Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded.

Call to order the April 7th, 2026 meeting of the planning commission. Ask that John Mson offer our invocation. Stand please. Heavenly Father, we come before you this evening with gratitude for the opportunity to serve our community. Grant us wisdom to consider the matters before us tonight. Help us to listen carefully, speak respectfully, and make decisions that are fair, thoughtful, and in the best interest of all those we represent. Guide this commission to balance growth with preservation, progress with responsibility, and differing viewpoints with understanding and civility. We ask for your patience in our discussions, clarity in our judgment, and unity in our purpose. Pray for the safety and well-being of all those in attendance, for our city staff, elected official, and all of our citizens, and for the continued prosperity of the town of Sersside Beach. It is in your son's holy name we pray. Amen.

Amen. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic it stands nation indivisibley and justice for all to prove our uh agenda and this is the agenda that has second

uh it's an amended agenda that has uh items through E under business items madam chair

agenda all in favor say I I I Okay, agenda is approved. We move on to the first of our two um public hearings. And that is the public hearing having to do with amending section 17201. And Mark, I'll turn it over to you, okay, to to start us all.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm going to read something into the record that we're supposed to do before public hearings. Uh, this public hearing is being conducted in accordance with the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act and applicable provisions of the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act. Proper notice of this uh hearing has been provided and it was published in the newspaper. Uh, much much in the paper this evening. The purpose of the report this evening is to explain a proposed text amendment to section 17201 of the Surfside Beach zoning ordinance concerning administrative modifications to legal non-conforming lots of record. The amendment before you this evening clarifies the development administrator's authority to approve limited adjustments to certain dimensional zoning standards when strict application of the ordinance would prevent the reasonable development of legally existing residential parcels. The amendment also resolves an ambiguity in the current language regarding the interpretation of the term yards. Surfside Beach developed largely as a coastal resort community before the adoption of modern zoning regulations. So therefore, many residential areas were subdivided into relatively small lots intended for seasonal cottages and beach homes. Uh we know that's not what is happening on these 50-oot lots anymore. A typical historical lot configuration included a 50- foot wide ocean oriented parcels, narrow second row residential parcels, and subdivisions platted long before the adoption of current zoning and storm water standards. As zoning standards evolved over time, minimum requirements for lot size, lot width, building setbacks, lot coverage, and impervious service limits were adopted to address

such issues as neighborhood compatibility, building scale, and storm water management. Because of these changes, a significant number of parcels within the town qualify as non-conforming lots of record. What they call legal non-conforming lots of record, meaning the parcels were legally created, but now because of dimensional standards of the zoning district, they are no longer uh considered conforming. Interestingly, I did a little bit of research on the distribution of the non-conforming lots and I was blown away by just how many of these estimate uh these non-conforming parcels we have. In the R1 district, we have around 300 parcels that fall into that category. In the R2, we have 200 parcels that fall into that category. And in R3 100, we have a total of approximately 600 of these parcels that are legal non-conforming parcels throughout the community. Most of these are east of Ocean Boulevard between the Ocean Boulevard and US Highway 17 and within what we what we consider the older second row subdivisions. The the reason this comes before you this evening is that the code is somewhat ambiguous and it uses the words yards, set yards and setbacks and it gives the development administrator, yours truly sitting here, the ability to modify uh yards and setbacks on these very narrowly defined lots of these legal non-con conforming lots to allow um development to occur um be in in spite of the small lot. The relaxation that I'm allowed to provide is up to 20%

of yards and setbacks. The purpose of the proposed amendment before you this evening is to clarify that language. The re revised ordinance before you explicitly identifies the dimensional standards eligible for 20% administrative adjustment including required yards and setbacks as stated in the ordinance, maximum allowable cover lot coverage which is new and maximum allowable imperous coverage which is new. By identifying these standards, the revised ordinance would remove the ambiguity in interpreting the term yards and ensure the the administrative authority is clearly defined and consistently applied. Um the ordinance um you sort of like sort of go off script here a little bit. Um I have been a zoning administrator as you all know in several communities. Uh this is the first community to where I've ever seen the director have this much 20% ability to make modifications. But that's the way it's in the ordinance now. I can modify setbacks and yards up to 20%. The question was what do we mean by yards? So doing a little bit of search on planning practice and everybody who's a planner has what we call the green book behind them. I would have looked at the green book and the word yards is broadly identified as allowable reasonable use of legal lots of records reducing unnecessary variance requests and things like that for things like making modifications to yards on these small legal non-conforming lots. Therefore, the proposal that I bring to you this evening simply allows the development administrator to continue to make the 20% administrative adjustments, but now

it it includes the words required maximum allowable lot coverage and maximum allowable impur coverage. It would allow me to uh adjust those up to 20%. The language in the ordinance uh is found uh in the red text you'll find on in your packet what the uh the new language is. You can see the old language struck out and um I re basically rebuilt section 1701 to include several subsections on non-conforming lots. what the purpose was, what the applicability was, where the administrative authority came from, what the minor modifications are that are authorized, uh, and limitations on my modifications, and obviously some review procedures that give me, if you will, sort of a the ability to make those administrative changes, but there has to be a followed set of review procedures that I would prior to making any modifications to the requirements for lot coverage and and imperous surface. the the the item before you this evening. Um, should you choose uh to recommend there's a included in your packet there's a suggested planning commission resolution and I believe the uh one of the things you want to do before you uh u de uh debate and articulate your changes to this um we would then go into the resolution and modify the resolution if you feel that there was a part of the ordinance, part of the amended ordinance

that I'm bringing to you that you do not agree with. Um, in any case, I want to take the resolution to council to allow them to also look at this situation. Uh, but I stand before you ready to make any modifications to this ordinance. I was simply at the beginning just trying to articulate the word yards and how broadly brushed that has been used in the past to to narrowly define it to setbacks, lot coverage, impervious coverage. Uh so with that I will uh ask if there's any questions but my recommendation is before questions come um open the public hearing take public testimony and if you have any questions of me I'll be glad to answer them at that point.

Thank you. I need I needed that assistance in the order of events. Thank you. You're welcome. Madam chair, shouldn't we hold our account of the finance commission comments until we get back to the business item? No, I think that might

that that's your that's your purview. You can hold your comments, but um general comments about the ordinance or can be made at this point as well. Um the actual action is the is the business item that is a recommendation to either recommend approval of the resolution or to to to deny it. Typically the um the discussion can occur I believe in either the public hearing part of this because that's the way set state law set up or you can do it as part of the actual motion to move this to council. Either or there's no set way to do it. Adopt a hybrid. Okay.

Problem with that because I have a number of questions about what is being proposed and what is um in the staff report. Uh and I think that's probably best dealt with during the hearing portion. Very well. uh of this probably. So, let's open this up for um uh any public uh comment. Uh do we have anyone who uh would like comment? Uh come forward and Okay, now we need a mic.

That's right. Just you set that up there. It's

It's okay. Can you hear me? A little bit more and identify yourself and give your address, please. Ruby Kirk, Port South, and Hollywood. Um, I just have to say that I disagree with this. Um, and the reason being is that we have a board of zoning appeals. In my opinion, that's the route we should go. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Uh, Ron Vampel, uh, 414th Avenue South. I'm an architect, also a builder. I have a current project that I'm working on um that is directly related to this. Um in the past, I've dealt with some of the uh previous administrators and we've used this 17201. We've used it to modify and we've moved forward. His most recent project that I've dealt with is with Chris Cochr and I know Chris is no longer here. I met with him back in 2025 on site preliminary drawings. He approved what we were putting forth. Uh so we move forward with drawings. Once we fig drawings, we submitted drawings to the city. By that point, Captain Chris was no longer there. New zoning administrator is in in place. Uh, we submit the drawings and I get a rejection letter on the project. So, I call Mark, I talk to Mark, he and I sit down, we go through, we uh, recalculate the allowable areas based off of his interpretation of the code. We come up with a new lot coverage and um I redesign the project, modify the project, redo the drawings within the limits of lot coverage that that Mark had put forth and we resubmit. Well, then I get another letter that rejects the project and I call Mark, talked with Mark about it and Mark said that um that he had spoken he had consulted with the city attorney and

there was a conflict of interest or a conflict between the words of of guard and lot coverage. And I think that's where all of this is, you know, that's that's where we are at this point in time is trying to define lot coverage. isn't really included under yard which much as it was under previous administrations. But just to give you a little brief background on where we where we are on our project, we're a non-conforming lot with 8,400 square ft. It's a less than 1,600 foot raised beach house. It's an R1 has 7 a little over 700 ft of covered porch and the homeowners want to add to the house because it's just too small. doesn't fall in the the current family dynamic. So, they want to increase the size of the home. Well, when we use the 20% allowance, as I'm going to call it, it allows us to add just 600 ft² to the house. So, it's not like we're doubling the size of the house. The size of the house with the 600 ft is still only a 2,300 foot heated house. So, it's not a large home. Um, and it is well beneath the 40% uh total impervious surfaces on the lot. So, we're not it's not a detrimental increase for site drainage. We're staying within those limits. We're not increasing water flow off the project. Um and um the uh I just believe that that the non-conforming lots due to the fact that cost of construction nowadays and people buying homes, not everybody can come to Surfside and buy a $400,000 piece of dirt, tear the house down, and build a new house. That's not, you know, and there's a lot of people that where the where the homes are being passed down from the mother and father to the kids who have kids. Those dynamics are different. Years ago, little three-bedroom house, one bathroom, bath and a half, everybody was good and

