Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is 6 o'clock so we are going to start the Wednesday August 19th regular meeting of the North Augusta Planning Commission all right if we could please have the call to order starting with Aaron Slade Rhett Harbison David Shellhorse

Jesse Elliott.

Lisa Christy. Chelsea Waddell. And I am your chair, Dr. Christine Crawford, and would like to welcome Commissioner David Chellhorst to his service on the North Augusta Planning Commission, and we are grateful and thank you for volunteering to spend this time with us.

Thank you.

All right. We'll do approval of minutes first. Are there any changes, edits, or recommendations for the minutes? There being none, I entertain a motion to approve. So moved.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed?

Okay.

All right. Mr. Paradise, are there any changes to the agenda?

No, ma'am.

Okay. All right, so we will get started with PP26-001, Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, request by Drayton Parker Companies. If I'll go over, actually, let me back up. There's not really anybody here, but I'll still do it for the record and for Facebook. We ask that all those who come to speak before us, applicants, neighbors, citizens of North Carolina, interested parties, when you come forward that you give your name and your address. We ask that everyone make sure that they speak into the microphone. so that those in Facebook land can hear you clearly. If there are any public concerns or questions, we will have the public come forward, do all of those questions at that one time. We ask that people keep it to two minutes to be considerate and to share new information so that we have all perspectives and not just what your previous neighbor said. And then we ask the applicant to return and answer those questions at one time. All that being said, Mr. Paradise, is there anything you need us to know about this application?

Yes, ma'am. This is for a major subdivision, preliminary plat. It's a request from Drayton Parker Companies, basically Parker's that you see the food shops. Yeah. Parker's Kitchen. And it's for an access road extension. And it's located at Edgefield Road and Oshkoga Lake Road. And it's zoned general commercial. To tell you a little bit about it, it was annexed in September of 2000 along with four adjacent parcels. It's zoned general commercial. And the property is currently zoned general commercial. On June 6, 2023, the BZA granted a variance to Parkers to push to locate the store closer. But the applicant is proposing a subdivision of those parcels into six lots with a roadway expansion where a roadfront is for the proposed lot. This kind of gives you an idea of where we're looking at. A recommendation by the Planning Commission for approval of the major preliminary plat from the staff is appropriate with the following conditions. It includes the certification of the use of the road name Oak Heart Station. And the final approval of the major subdivision preliminary flat application be granted by staff when the plans are in substantial compliance with the requirements in North Augusta Development Code. Basically, that allows us to, it gets it before the commission on schedule so that it can be heard, and then it allows staff to get the nickel-dime stuff corrected afterwards, but all the major stuff is in compliance. And this gives you an idea here of what it looks like, or what the plan is. And any questions? Will that be a public or a private road? As far as we're, either way it has to be built to city standards. And I would ask the applicant what their plan is on that. I would think that they would want to deed it to the city.

Any other questions for Mr. Patters? There being none, if the applicant will please come forward and please give your name and address.

Cody Rogers, EMC Engineering Services, 1211 Merchant Way. Statesboro, Georgia. I'm the engineer record on this project and was engineer record on the original Parker's project as well. So to answer the road question right off, it is a private road right now. So that is the plan with no immediate plans to deed over. Outside of that, hopefully y'all have what you have in front of you there. When we set the original design up, the plan was always to complete this road. And in the interest of time to open the store without any other users committed at the time, we went ahead and opened the store, didn't go through the subdivision process at that time, and just deferred it to now. So that's what this process has been, is just fulfillment of the original design intent, extension of that road, looping around to the two driveways and utility extensions to accommodate these future lots. and that's really the basis of the whole project. So if y'all have any questions, I'm happy to answer.

So you guys own all the lots around the outside that you plan to sell and have developed later, or how does that work?

That's exactly right. They're all under Drayton Parker right now, but there are multiple deals working on several parcels there to sell those off.

