Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded.

Call to order the May 5th, 2026 Planning Commission regular meeting. And we'll start with a invocation. Father God, thank you for this beautiful day in our beautiful town. Thank you for this this precious town we live in. for the people who are here on this commission and for your wisdom that you give us all of the time to think of the people in the audience that are here and for our director. Just give us your spirit and wisdom and revelation so that we can know you better and know the directions that you want us to take for our townselves and for the people of this town in Jesus name. America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. So, um, first of all, I would like to thank everyone for the pivoting that we've had to do, uh, between last week and this week and, uh, uh, the willingness of people to alter their

schedules to make sure that we could have the um 21st instead of tonight. Certainly luckily um we had uh enough uh material that it was very easy to to uh uh adjust the agenda to be able to um do things tonight. Um, so can I get a motion for uh agenda approval, please? Madam Chair. Yes.

Um, I make a motion to approve the agenda for this evening. Second. All in favor? Okay, moving right along to um minutes approval. And I get a motion for 7 to 2026 meeting minutes of Tuesday, April 7th for planning commission. I'll second that.

Yes. Yes. There's uh one significant thing that happened at the last meeting that I'd like to have added to the record. Uh Angie, for your information, I've got this written down. If planning commission goes along with it, I'll send it to you in an email. You won't have to try to scramble get it all. Thank you. Uh under item 9B, this is your minutes.

I'd like to add in response to a question. Director Berdor stated that the seven R application for zoning method amendment was filed the day after the last meeting on March 4th, 2026. There was a lengthy discussion of the time requirements of section 17-202 of the town ordinance and in parentheses a follow-up note post meeting notes. This information was later corrected when director informed the commission that the application was not deemed filed until April 13, 2026 when the applicant paid the application fee. I think it's important that some of that get on the record. This isn't yet

that was that was in 9D. directions. Did we have a motion? Yes. Well, we had an original motion. We had our original motion. Making a motion to amend. I'm I'm moving to amend the minutes to add the paragraph I just read, which I'll be happy to read again. Yes, please.

Okay. In response to a question, director Berdor stated that the seven brew application for a zoning map amendment was filed the day after the last meeting on March 4th, 2026. It was a lengthy discussion of the timing requirements of section 17-202 of the town ordinance and then in parentheses post meeting note. This information was later corrected when director review informed the commission that the application was not deemed filed until April 13, 2026 when the applicant paid the application fee

as the mo is the original motion maker. I have no objection the amended motion. So, all in favor of the amendment or do we need more discussion? Yeah, it was when they paid the April 30th. 13. Do we need any discussion or can we vote on the amendment? No, that's a good catch. Thank you, Mariel.

Okay. Um, all of those in favor of amending the motion amending the minutes of the April uh 7th, 2026 meeting minutes as indicated by Mary Ellen S. Are there any other uh motions with regard to those minutes or can we get the amended minutes approved in full or maybe we don't maybe we've done okay.

All right. I can do it. Okay. I won't back up. Okay. Um uh let's move on to um public comments on agenda items. We have any commenters? Please step forward and state your name and address. Okay. I think uh we don't have any commenters. So, we'll move along to uh the directors uh for board the floor issues.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the commission um and members listening online. Um I have two items for you that I wanted to just tell you about this evening uh in a sort of an informal way. Um I've asked the uh the town attorney for two opinions. uh one being the section 17201 which is um being discussed later on in the agenda under old business and I wanted to tell you what the opinion was. Um after a considerable search um on my part and on the part of the town attorneys, nothing uh keeping us from keeping 17201 intact um the way it is or if we want to amend it. Um there are towns in the uh in the state who after the 1994 act was uh was passed did um remove provisions in their codes to allow the director to make minor modifications on um there was also um a number of cities who chose not to amend that and still have those in our code since we had it in our code before the 1994 for u passage of the uh comprehensive planning act. Um I assume that this the town uh at that time decided to keep it in. So it's in there. It's legal. Whether you want to change it or not or if you want to delete it or not or whatever you want to do with it um is up to you. But I wanted you to know that he felt there was no we were in no risk of of litigation to keep it. The other one is much much more interesting and um he hasn't provided me with an opinion on yet but I wanted to tell you about a little story

about this one. As you all know we have number of golf cart u rentals and sales purveyors in the town and this tells me that competition is heating up. There is a golf cart rental company who placing or I'll call staging um golf carts in so bear with me staging those carts at pre-arranged short-term vacation rentals uh in our town. So, they're working through a realy management company to ask the owners of those short-term vacation rentals if they would like to have a golf cart staged at that property for the sole intended use of the people um renting that um for the week or for the day or for the or whatever it is. of the activate that golf cart would be go down simply with a phone put it on a QR code I believe that's on the windshield and that would take them through a pro through a process to put in their credit card to allow them to uh use and activate the golf cart another golf cart company is um suggesting that that's an illegal use. It's a commercial use in a residential area because um there's a transaction going there's a transaction a commercial transaction

going on on these private property. So the the complaintant um cites very uh various issues uh with sections of the code uh that I have transmitted to the town attorney for an opinion for. Um I have also um done some research and and assisting the town attorney with that coming up with some of you know I guess what I would call my own opinions providing those to the town attorney. But it's it's certainly an interesting problem. Um the basically you can see where both sides have an issue have a have a point um where one there's a golf carts upon a phone call or upon some other kind of transaction email where he delivers the golf cart to the property. Whereas on the other hand, that golf cart is pre-staged at the property waiting for the new that week to activate the golf cart. Um, and and I don't want to get into a long discussion about it, but I just wanted you to know that's going on. And I will tell you that it's it's not only that. I'm getting golf cart companies coming in and complaining about the appearance of other golf cart companies. And one golf cart company is saying, "I wanted to do this and how come I did this and and and they're all very legitimate, you know, they're all very legitimate comments, but I find that simply the fact that we have so many golf cart purveyors in town that the competition between them is is heating up. And um I don't know where this ends um but I've got a lot of thought fingerpointing going on between different companies about landscaping requirements and signage requirements and parking their golf carts in the right of way in the

swale and not having in the swale sorts of things. So I just wanted to bring uh those to you. Um, I expect I will have a an opinion from the town attorney on the second part of this uh probably within the next couple of weeks. Hopefully before the May 21st hearing so I can tell you what the outcome was, but if not, I'll bring it to you subsequent meeting. And that concludes my director's report. to the rental of the golf carts by renters. I don't know if anyone's doing it now, but I do know property owners that have rented their own properties, however they chose to do it. That would have

managed

under the perview of the board of planning appeals chief. this all comes out and I I didn't mean to be very to have the plan commission has not discussed it or rendered anything that sounds like an opinion on it. It's not our place issue with that we should uh should stay out of at this at this point. The BCA has not been approached with either one of these two. I suspect it might might end up there.

Yes. I don't I don't believe that they should be approached with a blessing from planning commission that I mean that they're their job to hear and decide in an argument like this if it comes to that. Yeah, I'd be glad to just answer any basic questions that you might have. Need to be careful not to sound like we're going either yay or nay opinion. Yeah, I would I would caution I would caution you also on that because I suspect uh this will probably end up before the board

finish. I was not going to ex um express any opinion just pointing out what has occurred is that the property owner will have their personal card that they store there available for rental by the people coming in

addition personal card. Yes, I I know a few people have done that in the past few not necessarily first one that's not necessarily directly related to whatever may end up before the zoning appeals board. But in general, the the comment that we've got enough or we've got too many of uh businesses in this two square mile area, Surfside Beach. Um I just wanted to ask a question. Is it possible for us, and this would be us doing this, would it be possible for us to amend the status of that business to be a conditional use application rather than, okay, this fits in C1 or C2, and therefore it'd be arbitrary, capriccious if we've denied it, you know, da da da da, because it it fits within the the code. But my experience has been that when you have an overabundance or an approaching over an abundance or whatever that the city and in this case the planning commission with respect to the zoning code could make the application for that specific type of business a conditional use similar to I'm sure gas stations are conditional use here and there but several others. That's just the first one that comes to mind. Um, but my my thought would be to make golf cart rental a conditional use.

Is that doable? I think to get to where I believe you want to get with this, reconditional use permit may not be the the best vehicle to do it. When a when I approve a conditional use permit, those conditions are usually drawn out in the code themselves. Like for instance, you've got to do this. You've got to there are conditions that you have to meet. You you don't approve the condition. I believe I believe I do. I believe Oh, well then we need to call it something else because the condition for me the council has I learned that when I came to the state of South Carolina.

Okay. Yeah. record. Um, sometimes it's called special use. That's usually handled by the board of appeals. What your question is or what I believe your question is, you correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah. We've got nine. Can we limit where we get like another 10 or 11 or 12 or 13? Is there a mechanism to limit the proliferation? And the answer is absolutely yes. I've done it before.

It was seven pizza shops in a probably a five block downtown. And the town council directed the planning director to draft an amendment to the code that would limit the number of pizza shops within a and we it's a very specified area, how many we could have. And that passed the town council. Um, obviously no one really came out and complained about it because the five pizza shops were in place and that sixth pizza shop was still out here someplace probably not aware of that rule. But that would simply be a provision that we would place in the code limit

limiting the total number to a very specific geographic area. Okay. Well, if that's the way you have to do it in South Carolina, then my personal humble suggestion would be just to investigate the the likelihood of that because this is this is just one example of, you know, some ancillary stuff that came up because of that. But I've I've been here and you know, God, if we get another golf cart place, you know, 17, that's ridiculous. So I would just suggest that maybe tee it up to whoever needs to say yeah let's look at it and if you begin to do it that way it would be council

what I would do is I would probably come to you as a a discussion item and I would discuss the item and discuss the provisions under which we we would do it right um have you direct me to set a public hearing on it take that public hearing and then um take our recommend commendation whatever it might be to the council and see how they feel about it. M chair

um you had mentioned that there was a complaint made or question of whether this is legal or not to be able to you know do this transaction at the residence. Um and then you had said that there were businesses that are heating up as far as the competition. So the may I ask the complaint did that come from another business or from an individual because there's complaint out there. I think you know for clarity sake it would be helpful to know and understand that

the the complaint or the question or I call it calling the question on on on legality. uh was from another golf cart company.

Okay. Competition legal opinion. request. also ask whether or not the um rental company, the residential renting company could itself rent the golf cart and then um uh offer it to their customer uh as part of the uh fee for renting the residence. Yes,

that would be an interesting take. That's not the way they're doing it, but that would be an interesting take if the Let me see if I've got this right because I want to get this right if I if I'm going to ask for an opinion. So, the rental company that's making these, I'll call them the residential rentals, rather than leaving them and staging them on site and allowing the renter to that the possibly the I'll say the the owner of the of the vacation property or possibly even the management company that's handling it would rent it and make it available as as an asset right. In other words, you'd go downstairs and it's part of your vacation package along with the kayak, the surfboard, and the beach chairs. Correct.

Yes. What? whatever else. It just seems to me that um uh wherever this issue might come up that the uh scenario that I posited uh would be a workaround if we didn't have also a legal opinion with regard to it. Sure.

And then chair, you're done. Can I comment? Um I actually live next I know I don't like that thing. Um, I actually live in the rental district and a couple houses down from me, they have staged um, this one woman that owns three properties there and at one of the properties they have the golf cart. And it was interesting because the other day I noticed that the same management company name on their rental property is the name on the golf cart also. So, they may have some sort of partnership already, you know, sounds like

I don't know. But I thought that was interesting because I hadn't noticed it until just recently. I've seen those around town that had the leasing agent Yeah. sticker on the windshield of the golf cart. Exactly. might already be doing. It might be that they're doing uh what I have suggested as a scenario or it could just be that it's an ad on the golf cart for I don't know whatever reality company is uh uh handling the rentals. Uh you just don't I never thought of it that way. Yeah. You just don't know. Yeah. You could just be putting your sticker on

with uh you you know the rental you know the golf cart guy. How about if I slap my uh my con my construction companies sticker on your golf cart for for a fee. Sure. That's that's an interesting uh never thought of that one. I don't know. But um anyway, I just think that we need to perhaps ask uh the town attorney to broaden his examination uh of the issue to see and if he can come up with more scenarios as to how one might um achieve pivot achieve a pivot

around um uh whatever uh it's in the code or Um anyway, um I'll be honest with you, I didn't have a clear direction in my head kind of when I went like that's an interesting take. Well, we'll get the town attorney to get some kind of a recommendation or a broader I like that sort of a broader look at it. um what some of the pivot points might be in the event that the uh straightforward provision as presented uh may not um meet the uh litmus test. Interesting. Okay. Thank you.

Um have anything else before we move to the first um of um business uh which um If we could um I I think this is right for doing this to have a motion to uh direct uh the planning director to schedule a public hearing on the tree protection and landscaping um that we are working Um,

do you need a motion for discussion? Uh, please. U, Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion um to approve, uh, directing the planning director to schedule a public hearing to amend municipal code chapter 17, article 7, tree protection, landscaping.

I'll second that. I'll open it up for discussion mainly because I want to discuss when this happens. We talked before about uh my unavailability in uh June for such a hearing. May May is already done. We can't load anything more into May. Um, and I'm not available um uh in June. So I think we're talking about July uh for this and I believe that um Mark is not available in July. Is that right?

That's correct. Uh so we need to figure out a date by which we are um if we're doing this uh directing um Mark to uh schedule things. M I want to clarify I'm not available for the regularly scheduled meeting in July. I am available the rest of the month. Then you were you weren't are you gone for the whole month in in June? Yes, ma'am. Um I'm uh gone unless we schedule something um special.