everybody was happy. That's just not the way it is any longer. So with the dynamics different, I think that by making this modification to the ordinance, it will help to develop some of the older homes. Bring the older homes, revitalize the older homes. Don't don't tear them down and build new houses. Take the older ones, modify them, revitalize them, and bring them back to life. So that, you know, we we keep that same character that Surfside Beach has. know during the last meeting there was a big discussion on the main entrance into into Surfside. Uh everybody loves that entry into Surfside and how quaint it is. Well, there's homes in this neighborhood that are the same that are existing homes that are 40 and 50 years old that people would like to keep. They would just like to make them more user friendly in in today's time. And um I just think that would be beneficial to the city of of Surfers. Thank you. I'm going to start down the road. This section of the chapter 17 also applies to commercial properties, does it not?

doesn't articulate the current ordinance just does not say what type of it just says adjacent lots record of time non-conforming at the time I went right back to the beginning to the applicability section of chapter 17 it says it applies to all properties. And as I read down, I didn't find anything along the way that that changed it. So apparently it must. Uh let's see. Can we put that question on hold? Sure. While I look it up. Um and I'll be glad to answer any other questions. Okay. I got I got another one for you.

Okay. that is uh disregard with the with the authorities for administrative variances or whatever we're going to call them here. What our surrounding areas do like the town would do in the other towns. The uh surrounding towns uh use a smaller percentage to give their director a uh the authority to make these small modifications when and only when uh presented as a legal non-conformance parcel. So I'm going to just interject a followup to that. So h how much smaller percentage do the other um uh surrounding jurisdictions allow? And are they allowing uh adjustments or or whatever to all of the factors or variables that you are proposing or are they just set setback reductions?

The um the other towns that I looked at were somewhat ambiguous like ours is. Um, and when they did articulate it, it was specifically setbacks and lot coverage there. I never found anyone who was giving relief to uh impervious surface. I did not find that because usually those are hidden in different codes. They're hidden like storm water codes. They were not in their zoning codes. Um, again, the I'll call I don't want to say it's the industry standard, but most of the zoning codes from communities in this area and areas uh in the Charleston area typically give the director uh a limit of 10% of of the uh the total to make modifications to. And keep it and keep in mind um that it it's not an automatic 10%. It's a let's look at the size of your lot. Let's see how much smaller you are than a non-conforming lot. Let's look at that percentage and maybe that's the percentage we're going to apply in terms of reduction. So the director has has the ability to make a modification anywhere from 1% to 10% uh in those communities based on what they're being presented with. Um

did you look at Ory County and No, I didn't look at Ory County. You did not look at or No, I did not. Did you look at Myrtle Beach?

I looked at North Myrtle. I looked at Georgetown and Mount Pleasant. I think those are the three that I looked at because I was most familiar with those. I am not seeing where this applies to commercial properties. I'm looking at 17201. looking at the beginning section of 17200 uh where they appoint a code enforcement official to interpret provisions at district boundaries. There is an applicability section somewhere near the beginning.

It's not under general provisions. At least I'm not seeing it. 17201 A non-conforming lot B front yard C multiple buildings D um exceptions of height limits. E non-conforming building enlargement yards enclosed all the way back all the way down at the bottom. Commercial uses you're going all the way back to the beginning of chapter 17. No, not all the way back of 17. In the beginning, it says it applies to everything. And I don't find anything along the way that says it does not.

Well, Unless this says specifically just residential, that would hold true because the applicability would apply to all zone. Have to concede that. I think I believe you're right. uh because it doesn't uh spec it doesn't specify residential um but it continually references R1 and R2 throughout the language which led me to believe that it was just residential. But I would submit to you that given the way the ordinance is written, it it does not parse out residential and commercial. So I would have to say that this would apply to commercial properties as well that are also non-conforming meaning the minimum.

That was my concern. There was so much emphasis on 600 residential and I I don't know what the unintended consequences of allowing this to property would be.

Certainly the uh the commission has the ability to parse this any way they'd like to. Uh you could make this only for residential. Uh you could make it only for commercial. Um, obviously we have a lot of um I think I think you have a lot of discretion in telling me what you think the percentage ought to be. Um, and finally, um, if you agree or not with the word yards including everything that I've put here, which is lot coverage and impervious coverage, keeping in mind that none of the other communities are giving relaxation and the impervious coverage one, but this the problem isn't that one. The the one that primarily comes up for me is is lot coverage. Is lot coverage. I have similar questions as Mary Ellen, but just looking at the other areas, it it seems like even if they had this before, they took it totally away. And you know, like in um where was it in um Myrtle Beach, they actually had legal challenges. And so back in 210, they got rid of it and Conway got rid of it in 217.

So, you know, I guess I was just wondering like do we still want to maintain this 20% when it seems like, you know, a lot of the communities around here are trying to align to state, you know, regulation and and to try to make sure that they're going through as Ruby said the you know the other avenues they should be going here we start Scott do you have questions okay we'll start moving this

okay um there's probably a question in here somewhere but um I uh at this point I do support amending this section 17201. Um you know some discretion uh and this is why uh I think excellent case in point the gentleman uh that had the public comment was a great example of what I think uh residents are dealing with. Um I happen to be a little biased because I have a legal non-conforming property. I live and um however I think just in general even if I did not I would still support this. Um the 20% in my opinion is not necessarily excessive um when you're um you know trying to work through this or negotiate. Um I I think this is a more direct way of getting things done. I I uh you know the idea of government red tape and and you know being inefficient whenever I try to do something I try to be as efficient timely times money as possible. I think this is an efficient way to reason with the understanding of the spirit of the law of what this Surfside law is and why the law is there. Um having that 20% I don't think is excessive. Um, and but I'm open for a change in that particular uh and if this if if you know the public member that came up, if he went through everything he did and he was rejected, he could still then um go to the uh

board of appeals. Yeah. Um for a variance. So it seems like a straightforward efficient way of doing things and uh you know if we hire a director and we trust him um I I I believe that this within some uh reasonable discretion is I think a good proposal to amend it. Thank you. Okay. So I'm going to uh suggest that we um restrict things to questions right now. Okay. so that we explore qu questions we might have with Mark and then we can discuss.

Okay. So, here's a question. Everything I said, do you do you understand what I was saying and you support some of it or

againize for that but I was a little surprised by by this regulation when I saw it because of the discretion the broad discretion that it gives me. As you know, when you go for a variance, you have to meet four criteria. And I would tell you, um, if any of you have ever sat on a board of appeals, I've sat before many. Um, it's very difficult sometimes to make those four findings, uh, in order to grant variance. That doesn't mean that I haven't seen board of appeals still approve variances without meeting four criteria. Um, but comment is well is well taken. If if if we reduced or or changed the percentage or or the types of things that we allow relaxation on, every applicant still has the right to go to uh the court of appears. Conversely, um if I deny a project, the applicant has the right to appeal that to you. So they can come to you and appeal that sort of thing. What this provision does is it provides the the director, whoever that director might be, um some latitude and adjusting, you know, setbacks and and lot coverage on some of these parcels. Um the thing is to be clear and and if it's not clear I think we need to maybe do some little editing to the the code is that the 20% shouldn't be automatic right it shouldn't be automatic it should be based on on-site circumstances like let's say there's a giant oak tree in the middle of the yard that's a circumstance that even the board of appeals would consider um in in giving it relaxation because it's a hardship to have to like if you

will move around a tree or a rock outcrop or something like that. So I think there this is a um this is one of those ordinances that forgive me whoever wrote this wasn't well written in the first place. Um, and you can tell that I've taken a paragraph and I've created a page and a half of additional language to kind of straighten it out. Doesn't mean what I've written is perfect. Um, I think this is a starting point for the commission to make some u measured modifications to the ordinance even the way I'm proposing it today. uh so that we can all agree that the development administrator should have some flexibility and and uh in making these you know minor modifications on these laws.

Thank you. John, do you have questions? I want to uh defer to Larry's questions before my second. Okay, that's fine. We may spend some time because I have quite a few questions. Okay. I don't have many about how many of these kind of determinations have you made had to make since you took the job? I mean, is this a rarity or do you get a dozens of them every year? Zero. the one that came before you this evening

precipitated this because the language in the ordinance was unclear to me. That's why I'm here. That's why I denied the project twice because the language is is not perfect. Uh so no, this is a rarity. Okay. Uh if it was 10% instead of 20%, would you still be able to solve Mr. Van Pelt's problem? It's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. Okay. Uh, third one is this doesn't apply to building heights. I hope that's correct. All right, that's all I have.