Gotcha. The existing detention pond was sized for the full

all of this development too so no additional changes with that that's correct that's how it's configured right now now that's not to say that someone when we do that we have to make assumptions on what will be built out right so it's approved with a certain assumption if someone comes in and wants to put a little bit more on the lot as long as it meets the north augusta codes for maximum impervious area there could be adjustments made to the pond so i just want to throw that out there that if if you see someone and it could be me come back and asking for a change here or there it's There is an outside possibility of that.

Any other questions for Mr. Rogers? All right. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Thank you all.

All right, commissioners. Any discussion or comments? If not, a motion.

I make a motion to approve the plan as proposed. Meeting the conditions described including the certification of the use of the road name Oak Heart Station and the final approval of the major subdivision preliminary plat application will be granted by staff when the plans are in substantial compliance with the requirements of the North Augusta Development Code And any proposed conditions recommended by the Planning Commission in regard to the waiver request? Second.

Any further discussion or questions or comments? There being none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye.

All opposed?

All right, thank you. All right, Mr. Paradise. So next up is the text amendment with signage that we discussed.

Yes, ma'am. This is several months we've been talking about signage in multi-tenant locations. The Board of Zoning Appeals has had several variances related to this, and shopping centers about it. They're limited to 1,000 square feet. And so they've been hitting, especially with redevelopment, They've been hitting the window and needing variances on that. They asked the Planning Commission to look at it, and y'all did, and decided that y'all probably wanted to do a text amendment. Staff looked at it, and I think... Anyway, the... amending table 9.3 that outlines the total combined square footage allowed for non-residential districts to include the verbiage, except where a single parcel contains more than one business, each business may have a front wall sign not exceeding 10% of the square footage of the front facade. where the tenant square footage would allow more than 250 square feet of signage, the main sign is limited to no more than 250 square feet. So the question is, y'all have talked about that before, this is the formal application if you want to make a recommendation to the planning commission or if you want us to work on it a little bit more.

All right, and I'm assuming you meant recommendation to city council.

Yes, ma'am. What did I say?

Planning Commission. I'm sorry.

It's been a long day.

No. Yeah.

Yeah, I think this is. Okay.

Any changes? Edits, anything different? There being none, then I need a motion to recommend a text amendment.

Go ahead. I don't know.

I move to recommend the RZT 26-002 modification to the text amendment to City Council.

Second. Second.

Any other question or discussion? And just also for those in Facebook land, there is no one else here from the public for the public hearing portion. So I just wanna make sure that I acknowledge that there is no public here. That being said, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? All right, thank you. And now for the good stuff. We have been

Now we get serious.

Yeah, we have been eagerly awaiting Commissioner Harbison's input on this next agenda item.

Well, I've got the comprehensive plan first. Oh, OK. And to bring you all up to date on that, the selection, we had five submittals to the RFP for the comprehensive plan. Friday, the selection committee met and recommended MKSK to do the comprehensive plan. On Monday night, city council approved the recommendation and authorized proceeding with a contract for the work. The reason I moved it forward, and I hope this doesn't offend y'all, is that if I had waited for y'all's action here, it would have been another month before city council could hear it because of Labor Day coming on the first Monday. So we were already under a time crunch. And I wanted to move it forward. But the base price of the work is $140,000. And in addition to that, the committee recommended to city council and they approved an additional $10,000 that will bring the total cost to $150,000. And that's because the consultant had the core campaign, which is the public outreach. which consisted of stakeholder meetings, planning commission series, three public engagement rounds, digital participation, earned media, and city and partner communications, and public reports. But the committee recommended going with what they call the expanded campaign for the additional $10,000. felt like that is one of the key components that we need to do is get community input. And the expanded campaign includes the core campaign plus four additional pop-up activities. expanded paid digital promotion, enhanced translation and interpretation support, and a targeted direct mail or outreach allowance. So I think it is the intent of that committee, and I think it's the intent of the Planning Commission, is to do all we can with outreach. So I've been in contact with the firm yesterday, and we're going back and forth with the planning commission contract, and we're looking forward to having the initial meetings, get that set up and moving sometime in the next couple weeks. Do you have any questions?