No, no. I mean, I thought that's what we were talking about is that in order to have the amount of time necessary to post it publicly. Um, it just seems to me like when we talked about it, it was like, well, we could schedule a special meeting at a date when you're back to consider it in June. So, our first meeting in June would be June 2nd.

You're going to confirm that. And our um uh workshop meeting would be June 16th. and I'm also going through that. So, it would mean that we'd have to figure out uh an alternative day of the week because any Tuesday after that was going to conflict, I think, with the town council. Yeah. The 23rd. That's town council.

The 30th assist the 30th um is a Tuesday that's an extra Tuesday in June. Um so I don't know whether we can convince anybody that we can have that date. one.

Well, I mean, could we just instead of having the the meeting on the second rather than having three, can we just move the meeting on the second to the 30th because that's the meeting that you is the public hearing where you would vote.

Unfortunately, can't just move a regular meeting. Okay. All right. Um but we can uh um cancel it um and um schedule a special meeting. I think that's what Matt and uh so men result. Yeah. Yeah, it is.

But no, you're technically you're right. You can't move it. So yeah, the the whole reason we had to well not the whole reason but part of the reason we had to shuffle things with regard to this meeting and the public hearing had to do with whether or not our bylaws changed is being accepted um by the town folks who I guess make decisions like that and whether or not it has to go through town councils. So they are in limbo and uh so that is why we're meeting today at 6. Um but um anyway so uh we are still in a state of flux with regard to

um the bylaws and the scheduling of meetings and things like that. But um we are sufficiently in advance of June 30th that I would think that we could get a meeting on the calendar. Um if that is something that works for everybody. Um uh it's bumping up against the July 4th holiday

and whether or not that presents a problem. We don't we don't want to scheduling a public hearing has a lot of moving parts that uh cost money and they involve, you know, ads in newspapers and mailing things out and this that and the other thing. Um, this one probably doesn't have a mail, but it has a newspaper ad. So, we want to make sure that we have um uh you know are pretty confident that we can put together a quorum on uh June 30.

So, if we can and whether it can be at 5:00 or 6 o'clock because it is a special meeting that can be at 5:00 if we want it to be at 5:00 which is why the meeting is at 5:00. I know it's kind of average. It's complicated, but uh um so does the 30th work for me? Yes.

Good. Most lovely. Okay. So, John, I'm gonna ask you to amend your motion, please, to direct market. Oh, with that date for Okay. uh June 30th.

Okay. Um, Madame Chair, if I may, I'd like to revise my original motion to be a motion in favor of directing the planning director to schedule a public hearing to amend municipal code uh, chapter 17, article 7, tree protection and landscaping for the date of Tuesday, June 30th. Not bad. 5 p.m. Larry, you have a second. Okay. All in favor?

I

Good. Okay. along. Um uh going to the first item of old business. Um and uh can uh I get a motion that puts that on the table so that we can discuss it. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to untold business as stated in 9B of the agenda. and I'll open it up for discussion.

I like what you did. Like what I did, I had nothing to do with it. Well, no, the Okay, maybe we're not talking about what I thought we were talking about. Are we not talking about No. Oh, we're talking about 17201 of the nonconforming laws. Gotcha. My bad.

I probably should have read that whole thing then. So the question is whether to leave the verbiage the same or the language of that section to permit the director or permit the language basically to include lot coverage as one of the permissible reductions in site development standards. Currently the language says yards and setbacks in several different places and it gave me no bit of lot coverage say could be I'm saying that carefully could be construed as including any of the yard requirements on a parcel one of which is lot coverage. So the clarification that I'm requesting is should we simply remove the word yards because that's doesn't say anything to me because there is no site development standard that says yards setbacks or however you want to interpret the word yards. The only site development standard left really that makes any con of any consequence would be lot coverage. So I would replace the word yards with lot coverage and setbacks instead of yards and setbacks. That's what's before you.

There not a place in the verbiage of the code that has terms and definitions. There is no definition that gives me clear definition of yard in our code. Well, I can't say that. I haven't got the code in front of me right at the very second. All right. I don't know. But if it does, it doesn't give it. It isn't a measurable provision in the site development standards. No, I get that part. yard. I'm I'm just talking about the live coverage. You said it's kind of No, lot you said twice. Lot coverage is is very well defined in the code.

I know what lot coverage is and every developer in town knows what lot coverage is. It's basically how much of the lot you're covering with building. Um, and the uh interpretation of this was a question that I called two previous directors on, the last director and a director before her, and I asked, "How many times in your tenency here were you asked to implement something under this code?" some of something under this section. Previous director said never. Previous director before her said once. So, it's not a it's not a a prolific use. It's not a it's not a a provision that allows me or gives me, you know, what I would call broad powers to to do this on several plots. It has to be on a legal non-conforming lot, which means the lot was created before the 9,000 square foot lots or the 6,000 square foot lot minim were created.

So, I don't know how to place it, how to how to say this any more plainly. The language is currently yards and setbacks and there are there is precedent for previous uh directors using the word yards to include the word lot coverage. And I thought that was personally I thought that was a stretch. I mean yards doesn't say lot coverage to me. So, if we're going to say lot coverage, let's take the word yards out, which nobody knows what that means, and put it in put in a word that is a measurable yard requirement, and that's lock coverage.

And you've had one. I've had one. Yeah. Yeah. I just like to refresh my memory. this change would or this clarification or whatever you call it would also apply to commercial legally non-conforming properties. Is that correct?

I don't have the language in front of me. I believe it's I believe it just says lot coverage. There is no lot coverage requirement in in commercial. Commercial is basically you can build lot line to lot line to lot line in commercial as as we have like in our downtown for instance. So, I'm going to jump in here. I thought that at one point there was detailed language that was put before us that and I'm having trouble to find that detailed language that um we could look at. um number one, but it wasn't in our packet this go, so having trouble zeroing in on it. Um and then number two is um the um uh the legal opinion that um uh you have relayed to us. Is is that one where it came in after the issues that I raised that were sent along to the town attorney?

Yes. So the town attorney is not providing us with specific answers to the questions that I posed? I don't believe so. I I basically if if you transmitted those to the to the uh the town attorney. Um I I did as as you requested and sent it to the to the town attorney. I I have not received anything back.

All I can communicate to you is what the trial attorney said to me. Some towns decided to not do it anymore after the 94. some towns kept it. The there are no ca there's no case law about anybody ever suing a city over having it. Couldn't find it. I couldn't find it. We searched high and low. So I said, his opinion was yes, you can keep 1701. 1720, I'm sorry. 17201.

Okay. So, um I I raised more issues and that they had to go to the um sort of the uh whether or not by changing this we were encroaching on the um variance authority that is currently uh assigned to BCA. And if we are doing that and I believe you uh acknowledged during our u last session on this topic that yes it would be taking away some of their authority or shifting dis authority. Um my question is what sort of findings do we have to make in order to justify that shift? First of all, okay, let me take a step back. Um, the board of appeals thing was not a question. This was a question as to whether the development administrator has has the right to interpret the word yards as live coverage. That's where this all started. I believe I believed at the time that it was too broad a statement for me to make that joke. That's why I brought it here. It was only upon bringing it here that all of your questions came up about the legality of 2011. Town attorney has said 2011 is perfectly legal. You don't have to make f Mark you don't have to make findings or you know any of he didn't say that. I'm putting words in his mouth. He basically just said 17201 as written in the code is perfectly legal. You can move forward with that if you want to amend it. amend it. If you

want to end it, take it out. Take it out. But he said, "I want you to know that 1701 is there. It's a provision that we've used and it's a provision that I I am recommending to you is not your legal way." Uh, I I understand that part. I'm I'm just wanting to understand what do we need to tell town council and everyone else as to findings we are making as to why we would have this shift. Um, and that was part of what I was had included in the email that went to the town attorney. Yeah,

it also asked about the definition in 17007 about the definition of yards and how that played into all of this. Uh and uh I I'm just trying to uh figure out the scope of what uh we might be able to do uh with regard to this provision. I'm going to sound like a broken record. I'm coming to you with the code with the town attorney saying move forward to 17201. He didn't mention anything about your email. He didn't mention anything about the emails and all the code all the case law that I sent in based upon his review of the information 17201 is is legal. Now, that wasn't the that wasn't the amendment that I brought before you. I didn't bring an amendment before you to say if it was legal or not. That's something that the commission brought up. Now I have now I have an answer and I am bringing that answer to the commission and at this point I'm asking you whether you want to move forward on including a word lot coverage versus the word yards or if you'd like to simply keep the word yards and leave it ambiguous or any other modification you'd like to make to 1701. There's a 20% factor in there that's that's uh not insignificant. Uh yeah, I mean but I want us all to be clear that public hearing provision is not a a question of whether 1701 is legal, not legal, findings, not findings. That's not what I'm that's not what I'm before you this evening. I'm asking you whether you can

you can support a replacement of the word yards with the word lot coverage. I don't I don't want to I I guess what I'm saying, Madam Chairman, is I'm not here to litigate this with you. No, I I And I don't think you're here to litigate with me. I I I

And I have to go with my town attorney tells me he is my ultimate source for moving forward on this. If he said no, I'd be here this evening telling you. He said, "You know what? You got to wrap that thing up and get rid of it." He didn't say that. and and what is the specific language that you want us to uh

the language in the code uses the word yards and setbacks. I I know what a setback is. yards isn't a quantifiable, measurable element in the site development standards contained under each zoning district. So, if somebody came in, I'd go to the zoning district, look at what the setbacks are, what the building height is, what the lot coverage is, and all those sorts of things. So, I'm asking that we replace the word yards with the word lot coverage. And how is lot coverage defined? I'm sorry, how would what? How is lot coverage defined?

I'd have to you want me to wait bring up the code in front of you and read it to you? I can do that. Is there a definition of lot coverage? I believe there is.

Okay. I see a definition of yards, but I don't see a definition of lots. Okay. In chapter 17 of the Surfside Beach Code of Ordinances, lot coverage is the percentage of a total lot area that is occupied by buildings and structures. This metric is used to manage the density and physical footprint of development on a property.

I'm sorry. Community Code Library R3 high density residential and seeing it there. Sorry, I don't have that information for you. It isn't giving me the actual section of that. Let's see. In sites chapter 17 of the surfside beach code of ordinances lot is percentage of a lot total lot area that is occupied by building

chapter 17 says it is that's what I'm definition is the portion of a lot area occupied buildings including principal and accessory structures it's typically t shows how to do it is that in the ordinance That's what That's what I'm finding. It says it's in in the Surfside Beach Code of Ordinances. Okay. I'd like to know what section it's in. I don't know that. You just said I don't have that. Or didn't you just say No, no, no. I It just says 17. It doesn't say where what section. So,

I mean, it's it's I'm sure that it's not easy to find stuff on your phone in the ordinance right now. And that's about that. Yeah. really difficult. So, I think that we need to find out if it's in the ordinance or not, the the the definition. If it is not, if we're considering it, we need to see what the de what definition we would come up with before we make that decision. I'm not asking you to define lot coverage. Okay? Lot coverage is is a is a metric that I use every day on every residential project that comes in. I'm not asking you for a definition of that. Chapter 17.

Sorry, I'm going to take the time to do this. You asking the questions. Okay. Shouldn't I didn't prepare again? I feel like I'm being litigated against your chapter 17 code. And I don't think any of us want you to feel that way. I know you don't want me to feel that way. That's where sorry that our intent locate

certainly that's article one of general provision section 17-007 definitions where and lot coverage is in zero article one general provision section 17-0 007 definitions. Okay. Is it coverage? I don't find it under the L under under the left.

I see I see lot area. I see lot lot area lot corner lot double front lot frontage lot interior lot line lot of record lot width. I don't see lot coverage. What are you looking at, Jim? Furious like I'm looking at the Surfside Beach City zoning code. What What's the word you're looking uh lot coverage? I know where definition is. What I don't know is where lot coverage definition is. Yeah.

Okay. Now, I am the first to admit that the code we look at is not the most current version of the code. So, I'm always confused. And uh town council has heard me say that uh many times, but I'm looking at the code. Well, those words are used in various places, but it's not a definition.

Definition. So, you're looking in 07. I am I am looking at the MUN code in uh section 17007, right? And the definitions all appear to be in alphabetical order to me. I do admit that in some places they're not in alphabetical order, but in this section they all appear to be in alphabetical order. And um there's no definition for lot coverage. Where is the I don't know. Uh

so imagine the fun I have when I don't have a definition. I I I agree, Mark. I think it's a a a problem. And uh uh if we're going to go down this road, I think we need to have a definition. Uh um Can I make just one quick comment? I'm not trying to speak out of line, but No, you can't. I'm I'm sorry. The uh the code actually uses the word maximum building and impervious coverage

is a definition.

No, it's not. It just tells you what it is in section 17-33. Maximum building effort on any lot within an R3 high density accommodates residential district. The area occupied by all buildings including accessory buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total of such lot. The maximum impervious coverage on anot. So it basically it isn't found in the definitions but in the actual working part of the code it defines for you what it is. So you can't go to the definition section and find lot coverage. It's buried in the actual density standards for each one of these each one of these uh zoning districts.

