Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded here. March 3rd, 2026 uh regular meeting of the planning commission and uh we'll start with uh an invitation and Janette's going to heavenly father we come before you with gratitude for the opportunity to serve our community. Grant us wisdom, discernment, and fairness as we consider matters that shape the future of our city. Help us to listen respectfully, speak thoughtfully, and act with integrity. We lift up the men and women of our armed forces, especially those in harm's way. Protect them, strengthen them, and bring them safely home to their families. Bless the veterans in our community who have sacrificed so much for our freedoms. guide our decisions tonight so they reflect justice, stewardship, and care for all who call this city home. Amen.

Pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for its one nation with liberty and justice for all. Okay, I'm going to remind everybody, please speak into the microphone as I don't so that John's recording device will pick us up for minutes purposes. Um there's no public hearing tonight. So um I'll ask for a motion to um approve the agenda.

So moved. Second. Uh everyone in favor of the agenda or do we need to have any discussion? Everyone in favor say I. I. Uh any opposed? Okay. And then we have um minutes approval for our February 3rd, 2026 regular meeting. I got a motion with regard to this. Chair. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the

from the February 3rd meeting as recorded. Sorry. Can I um Okay. And then I just wanted to comment on the um minutes taken from the public comments. Some of them don't make a lot of sense. I'm just wondering if we need to look at that closely. First of all, if you need a second.

I said second. OSU. Okay. Um, uh, I, uh, when I got the draft, I turned on the recording and listened to what was said versus what was written down. And um there were a few places that it was a little bit hard to pick up what the speaker said, but for the most part what is written here matches in a verbatim way what was picked up by the recording. Now we always have the uh difficulty of whether or not the recording picks up what the speaker is saying properly. Um um that's going to be a a problem no matter uh what we do or what we use.

I didn't find any discrepancies with my notes. Just some of the words were different unusual.

Yeah, good word. Um and uh so uh I suppose if you want to suggest a change uh we'd have to go back I guess and look listen to the recordings because this was this is a um as I understand it is a transcript taken from the go to meeting recording that actually worked for that um meeting. And that is how I um went through because there were um uh some things that were questioned as to did the person say this and you have to listen very carefully and you know back it up and play it again and what have you and hopefully you're you're getting at least what was recorded

and hoping that what was recorded was what was actually said. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. Uh item six at the minute. It seems like a small thing, but down the road nobody's going to know who Mr. Lawrence is. I think it should say Mr. Machine. I'd like to amend my motion.

Yes. I'd like my motion to reflect of that it is to approve the minutes as stated with the exception of clarifying the name from the name on item six to be

Mr. Mcr.

So, all in favor of Oh, I need a second. Second. Uh, all in favor of uh the uh approval of the minutes as amended, say I. I. Any opposed? Um, okay. We now are open for public comments on agenda items only. Please uh approach the lecture if you have something to say and provide your name and your address.

Uh yes, this is uh Phil Murdoch at 913A North Ocean Boulevard in Surfside Beach, South Carolina 29575. And I just wanted to to speak to uh discussion item 10B uh the the the light tweak uh that Mark is proposing for uh 17-201. I just wanted to give it just a little bit of context. Of course, you guys are not there yet. So, this will make more sense when when Mark presents it to you. U but as far as it goes in in previous iterations of of of our directors, you know, we've had probably five, I guess, in the last five or six years. Uh I have had occasion uh to deal with non-conforming lot and that is a lot that is smaller by original design than what the the zoning calls for and and then for example it's a lot that is originally platted out in the 50s. You was a 5,500 foot lot. You know but our zoning for that area is 6,000 square foot as a minimum. you know, the the the issue that you run into on those non-conforming lots is, of course, our setbacks, our our lot coverages are all set up on on a, you know, on something that is larger than what that non-conforming lot is. So, 17-201 allowed for some leeway u uh to be given for setbacks. you know, it basically gave for a 20% discretionary leeway for a non-conforming lot. Um, you for what it said at that point was setbacks in yards. Well, yards has been interpreted over time to mean coverages. Um, you know, again, anything that was calculated on a percentage basis because

again, the the non-conforming lot, you know, 500 square foot is a large number. You know, if you're multiplying by 30% coverage, you know, that makes a Yeah, that makes 1520 foot difference in in what you can put on a lot as opposed to what say your neighbor next door could do when they're 6,000 foot. Um, but it does say yard as opposed to, you know, specifically saying um, you know, coverages. Um, you and I think what what Mark is is is suggesting is a tweak that allows for that specific language and taking out yard. Um, and I think I'm I'm definitely in support of that. But I did want to say that that in previous iterations of of our our director have interpreted that liberally to allow for, you know, anything that was a a multiplier, you know, times that 6,000 square foot standard. I'm using a 6,000 unit as an example here. Um, you know, because that's the the usually our smallest lot. Well, not in the R1. in I mean not in R3, but you know, practically speaking, you know, that that percentage when you multiply that back out, the non-conforming lots really take a beating. Um you and again, you could have a house that's beside it that that it is in a conforming lot that that you know that is the non-conforming lot becomes prejudiced as against the the conforming lot. And it certainly was not the lot owners responsible. they didn't break out that lot in the 50s, you know, that that that so we're really talking about original lots that are non-conforming by way of our zoning orders, you know. So that that's that's what what Mark's going to be talking about later, but I just wanted to to to give a little bit of a past um you dealing with that before you know that that was how it was interpreted. But I I do think that what is suggestion here is to clean it up is a good idea. I think there's there's a lot of little sections

in in our code that need to be cleaned up. Uh and through through no fault of anybody like I said you co multiple change of of personnel. I mean that that it's not uh you know I think talking about the pier kind of sucked a lot of oxygen out of the room for a lot of years. Um yeah I think with some of that settled out I think now we can get to the business of of cleaning some of this this small stuff up. So appreciate your consideration on that. And then with that, I I hate to be be rude. I got a sick wife at home, so I'm gonna go get her a spud at the Mallisters and have to take off. But thank y'all. Thank you.

Thank you. this evening. Um, I'll keep my director's report short because we have a fairly lengthy agenda. Um, first of all, um, I wanted to bring you up to date that currently the tree ordinance is kind of in a state of of, you know, it's kind of sitting still right now. We're not making any real progress on that because of well, as you can probably imagine, the items before you this evening have kind of taken up my bandwidth in terms of working further on the on the tree ordinance. Um, we do have a full agenda this evening. Um, and one of the things that I did wanted to mention to you is that um, we have very few actual business items on the on the agenda. Most of the items before you this evening are discussion items. And I wanted to just make a brief comment about that. Discussion items are just that I'm asking not asking for any motions. I'm not asking for any u official votes to be taken on any of these. Um but what will happen is what I try to do is once we discuss these I can then go back to the ordinance that it's in subject make modifications to it and then bring you a fresh copy for a public hearing. And I suspect that um depending on where we land on some of these discussion items, our next meeting will

probably have as many as two or three public hearings uh before the uh commission. And I want to do that because I need to get in some cases on the sites. The sites have to be actually posted 15 days in advance. Um public notice published in the newspaper has to be done 15 days in advance. So, it's good for me to get these as discussion items before you this evening so that I know whether we're moving forward on some of these discussion items and moving those ultimately to business or public hearing items on the next agenda. Um, I'll stop I'll stop at that and answer any questions that you all might have about things in general. I was able to ask answer a couple questions of commissioners this evening um about um different things about being a planning commissioner and getting your six hours of continuing education time and then there's or actually it's called six hours of orientation and then there's a requirement for three hours of continuing education. Um I also have to do those I have to do the three hours of continuing education. Um and that is required by uh statute. With that I'll stop.

Do we have any questions over here? Madam chair. Yes. The orientation meeting I'm assuming. Is that an online thing or is that something that MASC schedules or both? Okay. I've done it I've done it with MASC live in a forum that was held by the county. The county invited all surrounding communities to do it.

And I've also done it I've seen some of my planning commissioners can have done the entire thing online. They usually break it up because they don't want to spend six hours in front of their monitor. And I can appreciate that. Um but um I I I implore new commissioners not to wait until December to do it because then there's a crash and you can't get into the you can't get into the program because 75 other planning commissioners in the state are trying to crash the same sites the same times you are. So I would I would u ask you to try to get these done before May if possible.

Is there a link to a portal to do the online? there is um that you may experience some difficulty with that based on what I've heard from the one of your other commissioners, but yes, it's all online and it's and in the past it's been fairly easy to navigate

on our website or website. That's where you're going to go. So, I would just add I I thought the um in-person training that I had last year was very good and uh I I know that um Heather Davis arranged that training uh for Larry and myself. Uh so is it if the person wants to go in person do you have to arrange that or no it was just the fact that she arranged it for you is actually quite nice that she did that for you. Okay.

Um but I won't lead you in that direction. And the reason I say that is because there are a number of online tools that I think are very good. Um, the only thing I do like about in-person ones is that you get to have this interaction at the end of the meeting with lots of questions and answers where you don't get to do that online. I would say as a general rule of thumb is look at what's offered and think about what you do on a on a weekly or monthly basis here and what would help you the most because there's stuff on there that I would tell you that most planning commissioners don't deal with or or you know have that kind of want that kind of knowledge. So you kind of have to sift your way through the um that. Now what will happen is as we approach usually about September I start getting notices from the council of the local council of governance who do hold in-person um training and they will tell me what the coursework is and what the subject matter is. It's only then will I actually recommend to you to to take care of those to take to go to those because I will look at what they're training and sometimes like I've said sometimes the training is like spoton for planning commissioners and then unless you're an economic development specialist and you just want to learn that for yourself. There's a lot of stuff on economic development. There's a lot of stuff on main street programs. Uh there's a lot of there's a a vast library of online courses that you can take that are offered every year. And the there's another site that I'll draw your attention to uh for the online continuing education and that is the South Carolina Association of County Governments, something like that. I may not have the words right, but I find

that actually their trainings are sometimes better and more directly related to planning commission work than the MASC stuff is. Okay. I would encourage you if you give us an email or something to these organizations and then

absolutely pursue that. Um, anything on to our uh first business item and this is on the agenda uh uh to have uh an election for the chair uh because I do I think we followed our uh historic practice uh with regard ard to my moving into the chair position. But there has been enough noise out there that would give somebody trying to challenge a decision by this body um some ammunition and there's no reason to give anybody ammunition. So I am proposing that we have uh another election uh for chair this evening. Uh I don't know whether that gets u labeled as a ratification. Um uh I don't have the u uh legal whatever with regard to u how things work in town as to whether something could be a ratification. Uh but uh whether it is or not, I uh would like to uh have us elect uh

mentor and um so I'll ask for nominations. Um I'd like to make a motion to um nominate you, Carolyn Babick, uh for chair of the planning commission. other nominations. Uh all in favor? I

I uh so I guess I am uh reassigning this chair by acclamation. Uh thank you all uh very much. Hm. Do we need to do No, because we had Larry's um uh election at our last meeting. Be sure um that has not u

as far as I know has not caused any uh issue that might give some lawyer out there an idea for challenging things. So anyway, okay, we'll move right along to the um resolution regarding the personal flotation device loaner stations at beach access points that excuse me, Captain Kelly came to u talk to us uh about uh at our last uh session. So can I get a motion related to that resolution which is in your pack? Madam chair.

Yes. I move to approve the submission of personal flotation device loaner station by certified beach fire department and save the kids PD coastal coalition under the comprehensive payment plan to town council. Second. Um, do we need any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Okay, that resolution I'll sign off on. We can send it over to town council. Um, next item is the resolution regarding the design of the civic center and uh council chamber courthouse um facility. Uh, and uh uh can I get a a motion with regard to it?