I just want to thank the selection committee. Thank you all for volunteering your time and getting that done. Certainly find and appreciate you making sure that council could see it as soon as possible given that your committee was made up with a majority almost of the planning commission.

All right. Thank you.

Where is the consulting firm based out of?

They've got a Greenville office, but the fellow I'm talking to is in Ohio. They've got several people scattered. One of their subcontractors is Cranston Engineering. Cranston Engineering has Tom... Dunaway, I think it is. Dunaway? Huh? Is it Tom Dunaway? Yeah. He is one of the representatives that will be working with us, as well as Lance Shealy. And the Planning Commission may remember Lance from doing the presentation on the trees and bushes earlier. So, yes, we've got this, but we've got some local hometown people here, too. And that was important. That helped, I think, the committee moving it forward, having a local connection. Anything else? Now we get into it.

Speaking of, Mr. Cheely.

All right. And we've been working on the... preservation ordinance for a while right now there is no tree preservation activities or ordinance in the development code every there is nothing that either allows or allows an incentive or or requires the saving of trees so clear-cutting is allowed. Of course, you all have talked about that and looked at doing some things to change that. The first one is the first recommendation, and that is to incentivize the preservation of large existing trees. And the proposal was that if an existing tree of 15 inches but less than 24 inches is preserved, it would get rated at 500 square feet of canopy. And a tree 24 inches diameter breast height or more would be rated at 600 square feet of canopy. And if it actually exceeds that 600 square feet, give us the math and the plan and director can use that. This is... there has to be a certain amount of canopy coverage over the project when we get done, and I forget what that is right now. But this would, a three-inch caliper tree is rated to give 400 square feet of tree canopy. So whenever they fair cut, and for each one of those three-inch trees they put in, that's the number they get. So any questions, changes, modifications?

So with this one, when it states existing trees with a DBH of 15 inches or less except pine trees, I'm proposing we call that significant trees. and put a definition to significant trees. And a significant tree would be defined as any large species tree with a DBH of eight inches to 23.9 inches, pines, sweet gums, and invasive trees excluded. My reason for putting that in is I think the existing trees is kind of open-ended, and there could be an invasive mimosa tree out there that's got a 12-inch caliper inch that could be included. So I think setting a definition for those here would be good and we also reference significant trees and later on when we're talking about the grand tree preservation. So I think establishing those two definitions and then referencing those and this would be beneficial.

That's why we've been wanting you here.

Go back to your list of trees again.

Any large species tree with a DBH of 8 inches to 23.9 inches, pines, sweet gums, and invasive trees excluded.

I like it. Yeah.

Mr. Harbison, can I ask you to do me a favor when we get finished with this? Would you be able to send me your synopsis in an email or let me make a copy of your notes?

You'll want it in an email form. It's just a lot to track. One other thing to think about and recommendation number one is we are giving canopy credits for saving grand trees, but then in recommendation number three, we are requiring grand trees to be saved. So I just didn't know if that was, you know, we're making a requirement and then giving an incentive. I didn't know if that was counterintuitive or I just wanted to get everybody's opinion on that.

So I think where we landed was instead of doing the requirement, doing the recommendation. So I think maybe we may need to look at If I remember correctly, right? Is that not where we wanted to incentivize as opposed to requiring? And so we may need to move some of the, as you suggested, some of the more detailed definitions and information from recommendation three to recommendation number one.

Is that? I would keep recommendation number one and recommendation three.

Okay, go ahead and explain your thoughts.

Well, recommendation number three is just simply the grand tree protection.

Right.

That's protecting all the grand trees. So if we accept recommendation number three where we're saying grand trees are protected and they cannot be cut down, but we're incentivizing it with recommendation number one.

So you're saying do both.

I'm saying eliminate the incentive for... saving it if we're saying you have to save it. There's no reason to give you an incentive to save it because we're already telling you to save it.

So the requirement piece, and this is the discussion, and y'all help me if I'm remembering incorrectly, is the implementation of that and then who would do the audits and the enforcement?