Um, so I'll take the floor. So, um, this evening there have been, um, multiple times that you referred to lot coverage. Exactly what does lot coverage constitute define? Let me see if I can find it. So I want to give you the right answer. You know what's interesting is that they call it maximum building coverage in several places instead of lot coverage building coverage minimums. So could I shortcut? Is it is that what it means that you're referring to the maximum building area

building coverage that's allowed uh and only that

aspect of the requirements that deal with um the dimensions that somebody can use. Let me uh let me describe to you how I interpret wraps that up. It can't see the sky. That's a simple as simple as I can make. The ground can't see the sky. If there's a roof over it, that's lock coverage. If there's paving on it, that's lot coverage. If there's uh a pool, see this? The ground can't see the sky. That's lot coverage. Check.

Okay. But but the code creates a distinction between the maximum build area which would include the pool and the roof. Yep. From the imperous surfaces which also very different. Yeah.

Also fall into your can't see the sky. Is that right? their um purch um impervious coverage includes uh step back here for a second getting the two mixed up in my own head. Um imperous coverage is a number that we use for storm water review. Okay. Gravel placed on the ground is not considered impervious. It's pvious. In other words, the water can get into the ground. The ground still can't see the sky, but it's it's considered pvious. So that's not counted towards an impervious coverage factor. So I would say it's like any uh again I like to use the word when I'm defining it for office. The ground can't see the sky. It's a building. It's a structure. It's the other way I've defined it is a drop of rain can't find the ground.

It falls on something hard and and doesn't allow percolation. So unfortunately, you confuse me even more. Yeah, I'm sure because we have two numbers that I thought were being proposed for this adjustment in addition to um the setbacks and that is the maximum build area and the um imperous surface area. Well, those can't overlap, can they?

No, they don't overlap. Um, unfortunately, our ordinance is written where we have sections on flood control and then on building, and a lot of times those conflict with one another. Um, know that's not what you want to hear, but that's the fact. Um, what I'll do is I'll see if I can find a better definition for you as it's defined in the code. That doesn't help. Chairman, um, when I look it up, it says lot coverage percentage total building footprint area divided by total lot area.

Doesn't include driveways. It doesn't include driveways. Yeah, that's true. I think that's where I'm making my mistake. I'm being quizzed here. I stumped the jump while I'm saying that. I'm I'm I'm not not meaning to do that. I'm trying to understand

lot coverage is is actually not defined in our code. The word is actually building coverage. And the word lot coverage appears on all kinds of other sections. And when you go to the definition section, lot coverage isn't defined. The word is building coverage. And perhaps that's a change we make tonight to the ordinances that says building coverage, not lot coverage because impervious coverages is probably what I would in my head define as uh lot coverage. Building coverage, okay, structure building doesn't count sidewalks, doesn't count, you know, paved driveways, doesn't include uh pools, those sorts of things. It's a building. That's lot coverage. The impervious coverage then includes all the things that I just talked about. Sidewalks, driveways, pools, those sorts of things. That's the impervious coverage factor.

Okay. Okay. You said leave me a definition for lot coverage. When I looked in here, there isn't a definition of lot coverage anywhere in the code, which I find fascinating. Uh I'm just trying I'm trying to understand how long chairman um basically it's saying that it's it's percentage of land that's covered by surfaces that do not allow water to soak into the ground. That's the impervious. The lot coverage percentage again is the total building footprint where the building is divided by the whole lot and that's a percentage of lot coverage because that's the coverage

divided by your square footage of dwelling. The zoning ordinance specifically says a percentage number. I'm sorry for misspeaking or speaking out of line, but it specifically says um lot coverage or building coverage is 30%. Impervious surface is 40%.

Imperous surface, concrete, pavers, pool patios, roof roofs. Building coverage is roof structures. Doesn't have to be habitable space. It can be a it can be a storage building in the backyard. It can be a just a covered porch. That's if it's covered roof area that is not coverage. Okay. So, how many um non-conforming lots, these undersized lots have already been built on

so that you know we have this 600 number, but are we really dealing with 600 lots? No, we don't have 600 empty lots in town. No, I can state that for the record. It's got to be a uh a much smaller percentage than the 600. Yeah. So, if a lot is already built on, does it get any of this treatment? So, let's say you're already built on and you want to put an addition on

and you currently exceed, you're in the R1 zone and you currently exceed the building coverage of 30%. and you currently exceed the 40% impervious coverage on the site. So, yeah, this would apply to somebody coming forward on a non a legal non-conforming lot to uh seek relaxation to that regulation. But in those circumstances, that lot is not, as you've said in your um staff report, effectively unbuildable. That lot has already demonstrated that somebody could build on. Right.

Sure. And so if our goal is to make sites that were um deemed or considered unbuildable buildable, why would we apply this to a lot that had already been built upon? Because that's the way the language is currently written. I'm not gonna I can't give you a That's the way it's written.

I believe completely believe that there are lots in town that have existing homes on them that if the home were to be destroyed, a fire by whatever, and the people wanted to rebuild, they would not be allowed to by the current. even their same footprint. There are some that would not even be allowed to build their same footprint if they had to go by the setbacks and everything. The current things the current things I don't know how many but I do believe there are

without getting this kind of adjustment

right. I'm not saying that I think we should or shouldn't but I do believe that does exist. Yes. So it's not just lots that are not built on it. Okay. Okay. Um so in the um uh report it also refers to um to be able to build a a modest residential structure. What is being considered a modest residential structure for this purpose? Again, that that's a word I use just to to describe that we're not going to have a you know mansion. I mean, we're parsing words here that really I don't think have any effect on the ordinance. I mean

understand how this relates to some of the other issues that had been uh presented to us uh about uh whether or not uh homes or other structures are being allowed to be too big and therefore people can't plant trees or it affects their neighbors because it, you know, means that one um uh neighbor is essentially building on top of another neighbor. I'm just trying to sort all of that out.

Well, a discussion for another day is is the the impact of naturalization in the in the community. That's a subject that I could spend three hours talking to you about because I've written those ordinances and they're very very painfully. The reason is because you have existing houses that have already mansionized and now you have small lots who want to use the same regulations those folks have and telling them they can't. So that's a conversation that I want to reserve for another night because we don't have time. I I certainly

when I say a modest home I what I'm basically saying is that you know a modest home I believe you know the opportunity came forward that's a modest home 1600 to 2200 square feet modest home not a modest home 4500 ft² 5,000 ft 6,000 square feet. So, how often is it a thing where it says you need to build up instead of we need to increase the um maximum build area or percentage? Instead of doing that, you got to build up.

Well, it doesn't say you have to build up. That's a that's an applicant's decision. Um so, if you're in the R1 zone, you can build up to a maximum of 35 ft. If you're near the ocean, you can build up to 55 feet because you do have to place that first floor at 13 or 14 feet above elevation. Uh so it's really the height limit really sort of keeps them down to 35 ft. So we don't get houses in the R1 that are, you know, those those giant, you know, 55 foot high ones. Uh that happens more in the I want to say the R3 zone where you're getting the big tall and stuff like that. uh the uh the allowance of 30% building coverage and the allowance of 40% impervious coverage in my opinion in R1 strikes about the right balance I believe for for conforming lots which as you know the the minimum lot size I believe in R1 is 9,000 square feet. those coverages really do work and have are continuing to work and doing their job. Um the the issue becomes now I've got a small lot. Okay, now I don't have a 9,000 square foot lot. I've got a smaller lot and I almost wish this were all worded in in the in the following manner. The director can make modifications based on the percent how much smaller. No word much less. No, that's not it either. The percentage of how much smaller the lot is to a conforming lot.

Okay. So, it says it's a th 7,000 square foot lot versus a nine. I don't know what the percentage is. I can't do numbers in my head. I can't do that. But there's a percentage there, right? And I think that should that should direct the director on how to make the modifications. It should be and I I did put in here that any modifications approved under the sections that represent the minimum adjustment necessary to allow residential use of the property. Well, yeah, they can use they can make residential use of the property. They just aren't enjoying the same factors that the 9,000 square foot lot is getting to to build their hub. Certainly, you can build on a 7,000 foot lot. I'm not saying you can't do that. What I'm saying is that because of the way they're set up for 9,000 square foot lots with the setbacks that they are, once you get a smaller lot, things get really start getting really tight. And I reviewed a a plan just the other day. Somebody came in with an R1 house, one of those little singlestory brick ranch houses and wanted to knock it down and put up a bigger house. And we found very very quickly that number one, the house that he built was already in the front yard setback. I mean, there were all kinds of issues already with the house because it was on such a a small parcel and was built and approved to be built long before our zoning came into play. the the the the the subject that you just brought up about we have a number of legal nonconforming structures and if they're get not if they are destroyed by what I call act of God um they have to rebuild um to the standard are protected to some extent for a certain amount of time but at some point

they have to be built to standard Um, so I I don't think this is a bad ordinance. I think it needs modification. I just think it needs modification and clarification because the word yard uh suggests that previous directors were using yard to grant relaxations on blood coverage and impervious coverage. Uh, I don't believe the word yard was intended to include those. That's my interpretation. My interpretation only. So, what I'm doing here is I'm looking for clarification because this isn't going to be the last one of these I get. I've had one in eight months. I'm sure that I'm going to see more of these because we have, as you see, we have a number of legal nonups down. I just wanted to be crystal clear when somebody comes in what I can and what I cannot do. If I can't do something, their next step is to go to the board of appeals. So, by doing this, would you agree that we're changing the board of zoning appeals authority?

