Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded.

We mark 250 years of our nation's journey. We give thanks for the vision, courage, and liberty that has shaped our history. Guide us into the future with wisdom, respect, and grace. Help us to make thoughtful and reasonable decisions, and bind us together with a renewed spirit of unity, justice, and peace. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,

We have a public hearing that is being conducted in accordance with the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act and applicable provisions of the South Carolina local government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act. As I understand it from Director Roeder, notice has been provided at this hearing and published in the required newspaper. Can you hear me now? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Under the Planning Commission bylaws, public hearings have an established sequence in Article 3, Section 2B, which states The matters brought before the commission for public hearing initiated by an applicant, the applicant, his agent or attorney should be heard first. Members of the public next when appropriate and staff next. The applicant shall have the rights to reply last. No person may speak for more than five minutes without the consent of the commission. No person speaking at a public hearing should be subject to cross-examination. Commission members shall pose all the questions. So tonight our public hearing is on a proposed amendment to Chapter 17, Article 7, Tree Protection and Landscaping, and the proposed cover document that may be submitted to town council. I'm going to be the applicant, sort of, because This is all coming from the commission itself. There is no applicant proposing this change. The proposed change to Article 7 of Chapter 17 is one that the Planning Commission has been working on since last summer. After we sought clarification from the town council as to our role, following the Stormwater Committee's work on trees. Since last summer, we have been through several iterations of the ordinance, including an effort to have an ordinance of only a few pages. In that time, we have conducted at least three workshops and formed an advisory group to sort out issues and generate drafts. The draft for consideration tonight is one that fully repeals current Article 7 of Chapter 17 and replaces it with what is a more streamlined, user-friendly ordinance. In addition to reducing the length of the ordinance, the proposed replacement ordinance protects trees and is designed to promote generational growth and replacement of the town's tree canopy. A permit is required for all tree removal, with the exception of certain emergency situations, and the removal of trees with a DBA, which is a diameter at breast height, which is a pre-industry or forestry term and measurement, that is less than three inches. unless that tree happens to have been a replacement tree associated with permit requirements are spelled out for each tree removal circumstance only certain removal situations require compliance with the minimum tree numbers and the minimums have been changed to be either the total number of trees or the total dph of all trees on the lot are based on lot size rather than zoning district. If you need a tree removed due to disease or its location too close to your foundation, you do not need to meet the minimums. If the minimums apply to your situation, there are clear requirements as to replacing trees and maintaining them to ensure their survival. Mitigation through payments to the Tree Fund are permitted in lieu of planting replacement trees where such trees are required. The Tree Fund is a dedicated fund to be used for planting trees in public spaces and for providing education materials to the public on trees in stormwater. Enforcement is enhanced through stop work orders, revocation of business licenses, and reporting to business oversight entities. Fines are included for unauthorized tree removal with amounts geared to the type of tree removed. I emphasize that these fines in the current draft are for unauthorized tree removal. get boarded if a permit is obtained before a tree and it's removed. Mitigation payments are also required for unauthorized tree removal. And at this point, I will open things up for public comment. If you would like to comment, please approach the lector and state your name and your address.

So my name is Brian Bromfield and I live at 634 Melody Lane in Surfside Beach, the new homeowner, in the last year. And I've followed this since I moved in the area a little bit. And I wanted to start this with, I'm from West Virginia, so I support the tree canopy, support protected trees. I do understand that this is, My question is only to better understand the policy and to make sure that it's safe to homeowners and potential new homeowners. And it's not gonna affect our ability, those area of being able to get out from other homes are what we gave for our home and the values of our homes, because people just don't wanna deal For instance, my home, the property was 40 meters. So this three-inch sector over here, I had that all the way across the yard in the background. I couldn't put it in a garden, though.

We're trying to deal with people who are listening online. So if you could describe what you're pointing to, because they can't see you.

So this is a sample that was brought in, I think. Of three inches. So if a tree was in the property of Jerry Ball, this size, or several of them, where you wanted to put a guarding building, you would have to ask permission to cut these down under the new laws. Is that right?

Yes. If you need a permit to remove the tree.

And any permit is permission, because any permit does not guarantee you the right to be able to cut it down. That's right. Now, as I said, I don't have a problem with that. Some protected trees and stuff. But when you have situations where homes are not always cared for, properties are not always cared for, and you're coming in, or what if you want to improve the aesthetics of your homes? So I got a couple of crape myrtles. I'd like to take those out and eventually put in a couple of eight-foot homes. I don't think that's a problem under the new rules, but what does that look like for a homeowner to make that happen?

Under our procedures, we can't respond to your questions.

You can raise the questions. Yeah, you can't respond.

For us, but. This isn't a too late conversation.

Well, I've heard, so far I've heard, I've heard the cost of doing business term. So you used that once in one of your previous meetings. And that's where somebody intentionally comes in, cuts a tree down on a Saturday just because they didn't want the tree there. And they knew the loss. So they intentionally did this to get around the system. I understand that. I understand the importance of that in situations. But that doesn't qualify the strictness and the compliance of these measures. These measures are putting a restraint on homeowners to where they can't even decide how they want to treat their own properties. Now you can come, the city can come along and put a tree along the streetlight and maintain it and do whatever they want to with it. But if you inherit a tree on a property that you may not want or that you fear is a danger to your home, you have to just deal with it. And insurance companies nowadays are requesting for lands and staying in older homes to be removed. Is that going to be approved? Is there a guarantee that those permits will go through? Or are we going to be now limited to not being able to use that insurer? And we're already limited in insurers this close to the coast. So that's another concern. We're confining ourselves.

Excuse me a minute. Angie, are we running out of clock? He's down to a minute. Okay. Thank you.

So there's no answers to any of this, right? I just tell you everything that I have.

Tell us what you.

