Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good morning everybody. Welcome to the February 19th, 2026 regular meeting of the Sunset Peach Planning Board. Seeing that we have a quorum, I'll call the meeting to order and let us stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Amen. Uh okay. First, as usual, uh item two, conflict of interest. Does any member have a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with regard to any item on this agenda? If so, please state so at this time. Richard,

I do not. I do not. I do not.

I do not. Thank you. Uh item three, uh looking at today's uh agenda, we'll need motions to either amend or approve the agenda. And I'd like to make a motion to change the agend agenda. I guess amended. I want to change the order. I asked for item number seven, 7.1, a discussion on Brunswick County storm water update. It's really an information sharing item. I'd like to move that up in between five and six there just because it's really kind of a short item uh just to share the information with the planning board and with the public so they know what has changed and kind of get that ite out of way. Do I have a second for that?

I second. Any other discussion? Nope. All in favor? I I I Any hearing? No, it carries. Any other uh motions to alter the agenda? I I it it may be in item 6.2, but I'd like to have a um an update on the land use plan. I know we as part of it, we were going to schedule public meetings at some point and get the stat in addition to going over the text. That's all. Yes. So, we'll have at every meeting we'll update the status of where we stand. Okay. Okay. So, that would be uh redundant. It's in 62. Yes.

Okay. No change needed. I'd like to make a motion that in under administrative comments that we have a a quick discussion about um the greenwave festival and whether the planning board could host a boot um about the land use plan. Uh any other comments on that or should we make that part of uh 62? Maybe we can make it 63. Yeah. Why don't we make it 63? 63. So part of landl pan discussion to discuss that. Yeah.

So let's add that to make that item 6.3. Why don't you explain it again? So, we're adding subcategory 6.3 as part of the land use plan. I'm out. You okay? Make sure the motion is stated. I move that we add 6.3, a discussion of booth attendance at the Greenwave Festival to our agenda. I'll second the motion. Any discussion on that? Second. Okay. All in favor of that amendment? I

I. Any nays? Hearing no nays. That's added to the agenda. Uh so I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as modified or amended. I second. All in favor? I. Any naysay? No. Nays. The modified agenda is approves. Uh so the next item number four is approval of the minutes of the 11526 meeting. Since I did not attend that meeting, I will defer to vice chair Steuart Jones here to conduct a review of those minutes. Stuart.

Um I did have a question about um under the major site plan review the second paragraph. Richard, were you okay with the wording in the second paragraph? That was a mostly your discussion.

Yeah, I I'm fine with it, but I one of the issues that was revealed in the meeting is that of the attendees at this meeting. I was the only member of the planning board that had been present at the conditional zoning hearings. And it would be nice if that could be added to this just to highlight the fact that one of us had actually taken part in these negotiations and could speak somewhat authoritatively about Can you give Tim the language you want included there? So um could be just a sing a single line that Yeah, a single line.

Richard Dyaker was a member of the planning board during this conditional zoning review process. Something like that. Okay. Yeah, perfect. I think we can review the minutes from that meeting or review the re review the recording rather from the meeting and get what specifically was said. Sorry, say that again. So she would be able to review the YouTube video from that meeting and find out what exactly was said and had

and for the record I there were four meetings of which two I was unable to attend because I was not consulted before they were scheduled but the other two I was in attendance and subject 13A which was the the issue under discussion was done at those two meetings. So if we get the four the two first two were in May 23rd 24th I forget the exact dates and then there were follow-up meetings in June. That make sense. Well, I want to make sure Kim understands the sentence you want to add that you were present for this discussion. Well, I'm just responding to right

Ken's pointing out and I I was at that meeting. I remember you making that statement, but I just want to be sure that the language is correct rather than I guess We just want to make sure it's correct. Okay. Well, the key point being is that Richard is saying that he was at the meeting that this was discussed. He was present at the original meeting. He wants that he made that comment. I do recall it from YouTube myself and so documented appropriately. We agree on that. Yeah. Okay. That's fair. Any other changes, Stuart? Yeah. The other thing on the major site plan review is there's no there's no record of the vote. I agree. That's the one thing I noticed. You have a motion to deny but no vote results.

Yeah. Okay. We need to and the mo and the motion deni to deny was unanimous. Okay. Right. So, we're going to add it was carried unanimously. Yes. All three of us. And I'm not I'm not sure if it's relevant, but it it might be helpful that the only in all other aspects of the plan that was presented to us, everything else would have was approved. It was simply the the the height issue that um I think resulted in the denial. Yeah.

Is that an important? No, I think it was covered in the last meeting actually. I don't remember if you guys mentioned it or not. Again, might have. I don't think so. But the pre the previous meeting was that was stated. So, I think that's on the record already. Yeah. All right. I think as long as it's clear to everybody, denial was based on as the motion says here, the building height discrepancy alone. Correct. Because it says alone there, Richard. Yes. Yes. That's fine. Right. Ron Tua, if I remember, you stated you had to state the reason why the denial. So it was clear to you, Ron, and everybody else that denial was based on nonconformance with the 50 foot height condition. Correct. All agreed.

Agreed. The last sentence in the minutes. Yes. Specifies exactly that. Yeah. Alone. And then once you get the voted there, you know, it's clear why it was denied. Yes, sir. Other than that, I don't have any comments. Got one minute. Okay. Make a motion. Yeah, I think the the new business section is fine. 81 is fine. Kimberly, once again, you've done a great job. So, I make a motion to approve the minutes. As amended,

I second. All in favor? I. I. Any nays? Nope. Hear nos. Uh, the minutes are approved with said modification. Okay, because I did alter the order a little bit, uh, we will actually bring up discussion item 7.1 first, which is a information sharing item concerning the storm water.

Mr. Chair, you advised that you were going to move that between five and six would be up for public comments. I skipped the public. My apologies. Any public comments on the agenda item? uh step to the podium. Seeing no public comments, I can move on yet. Sorry about that. It must have been a premonition.

Okay. So, I requested Ron to include this item for discussion uh really to share with the rest of the planning board and with the public so they know what I think is a somewhat moderately significant change in the way the county's handing handling uh storm water for the storm water permit. Ron, if you want to maybe give a briefing. We have the written document, a little summary for everyone to hear what what has changed and how they're handling it.

Sure. So, as as the chair indicated, he asked me to contact Brunswick County Engineering just uh to ask questions about the changes to their stormwater ordinance and and how or if it does impact Sunset Beach at all. And the information I got back was on January 20th, the commissioners of Brunswick County voted to change stormwater requirements uh that would apply to the unincorporated areas of Brunswick County and most um of its municipalities. I say most because there may be a town like Leland who for example made their own stormwater rules. Uh the revised change applies to certain developments with the town of Sunset Beach and the ETJ. Uh there was no storm water standards requiring no no changes to the um stormwater standards uh for requiring storm water management systems on individual residential lots. Um basically what happened is the the the amendment was the postdevelopment discharge peak discharge for residential subdivisions and commercial developments. Uh the the applicants are required to development rate apply that to one year the 10 year the 25 year which is already existence but added the 100redyear storm uh for that project. Uh there is a hardship clause that's available. If someone has a small piece of property and they can demonstrate to the county engineer that um they can't comply with that 100red-year storm, then the county engineer can take that in consideration during their review. Um and it appeals is my understanding they go to the uh Brunswick County uh commissioners. Uh when I first reached out, I was told that uh initially that there aren't anything we need to do for our ordinances, but since then um with further communication from Brunswick County that we may need to look at amending our ordinance, whether it's our municipal code or our stormwater

ordinance uh in the within the UDO, we don't know yet. They're supposed to provide us some template and some language if we are to do anything. So, um there is a I have a copy of the 2006 agreement if you guys are interested in it. Um in that it does say um the town will adopt the storm ordinance of Brunswick County. Should the county adopt any amendments of to its storm ordinance, town will also adopt those same amendments. If the town does not adopt amendments within 90 days of notification of passage by the county, then this interlocal agreement would be void. So, so we need essentially that ordinance. So, we need to mandates. We don't know yet.

We have to comply with the county's storm water initiative for the 100redyear. So, basically they're requiring someone wants to come in and build a a grocery store, right? uh they're going to have to not only do the one 10 and 25 year peak storm, they're now plan for the 100red-year storm which is roughly I'm I'm going to round and I believe there's a chart in your package about 12 in 36% higher. The reason I had him include the I don't know if you did it. It's an interactive website. Yeah. Uh you can go to the Noah site and click on where he lives and it tells you what the rain is because I and he printed out the table. So yes, where I think I round it up 12, but

I think you picked the here the the town hall if I looked at the map, right? Is that where basically it's the shoreline and sunset is 11.6 in in a 24-hour period. Uh but what I found somewhat interesting and which is why I sort of had this discussion, the old the 25 year is 8.52 inches. So just so yes it has increased their discharge first discharge but it's actually going from a 25 year reign to a 100redy year reign is a 36% increase in rain but one might 75% increase

exact but it's not because it's it's statistics and probability. So right to make it clear. So under this new county ordinance the developers will have to handle whatever they call the first discharge or whatever their language forget their peak discharge is now would be increased from 8.52 in of rain to 11.6 in of rain. Can I how did this not fall under the downzoning prohibition? I'm not an attorney. Not an attorney. What? I'm not an attorney. That's Brunswick County. It's county. Yeah. Okay. So, where do we stand? What are we going to do on this?

So, next steps, I think we need to hold on to see what Brunswick County provides us. They have not officially notified the town and any other jurisdiction as far as I know of this change. So, until we're notified, we don't have to do anything. But my understanding is too, they're going to provide us with some with some template language or code language or something to consider to adopt their standard to adopt their standards. We I we may already cover by the way the storm water standards in our UDO are written already. Yeah, I don't think it mentions the we don't mention specific. We just say compliance with Yeah, we just say comp with we need to Well, I'm glad I brought this up though. So, you need to monitor that and make sure 90 days. Can I

Well, but we've not been notified yet by the county. Not 90 days. As I read the interlocal is 90 days. Um town will adopt storm orders of Brunswick County sideways within 90 days of notification of passage. Town as far as I know the town's not been notified. Well then you'll decide whether it's a UDO change or or do we need to put something come to us or the town council or both? We have to

have path ready. Can I get clarification? It is my general understanding that as you increase the storm water abatement requirements, it makes tree preservation more difficult. Is that a generally true statement? Good. And we've just created a UDO that significantly enhances tree abatement. Are we headed for a collision there or too soon to tell? It's too soon to tell them. Well, plus it allows our code allows mitigation. So, okay. I mean, what you're saying is because they need their detention pond larger if not deeper,

right? Do they then big 36 oak gets pulled down? Well, there's also a great a grading issue in that Well, but if they do have to remove a tree for any for any infrastructure, it will have to be mitigated by the rules, which is inch for inch.

Yeah. But then we get into an issue of it's one thing to mitigate a couple of lobly points, but now when you get into legacy trees, which I think has a much more significant impact, uh, and we went through, you know, line by line with Logan on the conditional zoning and the tree abatement issues in terms of preserving, I think, nine legacy trees. And this could conceivably impact So under the new UDO with more stricter storm water requirements, we may face the day when we're forced to make a decision to forego free abatement which the community is extremely

why that would be possible. I don't see that because the Well, first of all, if it is what it is, it's already passed. So it is okay. We we just got to make sure we're we're in lock step with it. Okay. Properly legally. But if they have to Yes. If some storm water infrastructure is needed, it could be needed now. Yeah. So, I mean, I don't really And if it is, we're still counting the trees and doing the count of the whether it was a heritage tree or a regulated tree, the same math is going to apply and mitigation is going to apply. Okay.

Yeah. I mean, yes. I mean you're always but true a giant oak could be sitting in the middle of a retention pond now that need that will go and have to be mitigated. Correct. Correct. So but if there were specific trees listed let's use Logan as an example that say you thou shalt save this 55 in oak tree that's a condition of approval and they need to they needed work. I mean those trees were identified in certain strategic areas of the plan for the for those trees to be preserved. Yeah. I don't think we've ever done it that way. Yeah, I'm I'm just using as an example. They do the tree survey when they do the jump. They do the tree survey when they do the preliminary plat. There were I thought there were some trees that were identified, but I might be wrong. I don't believe so.

Can we up? Thanks. Um, so the Logan project, um, we could get certainty on this. They would be vested under the old rules, not subject to the new I'm sorry, Wes, I can't hear you. Uh you there you got me Alan. Um the better.

Thank you. Um Wes Mloud, thank you. Uh just Logan would uh be vested under their under the old rules, so not subject to the new 100-year trigger. Um and so just the other two things, I think Ron alluded to this. you do have specific reference in your UDO to compliance with the county's stormwater ordinance at present. So at least there it it is there. And secondarily, as of this morning, I have requested again uh from from Bridget Flora, director of engineering, hey, what if anything do we need? Can you provide us documentation? Uh and so I can assure you that it will be as soon as we have an update, uh the town will be made aware of it.

Okay. Okay. Thanks. Any questions, Stuart? Nope. Michael, any questions? No. Okay. There's no action on this. Again, this was uh information sharing. I guess Ron and Kenneth, any questions or Ron? Thanks. Thanks. And then obviously Ron too, if we if some action is required, you'll bring it to our attention. Yes, sir. When needed.

Okay. Next item of new business, did I read this properly? Is the adoption of NCE SOG? Is that something of government? I forgot. School of government suggested rules for procedures for local appointed board. Our interim administrator, Ken Clur, it's all yours. Claymark. Clayart, excuse me.

That's okay. I've been called worse. Um so before you for consideration is the adoption of u the procedure for appointed boards and of course there there are some things here that um guide you on essentially Robert's rules um a condensed version of cliff's notes cliff's notes if you will um so if you've had an opportunity to review those if there's any questions I'll try to answer those the best that I can for you now My main question are two. One, we have a UDO that describes our function to a bit. So we need to comply with that certainly.

And then the way it looks to me is there are like some multiple choices in here, you know, parts that are in bracket. So are we supposed to go and put our name in rule one and then pick the sections we want and then finalize this a document and adopt it? Well, the bracketed parts, for example, I know there's um a mention of a secretary, I believe, versus a clerk. Um it's just to encompass a situation that you may have one or the other. So, I don't know that it needs to be so specific, but let's go to rule two. Yeah, I had some.

It says the presence and I got a question. The presence of a quorum is necessary for board to conduct business. Yes, we know that a quorum consists of majority of the board's actual members and then it gives you a bracket excluding vacancy. So that tells me that's a choice. You can put the period after the P in membership or you can adopt the part in the bracket which today makes a difference because we are we had a a withdrawal of one person. So normally five. So our quorum is three out of five. Now the question is is two out of four a majority.

I've brought up some questions. So and because if you include if you exclude the vacant seat we're four. If we don't exclude the vacancy seat we're five. So that's what I mean. There's a number of these what I found when I reading there's a number of these bracketed things that to me seem like choices on how you operate. Yeah. When it comes to part two,

so are we I guess the are the instructions for us to go through each of these, pick our choice, make sure it complies with the UDO of course and other ordinances that we have, finalize this document and vote on it for adoption. That would be my recommendation to ensure that the the the board has the opportunity to review it, mark it up. If there's anything that needs to be sent for legal review, then it'll be sent. Once that review is complete, then that completed document would come back to the board at that time for consideration. So should we assume that today we can I mean already I mean I have an issue with part two historically traditionally we don't eliminate an an an unfilled seat in terms of the measurement of quorum. Uh there's an unfilled seat now we still need three for a quorum. So, and it also provides some impetus to get a seat filled. Um, so I just in terms of item two, I'd just like to um strike that as an option.

Well, I've identified item two as a qu an area of question because as the chair and you have stated correctly, the code does say a quorum of three members. As far as I'm cons, as far as my recollection, a lot of times when you're trying to determine a voting situation, excluding a an absent seat is typically done like when like the board of adjustment and we don't and we have a vacant seat determining how many people there for sake of Yeah. You know, voting is on the board of adjustment. Five.