Madam Chair, yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution regarding the design for the civic center council chamber courthouse. This resolution is for submission to town council regarding Cree and Associates design for said project. We get a second. Any discussion? Uh all those in favor say I. I I

any opposed? No. Okay. We move on to the uh discussion items and our first discussion item is the um uh amendment to the sign ordinance. Uh uh Mark, do you want to address that?

Yes, thank you. Uh this is a discussion item before the commission this evening and included in your packet is a staff analysis staff report for your uh for your review and perusal. Basically um Surfside Beaches sign regulations were adopted a long time ago primarily to regulate and navigate private signage associated with private development including commercial residential and temporary signs. Um, however, there has never been in the in the sign code a distinct section um that allows the town to install um signs for uh things like public safety events, efficient municipal operations, uh site visibility standards, safety standards, um events. I think that's probably one of the more prolific ones that we do. um that do not have to that would not have to follow the written rules and regulations of signs for private. Uh these um exemptions for public signage is something that is typically contained in most zoning ordinances and I was surprised not to find an exemption for those. with your permission uh following uh this evening's meeting uh and assuming that we uh that you agree to back to you uh for uh public hearing uh with the actual ordinance language uh written in place which is contained in your packet if you care to look at it. It's fairly short. It's only about a page and a half. Um, but it clearly makes clear that um, governmental signs, wayfinding signs, public information signs will be exempt from the rules and regulations placed on private development. There any questions that you might have?

Madam chair, I don't have the package in front of me, but Mark, does this ordinance language allow for the town to post what we call snipe signs for events in the public rideways? At this point, it would. All right, that goes I object to that. Okay. I don't think making them legal makes them any more traffic attractive than these signs we get now. And I don't believe the town should be allowed to put sex signs in right away for any purpose, especially events. I think they're just as ugly when they're legal.

Is everybody on the commission familiar with a snipe sign is or bandit sign?

I am not. So, one of the things that we will do as part of this cleanup is that and and Carol did a really great job with this is when I come back to you with the ordinance, the actual standing ordinance, it's in the ordinance currently. We'll have to have a number of places where it says refer to this section in the code. Um it would be very easy uh to include in this section um that the types of signage allowed by uh the municipality uh could be limited uh to the signs that that are here and we could very easily uh prohibit sniper bandit signs because I believe that sniper bandit signs typically aren't used a lot by the by the community although I have seen them out there um and and submit that they are just as attract unattractive as as a public site as they are private sign. Um those aren't the signs I'm really that I was really trying to exempt. I'm not trying to I'm certainly not trying to give the uh the town the ability to litter our rightways with snipe and bandit signs. Well, that's my objection, but uh I don't know that the rest of the commission also objects to the

Yeah, I'd like to hear from the rest of the commission on this, Madam Chair. Yeah. Um what's I understand the objection. No problem with any of that. What's the downside? What's the cost of opportunity? What are we losing out on as a as a municipality in not having the snipe signs available for use? Good question. Um, probably making people aware of of uh well, for instance, I I'll I'll give you one because it's one that I have to post. I have legally I have to post a snipe or bandit sign on a on a site undergoing zone change.

Yeah. So that that is one particular and very very legally required type of sign that goes on these sites that I have to post and that's and I've got a whole closet full of snipe signs that's a public hearing be held at be held at yes that is confining my objection to events and that got lost in the discussion but event snipe signs. Okay. Objective too. Of course, you'd have to post your Yeah. I'd have to be very clear that the event doesn't include public hearings because that's certainly not.

Yeah. Yeah. It'd be like I'll use I'll use the weekend barbecue, right? Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. Barbecue. Not a public area. Okay. Well, um my question would be is that is there any statute or anything that dictates to you that the zoning changes are required to be in the form of a snipe sign? No, there are no requirements whatsoever on what the type of sign is that it's posted. It says posted period, right? And those are cheaper. So from a from a fiduciary standpoint, you know, you don't want to have to I don't want to have to banner.

I don't Well, I don't want to have to do that or also don't want to have to do what we did with I'll call it back in the day before snipe signs were a thing. I would literally have to go to a sign company and have them actually hammer them in the ground and put them a wood sign and say, "I'm that old over here." Yeah. Remember the old days? Those are that's the way we did. The only good thing is you only had to do one. You only had to do one. Yeah. Yeah. Um, no. I I don't want the snipe sign, if you will, use to be taken out of my out of my tool box. That's why I was asking question.

Uh, because I', first of all, I've got a whole closet full of them that I want to use. And frankly, I believe that once we start having more of these public hearings where there are sites that are posted that have a have a zone change going on, people start to recognize that look, that sign that because it's town of Surfside public hearing very clear. Yeah. uh they're not meant to they're not meant to clutter uh what I call the sign warfare uh issue, but clearly it's it's a use uh that that I find very Are the signs that you have in your closet wherever you got them stashed, are they all 1824 chloroplast with the H stand? Absolutely.

Yeah. The the only thing I would say about that is if you're a resident and you're driving, I guess you're right. You would They're yellow, right? Yeah. yellow or white and red. They're pretty pretty good. You just pretty bright. Even in the golf cart at 25 miles per hour, you know, reading that.

Yeah. And especially if you're up on 17, you're driving, you know, but um you know, I don't my personal opinion is that it doesn't merit, you know, a bigger sign or whatever back to the old day hammering them in we would state or any of that. Um, but I would I would say so I can shut up. I I do tend to agree with the just the special event signs. Not not a fan of that. But I also want to say when it comes to campaigns, you know, I I don't know what the verbiage specifically is in the ordinances, but just my observation as the community in general, everybody figures out, oh, snipe signs are no longer permitted and then it comes campaign season and then you got, you know, article one issues. So there was a recent well I want to say recent it's probably six years ago recent Supreme Court case on signs particularly uh signs having to do with elections and I will tell you uh that my practice has been um and it's not codified anywhere my practice is if they place the sign on private property I am not going to touch it whether it's a snipe sign an anchor sign and an A-frame sign. I'm not going to I'm not going to touch it. Uh the Supreme Court has been very very clear on political science is sign. It's free speech. I have very very limited ability to do anything with those unless they they end up at our swaileles or

or public rightways. And I will tell you that uh last year's uh political season, I did not even go after the ones in public right away simply because no one really knows where the people, let's put it, people, the people that place these signs generally don't know where the right of way starts or where the right of way ends. I can't go out there and tell you where the right of way starts or where the rightway ends. All I know is I've got a Supreme Court case that basically says to planners, "Keep your hands off of these things." Just basically, and I call it election silly season. You know, the signs go up. The only thing I I do is that 30 days after that election, we do a cleanup. We literally take a pickup truck and we clean up everybody's

signs that have been left out. I wonder why you wait 30 days. So, we we wait 30 days to just just to be because none of those ever want the signs back. I have a hard time giving them back to them. I've had I've had elected officials ask me for them back and I don't know what they're going to use them for. Maybe they weren't successful and they're going to wait till the I don't know. But I as a practice and uh you know if you all want to change the way I practice this, we can debate that. But when it comes to political signs, I am just not going near those. The the Supreme Court ruling on this was very very distinctive, very clear.

Does our uh campaign or political sign ordinance allow for a sign other than the snipe sign? I've only seen snipe signs, but I mean, you could put up a 4x8 piece of plywood on your private property if you want to put up a sign on your property that says, "Yeah, vote for me." Yeah, you can do that. I I think we're fine on campaigns. Yeah, just campaigns. Uh uh. Anybody else have questions for Mark?

Um just one uh wondering like once this is in place, if it all goes through and gets approved for the exemption, is there any like oversight at all or does each department in the city, the events people and stuff just kind of do what they want and as long as nobody says anything.

Let's talk about what the practice has been. The practice has been nobody has ever come to me from any department and asked to put up a sign. So I think I assume it'll continue as as it's in the past. But at least now if anybody wants to try to tilt at the windmill, we have an ordinance that basically says these signs are exempt. until the tail of that book. Including today, we still don't have that ordinance in place. And if it just you feel like somebody went way off the you know, you'll address.

Well, I don't think there are any departments I can think of, and you can all correct me if I'm wrong, and you all have been, you know, including people in the audience, you've all been here a lot longer than I have. Um I haven't seen any what I would call egregious over oversteps by any of the any of the departments including you know fire police u peer committee whoever it is. Um the only I have re one of the complaints I did receive once and I'll let you know what it is 17 we've got a program going on right now where we're trying to remove all illegal signs which include feather signs and one of the things that the business committee has done in the past is that I guess there's a business of the month or business of the year and they will place a feather sign on that sign asking for that so they would this would make them exempt from the prohibited feather sign ordinance. That's the only complaint I've ever received. Anyone else? I have a few questions, unfortunately. So, is the language that is in our packet with regard to the sign exemption the same language as we were presented with at our last meeting that you asked everyone to comment on or is it a a revised thing and we just can't tell how it is?

It's the same. It's the same. It's the same. So, did you not get comments where people would want to tweak things or did you reject the comment? What what what are we I received zero comments except from you, but that was a cleanup of the existing ordinance to make reference to the changes that we're making here. So, putting the the appropriate section numbers, things like that. So, how do we advance this without having it as part of a package? You will have that. It's your public a part of your public hearing package.

This is a this is an again this is an item for conversation or what I call discussion. So what you have before you is kind of roughly what will come before you. But when it comes to public hearing it's going to be the full sign code with strikeouts and red lines and you're going to see all of the new language in red, all of the deleted language and crossout. Uh, so it'll be a very clear ordinance that you'll be able to literally look at and go, "Okay, I see what we're doing here." Okay. So, I would request that as part of that process um, you look at section 850.

Sure. to see how that relates because to me that section um maybe addresses some of the bandit snipe uh stuff, not as to um uh the uh signs for events or whatever, but just in general. And it has language where it's um saying that it's um exempting the political sides. We also have, you know, political science and just um general.

Would you mind telling me what section 8 of the chap chapter section 8 is? What is it under? Oh, it's under miscellaneous offenses. Wow. Okay. Yes. It seems it seems like perhaps that should go in the sign ordinance. Let's I will endeavor to I will endeavor to Well, okay, let's let's talk about that for just a moment. Okay. So, what we're going to do now is not only are we going to modify See, as a planning commission, you get the modified zoning code and other parts of the municipal code like the development regulations and things like that. That's why I asked you specifically what chapter was. it it's not in our bailway.

That's right. Uh but it is sufficiently related that I'm raising the question, should it be part of zoning or at least somehow tied into the zone? Yeah, the answer is yes. and I will review section 850 and make sure that I will carry forward any pertinent planning items out of section 850 particularly with signs coming. Yeah, because it the minute I read it, it just sounded just like bandit and snipe signs without using those words. And uh

well, Madam Chairman, I have to hand it to you. You're searching parts of the municipal code that nobody else has. That's why I asked because I had never heard of chapter 8. I miscellaneous what? Miscellaneous offenses. Okay. It's a very interesting um chapter.

Okay. Um and uh it just struck me as odd although it is in conjunction with u provisions on trespass which kind it kind of dubtales with that because you would say that putting uh signs up indiscriminately all over the place is a trespass.