I'm concerned with the prices of. Proving a tree is dead, how much is an arbitrage to come in and do that? So how much is that cost on a homeowner? That clearly could be, it's probably a dead tree. Now I understand that some people will try to sneak that through, and that's not what this is about. I'm talking about at what level do you have to do that? a tree that's four inches that's also now looking dead, and I have to bring in an arborist to prove that. There's a 25-inch diamond tree that's been there for 10, 15 years.

All right, sir, your five minutes is up. I'm sorry.

That's all right.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

John Hyatt, 510 Lakeshore Drive. A few things that catch my attention. Early on in 17702, applicability and duties. C, permit required. No person shall remove, damage, or relocate a tree without a valid permit issued by the Planning, Building, and Zoning Department. I'm not sure people really know what, what does it mean to damage a tree? I guess if I hit it with a car, it's damaged, but maybe we want to change the word to alter. That way people know they can't go cut on the tree. I'm not sure damage is the right word that we intend here. I also don't know what kind of tree you're talking about. I guess it's under 17710, which is a protected tree, but it probably should be stated there because when I When I first read this, I thought, what if I plant a seedling in my yard and decide I'm going to move it tomorrow? This says I can't do it without a permit. So I think we need a little more clarity on exactly what we're talking about when we talk about a tree. We need to make sure that it's a protected tree and everybody understands that. I also have a problem with the monies into the tree mitigation fund. It says, shall be used to install trees on public property. Private property exists in this town, and a lot of times if you give away free trees, which don't cost much, people will plant them on their private property and care for them, thus adding to the tree canopy of the town. So why we're only going to allow the money to be used to install trees on public property, I really don't know. I would encourage trees on all private property that people want to plant on, and I think that we should need to do that as well.

I have a problem with the size of the tree.

Three inches is a pretty small tree, and the gentleman made a good point. What happens when someone didn't take care of the property and it's overgrown? There's a lot of trees on there. You just got to get a permit for every tree once they cut over three inches. I don't think that's clear. Aesthetics are important to people that own homes. We drive around this town and we're all proud of the fact that people take a lot of the care of their homes and their lawns without a pride of ownership. And I don't think that this adequately addresses people wanting to establish that pride of ownership in the yard, especially when it's been overgrown before they purchased it. Also, this can be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The cost, I think, is prohibitive. It went pretty high. I think it's at $300 to file. And then it's not clear, is that per tree? What happened to the person like we just stated? Hasn't overgrown a lot. And do they have to appeal to the zoning board on all the trees that they want at $300 a piece? I'm a little bit concerned with that as well. Thank you.

Wait, wait, wait. No, no, no. Before you speak, identify yourself. I'm going to.

I said, that's why I wasn't getting up here.

Okay, bring her back.

Tina Brumfield, 634 Melody Lane. My biggest thing is insurance. Insurance on this side of 17 is ridiculous. I own two houses on this side of 17. It's absolutely ridiculous. You're limited by who you can have. And for them to cover you, you do have to prune back trees that are hanging over your house. So this is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say that I have to pay $300 for every limb that I want to trim that's over my house to keep my entrance.

You're implying that.

He just asked how many people were. that's transparency unless you're going to tell us how it's going to be how do you want us to support it if you're not going to come through and tell us if it's per tree if it's per insurance claim if it's for whatever i mean if you guys aren't going to be accountable to us then it doesn't make any sense if you're going to sit up there and do whatever you want and not be accountable to us and not explain the law to us and explain what you want to do it doesn't make sense

I'm not looking for another five minutes.

I just want to say, keep in mind, people up here, there's a lot of nerves. You know, coming up, being in front of you guys, there's a lot of nerves.

A lot of us. Somebody else. do this for us so don't don't misread us yeah just because you know we might come home strong or have a strong concerns they uh were not angry i know you guys have done a lot of work into this last year

Anyone else?

Let's open it up for Commission comments. Bethany, Jeanette, do you want us to start at your end? Can I go page by page?

How long do I have to hold a place to hear?

Well, are there any comments that are not related to making a motion? to, it's either a name, I mean, supposedly, but maybe that's just when you haven't had to get in.

Well, if I find one, can we hear you?

Are you talking to us? If so, I would like you to talk into the microphone so we can hear it. Please. Is this a private conversation? No. She's, I'm sorry, ma'am.

Can you pull your microphone so we can hear you? I'm sorry. It was just a logistical thing. I wasn't sure if we were going by exactly the way we were supposed to, so I was asked. Okay.

I guess we do close the hearing because what our bylaws say is of us posing questions in the middle of the hearing. Those questions do, unless we're posing them to each other. okay we will close the hearing and move on with our agenda agenda approval i'd like to make a motion to approve the agenda as provided for

I'll second.

Which one are we?

She can second it.

OK. All in favor of approving the agenda, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Discussion.

Do we need discussion?

Well, part of the agenda, Planning Commission regular meetings. This is not a regular meeting. That's great. On the very top of the page, it says Planning Commission regular meeting.

I said public hearing. My bad. No, it's good. Amending my motion.

No, but it's not your, it's on our agenda. So that, my understanding is incorrect. It's not a regular meeting. So that needs just to be modified for the record. I had it right. You had it right. Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, this paper is long.

So you're making a motion to amend to say that this is a special need. Is that correct, Scott?

It was part of our discussion, but sure, I'll make that motion. Second.

Amending the agenda to say that it is a special need of the Planning Commission. Any opposed? I apologize, that's my.

Changing.