Interesting. Um okay. So should we have it a definition that um I don't know mashes those two ideas together? We should. Okay, if we wanted to, you know, if you wanted to just make a really sound decision here, the decision would be to um define lot coverage. But let's get to the bigger question. Are we going to include lot coverage in the word yards or not? I mean, I'm not I don't want to go down the rabbit hole if you're all just going to say no, we're going to keep it, right? Uh,

and I can come back to you at a later date for live coverage. Nobody's banging my door over live coverage. Everybody accepts our definition of live coverage, which is the which is the area occupied by all buildings, including accessory buildings. So, it just needs to be included in the definitions. Yeah. All right. So, it includes that and the impervious coverage. Yeah. And it and uses the word impervious coverage as well. The maximum impous coverage on any lot within the R3 should not exceed 50% of the total area of such lot. And what's interesting is that

it's our code. I love it. Um it doesn't say that in the Let's see if it says it in the R2 district. Bear with me. This is this is kind of fun now. Now I'm actually wondering Oh, yeah. It is in section for R2. On any lot within the R2 medium density residential district, the area occupied by all buildings, including accessory buildings, shall not exceed 30% of the total lot such lot. That's lot coverage. It doesn't come out and say that's law coverage. That is lot coverage. That's that's the way it's always been. Uh yeah. Yeah. I think for each 30 years we've always used the it's the occupied by all buildings including accessory buildings, garages.

Each district it sets a maximum amount of coverage for buildings. Yes. Uh and it sets a maximum amount of coverage for imperous surfaces. And tonight we're going to be, I think, talking about how landscaping uh factors into all of those. That's actually another metric all by itself.

Uh so I think we need to maybe go back to the drawing table a bit and have specific language in front of us. I personally would still like to have and maybe I'm talking to Jarrett myself to find out whether or not we need to make any findings before we adjust these things. Um,

Madam Chairman, um, could we at least say what Mark is asking that we're saying we agree that the word yard can be replaced by the word lot coverage with the,

you know, definition to be brought back to this group for approval. I don't know that I personally can say that right now without getting um the opinion about shifting away from um BZA um and whether or not we have to make specific findings with regard to that shift. Isn't that more around the the 20% administrative adjustment though part of it or are you talk I mean this is just a specific word. No, right now the way I the way I look at 17201 uh is that it gives the um actually gives the code enforcement official right now uh the authority to adjust yards and setbacks by 20%. It gives everything else to the board of zoning appeals. So if if somebody wants more than the 20% or they want uh more building on their lot or

more impervious yes coverage yeah uh all of those things it goes to BCA because it gets addressed as a variance which then means the adjacent property owners and uh other folks can can come in and weigh in. Um if if we do all this shuffling, uh it takes some of BCA's authority and gives it to Mark.

Um and it takes um other uh adjacent property owners out of the mix. No, and I understand that component. I just didn't hear us talking about that tonight, though we've talked about it in two other sessions and we still are confused by it, I guess. But, um, just thought we were talking about a verbiage change, but it is that dependent, do you think, on the overall authority issue? To me, it's a different authority issue than uh had been uh discussed about whether or not the 1994 uh uh comp plan uh act

changed our authority in that regard. To me, it it's an authority question, but it's not uh uh tied to that 1994 law and how it was adopted.

Okay. Um, and I'm just not clear whether or not we could and should be uh making those uh recommendations as to those changes. And if we should, what do we need to be telling everybody as to uh why we're recommending that you take this authority out of BCA's hands and you give it to Mark? Well, because it doesn't he have it today?

That is absolutely not the fact. Okay, that is not I am not granting variances. I am granting an a small amendment to the property. That that was one thing that he said to me that was very clear. Do not call what you're doing a variance. You are not granting variances. I want to I want to clarify that for everybody. And I'm sitting here sitting here trying to defend now my town attorney telling me that it's okay. And I'm telling all of you that our town attorney is telling all of you that it's okay to have 1701. If you want to buck against that, that's that's your purview. I'm not going to tell you that. But I'm not going to sit here and litigate what the tri attorney is telling me to tell you is that 1701 is not a variance.

It's it's perfectly legal to have it in there. I have I have practiced for 40 years and I've never had a code that didn't have this in it. It's always in in the codes. Every code I've ever worked with has a provision that allows the director to make small adjustments when difficult properties arise. And usually that's the way it is. Either difficult properties, not conforming properties, that sort of thing. So I don't want to I mean, we've been over this and I'm and the reason I'm putting it here and I said possible action is I'm looking for some action this evening. I would like to either have you kill this whole thing and just saying no, you're not going to do it and just leave 1701 the way it is, change 1701 to include the word lot coverage and setbacks or to amend 17201 the way it is currently and bring that percentage to a number that you all feel comfortable having the director make amendments to. I think those are some those in my mind those are the options before you this evening.

Okay. So, so Mark I agree with you and agree with the town attorney that the um 17201 as currently uh written is not a variance. Correct. I I I agree with that. What what I am questioning is whether or not if we amend that language and we are taking what is now authority that resides with the BCA and shifting it to you not as a variance. I'm not asking you. Yes, you are.

No, you're not. I'm asking you to keep the code in the way it is. I'm not asking you to take anything away from the BCA. Well, the BCA currently has the authority under its variance authority, correct? To adjust the maximum building coverage and the tax and building heights, what have you. They have a broader they have a much broader, if you will, brush. I understand. But but right now the language in 17201A does not give uh you uh the authority to adjust as you've been calling it lot coverage.

Correct. Okay. That's correct. Right now that resides with the BCA. Correct. And this is the point I understand I'm making. So if we are shifting it to you and removing the label variance from it and it becomes an exception I think that's the the word in 17201 um

we are shifting a dynamic and I just want to know that we can shift that dynamic and if we shift that dynamic do we need to present everyone town council you every whatever with findings as to why that is an appropriate thing for us to do. Understood. So I completely understand where you're coming from. Okay. I didn't understand. Okay. So um I'm glad whatever. So

uh I would just like that somehow resolved um before we make a decision. Okay. Um, I don't know how others feel, but did everybody understand my point? Yes. Yes. No, I did. You're shaking your head. No, John. So,

I understand the point you're making, but I thought all he was asking for verb change from there. He is ch asking for a verbiage change. But the result of that verbiage change is to alter the uh buckets of of where something resides. Does it reside with Mark or does it reside with BCA? and uh that language change which shifted from BCA to mark and it's just is is that something we should be doing?

I completely understand where you're coming from. The only caveat that I would have to that is right now that I get to provide that that relaxation on yards and setbacks. Right. Yes. Okay. I'm going to define lot coverage in my mind as lot coverage. I didn't understand. That's the way that's the way it has been historically interpreted that the word yards did include lot coverage. And I said, "Oh, no. I want it clarified.

I want it I want it crystal clear." Yards. You ask five different planners what yards means in that definition and you get five different answers. I'm sure. So, so does the current definition of yard not work?

Not really. In my opinion, I'm only giving you my opinion, but the word yards does not work. Now, could I? And let's be real frank here. tomorrow I could get an application with lot coverage that's let's say 4% over according to 17201 currently I can make that call it's my call to define that now if somebody wants to appeal my decision they can bring it to the planning commission and appeal my decision but it has historically been interpreted as lock coverage I don't really agree with that I'm asking for a clarific ification to include the word lot coverage because yards has been used to define that and I don't I'm not that comfortable with it. I'm just being really honest with you. I'm not comfortable. But I mean if you if you said to me this is just too much, you know, back off. Then I'm then I'm kind of set on my own ship a drift to make make the call. Yeah, I'm going to start calling balls and strikes uh without the definition in there or the or the the clarifying word in there, but I clearly understand where you're coming from, Carol, because you're saying now that if we actually do make the the verbage change to lot coverage that is something that has been held historically by the board of appeals and you're saying what we're doing now is we're taking a piece of the board of appeals and giving it part of that to me for these crippled lots, I'll call it. Uh I understand entirely where you're coming from.

And and I don't know where I uh come out ultimately on the issue. I just It's crazy. I know it's crazy. We need a legal opinion uh on uh uh how to proceed on that. I I mean, I realize we we can make changes. I understand that we have the authority to recommend changes but should we number one and number two is how do we present that to everybody what what sort of findings I mean dear

here's my suggestion here's my suggestion is that I want to get I want to move this I really do because I've got an application sitting on my desk waiting for a decision it's unfair to me to hold that I would like to move this to council with a recommendation that the planning commission that there's a problem with including the word lot coverage as it takes away from the power of the board of appeals. I get that town attorney sits here those evenings and I'm sure he would be prepared to make a recommendation to council on how he feels that falls out. Uh, but I I guess what I'm saying is I can go ask Jared for another interpretation now that I understand what you're what you're what you're defining here this evening today. Um, I don't I guess I'm getting um a little frustrated. You probably sense that. I would just ra I would just rather you have all say no and just call it a day and I'll take this to to council with a no recommendation and let it fall on their let it fall on their table and decide it. But I would really like to get this moved.

Yeah. One way. One way or another. And you won't make me upset if you if you said say no, we decline. We vote no to to change the word yard to set back. Seems to me other than popping it out of the council meeting and hoping Jared's gonna be prepared. We we still have questions that Carolyn asked the town attorney that are pending. Is that correct? Yes. So, we're waiting. If we have those answers, we'd be moving. I mean, I haven't seen specific answers. Yeah.

As far as bringing it up at town council, are you going to ask Jared what we're just talking about? The questions are pending as I understand it. They are in the lap of the town attorney as you speak. No, I think I don't really know how to advise you at this point. Really? Well, he he didn't bring her questions up when he was talking to you about this. He did not. No, he was clearly looking at

the original complaint that was made that 1701 was somehow illegal, that it shouldn't be in our zoning code, and he said, "Absolutely not. It belongs in the code. It's been there forever. Don't worry about that. He has not uh parsed out and I'm not sure he has he's going to parse out. If you've not received a response, I've certainly not received a response. That's where the hold up is. I I have not, but I don't know that he would have viewed me as a person he should be responding to even though the emails involved you as well. Uh and uh the request was from you for me to send it to him. So I I don't know.

Well, I completely You know what, Carol? I until tonight, I didn't really understand what direction you were coming at on this. I really didn't didn't get it. I do now. And I don't want to I really hate delaying this and I'm not sure if anyone on on commission can think of a a motion of some kind that moves this item. I I don't I just don't know what it is other than you're all just willing to stall this again for another month and and wait and

and I and I will use my powers right now under this provision to make it to make a decision on the Yeah. decision sitting on my desk because that's not fair to the property owner. That's right. So, um the thing do you have it up right now? What the definition of yards the way it sits right now? I have a is is there I mean could we

instead of changing the verbiage that would modify the definition trying to figure out a way to I I'm with you. I'm trying to think of a way we can modify the definition of yard. Is that is there would that still

pose the I think it still poses the same question. because what you're trying to do is one way or another sweep into 17201 the portion that deals with um Mark Mark's authority um things that are currently sitting with BCA as part of its variance authority you're you're shifting things and that happens if you um broadened the definition arguably broaden the definition of yard. Um so

there is a definition for yard is in yes there is that was part of my question to uh Jared. Uh, so if we I know I I really hate the fact that we um are not moving things along as quickly as we would like, but um can we uh have two options. We used the meeting on May 19th May 21st, May 19th. We also have a meeting on May 19th.

That's right. A workshop that we c that we could put a business item, this item on there and resolve it. Um, if we think we can get an opinion from Jared on on you or on your and I'm perfectly happy to know reframe things or whatever for him. Uh, and uh, we could put it on for the 19th and um, hopefully resolve this once and for all. Okay. What's option two? Well, it was to put it on the 21st

or the actual third one and that is to deny the request to change the word yards to coverage. Well, we we want to get there. I think I think you do. But do we want to get to no to denial? No. To to being in a position to say yeah change it. It's just dependent on as you said taking the stuff from one giving power to the other. issues. And anyway, yes, I just got a little confused. Did I understand Mark to say that you could go ahead and deal with this application on your desk on the authority you already have?

Yes, I could. Well, then why are we agonizing over Move It?

We're agonizing over it because Would you mind reading the definition of the word yard? The definition of the word yard currently within our uh zoning code is yard shall mean a required open space other than a court unoccupied and obstructed from its lowest level upward. Provided, however, that fences, walls, poles, posts, open patios, signs, ornaments, furniture, and other customary yard accessories may be permitted in any yard subject to height limitations and requirements limiting obstruction of visibility. That is our definition of yard.

I just don't understand why we're being unfair to this applicant. if you can go ahead and move what you've got.

You know, I I I plan to move on this application tomorrow morning, first thing in the morning. Uh because I I believe I I've been unfair to the applicant. I haven't been able to um enough to get to you to make a to make what I would call and what you would probably all consider a an educated motion. Correct. Um the the definition of yards as you can see is so convoluted that as a planner with a billion years of experience I listen to that definition word of yards I oh my god no that is not what a definition of yard should be it's it bounces all over the place

I I understand that part so so I was so when I was originally confronted with the uh the application that I'm talking about it. The language says yards and setbacks. Setbacks I have no problem, you know, and and really that the request for the reduction in setbacks was so was was minor. It was really the the lot coverage number that was coming up on the parcel was uh was getting high was high. And I was like, well, can I use the word yards to define lot coverage? Not that. Not with that definition. I can't. So that's why I'm here. Yeah. I'm here saying, "Give me lot coverage. Take away yards."

Not knowing that the use of lot coverage was pulling that from six different sections. That makes sense. I didn't know. Yeah, I understand Carol's heartburn over there. I didn't understand. I certainly do. I understand the heartburn now. I didn't and I admit that. Um, third option. And the third option is to simply deny the request to change the word lot coverage, the word just I'll I'll just work with the word yards as as best I can.

I will tell you now that I've read the definition of yards, I 110% agree with you that that is not what you need to be using irrespective of the fact that yeah, that's my Because when I when I was first presented with that, that's the first thing I did is I read the definition three yards and I went, "Oh my god, that's about as clear as mud." Yeah. Um so I I I was kind of stuck. So that's why I brought the provision before you. Um she's very visual. Very visual.