No, I do not. Why not?

Because the ordinance is is in place. I mean, what I don't know what my answer is to you on that question. We're not usurping the board of appeals work. Uming lot comes in and and can't meet the setback because of a hardship, they get to go to the board of appeals. This is specifically narrowly defined for legal nonconforming lots, not conforming lots. So, no, I understand that. But um as I read the ordinance right now um I don't know whether I agree with the ambiguity because there are other places that yards are used in

oh it's used throughout and it's not defined

and um anyway uh uh by saying that uh you would get to adjust somebody's maximum build area um right now. um other than you know somebody uh maybe deciding that they could use this language more broadly than I think it's written. But anyway, that if you incorporate maximum build area into this ordinance, that is taking away from the board of zoning appeals the authority it currently has over adjusting the maximum build area. Is that right?

No, that's correct. No argument there. Okay. Okay. to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, let me start with the compelling event. So, you mentioned there are four criteria for the use of, you know, um I'm going to assume based on my knowledge that the first criteria of the four is to establish a hardship. There has there has to be perhaps the hardest a hurdle.

Exactly. So for the purposes of my next comment, assume that a u you know hardship has been validated. So then the goal is to allow the resident, the citizen, the property owner the ability to address his hardship within executing uh some type of application for a variance whether it's a discussion with you or a discussion planning commission or board of zoning appease. So the goal here is there is a defined hardship and we are trying to give the citizen a path to to yes essentially. Okay. So we agree on that. That's the way I understand. Okay. All right. So drop everything I just said. I just wanted to make sure I had that straight. All right. Now everything I'm going to say from this point forward has nothing to do with any of the language whatsoever as far as everything we've discussed this far. Um, we received a message of public comment um, suggesting and my initial thought was it was a matter of opinion that the use of staff or council or the planning commission was not statutoily um, compliant with South Carolina statutes. And I read what this gentleman had to say and he's very articulate and he made a great point, but he gave absolutely no backup because it was just all opinion and I was like, well,

maybe I ought to look and see if his opinion is factual. So, I did

and it was. So, if you would care to review South Carolina statute 6-29-800, it uh is the state statute that enables the powers of everything from sit town council to planning commission to your job and everybody else's. And with specific reference to the powers of the boards of zoning appeals, I'd like to provide the following for everyone's consideration. The board of zoning appeals has the following powers. The first of which is I'm not going to go into the second of which is to hear and decide appeals for variance from the requirements of the zoning ordinance, whatever that ordinance might be. What this means is the board of zoning appeals is the statutoily authorized body to hear, evaluate and decide variance requests. The authority is not optional nor advisory. It is specifically assigned by state law. In practice, municipal municipal councils, in our case, town councils, do not grant variances. Planning commissions staff do not grant variances. Only the board of zoning appeals has that quazi judicial authority. And this is part of uh the South Carolina government comprehensive planning enabling act of 1994 which establishes the separation of roles. The legislative body which in our case is the town council adopts the zoning ordinances. The administration staff which is you enforces the

ordinance and the board of zoning appeals grants variances and hears appeals. The courts have consistently ruled the courts have consistently ruled with respect to 6-29-800 that variances must go through the board of zoning appeals process. The decisions must meet the specific hardship criteria which for the purposes of this I assume they do. and um the written findings state that the board of zoning appeals has the exclusive authority to hear and decide those requests. I'll be glad to provide you the documentation that I've been reading from, but my point is not as dramatic as it may sound. What I would suggest to keep us in compliance with South Carolina state statutes is everything stays the same except instead of using the word um instead of using the word the director of planning, building and zoning, we just replace that with the board of zoning appeals. Now, I do recognize what that means. I'm not saying that without understanding the pain that that represents because at that point there's pain for the citizen because now they no longer have the ability to just come in and sit down with Mark and have a discussion and work it out and come to an amicable solution. No, now they got to wait for when is the next board of zoning appeals.

And then they've got I don't know how many are on our board of zoning appeals. I guess seven. um you know, and then they got to worry about God, I thought I was only going to have to talk to Mark. Now I got to deal with these seven people. But that's what the law is. Um now I I'm not an attorney. Don't play one on TV. I just looked it up. All right. So, um, my very humble suggestion, and I'll, uh, hand these down, y'all. I'd like to give you a copy just to review. I guess my palms. Um that's a revised copy of the resolution you provided with the insertion uh up at the very beginning uh to authorize a limited and instead of calling it an appellet an administrative adjustment it calling it an appellet adjustment which is what it would be through the BCA and then no other changes to any of the wording except for where the term director of planning building and zoning was used just replacing it the board zoning appeals. Um, now this is just something because I I had 15 minutes between calls today. um that I thought could help expedite the process tonight. But having listened to the discussion before this, there's a whole lot of work in the zoning stuff that needs to be done before the red before the the u the resolution is even going to be considered. Um, and I have some other specific action items I've captured on that, but I'm going to save that for the for the discussion at the end. So, for

right now, um, I'm not making a motion. I'm not putting anything up for consideration for a vote, but I did want to print this out just so everybody could see what my personal interpretation was of the law says this has to be BCA. and how I felt that um that would impact the resolution that you had written and provided us. Um so with respect to providing the citizens a method to get relief from a hardship, um I just I just want to say and I know it's not a question, but I want to say I fully 100% support that. Um, but I think the state was telling us the conduit to doing that is a little different than what we're discussing right now. And with that, I yield in regard to to what John just said, I I want to make sure that said a different way. My thought has been that town probably does not have the legal right to grant this authority to the BBC director. In fact, town maybe ought to be taking back some of what's already in the ordinance

and I just wanted to make sure that that is in line with what John said and I believe it is. I don't think we can grant this.

Okay. First of all, I think we've moved into discussion uh on where we go. Have we exhausted all questions for um Mark? Because we actually have a few agenda items in between us uh discussing. Uh uh I I do have one more question though. Mark, has the town attorney looked at what um uh in place before us as a potential amendment?

No, the town attorney only replied to me when I asked him if he could define what a yard was and we got nowhere with that. Okay. Okay. Have we have we exhausted all questions? I have a question for right now. One question.

Okay. Go ahead, Scott. Um the only question is uh amending this section 17201 and the way you described would it help keep these small modest charming homes in the town versus um what's been the trend which is tearing these small original homes down building a monroity Would this type of language or this type of uh you know amendment to this section help encourage the uh charm of the small home retro look to Surfside in your opinion? And you're asking an opinion. I would tell you no. Okay. It would really help that much believe that um so the the short answer regardless of what you all believe is is that the state of South Carolina zoning administrator can approve minor adjustments on legal non-conforming lots. That's the key language here if your local ordinance specifically authorizes it. Otherwise, the authority typically rests with the board of zoning appeals. The city of Colombia, the state capital director in Colombia has the right to make minor modifications on legal non-conforming laws. It has to be narrowly worded. So, if we're going to do searches to find out what state law is, we've got to make sure that those words get specifically input into the into the question. So, um managing

off the record and I know everything's on the record. I wish there weren't in here. I really do because it puts me in a tough spot. It puts me in a really tough spot because somebody's going to come in and ask for more than 10%. If I think the lot's only 10% smaller, I'm going to get into this back and forth that I don't like to I don't like that kind of confrontation given given to me. Um, I would prefer that there was some kind of and you presented a modification to this resolution that basically says, well, let's just give this to the board of appeals. Let's make it really simple for them to approve these types of minor le on lots non small non-conforming lots and give them the authority or a clearer path rather than having to go through you know what's the hardship here? I'll tell you what the hardship is. It's simple. I have a lot that's undersized. That's my hardship. Can't deny that. Right? So, um when you deliberate your your your um decision on how or if you'd want to move this to the um council. Here's what the ascent here's here's the heartburn I'm having. heartburn is that I believe directors in the past have used this and they've used it quite liberally. I did not use it liberally. I denied the I denied the request, but the word yards came up and I needed a definition of the word yards and guess what? It doesn't exist in our code. It's just the word yard is used. It's not defined. So trying to get a definition of the word yards was tough. So that's what led me down the path of okay, let's just clarify. The primary things that somebody has to look at when they're building houses is