Minutes approval. We have no minutes to. Yet. I'm looking forward soon. OK, so. We'll open things up for, which is kind of weird, public comments on agenda items. Do we have any public comments on agenda items? No? Okay. Then let's move on to the director's report. I'm glad to see you, Mark. Oh, yeah.

this is the family yeah the sunday hymnal that you all follow this is basically just what it says on the agenda but i just wanted to get in front of you because i'm going to go through these separately and distinctly and i'm going to reference lots of zoning code provision numbers that you may or not may or may not be familiar um The first, let me get seated first on my microphone. The first item on the status of past topics under A1 is the Seven Brew zoning change application. And the update on that is that Seven Brew has withdrawn their zone change petition and will no longer be seeking a zone change proposal on the site that was on the corner of Surfside Drive and Highway 17. So they've left that site. I'm assisting them trying to find another more appropriate site, and we're proceeding slowly but surely. The second item I wanted to talk about is an item that we've discussed in the past, and it was a section the ordinance as you may recall is a section on what is called exceptions and modifications and it basically gives the planning director um some ability to grant relaxations on lot sizes or lots that are undersized in our community to give me some relaxation to allow the property owner to make adjustments in their setbacks and yards. Since that time, I've had a lot of time to think about the comments that the commission has made, and I'm going to be making a counter proposal to you this evening on that. And the counter proposal is simply, let me pass this up first. I've done a strikeout, red strikeout version, so you can see what the existing language is and what I'm proposing as the proposed language. And I'd like some feedback on this this evening, if possible, so that I can come back to you with a section 17.201 that makes sense to you all. And I gave my last copy away. Here you go. Can I have that one back? Yes. Have a good night. Okay. 17 section 17 201 let me read it to you and i'm going to read it to you as it reads today under a non-conforming lot we're the owner of a lot consisting of one or more adjacent lots of record at the time of adoption of this chapter does not own sufficient land to enable him to conform to the lot size lot width or frontage requirements of this chapter such lot may nonetheless be used as a building site. And the code enforcement official is authorized to issue a permit for the use of the property, which conforms to the requirements for the district in which the lot is located as set forth in this chapter. In administering this provision, the code enforcement official may authorize the reduction of required yards or setbacks provided that Such requirements are not reduced below the minimum specified in this chapter by more than 20%. When an official fails to authorize such reduction, or in cases where a reduction of more than 20% is required, the Board of Zoning Appeals may authorize the reduction of required yards or setbacks consistent with variant standards imposed by this chapter. You may recall that A lot of the conversation that we had was, I believe it seemed to members of the commission that this section was usurping the powers and the duties of the Board of Adjustment. And upon reflection, I agree with you. I didn't agree with you at first, but upon reflection, I agree with you. I think there's a time and place for when the Board of Adjustment has to step in. And there's a time and place for a planning director to provide some relief on certain properties. So what I've done is I've gone back through this and I've looked at it with that mindset. First of all, the first change I made was it doesn't say whether it's a residential commercial lot. This is primarily for residential parcels. So I'm saying, number one, that this is for residential parcels only, not for commercial parcels. Commercial parcels still need to go through the Board of Adjustment for that. I can't say with any certainty that there are commercial parcels in the community that are substandard, that wouldn't meet the basic substandard, that would meet the basic standard for commercial lodge. Furthermore, the second change I've made is that the code uses the word enforcement of official, shall be the person who does this. The code enforcement official is a person that reports to me. So basically what I've done is rather than making it the code enforcement official, making it the development director. I had a little heartburn about using the word development director. That title isn't development director. My title is director of planning, building, and zoning. Unfortunately, that title doesn't appear anywhere in Chapter 17. So my title, Director of Planning, Building, and Zoning, is a new title that is not reflected anywhere in the code. But I'm recognized as the development director, and the word development director is used several times in Chapter 17. So it seemed to me to make the most of the development director. I looked up zoning administrator. I looked up code administrator. I looked up all sorts of names that have been called in the code. And the most prevalent one is development director. So I'm suggesting to you that we strike the word code enforcement official and replace it with development director. Now, here's where it gets a little touchy. And this is where I want your input. I think so far what I've proposed to you is fairly straightforward. In most cases, the development director is given broad powers to give what I would call slight variances on things like required yards, heights, and setbacks. We have something in town that you all know. It's called permeability or coverages. That's a unique provision to our town and to towns primarily along the coast. So I believe that when they originally wrote this, they weren't thinking of coverages as potentially something that the director would have some flexibility in providing some relief on that. So I've added the words coverages and heightening here, and I want you to respond if you don't feel that those are appropriate. We can strike those and we'll just leave it yards and setbacks. The next change is that the director had the ability to allow minimum specifications to be exceeded by 20%. And I just thought, as you did, that was just a bit too, a bridge too far. It would really, what I've ever worked with in my life has been 10%. This is the first time I've ever seen 20% in my 45 years of doing this. I think that just gives the development director a little bit too much leeway when in fact, the zoning board of appeal should be here I've capitalized on the Board of Zoning Appeals the way it should be. And like I said, out of the words, coverage and height. And I'll stop there. And I would like your input on this section.

All right. Overall,

I don't want to see any changes in the height requirements anywhere within town. I think that just opens up a whole can of worms. So if we take out height, I feel very comfortable with what you've written here.

I wanted to give you what the full gamut of the ones are that I have seen in the past, but I tend to agree with you on this one. And the reason is because we are so height conscious here. And I thought to myself, okay, what is the building height primarily? Primary building height is 35 feet and 55 feet, depending on which zoning district you're in. So if you're in the 35 foot, that's a 3.5 foot 10%, 3.5 foot. But if you're in the higher density where the height is 50 feet, suddenly you're allowed to go to 55. So that one gave me a little, I put it in here, but it still gave me a little bit of heartburn. So I tend to agree with you on that one.

On a future agenda.

I'm asking you to do that.

To talk about all of this rather than try to sort it all out this evening. Nobody's had this setting coming into the meeting.

I'm just asking. I follow your train of thought. We can agendize this, and I can simply place what you see in front of you on an agenda. I was just trying to sort of, if you will, get a cleaner version to you before we started the discussion.

Also appreciate you having taken into account all of our prior discussion. But I just suggest that we put it on a future agenda, which I know is a problem because you're not here. It's your choice.

Yeah, it's your choice. If the full, I'd rather not discuss it this evening.

move it to an agenda item then that's what i'll do anybody else feel differently that's true yeah i'd just like to support larry's statement about my my line right is not a very circumstantial in the past the town has enforcers have been extremely stiff we have had issues, if not lawsuits, over a couple of inches, and I don't see anything missing with hype.