Yes. I get it. So um so so you could deny the application. The denial recommended for denial denial goes to council. I don't know if you want to it's it's up to you. I mean but any that might make it quicker. Anything that I bring before you either it goes to council with a a recommendation for approval or denial. I can take a I'm willing to take a recommendation of denial to the council. That might speed up

and I guarantee you I'll have it ironed out now that I understand what the uh the issues. Yeah, we make a motion to deny it. Okay. Wait, wait, wait. I I never understood that there was an application before us. No, I'm sorry. Okay, I'm using the wrong words, Carol. Okay. There is a an a recommended amendment to the code before you. The recommendation is to deny the recommendation. I take that recommendation to the council and say planning commission says no. And who are we being unfair to? There's someone who wants to do something.

Me. you're being unfair to me because I'm trying to deal with a word yards that is not well defined in my code and I could find myself on the other end of some litigation. So someone is pushing to get something done. Yes. And and and has been waiting a long time and has been waiting quite quite a long time. Madame Chairman, um, is there some option to just redefine yards because it seems like it's going to have to be done anyway, right? Because it's horrible. I've never read that far.

Yeah, perfectly glad to bring that back to you, but that's not what I'm trying to move tonight. I'm trying to move this and um I will walk away I will gladly walk away with a recommendation for denial to work because the word lot coverage in yards is all mixed up. Um, and that will certainly be part of my staff report to council is that there's some great there's some ineffective language on our code that places me in a precarious position to make a decision. Ask for clarification. Clarification was well, we can't even clarify what the word yards means.

So there's a bigger that obviously there's there's some homework or I call it cleanup work. that goes into following this with some definition changes in the code. And I'll tell you, um, you know, I I don't want to sound like the code is horrible, but I've worked with a lot of codes and this code does present me with a a number of challenges. Well, and Mark, did you say that nobody else uses the word yard in in their code or is that a common Oh, no. Oh, no. It's a common word used. It is.

I I could go to a I could go to the Charleston definition right now and get the word definition codes and I could bring that to you, you know, next week. I mean, that's not an uncommon word. The word yards is a common. I bet that definition is better, though. I bet it's a lot better. And if their definition meets your need, would you be able to just versus having an authority question and it's just a definition included. largely included the word lot coverage as part of the yards and and if you think about it it really kind of does but yeah

I'm not going to make that leap without my planning condition following suit is that the u the word yards in our code is really quite horrible

um and when I think of the word yards I will admit to all of you that lot coverage is part of the part of the metric of figuring out the yards. So yards and lot coverage to me kind of mean the same thing. And here for clarification simply because the language is not crystal clear and I really really like crystal clear ordinance language rather than me saying well yeah the word block coverage. Yeah, yard's kind of the same thing. They are kind of the same thing. But

so I I think if we if we define the word yard in our definition, we amended the definition to include the technical interpretations that you need to be effective in your job. That solves the problem because now you're not pulling the term um coverage variant from BZA. BZA. Yeah. Not sure.

So I think I think my opinion is that given that the director says he is this person has been waiting too long for a decision and that and that he is going to make a decision tomorrow morning. No matter what we do, I'm not a proponent of just saying no because then we're not going to think about this any further, talk about it any further. And I think we need to. I will take it a step further and say that while the previous director and the one prior to that didn't have to deal with it much, I think there's a distinct possibility that it will be coming up more often in the future as older homes are being torn down and new homes are being built on those lots. I think it will come the question will come forth more often. So I think it needs to be dealt with. So I'm not a proponent for just saying no especially given the fact that the director is saying he can move forward with it tomorrow for the person.

Anyone else? Yes. Yes. If I might provide a definition of the word yard, too.

Okay. So what I'm thinking is to the point just made rather than going the route of voting no blah blah blah I think we we all agree that rather than the lock coverage thing just defining yard as would enable him to do his job effectively and appropriately. if I can come up with a definition maybe between what he's looking at and what I'm looking at and we can look at it right now and say, "Okay, that's an acceptable definition of the word yard." and then make a motions director to change the word u change the definition of the word yard to mean what I get ready to say we could solve it right now

I doubts personally only because I don't like to do things on the fly. I would like to see it in writing. But um let's try it. I can I can put it in front of you. Let's uh let's try it and uh Okay. See. And I do wonder how much it differs from. I mean, we didn't cover this in what was read, but there are definitions of front yard, sideyard, and rear yard. Oh, I got those two if you want. Yeah, I've got those two. Yeah. But I'm looking for the word yard. Can I um

even if we can come up with a different different definition tonight doesn't mean the ordinance changes tonight. Oh no. So it's not going to fix the problem tonight. We can we can come up with Oh, if you define the problem as what he's going to do tomorrow, I completely I wasn't suggesting to solve that part. I was just saying forward the language part.

Yeah, that's separate. Okay, let me let me give a definition of the word yard and in your professional opinion, tell me if this is a definition that suits. A yard is an open space on the same lot with a principal building, unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward, except as otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. It's almost identical to the one I have in front of me.

A little bit clearer. A yard is defined as an open unoccupied space on a lot situated between the principal building and the nearest lot line. If I had this definition, I wouldn't be before you this year. Right. Yeah. You got front yard, sideyard, and rear yard. That's just the obvious. I mean, that's the same as what we have in in our current code. Does anybody on this side of the dice have a problem with that definition of the word yard?

I don't think I do, but really instead of your lot coverage, do you come out in a different place? I do. Okay. What is that different place? Um because the yard is because when they say the word yard, that's the unoccupied space. The lot coverage is kind of like the covered space in the yard. So when they use the word yards, I can use that as a de facto definition

finds the percentage of open like lot coverage. It defines how much of the building how much of the lot the building can cover. The yard is the open unoccupied space. So I can through reverse math just basically say okay then the lot coverage is occupied goes from 3070 to 7030. Yes. Yes. Okay but wait a minute. If we still have maximum building coverage maximum life coverage. Uh well in our code it's building interchangeable. Anyway, uh so that changes it or doesn't change it.

It it for me it changes it as your zoning administrator. It changes it if I have that definition. Can you explain explain that? Just say what you said one more time.

It's it's kind of like 7030 like John said it's like 70307. If I have an a yard that is the unoccupied space, then if somebody comes to me and in another part of the code says lot says I want to exceed the lot coverage. I go well let's see how much of the unoccupied space you're you're using. I can I call it reverse math it to say okay then your lot coverage is this. I know that doesn't make any sense to you. No, it doesn't. It's in my twisted mind how that makes sense. No, that that's exactly how it works. If I can define the yard, then I know that the rest of it is lot coverage.

Sure. Uh we could go ahead and define yard right now, but you know we have to look back at all the other areas in the code that yard is used and make sure our definition is compatible and can replace that.

Yes. And then we have to go and modify those ordinances to reflect that, you know, if it has a different definition. And we know it's in 177-007 because our chairperson here has pointed that out in in the other thing we're considering today. I don't like the idea of just putting up a definition without spending at least two weeks to think about it to the next meeting. I mean, yeah, a lot of things come to mind after I'm back home and I'm sitting there, oh my gosh, you know,

let's change the way we said that. So, well, how about the motion then becomes to consider the this definition of the word yard in the upcoming meeting? My inclination action would be to just say no to this and then deal with this where we should in another meeting. Okay. Maybe with a little tiny bit of personal risk there. But

yeah, you know, you you all heard the definition of the word yards. Did any of you understand what he said? Oh, our definition, the first one. Yeah. Yeah. No one. So, Mary Ray's point is if the word yard is defined in this very weird way in our code, how is it being used in the language inside the code that is maybe referencing that kind of that I'll call it weirdness. Mhm.

The definition that John read and the definition that I wrote are definitions that I am very familiar with. That's exactly how the word yard is defined in other codes that I've worked in. It would be helpful for me to be able to do a forensic search of the code and see how the word yard is being used, not defined, used, and what that ultimately means. and are there places where the word yard is being used in an inappropriate manner in some way and then I can bring those back to you and point those out them and tell you where they are in the code and we can we can decide at that point.

Is that okay? A good way to proceed. I I think us saying no to this tonight is is a mistake. Okay. And and the reason I think it's a mistake is for a lot of what Melody said is that this doesn't make it a a dead issue essentially. Uh uh it could come up uh again before uh I don't know if you jump over us and go to town council before they could ever deal with it. Sure.

So we might as well have a thoughtful decision making. thoughtful decision, a new definition for yard and let's make sure that it's let's put it on the agenda for um uh the 9th 19th of May. Okay. and um see if we can't knock this out and see if we can't get Jared to give us uh an opinion on what I raised and I'm happy to um retool what I said to him and uh uh let's see if we can't uh get over these these hurdles. Okay. And uh I'm on board.

Um yeah. Um, and I'm going to spend a lot of time thinking about the declaring study because um I have in my mind what I think yard means and uh that's very different from lot but anyway. Yes. Go ahead. Okay. So, we're going to work on the yard definition next meeting. Correct. Yes. We should also at the same time define lot coverage. Yeah. uh and put it in the ordinance someplace because it is in other people's ordinances. I mean, it popped up in many when I was searching for it, but it's not in ours at all. So, that's a mistake.

Well, it does become a shorthand, but it's a a shorthand that I think has lots of pieces. And so, we just like being careful that we're not um making uh something else unworkable. We need to make sure that if we define live coverage that we're not uh that we're covering all the bases and not not making other

the two words live coverage and building coverage are almost used interchangeably throughout the code which is another annoying annoying thing that I have to do. So, we need a motion to table this matter until uh Okay, sir. May 19th. Can I get uh

I will move to table the zoning code section 17-1A non-conforming law subject to the U. Second. Everyone in favor?

Okay, moving right along. Um uh so this is uh we're moving along to um the um uh parking spaces issue with having to do with um self storage um uh establishments. So can I get a motion for us to open that topic? So moved.

I got a second. Second. Okay. Um any uh discussion on on this? Well, I'm going to jump right in because

Madam Chair, as a point of as a point of order, you made a motion to open the item and you asked for first and a second. There was no vote to move on. So, you have to do that first. You have to all agree that we're going to talk about it tonight. Okay. Uh uh a motion to um uh this item. No, we made we made the motion offer. Pardon? Yeah. Those in favor?

No. Oh, just to talk about it. Yeah. I That's the motion that was made. Okay. And I And I was And all right. Admittedly, I was a little confused by that. It's on the agenda, so I don't think we have to vote to talk about it. Okay. Okay, then. Uh, all in favor of discussing. Okay. Um, so

let me may I introduce let me introduce it? Maybe that's my that's what I do. You remember uh that a couple of months back I came with you with a request to modify the parking regulation uh standard for item that I presented to you illustrated uh that Surfside Beaches requirement for self storage was and I'll use the world wildly out step with everything and everyone around us. It was suggested that perhaps it was deliberate so that we don't get any self storage. As your director, I am telling you that is not the way you proceed in planning. If you don't want self storage, you say you don't want self storage. You don't make a crazy requirement that no one can meet to get a self storage.

That's right.

Okay. So, you do it the right way. If you don't want self storage, then we come back and we mix it from the the land use table all together. What I was recommending at the time was to simply move toward a parking regulation for self storage that was consistent with four or five of our neighbors. And not recalling exactly what that staff report said to you, basically what it was saying was for self storage between five and 10 parking space seemed to cover the broad brush of everybody's requirement for the number of self- storage units that were being proposed at the time. So, what I would like to do um not having all of that information before you is I would like your permission to bring that back to you with a specific recommendation to modify the parking regulation for self storage units to a number consistent with our neighbors. Trouble for creating a parking regulation that was a de facto. How do we keep self-starters from

We don't know that that's we don't know but it is so wildly out of whack that the only conclusion I came was a somebody made a serious error just made a mistake or somebody thought that'd be a way to modify and mod keep us from getting self storage

the um I could you know I certainly could tell you um what I think the the parking regulation should be. But I think you deserve to have me come back with that a similar staff report to what I presented to you last time with a specific recommendation to you as to what we should amend the parking regulations to. I only need you to tell me that that's what you would like to do and that's what we'll come back to you. Not on the 19th perhaps, not on the 21st perhaps, but come back to you in the near future with something like that.

So, my only question is problem for someone get up. is a problem for anyone wanting to do self storage on Highway 17, which is a permitted use. Yes. But do we have somebody right now who has asking us to address this? Again, I've got an applicant who wants to move forward and this is holding them up. Okay. So, there is an It's unfairly holding them up. Yep. Yep. Absolutely. I'm just gonna look up what one of our town next to us recorded.

I have a copy of your Oh, do you have report? Oh, you do? Um I don't have that in front of me. Apologies. However, um I would like this I would love to put this to rest this evening, but I'm not suggesting we rush to it. But the one of Caroline um like I think it was one of the towns near us. It was like Myrtle Beach. What was their requirement? Uh I don't have uh Myrtle Beach, but you included uh Or County. Okay, that's a good one. Um which that's uh one and that was what you um

recommended recommended at the time um and uh that it would be a re a change to create a new code right in um 17420 table uh to um uh adopt the uh one One space per 50 storage units. Okay. And four spaces for the manager's office. Yeah. Yeah.

I I'm I'll just weigh in here. I'm saying if we were going to go down this road, the um use table also has to be amended to change the letter. It'll be a new letter in the column. Um but um so um I I have to say I'm torn uh about this whole thing. I understand we shouldn't be using these kind of metrics to uh avoid a business in in town and I know we um uh had some of those similar issues come up with the vape board thing. Um uh are we walking into a huge storage uh uh situation? Um, if we if we change this and we're going to end up with uh I don't know like Merl Simley just built a huge uh uh storage uh unit uh thing along uh 17. I don't believe so. Um, and I believe the reason is is that, and I'm trying to memorize code here, and that's always dangerous. I believe there was something, and it basically said that the self storage couldn't be located on the frontage of Highway 17, that it had to be on a back.