Trespass. So anyway, um any other questions? We'll move on. Okay, let's move on to um the amendment to section 17 uh 2011. So this is the section and I'm gonna let myself quickly here. This is a section of the code that provides the planning director, the the development director um with the ability to provide some exceptions and modifications particularly when it applies to substandard but what we call legal non-conforming lots. Means the lot was legally conformed but it was conformed before the zoning took place. So what you've got is you've got 6,000 7,000 8,000 square foot lots in a zone that designates the minimum lot size for instance at 9,000 square feet. So proport so you can imagine proportionately why this is in there. This is in there because we're try then what we're going to try to do. We have a 9,000 square foot lot size standard and we have regulations that relate to a 9,000 square foot standard or larger. Now you move that onto a smaller piece of property and you can almost envision how that would be detrimental to the ability of that property owner to enjoy use of that property in the same way other members of the community enjoy that the I have no problem with the exceptions at all. What I'm concerned with, and I'm always concerned with words and language. And what it does is it allows

the director to modify setbacks and yards. And I can't tell you how deep a dive I did on the word yards and what that meant and what it didn't mean. And I will tell you that I came away from that saying that yards does not include lot coverage, impervious coverage, or any of those types of things. I believe that the intent was to do that, but the wording, the words used in the ordinance, I would say were ill conceived. The word, it should be very clear. It should say if we're going to permit an exception, let's list out what the exceptions specifically are, not just use a broad term like yards as part of the exception. Um, I don't get to use this section of the ordinance very often, but I will tell you it's very useful when I get one of these small lots in and they are just crunched trying to get things on the lot. So, with your permission, what I'd like to do is come back to you for a public hearing to recommend approval of the request as presented um to basically if you go to I guess the last page of the staff report on this, you can see where I've struck first of all the code enforcement official. Oh, and by the way, that's another cleanup for another day down the road, folks. My my post at town hall has at least four that I can find different titles for who who I am and what I do. I am not the code enforcement official. I am the planning and zoning director or most cases in the code. I am called the development administrator which isn't what is on my door or on my on my business card. I think that's what it's called. And what it's going to allow me to do is to remove the word yard and

replace it with the words minimum lot and imperous coverages which is exactly how it's written in the code. I want to use that exact language um to modify the exceptions and modifications to allow me to make exceptions to setbacks, lots, lot coverage, and impervious coverage. That gives me a broad range of of tools to be able to grant some kind of relief to these smaller lots. And that completes my staff report. Be glad to answer any questions that you might have. here. Let's talk about the the down side of that bad side out loud. Uh I want to emphasize that this is not personal to the current staff at all. Actually, those of you who've been here a while know that we've had in the recent past, we've had we've had a significant period of time where we've either had a temporary fill in or a not particularly competent staff. The idea of giving zoning discretionary authority to staff, please don't take it personally.

Just just gives me a lot of heartburn. I don't think it's a good idea to have it in the ordinance that uh any staff member has the authority on on these zoning things that could be called variances. It's we've been burned before with with the discretionary authority and the wrong standard plans. That's all I have. Anyone else? No. Um, Mark, what is I assume there's an administrative variance and it's typically the unit of measure is a percentage. Is that correct? It is. It typically in most codes that I've worked for,

most codes that I work with, just to give you all sort of a little bit of background because yeah, that's why I'm here.

Give you some background on other places and what they do. I have never seen an administrative relaxation as high as 20% in my entire career. Most of the time it's limited to f five or 10%. It's a m what I call a minor modification. Minor modification meaning you know 10% of a 15 foot setback is you know is negligible on the ground. 20% is what's currently in the code. I'm not suggesting to amend that. Um I hear what the commissioner is saying about allowing that much administrative discretion um on the part of a single person. U however the difference here is and I want to make this perfectly clear is the other relaxations in other codes that I've worked under were not specifically for undersized lots. It was across the board. It was like you have a conforming lot. I still had in those towns I still had what I call a 10% discretionary compliance allowed to me to make things work to to widget things in on lots that sometimes just don't work. Um and what that does is it cut counts cuts down on the number of what I would call superfluous variance requests going to the board of appeals. It allows me to sort of nip it in the butt, if you will. Um, I believe that this one because it's written specifically for undersized lots is not an egregious uh discretion.

What What would you find because you dealt with it and I just I'm North Carolina public school math educated here. Um, you've got the you've you've got the the tiered lot sizes, correct? Whatever they are, and then you've got the non the legal non-conforming lots. So, if you're taking, given your example, a 9,000

square foot lot and you've got a, you know, 15 foot setback and then that's a percentage and then you apply that because you don't have a classification for a 7,000 square foot lot, right? Would you say that the 20% administrative variance covers more than covers or doesn't cover that deviation? Because my given the feedback that we've already gotten and I I I hadn't been here and I hadn't experienced it.

Sure. the the compromise that I see in this is specifically for this particular administrative variance is just to make sure it's no more than it needs to be for the foreseeable gaps. The uh the thing that I want to clarify is it allows me to up to right 20%. So, I had a conversation with a another planner that I respect. Um, that person's been around as long as I have. I said, 'What do you think about this? And he says, 'Well,

how much smaller is the lot than the minimum size lot? Maybe that's the percentage you give them. So, if it's an 8,000 lot, we're not going to apply the 6,000 square, you know, the 6,000 square foot lot, probably get the full 20%. The 8,000 square foot lot would maybe only get five or six or seven or eight%. Right. um that isn't stated in here, but the maximum variance is 20. No, no, of of the lot sizes saying would result in a percent variance of something less than 20%.

Exactly. Well, I'm just my suggestion is to try to address the concern of my fellow commissioner, but also retain the ability to facilitate, expedite, whatever you want to call it, the the the citizens ability to do what they want to do with their lot is just figure out what the worst case scenario is and what that comes out to as a percent of administrative variance. And if you cover the worst case scenario, you've got everything else covered. And if that's something less than 20%, then you don't you don't need it%. No, I I I would I would submit to you that 20% uh that's high. I' I've never heard it's high.

Yeah. 15. But again, I think the way and again different d you know, different directors are going to interpret different things, right? So, if somebody comes into me, okay, let's say the minimum lot size is 9,000, and somebody comes to me with a lot that's half that, 4500 square feet, they're getting the full 20%. Because they are just shoehorned. They are grieved. They are seriously hamstrung. But if somebody comes in with a 9,000, I mean, if it's a 9,000, somebody comes to me with an 8,000,

I'm talking like five or six% maybe max. I mean, it gives me, you know, what it does is just gives me the opportunity to make things work relative to the proportions of the lot. That's all it really does. And I would submit to you that um whether or not you liked what previous directors did or did not do, I'm telling you as I'm sitting here today, but the language in our code is the problem. It wasn't the person at the helm. It was the It was the language. And I will tell you that somebody who interpret if if I interpreted yards the way my predecessor interpreted yards, I would not be coming to you this evening with any problems. I would just be granting 20% 20% variance, basically discretionary variances. I don't think that's right. I want the lang. I'm very much about the language and what the law says. And if it says yards and nobody can agree on what yards means,

we have a problem. I'm just trying to clean up the language. If you all think that you want to modify the percentage, that's that's on the table. Uh but I'm suggesting to you that the yards mean something very specific to single family lot development, and that is lot coverage and lot permeability. I want to make sure I get those right. And that's what the that's what the revised law will say. The dirt and the concrete. The dirt and the concrete. Yeah, exactly. Yes.

Just aside, do you have any idea how many lots are imp would be impacted? I mean, how many we have that would be

any do you have any I don't mean to put you on the spot. Do you have any? No. Well, point well taken, but what we're talking about is how many vacant lots we have left and how many vacant lots are not conforming. I would tell you that of the total number of lots that we have, the number of non-performing lots is minuscule. It's not that big. I would I've counted on the map and I'm sure my m I'm sure my I didn't count every single one of them, but there's somewhere between 40 and 50 vacant lots left in the community. Most of those, I will tell you, are the R1 um which is the biggest lot size. Yeah. Um

um are we really only talking about vacant lots? Let me think that through because well we're talking about knockdown and rebuilds. Okay. We're talking about knockdown and rebuilds. We're talking about additions. Yeah. We're talking about pools, right? Um so no, we're talking there's a significant number. But I have been here what going on? Seven months. What? only one's come and asked for this. Okay. U I was really just curious as to how you know how many It's It's not like I have a landslide of of paper on my desk waiting for the modification. No, I just wonder how many are out there.

Oh, there's I would say there's a number of non-conforming lots in the in the area. When we laid this lot these lots out in the 1950s, they weren't thinking about 9,000 square foot lot sizes or 6,000 square foot lot sizes. They were just building under Ory County subdivision regulations which meant they were created legally and that's why we call them legal non-conforming lots.

So I do have some questions. Sure. Um because uh I don't understand most of this. Um, first off, um, are we sure that this, uh, um, ordinance really just doesn't have a typo in it and you should delete the or between yards and setbacks and that would make the work? No, I've seen I've seen that's a common language usage in zoning codes and it drives zoning administrators insane. But those are defined terms in our ordinance.

Yards. If you if you combine the words yard setback, that would be a completely different metric than what what's what's in the code. It says yards or setbacks or yards and setbacks.

It's okay. It's there is a or in there but we have both definitions for yards and we have definitions for setback and they seem to be very much related. And so I didn't know whether or not this was just a typo in the ordinance where something got uh erroneously uh put in or carried forward. Unfortunately, you can't look at the regulatory history here because it only shows you what was done in 2020 and that was just about the handicap ramps. So, it doesn't solve the uh problem. Uh all of that said, uh in your uh uh I'm I'm not sure where I've come out on this whole what other than I don't like the language minimum lot and impervious coverages because I read our regulations as not having minimums with regard to those but um they set maximums that You can't have any more than this. And I don't view that as being a minimum. I view that as being a maximum. And so um really you need in my mind you need to tweak the language more. But I was very intrigued by what you were saying with regard to John's questions as they do with Mary Ellen's questions. So why shouldn't we just uh uh radically uh or more radically change this language and make it part of the code and not an exception to say that if

you have a non-conforming lot, these numbers are reduced by the percentage by which your lot is nonconforming. and then you just build it right into the zoning ordinance. And it's not an exception that you have to grant. It's a whatever. It's just already there. Um I guess the discretion is taken out of it and um it's just uh it's a it's a different it it's radically different language because you have to do it. I don't know whether you're doing it in this uh that's what I was that was going to be my next question.

I don't know whether you're doing it in this section or you're having to repeat it in each of the following sections.

Generally, it would go in something called general provisions, which there really aren't a clear set of general provisions of the code. Um I like where it is. I don't want to I'm not proposing that we structurally change to put this exception in every one of the zoning districts. And just to repeat, just to make our our code even more ownorous and more difficult to navigate. Um, this, as you know, this doesn't apply to any one single zone. This applies to any non-conforming lot. Um, I I do appreciate your language, your your suggestion though, where it says reduction of required minimum lot and previous, you could just say reduction of Latin and previous coverages. It doesn't have to say minimum or maximum. Actually, I don't want to get into that semantic word word scramble. It' be easier just to take the word minimum out and just say with regard to lot coverage and and lot and uh impervious coverage,

but you are doing a reduction and that's still doesn't work for me. Um I I don't know that that's why I uh suggested you before that ad such struggle with these languages because you're not really reducing um I don't think no you are if if okay so if you have a not to exceed number right are you really reducing that number you are well actually you're allowing more coverage more coverage you're allowing more coverage and that's the relaxation That's allowing that's my difficulty with the uh uh language. If our goal is to make this

crystal clear crystal clear, I don't think we're doing that. If people think about the whole idea of what the um the building size and the impervious coverage uh uh uh numbers are meant to be. Okay, I'm gonna put you on the spot. You're an attorney. Okay. No, no, no. You can't ask for my legal opinion. I am not No, I'm not asking for your legal opinion. You're a word person. I am a word person.