I do actually think it's contrary to one of the provisions that says you can't adjust hype about certain, I don't know, supermajorities. Supermajority of council. Of council, yeah.

Wow. Supermajority of council? Yes, yes, yes. That's interesting.

Tried to lock that in a lot.

Yeah, okay, good. Well, that's a good comment. That's a good comment. Yeah.

Yeah. If you otherwise, like you said, if everything's been taken into account that we had concerns about, I am fine with the rest of it.

Okay. Well, we can't act on any of this. So we just, it needs to come back later.

Madam Chair.

After study. Yes.

Okay. I'm in agreement with everyone down the road that everything except for the height, very good call, that kind of stood out with me. I'm like, wow, height, geez, that's pretty aggressive. And also, you know, I'm all for efficiency, and I don't think this is overreaching, but I understand if we want to put it on an agenda, but besides the height, I have no issue with these changes. Thank you.

Okay. Just to let you know, it has to be on an agenda and it has to follow procedures. We can't just, because it's been a topic before, we can't just address it tonight. Yeah, that's fine.

That's what I said.

So anyone else? Mark, do you want to move on to the next thing?

Given your comment on this, I'm not going to propose to you any of the modifications that I have to these three ordinances. I will tell you, in fact, though, that one of the ordinance numbers is incorrect. And I plan to correct that on a future agenda. But I do have the three items here before you. I did ask the proponent of the storage parking lot issue to come this evening to hear any discussion that you might have. As a director, my report, this is my discussion, my report to you. My report to you is that I am going to be bringing you a modification to three elements of the zoning code. One is the section regarding, let me, I'll probably just Forget it. One of them will be 17420, which is the parking chart. We're going to be adding a letter to the parking chart. It creates a new letter for self-storage. The second one that I'm going to be bringing to you is a modification to 17395, the use table, which will be amending the parking letter that's in the use table for many storage and units storage facilities to R, which is the proposed parking regulation that we discussed previously. And lastly, the last one I have for you is 17-396.8, where I'm adding a new letter G, which will be that no mini storage be located within 150 feet of the Highway 17 right of way. So I'm going to be bringing those three to you in a future agenda. The last item I have for you this evening is an item that sort of caught, I think, staff a little bit by surprise. But the publishing schedule for public notices got changed and What I'm going to be bringing to you at your next meeting is I'm going to be bringing you a calendar, a schedule that if we want to hold a public hearing, I'm going to have to show you how far in advance I have to have your commitment to holding that public hearing in order to get the public hearing published. So we stay current. As you know, all public hearings have to be noticed in a paper of general circulation at least minimum of 15 days prior to that here. In order for us to get that notice published, we have to have that copy in front of the newspaper approximately 24 days in advance of the public hearing for your health, which creates some internal issues for Angie and myself, but it shouldn't propose a problem for any of you. It will just mean that we'll have to, when we set public hearings, we're not going to be talking about that public hearing for probably like a month and a half until we get that properly noticed in the paper. Let's see if I had anything else. I think that was all I had for you this evening.

Mark, is that a change because the town changed newspapers or is there, I don't know, a newspaper that the town always uses and it all of a sudden changed its timing?

Angie, you want to help me on this one? Yes, ma'am. It's always been like that, but you have a certain day to have it in to the newspaper in order to have it published that week or the week after.

And they kind of, and I think, I don't want to speak out of turn, but I believe we were under a previous understanding of how soon we had to get those in. And I tried to have other public hearings held, I believe it was going to be this evening. And we missed the publication date by like about five or six days. So we asked for an explanation. I asked for an explanation. I wanted to know exactly what day they needed it. And to my surprise, it really kind of pushed us another four or five days back beyond the date that I had sort of cemented in my brain when I had to have a copy to them. Because I remember the time when it happened. I gave Angie the copy. I said, get it over to the newspaper. And we got very frustrated. a response very quickly sorry if you want it published on the friday you have to have it on the tuesday before the you know the month when that's you know when the moon turns into you know different colors i mean i i didn't know where that came from it was just this is our this is how we when we have to have it this is how far in advance we have to have it if you want to publish so

I think this is an Angie question. Angie, what is our paper of record for publication?

Maori News.

Maori News.

Yes.

Well, that answers questions I'm not going to ask. All right. So are you aware of any other publications that could serve as our these publications.

I think because of expense on previous papers, and they're trying to get out of all that. My Ori News, they do the My News on Wednesdays, and they have to have it in by Friday in order to have the paper published. They can do it in the Laura Seen if you have it in on Monday by that Wednesday. you still have to have from that wednesday when they publish it or that friday you have to have 15 days where you'll be legal my question isn't about the schedule my question is much simpler is there anybody else we can use i'm not sure about the sundays because i mean with the expense i mean because they're only paying what 300 i think for a publication for Public notice, and that doesn't cover it with somebody. Okay. I mean, I have mentioned and asked, you know, maybe that if we can do an ordinance where you can publish it online. Yeah, that way.

So, okay. I just, I just want to clarify options.

So, I was really surprised since when we did the public notice. change stuff that we had to deal with the property at the corner of Surfside Drive and 17, that seemed like that publication happened much more rapidly than this. So I was very surprised when we got this word. So maybe we can explore whether some other method of publication

I don't know what dictates. Don't quote me on this, but I believe the way it's supposed to be done is, and I remember these words very clearly, in a paper of general circulation, which means that it's not something that you go to a box and pick out or something. It's something that is normally circulated as we would consider our daily or our weekly paper here. communities that I've worked in in the past, we had daily papers. So it was never an issue what paper was, the paper of general circulation. I'm unfamiliar with the newspaper world up here, but defaulting basically to what our council uses and what we've been using historically was the paper that you sent the notices to. So it does create a bit of a,

scheduling uh issue for for angie and i but it shouldn't create any problems beyond that no it just requires that we have a lot more planning and foresight to sort this out and is it's the notice per is the cost angie per item like if we had had three public hearings tonight would that have been three hundred dollars per hearing

Just one? It would be one and it's the size of the ad. Okay.