Five. Okay. So an example of what I just note that I wrote was to me there may be a conflict with the UDO section UDO states three members can constitute a quorum but if let's say we have three vacant seats for whatever reason then as written the rules might indicate okay if only two of you show up you could have a meeting but the code I think would trump say you have to have three right so you know I was trying to think of an extreme example so that that was one area well because I also noted quorum as a potential

right in my mind we don't we don't accept that excluding vacant seats our quorum consists of a more well we might actual membership so and I'm far more comfortable with that well it should be a quorum consists of three quorum consists of three period right for consistency with your UDO yes Right. As long as as long as any changes that are made are compliant with general statute in the UDO. Um, and I don't think that today is the meeting to go through this page by page. Um, well, I guess what you would What would you like us to do with it? I would like you to go through it page by page, but not in this meeting. You'd like us to

I'd like you to go through it page by page, make any corrections similar to what Mr. Satderfield did, forward those to me, and those will be subject to a review. Once those are approved, it'll come back to a subsequent um subsequent planning board meeting hopefully next month. Um in the meantime, we can follow I've been through this page by page and I have questions on some but some of the things I think are decisions the board needs to make. I don't know. Yeah, I agree. I we got to go page by page and because we need to decide things things that are not in the UDO that are options. Some of them are quite simple like it says

some of them are quite simple which was like the date part four rule eight and the date and time of the first regular meeting July we appoint the new chair and vice chair we do it in January the July is in brackets I'm assuming that's changeable so some of this are like a real simple but I don't know in my mind I think we need to go through this here and decide what we want and then turn that over to you guys to review for legal and then the final document comes back and we adopt it. I don't know any other way to Stuart. Sounds like a plan.

Yeah. I don't know if we want to go through it line by line this month or wait for next month. Well, I'm assuming you got to add it to the agenda. They want us to do something with it. So, I mean, I'm prepared to go through it line by line. You're not? I am. Yeah, I am. I I would make the recommendation that those edits are prepared and submitted to me and those come back to the planning board meeting in March.

So, how is that? I'm confused now. Well, and then we could discuss them at that time, but you'd have comments from all four of us to go through. Yes. and we'd have a review of what you have submitted at that time that we can if we have to make some changes there based on legal opinions then we can do so at that meeting. So we would submit our concerns or changes to you.

I would probably say first to Ron he would review it make sure it's in compliance with UDO. It goes from Ron to me, me to legal, and then we come back in March. And then you would do the review and come back to us with a draft with a draft for consideration of approval in the March agenda. So let's let's run this by everyone can take we all have a copy now. Yep.

You all can go through this and mark up questions and changes. I guess scan it in or drop it off to Mr. Sederfield's going to be a difficult job trying to compile that. But uh uh I I don't know another path. I mean because is that work or you're looking I mean because I just have my notes on which sections what changes do it however the board wants to do it. If you want to give me your give me your scan copy or copy of that then I'll look at that that way or um yes

Mr. chair. A better suggestion I'm open to inter um I understand the quandry that everyone's in. Um, I wonder, Ken, if there are a couple consensus related items that would warrant discussion so that I fear that if there's four different documents that are sent for legal review, it's going to incur a bunch of expenses on the town twice rather than if there's a couple things here that they could seek consensus on, provide that to Ron, then a clean copy could be sent. uh if there's four four copies that are sent up then it comes back there's additional consensus that's needed then it's going to be sent back to legal which may be fine I just want you to be aware it sounds like there may be two iterations of legal review that would be required um then secondarily they could not seek consensus among themselves outside of the meeting so all those comments have to be submitted individually um if they if they are to confirm on this outside of the meeting. It it um you know, you're in violation of public meeting laws. Um so, but you know, I um just provide that for and maybe two legal reviews is fine. Just so I just want to make sure that that's

okay. I I appreciate that. And I think less is more and I was sitting here thinking the same thing like how can we get a consensus outside of this meeting? We And we can't. and I don't want to send multiple uh subjects to the attorney for review. So I would agree with Mr. Mloud that if we can consess on several of the items um without getting into the weeds then I think that's a good path forward. Um Kimberly could send Microsoft Word documents to you as well so that you can make edits uh you know strike through them mark them up that way. Yeah. I mean because some of the things at least in my is you know I'm asking for clarification. Well I mean in situations

we're wasting a lot of time talking about it. Let's just go through it deal with it and and and let them uh move on from there. Sounds good because we got to get through two chapters of this the same way. So instead of discuss it let's go start by my rules. Start on what's called page five. That's where everybody's got their first page, right? Yeah. And again, the issue of the quorum in my mind, so according to what Ron Sederfield says, we have to change that language to reflect our UDO. Correct. Correct. So our UDO says it's always three irregardless of vacancies and the number of the board members. Correct, Ron? So maybe we should just copy the quorum language from UDO and put it in here.

Yeah, UDO. Strike the whole thing and just plop it in here. Yeah, your your UDS UDS says there shall be a quorum of three members for the purpose of taking official action. Yeah, that's it. Put it in there. Just put that in there. Just put it in there. If they don't like it, they can send it back. Change. Okay. I have I have a question on page six, item six. Well, wait. They ain't moved to six yet. Anything else on page five? Sorry. Not for me. And again, let's try to keep it to major items. Yeah.

So, we don't text everybody on page six. I maybe some of the questions it it looks like this thing in general moves us to some electronic meetings uh you know but it's generically called a zoom meeting though it's not seems to so I had some questions but nothing that were so and

other than number six there was the board shall conduct all votes by roll call as you can see earlier we generally don't on all votes but we can change that if we want which means as opposed to today they taking the aid's and nays I'm going to have to call a role one by one so that every per even on a amendment motion to the agenda so if I'm reading this I didn't see anything but that's only in an electronic meeting yes and only electronic meeting electronic meeting would apply as written only only when the governor has I stand corrected all right fine there's two yeah I think in terms of electronic meetings which are by the way god forbid we ever have to have one of those. I mean, oh yeah,

and that's pretty much and that language is fairly consistent with the statutes, right? So, okay, I stand corrected on that. That's fine. Anything else on what's called page six that is somewhat critical? No, page seven. Page seven, there's a blank in terms of advanced notice in terms of notification from a broadcasting. I think that should simply be the function of the town administrator. Where's that? Yeah. Item rule seven, item B, meeting shall so notify blank. Yeah.

I mean, can if you feel you're the appropriate person to approve or not approve, I would I would agree. Town administrator, right? All right. Yeah. And then I guess really more for staff on this rule six item B recording the A's and Naz. Okay, because I asked Kimberly about this before software item recording all the people's votes and there was a software issue. So if we adopt this as long as the town unless that's changed, you can go one name by name now. Okay, fine. So that's been fixed. Good. a fixedter when

because normally you were saying like it was unanimous or what but actually what this indicates you got to say each name and how they voted. You can do that. Okay. Page eight which I referred to earlier on part four rule 8 we do our vote yearly for chair and vice chair in the January meeting not the July meeting. Correct. So that that would be correct if we just take the first meeting in January and the last sentence we could incorporate because we we elect a chair and a vice chair in January.

Now is is that the t vice chair is that the title that we currently use? Yes. Anything else on eight? Nope. Um the under number nine regular meeting schedule there's May and shall Oh yeah. My comment on that one was we adopt the town council adopts your regular schedule. So I'm not I don't even know if that section is needed but town council historically has adopted the schedules for the as my understanding adopted the schedule for your appointed boards. So, should we change that to read the town council shell?

These are your rules and procedures, so I don't know that it's necessary. Well, I' like to get the We don't actually We could, I guess, get their schedule and adopt it. We could, but let's just take the Should we just take the May out and shell? We can decide whether we need to do that. Yeah. Yeah. And today the board shall if we make it a May take the shell out then when they give us the schedule if they feel we need to we can make a motion and adopt it. Right. Yeah.

We kind of do it. We accept it now without consideration. Then right below that in B, there's a whole bunch of stuff about clerk of the board of county commissioners, the board's clerk and secretary and the board's website. All that stuff just needs to go away. Yes. What is this? Pick one. That's just a pick pick. 9B. Item B. 9B. Yeah. 10 10B. I'm sorry. That's what we're looking at. 9B. Oh, 9B. Okay. So it really could end after the dot regular meaning and the rest of that could probably just go, right? Yeah, that's what I was thinking. A lot of that language and C also that just needs to

go go away. We don't have a website and all that. Yeah. I think in a lot of situations the draft is trying to capture as many potential titles and positions, right? This is like made for everybody from the county commission. It's not also just it's also not just the planning board. It's other appointed boards. Yeah. And so whatever the appropriate title or staff member is just so fill that in. So staff can correct all the language as far as the notice, who does the notice, where it's done and stuff, right? I don't think there's any changes needed other than the fact that there's not a uh

we don't have a bulletin board and a door. The the town does, but they notice the town does. The town does that for other meetings. Okay. Yeah. And we do have a website, so I think we can get rid of if there is one on page nine.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I' I'd still like to go through page 10. Notice to the public of special meetings. I mean, in terms of certain special meetings, that's in direct conflict in North Carolina law. We can't have a special meeting on a conditional zoning request or a text amendment absent specific notification protocols. So we can't say okay we're going to do a conditional zoning special meeting in two days.

Correct. So I don't know how in special meetings as a rule uh I mean I understand the difference between an emergency and a special meeting but to me special meetings need to adhere to the most generous provisions for public disclosure and this does not. You're calling into question. I want to make sure I'm on the right rules. At least 48 hours before special meeting paragraph B at the least 48 hours thing. You're not giving us a choice there, but

yeah, you have to have we have to meet your advertising requirements for certain types of actions. As Mr. Dyinger has correctly stated if you needed to hold a special meeting for something else that was not advertising this these rules will still apply. They're also governed by the state statutes anyway. So I I guess I mean for instance we we hold special meetings for the town council approval of text amendments that the planning board has recommended. So we just we've got I think we have two right now.

So an example of a special let's say town council wanted to meet with the planning board to talk about growth issues. They could be that could be done in a special meeting with 48 hour notice that would both boards town council and planning board would be part of that notification. I'm using that as a as a as a hopefully as a simple example. But if you want like but you correct if you wanted them to talk about a conditional zoning matter public hearing then we're going to have to see what does the code and what the statute require for public hearing notification. So I now this is a this is a minimum which does sound short to me. Yeah. Uh it is consistent with the statutes

but as soon as we create the tag of special meeting and these are the rules. Well, special meeting. We now have a conflict between a special meeting, any meeting that's not on a regular meeting, can Yeah, understood. But we have special meetings about conditional zoning requests. We have special meetings about text amendment requests. And then we cannot by North Carolina law do that on 48 hours notice. Agreed. So how do we accommodate those specific what is situations minimum with within rule 10 hours is the minimum for a special meeting.

So we can't really increase it because that's what state law provides for is 48 hours. I'm confused. Sorry. I'm sorry. Um yeah, special meeting 48 hours is required. I think simply you could just say 48 hours notification unless otherwise required by ordinance period. Uh and and you'd be good to go. Okay.

So at least 48 hours local ordinance there. There's not a state statute you guys locally require for reszoning a hearing. Um and you could still meet on a conditional zoning request. You couldn't act on it though until there was a hearing, right? And so, you know, just just the distinction there. Richard's technically correct. You couldn't act on it until there was a hearing. You could meet on it, get information. That that doesn't provide me with any comfort. I'm not suggesting I'm just trying to make sure that, you know, unless otherwise required by or local ordinance, I think by your ordinance would would would suffice. Yeah. Because I mean

in in in terms of the history, the most ardent public response has been over in some cases somewhat minor additions to text amendments. Right. And I would have a hard time justifying, oh, we're just going to talk about it in two days. Don't you worry. Uh and and deny the necessary time for people to arrange their schedules so they can attend and express their views. So,

so I think just you know for for simplicity sake I think just referring to unless otherwise required by ordinance you'll you'll take care of that that requirement. Okay, let stay there for a second. If you bop up the A it's the chair or a majority of members may call a special meeting, right? And I guess I was recently taught that I could do it. Is that will be why is that our ordinance is now that the chair can call for a special meeting without a majority of the ordinance?

I don't believe the ordinance the zoning or UDO does not specify. I believe on the the from a couple a couple of weeks ago I believe that was based on practice and based on what state law would say for the elected body. So with that first sentence, the chair may call a special meeting and if we adopt the parentheses or a majority of the members, the only way to get a majority of members is to have a meeting or you have both. But but special meeting could be called say in this session today. Yes. For another day certain and three of you would vote in favor and one person not. Then you would have the majority of the members. Right. I'm I'm

it doesn't have to be it could be done as you know like we got to have a meeting now or it can be done hey we're going to have a special meeting talk about X so for special meetings we should include the or part right yes I think so because if the chair is not here then we got to have a way to call a special meeting if we need to

right because the other issue with special meetings and we ran into this back we called a special meeting and none of the planning board members were consult insulted as to the date and it put me in the position of I had a hard commitment that made it impossible for me to attend two of what I felt were some of the most important meetings for the planning board on issues with which I was passionately engaged. Now to the staff's credit and everybody's credit we haven't had that issue since. Usually when we call a special meeting informally, well, you know, can you be there, can you not be, whatever, and we make it so that all planning board members can attend or or at least make a good faith effort. So, I'd kind of like to preserve that. I don't know how you do that in this language. Um I mean is what here sufficient to preserve that or could a special meeting be called absent consulting with individual members?

No, it only says here that uh you get 48 hours notice and c notice the members. probably not the way I would do it, but this I mean I don't see how you couldn't ask us ahead of time because there's only five of us. If you can't get three, then it's not a meeting. So, right, almost have to ask us ahead of time whether we can attend a meeting or not. And then it would be at the discretion of the chairman to say, well, maybe it would be better if we did it on Friday rather than Thursday. Yeah.

Okay. I think that's more of a practice than something you want to memorialize here. All right. So, rule 11 emergency meeting, which I honestly can't I'm not sure what the difference is. Well, I can't think of a time where emergency meeting would need to be held by the planning board that we couldn't I can either do I mean I I don't know that that section is needed and also if needed statutes would cover that anyway. I can and I get a little nervous. Uh I would recommend taking rule 11 out. I I would I would concur. I would concur to that too. I mean I could I could see that as something for the council also in Yeah.

for the planning board. I don't also everybody remember at the very end rule 36 allows us to adopt specific rules. So yeah, we could just say, you know, that no emergency meetings, right? Yeah. Without changing this document, we can adopt a rule in rule 3, the last one, 36, saying planning planning board shall not have emergency meetings. Sounds good to me. Yeah. Right. Sounds good. And not have to change all this pre-done text or whatever. I mean, going backwards a little bit, I almost have the same position on rule five, which is close session, right? We don't do we don't do

everything you do only only exception I could think of and I think even then statutes could still be could work here would be if someone want someone has appealed your decision of say a site plan or subdivision and it goes and there's an attorney client privilege opportunity that's the only time I could think of otherwise every bit of your business is conducted and open I don't know that rule five is needed well the debate like my thought in the end here is that where things don't apply to a planning board for lots of other reasons. Ah, sorry.

One more time. Uh, that would go to the end and say rule X does not apply whatever is not playing board is not adopting rule five or whatever the sorry about that. The language in that f adopting your own rule. It might be better to do it that there at the end and say that's fine. you know, X rule is not adopted by the planning board or whatever. And then as these are your rules and procedures, right? So, but I do think like in the case if something something came up that a close session could be held by the planning board, I think state statute would govern anyway.