You I'm a word person. So that's why I I want to get this right because I want it to be crystal clear because I'm not going to be here in 15 years. There's going to be somebody else fresh and new face here and I want them to be able to understand this unequivocally. Right? So the the key line here is and the the existing languages may authorize the reduction of required minimum lot impervious coverages. To me that's to me that's clear to you it's not. So that's a problem. Okay. So it authorized authorized the

to me it authorized the reduction of required yard setbacks. We have yard setbacks. No no that's that's no no don't don't stay with me on this. Okay stay now. It says reduction of yards or setbacks. That's what it currently says. Yards or setbacks. Okay. Reduction of yards or setbacks. I would take I'm gonna say reduction or I'm guessing authorize the allowance of trying to think of the language here off the top of my head and it's hard. Uh

isn't what we're really trying to say to these property owners is that we won't because you're a a undersized lot, we won't require you to have as much setback as as everybody else. Correct. So if we um uh uh change the setbacks for you, you have more uh land to play with to do your developing. Do you really need any more than that? Yes. Okay. Why?

Because the project that I'm sitting on right now meets all the setbacks. It doesn't meet the lot coverage. And the lot coverage is what? 30 I think it's 30%. The one I'm dealing with is 30%. So I I I guess I still don't get it. What um if if lot coverage is a not to exceed number. Yeah. You can't cover more than 30%. You can't cover more than this amount. Um, and the project came in and and I'll give you an I'll give you a real life example. It came in and it was 37%. Okay.

And I couldn't permit it based on the existing language because yards to me doesn't include lot coverage. That's what I'm trying to clear up here. Okay. Okay. Okay. Three before. All right. Uh, so then why isn't they do you have a general provision in chapter 17? Mhm. Why can't we just write a very simple thing that says it's it's a math equation. If your lot is x% uh smaller than the um uh required lot size,

um you get to reduce all of the numbers in your zoning section by that same percentage. I understand we're adjust. Maybe the word is not reduce. It's you adjust. Adjust. Yeah, I hear what you're saying. And I'm going to tell you I disagree with you. Okay. Why? I'm going to tell you disagree with you because I like that. Because then then then there's no there's no administrator's discretion. You're taking all of my discretion away. Now you're setting it as a standard. You're saying the discretion is standardized.

That doesn't give me the opportunity to work around oak trees. doesn't give me the opportunity to work around things. I mean, the reason it's discretion is because I know you're not going to believe this, but every one of the houses that come in that need this are all different. The lots narrow, the lots wide, the lots pie shaped. Um, it just having that having this in my my quiver makes life for people trying to develop these lots a lot simpler. If you want to, it sounds like you want to regulate it. You want basically you're taking the discretion away and you want to regulate it based on percentage. That makes sense to me. Don't don't get me wrong. That makes sense to me. But it's not going to address the next one that comes in that can't meet that that particular standard. It gives me no discretion whatsoever.

So why doesn't that become a variance? Okay, there's a difference between a variance and a and a director's discretion. A director's discretion allows small minor adjustments to site development standards. They don't have to show hardship. If you sit on the board of appeals, you know that that's a quasi judicial process, right? And you have to make four findings. And if you can't make all four of them, you have to deny the variance. This is a simpler I hate to say it this way a simpler variance process

that allows some minor

some minor yeah some minor stuff whereas somebody could come in for a variance let's say to let's say they've got a massive oak tree in their front yard or where they want to put something and they can't meet the 15oot front setback they can come in and they can show they can show a hardship that I don't want to take down this 200 year old oak tree. Please let me put my set back here. That's what a variance is for for for bonafide hardship. This is in a way a hardship. You have a sized lot and you're trying to build on it. Um I I don't know any other way to describe it. If you want if you want to try to regulate it based on lot size the percentage being based on lot size I can do that. I'm just telling you it just really sort of takes a lot of discretion of my ability my ability. Now I'm not saying I know that you've not had great directors in the past and I know I know I have all your trust. I know that I feel that I have I believe I have that with the council as well. But what happens when Mark dies five years leaves leaves five years from now? Somebody

somebody's going to be somebody else is going to be is going to be is going to have this discretion. My only heartburn the whole thing is the amount that 20% is much higher and I'm value of my you look to me for value of my experience. 20 is incredibly high amount of discretion to get to the director. Incredibly high. So then is your recommendation to um uh go this route with the exception and the director making those decisions but maybe ratchet down that percentage. I believe that's I believe that's for you to decide.

Okay. I believe that's for you to decide. M

if I if I could comment I think listening to to kind of everything. I I'm not I'm not sure that the chairman's comments about the methodology was based on her wanting to regulate it. I I think her comments because what it did for me anyway was it clarified it and and and the logic made sense that the rule was written for a lot this size. Your lot is 40% less than the lot this size. So therefore, you are entitled to a 40% just no just, you know, no administrative variance necessary. You're you're entitled to 40%.

Correct. Clear anybody with half a brain and enough money to develop a lot here is going to be able to figure that out. Absolutely. Even with North Carolina public school.

So what my thinking is is that you use for methodology for the sake of clarity. There may be a side bonus of regulation, but for clarity and then you retain the administrative variance at some percentage that that makes sense less than 20 and provide the logic of how you came up with that. I mean, you know, and then that way you retain that and we'll definitely have one no vote with the not liking it at all. All right, help me here. Who has a who has a calculator in front of them? Because because might be

we're we're gonna get to the bottom. Okay. So, if you have a 9,000 square foot lot and I'm allowing a 20% thing, what what is 80% of 9,000? What is 80% of 9,000? I can't do it in my head. I have 7200. Yeah. 7200. Okay. Question. I have a 5,000 foot lot. You gonna let me drop it to 45% or 30% of what the the the discretion is? Well, no. If you What size lot did you say it is? 4,000. 5,000. All right. So, 5,000. So, you're not going to allow them to do a 50% reduction? I'm sure

a 50% reduction of the setbacks. Yeah.

I I don't understand if you're using your logic. Yeah. And I'm using your logic here, right? Is that you're saying that we ought to have it like, okay, if you're the minimum lot size is nine, right?

If you're eight, you get this percentage. If you're 7,000, you get this percentage. If you're 6,000, you get this percentage. Well, once you drop below 7,200 square feet, you're not getting any kind of real relief. You're just you're stuck at, you know, the the plate only goes so high. You're the maximum percentage you're going to get is 20%. Stop messing around with the ordinance and just give me a broad 20% and let's stop nitpicking the ordinance because that's why the ordinance is such a freaking mess is that we try to but it's like overdesign the order.

Yeah. Yeah. I was I was viewing her methodology is just the opposite of that. Making it a hell of a lot more simple. No, it doesn't make it simple. But I understand at a certain level of math, you're you're really you're not helping everybody creating a a mess because if you had almost zero setback, you're going to be building or you could be building right up to your neighbors. Well, then you then you put a minimum. Yeah. And again, the math works up to up up to when it gets to x number of%. No, please don't.

Right. I get it now. I mean I mean this is this you have to think. Stop and think about when I got this and the applicant says it says yards that means lot coverage. I was like well no I'm sorry yards doesn't mean lot coverage. So that's the first thing I had to clear up was it's not yards, it's lot coverage and lot permeability. And what you're trying to do now is you're trying to legislate on a sliding scale the reduction that you get based on how much smaller you are than the minimum lot size. uh just you're just trying to skip.

I mean I'm just curious how many lots do we have that are less than what 5,000 square feet by the time you start banging into I'm sorry I don't have that I mean I don't I don't know there are out there. I mean there there's some small ones out there. Yeah. I was dealing with one day before yesterday get that tiny house ordinance up. Yeah, tiny homes. Nobody's building tiny homes. That one. And I don't have to. And and you all know this and I've had, you know, you've listened to me gripe about this before.

Everybody that builds now because of the price of the lot is building the maximum square footage, maximum height, maximum lot coverage. Yeah. Minimum setbacks. Everybody. Sure. So, it's tough. We talk about u manionization and I firmly believe that this town is headed into an era of tear down and rebuild

to the maximum allowed. I do not understand. We meet all the time. I can't remember the last time the board of zoning appeals met. Why don't we let the board of zoning appeals do its job? I know what most of this I I can see a little bit of discretion, but I I think it ought to be cut off real short and let BCA decide some of this, especially with all the more that's coming. I have a chair just a minute. Did you have a response other than shaking your head, which is not going on our

You're not putting me on record on what I think about how BCA's work in the state of South Carolina. I have seen variances given because somebody got up and cried and they still made four findings saying that there was a hardship. Please Be careful what you hope for with boards of appeals. They are very, very useful when they do and follow state law. I don't know our board of appeals. I've never met with the folks. I've met with three or four in this state and I will tell you that I sit there just rubbing my head thinking to myself, we are going to get sued. We are going to get sued. Madam Chair,

I've been to quite a few boarding appeals meetings in this town and I found it to be excellent and very consciously very very good. So I didn't talk about them like that. No. Okay. I'm not talking about them like that. I'm talking about the ones that I've dealt with in the past. Madam Chair, yes. Can I speak now? Yes. Okay. Um, with all due respect to Mary Ellen, um, I'm a recipient of the board of appeals and I happen to be out of town when they made a decision on a property adjacent to mine and I will say that I wasn't happy at all. Um, the giving are I assume you're being paid for your job, right?

I am.

Yes. um we're paying you to have some discretion to do to look at our laws and interpret them and follow through. Um you know this board I understand they they want to make laws as specific as possible which gives us a lot more power. You know, I I personally I could care less about being on this board and having power over laws and over individuals. Um but what we do I support actually what you're proposing and there's a few different reasons. um you know we we we talked about you know questioning well maybe we should do a rolling scale and um but I think they forgot about variables that you just mentioned which is pretty important you know being able to work with individuals and to reason with individuals is the right thing to do and that's your job and I think giving you the power to do your job u maybe there's been problems in the past. Um, but you know what? I mean, we're all human and I think if we can reason together and work with this town and with individuals, um, we might be a little more popular than what we are right now. Um, giving the director discretion is my personal vote. Um, less government regulation and having to go through a million different hoops is what I don't agree with. and uh you know taking it to the board of appeals may benefit some but then it doesn't benefit others and it didn't benefit me because I felt through the through the cracks and if there would have been a director that could have intervened and used some common sense I

wouldn't have been in the situation that I was in. Uh so again I support what you're proposing. Thank you. Anyone else? and I'll just leave it at that. If we go down this road, okay, and I think it uh uh depends on that. Let let me let me conclude by saying one thing.

I wasn't forced to bring this to you this evening. I get tripped up on our ordinance daily. Daily. My job is to make legislation. That's understandable. If I'm not doing that, then I'm not doing my job. So, I would ask you all are planning commissioners and you all have my email address. you look at this language and please think about the language that I've written here and think about how you would amend it to make it crystal clear not to me but to everybody living out there in Surfside land something simple something that people understand uh because if I have to sit down and interpret the word yard and get attorneys on the phone and call MASC and ask them to define the word yard and then call some call an attorney in Charleston who's a land use attorney and ask him to define the word yard and they're not on the same page. The word yard goes away. So that's what I'm trying to do. I'm just trying to make improvements here. I'm not trying to micromanage the code. I'm I'm dealing with very specific instances that come to me regularly. Thank you. Uh the Okay, I'll wait for the I

think you're up next, too.