It could be this big and be one public hearing, or it could be that big to be five public hearings.

So that requires us to be even more careful, attentive to things that we stack up together. Yes, right. Yes. Which makes a lot of sense. Answer that question. Okay.

Like I said, it just creates a political thing for us, something that we did not anticipate.

And that concludes my- Mark, you mentioned that we're gonna be looking at the use table, making a change for the parking? Yes, sir. Okay. Since we're changing the use table, maybe it would be a good idea to take a look at the whole thing and see what else has to be changed, because if you make a little change, you might as well make more if they're appropriate. I don't know that there are any in my mind, but I'll certainly take a look.

Would you support bringing back an agendized item that basically says we're going to look at the use table as an item?

Well, we're going to anyway because of that one thing.

Yes, we are looking at the use table, but I want to be clear. We're not changing any uses. All we're doing is if you look at the use table, all the way over to the right-hand side is a group of just letters. I didn't know what that meant when I first came here. The letters refer to section blah, blah, blah, and you have to go and see what that letter means, which is really annoying, by the way. You have to go to this other section that tells you what the parking regulation is for that. So while we are looking at the use table, technically, we're not looking at uses. We're looking at parking regulations.

We have enough work.

Yeah, but we are amending the use table by doing that. So I don't know any other. I know that John had raised with me whether or not some use should be changed, and maybe we deal with that all together. 100%. But particularly if we're going to have this more complicated public hearing notice publication issue. I personally still have the issue of The use table in the code has still not been amended from what we amended last year. Not in the code. Okay, anything else on Mark's topics here before we move on? Nope. Okay. Let's move on to business items, which brings up my proposed amendment to Chapter 17, Article 7. And I get a motion with regard to it. I think that we probably need Separate motion for the key documents. Would that be right? A separate motion for the ordinance and a separate motion for the cover that accompanies to go to the panel council.

Resolution. Resolution.

And at the same time, looking for a motion on the resolution. that accompanies the ordinance and goes to the council. Let's start with the ordinance itself.

Can we get a motion? Mr.

Chair?

Yes.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the proposed amendment of Chapter 17, Article 7, street protection landscape.

We get a second.

I'll second.

We'll go ahead and have the discussion on this before we make a second. Yes, I think we should discuss this separately. Since you made the motion, did you want it before? I do have some things to

consider in light of the discussion of the public. Firstly, I'd like to say thank you for the comments made because clearly there may be some ambiguity irrespective of the intent. Down the Surfside beaches, published services and them to be as transparent as possible. So I would like us to consider. Amending the.

To clarify several key points made by the public.

The 1st, 1 that I want to bring up is to. get a confirmation from either you or Mark or a source of truth, that one permit can be applied for for multiple trees so that there is not any confusion about the permit. I think the permit costs five bucks, but hey, the gentleman had a good point. If you've got 40 trees, now you're talking 200 bucks for a permit so i'd like to excuse me yes ma'am oh the permanent fee goes up okay well then okay and even more to the point one permit yeah but it not just five i mean it could be 25 if the okay good well No, Angie was going to be the source of truth, but thank you for pointing that out. So, um, but the problem is here, Angie did the answer, but John didn't and the citizens didn't because it was unclear the way it's stated now. So my point in bringing it up is thank you, Angie, but I would like to amend it so that As was stated earlier, the transparency is there, so there is no feeling of ill intent by the city to create transparency. The second thing...

So before you... Do you want me to give you the exact language and where to put it? Where would you put this language?

Okay.

And then let's vote on that.

Okay. All right. Well, there's going to be more, so let's hold off on the vote. Okay, so I would say that this would be where it says you have to apply for a permit. Okay, so I think we could do it in 17702. And I believe line C where it says no, because we need to do my next comment is on the same one. Permit required is the first two words next to letter C. All right. It says no. It currently states no persons shall remove damage. And this was John's point he made about the word damage or relocate a tree without a valid permit issued by the planning or by the planning, building and zoning part. So my suggestion is that we rephrase that to be no person shall remove alter Relocate a tree, and here's where I want to define tree, because that is an ambiguity as well.

So, a tree, I guess, I'm just changing a tree to trees.

That's what I was thinking, too. You can put the S. Works for me.

Trees. All right. Thank you. without a valid permit issued by planning, I guess we would put an extra sentence in here to say that a single permit is permissible for use for multiple trees and not put a cap on it. I mean, you know.

It's done at the same time.

Oh, yeah, I guess. Yeah, you want to be the best. You want to.

Okay.

In any single event or if done at the same time. Does that make sense?

It makes sense, except for how all the permit stuff is divvied up. And so I would say that in order to make that kind of a change, the entirety of Section 17710 has to be rewritten because it is based on particular circumstances with regard to the trees involved.

You're talking about protected trees versus dead trees versus invasive nuisance trees versus you know, all these others. Yes. Well, then we say we qualify the permit as being applicable to the tree in Section 1770. In other words, instead of just saying a valid permit, we would say a valid permit for the corresponding tree is identified in Section 1770. You see what I'm saying? Does that work?

I don't think it works.

Well, then, my suggestion is we're not going to figure it out up here tonight without a whole lot of consternation. So, I believe that it is very important that we have this word that 99% of it is fine, but we have some ambiguities that have If we've got two people here who are expressing a concern about it, there would definitely be others.

And I have some other points of ambiguity, so it's up to the commission to decide.

But if it requires, I don't know, other than to say, let's figure it out, rework it, and vote on it. based on the comments of the public. I know that's not what anybody wants to hear. I promise you I do. I'm not saying this lightly, but I am saying that I agree with the ambiguities as misinterpreted by the public tonight, that that is easy to do and somebody else might do it. And I prefer not to vote on something that we haven't. Here to everything. That's right. Doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you on the point you're getting.

No, that's fine. You don't have to do that. In fact, you never do.