That would be our code enforcement officer.

Okay, so that was the part that we were, whether or not that was an additional requirement burden tasks that we were willing to impose upon them. That's kind of where we, is that correct? But I don't remember. We all don't, okay.

I couldn't, I was going back through these notes and I was just looking at strictly at recommendation number three where it's the removal of a grand tree is prohibited unless one of the more following could be demonstrated. But I think we're saying in recommendation number three that we're protecting all grand trees and they're not allowed to be cut down without meeting that criteria.

And if I could throw something back. It's a little bit counter, but just so we have three inch, we give 400 square feet to. We get a significant, we give 500 square feet to. Then you're required to save the grand But what canopy calculation do you give to it? Yeah, should we keep that 600 in there for that somewhere?

That's what I didn't know if it was a, yeah. So I don't know, yeah. It's not an incentive, but it does go towards the calculation.

We did talk about that because we don't want to, you know, say plant the tree and then 27 other trees are required, so give them... good incentive because you talked about that with one of the projects. It was a little over-tree because of the grand trees that were saved. So, yeah.

We did talk about that. That 600 will give staff a ratio whether you want to put it as an incentive or someplace else.

You're right. It should count towards the ultimate canopy.

I agree with that. Okay.

Did we just word it a little different?

Well, it's whether or not you keep, because if we keep recommendation three, then it's still just saying that it is rated at 600 feet, so that's fine. You look like you were gonna say something, Mr. Shehorse?

No, no.

Well, I mean, the incentive, I mean, are we looking in recommendation one as an exhaustive list of trees that would qualify under the incentive? Perhaps the incentive is necessary beyond the list of trees we've looked at, so that it's, recommendation one is not superfluous if recommendation three is protecting the trees we've identified. So I don't know, perhaps they're both necessary and on their own.

I think it's necessary for the calculation. But not as, not at the point I'm making.

No, it doesn't call it, doesn't call it an incentive.

Yeah, canopy credit.

So I think it's okay to leave it like that. Yeah, I like that.

That way you have a more straightforward calculation.

Yeah, more coverage.

Okay, so let me clarify. So not leaving a loan as is, but I think some of the definitions, which part are you referring to, leaving a loan?

I'm just saying, I think instead of having to rewrite the language regarding the credit for a grant treat in Recommendation 1, you can leave that as is because it's just referred to as a canopy credit. It's not necessarily an incentive credit. Okay. I agree with Rhett's changes to Recommendation 1, if that's what you're asking. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay, okay.

I'm just curious, Rhett or Tommy, how much on average is a tree survey like per acre on like a heavily wooded lot? Do you know off the top of your head or is it by acre? Is it by acre? Is it on density?

I don't have a cost to it. I'd hate to pull one out of thin air. Yeah, it's hard to say. It would be an additional cost to their typical survey. The planning director could also, depending on how, there are ways to take an example or a sample group and expand it across the entire acreage to work towards that. But we could get there.

Okay, so, all right. So let's see if we are all clear. So the recommendations that Commissioner Harbison has with regards to recommendation one are the only changes thus far, correct?

Okay.

All right, let's go to recommendation number two.

This is the... Specifically a major single-family residential subdivision and it proposes a buffer requirement around the residential subdivision basically where we get a lot of complaints is You have an all existing subdivision new subdivision comes in they clear up to the property line and the thought process was to leave a greenbelt around the new subdivision. And through the discussions, the last that I have is that it would be a 20-foot, and this is right now, just so that y'all know, right now there is nowhere that I can think of in our development code that has an undisturbed buffer. When you say buffer in our development code, you clear it and then you plan it back according to the calculations. So this will be a change in and of itself because it is an undisturbed buffer. And it would be a 20 foot natural buffer should be maintained around the exterior boundary of a common development adjacent to the streets. And 10 feet of undisturbed buffer between existing subdivisions. said buffer should be fully contained on development's common area. So this is not in somebody's backyard and maintained by an HOA or other entity having ownership. It should remain undisturbed except to provide necessary infrastructure. And the planning director can also approve alternative buffering, and there is also a term in here that allows the planning director to require additional plantings if it's not a sufficient buffer. The question came up of what if there's nothing there? Well, then we can come back in and say, no, you got the plant. So that's what's on the table now. Is that something?