Yeah, I am. U regard to the uh commercial reg. Um, the request before you this evening is to amend the zoning on the corner of Surfside Drive and Highway 17 on the north east corner known by the defunct gas station here. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page that we all know what the lot is that we're talking about. I don't have a better way to have it other than there's an ugly little blue and white building out there that's been sitting for a number of years. That's the way I describe it. That's my technical language for it. Um there are actually two parcels that comprise that site. Um both owned by the same owner. Um so the parcels function as a single development site and are being processed together for zoning consistency. The um purpose for the zone change obviously is for somebody who wants to do something that isn't allowed in C2 that is allowed in C1. I see it from a bigger picture. I don't see it from that perspective at all. And it's the only reason I'm carrying water on this zone change. The C2 zone, for those of you who don't know, is called the central business district commercial. That means downtown commercial. That means walkable side storefronts up at the back of the sidewalk, walkable streets. That's all the area that zone C2. The parcel that we're talking about sits squarely on Highway 17. And every parcel on Highway 17 is zone C1. that parcel and the parcel directly across the street by I'll call it the surfboard shop and the the

you probably all know the uses better than I do, but it's that's the only other site that's zone C2, but if you look at the physical configuration on that lot, that lot was developed as central business district kind of commercial because the buildings are pulled up front. There isn't massive parking in the front like there is on the C1 zoning stuff on Highway 17. So to me, it's a bigger issue than just the proposed use and what they want to do on it. It's actually making that site consistent with how it was originally developed, how it's developed out there right now. That's developed. That's not a downtown site out there. Nobody can tell me that that little blue and white building is a downtown oriented building. That is a highway commercial gas station. And the correct zoning for that site is C1. Now, let me take a step back and sort of counter my what I just told you. I have heartburn. And the heartburn that I have is that I would love to see that site developed as a C2 site with a downtown oriented building on it. My question to you is how long are we going to wait for that to happen? I don't know. I don't have the answer for you. I don't have a crystal ball. But if we could replicate what's on the corner across the street on that site, I think everybody would be ecstatic. I don't know if that that ever happens. I just don't know if that ever happens. Uh the primary reason for me coming to you with this request is because I believe that that site actually does it currently functions as a C1 project. see one site. A gas station, believe it or not, is drive is a drive-thru establishment. It's drive-thru. It's not a It's not a surf

shop that you go into the shop. It's a drive-thru. So, it's already developed as a C1. It acts as a C1. It's on Highway 17, which is C1. Uh primary reason the applicant is coming to us is because C2 does not allow drive-thru. And the proposed project coming forward to us includes a drive-thru and it's currently zone C1 and it's zone currently C2. It's currently zone C2 which does doesn't allow doesn't allow drive-thru.

So this is a this is one that I'm I'm toss I'm throw you know it's like a tip off in basketball. I'm tipping this one off. I don't have any I don't have a strong feeling either way except to say that I believe that site historically has acted as a C1 project because it was a drive-thru. It was a gas station that is a highway commercial use whereas a gas can you imagine a gas station on Surfside Drive someplace. Those aren't allowed in the CVD district. Those just simply aren't allowed. the project coming forward to you. Um, if we decide to move forward on this and bring it to public hearing, I'm sure the applicant will appear. Uh, the applicant will tell you all of the good things that they do. And frankly, it's probably one of the better drive-through establishments that I've encountered in several years. It's a it's a different kind of drive-thru. Um, if any of you are familiar with Chick-fil-A, you know that you don't talk to a squawk box. You talk to a live person with an iPad in their hand, same way. The only thing they're going to serve coffee, not desserts, not, you know, not donuts, not pastries, and coffee, period. Um, I would say to you, the only thing I think is I wonder if it's on the right side of the street or the wrong side of the street to catch the morning traffic. I guess it probably is on the right side of the street if you're going into North Beach, right? If you're coming from the south. Um, so again, it's a tossup. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Um, I want you to know that if it were to be reszoned, C1 commercial corridor, that is consistent with the future land use map in the comprehensive plan. It's not inconsistent. It's consistent. Um, and I wonder

there there would be another way to approach the project. Let me let me stop. Let me just take a pause here. There's another way to approach this. And I don't think we want to go down this route, and that is to simply allow drive-throughs in the current zoning districts. I don't think we want to go there. God, God forbid that somebody buy a building on our I call it our cute little main street out here,

take a building out and put a put 35 parking spaces in front and put the building all the way at the back of the lot. That kills the downtown pedestrian orientation of what we have here. So, we need to protect that. I think that that is a a golden goose that we can't. So while it's an alternative, I'm not making that recommendation to you. The recommendation to you is to simply zone these two parcels from C2 to C1. I'll stop there. Madam Chair, yes.

So help help us understand here. Um, the current gas station that is there is technically legal non-conforming as it says. If another gas station would go in there, it would continue to be legal non-conforming. And the second question I have, the use the use is in a C2 zone. A gas station is in a C2 zone. That is not allowed in a C2 zone. That is a legal non-conforming use.

What I'm sorry to interrupt. What why would um another gas station be allowed on that site if they continued? Well, how long? Okay, the question for all of you. How long has it been vacant? Long. Long time. Yeah, they have to come back. They have to come back with the with the conforming years. Yeah. And that's not my point. It's another gas station there. I'm just saying no what was there was le

um so the second question I have is this business that is inquiring are they requesting a zoning change or are you suggesting that we change the zoning so that this company has a better opportunity more likely to be able to open business. They came to me with the request to modify the zoning. And I said to them, I won't take it forward unless I think it makes sense because of the drive-thru.

Because of the drive-thru. And I said to him, I says, "Well, a gas, you know, the gas station, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a drive-thru. It's existing. It's a legal non-conforming use. It's a existing legal non-conforming use. So, in order to make the use consistent and legal, we have to modify the zoning for the drive-thru from C2 to C1.

Yeah. Number three, um we just had a request recently, I'm not sure, I think it was right before you on that, um a business was interested in doing something similar, wasn't coffee, something else, that there would be a drive-thru. Um and I think you know there was some concerns and hopes that that property would be similar to would be developed like it is in downtown the reality and you know what could be who knows what will so um uh I just wanted to bring that up because it was very recent but um I didn't know much about the business and what their business plan was, but I think uh coffee might be a better idea than they were suggesting. So, thank you.

So, I need all your help historically here, but my understanding it was the reuse of the existing structure for a convenience store without a drive-thru. They can't have a drive-thru with the drive. They wanted that. It's not allowed. It wasn't. They asked for some. Yeah, they Oh, they asked for a reason. Yeah. Oh, okay. So, they were going in the same direction as this one.

Well, it starts to tell you something, I guess, right? That that the site is really it's really built and oriented to be a highway commercial commercial site. What I have found is that if we reszone it to C1, it is absolutely, and I want this to be clear, absolutely not guaranteed that the use that's talking to me is going to be there. They're in a 90day what they call review period with the owner. Okay? There's an owner of the site who is signed is going to be signing the application for the res. This is a potential tenant on the site. Um the existing tenant that you all talked about, the convenience store, they have been paying a lease on that property for the last seven months. I don't know. They must have deep pockets, but my is that this tenant has talked to the owner and the owner is going to be entering into a long-term lease this project. My only point here is is if we change the zoning, there is absolutely no guarantee we're going to get this super cool coffee shop. Okay. It's going to be a Seaborn zone.

Just a couple of things. So, you're saying that the folks who came before us before still have a lease on that property that my understanding. Okay. So, if that's true and if we change the zoning to C1 and the coffee shop doesn't come in, they can do what they wanted to do.

Absolutely. Um, so also I I just I know that you're saying that it is that what has was there before is technically a drive-thru. And I understand why you're saying that, but I think as far as a drive-thru, as most people know it, it was not really a drive-thru. No, I understand what you're saying. So, I do think that there is a difference there. There's certainly a traffic difference there. Um, I also think that if we even consider anything like that, we need to talk to the fire department first

about about the traffic there. The fire department. It's their major access. I mean, I just think it's we just need to talk to them. No, no, I understand what you're saying. I did right here. Yeah, I know. And we talked about that with the when we first turned down the previous. So, First Avenue North.

So, but but my my real concern, not well, I have several concerns, but one of my concerns out of what you just said was that this coffee shop doesn't do it, doesn't come through, the other people still have a lease. They come and do what they wanted to do that we've already turned them down for. Mhm.

Then explain something to me because I'm just a dumb kid out here. Yeah, I'm just a dumb kid here. That le a was moving forward with a convenience store without a drive-thru. They were simply moving forward with a convenience store that wasn't going to have a drive-thru because I've talked to them. They were moving forward with a convenience store that wasn't a drive. And I was working with a design overlay with them trying to get them to redesign that ugly little blue and white building into something we could all be proud of. And when I showed it to them, I think there was a there was a collective gasp in the room like, "Oh my god, how much money are we going to spend making it look like that?" And I haven't heard from them since.

Well, heaven forbid it should look good at cornering a man in Maine. Yeah, right. I know. Yeah. Yeah. Um, well, so where' the coffee guy come from then? Regional regional coffee user in the area called Seven Brew. Well, I know I know who they are. Several in the in the area. He was just looking for a site and that site fit the parameters. I I suspect and he just called. I suspect that's true. Sure.

Do you have more? Would you like the floor? Sorry. Um, yeah, I did I did have one thing to say. Thank you. Um, going back to a point you made a few minutes ago, I fully fully 100% agree that you do not want to set a precedent for allowing the drive-thru in the current zoning, whereas it's it 100% don't you dare do that. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Never. So, that that's just bad legislation.

So, I I definitely agree with that. And as far as what ends up being on site, I mean, how long is that site sat vacant? I mean, I know they want to act like to compel us to do what they want us to do. Oh, we'll come in there with a gas station tomorrow, you know, or whatever. Well, hasn't happened yet. And I don't know that phase the actual tests and stuff on phase one, phase two have been done on that lot at all.

So, you know, I I don't feel threatened by that that that they would say we'll just come in with a gas station, you know, in order to get us to change the zoning for a coffee shop. So, that's my feeling. I'm done. M chair,

I have a couple of questions. First of all, I'd like to establish for the record because this has been so confusing to me. At this time, there is no formal application, no fee has been paid and no clock is ticking on this application. Correct. Thank you. Uh I I have absolutely no problem with a with a seven brew in the town. I think that would be a great thing, but I'm not at all convinced that that's the proper piece of property for it to be on. I'm very worried about traffic concerns and the fire department. Uh, I also would like to know if there are any environal environmental remediation concerns stemming from the property having been a gas station with storage tanks. Do you know?

No. And and that really again I'm going to sound like a school teacher here and I don't mean to but when you consider a zone change when the planning commission comm considers a zone change and when the town council considers a zone change it's about the zone change only it's not about remediation of the site that's going to happen way down the line. I don't know what the I don't know what's under that site. The other thing is, and I I've told Planet Commissions this for eons, and I understand that um it doesn't make sense to you, but the only debate this evening is whether that site should be a C2 site or a C1 site. Forget about the use for a moment. Think long term. Think long term. My concern is that uh any potential lei at that site who's a good one may run screaming when somebody points out that there are environmental remediation concerns. So all this talk,

you know, I we've got the applicant on the uh the application includes reference to to seven and brew coffee and I I don't know if I were on their board of directors, I'd run screaming if there were environmental questions on the property and That's that's their due diligence.