Okay, so I don't know if that requires anything. Madam chair, I do have some other points of clarity. But unless you think that. we're going to be able to sit here tonight and work it all out. I'm all for that.

I would suggest it's next to impossible, save maybe at the beginning of 7-10, that would indicate that if there are multiple trees uh that as for removal at the same time it could be a single permit but that all requirements associated with the particular tree circumstance had to be met. For example, if it was a protected tree that was being removed because construction was involved, that you would have to have the tree protection plan. And if applicable, you would have to have the tree replacement. plan done, even though some of the trees that you were wanting to take down might be trees that were a diseased or dead variety. I don't know how often lots of trees are coming down at the same time unless construction is involved. And that's all I said. Okay.

Let me suggest in terms of the frequency of multiple trees coming down. So the example given by the resident was, you know, he's just going to replace a couple of great myrtles with a couple of palm trees, okay? That kind of situation where you've got two or three, I could see that being fairly often.

I know I'm looking at it in my yard.

Anyway, I think you're right, though, that construction, like, where you've got a lot of a whole bunch of trees, you know, these little trees in it, somebody's coming in to build a house, and it's like, we got to He's got to go.

Okay. So we understand that replacement doesn't come into play unless it's a construction-related situation.

That needs to be made clear.

I guess I'm not sure how you make that more clear other than what is stated in that you don't have to meet minimums and you don't have to do replacement other than if you're getting a permit under these particular sections.

Hearing 17.713. Yeah. Okay. So given that that is part of the statement, I just want to Being A, B, or C? A.

Okay. So if you're getting a permit to remove a protected tree associated with a construction activity.

Right.

You've got to, somebody has to look at tree replacement if your lot has an insufficient number of qualifying trees. Right. oodles of trees that qualify, you don't need to do the replacement. Okay.

Where's the state construction verbiage that you're stating?

That's in the permit requirement.

So that's not in 17713? It's over in 710E.

So, current practice.

somebody comes in and has five trees they want to take down they put it all on one permit they ask for permission that's that's been the practice as far as i know as long as i know right that is actually and so um just for so for other types of permits not not just trees when somebody WANTS TO PUT UP A FENCE AND PUT IN A SIDEWALK AND, YOU KNOW, IS THAT ONE PERMIT OR IS THAT MULTIPLE PERMITS? YOU CAN DO IT ALL ON ONE PERMIT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. I JUST WONDER IF WE'RE, I MEAN, I THINK THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DONE.

THAT'S MY COMMENT. THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS. permits for multiple trees, the comment that John made about, okay, it's $300 to apply for zoning.

It's $25, though.

Okay, well, the reason we're talking about this is what we've said. The permit is $25.

I don't know where the $300 came from.

Okay, John will have to explain where the $300 came from.

It's a fine. That's a fine.

Oh, if you file your appeal. Yeah. As far as your fine.

that's not the way my whole point is if the citizen on their residential property today can apply for a single permit to remove multiple trees if for nobody other than two folks here that obviously thought differently i want to make it clear that your point can be used in multiple trees yes and The comment that I made was, you know, what you were trying to say, but you were saying it much nicer. Let's not create problems that don't exist. We don't need to solve problems that aren't there. But to me, the root cause of the problem is just the ambiguity, or maybe just the complexity of the whole thing. I mean, this is a pretty long document. If you're not an attorney, you don't do it every day. It's tough to read and understand.

If I could speak, I think I'd save you a lot of trouble.

We can't. John, this is a complex piece of legislation, okay?

I don't expect any resident to have a working knowledge of this complex document. I will tell you that every time a tree permit comes in, I have to go to the tree ordinance to be specifically looking at the language that I'm looking. I would go one step further. Not only can you come in and get a tree permit taken down all at the same time, but you can put a pool in, put a fence up, and take trees down with a single permit. So you can load a permit up with a lot of activity if you want to. I think one of the things that I heard, public's head also is there's a concern over being able to take trees out for insurance purposes. One of the things that we do very quickly, somebody comes in and says, I want to take a tree down because it's rubbing against my house. One of the things that I've learned from a town attorney a long time ago is anytime somebody submits to you a request to remove a tree because it's a danger to life and limb, there is no question and at least this director's mind, but you're taking that tree down because I don't want the town to be in any kind of... Well, you still verify. Oh, I still... You send somebody out and you verify. Now, somebody says, I've got a dead or dying tree in the backyard, right? Another question that came up. Somebody on staff who knows trees goes out and if they cannot make the determination in the field, then and only then do we have to have a letter from a certified arborist. We asked a certified arborist what he charges for that letter. And he says, depending on the complexity of the project, obviously. But he said generally between $100 and $200. So it's not a huge ask. If our tree person goes out and says, I can't really make the call here. I'm going to have to ask you to get a letter from a certified arborist. I've been here a year. One time we've asked for a tree harvest. We can usually make the call in the field. So what I'm trying to get at, John, is this is a complex document. The document before it, or the standing ordinance that we have now, is even more complex. And we have tried to make this easier. And I remember stating on multiple occasions that I'd like to get this ordinance down to three pages. Well, that just wasn't going to happen. because of the complexity and the world that we live in, in Surfside Beach with the different types of trees and protecting certain trees. But one of the things that we wanted to do, two things we wanted to do, is we wanted to protect smaller trees. And that's where we got down to this size right here, the three inches, from eight inches. And we debated the three, the four, the five. We kind of went round and round on numbers like that. But that tree at that stage, and That tree at that stage is in a growth period that the chance of that tree getting diseased are very slim. Those trees that small are what I call hardy growers. They just are. That's our future canopy that we've talked about. We've all talked about how we want to protect this future canopy. However, if you go onto a parcel, and some parcels do have lots of trees, they're blessed with lots of trees, I get a plan for a new house, and I got the house, and on that plan, every surveyor in town knows that he has to identify the tree location, the tree species, and the tree caliber, or DBH. And I go, and we go and count those trees, and generally speaking, we almost never have problems with new builds, because they generally have more trees than what our minimum requirements I will come through and allow access on the trees where they want the pool, where they want the driveway, where the house is going to go. Those are all just sort of taken off immediately. If the, if the tree is within 10 feet of the foundation, you can take the tree down and feed of your driveway, take it down. We have no problem with any of those. So the, so the two, how to say this artfully. This is such a complicated piece of legislation that I don't expect anyone except myself and our code enforcement officer to have a working knowledge of this. It's just not possible. And like I said, I have to pull the ordinance out every time a different circumstance comes in. So it's really tough. And I don't think we've really missed anything in the ordinance. I just think that, you know, it would almost be great if I could write like a three-page summary of the entire tree ordinance so that every member of the community basically understood the premise behind it. Not the after detail. It's one-page thing that everybody would just say, yeah, I kind of get it. I kind of get it. Okay. I've got to save trees into three. I only have to save protected trees. So that means, what do they call them? non-protected species, invasive species, trees that are gnarled, trees that are within the foundation, trees that are within the drip line of the house. I mean, if I could literally come up with this three-page thing that says, any of these trees, don't worry about it. The only ones you have to worry about are healthy, three-inch protected trees, which are basically hardwoods and oak trees. Everything else? Yeah. Okay.