setbacks, lot coverage, impervious coverage, building height. Pretty much that's it. And thank God it doesn't include building height because I'm probably sure I'd be getting pinged on why don't you let me go higher. I would just prefer that um that ultimately we give a clear indication to the board of appeals that this is something that they should handle. They should handle this. Take it out of my hands. I I'm I'm really I mean like I said what happens is that a planning director before me or a planning director before her we're making liberal interpretations of this and all of a sudden now I'm the bad guy because I'm taking a more I'm taking a harder definition stance on this. So, what I was trying to do with this modification was, well, let me define what it is you get to do. But if you're uncomfortable, I believe state law is pretty clear that if it's narrowly defined as legal non-conforming lot, I do I'm looking at it right here. State law says I have the you can do that. You can't do it on conforming lots though. That's very clear. You can't. And what what whoever gave you the input them to put the word legal non-conforming lot into their search into what state law says. And I could probably run that right now, but I I took a while you're all talking, I took a a shot at it. Yes. With limits. In South Carolina, a zoning administrator can approve minor adjustments on legal non-conforming lots. And it the word if is in is bolded if your local ordinance specifically authorizes it. Well, Colombia's specifically authorizes it. So if you

do, but Madam Chair, can we get this out? Yeah. What's the code that you're reading? Um I'm not reading a specific code. I'm getting an interpretation of state law. Um Okay. So hold it. State law allows under South Carolina local government comprehensive planning enabling act zoning administrator enforces the ordinance of BCA grants variances. So I've got two short answers here that are conflicting. Yeah. The latter of the two fits within the code that I code that you have. Yeah. The one the first one that you gave as a code

opens litigation. What's Yeah, I'm just going to sit here and say do the right thing. How's that? Do the right thing. Get me off. We always get me off the hook. Yeah, get me off. Did you have a question? I tried citation. Okay. So, he doesn't have a citation is what what I That's correct. Yeah. But here I am sitting telling you that the city of Columbia does it. It's the same capital. Okay. So, it's not it's not

Yeah, because it was in everybody's ordinance and I think somebody probably got sued. Everybody's got scared. They all ran for cover and they removed that provision from their ordinances. So, it's still in many ordinances and it hasn't been removed from everybody's ordinance.

Okay. Do we have any more questions? I have one more assuming that this can be done legally. Uh what have you as I recall from our discussion um uh I don't know a month or so ago um you thought a formulaic approach was not a good thing but I think I was hearing you say tonight that formulaic could be a good route. It would be a fair route.

That's the way I read it. It's a fair route. So, if your lot is a certain percentage below the minimum, then that's the percentage that we're going to give you. No more, no less. It takes the discretion out of my hands and makes it mandatory. It's not discretionary. It's mandatory. So, you know, we all we have to do is just sit and figure out what the percentage of your lot is and I'm going to apply that percentage to your setbacks in your lot coverage. That's what I was thinking about. And would that be a bad idea?

Well, you know, you're all sitting here telling me that, you know, the other other towns have run for cover on this. I'm telling you that state this the state has there are cities that still have this in their ordinance. Um, it's really it's really not my decision. It's your decision and ultimately you make a recommendation to council. Council's going to make the decision on what they want to do next. Of course. Of course. But we don't want to waste anyone's time. don't want to waste anyone's time to give a considered uh recommendation to council or what so

regardless of what the recommendation is this evening this will be taken to council for their consideration with your recommendation of either an allowance a modification to the ordinance or a complete no we don't want to do this please strike it from the please strike it from the zone okay because that's what a lot so as part of this process because I'm completely new to this process. How do we get the legal opinion interjected into this mix? Don't put me on the Don't put me on the spot here. You've got an attorney. We have a

We have a town attorney. We have a town attorney who should tell us is our current ordinance amended or not amended um consistent with state law or not. That's the route you'd like me to take. I can make that can take that to the uh town hearing. Okay. But we're not in the decision making portion of this. I got it. Okay. All right. So, we have another hearing that we need to Yeah, we have another hearing. Uh yeah. So which a little easier.

I will close unless somebody has something further. Close the hearing on amending section 17201 and move us into the hearing on amending 17 601 which has to do with uh municipal side.

Let me shift gears real quick. The provision before you this evening clarifies uh of the well what here's what it does. I'll break it down really simply. There is nothing in the ordinance right now that regulates town size. It's unclear. It's not there. This is simply a clarification saying that municipal signs do not have to abide by a code that is meant for private signage. It's that simple. I'm not going to articulate any further than that. It's very simple.

Okay, we'll open it up for public comment. Do we have anyone who would like to offer public comment on this topic? Okay, not hearing any. Uh, let's open it up to questions um of the director. Anybody have questions? I do. Okay. But if somebody else wants to go first,

you seem to have been the first to uh try to I'll try to state these in questions. Um would you say this kind of uh concept is uh rules for thee and not for me? I think the concern is that you know the government regulates or you know we're we have a sign regulation and so the citizens can't put up signs but it's fine for the government to just put any sign they want anywhere. Yeah.

Okay. One saying is that unless you want to modify the language, you have the right to modify the language here. It's simply clarifying that the town of Surfside Beach doesn't have to look at how much frontage it has or how much, you know, square footage the lot is to define the size of their sign or where the sign is placed. It gives the town the ability to place government signs, regulatory signs, speed limit signs, stop signs, um event signs. So, I think those are probably the ones that I think about and I kind of cringe a little bit because sometimes I've seen some of the signage that we put up for some events and I think to myself, well, it could look a lot better than that. But, you know, right now, and be clear, no one has come to me and said, you know, the town wants to put up some kind of an egregious sign and the code is keeping us from doing that. That's not the case here. This is simply a clarification that municipal signs are exempt from the sign code.

Okay. So um this would then uh be more than like the core government functions for signage which is traffic control, safety warnings and emergency notifications. This is more than just those basic court signage. It is okay. Um, and I g I guess I could asking your opinion if it's okay. Okay.

Um, would a better solution be to roll back some of the restrictions and regulations on the whole signage to make it more fair. Um, you know, what what you kind of expressed is that the government can put any kind of sign anywhere for the most part that they want and we as citizens and business people, we're pretty we're locked down to very minimal signage. I agree.

Um, it seems like a very contrasted. Um, is there in your opinion again is there middle ground? And that's the only question I have. I'll yield back after you uh respond.

Okay. You know, this is a fairly defined adjustment that I'm making that I'm coming to you with. Basically, it's a paragraph that exempts municipal signs from having to follow the sign code. If you're asking my opinion as to whether the sign code itself, the private signs should be modified in some way, my answer to you is most likely. That's not what I'm here this evening to discuss with you. The town has been putting up municipal signs since it's incorporated and they have never had to apply any of the sign code to them. We could not put this in the sign code. I mean in the in the code tonight or ever and the town would probably continue to place signs wherever and whenever it wants. This is clearly a modification to make it crystal clear the town does have that authority.

Thank you. Mhm. I I um when I did my research, I didn't find that exemption in any other area and I think that's why because it's assumed that they have that. My only question on here was about and I think I kind of mentioned this before, but um the removal of those event signs. I just have concerns that reasonable time seems pretty vague. Is there, you know, I would recommend, you know, that did we say like 30 days post event or something like that to 30 hours

or two days or whatever it is. I mean, if it's a holiday and nobody's working, so it's you're not going to get people, you know, after a parade to run around, take the signs down or whatever. But, you know, within, like you said, reasonable, but set a specific time. Does that seem reasonable? That seems reasonable and that suggests that we look at the the resolution and we add a rare as in there

that reflects I think your wellfounded appropriate modification because no one wants to see things tattered and torn that have been up for 60 days and the event was three weeks ago. So I think it's not an inappropriate uh request to make of the modification to this provision. Thank you. Anyone else? What would be a reasonable amount of time? Yeah. No, not touching that. Sorry. Okay. I mean to me 48 hours comes to mind immediately, but I don't know if that's a a fair amount. 48 business hours.

Yeah. Yeah, because to your point to measure. Well, no, but you just say a week.

Well, I mean, I I think a week is my personal opinion, it's way too long. I mean, if it takes you a week to take the signs down, you put up way too many signs and that's your problem, not ours. Get them down. 48 business hours says you've got two days of John's crew or Tabitha's crew, whoever put them out, that they've got two business days. So if there's a holiday, that doesn't count, you know, if it's a weekend, you know, by Tuesday. I mean, to me, we got two square miles here, people. I mean, I can go get up all the signs that are in the whole dag on town in two days.

You're hired. I mean, yeah. So, I to me, I think a reasonable period of time is 48 business hours and then that way if there's a holiday or, you know, if it's over a weekend, I mean, personally, I think John's group just does it right after the event. I've seen them collecting the the guard rails and all the other things they put up and grab the signs then. But I'm trying to figure out where that whereas is that says the reasonable period of time or whatever. Where is that?