You guys don't sorry. Um, you're not mandated by statute to have a rules of procedure period. And so, yeah, I think there's a lot of this that's not applicable to you. Um, but well, it seems like we're being requested to have it. So, follow the So, yeah, there's certain things in there that are probably not applicable to you guys. Close session other things. And so, you know, just keep that in mind. Okay. Okay. So, we could like like if we don't want it, we can strike a say that we are not 11 is out or not adopted by delete it. recess as we do. My my question on the agenda was

whoever puts it out, the secretary, clerk, whatever you guys want to call it. Yeah. Two working days is not enough to have the agenda published in my mind to us at least. Uh yeah, I agree. I don't if we want seven or eight there, but no will be working days. Sorry. It doesn't need to be that many working days. I think four or five five working days. Well, five means that would have to be available on the Friday prior to the meeting. Friday, that's what we try to do generally. It's five working days. Like this week it was only four. I Yeah, I'm I'm comfortable with four. It's Monday. I mean, that's typically

our deputy I'm sorry. Our deputy clerk is requesting at least five. At least five. Well, this is It says at least at least five working days, right? from the clerk. Oh yeah. You comfortable with that? This means we have to have it to you at least five days before, right? Which would be Friday before Thursday. We have it Friday then. Thursday working days. So you're looking probably Thursday. Mean they meet on Thursday. They would have to have the package by by Thursday. Well, we've never had it. We've never had it that early. usually get it on Thursday. You usually get it on Friday.

Yeah. Okay. If you're okay with that, like this week we didn't get it till Monday. So you want four then? No. Five. It's earlier. The more the higher that number makes you get it done earlier. Yeah.

You have to get it done earlier. So the minimum is going to be no less than four working days before the meeting date. So our normal meeting date being a Thursday. Four working days before would be the Monday, but you are certainly free to do it by Friday before that would be earlier than the minimum. You don't want to set your minimum. Something that's not always achievable, but certainly two I think is too close. I think we'd want to see it on at least the Monday morning. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

I'm trying to go as fast as we can here. Uh I'm on page 10 and I my two things on this is item C, the consent agenda. I know the council has it. I don't think we have it or need it. Right. It doesn't say you have to. Does it say in the I think it says sort of in the order of business we got to have it. But you can also modify the order of business. It says we can or leave parts out. I'm not sure what for us what a consent agenda would be because we don't have routine reports and stuff. Approval. Yeah. But if we don't ever have anything on the consent agenda, we don't have to have it on the agenda.

Okay. So I just want to make sure the way it's written and the way rule 16 the order of business item shall be placed on the regular meeting order it has to be there. These dots have to be there but we can reorder them. Correct. If you're looking at rule 16 we can reorder them or leave them out as needed. Is that the way it's interpreted? Are we on rule 15?

Yeah. Uh, not not quite. We're on at the top where it says consent agenda. I didn't understand what we would do with that. And rule 16 gives us a list of items to put on the agenda. I just want to make sure our interpretation is that is we can use or not use those sections as needed and then not have the order as listed here. Is that correct? Am I reading that correct? That's how I would interpret. I don't know that you need to have a consent agenda at all. But that's your decision

because it says the usual order business reach via as follows. I guess the key is what is the word usual? Your minutes. I only think of a consent agenda your minutes, right? Okay. I guess fine. Rule 15. Um, given that the agenda must be presented four days before the meeting, I think I mean I like the idea of public members being allowed, but somebody comes on Wednesday wants to get on the agenda,

right? And then we have to redo the agenda. You know that. So that two days has to go to like 10. Yeah, I'd say 10 10 10 days. If the public would like to suggest something for the agenda, they got to do 10 10 working days before the meeting for these two for these folks to decide whether and my thought process on all that can or or strike it all together. There's a caveat in there that the board's not obligated to place it on the agenda merely because the request was received. Yes. So if they do it 10 days, they do it two days, you don't have to put it on. You can put on a subsequent, but we don't choose that. The board doesn't choose that. The way it works now, staff chooses that. I see. So we're Well, sometimes we do.

What we're getting now though is applicant initiated amendments, say a zoning map amendment, conditional zoning, or a text amendment. Applicant initiated. They're submitting an application 30 or so days before your meeting, paying their fee, and going through the process. I see it as if someone wants to come speak at your meeting or during your agenda this you know either the something on the agenda or something towards the end whereas I think we have um public comments for anything they can come to a meeting and say hey at your next meeting we'd like for you to consider X and then you as a board can decide let's put that on our next meeting. Well, I read this a little different acting like

No, no, no. I I understand how you're reading it, right? But I'm just saying how it works today is we wouldn't just take and to take a something from the public and generally and put it on your item for discussion. Well, we may it may bring us to our attention and then we think it's worthy put it on the agenda

like an amendment to the code for a discussion item. Then then you guys give us direction. I guess the way I was think was say yeah the public sends an email to everybody saying here's an important issue you'd like us to consider. I think giving them as long as they do it in a certain time before the meeting before the agenda is produced staff can consider whether they want to add it or not right as a discussion item. Yes.

I mean but because the we have four days before the meeting to get the agenda out. We need at least eight days before I would say two weeks, but eight or 10 day 10 working before to get it in your hands to decide whether you want to add it or not. I think that's plenty and I think we ought to move on because this has never happened as long as I've been here. Well, well, we do get emails and stuff and sometime we bring them up ourselves, right? But and they can also come and speak at the public comment period,

right? But let's just I'm okay leaving it in here and changing that two to 10. If the board if the somebody else has a better idea, I'm open to it. Right. So, in other words, if the public wants to add something to the agenda, they can submit a request something in writing to clerk, secretary, you guys can figure that wording out 10 days before the meeting. And there's a chance it may make the agenda as a as a discussion item. There's also a chance it won't because that's as the chief said, the last item says may or may not be added, but it gives them a chance to get it added or some expectation that if they get it in early enough, it might be added. I guess that's what I'm trying to say to the public. Somebody wants to submit something, there is kind of a mechanism to do it and they would have some expectation of at least being considered for adding which I don't have a problem with.

I think that's fine. Okay, let's go on. Let's try not to over complicated everything. And I guess you told me earlier the rules, order of business, we can adjust that as needed, right? or do we need some language saying that we can Yeah, I think we ought to think about the order of business and, you know, maybe before next time each of us come back and we can talk about what we what kind of order we'd like to have. Um, I don't really like having new business last. I mean, if we had anybody in the audience that wanted to speak on a new business item, we ought to get them taken care of before the last thing.

My suggested edits to staff so far has been we already have an order of business, but and I that's my changes were suggested to be just what you already have on your agenda. Yeah. Well, how do we handle it then? We can adopt a special rule saying that our order of business as opposed to rule 16 is this and lay it out. So, what I was amended chapter amended rule 16 and put call to order, pledge of allegiance, conflict of interest, amend agenda, approval of maintenance, etc., etc., all the way down. Like we like for instance on public comments, we always have two. Yes. I've got that I believe on on my suggested edits would be every have you have one through 10 on your agenda is what I have made suggested edits for. Okay, I'm good with that. Yep.

All right. Rule 17B. There's a bit of redundancy here that in parentheses the chair may vote only in the event of a tie. Well, I think we're going to adopt we adopt the first and the chair has the same duty as vote as the I know the council is different. The second part needs to be stricken, I guess. We only use the I mean the chairman is I'm just a member just like everybody else. One vote, one that's it other than orchestrating this thing. So that that's our rules. The chair just votes as a member. Do we really need rule 19?

I suggested to cut it cuz I think seven I think it's a conflict with 17B. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure there have been opportunities when Iran would gladly delegate chairmanship to me so he could speak freely, but uh Okay. So, we can get rid of 19 either through striking or adding a special rule, deleting it. And I guess rule 21 bothered me because we do everything with a motion and a second. I've gotten into and I've gotten into the habit of doing that. I don't know if I could.

Yeah, I kind I don't think it slows things down much to get a second. It does. If you don't get a second, it kind of ends it there, which is fine. I think it actually speeds the meeting up. If you don't get a second, then that motion dies and you move on. I I prefer either changing that or adding a special s that we will take a mo we require a motion and a second to go to a vote. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. And I think that's kind of normal. Robert's rules, right? That would be kind of normal, Wes. Yeah, it's my experience. So, anybody have an objection to that and not going to one motion that we stick to a motion and a second before proceeding to discussion or a vote? Yes. Every board I've ever been on.

Yes. And because I would do it all the time out of habit, somebody had to stop me all the time. Okay. I think that's interpretation. So a second is not required, meaning the board doesn't have to second a motion. So if there's a motion made and nobody seconds it, it dies. It's just interpretation. My interpretation is that there's no requirement for a second. So if you make a motion and nobody seconds it, the rules say that's okay by my interpretation, meaning there's no requirement for a second. Well, my interpretation is that you could proceed to a vote without a second.

Yeah, that's the way I So it's going to be a matter of interpretation needs to be cleared up then. I see what you're saying. So Stuart makes a motion and nobody seconds, it's dead, right? But I I was concerned that someone could make a motion to vote on text amendment and even if there's no second, I got to take it to a vote. Just adding language in 21, no second is required by any motion without a second, the motion dies. So, you understand what I'm I'm trying to clear up is that one motion without a second doesn't bring something to a discussion or a vote. You need a second to get to a discussion or vote. It dies without the You're right. I agree. By ways of Yeah, we just need to clarify.

Right. I'm happy to take comments on anything else. So, for a while, I got nothing until page 14. in the debate clause. My next comment motion uh I got a question on 13 motion six to suspend the rules. Where you at? We get into some math issues. Twothirds of the board's actual membership excluding any vacant seats. Where are you? Where are you?

U uh page 13, motion six to suspend the rules. And we could just change that to votes equal to three. Well, three isn't 2/3. Last time I checked, three out of five is 60%. We came to a half person. Well, we just majority of the board's actual membership. I would just say majority. Just make it a majority of the Yeah. of the

I mean, I'm happy to make it four out of five. I mean, but I mean, the math is just a little murky, right? So equal to the majority a majority of the board that of a majority of the board's actual membership. Right.

Correct. Works for me. Almost at the end folks. and page 14 and uh and rule 26 of debate debate the last dot there no member shall speak more than twice on the same substantive motion first speech limited to 10 minutes I can it's obviously time constraint things here that we have to have rule 26 at Well, we state that things are open to debate, but I tend right now is allow everybody to speak as much as they want.

I'll say formal for us. Yeah. We tend to just talk. Yeah. I think this is a solution searching for a problem. Well, it is like for more formal, you know, town council or county commissioners or something. Yeah. Yeah. So my my only question on that is well I don't think we I don't feel I want to limit anybody's ability to speak correct. Yeah. I don't expect a filibuster on the floor to last for four days. But right I'm not sure any of us have to speak for 10 minutes. So

if somebody wants to speak three times on a motion I think I'm I mean I just don't want to limit that. So what however to handle this properly I'm good. I think the intention of the council is to have some uniformity and if this is removed then if there becomes an occasion where you want to you know we're having these 4-hour discussions and the board decides we got to find a way to limit those 4-hour discussions and there's no mechanism for it because you're going to remove it. I can count on one hand number of times we've had 4hour discussions. I get I understand. And that's before emotion. What? That's before emotion. This is actually after emotion.

We almost never have discussion after emotion. Yeah. Well, so maybe maybe it doesn't hurt us if we're doing all our discussion before the motion. True. Again, I just well, they understand there's a somewhat of a limit, but I'm not going to limit somebody to two talks of there's a way to introduce language in here that says as

because we're get there's a difference between what is a mandate and what is a recommended practice. Okay? And I and I see this as, you know, as a recommended practice, but I don't think we want people with stopwatches, you know, mandated by ordinance to now limit people to debate, you know, 10 minutes. So, I mean, I understand, you know, I mean, these aren't bad guidelines, but when they become rules, then I get a little nervous. Don't know what to do with that, but

my general feeling is I don't like limiting people's ability to speak. Okay. So, with some practical limit, I guess I don't know how to do it right now. I don't want to beat the Yeah. Okay. That at the discretion of the chairman. Yeah, maybe. It just seemed like those were hard numbers that Yeah. kind of gave me a little pause. I don't like the hard numbers. Yeah. That's what gave me the pause. You know, maybe something the chair can limit excessive debate. I don't know, something like that. It seems like most times someone the chairman of someone can say, "We would like for you to hold it for five 10 minutes, right? It's not a hard rule and we'd like for you to do that."

I don't somebody we'll have to deal with that somehow. I guess believe too another member could ask for somebody to call the question, right? We could change the shells to maze. That would that would achieve what you want. So no member shall we change it to no member may. So a member's first speech on a substantive motion shall be limited to 10 minutes may be limited to 10 minutes. It gives you a discretion. Yeah. It accomplishes what you want without rewriting or striking the entire section. Okay.

Can we take a quick look at 15 that prevent reintroduction for six months? Um, that seems a little draconian. Um, I'm not

Now we're back to some murky math. 2/3 total membership in order to permit reintroduction. Well, I'm not sure what it's trying to say, but my first thought was state statutes were recently changed to where towns and counties cannot put a time limit on when a resoning or some type of development decision is made. So, you can't like code may say now you can't resubmit resoning application for 12 months. We can't do that by state law anymore. That's where my mind went when I read motion 15. I don't know if that's what it's trying to communicate, but that's what I read into it. So,

you want to just change it to one month? We can't put we can't just we can't regular only one month, which is the next meeting. Yeah. But before land use application, whether we can't put a time limit on how long it h before they can resubmit. That's where my mind went with this, I don't know if that's what was No, I I my mind did not go there, but now that you mentioned it, I think you make an excellent point. So now for instance in the luminina I mean I don't think we ever got to a motion in the first meeting we tabled it but it would have been there was the potential that had we filed a motion this would have prevented them from coming back

six months except state law would have trumped it. So that would not be good. So, state law would have trumped our rules and procedures, which is something we want. If they wanted to resubmit, we could not we could not say, "Sorry, you have to wait six months." Just get rid of it. Yeah. Yeah. It's in violation of state law. Then we just Well, again, I'm not sure exactly what he's trying to communicate, but that's where my mind Well, I think he's trying to eliminate kind of redundant, frivolous bring it up every meeting. Same thing over and over. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Why are you looking at me, Ron, when you say that? Okay, I'm trying to get to the Please move on page 15, the duty to vote thing. Uh, at the end, it seemed to I'm trying to recall what our previous attorney told us. When you abstain for a vote, which is the last sentence here, looks like it shall be recorded as a yes or a no, an affirmative or negative. and he told me one thing. I want to make sure we're clear on that. If you abstain, you're a negative vote. Correct.

My understanding is if if you abstain, your vote is whatever with the motion. That's how I've always been. That's how I've Well, because this is not Well, the choice here shall be recorded as an affirmative vote or a negative vote. So, it's kind of asking us to pick one. And I guess to my mind, astension is a negative vote, right? because he I would didn't affirm to progress forward. We got to send his attorney anyway. Since this has to be sent to the attorney anyway, I'm going to recommend we let the attorney that. But my understanding has always been if the vote is to approve or the motion and second is to approve. And Richard, you and you abstain.

My understanding is always recorded as your vote is with the motion. That's how I've seen it. I don't know how you've done it before. That's how I've done it. That's how I've seen other places that I have done that I've worked. So that needs to be cleared up because uh well I was wondering if the first sentence should be taken out. You can't abstain. You have a duty to vote. The only reason why you shouldn't vote is because you have a conflict. Right. And so this conflict as defined by the statutes, right? So

well I I I can see situation where an abstension represents a statement of protest that this is even under consideration. But you still have a duty to vote by state law. The only reason why you shouldn't be voting is you have a common. Well, it says you have to be kind of given that which I guess I think again it's an interpretation. And I think you're right, um, Mr. Chair, that if you abstain, that's one thing. If you just say, I'm I'm just not voting, then that's something different. And I think that's what this is trying to capture is if you did not abstain, but you're saying I'm just not going to vote.

Not abstaining, but I'm not voting. The other I mean the other reason for an abstension it might be it's an issue about which a member has absolutely no expertise or ability to make a sound judgment who may being def who may by abstension be deferring to to what Ron said that's what I'm saying it goes with the vote goes with the motion that would be so maybe that's what we need it should be recorded as a a vote with the motion That's how I've seen it happen. So that needs just a legal clarification from staff, I guess. Right. Sounds good.