Yeah, I can.

So to go back to your point of you can go back and say you've got to plant something, if I read this the way it's worded, 10-foot undisturbed buffer between existing subdivisions. So if you have an existing subdivision and then raw land behind it, should we change that existing buffer around an entire proposed community? I don't know. Because if it's existing subdivision, raw land... Does that wording apply to the whole entire community? Does that make sense? Okay.

I think I have like a similar, maybe the same question of when we have this definition, if you're like Shana Clear, phase one and phase two, do you need a buffer in between phase one and phase two according to this language? Or would it be if you're building a brand new subdivision next to an existing subdivision with a whole new name? Is that what you're talking about too, sort of?

Maybe that's a, because we had like a donut hole situation. So you have an existing subdivision, say a brand new, maybe that's not a good example. Let's say you have, I'll use Gregory Landing for example. The back side, maybe they go into Edgefield County and that's just Tommy owns 80 acres there and it's not a subdivision. So Gregory Landing can now cut everything because it's not a budding and existing subdivision. Because it's not major subdivision. you have a perimeter of 10 feet around the whole thing and does this wording say it says existing subject or like up to someone's private property correct so is our intention more we want to buffer around the whole outside of five phases of the community regardless of what the other side of the property line is because if it's not an existing subdivision can they get out of the buffer requirement? So that's, I'm just looking at the way it's working.

And I could, if you wanted to, I could probably rephrase that to, Other property lines, if you wanted to.

That's kind of what I'm asking. If you guys track what I'm saying there. It's just I think the wording, if somebody pushed it, it'd be like.

Well, I think the person on the private property deserves just as much of a buffer as the neighborhood. So I think maybe going with property line definition is a better phrasing of that.

How about a 10 foot understood buffer along other property lines?

Yes.

Well, so with that 10 foot, does it, I mean, I think that when we were discussing that 10 feet, it was meant more along the lines of we'll go with a 10 foot as long as, you know, where it abuts a 10 foot buffer on that property. Because we were trying to get the 20 feet total. So if they've already got 10 foot on their property, then this person could only do, the developed property would only be required to do 10 feet. But if that property doesn't have anything, then they're required to do 20 feet. So I didn't know if we wanted to qualify that 10 feet to along where there is an existing buffer in place. I think that's what we're trying to say with that existing subdivision. The 10 foot understub buffer between the existing subdivision. I think that's what we're referencing there. Ten foot along existing subdivisions, but as long as they have a buffer in place in that area.

Well, like, for instance, when they cut the hive back behind those houses on Wellington, they were able to clear all the way up to that person's property line. So, yes, a lot of those lots back there are wooded in the rear. However, you can still, I mean, see it. So are you saying as long as that homeowner had 10 foot of trees, then he would only need to keep 10 feet more?

I was thinking more of a subdivision instead of that individual homeowner.

Yeah, I think that's where Aaron was trying to come in was like.

I would scratch the 10 feet all together then and just make it 20 feet. What is the 10 foot qualification? What's the 10 feet accomplish?

So if I remember correctly, the 10 feet was to also not start taking, chipping away into the ability to develop some of those lots. And so it was a larger exterior block external kind of border. Is that the right way?

My thought was, you know, for the developer builders, if we say 20 feet, I mean, that's a significant amount. So that, you know, it's, it's lot size, but it also creeps into, you know, what they could use for a backyard. And also we talked about, it's going to be H most of us can be deeded HOA. And then we had Helene and look at how much damage HOA has had to absorb. So I know we're talking about 10 feet, but if it's 10 feet less, we're still accomplishing a natural buffer we're given a little grace to maybe a bigger backyard to an hoa less to manage you know a little compromise in there so i think you know if you at least get 10 feet you got 10 feet because i know we were counting the tiles up there what 10 feet is so um and that gives you visually a buffer versus you know instead of there's nothing there when it's clear cut but then we have that visual buffer too so I don't think we need 20 feet, but yeah, just my concern is if there wasn't a neighborhood, you go all the way back and then we're not accomplishing what we're trying to accomplish.