I'm also concerned as other people have expressed that uh all right you say it's it's only about reszoning. So we reszone today and seven brew runs screaming. We are up a creek with what could wind up on that property that I look at as the front door of our town. And I don't like that gamble one bit. That's all I have to say. Um I guess I you know because I had remembered when this topic was discussed last time even though I wasn't um the commission at that point and it was denied and I do remember you know there was big concerns about putting a drive-thru there and does anyone on this commission feel like those concerns have changed? I mean, what going from one applicant to another, will we continue to receive the same request for a zoning change? And it doesn't seem like the issues have been resolved

from a planning perspect from a long-term planning perspective. If we're talking about a again my job is to advise you and I'm not telling you that I feel one way or another I'm going to tell you I'm going to advise you here and this is my advice is that Highway 17 is ultimately going to be redeveloped into something bigger and brighter than it is today. That's my hope. That's my hope.

Okay. And my hope is that a coffee shop on that corner isn't what I envision a revised redeveloped highway to be. If we had all the time in the world and we didn't mind looking at that blue and white pillbox for another 10 years, I would hope that a bank, a big bank would locate themselves on that corner and be more of a structural anchor to the downtown

rather than a coffee shop. This is really a question uh in my opinion of do we do the expedient thing now or do we decide that we have a longer term vision for that site and we're going to hold out and we're going to hold out for that bank or we're going to hold out for that mixeduse project or we're going to hold out for a row of independent commercial retailers on that side because one of the primary issues that you should be thinking about and you are. I can tell by your your reluctance here is that a drive-thru on that corner is going to produce traffic patterns on that corner that I submit to you, and I'm not an IT certified traffic engineer, but I've gone and looked at the number of curb cuts on that site. They can access First Avenue. They have two curve cuts onto Highway 17 already. And they have one, I'll call it the backdoor one, out onto Surfside.

Just just a plethora of traffic and transportation issues that will only be able to be handled at the actual site planning phase. We can't legislate it here. It would be handled at the site plan phase. And probably, you know, if if it were the coffee shop, I'd probably say you're going to have the coffee shop. You're going to have one access point onto Highway 17. You're not going to use one North Avenue because that's our fire. That's our fire lane immediately to Highway 17. You're going to have to take it off of this one curb cut that you already have. And you're not going to be able to access it from the back from uh some Surfside Drive. That's just smart transportation planning. Whenever you have corners and an intersection, major intersection, you try to reduce the number of curb cuts within proximity of that intersection, because what we're going to have is we're going to have people coming out of that place. We're going to have somebody traveling south on Highway 17 doing a Uturn to come around. And I can just imagine some of the issues that potentially we have. So, I want you to all put your visioning hats on. and a recommendation to the council that you feel is either a long-term vision for that site or solution for that site that looks one heck of a lot better than what's out there. And you know what? How long is the co Yeah, I mean we all have to sit here ask ourselves to this question, right? How long's the coffee shop going to be there? Is it going to be there the length of I don't you know if anybody's in a a real estate person in this room I don't know what a typical commercial lease is on a property like that but they're going to build a building from

scratch. So I imagine it's going to probably be a fairly long what 25 30 30year lease. Do we have that much time to envision the bank? I'll call it let's just use the bank as a suggestive word here. Can we do we wait for the bank highway 17 to redevelop in the way that we all hope it would? Do we hope for a building that would meet the current overlay district requirements? because I can tell you I'm going to if if it's a coffee shop, I'm going to have to do some arm bending with them on their design or their project and how it's how it looks and colors and landscaping and all that sort of thing. So, it's that's why I bring these things to you. I can't this is one that I can't give you a a recommendation one way or another. It's really how you feel the future of that site needs to be. M chair.

Yeah, if I could ask a question. So the the the what I think a valid push back is was mentioned earlier is that make the we make the zoning change and then something falls apart with the the applicant that happen. Sure. Happens all the time. Yeah. Well, we don't have a signed application, but they wouldn't be talking to us if they weren't seriously. So, oh no, that's

Yeah. Okay. So, my question is I wish I knew the answer to this because I should, but could we make the the zoning change contingent upon the application that we're looking for so that we haven't committed ourselves to the zoning that opens us up to potential headaches because of what it does allow that we don't want there. You see what I'm saying? Absolutely. I don't I don't know if you're headed the right path. The right path is that we can't act on anything unless there's an actual application filed for a zone change.

No, no, no. I'm I'm saying more further than that. Okay. I'm I'm saying this is the part I don't know is that we make the zoning tank change and this is pass backwards from the way it normally is but we make the zoning change contingent upon the successful completion of the application before council and the planning commission. Normally, you know, the guy wants the zoning change because he's looking at it going, "Well, I don't want him yanking it." Yeah. Out from under me because I don't meet the zone. So, I'm just saying can we

The answer I believe is no. Yeah. We give you the zoning change as long as you are the tenant on that property. Pretty much. No. Well, I'm swinging a miss. I'm just saying that get the ideas that you know would all the I think a very valid concern my fellow commissioner is making. So you know all right that's my idea. It's a great idea that didn't work. Okay but I've been married 30 years. I get rejected all the time. Madam Chairman. Yes.

Is there any that makes sense? Is there any workaround? Is there any creative lawyering that could be done to somehow you know make it contingent on uh not only the application but the implementation of the business. One of the things that that I learned very early in my career and it was because I did make a mistake. Uh you know you learn from your mistakes right? I know you all learn from your mistakes.

And one of the first zone changes that I ever did, the the the conversation went from should we change it from C1 to C2, like what kind of coffee are they going to serve? How many cars are they going to have? I mean, it was it literally got that detailed where the zone change was being predicated on the potential user.

That is not the way we're supposed to do zone changes. You're supposed to look at that site, see how that site is located, where it's located, how many curb cuts it has, where it's, you know, where it is relative to the rest of the C1 zoning around it. You know, somebody said, "Well, it's just going to be spot zoning." I said, "Absolutely not. It's literally surrounded by C1 zoning across the street and every so from a let's just forget coffee. Let's forget drive-thru." Okay, let's just take a pause here for a minute. We're just talking C2 to C1. Does it make sense to go to C1? That I can make a recommendation on. That makes sense.

We're going to C2, aren't we? They need for C2, but C2, no drive-thru to C1 allows drive-through. All the C1, all the C1 allows drive-thru. Yes, I just like to make one more point about the be surrounded by maybe it's only me that I got a problem with that. I don't think when there is a divided highway in between two things that that that is considered surrounded by. We've got C2 on one side, C2 on two sides property, public land on one side of that property and across a six lane divided highway is a C1. Yeah.

Doesn't count in my personal

that that's that's a valid opinion. So anybody else before I wait? So um I think we should uh try to maintain the C2 character uh for that site for a number of reasons. And so I'm going to turn to John and ask whether or not Mark posited the question, can we see this as C2 uh development anytime in a fair future? Can that property be part of the um uh municipal, county, whatever that that

Yeah. whole section. So everyone knows we had a meeting today where John was presenting all this stuff about these um possible development scenarios. And um anyway, if that we all we would have to do is designate that site to be within the scope of the overlay in the discussion. Uh, so it might not be a 10-year wait to get to it. We would have a compelling reason for it to be something other than what it is in a time period less than 10 15 years.

Uh, to me that that would be uh the preferred um route. Um I have um uh as I did with the um uh prior um applicant who was trying to get the convenience store with the drive-thru. Uh it's a traffic nightmare there. Um, and it was bad when it was a gas station, but all these other things to me exacerbate those uh traffic uh issues. And um uh I I do think that I would guess that the fire department would tell us this is not a good idea to have all this there. That all being said, I think that we need to encourage this applicant and is there something else in my um environmental background? You always look for you don't need this property because it's got all these uh problems. But how about this property over here to see about and the coffee shop on the other side of King of Carts closed down I think.

Oh, really? Yeah. Uh I think they just closed for the season. Franken Beans. That one. Scoop and Beans. Scoop and Beans. There was a movie. Anyway, I whatever. Anyway, if they're closed, if they're out of business, that would be an ideal property for the um seven brew people. Um I don't um I thought it looked like it was vacant. I don't know. I I think they just closed for the for the off season. I think

uh I would encourage that. The bank looks lovely, but it also has a drug. So, um, uh, I think that presents some of the same issues, I would, doesn't it? No. No. No. Okay. All you have to do is just go stand out in a city hall parking lot and watch the bag next door and watch how many people go through the drive-thru. Okay. No, no, no. I I know it doesn't uh present the um volume of traffic issue, but it is a driving physically. It's definitely driving um uh issue. No, but we were talking about traffic and

and obviously volume means a bit. It means a lot when you're placing yourself on a corner. So, uh I mean just the appearance um uh that that uh blue and white building. It wasn't always blue and white. That's a that's a pretty recent Oh, is it? Uh and it used to be prettier.

No, no, no, no. Well, it was a it was a shell gas station at one point. So, it had all the shell whatever and then it became a kangaroo gas station. And uh anyway, uh so yes, it had, you know, the gas station uh vibe and traffic and what have you. Uh um yes, it was crazy, particularly on change day when everybody was pulling in to fuel up, get their beverages and snacks and what have you, and then be on their way. Um but uh anyway, I do think we need to work on uh what was talked about at the overlay uh workshop of having a vision and what we do with this area and that um property of both parcels uh ought to be part of what we try to uh do there. Um, and uh I have no idea how all that works with the uh owner of that property. Uh, but presumably the owner uh might come around if all of the uh tenants uh uh want to do things that uh uh don't match the zoning. Maybe the the message is, okay, I need to find a potential tenant that matches the zoning. Um,

or sell the or sell the item. Yes. Um, didn't say um I don't Anyway, uh I guess enough said um on my part. So, I'm I'm hearing that uh this is maybe a a nogo. Um from uh the perspective of uh changing uh the you know basically this would be a change to the zoning map without an applicant uh that that right at the moment there's not the

uh thinking that that is a good uh uh move and I for one hate this idea that that every so often somebody can just push the same uh thing by you know okay we say no to the convenience guys so then they change it to the the coffee uh guys and you know what do we see next um that we are every year I guess faced with this issue but uh Let's try to nip it in the butt as well.

So, um let's discuss path forward just for a moment. Uh my opinion is is that um I would relay this information uh to the prospective tenant. They will then probably make a corporate decision whether to move forward with the zone change or not. Um, if they don't, they go away and I'm still stuck with the blue and white pillbox or decide to come to you with a formal application for reszone, which in which case we hold the public hearing. We get to hear from the community.

We get to hear from other property owners. We get to hear from the fire department. Mhm. Yeah. We will get all of their information as part of the package that will be coming to you as part of the public hearing. Then at that point, uh you'll make a decision, yay or nay on this. So that's the path forward. Yeah. I will let them know. I'll I'll let them know that there was a generally a not good feeling from the planning commission. Not unanimous though. It's not unanimous though. It's not unanimous. No, but I've got to I've got to let them know what I think the preponderance opinion is.

But it's but it's about the zoning change, not about the tenant. We like the tenant. We want the tenant. No, it's we just not there different place, right? I'll talk to them about that as well. Tell them to look at 411 on the on the far side of King of Cards. Do they have a drive-thru? No, it's but it's a this is the soup and beans property. No, no, no. I understand. Does that site have a drive-thru? No, but it but it could. Okay, that's I think because it's in C1. Yeah,

they talked to Mark Lazarus. That's basic the the wellers and wheels property. Yeah. a little while and may have an overlay. Yeah, I' I'd sure like to encourage the applicant. And if we're going to have a formal application, wouldn't that not have to come from the property owner, not from the property owner has to sign the application and and I have seen the application and it has the property owners they didn't fill out the application completely. So, I kicked it back at him this afternoon, but it did have the property owner's signature. Okay? because once we have the formal application, we have a clock. That's what I'm trying to avoid here.