Yes. Or there had to be a lot between it. No. Yes. I don't think it says that. I bet that's what we went through last time. Somebody had brought that up. We need a code that we need. I'm pretty sure. Let me get there. Well, you got my staff report. I would have pointed that out for sure. It's not on the staff report. I thought it could be 2017. I thought it could not be Okay, wait a minute. thought it needed to be 150 ft away from any residential zone in the district, which doesn't mean it can't be

Oh, no. That doesn't mean the same. Um, okay. Let me get that.

C1 is conditional. Yeah. Yeah. It's the 786 42

173948 Okay. So, that applies to all warehouse and storage um facilities, not just self storage. Okay. Oh, no, no, no. It's the same. Is that the right one? It's the same. Um the um all of the storage, all of the warehousing and storage stuff uh has that same conditional use language. So the conditions are usually listed. Is there a number Larry of the

Yes. 396.42 17-396-4.2 396.2 two. Uhhuh. And it says that we are allowing them in C1 and PL districts

provided there is no open storage of junk or salvage materials of any type in conjunction with the operation. And then it's also it's although the wording is uh odd shall be located a minimum of uh I think it means not located. Um well anyway uh it shall be located a minimum of 150 ft from any residential zone.

So that doesn't mean it can't be right out there on 17. Um Essentially, we have to do the same thing. Yes.

Yeah. We'll probably want to make two changes, right? We'll amend the parking regulate. And I and I'm suggesting that's what I would do. I'd come back to you with this. We change the parking regulation to be fair. However, what we would do is we would add a condition that the self storage property cannot be located less than 150 or 200 feet from the right of way of highway 17 which pushes it back. The um other one is the is residential. So if there's residential behind it, they can't put it where there's residential behind like industrial behind it or business. Yeah, it it pretty much would eliminate them, I think, along um popular.

Yeah, but it would allow them with this language over on um Sandy L, but really all up and down the western side of 17.

So, I'm willing to share with you where the proposed site is. The proposed site is behind the proposed hotel which is 150 ft deep. That lot is 150 ft deep. So that the self storage would be behind a hotel. Now if you ask me what would be almost a perfect neighbor to a hotel behind would be self storage because it's so quiet. So the hotel I guess would never be getting interrupt. You wouldn't even want residential behind a hotel. uh you wouldn't want commercial behind a hotel because it's active and stuff like that.

So is that just like extending the self storage that's behind? No, it's not extending of anything. It's a vacant property behind the hotel and adjacent to the SC. Yes, the new the new Oh, the new one in Hampton income 1100 block of what? 17 It's that is that empty block next to the chicken. Okay. Place. There's a road actually that goes down there, but there's nothing on the north south. And there's a there's a utility company that's on the other side of it north.

Oh yeah. Sorry. That's what the um the proposal came in as and the propo and the first thing I told the proposal was you're never going to be able to meet the parking regulation. Can I see the parking? Sure. Here it is. And we both looked at it and we were like, "Oh my god, I have never seen a parking regulation for self storage like that in my life." So the appropriate thing to do is and if we want to prohibit self storage then we ought to just put our stake in the ground and just say we don't want to self storage on 17 and that'll be the end. Yeah.

But if we're going to consider self storage behind off of 17 on some of these vacant lots and there aren't very many of them left as you all know. Um then you know this would go in behind a hotel and it would have an appropriate number of parking spaces for it and be landscaped and all the good things that come along with modern self storage. I know I tend to uh drift off into self storage that I've seen that is what I would call old school self storage. New self storage are two and three stories high. They look like an office building from the front. I mean, you've seen some of the better

on Highway 17. That one's on Highway 17, too. I'm sure. So, I would So, my proposal is to bring this back to you with an appropriate parking and with an appropriate

condition on self storage. That would place it and I'm I'm using 150 ft because that's how deep the uh antin site is and just say it has to be 150 ft from the 17 right away which means we'd never get one on Highway 17. It have to be behind as a condition. Madam Chair, yes.

I move to allow Director Broer to correct me if I'm wrong. uh come back with a recommendation on parking regulation requirements for self storage uh warehouses and other establishing establishments and conditions on self storage under section um code section 17420. That make sense? Second that.

I'm going to move to amend. I know it's unusual for me to do that, but uh I'm going to move to amend uh what you uh uh offered, Scott, to say that uh to uh address the parking in 17420, but to address the conditional use in 17396.42. uh to add the um uh buffer from the right away. Uh and to amend uh the use table

to um uh alter the uh parking code y for um the self storage only not for the warehouse. Correct. for self storage uh variety storage. Okay. Can I get a second? I'll second that. Okay. Do we need any more discussion? Okay. Can we vote on the amended motion? All in favor say I. I. I. Okay. You got your directions? I do.

Okay. All right. So, our next discussion item, I think it's true. I hope so. That's the one that I meant to say. I like what you did. Okay. So, let's resurrect that that compliment now. Thank you.

So, um I'm I'm going to open up here and just tell everybody what I did. So I took our uh draft from the workshop and uh instead of um shifting landscaping into an article 10 under uh chapter 17 um I uh decided that there wasn't any reason that we couldn't divide the article into parts And so I put a um uh trees in part one and landscaping in part two. And um so in the tree portion, even though it looks like there's a lot of red, there really isn't uh as much red as you think. And unfortunately um when you say that it updates all the cross referencing and so that makes it look like there's a lot more change. If you look at them, the numbers are all the same. Um there. And then I took the um current landscaping um uh language from article uh uh seven and put it into part two. Um but as you can see there not much of it uh uh um remained um because I swapped out the table with using it for lot size instead of zoning district. Um this is all just

um my seat of the pants. I have no idea whether or not these numbers uh are where where we should end up because it was not easy to shift from um uh zoning district to lots of so we need to uh address that. So um uh uh I did use the definition of y from 17 uh 007, but I thought that um uh we needed uh to uh get into um how those things got measured by considering uh landscaped areas where you, you know, had mulch or stone or pine straw or something. um in beds that drew all the landscaping together to make sure that all of that area got included. But anyway, I uh we can start at the beginning of the document and walk through or we can stick with landscaping or

Yes, Scott. Uh it's okay. I'd like to make a few comments and then I have a I would say emergency but an issue that I had to take care of. Okay.

Um so uh section 17730 and this is just from our last meeting doing some research and looking through some things. um under fines. Uh so it's section 17730 C 2 under fines and B says uh removing trees with a DBH equal to or greater than 3 in other than other than protected trees or landmark trees without a permit shall be $500 per tree. Now, in in doing my research, and correct me if I'm wrong, um, and I'll use term that I thought was genius from our director, he said, wildly out of step from everyone else around us. I'm like, that's what I need to mention. I did some research of those around us internationally and this code this 3 in is not just slightly stricter than most you know I've seen I mean some would consider it as a major overreach. Um the mainstream is approximately 5 in. Uh nationally the common uh average is anywhere from 6 to 12 in. Now I don't have exact specifics on these but maybe after this meeting some of y'all can u you know do your own research. Uh 3 in is absolutely atypical. uh those around us. North Myrtle Beach has 16 inch DBH uh and anything under that a permit is required. So 16 in Myrtle Beach focuses on landmark trees. Those are 15 in to 36

in U depending on species. Mount Pleasant protection starts at 16 in. Now, Conway, some uh species start at four 4 in, which is out of the norm, but many others are 8 in to 14 in. Charleston trees protected start at 8 in. And but um outside of that, single family home uh without a permit is under 24 in. So again, using our director's uh verbiage, which I hope you're okay, it's a finest way of flattery, I think, is to use somebody else's quote. I believe that we should make this consistent with four or five of our neighbors, and that's what I would recommend. uh when I heard the 3 in after all their discussion, I don't know where that number came from. And I do understand the the coverage of canopy concerns, but that's not going anywhere near canopy, you know, 3-in tree is and I understand the thought of potentially what that tree could do potentially, but you know, being consistent with our neighbors and to be fair and not to seem like we're overreaching. Um, you know, those are my comments and I think that's all I have for this and I may I need to dismiss myself unless uh there's some comments that I need to respond to.

I do have a question, Scott. Are are you talking about it only in terms of the section you pointed to where we are talking about fines or are you talking about it generally with regard to our regulation? Well, I'm I'm I'm both and and with uh stand having to for certain sizes, but in these other districts, you don't need to to do that. Um others, it's not about the money, it's about the principal and the overreach of having to 500 to get a permit for the for for the etc and so forth. So it's it's just the principle of it and it's not just slightly stricter. I mean this is this is way beyond anyone uh around us near us. Um it's almost unprecedented. Um, I understand the thought of, well, we want to see the future of Surfside Beach and these 3-inch trees growing. I just think, um, you know, having it forced upon us as residents and as you know, contractors or whoever in in in my opinion and just looking around at uh, you know, some of the research that I made, I just don't know where we came up with this uh, three. At one point, I think Saran had eight inches. Um, and I don't know if that's where we are now or um I vaguely remember we we worked on this tree or maybe what five years ago, six years ago. And um I was the only no vote by on

that. Um and on this I uh you know I just think if I was no then now it's like um you know it keeps this is keeping me up at night and because of uh just the concern. So that but that's all I have to say but and I'll respond to any do you have recommendation as to what DBH we should choose to be if you're at this we protected if you're below this we don't

uh I mean I think we should be consistent with our our neighbors. Um I mean I don't have a specific specific number and if we pass something when we pass it along to council um they could reject it and say you know this is just you know because they're you know the residents vote for them we aren't voted for. Um and so they're I think more concerned about that. We want something we want to pass something that the council will receive and accept. And and I'm not I'm not saying 36 in. I mean that though you know I mean outside of landmark trees 15 to 36 in um and you know I would encourage everyone to do your own research and this was um uh I don't have a specific number but I think the three is just very low. Um, at the time I thought 8 inches was was pretty extreme. Um, but less less than 8 in I think is uh um in my opinion not consistent with our neighbors. Anyone have any more questions for Scott or should we let him go?

No. No questions. Just I I hear you and I think you have comments. Something's telling me that that 3inch tree was we were talking about a developer plunking in three sprawy twigs and then a month later pulling them up again. That was part that was part of the reason. I'd like to point out that this doesn't say you can't cut a 3-in tree out. What? Says get a permit.

You just need a permit to do it. And what you were quoting were the fines, and I agree some of these fines are probably out of line. Uh but uh you can still cut down 3-in trees. It's relatively easy to do. Yeah, you get a permit for it, but it's not like you just can't touch them, you know, as long as you have the trees uh on your lot to have the desired number or whatever or the other uh DBH requirement, you you probably end up cutting down 10 or 12 trees on your lot if you have a lot of 3-in trees. It's not saying those are protected where you can't touch them. Now, as far as the the fine here for $500, that's for cutting it down without a permit. Uh, as I said, I tend to agree with you. Some of these fines are are on the high side. I But that's uh just my point there. Uh, that's just in response to Scott. I just wanted to, you know, make it clear that Simpai was part of the group that wrote this, uh, that the intent is not to not let you cut trees down. It's just to control them to some degree. Um, that's all I have to add about Scott.

It's more about control, but I do have other comments later on. wonder what's I just wanted to do. That's all and I appreciate them. So, um Scott, I I don't think we should hold you up if you're feeling an emergency needs addressing. Yeah, it's is a personal Yeah. issue that I'm not sure what's happening

and I don't want to go into detail. Okay, we're not gonna enact this tonight. We're not gonna, you know, vote on this tonight. So, I would say go deal with whatever you need to do. Thank you. Thank you.

Let's do it. I mean, do we what what's our most efficient to walk through from the beginning and everybody put their two cents in on the section or mean talk about it as we go? Yeah. Yeah. Are there that many's comments to uh I don't have a lot other than some suggestions based on Scott's comments on the finance. That's at the end. Madam Chairman, yeah, I would um appreciate if we went through an order, even if you just say first page, any comments, you know. Okay. All right. You know, that way we're all

Okay, let's do it then. Okay. So, um on the first page, uh there is my question as to whether or not we need to put hearts in there or part of article seven or what have you. Um, and that's just kind of a style thing. Where are you drawing? Right. The first page. I'm on the first page. They don't have your comments. Oh, you're not looking at my Okay, I got

Okay. So the question is in for example in 17700 where we refer to article 7 by dividing it into parts. Should we say this part of article 7 or should we just say this part or should we just leave it article 7? What happens if we say part one of article 7 is to benefit? We can do that too. But then we have to identify this as part one. It is identified as part of the growth. Okay. I'm fine with the way it is.

If it's already identified, yeah, I'm fine with it the way it is. Any either or any of Okay. Okay. So then I'm the next change is to the definition of major pruning where um it was discussed at our workshop that we didn't say how one was to measure the 8 in. So sorry where are you at? Page two, but I'm looking at the I'm looking at the markup version. Yeah, it's the second sentence under the table.

Oh, major shall mean the pring of tree of 8 in or greater and be added as measured 2 in from the trunk. Love it. Any good with that? Okay. So then in qualifying trees I added language about if you had a multiple uh trunk tree that those multiple trunks could be counted if you were using the DBH minimum from the the table. Yep. Good with that.

Okay. Now, uh, based on our last conversation, in order to have some clarification on measurements, we dropped protective tree to 3 in or we talked about dropping to 3 in so that we did not have this gray zone of the tree that was 3 in to 4 in. And where did it fit? to stick with 3 in

for the hardwood. That's what it 14 for the pine 8 ft tall. But those are not protected trees. The only protected trees are the hardwood trees and we're based on this language saying that a DBH equal to or greater than 3 in. Do we want to consider what Scott said about

finish your thought? Oh, sorry. I that is um do we want to consider you know that that may be out of line with all our neighbors and might not be fair. We do we want to consider that it might be too small.