And I did, by the way, modify that sentence in the in the middle. The board may not excuse recommended modifying it. The board may not excuse a member accepting cases involving a conflict of interest as defined by the North Carolina General Statutes 160D 109 conflict of interest. That's how I've changed. I've suggested change on that. Okay. I mean, we all generally vote, but anything else on page 15, maybe? Yes. I have a question. Um, public hearing. So, have we do we have public hearings? We may. You may. You're not required to.

Have we had a public hearing? Yeah, we've had public hearings on conditional zoning requests. That's the only text amendments required to. Correct. No cho choose on some of that. Oh, I think as far as I know, the only one we may have had was Angel's Trace public hearing. The UDO was changed to allow us to do it or not do it in some cases, right? Because a public hearing has to be advertised and

Yes. Yes, sir. Uh, Mr. Chair, you you do require hearings for resoning. And so I think simply you one sentence that just says public hearing shall be as required by by ordinance and and that would be that um would be or by a voter. I mean is this something that we can I think the way it's written now there's like you said there's some that we must do and others we may do. Right. Correct. Say if there's a really consequential text amendment we can make a motion. And if there's a second vote on whether we will choose to have a public meeting on this before proceeding to a public hearing.

That's correct. A number of years ago there was a requirement for any text amendment for it to be acted upon. It there was a there was a public hearing and obviously notice required. Um that kind of slowed things down potentially when this text amendment needed to move be moved forward. that was modified to then be discretionary um based on the pleasure on the of the board for a text amendment. But the zoning the reszoning um uh hearing notice still remains um again that's that is that is beyond the minimum requirements of state statute. It is only at the council stage that there's required public hearing. So, you know, um,

so our routine, my my routine has been to always discuss these items first, paper them, and then review the paper and then vote. So, it's kind of I've allowed public time on purpose without the public hearing. But yes, we could call a public hearing if we choose. But other than cases where it's required, like on reszoning, we do. Okay. So on reszoning it's required on text amendments it's not but we have the discretion to to do it. Okay.

And generally I've been satisfied with the fact that we usually discuss paper correct vote. So there's usually here in my mind enough time for the public become aware of it. See the paper that or see the the papered text right and it can come have two chances to comment that in my mind that would been sufficient. I haven't run into one yet where I've got to have a public meeting. Right. Yeah. So with rule 31A calling a public hearing. So what I'm going to suggest is the board may hold a public hearing to solist the public's input on a spec on specific issues and shall hold a public hearing as required by the unified development by the ordinance. Correct.

Okay. Now are we allowed maybe I'm jumping ahead here. Forget it. Let's proceed. Anything on 16? Yes. All right. So, where you at on item H for public comment?

So, um as a rule, you know, I grew up working in all the Wake County areas. Every jurisdiction had public comment or public hearings attached to specific items. And so the advantage there was that you know like on say the take the major site plan for instance we had a public comment period at the beginning on any agenda item right so the public could get up and speak on that agenda item but they don't specifically know they haven't had the presentation they don't know all the information to speak on that agenda item. And so what I'm used to is that you have a presentation by the planner to explain the situation, explain what's going on, and then you open it up for public comment. And so the public then has information that's been disseminated. They can then speak intelligently about what's been, you know, presented. How about if we flip our public comment description? The first one being public comments anything. And the second one, which is usually just before in German, right, is public comments on only agenda items.

Well, the issue there though is that I think what Stuart's getting is then you never heard the comments for that particular item until that item is voted on. Yeah. I'm just wondering if I mean, we don't have 20 items on our agendas. Can we have a public comment period right after Ron introduces a subject on that specific agenda item? I think that I see what I'm trying to get. I I kind of like where you're going with this idea. Would it be possible for a motion to be made that would add public comments specific to an agenda item placed in the meeting after the agenda item?

Correct. So, I could make a motion today that said, "Okay, we're going to have public comments on what are we doing here?" Uh, and have them immediately follow me. No comments, we move on. comments be we sit and listen. Is that wouldn't you want to have I think to Ron's statement wouldn't you want to have input from the public before you make a motion because the point of the public input

is to perhaps you know listen to what the public wants their desires their wishes and then make a determination if you want to make a motion. So we make a motion and then we hear comments for or against person who made the motion might say well with that information I wish I hadn't made that motion so why get to that point where we have to retract it or let it die hear the cut public comments first before the agenda before that item is introduced which follows the rules of procedure similar to what the town council does and what we're talking about in this section specifically part nine is public comments for public hearings. So public comments on agenda items is fur or

previous in this packet. So we would so public comments prior to agenda items would guide our obviously our discussion. the the general frustration that I have and I sense in the public

is there's the way public comments work and I made a motion about this a while ago that got turned down is that there's no dialogue. I would say 30% of the public comments are asking us questions sometimes are stating things in which that particular person has a fundamental misunderstanding that would take all of about 15 seconds to clear up. But because we're denied because of procedural

I would think this this method okay we have public comments before the agenda item we deal with the agenda item and then we have public comments after

I think I think Richard that's kind of where I was this plays to public hearings which is different where we had that discussion of how agenda items from member to public That's kind of if they would put the if they put the question to staff and decide the question needs we can add that to the agenda. If I think it's already there if somebody has a question they could should encourage to pose their question. If staff or Ron or we decide that boy that's a good question we need to address it. You can add it to an agenda as a discussion item,

but you can't do it right in the middle of the meeting, I don't think, because we devolve into an argument, but with the public, which we don't want to do. So, I think that's covered by that other section. We may not give the correct answer, right, or know the correct answer. And so, if we give bad information at that time, that might might be bad. So way I look at this is somewhere earlier in the document you set out how you want your agenda and that could still be similar to your public comments as for on agenda items and and I'm looking at this F talks about public hearings right

you can almost say conduct of public hearing public comment the conduct of public hearing and public comment that allows you then to take comments or hold a public hearing whether it's required you know on on a specific speific item right then I don't know that you need H after that but H still allows you but you've already done the old you've already decided and I forget what page it was earlier the way your agenda would work you would have a public comment opportunity so I know you you don't want to eliminate public comment just talk about any agenda item or any item

but I guess that's why I was asking about a public hearing because a public hearing is a formal advertised, right, session, right? And a public comment is just an informal, but you still may want feedback on a particular item, right? Right. So that's why I say you call a conduct a public hearing slashpublic comment. Okay. Just as throwing it out there. And the rules for public hearings can be created as a function of a public hearing. Well, this is Well, how do you how do you feel about this, Ron? If we change that kind of format and how both runs, how do you all feel about that? If we

introduce a a subject on the agenda, like the major site plan, you go through your determination or your spiel, and then you open it for public comment. Well, the way you described it is how I'm used to it. Um, that's how I'm always used to hearing in other jurisdictions. I've worked we've had planning board that was a public hearing we we would introduce the item public hearing was held right our code required in Wilmington example our code required a public hearing on all items presented to the planning board

reszonings text amendments conditional zoning whatever so the item was introduced staff would do it then the applicant would present and then there was public hearing that's what and in our UDO So required for zoning, not required for text. What Stuart's talking about, I want to make sure I understand, is basically have a public comment period after all after Ron does a presentation of what the facts of the situation are and then open it up for public comment on just that item. just that item and then we deliberate as a board after that public comment period. So on everything

on that item well I mean on one item at a time. Yes. So there's a public comment period say we have three items on the agenda. We have even if it's a discussion item not uh anything. No, just on a vote a voting. Okay. A voting item amendments to your code reszoning and and and this is something that we could designate as a as a function of the draft agenda. So that I mean today I don't think we're going to get any public comments on any of the issues that we're discussing,

right? But there are going to be situations where we're sitting in a full house and clearly the people are here due to their sensitivity to a particular agenda item. So we would have the discretion at that time to say we are going to in the new agenda that we'll adopt insert a period of public comments following the specific item in the agenda. That makes sense. following the introduction of that item. Yeah. Correct. Before we vote.

What I'm trying to get at is get them the information about what's being presented accurately before they comment because we're getting lots of comments that are not accurate to what's being actually presented. Right. Particularly on items that have ignited p public interest or concern. All right.

Mr. Chair, sorry. Sorry to help uh beat this horse some more. Uh I think typically during when you guys actually have a public hearing, which is rare, there is typically some level of introduction. If the concern is what Stuart is alluding to, and I think really this is only about public hearing related items and what Ron was talking about public hearing related items, I think you could simply say uh prior to any required public hearing, prior to any held public hearing, staff shall provide an overview of the matter before the hearing is is held. I think separate to that, you guys are also talking about public comment, which you have on your agenda in two instances. And I think just making sure that those are two distinct items that perhaps they're being conflated.

What I hear from Stuart, maybe I'm wrong, is that when we're moving to a possible uh action. Sure. So after the staff provides the public information that they should have got with the agenda and he does the summary and before we start our discussion to allow the public to comment basically on what staff has said. We don't do that now. I mean we have this giant group that says agenda item which means they come in here early. They can speak on anything on the agenda. Before they heard, they might have read the staff stuff. Mhm.

They have it in writing with the agenda. Correct. But they haven't heard and we haven't started our deliberation. Get the public input before our deliberation. Is that correct? But if there is a public hearing, there'll be another opportunity. And prior to that, historically, there's been an overview before folks get up and and speak. Yeah. I think we're trying we're trying to make a distinction between a public hearing and a public and a public meeting. I'm fine with the rules being much more generous in terms of public participation, but in terms of a meeting, we need to set specific standards as to when you you've got

the public can be invited to comment on agenda. Sure. You you you've got uh public is invited to every meeting. you have public comment twice on every meeting regardless and then in it in other instances limited uh there may be a separate public hearing on a specific item. Um, and so

yeah, but I think what Stuart's trying to do, and I agree with this, is on rare but very specific items, there's a tremendous amount of public concern. And we need in a meeting format the capability to say as part of the agenda we are going to allow public comment specific to this topic directly after our discussion and presentation. Got it. After the president after our discussion.

No. No. Yes. Right. After the presentation before our discussion and consideration. Yes. So simply perhaps you know a sentence that says you know uh you know the the agenda can be amended to add public comment after any particular item. I mean you know at at your discretion I fear that um if you have public comment on every agenda item um you know while that may be great um that's why I was thinking if we could add something that you already have two instances of public comment. Well, I think the first one was kind of meant to do that, the agenda item one, but what Stuart is alluding to is that the public hasn't heard the final presentation from staff on it. No,

they've spoken and then I hate to use people's name. Then Ron gives us a summary and like today on the stormboard, he had a piece of information. Sure. On this ordinance thing that wasn't in anything, right, until he spoke it. Okay. this public that wouldn't uh but something comes up in the final presentation by staff and we go okay we got to think about that allowing the public to speak so can we set up some simple guidelines here that can I just can I at any time allow public comments or make a motion to add public comments before we vote on something if I may I don't think we're going to have much trouble let's try to wrap

figuring out I mean I don't I look at storm water I I don't see a public outcry for comments here, right? Okay. Let's go back to the text amendment on the hotel. All right. Lots of public outcry on that issue.

And I think there was a general frustration in terms of number one, our ability to accurately communicate what was really going on here. Okay? Because I think the public felt this was an up or down vote on the hotel, which it was not. Okay? That would have been a perfect example of an opportunity for an agenda to allow the public specifically to make comments in the midst of that consideration. And we as a planning board could have some discretion to say on these particular agenda items in which we see a great deal of public concern, we can designate as part of the agenda agreement that we will allow public comments after this point.

M I agree. I don't want to have public comments after every, you know, everything we consider, particularly when clearly nobody's here and cares. All right? But when they do come and are passionate about a particular thing that we're contemplating, we need to create a way for them to have some say. Thanks. Under you had some thoughts.

I do. And so if we're looking at F under on page 16, conduct of public hearings, again I go back to interpretation. So during the public meeting, it says the chair shall call the hearing to order and proceed to allow public input in accordance with any rules adopted by the board for the hearing. So let me read that again. Shall allow public input in accordance with any rules adopted by the board for the hearing. So we're having a hearing today. Let's say for storm water and the board decides the rules for that hearing is going to be the presentation of the storm water presentation followed by public comment feel that it's captured there in that section to accomplish exactly what you want based on my interpretation because it says that you shall or I'm sorry you you will allow public input in accordance with any rules adopted by the board for the hearing not not this entire document. for the hearing. So, if we're hearing another hotel presentation today and the board feels, all right, there's there's there's 40 people in this room and 40 in the overflow, we need to have a public comment section after the presentation. So, for that hearing, the board says this is the order. There's going to be a public hearing and then there's going to be public comments. Okay,

we're getting into a little semantic trouble here. In my view, there is a qualitative difference between the word public hearing. Public meeting. This is a public meeting. Okay. Well, I think it's not we have public hearings mandated that are different functions.

Okay. So, I'm trying to create a rule for the public meeting as distinct from the public hearing. Okay. So, I'm in agreement with you if you take what you just said and apply it to, and again, my curse as an English major. Okay. The the item being public meeting, our regular meeting for special.

Stuart, you started this. Let's wrap it up. What do you think? I like Wes's idea of adding conduct of public hearings slashpublic comment and maybe we could look at changing the word hearing to meeting in that section. Yeah. Well, this section is section 9 is public hearings. Okay. Which is not our regular public meeting or special meeting or emergency meeting. So you're asking to change it in the meetings that are not public hearings. Right. Right.

Which I I this is not addressed here. I I don't see it. We're just going to have to I would say this particular item we'll have to wait on and think over to see. Okay. What I know Ron uh Sederfield said in other experience they allowed a public comment after the presentation. Uh as I'm willing to do that I have a problem doing that as long as we decide on what type of items we do that for which if we're moving to a vote to adopt

a text amendment or reszoning or something like that I think it should already be on the agenda if we know that's what we're trying to do. If there's no public comment, fine, we move on. I just say ask for it and there isn't any we go. But I just don't want it on every single item we discuss. Okay. Yeah. And I think there's a way to do that. So maybe it refer back. Yeah. And come up with language that and all right by adding public comment in the header there. The word the term to allow public input. hearing and comment is input. Right.

Right. I I have one last thing on H. Um I noticed in here that it says board may hold a public comment period at any regular meeting or special meeting called at least in part for that purpose. So So the council adopted this correct? They're asking you guys to review it and adopt it and then move forward. I think council will adopt it afterwards after legal reviews as well. Is that correct? So coun council hasn't the council adopted it for themselves. Yes.

So did they go through all this line by line like we did at a public meeting? I don't remember that. No, not not to this level. Okay. Well, there's lots of options in here, but um one of the things in here, it says that if they've adopted this, it says a special meeting can have a public comment period. And so, I think that's really good news that a lot of the, you know, like the special meetings at the town council have not allowed public comment. It It says May.

Does say May, but I think that's a good thing. I thought council wanted public comment. So I think um I just think that's a good thing that they could allow public comments at any special meeting. The last special meeting I know there were people there who wanted to speak but there was no public comment period and so I think this is good news for the council that they could add the um public comment period. Yeah, I agree. I think this is I mean because I can pretty much guarantee that if it's a special meeting

it is something that has engage the public. I mean I can't I'm thinking of the special meetings that we've had and they've usually been well attended and focused on very issues that the public finds very concerning and we've always had public comment. I will be on our meeting agendas which I'll obviously pay more attention to. My last question was on open meeting laws. It's just is it two for us, Ron on committees B is a majority three then when we're five I my understanding is is two in our UDO

open meeting will be when a majority of the board meets. Okay. Now, if you establish a committee, let's say two of you are a committee, an official committee, Mike and Stewart are identified as a committee to talk about storm water since we're talking about storm water today. Um, and you guys meet and I think that is official meeting of the planning board committee and we will speech subject to the open meeting laws if it's an official committee. That's how I would interpret the rules, the statutes. If you if it's an official committee of the planning board, that too then is subject to open meeting law.