Can I interrupt? I'm going to take the floor back, and I'm going to propose an amendment to John's amendment that I think covers what's currently under discussion. So first, in 17702C, that that be changed to read, no person shall remove, alter, or relocate trees without a valid permit issued by the Planning, Zoning, Building and Zoning Department under Section 17.7 . And then that Section 17.7 be amended to insert, excuse me, as a second sentence in , a single permit may may cover removal or major pruning of more than a single tree.

Second for that?

I'll second that.

Okay. So I think that we should vote on that or hear discussion on that. Do we need any discussion?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Okay. Scott?

I have to do a little bit of pushback. As much as I respect our director, greatly respect him, simply that some of what you have stated has been true. I know personally someone who had a tree and town came by and said, you know what, we need an arborist to decide what to do or not to do. Tree was clearly dead. And before the arteries came, storm came by, fell on the house, did 20 plus thousand dollars of damage. And that resident in turn sued the town, but only for the deductible because that individual is a kind person and didn't want to just give it to the town. I had a major issue with that. This limb was hanging over their house. And I've known others with limbs that are hanging on. We are in a hurricane area, and I do appreciate, and I don't want to sidetrack too much, but it's adaptable to the conversation, that we've changed the limbs back to eight inches. I noticed that change recently. But I appreciate your spirit. I hope it's true that, you know, since you've been here that you've been a little more understanding of residents and their situation. But that hasn't always been the case. In fact, it's been the opposite.

Thank you.

The amendment to the amendment that's on the floor.

A vote on that amendment. All in favor of the amendment where we insert the language that I suggested. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? That amendment passes. Okay. John, you still have the floor because I interrupted you to take control over that. But I think if what you're going to propose, so we keep control of things, that it would be kind of ISSUE BY ISSUE OR ITEM BY ITEM INSTEAD OF MULTIPLE THINGS THAT WILL COMPLICATE THE PROCESS.

THE OTHER POINT THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IS A PREEMPTIVE POINT. DISCUSSION OF THE CODE IS WRITTEN. Invariably, in the next 15 or 20 minutes, the fines are going to come up. And I just want to reiterate for people who look at the number, $5,000, that it's not a direct causal relationship, that anybody who breaks any of the rules is automatically fined $5,000. Just bear in mind that It is up to a number. We've had other discussions about other subjects where everybody just looks at the worst-case scenario and assumes that no matter what, it's going to be the worst-case scenario. I'm just preemptively making the point when it comes to this $5,000 program that there are criteria that have to be met. That's down on a three inch tree accidentally. It's about that big around. It is very unlikely the first time they did something like that, Alan's going to say, oh, yeah, it was $5,000. That was the only other point I wanted to make because I know that's going to come up here in just a few minutes. With that, I yield. You know that? With that, I yield.

So you're not offering any other amendments?

No, I just got through saying that it was just in furtheration of the discussion. That was the only amendment I had was that one of clarity about a permit being able to be.

Anyone else want to be heard for an amendment? Because I actually, I think Janet was the second.

I don't have 30 minutes.

So I just want to bring up, and they're not all amendments. Some are just concerns that I just want to voice here again, even though I did last time too, just, I understand why that's three inches, but I still think that's very small. And if I just, I think like, you know, we've had public people say that, you know, they have quite a few of those and I just think it's really hard to enforce something so small like that on someone's own property, but I just want to put it in record as having concerns about that. And then it's just more of a wording that I brought up last time too, but maybe someone really smart can reword this but on page three under 17703 it it says the police department enforces the weekend removal of place without a permit authorizing the removal and i understand what we're trying to get to but it almost sounds different than what we need it to sound like we're saying that they're going to enforce the unauthorized removal of trees over the weekend when code enforcement is not available, but it almost sounds like they're enforcing the weekend removal of trees. Like they're there to- Like call the police if you want to do it over the weekend. Yeah, it just sounds funny, and I know I brought it up last time too, but I didn't have a great way to reword it. But, you know, enforces the tree ordinance regarding any weekend removal, because are they really enforcing the ordinance, doesn't get violated, versus they're there to watch people remove trees. I guess, you know what I mean? Does it sound funny to you too, or is it just me? Yeah, cheers.

It sounds funny too. I agree with you Jeanette that it's awkward. I think it enforces the verb and the subject and that's not what we're trying to say.

Right. I don't, the thought is correct, but the wording is awkward. And so it's not a huge deal, but if we could just look at that. And then,

Before you go on, I would make a motion to amend the sentence in 17-3 to say that weekend enforcement of the removal of trees without a permit authorizing the removal resides in the police department.