Anyone want to weigh in? Yes. I get to hear what our neighbors do. Yeah.

We're big on trees here in Surfside. make ours in favor of three in mainly because it gets rid of the confusion we created by two or four in the first place. But anyway, um it uh it makes sure that the trees that get planted as replacement trees um are trees that remain in place. They don't just get wip wiped out. and it was the only way we could think of in our um advisory group discussions for uh preserving those trees. And um madam chairman um the the other thought to that would be just to talk for Scott not here but um is that you know a lot of the rules we make it seems to be what we think we can avoid situations that contractors create and not for the citizens themselves that are here. And so are we truly living like in fear of what a contractor might do and trying to avoid that but then harming our residents by making them create more paperwork to take a little tree and get rid of it? I don't know. I just want to make sure we're considering both sides of it because a lot of times the worst situation is the contractors and and do we have as many of those anymore, you know, with not having as many open lots and I guess we can rebuild.

Just a thought. Anyone want to wing? I like it the way it's written. Reasons for that. Can't really treat certain contractors or new residents or new bills differently than

existing, you know, everyone else. Uh, and keep in mind that the uh if you're already a resident, you already have a or you already have a house with that's short on trees, you know, this doesn't affect you unless you do something

uh major to the property. Uh, and there are plenty, just to point out, there are plenty of lots that are being wiped out that after they destroy the house, they there's one down the street from me that's pretty much cleared. Um, so, uh, be just on an open lot that I mean on built lots. I personally like the three in.

I do as well. I do as well. Um, and and and we're not saying they cannot take them down. We're saying they have to have a permit to do it. And it has to be has to meet the number of trees that are on the lot. They want put one somewhere else, plant one somewhere else, and they might have enough trees. But I don't think that I'm good with that number and I'm good with it. I'm just kind of representing the other side because I know there there is concern and people, you know, there's things like permits to replace your front door and stuff like that. I mean, we do get a little crazy with some of our permits here. So, I think we have to look at them carefully. If if I understand though, it's not just a permit for anything. It's if they're getting a permit and a tree has to come down, that is

if they want to take a tree down,

uh, they have to get a permit, right? And we've just created um uh groups of permits depending on the circumstances that are involved and what you have to do if it's this circumstance versus that circumstance. But um getting the permit should be pretty easy. every little haven't lived here a very long tree. A lot of these pipes go through this tree or instance I don't know maybe 20 years it seems like um a lot of these are a reaction to stumps that have been the places where we have gotten burned and they've got no and the other thing is that you know yeah we're pretty well built out as the previous PDC directors said to me just a few years ago we are headed into a major time of

going into air downs and they build a branch and those are a lot of the times when when the trees are going to be impacted too. So that's all I had totally agree.

And I think Scott's comment I was kind of talking to him a little on the side and then and he did mention it to me before and and I think it was the the 3 in. Yes. But we've all kind of said and I do agree with the 3 in for the hardwoods. You know, those are the ones we're trying to protect for future generations. But I think it was as much about the fines that you know if you're a homeowner and you think you're just like basically cleaning up your yard and you take down 3-in tree and oh my god now you got a $500 fine for it.

That was part of his thinking on that too. So, you know, if he's not here now, but for for us, it sounds like collectively we we're all fine with the three inches. And then I have a suggestion when we get to page 8 of 10 and about I don't know 10:30, I'll make the uh the recommendation uh that I have here for that. Okay. Well, uh does anybody have any problems with the replacement tree? uh addition being able to

um put a palm in as long as it's at least 8 feet tall if you're in a on a lot uh fewer than 5,000 square feet. Okay. Um, and then, uh, this I added, uh, in response to comments as to whether or not we could suggest to town council that monies in the mitigation fund be used for public awareness materials. Can we say that? Do we want to say that?

Yes. as long as I I was not in agreement at the time we were having the discussion where we were talking about taking money from taxpayers and giving it to individuals to supplement the cost of that that tree welfare not but public awareness all about it. Okay. All right. And that's the same thing as happening on page three underration. Y

and then um we can uh uh skip over to page five where my comment is uh having to do with permits for the removal of a tree not otherwise covered by this section. So during the workshop we discussed the idea of what happens if a tree is causing um uh let's say foundation type damage but that tree is further away from the house than um 10 ft. And we have the provision in um uh 710 of um D of removing the trees that are within the 10T

u distance. But um this is for a tree that is uh further away than 10 ft and it may be um uh the cause of u structural damage. Do we need a specific um permit provision to cover that scenario or do we just have it fall under this provision?

Yeah. Not otherwise covered. Okay. The consequence of that, just so everybody's clear, is that it brings in the uh replacement and mitigation obligation. If taking out that tree um causes uh the property owner to fall under the um required numbers number of qualifying trees or DBH. We don't have to do it that way, but I just want to make sure everybody a good thing.

Some of us may think it's a good thing, others may not. have a chance. Yes. Unfortunately, I don't have anybody have the old or the existing tree or there there was language that covered the situation where there was potential for foundation damage that didn't limit it to 10 ft in the original language. This was here's the one. Oh, you read it. have trouble finding anything.

All right, here it is. 17723.54 foundation damage caused or likely when a landmark tree is within is within 10 ft of a primary residence at the foundation engine outside. Yeah. And uh the 10 foot that we were using in this is not um is not tree specific. Yeah. Maybe it I'm not sure it's

there's so many versions I have no idea anymore. At one point there was the problem is that there's so many sections in the current uh article that it's difficult to zero in on there was language about can be expected to cause foundation damage rather than a strict 10 ft but I I couldn't tell you which version well I can look for that because we don't want to wait for the damage to occur but

okay so but it's whether or uh you create 17 uh uh 710 now has I don't know uh about 10 different permitting scenarios where it spells out what you're supposed to do. Do we create another permitting scenario for the uh expected or uh uh anticipated foundation damage that's further away than 10 ft or do we just have it fall under EP?

As long as it will effectively fall under EP, I have no problem. the pro I remember it was quite an issue in one of the recent D rounds around 2017 or so that people in town really were getting upset about it. Don't make me wait until my foundation is damaged and it became a hot button. So I'm I'm fine with it being covered that way. We're probably going to have to explain it to the public. Another option here is just to add a sentence to F to say this provision covers uh anticipated foundation problem.

I like that. Yeah, I like that too. Yeah. Okay, perfect. Next. So much. No, so much of it is just the cross references uh updating and they're just repeating themselves. I can't trust you on the phone forever. Uh but uh

I think Claude could do some more. No, I'm serious. Okay, so um uh we discussed at the uh workshop the idea of mitigation payments and how would you know what the DBH was? after the tree was removed.

after the tree was removed. And so, uh, the discussion was, um, if the violator needed to come forward with that information and and if not, the payment or whatever would be dealt with. Well, in drafting that didn't seem workable to me because if you didn't know the number that I'm getting with, how are you double it? Anyway, so I just put in uh uh five grand per tree if we're going to go down this road. And I realized that I've got a language problem. 1731.

We skipped over that. Okay. You want to touch that by just in general? Um, you know, yeah,

fines, penalties, those are supposedly approved by council annually. So, I kind of don't think these belong in here. uh except that maybe we could say these are the fines unless overruled by the council's annual, you know, schedule of, you know, fines because I don't think it's really our job to define all these fines. I think that's the council's responsibility is to define the fines, but we can suggest them. Well, I think that's what we do. Well, we're suggest Yeah, but this is part of an ordinance. So,

what that, you know, I think I see it's really council's responsibility. We need to figure out, in my opinion, a way to say this is pending approval. Pending or something, you know, once it's overruled by council, if they ever overrule it. But we need something in there because they only they already did it in January. They're not going to do it again. Yeah. So, um uh they do have some in there.

The current the current um article uh seven has finds it. Now, we we added uh some more gradations. Yeah. Uh to it. Some more zeros.

We No, no, no. We didn't really add more zeros. um uh we just added more gradations to the the varieties of things that uh could be fine. So I I don't know uh the answer to your question or even how you come out because this isn't in a fees table or whatever. It's it's actually in this ordinance. Now I don't I don't know how that chairman there is on the um I don't have the final version but the comprehensive fee schedule it listed a change like um rem pruning limbs over 8 in in diameter. Uh used to be no fee. Now it's $25. So they and there's other ones in there on trees too. Not the

That's for the permit. Okay. So, not a fine. Okay, that makes sense. That's right. Okay. So, then because that came from you, is that right, Mark? Yeah, that's correct. Those are the fees for for the permit to get those touch. I do not believe the current fee schedule contains a schedule of fines. Oh, okay. Is it that's something that we would probably add in the following year. In other words, we keep these numbers. That would be my list of suggested fines next year to the council. And at that time, council could decide whether to increase the fine or reduce the fine.

So, isn't it a little bit different than what we're saying though? Like for pruning and stuff like that. Are we saying I thought we were saying the permit was like $5 for cutting trees down? The permit is right. But in here, I don't know what got approved, but most of them say more than $5. Most are like thinning is, you know, $25. Pruning limbs $25. It's just because they're talking about changing the feet structure, right? We haven't done anything. permits other than I think it was at the workshop that

Mark suggested that the permit amount should be fairly nominal so that people walk in well and like a whole page of non-nominal ones you know. So what we did had before was there were a whole bunch of no fee permits right throughout here and and that was my insistence that that wasn't our decision to make. That would be council's decision on the feed table. So, we struck all that out and just put permits and we know they're planning on $5 for a tree permit. It's phenomenal amount in general.

Yeah. And I think I've actually recommended some modifications to those numbers. Uh, and that's a discussion I'm going to be having with council with the upcoming workshop. Is the is the balance between trying to make the the fee fair or is the fee meant to pay for the amount of work that is being conducted by the by the by the staff? And I think the council doesn't really see it as a you know, we don't have to recoup our fees. people pay taxes. And I think that that point was very well taken with me when I when I met with the council last time.

So the next council workshop I'm going to all of those fees have been, if you will, pruned. Yeah, probably a good word to use here. All of those fees have been pruned back to to really what we feel that fees should be, not a cost recovery fee. thing we the other reason we did that is because if you put no feed per minute people misunderstand and say oh we don't have to because there's no fee to it now she can track it and and be able to look at a financial you know did we get money from this person or not and not have to be looking for where's that dumb application

no that makes sense I'm glad you're on this mark with you know okay going back to funds

do we want to do anything to adjust the fines that are in the draft or um leave them alone um like I said most of them are currently in article 7 um uh the uh the ones right at the end, clear cutting, replacement trees, and damaging trees that those ones are not currently um specified in article 7, Madame Chair.

Yes. Are you telling me that we currently have in article 7 $500 fine for the removal of a 3-in tree without permit? No, it's uh uh based on the 8 in, but it's the same. But it's 500. But it's 500. We've got fines of $500, $2500, and then $10,000 for the landmark.

Okay. All right. Then based on that and based on the the dialogue with Scott that that I generally share his sensitivity to. Um, my comment would be that, okay, leave the leave the fine at $500, but for the first one B for removing of a tree with a DBH and blah blah blah, um, other than protected landmark trees that you don't get busted for $500 until it's up to like I'm suggesting 14 in because that's where the the uh back in the beginning it was 14 in for a pine tree with a DBH greater than 14 in is when it qualifies. So to keep it consistent with that, and I know there are other trees, but I mean most of the pine trees, I would I would say that we make it 14 in for the $500 fine. Now, I'm not talking about changing anything about hardwood trees, protected trees, or landmark trees.

But what but what you're saying there is then if it's a 10-in tree, you take it down without a permit, there's no fine. If it's not a if it's a pine tree even, it's no fun for cutting a tree without a permit, right? I I know what you're thinking. And I mean, I'm thinking it too. It's like, well, hey, man, I can go ahead and take it down. I don't need to pay the $5 for the permit. And my thought about that is is okay, it's a country. We know you don't like this one. just get rid of. We know you don't like No, but I'm I'm just saying Oh, the owls love them.

Be consistent. It's 14 in before the pine tree counts for anything. So, to me, it should be 14 in before you get busted for taking it down. True. And yes, we're counting on our citizens to do the right thing and pay the five bucks for the fine for a pine tree that's 10 in before they take it down. But I just think before you're going to pop them for $500 for taking a pine tree out of their yard, it needs to be the same size as it would count. What What if it's a palm? Well, it's it this goes for all of them. I mean, it just says a tree other than a protected tree, right? Right. That would be a palm, too.

Yeah. So, you would use 14 inches for the palm or was the palm 18? I mean, how how often do people take palm trees out though? I mean, unless they're dead. I I can't answer that. Not very frequently. Yeah, I wouldn't think I wouldn't think a palm tree. I mean, you're right. it would include it and it would be a shame if somebody cut a 14inch palm tree. I I'm I'm feeling you on that. I'm just saying how often does somebody

it'll it happens because I may do it in a couple years, you know, to do a home improvement that I'm planning on may appear in a couple years. He's going to get a permit for a permit. I'm just saying if you took it down at midnight, I would never do that.

I am against saying that it is okay to take a tree down. I mean, by saying we're not finding them, we're saying it's okay to take it down without a permit. I'm a I'm not a Republican. So, anyone else? I agree with the I do too. I get it. Keep it for now. I've been married for 30 years, man. I'm used to being wrong. So that doesn't bother me a bit. It's not being wrong, John. It's just not being right.