So when three of those meet KF,

if your committee is two, we would have to advertise it as an open meeting when you guys, you know, if y'all were to meet. That's how that's how I've always applied it and understood it to happen. But I think the key there is that anytime there is a public body meeting, we got to make sure that it's advertised properly and and it meets the open subject to open million laws. So that's any any public body by the town. Well, it's just here. I mean, we were always limited to two is that we couldn't even simultaneously elect. I mean, if I'm going to email somebody, I email only one at a time to make sure it's not a public open meeting. It's just correspondence. But if I keep doing that, if sound, this one says a majority, but that's fine. The last thing on page 16, the nomination and voting procedure doesn't apply to us at all. That's we're nominating new members of the planning board.

Yeah, we don't do that. I think we could just eliminate the all together because all that nominations by the council. Yeah, I was I was reading as nominating a chair and vice chair, but you're right. So based on all that discussion, I guess we'll see a final copy at the next meeting. Yes. And I've taken notes during this. If you guys want to provide me any notes that you have written down as well, and I'll go through them and compare them to the notes I've taken.

Okay. and we'll get them to uh chief and to Kimberly and I guess you'll move move forward to attorney as you name appropriate. Correct. That's good. Wes five minute recess. No more than five. Hold on. Uh yes. Have a motion to take a uh five minute recess. Second favor. All right.

Recess is ending. Back in regular session of the planning board. Moving on to new business item 6.2, the land use plan relight rewrite. Mr. West Mloud, our uh consultant, uh shall take over. Okay.

Um, apologies. Uh, yes, thank you for having me here today. Uh, we're here to talk about the land use plan, give a status update, where things are, uh, and then dive into reviewing some of the material. Um, we'll do quick survey update. Uh I do want to uh we need to settle on a public input our first public input meeting date as well. We'll review chapter one and two and then uh you've got your your additional homework uh here today. Um there on the on the uh project website this PDF should be uh on there. Um and then we can make sure that it is made available. I think it's linked through the tab uh land use plan from the website. You click on that, that'll open up two links. One of them will take you to this website. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Ken. Um the So, just uh quick rehash where we are. Uh again, want to make sure we note here anticipated timeline. um February 19th, we're reviewing the the first two chapters and you're being uh and today you're going to get uh your your chapter 3 natural systems analysis. Moving forward, we'll have um we contemplated a public engage our first public engagement session uh could be which it's not going to be at this point in February uh March or April. We'll meet again uh in March. Uh oh. um and um and and uh review of what you've got today and provide some additional information. And anyways, we'll proceed on until uh hopefully we get to uh consensus on a final draft that can be recommended uh to um the town council. Okay. Questions

about that? Same same timeline. Just just update where we are. What? Well, okay. So next we need to decide today you said on when to I will I I got that next slide and and let me add one more thing if I may. Um based on what what you all have on your agenda let's say in March or or an upcoming meeting, you know, we're not uh contemplated to meet in April, but in May you've got a host of agenda items that are not land use plan related. We may need to think about just holding a separate meeting, social media. Yes. I I dare I get into the into that. Um

we can have public comment though. We can have public comment. Um just so uh one to be you know judicious with you guys times but also you know in case folks are wanting to queue in on on the land use plan specifically you know they wouldn't have to you know go through other whatever it may be. So just keep that in mind and we'll try to make sure that we're aware of what your agenda looks like uh as well. So you're you're planning on being here next month? Yes, sir. Yes. Um, and and I'm not sure that the only thing that you may have on your agenda, unless I'm mistaken, is just you're just going to be, as far as I know,

is is the re is the revised, you know, uh, rules and procedure. So, um, which should not take two hours, but it could. Um, so or two an hour. So, anyways, okay,

as of now, we're going to be here March March 19th. Um it let me give you a brief update on the community survey before we talk about the public input meeting. So um great job I don't you know by our citizens here uh since we met in January we've seen an increase of 334 responses. I just checked it before this meeting actually and it was 1183. Uh so 335 responses. So that's a full increase, a full 39% increase in your participation level, which is is pretty uh pretty uh dramatic. Um and so now the 20 the 2016 survey,

yes, had my recollection somewhere in the 900s. Um that's a very good question. I don't have that in front of me. It's okay. Let's say it's 950. Yep. Okay. So we're seeing 200 I guess what I'm trying to track here is are the increased responses can you see if you can find that

are the increased responses just a function of the increased population and reflect the same measure of participation from 2016 or is this a significantly a significant increase in the participation rate? Uh I can't answer that with any necessary level of 100% uncertainty but I think it's a combination of things. Uh most likely uh you know population is is substantially increased here uh since that time. Um so I think that that's likely capturing is our intent to keep this open. So that's through the first public engagement.

Let me let me share let me share uh what that's a great question. Can I share just sort of the difference here? Because I I just want to share with the board what we're seeing, you know, has has this 39% increase in responses uh had a measurable change, right? And so that may help answer your question. So January results here, this is what we shared. Um uh what do you think the most important growth and and development issues facing Sunset Beach? Protecting uh natural resources, etc. 70 67.1% of respondents, followed by expanding town services at 53.77. February, we're at 68.78 on protecting natural resources and 52.54% on expanding town services. In other words, throughout the survey, we're we're not seeing a meaningful uh difference in in what our results are showing. And I can I can show you this exactly in terms of the difference between um you know the percent change difference between on question one um

well as you add to the sample sizes the changes are going to be smaller.

So bingo and so you know this the question and I I'll share with you this question as well just you know to further uh reiterate this this is a January results on if privately owned unavailable land is to be built on what kind of new development would you like to see? number one recreation and entertainment etc. 68.51 followed by restaurants and cafes. So 68.95% and 55.33 for all intents and purposes you know identical um you know our our results are identical. And so overall uh again natural resource protection top priority strong strong preference for low density growth infrastructure capacity and water supply are concerns. um seasonal congestion and beach access and then um recreation parks obviously favored. I mean these are things that we talked about. So point being survey trends are consistent and so um for this board um you know would we we talked last month you know about having a establishing a sunset date for this survey. Do you is are you guys feeling that you want to continue to have this open or do you want to go ahead and try to set a date certain at which folks need to take the survey?

My initial thought would be keep it open to just after the first engagement meeting. Okay. Because I'm sure this will be presented to them. Yes, sir. As here's the snapshot we got right now. Yep. And if someone feels strongly about an item that's not receiving much vote Sure. and they didn't complete the survey. Yep. They might be somewhat enticed for like give them you got, you know, if we do it on a Wednesday, you got till Friday night to do this. Sure. Go home and complete. I think we'll get a last bit surge at that point. Okay. Because they'll say, "Well, I don't agree with that." Well, did you do a survey? Well, I forgot. Okay. I would say that when we pick the first in public engagement that we obviously would present this as snapshot data of where we are

a couple days before because you got to complete the slides or whatever. Okay. and then say you got till x date. Yep. And time and the survey is done. So if you got last minute thoughts yep now's the time. Okay. And then because the second and we have this that gives us the final snapshot then as we progress and we get to the final public here's the final survey. Okay. Does everybody any can move along? Anyone disagree with that? No I I think that's I totally agree with that. Okay. The issue that Richard I'm having is Anybody disagree with that? Yeah. Yeah, I know. I know. Put it on the Put it on the checklist.

Put him on the timer. Um my concern is is in conversations concerning the 2016 survey in which there was a thousand participants, I would get this message back. Well, nobody asked me. Yeah. Well, that's now from a statistical viewpoint, this is well above the requirement to be statistically valid, which is why I made my suggestion so that I'm sure we're going to advertise this public engagement heavily. Yep. And they'll get to see the survey and they'll get a last chance. We can put it at the right at the exit door. Sure. Last chance to put you your input in the survey. Be there. Be square.

It's like getting married or forever hold your peace.

Yeah. Okay. So, um All right. Well, let and then let's figure out our public input meeting date because they these two may relate and thank you Ron for pulling that. So, we the last survey had 914 responses. So, uh we'veclipsed that which which initially was certainly my goal uh to do. Um, so let's just talk I want to talk we we spoke about this but just want to share again with the board and and with the public folks that are participating online if anybody is still doing so. Um the uh public input meeting format we're there'll be a presentation facilitation by the consultant me you know I'm going to share information that you guys have heard before. Again you're not required to attend. if you come, great. Uh, you you're going to hear some things you've already heard. So, my apologies for that. Um, you know, but we need to share with folks that that are this is new to them, what a what a comprehensive plan is, what's the purpose of it, things of that nature. Um we'll talk about uh some of the demographic trends that you guys have in your in your chapter one and two and then also talk about what what our survey results are to date depending on when we hold that meeting. Um

then I would add another dot notification of end date. Notification of end date. Yes. Yeah. And so part of that I I I we'll come back to because let's we need to settle on the date for this public public input meeting and that may relate to when uh when the end date for the survey is. So um but after that presentation really the balance of the meeting the majority of the meeting is going to be dedicated to um some facilitated input uh that we're going to get from our attendees on things are important in in Sunset Beach. So if we adopt these rules we looked at today before then we're allowed to come to that meeting all of us. Yeah. So because it is a planning board. Yes. Are we not?

So here two things. Do we have to stand 10 feet apart? No you don't. Uh remember you guys are allowed to this would be considered to be this is right in the open meetings law. You're allowed to go to you know to things. all members can be there, but you're not allowed to sit in a corner and talk about uh you know, public business. So, similar, you know, if you're if everyone's at a concert, same with council, um maybe a majority of members there. Um but it doesn't necessarily constitute an open meeting if you're not if you're, you know, there on a social basis, but not uh conducting town business.

I would think this is not a so this would not be a social gathering. This would be a business gathering. It is typically it's going to be advertised though so just so you know. So it's still going to be advertised. So what what is the recommended conduct for if we all five show up or four you typic you generally you are there when we hold these meetings in other jurisdictions as your individual self. Now I think that you'll if you guys attend we'll probably make sure to recognize you as same as any council or any other advisory board members. questions.

You are going to be grouped around with your other colleagues and neighbors. And so, you're not going to be asked to answer questions, you know, specifically any questions that get asked. I I will be responsible for answering. I don't want the chief to arrest me and throw me in jail. He's not going to arrest you and throw you in jail. Uh, and again, remember, this is going to be advertised. It's not like this is being done by make sure we don't run a foul. No, you're not. You're not running. If someone comes up to me and asks a question, I give them what I think is an honest answer and let's say I'm wrong. Believe it or not, just say you need to you need to follow up with with with plan consultant or town staff. So, do we need like a disclaimer on no

I mean, okay, let's go on. gets a little I mean for instance the 904 meetings which were general an array of presentations there were people stationed at those that you know some of them were NC do some were the consultants is that the format

this is a very one that that is um that is a you know that has a different scope different budget than than than our project here uh but this is going to be more of a facilitated meeting. I I think that that that was more of an openhouse format. And so, you know, my purpose here on this is everyone's going to be there and they're going to be able to be engaged and we're purposely going to share with them what they're there for. But then depending on the number of folks that we have, and I suspect we're going to have a decent amount, folks are going to be put into groups and they're going to be tasked with um you know, coming up with things related to the town. what are the town's assets, what are some of the issues, and what are some of the long-term desires? All that then is going to be shared back group by group and going to be written up on uh flipboards, posted all around the room. Uh as folks exit, um they'll be given dots to help rank what those things are. And so all that will then be uh cat cataloged and put into the plants specifically. So that you know it is in that sense it is going to be more facilitated. Now if folks have individual questions um my hope is that those can be answered outside of that session so we don't get bogged down um and that you know we're going to be around and can engage with each individual group

like write questions for us. Sure. Yes. Um but I think really it's it's about you know getting feedback um from folks you know about these three uh specific things and we know that a number of these attendees already have probably uh thankfully u provided input on the survey. I know that survey is only 10 questions and not 50. The the only other part of that is you know when the it's it's you know it's hard to get folks to take a 50 person question. Would it be possible during this because it sounds like there will be kind of a presentation portion of this? Yes. Am I right? There is. Yes.

To provide some education, if you will, about how the land use plan. First off, I don't think people understand that there's a North Carolina state law that says if you're a municipality, control your zoning. Yes. You don't have a quote unquote current land use plan. the state has the right to revoke your zoning that will be shared. Remember some of the background information that I've shared with you guys about why do a land use plan almost verbatim that information is going to be shared. Okay. So, um, you know that. All right. You know, cool.

Because at the at the end of the day, I mean, when I read the 2017 land use plan, the thing that stuck with me was the phrase almost in the preamble that quote unquote community involvement was sparse. At all costs, that is what I want to prevent.

That was for the public input the public input meetings that were held. And so that so let that let's talk about that relates to this and then in particular the the question below about time of day. Uh so here are the the the three options in which we know that the community center is available over the course of the next u month um and curious to get folks feedback. Um this meeting could be held as soon as March 12th. Um, and based on feedback from the planning board, I know there was discussion about, hey, you know, it starts to be mid to late March into April when we're starting to see additional folks, uh, you know, come. So, um, Mr. Chair, feedback on one of those three dates as a potential, um, option.

Well, I would say March 12th is probably too soon, right? Yeah. We haven't gotten through Yeah. March 25th. Uh I will not be here. Yeah. You're in the tax season for me, too, which is usually Wednesdays and Fridays. Mhm. Uh and then is there a way to move that date up to the 22nd or the 23rd? I mean, what are the limitations here? The room probably, right? It's the room. Yeah. Uh well shoot Siri has a mind of its own. Uh but I mean I would certainly like to come for sure. Yeah I I very much

25th is out for you completely. Absolutely. Okay. I mean I could be here. We don't have the 26th available do we? I could check. Does anybody know the schedule of the building? Uh Amy is they have voting there? They have voting yet. Is that what they're doing? That'll be over by then. But ain't a March 26th. Yeah. And after the 25th, I'm gone for the week. So it' have to be 23rd. The 23rd. The 23rd is not a prior week. Yeah. Yeah. 24th. I'm out. It it what about the 2C the 22nd fine of April

or the 21st or in April now? 21st is not available. April 21st is not available. I'm fine the 22nd of April because tax day is over. So I'm open the 22nd. It just seemed a little long. That's fine with me. 20 April 22nd. No, March 22nd. No, we're on April. We're talking March. No, March. You bounced out. Really? March 22. You killed March. You killed Mark. Yeah. So, April 22nd. Well, why are we changing? Oh, you're not available on the 25th. Not really. Still doing taxes. I thought you weren't available. I am not available on March 25th.

Neither would I really be unless that's why we bumped to April. Oh, so we're going to have two meetings in April. No. No. probably April and then yeah there'd be another one towards once we get a little bit further on in the process June July June probably so our first meeting would be April 25th sorry all right hold on so April 22nd what and then how about you 20 seconds okay that's fine

okay so we're also scheduled to meet um here on March 19th and And Kimberly, do you know if the if it happens to be available on March 19th? Because I'm curious. Um, you guys would potentially have to do double duty on that date. Well, let's let's go with April 22nd. Okay. And I'm I'm okay with well, anytime, but I guess for most people, I would say two to three. That's okay. Don't you think that? Yep. Really? People tend to get stuff done in the morning and then uh early afternoon. It could be before just before dinner time. Yeah. 2 to 4. It's fine with me. When were the 9:04 meetings? What time do

they were like 4:00? They were later. 4 to 6. I'm okay with 3 to four five or And the the 31 bypass. What time was that held? I I don't know. Um because that was really well attended. Um I would say two to two to four. Two to four. Okay. Yeah. Good.

Okay. So the other thing that I want to mention then is that um you know I think that we could advertise that on the meeting for March 19th which is going to be a planning board meeting that we could have a dedicated public comment section for land the land use plan given that we're you know we're we're having to move out into April and if folks want to attend and and share uh about the land use plan absolutely that would be a good opportunity for them to do so meeting the March meeting March 19th If we could add that as agenda on a public comment and we may not have anybody, but at least we're we're providing that that opportunity. I think that'd be a great idea. That's good.

