for Baxter.

Okay, I will accept nominations for vice chair. Who would like to be vice chair? This is a pretty easy job. For real, it really is.

How much time do you guys have left though?

I thought Woodman's he's done, right? The thing sat at the last meeting was his last meeting. So we have a vacancy for vice chair at this meeting. It's a good thing I was here.

Yeah. I've been scrambling.

I mean, I'd be happy to nominate anyone who would like to do it.

conflict i advise the entire commission yeah oh god all right um i mean i guess i've been here no i'll do it i'll nominate carlos he's always here so it's no pressure yeah yeah he's over here yeah no we're good i nominate myself uh carlos white for vice chair all right are there any other nominations for chair vice chair

All right, so I'll close the nominations. And all those in favor of Carlos White for vice chair, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. Congratulations. Adjournment. Great work, guys. Is there a motion to adjourn? We have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. All right, we're adjourned.