I get I do get where you're coming from. I do I do see what that says. I'm not trying to say that my intent is not to tell the citizen you're okay with not getting the permit. My intent is to tell the citizen you're not going to get trouble for it until you make a mistake at the same size tree for the non the protected tree that it begins to count in section 1701. So I'm

number two. So, I'm inclined to agree with Melody that if you don't have a consequence, how are we going to make sure people go in and get the permits? And the best way to ensure that is to provide $500, provide a consequence. That that speaks volumes, doesn't it? It does. I'm not sure it's speaking the same thing to me as it is to you. Well, it's saying to me, go get your permit, right? And it's saying to me, these people are crazy. They're going to charge me 500 bucks for taking out a

But they're not But we're not charging you anything to take the tree out. Well, me having taken it out without a permit. Yes. Yeah. Just walk in the door and get a permit. That's what Yeah. Get get your permit. And this is a non-issue. Well, okay. I mean, I'm not going to vote against the whole ordinance because of this one thing. I'm just telling you my thought on this is you shouldn't be popping a resident for 500 bucks because they whacked a 4 inch pine tree. John, your hate of pine trees is getting out of control. It's It's It's like TDS. I've got It is PTS. Okay. Okay. I'm moving this along.

All right. Okay, Scott, I tried. If you're watching this, I tried. Okay, mitigation. I I'm not sure that the um language that um I added works at all. What What bring me up now? What section?

Page nine. Uh section 17731A. It looks like it might be repeated twice. Like the removed without a permit is in there twice. Can we take out the last one?

Yes. Yes, we should. Uh But anyway, uh the the wording is is uh it meets vision, but I'm not sure the concept works at all. Here here's what I see. The tree removes out permit shall it'll cost there's a fine without a permit permit. Right now, if a mitigation payment is required, say you took down a tree, but you still have plenty of trees in your in your yard, so it doesn't require mitigation payment. That's right.

So, yeah, you took it down, you pay your fine, but there's no mitigation fee added on because one's not required if you had gotten the permit. Okay. So I think you just need to go if a mitigation payment is required right then. Okay. So what we decided in our advisory group is that you are paying the fine and you are paying the mitigation. Okay. All right. If if you did the thing without getting the permit. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Go.

If you if you did if you took out the tree and you didn't get the permit, you're going to pay the fine and you're going to pay the mitigation. Even even if your yard didn't require correct. It has nothing to do with the uh minimums. Okay. Okay. Okay. If you did it, you've got to pay. And then it came up during our discussion during a workshop is that well how in the world are you going to know the size of that tree to do the mitigation payment?

And it was suggested that we could double the amount if the violator didn't come forward and confess to the amount and to the size. And I'm not sure any of that really works. Well, it'll work if they don't give us the DBH. What did you remove there? If they come forward and just say, "Well, it removes 8 in." Okay. Yeah, there's no big There's no doubling of the fine. Yeah. So, they could BS you. Oh, they will probably if they can't have a camera in everybody's shirt.

I'll tell them. So would you would you double it or or triple it or just set an additional amount? Uh I would have not mitigation I would not charge the mitigation if you don't unless it's required but I'm game to you know I'm compromising here with everyone else. That's fine. I can work with that. I I put myself on the on the side of the unsuspecting person. Yep. Okay. Yeah. You're an unsuspecting person. You don't know anything. You just moved here. You don't know anything about the law. And even worse, you're from New Jersey. Yes.

So now you got an attitude. Yeah. Now you got an attitude about the truth. You should You want to be able to do anything on your property. And I've been told that several times. I This is my property. I can do whatever I want. I'm Yeah. Um, but let's take the unsuspecting person. Okay, the unsuspecting person comes in and removes a tree without a permit and he has the stump ground and he doesn't know what the he doesn't even know what DBH means. Yeah. Um, I find it a little hard to swallow that we're going to knock him for five grand if he does that. I'm just thinking I'm intrigued.

And believe me, there there's another group of people who will deviously do it. But I'm thinking about the unsuspecting person who walks into this doesn't know a tree removal is required, doesn't know what permit's required, and doesn't know what a DBH easement is. He's probably going to go, "Well, the tree was removed out there." Now, we'll go out there and we'll measure the the base of the tree if we see it. If it's been ground down and we can't see it anymore, I don't know. $5,000 just seems like to me an awful stiff fine weighing that we might have some unsuspecting. That's a that's a perfect scenario because I almost did that when I moved here. I came from New Jersey. I could cut anything I wanted down

comes down from tree came down in a storm and I was had my chainsaw ready to go and they said no you need a permit the tree came down in the storm I know but that part but still you can see you can see how somebody walked into not realizing what they're doing is against the law so are we striking I just reduce it. I would seriously reduce the amount of the of the payment. So reduce it, not strike it.

So if the DBH is unknown, the mitigation payment is automatically X amount. That works. What Madame Chairman though, if if somebody knows that, aren't they just going to say, "Oh, it was this deviate." You know what I mean? It's just I don't think would you ask the neighbor? You know, there's no training class when you move here on this ordinance. I would fight this in court. I would too. We're all saying that. Yeah. Just make it out. Strike it.

Strike. Just strike the number. So it should be something about like each tree removed without a permit shall require in addition to applicable fines a potential mitigation payment equal or a potential mitigation payment period. Yeah. And that would just be based off the calculation. Yeah. and just strike. Okay, just strike. I really I think we have more people suspecting than we do. I'm gonna take this tree out at midnight. They're mostly retired people, but many don't have laptops or phones.

That's why That's why we need the weekend. All right. What about make it 500? Yeah, you can make it 500. Still, it'll never happen. You I mean, someone who'll be telling that poor little lady that her husband did this is going to go, "Well, if you just tell me it was 8 in, I'll take care of it." That's never going to happen. Shall perform community service for the next five years, breaking up remains of I Okay. Yeah.

Falling as it falls off the trees. Okay. I'm going to put that question. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, landscaping. Oh, the fun stuff. You didn't change everything except for the chart. Right on. I changed just about everything. Treasury charts. It's all rip. Well, the chart has no meaning without the definition. Yeah. And uh anyway,

I personally need a break. This need a break. Can we take a shortbody? Yes. Okay. Let's take a quick recess. This conference will now be recorded. We're back on. Yep. Okay. Um, okay. Landscaping. So the mark is correct that the chart is the major thing but the chart doesn't work unless you have definitions.

Here's where we get So uh I did I used the current definition of landscaping. Um, that's what appears in the landscaping material definition. Um, uh, but I, um, you also used yard. I used yard because I knew there was a definition of front yard, which is the front yard is fine. Yeah.

Okay. Bright yard is, you know, in our current definition and our current landscaping um uh ordinance uses the term front yard. Yeah. So that last one that says yard, it means to say front yard. No, it's under the definition of the word yard. Yeah, it is. It's a sub. Just like the one we were looking at. All right. I'll Well, it says under the Okay, I'm cool.

I'm just That's just direction just to let you know that it's there. I would not reference it to actually put it in there since it's not we're writing a new one. It's not very long. It's only going to be a couple more times. Well, when you do something like that, instead of referencing, when when your intention is to change something about front yards, you then have to look for all the places you've used front yard instead of reference the definition. It does create a circular whirlwind effect.

And you like that definition of front yard in section 17-00. Yeah, it's fine. Okay. All right. I'm good with that. I didn't Here. Look at it. It's got It's got a drawing. All right. Where is this? I didn't realize it. That's good. I I believe you. Okay. I'm a trusting guy. Okay. There you go. Look. See? Tells you front yard. Look. And this raises your issue that you raised with me whether or not it stopped or included the right of way.

And this picture, even though this has gotten small right here, it's pretty clear that it is not inclusive of the right of way because you don't you don't own the right way. right away. Um anyway, so um I then uh used the uh landscaping definition as our definition of all the materials that would constitute landscape materials.

Okay. and then added a definition of landscaped area so that we were um giving recognition to um uh landscaping beds. It seemed like we should do that rather than try to do these mathematics for, you know, each individual plant or something like that that we should do it for um the bedding area uh to include that. Now, I

I excluded hardscape, but I don't know whether that's the right thing to do. Um, you know, a while back we were all about artificial plants. Uh, you remember? I do remember that because we had a couple of yards where they were planting artificial turfs. Yeah. So, I wonder if that should not also be included. live material, but should it be dead material that looks like live material? Is artificial turfous? Yes. In general, yes.

All right. I'll just raise No, no. I think it's probably important for us to address it because it's becoming a thing. It's got to come up. It's going to become a thing. Um, artificial. So you could artificial. So at the end you should say and

that work everybody. It it it's easy to define. Yeah. And shrubs. You mean artificial shrub? Well, you remember when I was proposing for Highway 17? Oh, yeah. Because nobody was taking care. Nobody takes care of their shops on Highway 17. They're just left out there to burn and die. And so C1 and C3 do have some possible.

Sure. That's right. Go ahead. What is it?

Okay. Under landscaped area, it says shia mean in contiguous area where landscaping where landscape material is placed with mulch, pine, straw, stone, or other bedding material that does not include hardcaped areas. What about a gravel driveway? Can that I mean, are we going to have a problem with people saying that their gravel driveway is part of the landscaped area? Well, it is kind of covered here because there is stone. You know this

straw stone. So that would cover gravel. That was not my intent. That's my point. I don't think that that is the I don't I don't think that's our intent to include a gravel area. I mean I understand that some people put stone around their plants. I understand that. But to have a huge somebody could gravel their whole front lot. Yeah. Say that that is and I just one tree in the middle, right? And I just think that's not what our intent is.

Um got a suggestion as that. I don't I'm sorry. I just don't have that yet, but I just wanted to. It'd have to be some crazy calculation, right? That'd be some crazy calculation that says the stone area count if it was with within let's say 2 feet a plant the plant material is planted. You know, you're trying to define the bed. I get that. And I've got stone beds out in front of my house with all kinds of plants in it. You want to count all of that as landscape area.

Yes. But somebody's going to come in and claim that driveway and I'm saying, "Well, show me where the landscape is in that landscape area." And they're not going to be able to show me any landscape or define the stone as stone whose application is not or okay. Yeah. is decorative rather than functional. A driveway would be a function. A decorative would be a bed. Somebody can still do their whole front yard.

No, it's serving. Oh, it you're saying they don't have a drive. I agree. You're saying that the reason we have some of this stuff is because we're trying to No, you're right. Can we exclude driveways? It's not just the driveway. That's just right. I mean, you could do your whole yard. Yeah, I've seen that. So, if we um uh used something similar to this, but we said that the landscape material has to constitute X percentage of the landscape area. Does that solve it?

Say it again. Okay. So the landscaped areas and landscape material save for our uh artificial turf is all plant material trees shrubs etc. So if we said that the area that included the stone and the mulch and whatever at least x% of it had to be landscape material had to be the plants live landscape mater or or call it organic because that could also be pine straw or mulch or

you know what I'm saying not just the plant if you say it has to be living call it organic. organic. Well, but does everybody understand? We have rock area that has no plants in it and it looks nice and it's next to our garage and stuff. I mean, I would call that landscaping still. I had to have rock delivered. I edged it. It's It's got my sprinklers in it and whatever, but it's it's there's no plants in it right now. cement

shade bed could be turnary. I mean, I I think we try to like define what we think it should be, which obviously that's our job, but I mean, there's a lot of different That's on the side of your house, though, right? Yeah. I think what we're trying to figure out is how do we designate or prevent an entire front yard just being knocked? There are those though. There are.

Yeah. in the rental district. I see that all the time. People there's I mean, you got to have in this area grass sucks. I mean, I planted grass three times and it just kept dying. You know, it's like we finally put in some really expensive grass and we're trying to keep it alive. But, you know, you see all the time people are down to dirt. When we had around our pool, all the grass was dirt and all it did was go in the pool. you know, it, you know, it's not so easy if you don't have a nice big lot with trees on it and, you know, lots of shade and stuff,

you know, at the expense of putting this on staff. I don't think any reasonable staff would consider a landscape area to be the driveway or to be the entire front yard. I think the way you've read the way this reads to me is the landscape area is actually like the bed is the area. Yeah. And if somebody comes in and says, "Oh, that's that's my bed out there." And I'm like, "Well, where's a plant in your bed? There's no plants in your bed." I mean, at the expense of putting it on us, I think, you know, you've got to give us a little bit of

opportunity here to to to get the right thing done, right, without trying to micro define it. And chair, yes, I've got a situation I can describe. I don't know if it's landscaped or not. There is a house in R1 who has recently done his entire front yard in pvious favors. It's a very pretty parking. I don't think there's a green thing anywhere. Probably not. What do we call that? illegal. The heartscape under this. It would it would it would not be considered approved. Well, it got approved.

It does not include this says does not include heartscape areas. one in my neighborhood, too. So, just like, so while there may be some of those out there, we under this, we wouldn't see any more of those. Maybe we need to have landscaping permits. God knows. Wait, wait a minute. I know you're

Well, I'm just saying this is the same thing you just said. It's a humorous point, but actually there is a landscaping permit in the sense that we haven't talked about the next section is that in order to get your uh certificate of zoning compliance, you have to have met these landscaping uh requirements. So even though there's not a Yeah, that's on this is all about new stuff. This is all about construction. This is not about the y the yard that has grass that won't grow. It's not about the yard where uh

Oh, okay. somebody somebody has previously put in whatever. Um, and this is about where you're coming in and you're doing new construction and Well, the city's going to issue that. Yeah. Well, then that goes back to Mark's comment. It's part of the site plan review. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just saying you were laughing about whether permit required and there is a permit required. It's just on the back end of I got you.