At this point, I don't I'm not aware of any items other than maybe the rules of procedures for the March 19th meeting. Perfect. Okay. And then your update, but we could bracket out in the agenda. Yep. Public comment period for land use land use plan review and growth management. any anything that folks want to share. If you just put land use plan, you'll get leakage. Yeah, sure. If you give it more specific, it'll still leak out, but try to keep as specific as we can. Okay. Okay. All right. So that said, you know, and and this doesn't necessarily hurt anything as we've seen the the survey results are unlikely to to change. And then we would call we're probably into into May,

you know, the end of the the end of the survey is April 24th at 5:00 p.m., okay? Or something today. Something like that. So if they leave that engagement meeting and they got last minute urge to do a survey that gives them to that Friday night to do the survey and be done with it, then you can close it out. Wonderful. And I'll see you guys obviously again in in March 19th before this. So, we won't need to rehash all this, but um uh we'll plan uh hopefully we'll make sure that there's a public comment item specifically for the land use plan when we meet in March 2 to 4 p.m. And if I may, in terms of trying to get public participation,

I'm not sure how much time has been spent at the town council level promoting this. Sure. So I defer to maybe you know but

yeah that's a great question. I mean any, you know, cuz I spent a fair amount of time on social media pounding away on this. Um, and I think it would be helpful for the council individual members to uh promote this as well because I will bet you dollars to donuts when we do the math between population and participation in 2016 and 2025. I will bet you it's the same number because we've got increased population now and we've seen maybe a 20 25% increase in participation from 2016. My recollection is population growth is about in that bracket.

Sure. So what I want to see is increased participation based on the percentage of population relative to 2016 and 2025 104. Well, so no. Can we have that as part of public? It's not a public comment period. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. We will shortly have a public comment period.

All right. uh the uh I I would uh this is not necessarily part of what what we anticipated, but um I do uh hope that maybe um the land use plan could be on the on a upcoming council agenda just so I could um and and I'll I'll get with with staff on this just give them an update at one of their regular meetings. Um, and we'll, you know, I don't know where well that will be, you know, in the next couple months or whatever, but that that would be uh my my goal as well before before the public engagement meeting

if possible, but that's I'm not in charge of that agenda. That would be a suggestion, I would guess. Yeah. Okay. C can I can I make a quick motion to allow Sounds like Christiey's got 11:30 meeting. Can I make a quick motion to um provide an opportunity for her to make her comments at this time? Sure. Go ahead. Can I make a motion that we allow Christie three minutes for her comments pertaining to the council involvement in the land use plan? Any second? Second. All in favor?

I I naz. We invite the council for three minutes of comments. Think that's the first. Yeah.

I hadn't planned to talk today. Christy Bachelor um for 28 27th Street Sunset Beach. I happen to be a resident and on town council. Um and I've talked to Wes in detail, mentioned her on things. Um I do I've seen Richard's stuff you post on social media. That was great. I've seen Stuart at a couple meetings this week talking about engagement and folks to get involved. It is very concerning to me in November whenever this was initially scheduled to quote kick off that that meeting got cancelled and it was moved to the first week in November. So that's one thing. That happened to be Thanksgiving week. There was hardly I was out of town. I did watch it remotely but there weren't many people here. Um, I feel like, um, the survey is good. Um, in speaking to West on the plan sunset beach.com the other week when we met, the survey wasn't even out there. There was no information prior to our me meeting that morning. So, to me, there was a lack of information. Even on the website we're pushing out, it said coming soon. So, to me, all of that needs to be out there. It's since been out there, but that's recently. So, we went two and a half months with nothing really out there, no details related. Um, we do have vehicles to push this out and I think it's very important. I think like I told Wes today, the fact this is on the meeting and you really have three people that are here. There's one person watching online and when it's embedded two hours into a meeting, I know I came kind of specifically for the land use. I do watch the meetings online when I'm not here, but I'm often in other meetings. But I do feel like to get our community engaged like you're talking about, Richard, we've got to work on that. We're spending lots of money to do this land use. And the survey of 10 questions is very limited. And in being that limited, I also know people that

have taken the survey 20 times, they've told me because there's no limit. You can go out there and take it. So to me, what is the true data we're getting on that? Are we getting a small population of people? And a lot more people are online now than were in 2016 2017 when this was done. So I do feel like we need to push it through all avenues to to get feedback and things and even like whatever's discussed the sections. Do we want people to just wait till y'all approve it and y'all present it to council? Is that how we want to have our engagement? To me, we need to be more engaged. We need to have this room full whenever it's being discussed. We need to have, you know, people watching online. We need to promote it for this section. We need to say, "This is the section we're discussing today, and these are the items that fall in that section." So that a resident who maybe doesn't follow everything within every agenda. And even on the agenda for this week, this presentation wasn't out there. Um, so to me, even if you're looking at it, you don't know that's what was being discussed or we need to give them the highlight reel to know this is what's being discussed if we truly want them engaged. So, that's my only feedback and um just to look at moving forward that we I want I want more people engaged and I think y'all do as well, but we're do we not want them engaged until that one meeting whether you can make it or not? even as a group, even as our council, we all with our schedules and month out, we have stuff going on. We have a life, we have other meeting commitments,

but moving forward, we want them, we want people engaged. We want to hear what they say. We all do, I think. But we're not seeing that yet, I guess. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thanks, Chrissy. So, I I I can't engage, but I guess we agree. Yeah. Uh question is how? Well, we can we could stretch out this schedule as long as anybody wants. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

That's right. Uh, typically, yeah, I mean, I I'll say and and I think it is 100% we uh goal is to get as much input as possible. Um, I can I can tell you that this plan has already has far more input than is typically the norm. Um, you know, we can go up the road in shalot and we would be begging to have 200 people take take this survey. Well, I agree with Richard. We just need to keep promoting it promoting it through the council if they can. They seem to be like what I heard there is they would be happy to do that. Yeah. Uh, yeah. I mean, on the survey, I mean, we kind of knew that. Yeah. Well, I think

I thought we had pretty good uh discussion on the on the on the questionnaers. We had a lot of people here that day and we went through question by question by question and came to a pretty good consensus of what's on there. So, uh, but we certainly can delay this if people want it delayed and provide more time for questioners or provide more public engagement hearings and we can be finished at the end of next year if they want. Yeah. And we're not closing the survey anytime soon. So, uh, and Yep. Um, so we could keep the survey longer longer after the first engagement meeting. Yep. If if you want to stretch that out more,

as long as I'm glad Chrisy was here. I wish Katie had also been here because I think there is some tension that this was an initiative passed by the previous council. That's and so there's been a certain we were reluctance to kind of embrace I don't care about any of that. We were given this task to do it and we're going to do it. if they would like to extend the schedule, they can tell us to do that. Great. So, we are going to proceed on this. I think there's a full consension to this board that and we on everything we do, we are open to and encourage and want n uh I don't constructive public comment. Yep.

In whatever vehicle we can get that in. I don't know any details about when I took the survey it didn't work for a day or two, but a couple days later it was working. I'm not sure what this delay thing was, but it worked for me. I don't know. Staff has to work this out. Not our problem. Yeah. But so if we need to extend it longer and staff or somebody tells us there's been glitches in the technology, we'll extend it longer. Right now, the thought is 3 days after the public engagement meeting, we cut it off. If somebody says there's been downtime on the web server or the monkey took a vacation, we'll do it longer. So, let's keep multiple entrance eliminated. No, because you're not asking for an email address.

That's that's correct. The issue with tying it to an IP address is it is it limits a husband and wife from both taking it and that is um you know uh but we can see I mean if if there are you know in the results if it's clearly evident that there's you know do we have a record of the IP address of every book? I don't I'd have to go back and look. I I think that again we have 1100 surveys if one person took it 20 20 times. That's right. It does not increase the N as much as possible. Yep. Yep. That outlier will not affect the results. Correct. And probably has it already if you look at it.

No. And and again, like I said, this is a generalized survey about open-ended feedback from folks. We're not doing a recreation plan trying to figure out if we're going to do a baseball field or or aquatic center or whatever where um you know that type of thing can be more problematic. Uh and so yep. Anyways, okay. So that's how do you want to handle this now since Okay, let me Yeah, there we go. We're going to review. I mean, I have a lot of stuff. Shocked. But I don't know if we want to go through that because it's going to be another miserable page by page thing. I don't know if that's what you want to do or not.

I'll add that I I have received some grammatical items from Stuart that'll all be incorporated. So, my thought is because sort of my patience is thinning out on chapter one. and I'll give you some of my highlights only and I'll certainly maybe just give this to you when we're done. That that's great. Uh Mr. Chair, if you're comfortable with that

and then I'll finish my chapter one and anyone else on chapter one on the page four of this thing. I guess my first thing was you're expanded and improved transportation infrastructure including roads, highways and bridges. I I guess I don't agree with any of that first thing on why people come here, but I think remote work had something to do with it. And other than a bridge, I don't know really know about any improved infrastructure getting here, but okay, that just and it's highlighted here when I I'll just give you my copy. And then from a format standpoint, I hate that 2/3 oneird sidebar unless you're doing a sidebar. Okay, split the column evenly or in places where you do have a sidebar of other information, it's okay. I just don't like the format. So that's what that note is like on this page on page eight where you do you have the information on the sidebar is separate. It's kind of

supporting of it. It's okay to do it. I don't like that where it bleeds over. Yeah. Okay. But if it's a real I mean this this thing is not just the text going around. It's it's a formatting thing just as a narrative. So I'm trying to go quickly here. Grams I'm sure your forum. Then I got to page 10. Vision statement. I thought we did work on a vision statement. Do we have a draft of a vision statement? No, that we're we're not going to I mean that would be towards the tail end of when we're putting together the final draft. Um and because

we want to have a public in our or public input meeting first and then we want to really dive into the results of the survey to help develop the vision statement. We can be you guys can be thinking about that. Um but I think it's too too early to do that. Okay. So what we think so that would be somewhere right around April. We look at that. Yeah. I mean, I I think it's it's likely that um probably in your May meeting, probably. Yeah. We would be um trying to refine a a vision statement, but um do we want to have a draft a preliminary draft in April? We we could we could I mean, we could start on a draft in March, too. Um

well, I'm thinking April. I don't have here in April. We don't meet in April. Um for in this capacity, we don't meet in April. So, um, I mean, I'm fine with taking kind of a flying leap at it. It's just be nice to have something for people to comment off of at the April. I'm not I think we need to agree on it before Yes, I agree. agree on a draft. We can propose that, but yeah,

we How about this? I will I will have on my task for in March to bring you something in very draft form for to start thinking about. Okay, sound good. Sounds good. Okay. because because I think there's probably a template from other land use plans. Well, you you ha I mean you have a a vision statement now. Um and so obviously we would take a first look at how that relates to where we are uh today. But yes, I I'll work on that between now and and your March meeting. Okay. Anything else on chapter one, Michael? No. that are significant. If you have any markups, concern, you can just give them to Wes and he'll have to deal with the markups. Stuart,

of course. Any major items you want to um on page eight. Mhm. Where you've got the um little highlighted paragraph about for more information about KMA handbook for development. Can we do a link or an address? Yep. For them. So if we've piqu their interest, then they could just, you know, find a place to go. Um, page 12, the only thing I had was at the bottom there's a big Sorry, excuse me. There's a big gap at the bottom of page 12.

White space. Yeah. Be a great place to put in a sand castle or something like that. Oh. You got one? Oh, a picture. Oh, just plenty. Just thousands. Um, I'm forcing that. That is actually a really good if if you all have any. Um, and and I I should have asked this before because I think it's great if you guys have any photos that you you feel like would be great in this plan, please do send them to Kimberly to to send our way because I think it's great to have especially locals presence on their, you know, things that they like. I was going to ask that later. If if the pictures were specific to the chapters, you know, maybe Yep.

Maybe there's a way to make them more specific to the chapters. We we can work on that. Yeah. So, if someone has photos, you can send them to Kimberly and she can if she's okay with that. Collecting make a folder pictures. Send them to me. That'd be great. Thank you. All I had on chapter one. Richard, anything on chapter one? No, I'm good. Chapter two, community profile. And again, I'll just give you my copy because I have again formatted. There's formatting things you can look at. Okay.

Couple of things that to me in my mind, our basis for any change to number should be like no earlier than 2000. It's okay for information given those 1990 numbers, but you might not be able to read some of my notes on here, but sometimes referring to the growth from 1990 just seems just a little a little wide to be relevant. It's okay to I see putting it there, but to me the base year should be closer to the where we're at. in general there some notes in here.

Okay. Should we make sure then if we're going to use 1990 just and I think it's mentioned in here this is but perhaps it needs to be further clarified the in 1990 the town existed as the island and and or so it's just that it just becomes even that when you're looking at percent changes and stuff it should be like like on this first table you did the percent changes from 2020 which is fine uh but in other places you refer back to the change from 199 it seems just when you re there's some highlights I got here, but just think it over that it's kind of too far of a reach back to be relevant. When was the last annexation?

Well, Logan, but I mean, yeah, but there's no population there. So, up up until I believe one of the last ones would occurred in 2009, 2010. Significant ones were through the 90s, late 90s and and uh early in 2000s. And so we, you know, that's mentioned in here too. And I think the the only and Mr. Chair and I'm not, you know, I don't I don't want it to seem as though the town is, you know, had this a crazy amount of growth, but it Yeah. I mean, there's like 1400% or whatever. Sure. But it just provides context that the town was contemplated initially as an island jurisdiction and and now it is no longer and that you know what I mean? We are updating a plan that was done in 2015 and 16.

Yep. Reaching. So I I like to at least base it on okay something in this that leads with a two. Okay just when you're reviewing and you'll see some of my reds here that's you get and then in a lot of pretty important to have 2010 as a base or something like 20 but in a lot of your things you you source as the 2023 American community survey but you don't state like on these bar chart what year is that for? Or is that for 23 or 22? Some places you put in parentheses the year. Understood. Thank you. Y 20 2023 when it's nonpopulation data, right? So if you're just

Yep. I'll add that. And then in the population data, what page are you on? Well, so for example, this would be page 16, figure 2.1. I mean, is the data year 2023? Yes, sir. Some of them you put parenthesis in the year just to be clear on that. Yep. And in the population data. Great. I was wondering is there any way for us to get an additional piece of information like the number of vehicles that are gared in Sunset Beach including ETJ? We're counting heads. Yep. Which is okay. I have no problem heads. Yeah. But can we also count traffic always comes up. Yep.

Is there a way like from the state uh licensing. How many vehicles are in who also show their home as Sunset Beach? Um I don't Let me make that as I That's written on here. It's an added suggestion. Yeah. Um I don't know. That might be a chief may have access to that. I don't I don't know. Brunswick I mean state of North Carolina provides a license all the time and knows where we're at. I don't don't know if that's public information or not. I don't. It's a suggestion because county heads is fine but again traffic when people talk about infrastructure. Yeah, there will be discussion on traffic counts.

So I'm just wondering knowing the number I'm assuming it kind of follows the population growth but I don't know. I mean I have three vehicle I mean there's two of us and three vehicles but uh to me it seemed like this traffic and roads I think it comes up in the survey sort of right. So that if we also could track know the number of vehicles in sunset not I mean obviously some drive in and out might be a useful point of information. I'm trying to go quickly here. The other thing I'm a little confused on in a number of places you talk about housing units.

What are permanently occupied? What's a seasonal? I hate the word vacant. Yep. occasional and it seems even the numbers are a bit inconsistent on what's what and I guess my thought is and both can argue with me I view housing as three types permanently occupied a second home so occasionally occupied

or occasionally occupied and then a rental that means you occupy less less than 14 days because it screws up your taxes, you know, and I to me that would be I'm not sure that's what we got here. Is that what you were trying to get to?