Yeah, that's what I'm looking at. Yes. I think that if if go that route and use business hours, we've got to define what business hours are. But that is city totally all over the map. Yeah. City the city I'm sorry. Yeah. The city's business hours as opposed to the banks or but when you I interject when you said that I I thought okay business hours were 9 to5 so that's eight hours. So you're saying A6 32 5 days if you're cons. So I I all I'm saying is we do need to define it. Yeah.

Okay. We've moved beyond questioning into whatever. Um any more questions? Okay. 17601 and move on to minutes approval. So, we'll start with the minutes from our March 3rd, 2026 regular meeting. Can I get a motion regard to them? Yes.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes of I don't have anything in March in my minutes. What? Which one is there? A March one. What was the date you gave? March 3rd, 2026. It's on the agenda item six right here. It's about midway through the packet. Oh god. Okay. And it begins on a a lefth hand page at least from it.

All right. And I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes of the March 3rd uh planning commission. I'll second.

Everyone in favor? I No. Okay. Approve. Okay. And then moving on to the January 28, 2026 tree workshop

with regard to them. Madam Chair, yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the January 28th planning commission workshop meeting tree workshop meeting notes. I got a second. Oh, sorry. three workshop minutes say I

I to the um overlay minutes uh which are towards the back of the packet and um can I get a motion with regard to That's the February 9th, 2026 uh overlay workshop that we had um with the planning commission and the I mean with the town council planning commission and uh business commission. Madam Chair,

I'd like to make a motion to approve the February 9th uh zoning overlay workshop with the town council and the business committee.

We get a second. Okay. Uh all in favor I sounds like we've got those minutes approved. Um, we move into public comments on agenda items. We have five minutes per speaker. If you'd like to address us, please come forward, state your name and your address, and um, tell us what you'd like to cover. My name is Scott Richardson. I live in Deerfield 103 Avenue. I have been in touch with Mark here and in coming forward there is a parcel that I would like to purchase. Um it is currently C1 which allows um equipment sales lumber yard and other source. My proposal is I would like to bring in a neighborhood garden center and saying that that is not currently in the notes to be allowed. So, okay.

Okay. So, you're indirectly I'm going to just help you out. Indirectly asking us to modify the use state.

Yes. that it's it's actually a little more narrowly defined in that there are approved uses in the land use table that one could interpret to include this type of activity very clearly decision without planning commission possibly weighing in on what those uses are because it does mention nursery. As we as we discussed the the actual activity, I started feeling like it was less nursery and more I don't know if I want to call it gravel stone sand kind of kind of thing where it wasn't really wasn't really a nursery anything. So, I I didn't want to say yes. I didn't want to say no. I wanted at least a brief conversation at at commission to give me a little direction here.

Okay. So, procedurally, this is not an agenda. No, it's not. You'd have to agendaize it. We would have to put you on our agenda and uh talk about where we go. uh with this which um I one would be happy to do but just not right during the course of this meeting uh and uh um so let's tee it up for te it up for for May okay come come back and see us

sorry you can you can speak Okay. So, the question really is come up and identify yourself. Sorry.

Sorry. Sarah Freed, um I live with Scott. The question really is if this piece of property is for sale and has been for some time, which is the case, how long do we need to wait in order to have this conversation? So, he would he Scott called Mark, had a conversation with him. We all kind of chatted about it. There's nothing that says it can't be done, but what do we need in order to wait a month and then have a conversation? What kind of conversation will we have at that point? And how will he be best prepared? Good question. I have no idea. Okay.

I am pretty sure that it wasn't that long ago planning commission made it a special point to add garden centers to the use chart. Now, without this ordinance in front of me, I don't know how it defines garden center or what I don't have yard is specifically allowed. So, I'm not sure. We can't find any reason why this wouldn't be. I'm just not sure what we need in order to substantiate the play. I think the answer to your question is not what you need. It's what we need. Okay. Okay. So the what will happen between now and the time you come force again to consider this as a business item.

Y'all want to text me? Well, that's this gentleman's job. So he he will he will get the information and then it will be provided in our packet for us to review prior to the meeting so that when we get here we're actually prepared to have the discussion and if so motivated make a motion to approve or deny. Okay. Yeah. And Sarah, I don't want to cut you off, but we're supposed to follow this agenda and um you're a little bit outside of it, but we're going to figure out how to resolve whatever. Okay. Our goal is to get you to Yes. Yes. Okay. Yeah.

Well, I like it when we're not at cost purposes. That's fantastic. All right. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Okay. comments on agenda items. Okay, Mark, it's your show for we move on to a director's report. Uh I do not have a director's report for you.

Okay, moving on to business items. Um our first business item is the amendment of the planning commission bylaws. And um I would start by asking for a motion uh with regard to the u uh proposed amendment to the bylaws. Um and that appears at the way back on the uh of the packet. Um, Madam Chairman,

I I'd like to make a motion um because I think John makes too many motions uh to amend the planning commission uh bylaws and uh to address vice chairman provision provision, change time of meetings, remove provision on public comments via email and other minor changes. Second. Okay. Do we have a need for any discussion or move to a move? I'd like to bring up. Sure.

U personally I think the the section where we discussed this is section four article one section four where we're talking about the vice chairman assumes the role blah blah blah. Then we talk about in that same section about having to reelect the chairman where I think that section should go up under the chairman in section three. It it doesn't. The only thing that this that whole section affects is u vice chair is in charge until we have a new chairman. That should be a new chairman should be covered in section three that discusses the chairman in my opinion. Otherwise, I I'm fine with the the rest of the document.

So, um uh what what would you do? just move all of the language that begins if the vice chair assumes just move that whole sentence up into section three. It that seems to fit better for me. Okay. So that is a motion to amend a motion to amend this document to move the section from the end of section four to section. Not soon. Was that the extended?

Yeah. Okay. Um, so we have a second on it. Um, any discussion on the negative motion?

I I guess I have a question just to clarify. That's okay. Um you know this is discussing uh uh what happens if the chairman is uh out of commission. Um then to the vice chair. Um, you know, I mean, we just went through this. So, we had to elect a new chairman and then we really had to elect a new vice chairman because the vice chairman went into the chairman's spot. Do we have to address that in this is the question I have for other commissioners here? You mean do you are you asking whether or not essentially we need that same language in section 4 only have it focused on the vice chair so that the vice chair serves until the next first meeting of the calendar year

in essence

is that a motion to amend on a motion to amend It was discussion, so I I didn't make a motion, but I couldn't make a motion to amend the amendment. Why Why don't you? And then we have um Okay. Yeah. But you're not saying that what Larry suggested, you're opposed to. No, I agree. You're just suggesting that we need two. Okay.

Right. Um and it was it was more of a discussion question but your suggestion of using similar language under uh vice chairman would be appropriate. So I can make that motion. Um if you know and Mary maybe Marielle can critique my uh amendment to so I amend the amendment of the motion to uh uh adjust the vice chairman language similar to the language of chairman in sections three and four. ROF Second.

Okay. Have we got enough clarification for everybody? I understand.

Okay. Um and we'll just do a new draft and one get that to work. Okay. So, um, all in favor of Scott's amendment to Larry's amendment, which would result in, um, the in similar language occurring in section three and section 4 as to what happens if we have to have a a new election mid year because We've had a vice chair assume the chairman position. All in favor of that and the other changes in the um the bylaws. Do I hear? Yes.

I

Okay, it sounds like we're have no opposed. So, um we will fix that and uh get that taken care of um on the website and to have plans. Okay. Okay. The next agenda item uh is uh to um uh the question of directing um Mark to schedule a public hearing with regard to zoning map amendments. Um and there are two different uh zoning map amendments. They appear as 9B and C. Uh, can we deal with them together, Mark, or do we have to separate them up?

No, you can deal with them together if you'd like. Um, the the the brief I want to give you on this is that the planning commission is not required to vote in advance to schedule public hearing for zoning code amendment. But I am bringing this to you out of what I would call sincere sort of warning to the planning commission that a public that a zone change amendment in two cases has been filed with the department. Both sites have been posted. The public notice has gone out. But this is more of a a procedural thing that I would like to put on agendas in the future so that you know at the next meeting you're going to be dealing with two zone change amendments. It's it you can tell me don't put this on the agenda anymore. It's not necessary or yeah it's kind of nice to know that you know we're going to give you direction to go ahead and get this on our next agenda. I think the other thing it it does it gives you the opportunity to possibly consider what the next agenda might be and it might be that for instance we scheduled to talk about nothing but the tree ordinance at our next or at our next regularly scheduled meeting. You can direct me to schedule the public hearing um at a later date than bringing it to you at the next meeting. This is a procedural thing. I I really don't care one way or another how you go on this, but I thought um uh whenever I can let you know that something's coming before you ahead of time, that's a better procedural way to do things rather than show up at your next meeting. And guess what, folks? We have two zone change amendments. Do you have you had a chance to run out? Look, have this gives you a sort of a shot over the file letting you know that something's coming.