Okay. I just wanted you to understand that this is something that will be looked at. Well, John and I have all day training. I trust Friday on planning. So, we'll come back real soon. You're going to your class. Yeah. in the oart 30. Oh, is that the 8 hour address? Yeah. Oh, it's a train station. Is that where you go? Georgetown somewhere. I can guarantee you're not going to get into the weeds on this kind of stuff. I hope not because I know what the rest of It's going to be.

Yeah. Um, we need a definition of hardscape to make sure that because what I heard Mary Ellen saying was talking about pvious pavers. Would they count as hardcape? That's hardcape. They are. That's hardcape to me. Okay. It is to me. I just want you know you don't get Okay. You can do your storm water calculations with pvious which are not going to meet your landscape requirement.

Okay. Okay. So, um 17751 where we're talking about applicability. Um uh what we're saying is that you only have to meet the landscaping minimums if you have to get a zoning permit. Uh landscaping um all has to be installed before you get your certificate of zoning compliance. Good.

Is this where zoning? Well, the zoning permit um just covers so much stuff though. A pool, an addition, putting a shed in your backyard. I'm not sure that I'm not sure about masking. I'm not sure that we pull the trigger on a full landscape requirement if you're putting a shed in your backyard. I want to say it's like either a new build or a significant addition to the house we would then press on with meeting minimums of landscape. Uh, and I'm thinking of the existing house now.

Well, yeah, that you just said a minute ago this was for new builds. It's not just Yeah. Well, you know, new construction, adding a swimming pool, doing this, doing that. Zoning permits, like I said, cover a wide range. So, I'm not sure the right I'm not sure the right word is zoning permit. Um, well, it's got to be something that's required. It will be a substantial improvement. Permit would be substantial improvements. Uh, I assumed a zoning permit because the current language says you got to install all this prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance.

Is a certificate of zoning compliance the same as a zoning permit? No. What we issue on a new bill or what we hold out I should say is a certificate of occupancy. Yeah. I see. Yeah. Yeah. That's what we hold back on. But you're not going to necessarily get a certificate of occupancy on all of No. On on an existing No. Yeah. No, no. That's why I'm I'm a little a little puzzled because if we just say zoning permitted. I agree.

I'm not re I'm not doing a full site plan review for you to put in a 10 x 10 shed in your backyard, right? Don't put the 10 by 10 shed. It's got to be a significant It's got to be significant improvement significant improvement to the property. Um, and how do you find significant property? We did that. It's already isn't substantial improvements defined somewhere. I don't have the coders. Sorry. Not a trick question. I promise. I feel like there is a a point. I think it is.

Oh, but that's the that's the whole different thing of whether or not you're destroying any new building, right? You could you could say for a zoning permit for any improvement over 800 square feet or it could be an addition or things like that, right? Yeah. You just draw a line in the sand. Say anything over 800 square feet, we're going to your landscape. The reason I say 800 is that's how much you can put a granny a granny unit to be in your yard that's 800 square feet.

So that's the other addition. Yeah. I mean, if somebody puts a 200 foot porch on the back of their house, I'm not going to require a landscape plan. The landscape plan's there. If it's a new build. Oh, yeah. I'm I'm a I'm going from zero to zero. Okay. So, everybody good with 800 square feet as our seems to be the threshold that you know

constitutes a a major improvement on the parcel. So then does certificate of zoning compliance still work or was that Stephen was that wrong to begin with? I would just I wouldn't put certificate of zoning compliance. I would just say the legal of a zoning permit. I don't believe I issue anything called No, this is after the fact. This is this is um we're coming along to check that you did what you do, right? Yeah. Yeah.

Substantial improvement is defined in our codes, but it's not in the zoning ordinance itself. Yeah. It appears in the flood damage prevention and flood management ordinance. It's also in the FEMA and National Flood Insurance Standards. The definition of a substantial improvement is generally any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition or other improvement of a structure the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure. That's big. That's that's that's way beyond.

Yeah. But that's all meant to deal with um you getting to rebuild something that might have been nonconforming or what have you or that was damaged? No, no, no. Is is is nonconforming legal non-conforming and is damaged, right? Do you get to build it back the way in the legal nonconforming realm or do you have to bring it up to code at the expense of putting it all on pause? Angie. Yes, s Mark. I don't recall anything in our permit systems or all our piece of papers a a certificate of zoning compliance. Have you ever we just approved the zoning permit period? I mean, I don't There is a certificate of zoning.

There is a certificate of zoning compliance. I can I can offer the fact that it is a defined then leave it in. Leave it right there. Um it's a it's a after the fact. It's an after the fact. Yeah. You know, it's like John said, "Trust in." Yeah. Did you put in Did you put in 10 shrubs like you said? Ronald said that. Yeah. I was I was giving you a little credit for today, but give Ron credit for that.

Okay. So the next question is whether or not we mention the um uh C2 district in um 17751 because down in the chart and this is carried over from the existing chart there's no landscaping required in C2. That's right. No place to put it. Yeah, there's no place to put it. So, I would recommend even though this was existing language that I see C2 out.

Yeah. So, so are you taking just C2 out or you taking Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Um. Uhhuh. Where it says percentage of landscaping to be on in the table where it says percentage of landscaping required to be located in the front yard and it says at least 20%. Does it mean 20% of the front yard or 20% of the landscaping requirement? Okay. Just asking what the intent is.

I took I took what we currently have in our as being of the total landscaping required. Should we spell that out? Well, I I mean I just wasn't sure what the intent was. I I get it. This is why and this and I bet the old one said the exact same thing and I didn't wasn't sure there you know this is why I tried to define landscaping and then over here landscaping required and then in the far right column the percentage of the landscaping required to be put in the front yard.

That's not a lot is it is trying to trying to What's the What is the I mean, if you're reading that, what do you think? So, if I look at a brand new new building and I see a building with a driveway, a garage, 20% is usually the sideyards where the swailes are, that's considered landscaping requirement. And then almost every house traditionally has a five to seven foot front bed in front of the foundation. That comes to easily comes to about 20%. Okay. So, it's 20% of the total total area total of the front yard

area of the front yard not of the required landscaping. Okay, that's what I'm asking. No, it's percentage of landscaping. Yeah, I understood it to be we are requiring you to do x percentage landscaping and of that x percentage this percentage has to be in the front yard. Not that your front yard has to have 20% landscaping, right? But okay. And I would I really wasn't trying to cause I just wanted to understand it for myself.

I I'll tell you how you do that. up in the top in the header, you add you add percent equals total landscaping. And that will tell them that down here where it says 20%, it's percent of the total landscaping. Does that make sense? No. Show that again. So in the head at the top. Yeah,

you add and there's room to even write it in because it just did percentoom meaning unit of measure equals total landscape. That would tell everybody that everything below that that 20% is of the total landscape. Yeah, you lost me on the OEM. I've never I've never unit in chemistry we do that zoning typically. Oh well then okay my bad I use No you percent

what if it was just the percentage of total landscaping required to be located in the front yard. Does that clarify or does that make it that's what it says right now right? No, it just No, it just says 20%. Yeah, it says percentage of landscaping required to be located in the front yard. And then it says at least 20% 20% of what? So maybe we say at least 20% of total required landscaping. I think that okay. Yeah, that makes it clear. That makes it very clear.

Sorry, I didn't. No, it's confusing. We need to make sure we're making this as clear as we can. Okay. So, do these percentages work or they're um too low, too high? There's not enough gradation between the lot sizes. those lot sizes, they're consistent with

it's they're the same lot sizes that we put in the tree protection protection area. So we so we use that same gradation, but um do the um total landscaping numbers um make sense uh um for each lot size or should we adjust those? So, Madame Chairman, are so we're saying if we have a 25,000 or greater that half of the lot will be landscape. Is that standard? Now,

it's not standard. It's it's but it's it's it's proportional for sure. If you've got 25,000 square feet, which is half acre half acre. Yeah. Uh I'd say it's pretty easy to meet that requirement. And that doesn't count grass though, right? That's it. It does. Okay. So then it's all anything that's not landscape material definitely. Includes grass and trees and shrubs and goose planter beds. Whatever that makesense tomato plant

one chooses to put in. Plus our artificial. Nice. Yeah, I'm always going to point to the I think those percentages make sense. Yeah, they're proportional. They're okay.

Do do we have any more things to say about trees before Wait, wait a minute. before we um have a draft that we put out there for our public hearing in whatever that is the 21st. Yeah. Are we good? We're good. Okay. Don't ask me. Just

Scott's already gone. Okay. Well, we're then to public comment. Anybody have any comments? I will be extremely brief. Thank you. You always say that. Yeah. My name's John. I'm the leazison from the town council. I just thought maybe you guys might consider adding to the penalties that um fines are 50% for a first offender unless it can be shown that they knew or should have known that their action was illegal. Thanks. 50%. I like the

sorry I bet Her is cold in here and it's long. Once again I'm brought back to flashbacks. Um 7th Avenue. Okay. On um protected trees charging 500 and 3 in. This is a deterrence and uh very effective when individuals don't follow it because $500 is for some people is something they'd rather pay and then be done with. That often happens.

I know we're not supposed to do this. Go ahead. But did you say protected trees? I think that's what I saw in the write up. Okay. That you were talking about. It's 2500. Well, the 500 to 3 in is what I'm covering. That's for nonprotected tree and non land. Is that the one you're addressing? Yes, that's the one I'm addressing.

Sorry. I just want to be clear. So, I'm going to bring this up a little bit later, but there is such a thing as an enforcement response policy. Chapter 14 has one. It provides a a low, medium, and high range for penalty assessment. So, in the ordinance, you always include the highest penalty a person can acrue if they're going to have a penalty or a fine. You also name for every should or sorry shall or must provision of the ordinance you need to put somewhere like in the enforcement section what is the result the resolution for that. They may get a notice of violation. They may get a stop work order for the particular. They may get a a fine or something along that line. But with shall must provisions in your ordinance, you should be having that's the general rule. The um um when it comes to comments about whether or not 3 in is appropriate. Again, I I strongly recommend that uh just for sharing, we talked a lot with ma the uh council when we were working on the tree ordinance and some folk wanted it to be 2 in for every tree being requiring a a permit, some as high as 20 depending 15. They didn't like the idea of going after scrawny little trees, but you're never going to get an urban forest if you don't protect the scrawny little trees. So, I I commend you for going to 3 in because we tried, but got some resistance from comments that we got. So, we sort of split the baby and went to I think 6 in or 8 in. uh under paragraph F on page five of 10 also need

to provide steps for how to protect predict potential damages to foundations because one of the criticisms we often got from the code enforcement officer is that if it's a perceived potential it's very hard to ensure that that just might be an excuse. So there's got to be some measure of data evidence to to collect or information to cooperate that kind of potential so that they have to know they have to provide it and just say then rather than just say it. Council can say under paragraph H that fines are going to be what you want to propose to the council because council does not identify fines. We did ask that question. They have no idea what they went better with is if you come in and you talk about Myrtle Beach and you talk about Georgetown County and you talk about North Myrtle Beach, that gives them a better sense of where fives could potentially go and whatever you propose would be more likely to be more reasonable to them because that is a very hard thing for them to try to gauge and there some folk will go to the extreme and others will go to a very low range. So, I don't think that you should think that council is the one that makes that decision. They do make the decision, but they need help with how they go about making that decision. And that really comes from your assessments and how you what you have found out and reading about. Georgetown County does find $500 per inch of their trees, not just per tree. So, it is commit this fine of 500 for each tree. That is a good range because it sort of falls right in line with the grand strand. Um, what happens if the proposed owner is not here when a storm occurs and they're

not able to notify PBNZ in 96 hours? They may be on a ship cruising. They may be sick in the hospital. They may be whatever. So, I think you may need to put some language in there about uh I'm not sure exactly how, but notifying them in an appropriate manner because it's really the notification they need to provide, not actually getting the tree cut down. So, we may have time to do that a little later. Sorry. Like an absentee owner.

Yeah. Or an absentee owner. they find out because the property manager tells them and they don't have the authority to make any decisions. Um, penalties for 25 to 36 in is going to be allowed for trees to be removed easily. Um, again, I already said that that if you if you make it so it's 25 to 30 in, the idea to go ahead and remove it and pay the penalty is most likely to happen because we've seen that happen a lot. Uh, people will pay the money.

People will pay the money. They will have the trees cut down over the weekend. Please require they post the permit. I really didn't see this when I did my review. posting just like they do when they do any kind of construction work. That really helps the neighbors out. It brings a sense that they have been looked at, they have been assessed by PBNZ and if it happens on the weekend, which the tree company should be legally able to do as long as they post their comment then when police comes because of a complaint in my office. So in again in the enforcement rules I think I'd let you know that um there is such a thing as an enforcement response policy which is very useful for PDZ because there are always extenduating circumstances that could warrant not having to charge $500 and and they may be able to come up with this. Um lastly on the previous discussion on paragraph 96 or B3 2 ask

is it that's why I left this one last should we let it go on for a minute I don't care it won't take a minute all right I do want to refresh people's memories that issue about self storage and having so many parking spaces required I think that's that came about because There was where the hotel is going to be. That was intended by the pre the owners of the property to put in a huge giant self storage there. And the town people screamed and yelled,

protested, did protest marching to convince council not to allow prime property in our town to be used for storage facilities. And that was kind of the best idea they could come up with. kind of right. Oh, so it was write the rules. Yeah, it was worth it to the town overall that that property stay not built until they got the right person company to come in. So that that did happen. Thank you. Thank you for that. I was wondering about that. How did that number represent?

Okay. Commission comments. Good night. Larry, I'm done. No commission comments. Okay. Um, can I get a motion to adjourn? Madam Chair, yes. I'll make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. Certainly. Can I get a second? Second. Third. All in favor? I Okay. Thank you everybody.