So let's see, okay, so let's do a straw poll on who's good with 10 feet. Okay, so we're all good with 10. All right, so we'll leave that. All right, so then are there any other changes then?

Do we have a language problem with calling it another abutting neighborhood or subdivision? And does it need to be more broad than that? Because we're talking about properties and not just.

I think it needs to be expanded to say, because in that case, Stanley Martin would have had to leave 10 feet behind those houses. I'm just trying to think of a real world example we're all familiar with. They would have had to left a 10 foot and then they could start their lot that they were going to sell. And that would have been appreciated, I'm sure. Ms. Christie? Yes.

Just so you know. Yes. In that particular situation, a buffer was required by city council?

Yes.

but it was a case where it was not an undisturbed buffer.

It was not undisturbed. They replanted it. Yes, you know what I'm saying? So they were able to clear it. They replanted, but. Back to our great language. That was what he was saying with the undisturbed. It would have left an undisturbed buffer because that was a heavily wooded area, just real world example. So yeah, I think it should say existing subdivision slash private property lines or something along those lines.

Okay, so you want it around all property lines?

We'll get that reworded for you.

Yep, can y'all? Y'all want to share what y'all want?

No, I was just thinking. It was like three of y'all. Yeah, we would call it just property lines in general.

Should it be a specific? And I think I'm on that. I'm on that track.

Well, along that with the property lines, I may include something. What's coming to my mind now is you have a subdivision, and I'm thinking about the hive again, or a planned development where you have residential and commercial. Well, that commercial is going to have to have a buffer on against that residential. Let me hush. I talked myself through it.

I'm sorry. All right. So all hearts and minds. All right. So we'll get to recommendation number three. So Commissioner Harbison, you had some additions, edits to the definition of grand trees?

Yeah, I think the definition of the grand tree, any large species tree with a DBH greater than or equal to 24 inches or a small species tree with a DBH greater than or equal to 10 inches. I added that little blurb in there. We can talk about adding small trees into the grand trees, but my thought is if you've got a 12-inch DBH Japanese maple, that's a grand tree.

Oh, okay. You don't know what a, Japanese maple? Let me look at it. No, that's a big Japanese, that's like a gorgeous.

There's some grand small trees.

No, that is true, and that would be very expensive. Yeah, that would be a very expensive grand maple, yeah.

And then with the same pine sweet gum and invasive trees. Okay.

Okay.

And again, I go back to where we started at. And remember, I've got two code enforcement officers to be enforcing this. They know zero about trees and what is a large tree, what is a small tree. And so that is going to be a challenge as far as the identification of the type of trees for them and what's large, what's small.

And I think if we get to 10 inches, we're getting a little too into minutiae. Because if we're talking about big and grand trees, just to go to his point of we want to make it enforceable and realistic. And I'm a tree hugger. I want as many trees there as possible. But I don't know. And I kind of disagree with taking out some of the other trees. I would say leave them. Some of those have really big, nice canopies.

Leave which trees? What's proposed here. Oaks, magnolias, pines, cedar, sweet gums, black gums, and maples. Okay.

Where I'm saying exclude pines and sweet gums. She's saying leave it in.

I just think, you know, I know pines can be, or pines are one thing, but sweet gums, you know, I know they have the little balls on them, but they have nice, beautiful canopies. They're usually.

So you want to protect them as well. Yeah. Yeah. Are sweet gums considered invasive or not? I'm asking. I have been told you can make them asexual.

You put something around the trunk and it stops the gumball from falling.

Yeah, but I'm not going out there to do that.