We we so it and one it is the data the way that it is it is cataloged is confusing. The mer the way the census catalogs it is it is a if if the housing unit is occupied on a full-time basis and then there's a further distinction of whether it is there's not a full-time resident there it could be vacant or it could be used vacant and used for a seasonal purpose. And so the the reporting data on that is not legit the best, but but in in in coastal jurisdictions, typically if the unit is vacant, there's a good chance that it is a seasonal seasonal housing unit,

right? Like I say, if you look at some of these numbers here, they're they're not exactly consistent. I'll take a look at what we've tried to

It could be because the year is not consistent. It could be what's 2000, what's 2024, what's 2023. if if there's 20. So any data from the survey and this it says this in the very first paragraph um of the whole plan um we have to use our best available data to try to sparse together to provide the best picture and context of the town. We have population data through 2024. We have census data which which gets into housing units and things like that through 2023. And then we can amend some of the housing data based on permit data that's issued here locally. And that's what increases that that number. And so between the three um

I guess I I made a note here to myself that 725. Which page? So I think I'm comparing page 18 to 23. So table 2.3 to 2.6. So I'm I don't want you to sort it out now. No. Yep. No, I'll take I'll take your notes and and we may be able to get uh I'll see if we can get your notes copied or unless you brought a copy.

And it's sort of the thought of where where I was going with the vehicles, too, because there if a if a if there's a lot of second homes, their vehicles probably registered at their first home. We may see a divergent in some of the numbers. That's why I was trying to make sure we sort out the what I consider a primary residence. Yeah. which you're saying is defined as a primary o permanently occupied home. What is in my mind a secondary second home which is not your primary resident but not rented out for more than 14 days. And then there's a rental which is the flip. Yep.

It means you own it but you use it as a rental which may be a lot of the island properties I don't even know. So that that we're sort of looking at it that way. If you can't get the data, fine. Uh

I I'll just and I I need to clarify then. I'll just tell you real quick what what the distinction is here. So on page page 18, table 2.3 sees, this is actually seasonal what is considered to be vacant housing dedicated for seasonal purposes. 2,118 units. There are a total of um 2,843 vacant units in in town of which 2,118 are considered to be seasonal for vacation purposes. And so what that table probably just needs to make sure that it clarifies that's seasonal only. Um and I will make sure to update that Mr. Chair and and uh

well the best can. saying, but if it's not there the the on table on table 2.6 six page 23 that two again the the the number is combined but I'll make sure that that's updated and make sure that that is further clarified just know that whenever this data is shared it is always confusing right uh let's see any quickly you find that you can have towards now this is and then quick go ahead I'll be done shortly then I'll turn it over

on table 2.4 before on page 20 we show the projection to 2040 on that table. Can I get a percent change column there added? That's what my note will mean here. Since 20 uh page 20 since 2040 is this plan a a percent change. Yeah. From 2024 to 2040. Y it's kind of what this plan is sort of for. Sunset Beach 20 240. Got it.

Uh and there's some other places where you use 2050 or longer. I guess my preference is to project to 2040. We're required to project out uh for for compliance purposes for divid DCM. So that's fine. Yeah. Okay. If that's a rule, if that's a rule, follow the rule. I I do know in here somewhere I believe that you know data much beyond 2040, you know, Don't put much stock in it. And again, I'm trying to just again, I'm going to give you this so you can Sure.

On page everybody else going to get a chance. Don't get nervous, everybody. On page 25, table 2.4. I would like to see that by residences and the only change would be the duplexes. A single family is one residence, right? a town home or condo. I would call town homecondo. I'm assuming what you mean there is one resident, but the duplexes are two residences. It it it's one. So if there's 34 Well, that's what I mean. I don't think it's accurate. This charts should be corrected to count the duplexes as two. It so it it would it would be the 34 would be is 17 town homes.

17. Yes. Ah. So that 34 then I just So the 34 is actually 17 buildings. I guess then I would like to see that maybe next to the work. I didn't understand. I thought that 34 was 34 duplexes, but it's this is actually residences. It's how the unit type is classified.

Okay. And I would put the total on the top of the cut bar, but that you'll see that on notes here. Uh 2.7 owner occupated housing value. I guess I don't buy the thing really. Certainly doesn't match the tax bills. I don't know. I I have a hard time buying that 354300 you got. But I'll got some markups here. You'll see that. And uh that seems awful low for Sunset Beach, but the total mix might get you there. I guess

it it is the the reason is the it's the number of condo units, things like that and stuff that's around here. Um the the the distinction between Ocean Ale Beach in particular is Ocean Isle doesn't really have any mainland. Um

yeah, not not yet. Yes, it is. Yes. And it's funny, you compare that later to the income ranges, which I just thought was hilarious. Baldhead Island on figure 2.5 has a property. What is this? Owner occup 1,375,000. Yet the medium household income for Baldhead Island is 20,500. They are miraculously good budgeters there. on table 26. Wait, table 28

six. It's median household income NC coastal communities. The year probably 23 or 20 I guess 23. Baldhead Island 20,500. Page 29. Page 29. Hold on. Yeah. Remarkable. It's because they're all Maybe we should all move wealthy and they're not they don't have any income which is I have in general. That's just their interest income on their they have a good CPA. Yeah. So, I'll double check that. You can double check that number. And I can say I'm not the owner is okay to I guess they uh this whole income thing I don't ever like really because income is so

I mean getting net worth for numbers is probably and I don't know what this adds to this anyway. Your whole income section it's okay. you're going to it's probably normally has to be there. Um, but I don't know what it adds to the thing because it I don't think it reflects reality at all. But well, I think it reflects it. Sunset Beach in the midst of this collection of beach towns really is kind of in the middle. Uh, yeah. It lines up. Yeah. For income. It's sort of if you look at the bar charts, it's kind of Yeah. In the normal. Yeah. But again, I don't all these economic things I don't know add that much to this. If you have to put them in because it's required.

Um I you know I think that we it depends on you know who's reading this. It may not be Mr. Chair, but it but it could be um it could be someone that's considering investing in the town, a developer or whatever. and you know they see the $84,000 median household income versus you know what the owner high owner occupied housing value they'd say indicate well I mean these folks maybe have some extra extra change I think it's it's important to have it in there for developers who walking in and they can flip to this and say

but I don't think that accurately reflects the information but I'll look at a net worth and some other things I don't know it's fine if you think that has to be there and its developer um but we don't have a I mean, if I was a developer, I would never build anything on Bald Island because they only make 20 grand. But well, I mean, reality of that, we know I mean, Baldhead Island is very restrictive in terms of applications. If it has to be there, I just if it has to be there, it just seems like information that I'm because it it doesn't talk. I mean, we don't know about self-employment. We don't know about a lot of things. This is just the best available data.

Best available. So I guess maybe we you might have that note there someplace. I don't fine that this is best available data. Sure. Etc. But I don't know. Do we have anything more recent on median income? I I think there'd probably be something more recent than 2023. Not the full data source. Not when this was pulled. Uh it's trailing typically for by a couple years unfortunately. Um, for example, when the 201 when the 2020 census came out, I don't think that we had that data until 2023. Okay. And the tourism stuff I like, that's good. That's important. The only thing I don't like on page 34.

Mhm. Is using the COVID year as the base. I agree. I'd like to see 2019 there or 21, whatever we got. I did ask Tara for that actually because I uh I had the same um same thought that that's you know those those number increases and and I wrote down percentages on all those and I was like whoa this is crazy and then I thought about the co and I well you make a note there you say that that's the co year but maybe we're better off not using the co year if we can't get the information see if we can get 2019 yeah I or 21 whatever or something that's not the

Would you guys prefer her to have 21 or 2019? There's going to be a market difference. 20 21 is going to be astronomical compared to 2019. I think 2019, right? I think 2019 cuz before I think one of the things too is that what we learned during the pandemic is that Sunset Beach attracted renter income from families that were converting from hotel vacations to residents vacations in response to the pandemic. So, it'd be interesting to see 2019 to compare it to 2020 and then have data that goes out past that.

I think that the 2019 data may very well be less than the 2020 in the in the peak summer months. It may well be. Um that that's my anticipation, but but yeah, let me I'll make sure to get that um or from from the town and and have that updated. Yeah. Another thing the town will love on page 35 your accommodation tax likewise 2019 I guess we're going to back that up that one. Uh is it possible to get that something that tells what's the percentage that of the total tax revenue? probably not like that, but um is it probably I don't I don't know

to cut to hit home. I mean, there's nice big numbers there, but is that like a bigger percentage of our revenue or is real estate? I think we'd be able to get just a generalized average percent on a year-to-year basis that accommodations tax revenue makes up in terms of general revenue or budgeted expenses. Revenue. Revenue. Okay. And then I thought September should be added also because I think we're kind of come to May to September is the tour season right now. Trying to go quickly here and I do I think I'm 36 in your sidebar part here

where you say that's 36 the first top there. Labor force participation is correspondingly low reflecting a heavy reliance on incommuting workers to support municipal operation tourist related industry businesses. I think that's a very important line there. Okay. Especially going forward to think about that. So maybe you can bold that out. And I think that's important and and I want to make sure because what it's saying is we have not a lot of work in summary there not a lot of people to work here and live here

because they can't live here for whatever reasons either the housing prices the types of housing. So I think that's especially on the planning board side or planning side that sentence there to me and it also occurs I think in your housing trends on the end here. Yeah, a theme that I want to kind of that is to me an important theme to be in here because I think that I think it's on it it's your it's on page 36. Okay. On your right hand again. You got that one. Got it. Yes. Right. Got it. It starts with labor force and ends in tour. To me, that should be like big. I think I don't know, maybe you guys can I'm about ready to turn this over because

I think this is an important point because I think it speaks to the strategic initiative. I mean, one of the things that Logan did to get 1,600 households pass was make the statement that Sunset Beach needed more housing so people who lived here could work here. And I I think there is a sentiment that, you know, is this a community that wants to do that. You know, there's tremendous pressure to build more affordable highs housing nationwide. And I think one of the questions Sunset Beach has to answer is do we want to be part of that solution or are we content letting it be something that Brunswick County deals with while we continue to build single family housing that primarily serves a more affluent retired clientele. That to me is kind of one

the question was on the survey and didn't get a lot of good responses but I still think we need to keep that in in there. So, I'm done. Okay, Steuart. Yeah, I'm next, I guess. So, all right. You're vice, so turn it over to you. Okay. Um, let's see. Page 15, the uh table 2.2. The sunset beach number is V. Yeah, I saw I just saw that. I don't I don't know how that got in there. And so, 1852, I think, is the right number. Yeah. Yeah, that's just a a I I circled that just now. Um that needs to be updated. Yeah.

Um and I just wanted to mention that and I don't know if this is worth pulling out, but out of these 21, you know, coastal towns, Sunset Beach is the fifth largest by population, which kind of stunned me. As small as we are, but it's due to the mainland population, right? Um, would there be any benefit re resorting that by it's is a probably an Excel spreadsheet, right? Um, sorted by 2024 top to bottom. It it could we I know you're alphabetical now. Yeah, just so PO folks can pull that, but I think we could make a a note perhaps of of what Well, you made it bold here, which is good. But yeah,

or the other alternative is to resort it top to bottom on the 24 population, right? Yeah. And we show up at the fifth spot or whatever it would be. I think if we are and again this moving a couple steps forward if the land use plan suggests that we are in search of more commercial assets I mean a compelling and persuasive argument to a commercial owner is hey we're the fifth largest town in a very affluent community. It's kind of what I was getting at is you know we're a lot bigger than people think we are.

Yeah. So maybe res resorting uh 24 population most of least might be useful. Wes can think about that. Okay. Yeah, you can think about that. So on table 2.2 you went alphabetical starting at a at the top. On figure 2.1 you went alphabetical with a on the bottom. Somehow that's just the way it is. It's kind of freaking my engineer brain out. Let me see if I can get Excel to work properly on that. Um I don't know why it does that. Better you than me.

Yeah. If anything, be consistent, I guess. Yeah. Um uh well, on page 19, you mentioned as of publication requested parking data from auto has not been obtained. Do we have that now? We do finally have that now. It took a while to get that relief. Thank you, Chief, for sending that email. But we do have that. Okay. All right. So, we're going to update accordingly. You're going to plug that in then. Yeah, because it's not 500 spaces actually anymore, right? 4 something, right? What's I forget.

I think they have 250 spaces um specifically is what it mentioned, but I we'll we'll confirm. I need to go back and pull that data to confirm. Um, let's see. on page 21. Trying to read my notes that the 6,552 permanent residents by60 resulting in the population of 11,320. And I guess I mean we pretty much know how many units we're going to have because we just don't have that much more growth to go. It looks like a lot of this is done off of percentages. But couldn't we get pretty close to counting units and lots in the town? And

we could. It's it's and some of this alludes to that. So one DCM requires us division of coastal management requires to utilize this ratio model for population projections. Um but the other thing that it's not quite um black and white is because let's say those 1600 units are built out. It is hard to contemplate how many of those are actually going to be permanent residents. Right. Right. And so um and you know perhaps I can add some additional detail to that but that that's you know okay

well I I think that I think the point the data point is that in terms of residential growth we're pretty much done in terms of how big the bucket is bucket's not yeah filled yet at all

it's not filled yet but we know how many households they're going going to be in Sunset Beach by 200 30 35. Okay. Assuming that all these developers who now have conditional zoning approvals or whatever do what they say they're going to do. And I and I think in terms of the strategic overview, we need to make the point that the land use plan in terms of residential development has kind of reached an apex and gives some sense of what that apex represents.

We don't have we don't have anything in here that talks about or should be planned residences. I I think there's some reference to this in a couple places. Then also in the chapter that you get it it prior to the discussion into policies it notes hey you know for the most part we're planned for and entitled um you know again we don't know what's going to happen 20 years from now. We don't we got a ton of commercially zoned vacant property. I don't know if that's I'm not I don't want to speculate that that could change but it could. Yeah. But we don't have to speculate about the volume of approved residential plants.

No, that that'll be addressed in here. It's addressed in here. And that to some extent has implications in terms of Yep. the land use plan and what do we want to look like in 2004? Yeah. And what I mean in the initial results, we're kind of getting mixed messages. We don't want any more incursion on natural resources, but we want more commercial development. Well, okay. That interesting economy. Thank you very much. Yeah. But well, I think the thing is well going towards Yeah, obviously just using projections as projections. But

it's sort of important for folks to know that I don't know how to do this and it might be in a later chapter based on what's already. Yeah, I think maybe both are going what's already planned to happen. Our population would go from X to Y by approximately this. Yeah. And and it I mean say that on page 21 it says these estimates do not account for approximately 2,000 additional residential units that have recently been approved. If 50% of those units are occupied by full-time residents, they could contribute additional 2,000 residents to the town's permanent population. By when?

Yeah. Well, we don't know when buildout would, you know, that that would just presume buildout and that's why the projection base is is gives gives some semblance. Well, I think you can say something based on the expectation that these households will be built by 2030. We can anticipate an additional 2,000 residents. I mean, I'm not, you know, um, probably could always round and use approximately. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think the message and we can't go much longer on uh the message would be sort of give people well who read it or see it or bold it out that there's already a pre-programmed yep

amount coming in plus or minus in a range in a year. It's how to make sure everybody understands there's already 2,000 or approximately between 2030 and 2040 that's already programmed. It's in, you know, and I would say that cake's in the oven already. Yeah. Right. And and I I would even add absent any significant changing to zoning classifications, this is it.

That's true. But you have to and I don't want to I want to don't want to keep beating the the horse, but you have a ton you have uh 2,300 units that are considered to be vacant. If the if the percentage changes of of housing units, if if it increases, you have housing units that then are occupied by full-time residents. That that changes the formula without development. Well, I know Stuart's not done. And if you want to finish, I'm not done yet. Okay, go ahead. Move on. Um, and I'm wondering if we need a definition of in migration. Sure. Where is that one specifically?