Did I understand correctly that we now have an application filed to change the C2 lot to C1? We do. And what was the it was it that's a seven group. That's correct. And what date did they file that application about 30 days ago? The last meeting you specifically said it had not been filed. That's right. It hadn't been about 30 days since our last It's been about 30 days since our last meeting. That's what I called them immediately and said, "You need to file an application." They have filed the application.

And when did they file the application? Literally the day after our last planning commission hear. Okay. So we have to make a decision 45 days. Sorry 45 days with our timing on something. I think a zone change is I want to say 60 days on a zone change. Is it 45? I don't want them to certain number of days after the public hearing. So,

we're scheduling the public hearing. Then we've got then you've got Yeah, I don't have that in front of me, but I just my hair's standing on the I'm pretty sure I'm reading it, but I'm pretty sure the clock doesn't start ticking until the public hearing on. So, I mean, it's it's not the clock didn't start clicking when they applied for it. The clock only starts from the time that there is a public hearing to consider a bill.

Let's double check that. I'm not of all sure. I remember words about from the time from the date of the application because we were unable to see the date of a previous application. It was a big deal. Who wrote? Yeah. Looking at state law, there is no specific time limit in South Carolina law that requires the planning commission to act on a zoning map amendment within a set number of days. That's that's a surprise to me. In practice, the planning commission must hold it by hearing make a recommendation, but it's not required by state law to act within a a fixed time frame. I think they're talking about our ordinance. I think that controls the time.

Let's look at the ordinance. Okay. Yeah, there's no specific requirement, but see how I 17 act. It's in the procedures 1720. I was think 202. Yeah,

that's where the procedures are for it change. trying to look at chapter Hey, look. My laptop's here. 1720 is it 202 I'm not sure.

What it So it's 45 days after the filing of the amendments with the code enforcement that under

172 section public hearing. scheduling notice and it talks about a public hearing shall be scheduled by the planning commission not to be held more than 45 days after is required. Oh, the public hearing. Yeah. Okay. Not the not the vote, the public hearing. Yeah. And we need to publish it 15 days in advance of the public hearing just like yesterday. And could be 15 days.

Well, we're having two meetings a month, right? So, we're going to have another one in the next 15 days is not going to make it. But it doesn't make it. No. No, we got 15 days to They filed on March 4th. That's worse. Sounds like we need to apply for a variance with the

30 days following period in which to make our recommendation date. meeting. I think that comes out 19th and 20th. Madam Chair, can I ask a questions mark? Um Mark,

in the in the application, was it 100% complete and accurate and requiring no followup for any reason? I accepted the application completely. Okay. Was it paid for? believe so. So we have 45 days from March 4th. Yeah. So that would Yeah. Because it's not indicated that he's going to pull out pull the 45day thing on. So just so you know. Well, the key is in approval though.

Yeah. Right. We can't uh go with uh anything other than following those timings because then it's a done deal. Madame Chairman, um it's also we have to consider the 15 days before the public hearing due date of April 19th, which be April 4th or whatever. We'd already have to post have the signage up and uh the signage is up. Signage is up and it has been posted and published in the streaming page. Okay. So everything's done there at least. So it's just a matter of the meeting.

Okay. So we'd have to have it by April 19th or 18th. put in the paper that we were going to have immediate a public hearing on a certain date because we just now have to sign it. Sure did. It didn't say a specific date. Oh, you think it had a date already on it? Okay. Well, public notice. You tell them when the public

Well, this is to be 15 days. This is the public notice that went in um that set today as the hearing date on this. So there was another public okay like we got to get this squared away. Yeah. Let's see. See if I can find it.

Yeah, we're going to def Do are you doing the dates, Janette?

Trying, but I'm I'm also waiting to see what you put in the post. Say 45 days. Are we saying calendar days? when they make their application, they have to pay a fee. Is that correct? I believe so. Yes. And is so if Sorry, I'm not trying to I know we're bombarding you with stuff, but I'm sorry. I know we're not trying to do that to you, but

um just just a thought. If they have to pay a fee, does that mean I mean if the fee hasn't been paid yet, is does that mean their application is would be considered? So, do you know by chance? I didn't think there was going to be a problem here. Sorry. We got to just sort it out. I'd love it if they haven't paid the fee. Yeah. If there's a fee, there's things that we don't charge for. Oh, you had to Angie. Do you know if there's a fee?

Is there a fee that's supposed to be paid? You want to turn in an application? It's It would be a zoning map amendment. Uh I don't know whether there's such thing. Well, what we do know is there has been no funds collected from the We do know that the question at this point is where funds are required. Okay. So, so we go we go into the um the beginning part of the code and look at whether there's a I think that's what Mark's looking

I think he's looking for the actual post so we know what the date is that was in the post. Okay. Are you looking for if there's a fee? No, I don't know where the fees are. They're in the beginning of um the ordinances. Okay. like under the administrative or

Yeah, it's a piece of general newspaper. It might be under administration.

Okay. Well, no, I'm just saying I know your laptop is function on the phone. Oh, well, click here. Okay. I mean, it take me an hour. You guys have it all memorized. There we go. Like that general idea. I don't know where to look it up.

Ander Masa Yeah, it's one of the It's not in 17. Oh, maybe four.

Application right now. It's going to be at the bottom there.

See it in chapter 4 in the early business. So, I think this is why I did this tonight. I just I'm looking at a handout we have. It's called the reszoning application submission requirements. Might have been things here. Is there a dollar amount on that page? That's what I'm looking for. Yeah. Variance considered variance dollars.

Not really a variance because you would assume that would go to the Uh it's a zoning map change, right?

Yeah. So what what does it say? Planning commission applications. That's really what we are because they're applying to us for an amendment to the zoning map right here. This last one. Well, no, no, no. But does it keep going? Yeah. Here you go. So, they need to uh

$250. Okay. What section are we in? Yeah, let's write that down. Okay, you passed I think the section. No, no, the um face schedule is it schedule comprehensive schedule? Okay, they needed to have paid $250. Yeah, that has been paid. Sweet. Okay. And we are absolutely certain of that. Yes. Okay.

Yeah. I didn't I haven't received a check. I think I think we know if we receive a check or two. We have not. And there is a checklist of things that have to be submitted prior to that going on. And and paying the fee is one of the things. Oh, absolutely. Okay. You sure? I'm looking at it right now. Okay. Are they aware of it? Probably not. Like I said, they've been a really easy applicant. I mean, they were just like I was I told them I was going to get on a previous agenda and we didn't because we didn't properly post site. Remember that. Yes. Bring it forward. They said they said no problem. Just Yeah. When you can when you can get to us.

Okay. Maybe shoot them a by the way. By the way, $250. Yeah. In a week. By the way, you lost 250. Yeah. a week to do so much time. Applications for resoning will be listed as discussion item on the planning commission agenda prior to being added as a business item on a subsequent meeting. So a public hearing will be scheduled by the planning commission consider each zoning request. Planning commission makes a recommendation as to whether the property should be reszoned. The recommendation is then forward to the council. you know that part they've filled out their their application is filled out completely. Uh

yeah, they just need to pay the fee. They just need to pay the fee. That should give us a reprieve if it's all correct. Were you able to find the post

Mark? Were you able to find the post that newspaper post? The post was the original date which was um the 7th of April which was supposed to be held tonight. Yeah. But because we found a we discovered an error in our posting, right? We're supposed to post on all thorough affairs. We posted on twoares. We didn't post on believe it or not the site surrounded by four roads.

We didn't do that. Now that's out there. So we had to pull back. didn't want to move forward without making sure we had done that correctly. Um, so the the post that was that was um published had the meeting for um this evening. Um, and the new post has not gone out.

That post did go out and did get published. Um but I had informed the applicant that we weren't going to be taking up this evening because of a a glitch in our our um noticing and he said, "Okay, well just tell us when we're going to be there." So this business item is requesting that we direct you to put those public notices out there and schedule the hearing for you. I think it's May 3rd, the Sunday. I believe it's May 3rd and that would be the revised public hearing notice that I would send in the newspaper now. And we need to tell them cough up your um fee. Yeah, they'll do that.

Okay. was just a little play. So, um I think we need a motion for whether or not we're directing Mark to do two things. if we're considering them together, otherwise we can interview them separately.

The the other the other one is the um property behind town hall town hall that which uh little history on that one just so I found this out today. That property behind town hall was originally zoned C1 three years ago and they changed it to PL three years ago. So they're basically asking to get back to the rule zoning. That's really the pro I think. Y that's C C1. Yeah. Okay. That's 9C in the Yeah.

Yeah. So, with your direction, what I'll do is I'll go ahead and post a new public notice in the newspaper. Um, we haven't sent out letters to the surrounding property owners yet. We have there's 44 of them. We haven't sent those out, but that's part of our notice or requirement as well to send out those letters. And once I have your authorization to schedule this for your next uh planning commission meeting, those letters will go out and the post will go out with the with that date on them. that planning commission I guess we call that hearing is May 3rd that's the next one

that's the next that's the next regular meeting regular schedule meeting y workshop and I need that much time to you know get the postings and paper and all that sort of stuff that's why I come to you a month ahead of time it's uh May 5th May 5th Yep. That's a Tuesday. Okay. Senco de Mayo. Bring your margaritas.