That's why we that's why I brought it to you this evening as a discussion item so I have a path forward so that when we hold the public hearing, we're held to a 60-day uh requirement. Okay, tiny little aside, but since you were talking about it, help me understand. I don't understand why we are stuck with the little blue building when that applicant came in. That building was not blue. That building was painted during that time frame. It was that was And part of the problem was

that color wasn't allowed. Correct. Yeah. But it's been allowed to sit there being that color. So, I don't really understand why we're stuck with that. Good question. I don't I don't even remember who paid. It was the It was the the drivethru um convenience store. That was what we were told. Yes. Is that I'm not even sure there was a a permit for the paint job.

Absolutely. It just it slipped through the cracks as as things do. We have staff that doesn't act like you did. Thank you. Well, and not I don't think that it's ne I mean I think we also have several changes in staff. I don't think that it was just necessarily somebody being negligent but good lord you come into your job and it a little blue building is not the first thing on your radar. So, you know, it's a but I don't understand why we're stuck with the little blue building.

I did talk to the applicant and as I mentioned to you, I provided them with a using the square footage of that building. I provided them with a facelift to the building that, like I said, I heard a collective gasp on the other side of the phone like, "Oh my god, how much is that going to cost us?" Remember, keep in mind seven, Bruce. No, no, no. Oh no, I can't remember the name of the It was like Bobbits or Robbits or something like that.

And so I gave them a facelift of a building that I thought looked really cool and beachy. Uh probably would have cost in the neighborhood of 20 to $30,000 to effect reblazing the whole thing. And I believe as a leie, not a property owner, as a lei, they probably saw and that doesn't meet our ROI metric. Thank you very much. We'll talk to you again later. And I haven't heard from them since October just as well.

Anything further on this topic? I would move us along to the amendment of the planning commission bylaws. um microphones, please.

Oh, sorry. uh to move us along to the amendment of the planning commission bylaws. And uh uh basically what I um uh am proposing there because I am the proponent of this is that we put into our bylaws what um I understand uh was our historic approach to what happens uh uh when uh the chairman doesn't uh continue for some reason or another in terms of the vice chair stepping into uh the role. Um but uh we should discuss whether or not what has been the historic practice should actually be the practice. Is that is that our intent? Do we want that to be how the um roles are uh filled? And so it should be uh I I hope we can have a discussion of what we want to do and that it doesn't uh necessarily focus on uh any one person being in either of the um positions. That idea is something that we need to to really discuss. The uh other changes about um receipt of uh public comments via email that come in for workshops was really just to address what had happened to us following the um uh tree uh

preservation uh uh workshop. Uh and then um I don't need to remember at this point from September what the other minor changes were. Um uh just to make sure that the calendar

uh oh uh uh Marilyn has suggested we need to do something about um when the uh chair is uh term uh concludes because of what we have done this year and do you have specific language on I think uh we could probably I'm looking at the fact that technically and you know looking for push back in the future technically we elected you tonight. State law says the term it must be for a one-year term that takes you to next March. Uh therefore we need to remove the line that says that we will hold our election of the first meeting of the calendar year. All we need to do is delete that when we when we hold the elections. I can't see where it really matters. We elect when the one-year term is up, which I think is simpler than this whole issue that I raised as to whether it's a ratification.

Yeah, I mean I'm fine with that, but I don't want to invite any more. Let's not invite any basis for any challenge. So, um uh you're suggesting uh uh basically just strike that strike uh the last part of the clause. Yeah. Madame Chair, um is there any downside to not being aligned to the calendar year like with the role? Yes. Mhm. That should be January to June to the election cycle.

It doesn't dive with the appointments um because uh the appointments are all well the okay. Yeah. And then it's you know the ter the terms of each uh commissioner's uh they expire on December 31st of whatever the year is. No they they expire four years after the date you were appointed by town council. So they're all over the four eight years. I think I believe Mary Ellen has eight years, right? I was reappointed every four years. Reappointed every four years, but it's the term

four year term. So there's no issue. I think there may be a title on the website though. I noticed that. Oh, is that is that Thanks for clarifying. That's good. Okay. So to um speed this along because we're not voting on this tonight. Uh I do have one more question then. Sure. Can I do it now or after? Because it's about the written comments. Should I wait until after you do the no

election? Okay. So on the written comments, um I I just had some questions about the 24 hours and this and the seven days after. Does that come from anywhere where we're required to follow those time frames before and after

the Okay, so the as I understand it, the 24 hours in advance is for a regular meeting. So that you would have comments that um are in writing but are akin to somebody standing at the lectern and commenting to us. So that we have their comments in advance of uh taking a vote on whatever the uh particular issue that's on the agenda. with the workshop. Um, we don't have that because we're not taking any uh action at the workshop. We're just getting uh uh information, feedback, etc. The seven days just comes from me. I just threw that out there

because I was just wondering on this 24 hours if it could be 48 hours in advance to allow time for distribution. And you know, uh, the difficulty is when everybody gets their packet and what have you, is that, um, I'm not sure we can pull off to put it in there. And I think I think it would just be

logistically difficult. And then these seven days just seemed really long for post you know post collecting and data. Uh I I don't know. I mean we don't take any action after uh a workshop for um quite a while like we had the tree workshop. I don't even remember when it was, January, I think. And um so those comments came in and they are uh they were all pretty immediate, but uh we had those comments to factor into how we move the tree ordinance forward.

Uh I I I'm open to whatever. I just, like I said, I picked a we out of the balloon. Um it seemed like uh a reasonable amount of time to let people um who were either present for the workshop to formulate whatever they were going to say or people who were listening online. Hopefully people can listen online down the road and then they could um take advantage of um making comments even though they were not physically present to make comments.

No. And that makes sense. I I guess my last part of this was do we need to say what what happens to these things? So, you know, will things be distributed to members acknowledged? Will they be read in full at the meeting? Will they be approved? Do you know what how what takes place with the information received? So, are you talking about the comments related to a regular meeting or comments related to a workshop?

I guess either. Um, you know, it just caught my eye that we're setting, you know, these time frames, but there wasn't like an action that was told to the person in the, you know, like in our bylaws, there's no required action for us on these items. we receive them, but it doesn't say what happens to I don't know, maybe we don't need to, but it just, you know, it seemed like a gap to me. But I mean, I work on bylaws all the time, so it just seemed like

Are you talking about the why? Well, it's like when we receive comments in 24 hours in advance and we have written comments coming seven days after the meeting, what should the expectations be around those? You know, what are the steps, the actions? I mean, I guess it's just in general, we're saying we take them into account when we go through the Well, in my uh thinking, the comments that come in before a regular meeting,

the commenter uh would uh uh have their comment as part of the record of the meeting and uh so it would be read into the meeting notes. I don't I don't know whether I I don't think there we've had any written comments since we did it. I don't know. Why are we even so determined to accept written comments? Town Council doesn't

Well, it was in our bylaws to begin with. Yeah, I know. I'm challenging why it's there in the first place. Okay. Okay. So, like why the blue building? Uh I I don't know. it was there and then we got that flurry of comments after the tree workshop and I was thinking wow this is this is something different and we can't just dismiss these because they ca came in after the fact instead of before the fact but yeah I I was just going with what was there before

if we want to throw the whole thing out we Madam Chair, I was around for the discussions that council had about whether or not they should be accepting email comments and personally I don't think we should be right. Do you have any experience in other areas

as to whether they do or not? The only the only comment that I do have is um there was something in here that there was some warning that disturbed me uh was that basically that the public comment had to be received within seven days. Public comment never ends.

You never discouraged members of the community from providing public comment. Now, realistically, if we're on a subject matter like the tree ordinance and seven days goes by and let's say another seven days goes by before I bring it back to you with a comment, um, if somebody brings it like on the 15th day, they can provide comment. It's just that it was a bit late for us to have a react to provide some kind of

Yeah. metric saturated but please don't ever limit the community from providing input. They can provide input on anything at any time. Um and you can all decide um how you want to receive those. Um generally speaking it can be included in your packet. It can be included in a a memo. But I would suggest to you because I've never had a commission do this what you do with those. In other words, you respond.

Every city that I've ever worked for, it's simply a stamp that goes on it says it's received date puts gets put in the file. We never respond back. You know, you don't respond back saying, "Oh, by the way, we received it. Thank you very much for your comment on the trees. We love the idea." No, we don't. No, you just receive it.

You simply receive the chair. Um I I just wondered like if we're going to make you know a point on you know obviously we would take something before the meeting right or are we saying maybe we wouldn't but if we do receive comments and we are taking them before I'm just suggesting we should say what's going to happen to them. Will they be read into the minutes or will they be stamped and put in the file for for future review and discussion or Yeah. So, and I'm certainly not saying we would want to discourage the public from sending us emails. Send send them on, whatever. I I I don't think that they should be part of our public comments and our nothing that anyone knows of that requires that we take written comments from the I would be in favor of just asking the whole thing. Yes. Okay.

Madam Chair, I was going to I was going to make the same suggestion commensurate with these comments is that we adjust our bylaws to be in line with the town councils and remove the mention of the four. I believe it's implicit in every meeting I've ever been to in this town. At the end when everybody talks, they're like, "Thanks for coming. We encourage your comment. Please email us. Please reach out to us. So to to to have the ambiguity that there's something special that's going to happen because that comment happened to come in before the meeting or after the meeting within seven day

just none of that. And if you had any verbiage at all for to your point about what would happen I would I would just say that they would be provided to the in this case the commission for review and consideration. I mean that's it. Yep. for review and consideration, which is what we would do. I mean, we're just putting it in writing, but that's what we would do with it. We would read it and consider it and you know, so you would want to specifically say that as opposed to

No, if you were going to put words in. I'm I'm just saying to her point about what's going to happen is just review and consideration. that leaves it open and factually that is what we do. So it's accurate and it doesn't imply that we're going to read them into the note. So we're going to you know make it part of what we ask our director to put into his report. It's just they're going to be reviewed and considered if you did anything at all. But I I agree with the other comments. I think get rid of the the statement and if anybody asked we're being consistent with the council

just don't address it at all and I agree we don't all right so um circling back to the vice chair language when you get through

no I'm just trying to direct direct us back in uh that direction to just see what our thinking is. I'm not asking anyone to make a decision. We're not going to make a vote or anything like that. Just what are people's thoughts? Do we leave it alone? Do we address it? Uh do we uh address it in a different manner? Okay.

Yes. My experience having done this kind of thing before somewhere else, the the language was something along the lines of the chair shall serve, you know, as able through the term should and then fill in the words. But, you know, should there be a time at which the chair is not present, the vice chair will fill the role. Should there be u a lengthy delay or an ongoing delay such as you move or you retire, god forbid, you get hit by a bus or whatever, um then the language would say that the vice chair would fill the role until such time as a an election of a new chair can be held not to be more than you know two meetings more. I mean you need to time define that. You can't let it run. But, you know, you could say as of the next quorum meeting or the next, you know, public hearing meeting, whatever you want that to be, but that's the language that on numerous boards that I've seen for the secession of the chair was you serve for the term, you make one for if you miss a meeting, you know, the normal stuff, and then you make one for if it's an extended period of time or you know in perpetuity you move and the vice chair fills in until such time as the commission or the board can elect a new chair and then you time define that by something the next meeting the next forum the next whatever

is it the remainder of the term then they would serve yeah and and then you go back into the yeah yeah okay can I add to that you know my understanding is most you president, Congress, people if if something happens to them, they have an election and and whoever is elected fulfills the the remainder of the term, then they have on the regular, you know, election day, they then elect a new chair, vice chair, whatever it would be.