Um, I wrote it I wrote it on page 21, but now I can't can't find it. We can add that. I'm just curious. I thought we defined it, but uh my apologies if not. Um, on table 2.5, the total housing units and the percent change. Mhm. It looks like, you know, we're growing super fast, but if you take that change over 23 years, it's 3% per year. So, I'm wondering if we could say something about that or

so annualize it. Annualize it instead of, you know, I don't want people to come in, oh, look, we're going to 70% rate. Yeah. Instead of doing a straight an annual rate of change, right? Yeah. just a mention. Yeah, I I'll add it. Um, it sounds sensational, I guess. Well, you know, it is sensational if you compare it to a lot of other, you know, if we if we look at northeastern North Carolina, it's Yeah, but the other thing over the 23 years or flat, the 2000 number doesn't reflect the impact of annexation. I mean, a lot of those new residents were here before. They just became part of the town.

Okay. I wasn't here that long. I mean, when was when was Sandpiper annexed? I don't know. 2011 or so probably. Okay. Windfall. It it annexation is is mentioned in here in a couple instances. U but we we can mention it again. Okay. Um table 2.6. six. Yep. So, the total housing units 372 and 2000 5220 in 2023. The old land use plan. Yep.

Said that in 2010 there were 5,110 housing units. Oh, I didn't even look at the old one. Thank God. I double check. I went back and compared the the two to see. I mean, a lot of your numbers totally correlate, but that one kind of stood out to me. 5,12 and 110 in 2010. That's very possible that it is only increased that much. Um, it's going to it's going to accelerate, you know, right? Um that's only 100 units and well we had you know five years where almost nothing yeah nothing happened but

well worth a check a double check I'll double check yeah um table 2.7 on page 26 um you reference the source is a 2023 American community survey but in the table it says Sunset Beach and it says 2000. Sorry, the headings the headings which which I just want to make sure table 2.7 your headings are 200 for each column. Page page 26 page 26 it says it's a 2023 survey and then Sunset Beach says Oh,

the heading say thank you. That's supposed to be 2023. Thank you. Okay,

thank you for that. Um then on page 27 I had all kinds of notes about um about the in 2014 when they did the land use plan. They mentioned specifically, or maybe it was you, um, mentioned specifically that we were in the top bracket of median owner occupied home value and now we're in the lower bracket. And I think that's important. It's it's a big change since 2014. And I'm wondering if we could talk about that a little bit. And also in here we're talking about uh median values and I think we need to stress more about affordable housing even though you know we're we're a lower rate median housing type. We're also the old, you know, if you throw out bald head, we're the oldest population group.

And so I feel like we need more affordable housing than maybe other communities have. I mean, similarsized communities, if you look at that population chart, they're average, their median age is way down compared to us. Yep. So, I feel like the the affordable housing part, I don't want people to say, "Oh, look, they've handled affordable housing really well." Well, we really haven't. Um, and we need to we need to have more, you know, moving forward. Okay. So, maybe just more on that. I think I mentioned in my other comments that the color of Sunset Beach is seems to be different. Yeah. Yeah. This one did.

Mr. Gold. Yep. This is another reverse alphabetical.

Okay, Ron will make all these formatting changes. Is he listening? He's moved on to something else. He's working on them. Only kidding. Well, it wick this this median value of owner occupied. I'm struggling to understand. So that would not um so the reason that does not if there's you guys have very limited well you do have some full-time residents on on the island certainly um you know why it is so high for example in Riceville Beach and Baldhead they only have an island jurisdiction right

um and those are full-time residents Riceville Beach in particular has a lot of full-time residents that that live there and so if you have a seasonal unit over there that's not occupied by a full-time resident $2 million. It's not captured here. Yeah. Now, you're you actually just stated what I was about to Okay. state if it does throw the numbers off. I mean, if you went single family owner occupied, my guess is the median household would jump to about 500 most likely. We just don't have that that it it only unfortunately it does not distinguish between those. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, I'm done. Okay. Um,

wait. Mike, you want to go next or Mike? No, you guys have covered everything I had. Yeah, I was hoping

and and I'm I'm pretty much there there's two areas where in what we got here. Um, what I'm interested in is more trend line data probably on two things. First thing is demographic age. Anecdotally, when I look around my neighborhood, the senior owners of homes have aged out and now those homes are being occupied by Yep.

younger couples. even the 50year-old sons and daughters of the original owners that have aged out. So I'm interested to see are we seeing a trend line where the demographic age is abating which has implications for the land use plan. So second you're being talking about median age over time period. Yeah. And then second 2019 forward maybe right and if we have if we can get data you know 2024 2025 it would be great because I think this is

this is accelerating. Um anyway, second, the trend line in terms of the percentage of permanently occupied homes and I'm probably not stating this correctly as opposed to those homes that are being used as rentals. It's about a 50% yeah distinction. and seeing and again anecdotally what I'm hearing is more people are foregoing the rentals of their homes on the island and living in them permanently. That's what I alluded to could could seriously upend the projection your population projection

because I think that in terms of implications for the land use plan that has serious implications. Sure. Okay. And that's it for me. capture that anyway or

it it is in here and but but we'll talk about it and I'll just say this one thing because we need I know we need to move on. I need to give you guys your new stuff. Um what we saw is a reversal of that trend up until CO um we were um there was some you know reduction in in units being used for rental purposes. that switched ac across our coast because the revenue that was associated with those units and so but we are starting to see a a slight reversal of that trend now um where you know the returns are not what they were and so there's there is some altering of that and we'll move

and that that raises an interesting point because in terms of the trend line co is going to skew things. Well, that's why we decided like go back to 2019 on some of that stuff. And it would be interesting to know what impact it had so we can kind of isolate because that what happened at CO isn't really going to have much impact on what happens in 2030. But the data it generates might confuse Mhm. the trend lines that we're trying to look at so we can make good decisions about going forward. So

that's my two bits. Okay. Okay. And they're handing out uh this is number three.

Yes, sir. Chapter three. Um you uh just one quick thing on that. Um obviously this is draft data. Um you know all of these documents once you guys you know decide we can share them on online and all that good stuff. Typically that comes towards the tail end you know once we've got revised final copies but you know can be placed online. They're public records already. uh just you know um the maps that are on there those are technically 11 by 17 in digital format. So just remember that when you're looking at it at 8 1.5 by 11 the this plan is typically going to be viewed on a digital basis. So if you pull up on the screen you'll see it 11 by 17 not 8 1/2 by 11. Um and then you know there's policies and recommended actions in there at the at the end of this. Um those are based on you know one using past plans as a as a as a basis right and then two understanding where we are in the public input process and the in the feedback that we've gotten which is substantial from our survey. So that is that's what you know how those policies are are are derived. Okay. Um that's it for me. Thank you guys for bearing through all this. Uh any other questions that you have for me before we see and I'll see you guys in March. Yes, sir.

Um don't want us to forget about the two additional um scope items. Yes, thank you. I think that um that is now in the hands of I believe the the council andor chief are potentially discussing that with Bolton and Mink. Um I I don't know where that is. Um, so you got a price from Bolton and Mink and it is it's outside of of So it's not under your contract.

No, no, I don't know where there was I know that that was mentioned today that it is it is potentially being discussed with Boltman Mink, but I don't have any further direction for you on that. My understanding is that I don't think that that was going to move forward, but I don't want to speak for the chief or or counsel. island parking studies that we were talking about with Bolton and Mink or what and whether there's going to be some additional scope of services uh with related to the land use plan for Bolton and M. Right. I have a note here to talk to you about that later. Okay. Okay. Anything that is worth sharing with them or I don't want to Yeah. Not at this point. There's nothing up next meeting. Nothing to update. Okay.

And you also had the Greenwave festival. Yeah. Can we talk about the while you're here, can we talk about the Greenway Festival? When is that?

That is May 9th. Let me double check. Make sure I that down correctly. Yes, May 9th. So, I went to the ERC meeting and the treeboard meeting yesterday and that was a recommendation from the ERC informal recommendation that they said, you know, we might want to have a booth at the Green Wave Festival. We would have to man it. Um, but the town would provide tables, chairs, tents, and any kind of written material that we'd want to hand out or talk about. Um, this would only be a couple of weeks now after the public engagement process. So, it might be good to The Green Wave Festival is really well attended.

Where is it located? Town Park. Park. Oh, so it's in Sunset. Oh, okay. Never mind. Well, I guess uh again how we can man it legally. So one I think and then what would we want to do?

Two so there's two things. One um I think that I don't that's probably needs to be at least given a yes no okay from from council andor the interim administrator if if the planning board is permissible to do that. That's a first. And then the second is um I will not physically be available to be there. I have um I will be out of town. But what if you do need materials, I can help you have materials, some worksheets that would be substantially similar to what would be utilized for example for the first public engagement meeting or any other thing. So, um,

that's what I was thinking is just some some things to hand out so that the public can walk by and they they can say, "Oh, you're doing a land use plan." Sure. Yeah. And then they, you know, a URL address where they could Yep. dig deeper. Yeah. Well, I'd be happy to, you know, I'll be available and I can person it. I feel like if you'd rotate in and out of it and wouldn't have a quorum in that booth because inevitably you're going to get questions. Yeah. Yeah. That are going to be asked of the planning board. So, if you're there as the planning board, um I think you'd be best just to play it safe and make sure you don't have a quorum under that booth. You got it. Yeah, that'd be great.

But I guess my my I'm okay with all that. It's just I'm not sure what we're going to do. We had the public engagement meeting. Let's just assume we closed out. I mean, we would probably have final survey results. You're talking about handing them things. stuff will probably already posted online. Okay. I think there could be little flyers for where they could go to the town's website or whatever it it may be or if they're curious about it. Um they could, you know, fill out some short worksheets, you know, what what are their what what do they think the assets are in town, issues, desires, etc. And that that could you know what time is it held from? I don't know. I don't know.

I don't I'll have to find out if the four or five hours. Well, obviously there's at the moment four of us, so we can split half. Everybody is available on that day tonight. I guess leave it open. We would have to split it two and two. Yeah. At this point, if we don't get a third member by then, but uh just a way to generate more interest. Yeah, I don't have any problem doing it. Just you guys just give it some thought. We got some time between. I guess maybe the first thing we need to do is request the town to say sounds like Chief I I think said it's okay so long as allow us a table for two persons

and to like blank uh you know I I don't know like a reservation or you might want to call it at this point details to follow later so to speak. Yeah, like I said as long as you don't have a quorum under that tent, right? All right. Well, it' be nice to have a council member there too. Well, that that's their own thing. That's none of their own business. You're welcome to invite them. Yeah.

Okay. So, tenatively we'll plan for a table for two there uh with some information concerning land use plan review that would be of interest and use to the public. Details will be filled out shortly. Maybe we can talk about that more March. Yeah, we're gonna have to at this point. Okay. And I'll find out more details about the times and when we show up and where we park and all that good stuff. I can walk through it. So, yeah. Okay. Thank you, Wes. Yes. Thank you. If you want to take my comments Yes, sir. There they are. You can take it.

Okay. Uh, and you want us to do the same thing on the new one for the next meeting? Yes, sir. Be prepared to discuss it. We'll do the exact exact same thing. Um, I I presumably we'll have a shorter meeting because we won't need to talk about public input meeting dates and this I'll give you a quick update on the survey, but

Okay. Thank you. Final items on this uh is just general administrative comments and I just had a couple questions and Kim talked. We have the vacancy that uh Kevin had left the board for ETJ. I see it was advertised emails gone out. Uh, do we have any applicants at this point or we do good cuz last time what? Oh, that's a problem cuz last time we took us over a year. It took us a long time. We had to send out letters to the addresses in ETJ previous administr.

Well, that's I was going to if we have no legitimate applicants, I would think at some point soon we need to do that. What's How long's the posting been on? Couple of weeks. Did we I I I know there are households in the sanctuary. Were those included in the mailings? Yeah. So, I guess at some point soon, yeah, we're going to need to step up our efforts if we're not able to. It's a difficult thing. It's always been Sure. Yeah, I understand that conversation yesterday about this.

So, I was happy to hear we thought we had some, but if we don't have them in the right district, that's the problem, whether you're in town or in ETG. So, I guess when staff is satisfied, it's been advertised through the normal routes and it ain't generating any leads, then what worked last time, I think, was sending out letters and we got some responses as long as we're up to date on what residents exist in ETJ. So my request would be when the staff pound is ready that we consider doing that again to get our fifth member. That's how I got in it. Yeah.

The other thing that came up I guess uh in looking at at last town council I mean not the last town I think I missed the council. They talked about uh doing a legal review of UDO compliance at 160D. I don't know if that's still going on or not. I thought we was already done that. And Ron, I thought you had kind of like an existing list of possible 16 or recent changes that were 160D was done in 2020 2021. I might not be stating this right, but I think there was an item on the council to talk to legal counsel to review this again. That was 160 was adopted by council in 2021.

You know, okay. Um, and so I'm not sure exactly what what I heard at the meeting is they were asking that for new legal counsel to review that again, which is their prerogative to spend the money. But yes, we did it before, but I also thought you provided I'm going to say 6 months or eight months ago, you had like a short list of other things legislatively. We did a legislative update in sometime mid 25 right from the previous but there was things I think we decided that we didn't have to. Correct.

All I'm saying is that list should be given to whoever is doing this to not spend money on redundant work. You're not online. I think I'm not I don't I'm not sure exactly what the specific request from council was on that. So I just work with the chief. My recollection from attending it was they wanted a legal review of the UDO, which to me is I didn't like the whole We spent two years going over that. I thought they were talking about 160.

Typically said 160D. 160D was done in the the code was brought in compliance with 160D back in 2020 2021 time frame. your revised UDO, the current UDEO was done in 2023 and in staff's opinion and consultant's opinion, it was consistent with 160D. We have since made additional changes as legislative updates have been required.

Yeah. And what I heard it was 160D I thought plus anything to make sure we're in. So all my point here here is not to go too long on it is that list we had from 2025 share that with administration so that redundant if we already sort of have a list that we think if I remember that list there's things that was on there we weren't sure we really had to do anything with you called out some point there were some yes you called out some points that have let's just say v vagrity or whatever weren't quite clear so just make sure they have that list so if they're paying somebody to look at you don't come up with the same list again just to save some money but I'll have conversation with the chief

right yeah you're welcome to send it to me right not just to avoid redundant work and expense if possible there have been there's been some recent legislation from the last session that I we just got a bulletin that was released Monday or Friday of last week Monday this week or Friday of last week that I have yet to download and engage my review on

right if the council wants to spend money reviewing review, that's fine. They can do that. But to find out that there's already been sort of a mini list divide and have to come up with the same things again seems a little ridiculous on my point, but everybody, as long as we should all share any information, I'm good. And the last question I had, and maybe just because I missed it, what happened with the mud signs and the overlay district text? It's been delay. It was delayed from your February meeting because of the snowtorm snow closure. So, it would go to council on March 2nd. So, both of those are

March 2nd gateway and the mud. Um, and I have been asked to look at potentially narrowing down the the color palette from the im from the pal color Charleston image of Charleston or whatever the title was. Um, maybe not as not maybe not as as many colors increase what was there currently has, but maybe not being as inclusive as all of those colors. Okay. that move forward. Okay. But you they will be presented what the planning board made a recommendation on and then my back pocket I'll have potentially some ideas of on how to What was the date again? March. March 2nd meetings.

What time? 9 or it's the whatever it is meeting 7 p.m. Okay. I don't have anything else administratively. Does Ryan you have or uh have anything left to know other than our next meeting is whenever it's scheduled to be. I had a question for the chief. We had that special called meeting for the planning board and then it was um cancelled. Is there any update on Luminina fairways or I have nothing to report on Luminina fairways? Okay. Have they petitioned the board of adjustment? Do we know? Not that I know of. Okay.

Okay. The last item of course is public comments. So seeing that we've exhausted the public uh unless is any seeing no public comments we can move on uh to adjournment. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Move to adjourn. A second. I'll second. All Ijourn. Thank you everybody. Thanks everybody. Sorry for the long meeting.