Can I ask a question? Yes. Okay, so if you go back to recommendation one, you're not incentivizing saving pines, but here you're saying pines. You're saying that, so. It does need to match. Yeah.

I don't, I would love to. I don't know that it is feasible to save every pine tree on the remaining pieces of property left here. I expect anyone to develop anything.

you're not asking them to really save every pine tree either if you're talking about canopy calculation well recommendation it's over 24 inches yeah and so i i have a hard time believing like i don't think we can do that i don't think you make land developable pine trees uh in the south suffer from infestation of pine you know buzz and so

We have a qualifier here, it says unless the tree is diseased, dying, or dead. Does that count for infestation? I mean, I guess we could probably. Okay. Yeah.

I'm fine with pines and sweet gums.

I know, I know. I'm actually really fine with sweet gums. Sayonara.

And a real estate agent, so you ought to... I am not a real estate agent.

She said, let me make that very clear.

One of my clients goes, these all have to come down, and I say, they survived Helene.

They're good.

They're probably good. They survived the worst wind we'll probably ever have. But yes, the pine trees are crazy.

So we keep talking about sweet gums, and I see them in the definition of grand tree.

That's why we're talking. yeah so i mean we're talking about okay yeah so yeah so we have one four including sweet gums are you still wanting to include pines i mean i get the density point you know if we have so many i'm thinking through that so yeah okay so maybe on pines

I'm fine if everybody's, you know, if I get out.

Well, I was going to do a straw poll just to see where we were. Yeah, no, I was, I mean, I was asking to see where we are. So we have maybe on pines for you and a definite on sweetgum. All right. Both pines and sweetgums out.

Okay.

Both. Both. Both. Okay. So I'm also fine with both. Okay. All right. but in that case are we leaving the language and removing those two or are we using Brett's definition so if I'm correct Brett's definition removes those two and includes language around invasive trees and then All right, so that's the first part. And then wanting to get a feel for where folks are on the smaller grand trees. Is there anyone who really feels that that needs to be a part of it in addition to?

Well, are we going with 24 or 18? 24. He recommends 24. 24, okay.

Dr. Crawford.

Yes.

Which trees are we scratching out from the definition?

So pines and sweet gums.

Black gum stay, right?

Yes.

And then it's an invasive. So it's the language that Commissioner Harbison used on the first recommendation, his definition, he's going to send it to you in text. He's going to email you. We were just clarifying from what we were all looking at.

My only concern, I'm obviously in favor of doing the smaller trees as well in the definition in general, but my concern of having two code enforcement officers to manage that is large. I don't know if that's feasible.

I do think, just as the city grows, I do think code enforcement in general, we do need someone else in city council or somebody if we think we're going to potentially double in population. That's something we're gonna have to address anyway, because we all see it that they definitely can use the help for sure. And not that they're doing a bad job, it's just there's a lot.

What I'm wondering though is can you put in the definition of a green tree now and then say in a year we do have a third code enforcement officer that we could add on to the definition of green trees or have we?

But if you... I would... Rather those of you who will still be in service in a year bring it up. at that time, then putting it in and we know it can't be enforced.

I just. That's my concern.

Yeah, so I would rather, I think if it is a way to maybe when you email, just say, and for future considerations, this would be a definition of a smaller grant tree that we discussed so that that can be referenced. When we feel that it can legitimately be enforced. And that would be my recommendation.

Me too. That's what Lance Shealy said, right?

You can't enforce your code, you don't have one. Okay.

Can I get a, I'm not tracking over here. Oh, I'm sorry.

So, okay, I'm sorry. So, there was, that we like the idea of protecting smaller grand trees, such as a Japanese maple, but given that there are some constraints with staffing that that language be memorialized in that email to you, and that those who will continue to serve, if it is appropriate in a year or two years, when there is adequate enforcement available, that then they can reference that language and email and go through this process again.

Appreciate it.

All right, all hearts and minds clear, everybody? All right. All right. And was there anything else that you had any changes to?

Was there a significant tree?

Yes. I'm going to send you that definition. Okay.