What are you bringing? Just for my polarity of thought, can we please talk through this application process? I mean the not the town property that's converting back to C1. I think I'm not as concerned about that. This other one I want to make sure that I clearly understand the process and that we are clearly going to meet the dates that we need to meet. Do we know that we are if they paid their fee tomorrow? Yeah. If they pay the fee tomorrow, the clock starts. Okay. Because then they have a complete application.

And so from the time the clock starts, we have 45 days. Is that what we say? 45 days to hold the hearing. To hold the hearing, right? That would be on May 5th within your 45day time frame. I have to publish it 15 days before the public hearing. So, I'm guessing the 20th maybe. Had had had you already sent out letters and No, you had not sent out anything on that one.

I'm being uber thorough. You know, we've had some changes before this department. Letters do not go out. So, we have the the public hearing and then we have we need to look at it. I think it's like 30 days to make a decision once it's at the public hearing. Yep. We have time to make the decision.

Just make me feel better. and sometime tomorrow or whenever you get a chance in the next couple of days look at all of that and make sure that we are at the time periods that we're not missing anything that could be technically a problem for us please thank you the applicant is the property owner period the applicant who signed the application was the property owner okay yeah it was submitted by the property owner we can't have the application signed by a potential You know, you can have a you can have it signed by the potential tenant, but ultimately at the bottom it has to be the property owner who signs off on it.

That way both people know what they're doing. That's the way the application looks. We can see both names on on it. Madam Chair, yes, J. I'd like to make a motion, please.

All right. I'd like to make a motion to direct the uh director of planning and zoning to schedule a public hearing in consideration of zoning map amendment TMS number 911513001 for the May 5th planning commission hearing. and provide all public communications and signage required.

We have a second. I'll second that. Okay. All in favor say I. Any opposed? No. That motion carries. Mark, please uh could ask those papers, but also do what to

give us uh the lay of the land in terms of all of our deadlines. Um so then we move on to uh 9C map amendments related to the um uh property hall. Can I get a motion for that? Yes. I'd like to make a motion for the planning commission to direct the director of planning and zoning to schedule a public hearing regarding zoning map amendment PIN number 461040085 and to provide all public communications and signage required for the public hearing. ing on May 5th.

Did you? Okay. Um, all in favor uh say I

Okay, that one passes. Um, D So, uh this um topic relates to the um public hearing uh item on um section 17201 take anyone to how we might proceed. can recommend disapproval of this section 172012. Have a second. second it so we can discuss

discussion. Okay. Okay. And um so thoughts to weigh in that just about everything I have to say. I'm just going to repeat that I do not believe has the authority to do this before I I would not be um Yes. Um weren't we recommending that or do we have to make a motion to recommend that the planning director seek legal counsel from the town? uh attorney to get a recommendation of whether what is being proposed uh can align with state law. I uh would suggest that that is a motion to I mean if you want to make a motion to amend the motion to disapprove and instead

uh seek uh a legal withdraw. Can she do that? She can. Yes. Yes. That's a good idea.

Okay. So with the withdrawal then I would like to motion that um we ask the planning director to uh seek legal counsel with the town attorney to get a recommendation of whether uh the proposal proposed changes um in 17201 can will align officially with South Carolina state A second. I have a suggestion.

Well, we need a second and then to move on to I'll second it. Okay. Do it as good as John to correct me. the the yeah that's what I wanted to tell you the I my personal belief is the proper path forward is a motion to table the current amendment 172 whatever the number is

subject to uh municipal legal um verification that it is statutoily aligned in other words instead But making the motion as get the legal, you have to table one that we're talking about first. So I think I think the motion and it's up to you because you made the motion, but I think the motion is to table the section 17 20 whatever it was until such time as municipal legal council has advised. If it is statutoily compliant and then at that point we can take it up again.

So u motion on the table or you withdrawing it or you want to modify it just I would like to withdraw it and defer to you can make me lift the number. All right, let me let me find it real quick.

Okay. All right. I'd like to make a motion to table the current uh resolution number 2026 dash. That's yet to be determined until such time as the city attorney has confirmed if it is statutoily compliant. Do we have a second to John's motion? Okay. Can I Any discussion?

Just make a comment. You know, if we This is still active. So, it's up to the director to uh respond. Correct. as if this is, you know, this is already an ordinance, so he can do whatever this ordinance says. Just pointing that out. That's this thing can still go forward. Correct. U it does have these um uh ambiguities that are We're not stopping him from doing his job, right?

I I don't I In my opinion, nothing until town council uh acts on this, whether it's uh uh rejecting, approving, modifying, whatever, everything remains the same. Okay. So, does that cause you to No. Okay, that's fine.

Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. So, a vote on uh the motion to table the proposed amendment to section 17201 and to seek uh a legal opinion from uh the town attorney with regard to what is um been proposed. Uh all in favor say I. I any opposed? No. Okay.

All right. So, that leads Hang in there, D. at least uh 9E uh with regard to um the proposed amendment having to do with our second public hearing um related to section 17601 having to do with um the municipal sign exemption. Um and I get a motion with regard to it. Yes, John. The official motion.

Um, I'd like to make a motion to approve.

Section 17 section 17601 as proposed. Second motion to amend

the reasonable time. So, I would like to make a motion to approve well approving um to to amend the approval of the 17601 MUN sign exemption. Um as long as the reasonable time is defined in the um updated updated uh code I'm agreeable to that I forgot. Sorry. Thanks a lot.

Yeah. So I'll just weigh in. I think we need to specify what that time frame is. We can't just leave it hanging or leave um not accomplished uh to go of having a specific

I think to business what I was trying to say and it was accurately pointed out the way I was working in this 48 business hours would be like a week. So I'd like to amend what I was suggesting for that reasonable time period be is two business days not 48 business hours to city town of Surfside Beach business days. Okay, this is becoming confusing because this is an amend like to make a motion to withdraw my original amendment that gets us back to

square one. Square one. Okay. Do I have to withdraw my amendment is right? Yes. And then now, madam chair, if I might make the amendment I should have made in the first place. I'd like to make a motion to approve the sign section 17602 amendment 601

601 I'm sorry 601 um as provided this evening from the planning and zoning director with the addition of the reasonable time for sign removal to be defined as two Town of Surfside business days after the event.

We have a second for that.

Sure. I don't think two days is enough. Um, election signs. If you're running for council, you have five, as I recall, you have five days to take your sign. So, I would propose you make it something simple like five days. Five days after the event,

I would I would say that in your example, you're 100% correct, but in this town, when you run for office, you're pretty much a one-man shop. might have one other person helping you and usually your husband or wife. But in the case of the city, you haven't hired city staff to get it done. I mean, it's no big deal to me to make it five. I'm just saying that's if the city staff can't get the signs up in two days, there were two million signs is my vote for consistency. People else want to weigh in? So, we have on the table a motion to um approve the U1 regarding municipal sign exemptions where we are adding to the proposal a time frame of two town business days. um as the length of time uh for reasonable removal of the signs following the event.

All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? No. Okay, that one passes. Okay. Um we have no discussion items this evening uh thankfully. Um and so we move on to public comments. General public comments come up for South and Hollywood. I just have a question kind of how can a commission schedule a public hearing on an invalid application because nobody knew if there was a fee or not. So I'm assuming that a fee was not paid which to me at the time of application the fee should have been paid if there is a fee. That's all I got.

Thank you. Thank you. Uh uh 211 South Hollywood. I agree with my wife totally. If the application was not submitted with a fee that is required, it shouldn't have even been voted on tonight. It just should not have been. It wasn't. No. Well, you voted to send it to have a uh you voted to send it on to have a a uh Well,

there was no discussion. I'm just I I'll just finish with it shouldn't have even been a date set. It shouldn't have happened because it was not a valid application. is five. Thank you. Anyone else?

Okay, moving on to commission comments. Scott, we'll start with you. You got any? I I do, but because of time, I got to get to my mom, so I will pass along. Okay, John.

Yes. I'll just say one thing. If we if what we did today can't be acted on by the planning um director, then they pay the fee tomorrow, then we're in the same boat just one month later and and we'll not be able to schedule all that stuff. So, that's that's all I have to say. I've said enough. You know what I mean? I agree with Larry about the fee business and we just have to get all the ducks lined up and uh making sure that we are able required time frames and properly uh address this. So I would ask for a if we're tableabling something, do we or we

continue? The the motion was to table, not to continue, right? Continue means this meeting hasn't ended. Okay. So Okay. So it Okay. So we adjourning is the appropriate. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Can we get a second? Second. All in favor? I All right. Thanks everybody. Oh, we're supposed to take our picture tonight. And is this day one?