No, that's good. And that makes sense because if if we did it a different way in one year from that time, then all of a sudden now in March of every year you have the chairman and then every December or whatever other month and people will be like what years from now they'll be like what was going on. I think to stay consistent, to stay clean, you know, it makes sense and, you know, I I think it's uh it's a good way to do it anyway. Yeah.

Yeah. So, your term right now as an example fitting into this whole mold. So, the official ratification of Huma's chair took place tonight. So, that'll be good through January or whenever it is that we normally would have it. might be elected again. You might not. But, you know, we would do that to cover the gap until the normal time comes back around. So, I uh uh drop dead in uh two months, right? What happens?

The vice chair takes over your role until such time as an election can be held. Let's say you die in two months. Sorry, I got it. I got it. Got it. Breaks an arm or something. So you you you Well, no, but she can't come back. Breaking an arm, she can't come back. So, um depends on how bad maybe maybe she moves. But anyway,

all right. So, what would happen is the vice chair would fulfill the role until such time as an election could be held for a new chair, not to exceed, you know, whatever time define that. Then that person would be elected as chair to fulfill the rest of the term which in this case would be two months from now which would be May. So it would be June through January and then January once again we would have another election for a chair for the full term and hope that person didn't die. Okay, which is pretty standard. I think so.

So uh other folks thoughts? No, that's what I've seen, too. Yes. I I I really don't Excuse me. No, I really don't have a problem with whatever we decide. As far as I know, the only law we're up against is that the chair must when elected, the term must be one year. If we elected Carolyn tonight, then must be one year maybe next March. Well, we're only fulfilling the remainder of that. is still one year. Whoever it is,

the term is still one year for the role just might be person. Okay. So, um it's not a drop bed. It's a um I don't know. Uh I end up in the hospital for months on end. How many months? Um, am I out of commission before uh Larry has takes over as chair and I'm out of the mix? Depends on how how much we like Larry.

No. See, it can't be based on there's something about missing a certain number of readings out. Well, unexpected in the hospital, but I mean really by the vice chair filling in. I mean, how I've seen it is whoever got elected for that term, it's their term, but then like a second person filling in for part of that. It's more of an interim term and then you would go to get elected for the full term in January, you know, with whoever else,

right? What I'm asking about is how long before um uh the the vice chair moves from the temporary I think it stays title through the full term if you're in the hospital the whole time that person and then you have the election the regular time that it's always had Jamie yeah that keeps it consent That would be a case where the chair the vice chair would continue on. Okay. And if we if we don't like Larry, he might be in there next to you.

I will I will uh do some reddrafting and bring this back around for uh decision making. Uh so then um the um next topic is um having um a second monthly meeting. I'm not talking about a regular meeting. I'm talking about whether or not we'd have uh workshops and uh as our second meeting and to let you all know that um frankly there's push back on having uh a second uh night and uh I understand um the uh reasons um part of it schedule and part of it is Angie who um uh the town having to um I guess pay her overtime. Um, but I think we need more meetings, otherwise we're not going to get the work done and um, uh, we have a number of things that didn't make it onto the agenda this goround um because our agenda was growing. Uh anyway, um uh at one point Mark suggested to me, could we meet um in the uh afternoon on the third Wednesday of the month? Um and frankly, I pushed back because so

many of us work and that makes it harder. Uh, but I want to float to see whether or not um that might work or um some other um uh solution uh to getting uh this work done or do people disagree with me? I mean I mean I'm uh happy to be open to that um as to whether or not uh we don't really need um a second uh meeting or uh that we we somehow um figure out another route to get this work done. I'll say that as a full-time employee, I share your concern about the ability to meet during the day and I recognize the the imbalance that provides for the full-time staff who have families and a life of their own that you know they want to get to. So I don't I can't think of a solution for that right now. Um but with respect to the workload and the ability to to have a quorum to officially perform the duties we need to I think I think rather than putting it as okay from this point forward we're we're just going to have two meetings a month that we we tee it up in a way that there is an opportunity workload dependent that we do that be this way. I mean, you know, these things go like this right now. They've been like this for a while, but I mean, they and you I both know what's getting ready to come up and it's going to stay like

that for a while. Um, so I think that I think that we need to somehow or another word it that we have the opportunity to schedule a second meeting and then we need to figure out how is it that we balance staff with whatever the My issue is yes, we're going to need second meetings and but I think they need to be at a standing uh date and time uh because it is too hard to schedule them on um

an an ad hoc you know kind of kind of basis and that's all I'm dealing with. Some months we may have the meeting, some some months we don't. Uh under but uh u there is going to be a lot more work. You guys are implying there's something big coming down the road and that's fine, but there's going to be a lot more work that I assume is coming out of council and council better pay some overtime. Well, some of it's training, some of it overlay, some of it's

they want it done. They better find out how to staff it. Things we put on the back burner. I mean, um, I can't even remember which meeting it was of late, but we got criticized for sitting on things and not moving on. It's like, you know, you got to have the meetings to move things along. If they want the the product, they're going to have to stick it. Well, it's it's not just about the money, though. I mean, I mean, I hear the overtime. I look at it is, okay, if I was a staff, would I want to I mean heck with the money? Do I want I mean, they've got a life.

Well, they've got BCA meetings every month. They're not going to because they're not holding them. Well, do we need to u take into account if any of these meetings require public access and and they come during the day? cuz I can do either nights or day. But do we need to do it at night because of the public or no? I think we just generally assume that as long as it's a build is a public meeting and it's not, you know, at 2 a.m. um it's it's fun. Okay.

So even if it's in the middle of the day and the public works also, they would take off of work and come to the meeting. Uh I mean I know the peer committee got dismanded but its meetings were in the morning. The AEX meeting is at at 3 or something on Thursday. So those workshops. Yeah. Because maybe the second meeting could be during the day then to take some of the pressure off of you know the people that have to work. It's really us. Well, yeah. The hard part there is I get paid very well to to be at my department's best.

I'm not willing to give that up. I got to tell you. Um, now every now and then, like today, we had a meeting during the day and I blocked it off on my calendar and thank God the phone didn't ring and run. That may be part of it. I don't know. That's unique to my personal. No, I can be flexible. So, it's with you guys. I mean, are you are you working during the day? Working all the time. What about Larry? He works. He works. I work. You work? I don't work. I'm wear You're retired.

Okay. So, Okay. So in the um uh third week of the month in the um Monday through Wednesday time frame would if if we could convince everybody to have evening meetings would that work because that's what drives with month schedule. Yeah. I I'd just say we explore it both ways. We're not making any decisions here other than do we all agree that there mean is uh are people available those days of the week in the third month there is

there isn't a standing something else if you do it the third week if it moves to the first or the second week then some Yes, I think that we if we're doing this in the daytime that we also are going to have to understand that there is going to be an occasion when you or John or Scott or I or whoever just says I can't come today because obviously our paying jobs have presum Yeah,

difficulty. Um, but if it were an evening meeting and third week and it was a Monday through Wednesday, which is not been our usual whatever, is that problematic? That's what I'm trying to get through. Yeah. Um I would highly encourage and I think this is assumed that business matters and discussion items. Um maybe keep the second meeting not as important as the main meeting.

Uh so that those of us who can make the main meeting are there, you know, for business items especially. Um, and this second meeting maybe, you know, as long as we have a quorum, we're good. But it's going to be more challenging for the second meeting for some of us. I think um, and Mark's very right about this, the preparation of a full agenda is a pain,

right? And so, but um a workshop agenda where you know it's a topic that's a pretty easy thing to do. So that that's what I'm talking about. Or um we've we've uh floated but I I haven't quite seen how it would work. Um if you had instead of uh adjourning today's meeting if we had a continuation and then we picked up with agenda the items that are already slated uh for a later date but I don't think that's I'd be up for that tonight.

That's uh yeah maybe I should have thought it earlier.

Okay. So I I will pursue that. Then my uh last topic before we move to public comments is I would like us to set up a cell phone group. That doesn't mean I'm going to share your cell phone numbers uh with everybody, but we had uh um an instance where um uh we needed to do something about one of the um advisory group meetings. And uh it would have been helpful had we just been able to do a a cell phone call or a text message or something like that because people are not always sitting on their town emails whereas they're much more likely to pick up a text message or whatever. So um I'm just asking that if people um would give me their uh cell numbers. I have many people's cell numbers. Um, but uh I think Scott, you're one that I don't have. But

anyway, if we could just do that. And um Aren't all our numbers on the the commission site? Yeah. No, you don't want that. Okay. Yeah, that's a good point. That's a good point. Does that have to get added into by Yeah.

Yeah. pink thing.

We got to cancel this meeting or change it or let me know what

uh Okay, let's uh open up for public comments. Do we Yes, absolutely.

Thank you. Bill Cananken, North Dog Woods. Um, 2020, Carol, and I don't remember her last name. She did a a count of how many properties by size, so hopefully they're in her minutes somewhere. Uh that's that's one comment. The other is you talked about signs, but mostly about political signs. We've got slow children at play. You've got uh real estate signs. These all get put in the rightway. You've got contractors that put a four two 4x4s and a 48 in the middle of it and that's in the rightway. There's a lot of signs that we have in the rightway. Thank you. uh Surfside Beach Police. I mean, you think of all the signs that you see, it's not just our events that we have tons of signs in our right away. So, and as far as second meetings, if if you need to do it, I know it's a pain, but if you need to do it, you can always cancel them. Even council cancels occasionally. So, uh you know, pick a date. Maybe the third Tuesday is a because it's the same.

It's the first and third instead of the second and fourth. Um, pick a date and do it. I mean, hopefully it won't last forever, but you do have a the trees, you got the overlay, you there's a lot on your plates right now, and uh the only way to get them off is say yay or nay and move on. Send it to council. Thank you all very much for what you do. Thank you.

Uh South Hollywood. I have a couple of comments. First of all, um on the uh allowing one person to basically give a variance in my opinion is a bad opin a bad thing to do. Uh because that's what you're basically doing. I I don't I do think that if you would do it like you discussed as a formula and then applied it, that would be a way to get around having variances but still not leaving it up to one person to say this is okay but this isn't because you're going to end up like a lot of towns do getting sued because somebody was able to do something and somebody else wasn't. And if you have it written down what is possible and what isn't. I know it is confusing sometimes, but that's the way it is. Um, another thing is signs. Uh, Mr. Tanken brought up a good point. There's a lot of illegal signs around town. And actually, it goes back to my first thing. the the way things get interpreted. Our ordinances say no feather flags, but yet there's tons of them out there yet. Now, part of that stems from the fact that nobody ever bothered to change that you can get a permit for a feather flag and that needs to be changed. So, you can't get a permit for a feather flag and just say they're not allowed and then when you see them they're not allowed and you go tell the people. Um, but anyway, that's my two comments, my two cents.

Thank you.

Okay,

prep Hollywood South. Okay, couple things. February 4th, 2025. If you go back and check on that meeting, that's when you guys I believe that's the meeting that you discussed the gas station. It might be a good thing for the new ones to go back and listen to what you all had to say at that time about that. Um, another thing I This is where my husband and I don't agree on, but that's okay. We've been married almost 50 years, so we're good with that. But on the allowing the administrator to make exceptions, no. Allowing one lot to have a different setback than another one, no. To me, that just creates more problems. But, um, that's all I have. Thank you.

What else? Okay, we'll move on to commission comments. Scott, we'll start with you. Any today? Thank you, John. Thanks for coming.

No commission comments. I I don't need to make anything. Okay. So, um ask for a motion for a journ. Make a motion we adjourn. Okay. And it's been second. Uh all in favor? I I Okay, this meeting is over. Thank you all very much. Thanks everyone.