But that doesn't go in recommendation three. Significant trees is only for the language of one for one.

Okay. But we reference in... Note number five, and I think it's supposed to be, if it is necessary to allow construction of a road essential for access to the site subject to the requirement that the inches of the grand and significant trees removed therefore shall be replaced when the site is developed. So we talk about significant trees there, so I think our definition, by defining that, establishing that definition, that picks that up.

Okay, because that's only with reference to the road. Okay. Okay. Could you read your definition for significant trees just one more time to make sure?

Any large species tree with a DBH of 8 inches to 23.9 inches, pine, sweetgum, and invasive trees excluded.

Mr. Harvest.

That sounds fine with me, but where did 23.9 come from? It was 24 inches of grant.

But I'm sitting here thinking. Could we make that less than 24 inches? Because what I'm saying is 21.94.

Oh, I see. Yes, just make it less than 24.

Well, it depends on how we define recommendation number one. Because it says existing trees, but we were talking about making that significant trees, because we're saying they're 15 inches and less than 24 inches. So if we plug in significant trees, it would just grab that.

He's saying that to get that middle tier, to call that, okay. You're going to have to put an actual measurement in somewhere. That's what you're doing, right? Because if you're just saying less than, So let's try, okay.

Or between 18 and 24 inches.

So let's, okay.

Right there where it says stop is proposing existing tree, it just needs to be more than 15 and less than 24. Something like that. Yeah.

So more than...

Okay.

So more than... So while we are all clear now, I don't bet on us being as clear a month from now. Okay. All right. Anything else? Is that enough clarity?

That along with Mr. Harbison's email, I think I can get something for y'all to look at next month.

All right, we appreciate that.

Yeah, I'd like to see this done.

All right, so if there are any other comments or thoughts around tree preservation? Hmm? Now I'm going to ask this because I don't know, so maybe you can help me. No, just because I thought about it when I was in the Lowcountry. So with this, how do you do golf courses?

Design your golf course around the big trees.

So you have to design your golf course around all Grand Trees? I was just wondering. I mean, here I think it's less of an issue, but clearly in the Lowcountry, I was like, I don't know how they ever got any golf courses in given Grand Trees.

But I just... Design around them.

That's what the ones in Charleston do.

That's what the neighborhoods in Charleston do.

Well, I knew the neighborhood, yeah, but I was just wondering. Golf courses are sometimes a bit quirky because of that, but I think it's actually popular.

Yeah, and I was in Beaufort where they still have a ton. So it's not even, Beaufort has a ton of time. And so just was trying to, but okay.

I don't see us building a golf course anytime soon. No, no, but I track what you're saying.

No, no, just asking. I don't think we need it. I mean, I. I'm not a golfer.

Okay.

All right, thank you. So, Mr. Paradise, your staff update.

Yes, ma'am. July was still a strong month for us, particularly strong residential growth. Zoning Administration and Code Enforcement and Department processed high volume of routine development related requests and continued substantial enforcement activity. Our code enforcement officers took 108 temporary signs from the right of ways and illegal. 19 residential site plan reviews and 19 property maintenance cases demonstrates that we're continuing to maintain development standards and community appearance. And notably, year-to-date development fee revenue is ahead of last year's pace. And most of what we're seeing at this point is residential.

And as always, we appreciate all that you do and probably should have led with the 109th just on sign enforcement before we discuss anything else. But we do appreciate you keeping us honest around what is reasonable and yeah, what is reasonable. So thank you for that again. All right, is there anything other business?

Yeah, I'd like to encourage everybody to go watch the Explore North Augusta podcast with Dr. Crawford and Mayor Williams. It was phenomenal. Oh, thank you. There's a lot of good information on there about who we are, what our qualifications are, and what we're planning to do. So I thought that was great, and I encourage everybody out in Facebook land to go watch that.

Absolutely.

Well, thank you. I have yet to watch it myself, but thank you. All right. That being said, motion to adjourn?

So moved.

All right. Thank you.