But is it the enforcement of removing the trees or is it the, something with the ordinance, like the enforces the tree ordinance requirements on the weekend or, you know what I'm saying? It's what are they enforcing?

Mark.

Our police department, they know the tree. We are only going to ask them to put a stop to the removal of a protected tree. That's all.

And that doesn't happen unless... Actually, you can remove a protected tree as long as you have a permit.

As long as you have a permit. It's a longer sentence than what I meant. Oh, okay. If you have a permit, and you're moving, go forth and chainsaw, right? If you don't have a permit and you're removing a protected tree, we're not going to ask the police officer to fill out a permit for you. Basically, we're just going to ask you to stop until Monday and come in and get a permit. We're not going to fine anybody. We're not going to put anybody in jail. We're just going to stop.

So would we say something about the police department? would put a stop to unpermitted removal of trees on weekends or something like that? Yeah, that gets to the gist of it.

Yeah. Okay. How about this? On weekends, the police department stops the removal of trees without a permit authorizing the removal. I like that.

Love it. Second.

Okay. Everyone in favor of that change say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

We're okay.

We knew someone would be smart. Okay. The next item is on page four. And I guess I just want to again just state that, you know, is it overstepping to have a permit for the removal of invasive species? Like what is driving that the most to like create, if they're invasive, people have always just removed them themselves and without a permit.

Or nuisance. Right. It's on their deed, which I consider to be a fine treat.

Yes.

So you're going to trust the person to know it's an invasive. That's the key. That's the key. The whole key is. Yeah, just to make sure that, you know, they're not imagining things. That's covered with vines. It's invasive. It's an oak, you know.

I think it's a tallow tree. Oh, you mean it's an oak tree? I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

But I agree, and not everybody knows their trees. And then at the bottom where it talks about, I just wanted to validate because I'm not familiar with putting watering schedules into mitigation plans. Is that normal? Like, do we require a five-year watering plan for seedlings?

In some cases, I've seen that put into ordinances, but in general, the requirement is that the owner guarantees that the tree will be alive in 24 months or 12 months and we don't prescribe any type of watering because as you know different trees require different levels of water so all i've ever seen in terms of cases that that it is it is a the owner care for the tree for a minimum of 12 months. Once a tree establishes itself, basically after 12 months, it's going to be good to go.

I mean, most folks I know aren't going to go out and water a tree every day, that kind of thing.

We have enough rain here where most of the natives that we have here do just fine on the rainfall that we have.

So would we be open to changing the five years to two years and eliminating the watering schedule? Let me interject here.

The whole purpose of this is to counter the fact that replacement trees will be put in and then immediately removed. And so we're trying to ensure that those replacement trees remain in place. In terms of any sort of schedule for protective measures, permit holder is proposing what would happen there in terms of ensuring that that tree had a good chance of survival for that five-year period. So that's what it is.

Could we summarize it just like you said, where instead of all these, it could include this or this or this, just to have a plan, a post care plan for any trees replaced. I mean, it just seems like we're getting very detailed in that when we talk about soil amendments, water and schedules. So what are you proposing that we scratch all the verbiage after post installation? If necessary. Yeah. sets forth protective measures designed to ensure the survival period. And what they have to do varies by tree and by, you know, like some trees can't live in the kind of dirt we have or whatever, so you'd have soil replacement. Some need to be watered, like Mark said, once a month, some is once a week, once a day. You know, it's like people have to take care of them. And obviously it's in the plan, so we would know if all the trees were removed the next day, you know. You've got to put a time on this, buddy.

You can't just put a period after survival for a minimum of.

Minimum of two years or something. I mean, five years. I could be not the tree. I mean, that's a long time, five years. so for a minimum of two year post installation or something period and then all the not limited to is what is in a normal good plan specific to the type of tree that you would be replacing it with so i'm still unclear as to exactly what

So proposing for a language change, I understand your general.

So if you say where it starts, if necessary, the replacement of all, the replacement of all replacement trees, the, I think one of those words needs to change, but the. Include. let me see okay so a proposed tree replacement or mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of blah blah blah and sets forth protective measures designed to ensure the survival and it necessary the replacement of all replacement trees for at least two years post installation period

A motion to amend.

I'd like to make that motion to amend. In that fashion. Section 17710E. I'll second that. With the specific language.

Yes. Did somebody write that down?

It's all you're doing is changing the five to a two and putting a period after post installation and pressing the rest out.

Okay. Okay.

Okay, so Scott seconded. Because we have this issue with the minutes. Okay. Any discussion? I am okay with the removal of the language after post installation i think we need to stick with the five years just because of the problems that have been reported about um replacement trees coming out and the idea that the replacement trees could be twigs and so it will take a while before they mature enough to be the three inch DBH trees that get protected. And if our goal, well, one of the goals is to ensure this generational replenishment of the tree canopy if we don't require something that keeps these replacement trees going, then I think we have to do that.

Madam Chair?

Yes.

How would you plan to police that? Five years.

Because they have to report.

No, how are you going to do that?

The permit holder has to report that. It's not easy, but I think we have to do something.

I had shorter adoption reports that needed to be filed for only like two years. So I can adopt a kid from overseas versus adopting trees. I think five years is a long time. I don't know. Is your code person going out and Are they not waiting for these reports if they don't get a report in five years? Is someone doing something? This is all new. This is not currently in the .

Because what can happen is you put the replacement trees in, and then the property owners come in and fix it.

But if Mark right now, he has a code person that one person that can go validate like complaints and stuff, but this is like above and beyond. This is a lot of extra stuff. I mean, are we staffing to be able to have this kind of role?

What it does is it doesn't really give me a surefire way of like basically going and checking every time somebody does that. What it really does protect us against is if somebody egregiously goes into a parcel and removes every one of the replacement trees, we have some language in the code that gives us the teeth to bite into it. Am I going to send Nick out 17 times a summer to check on the two-year period for your trees? Probably not. We don't have the staff to do that. However, if somebody, and believe me, we have plenty of code enforcement officers in the community to keep up with that. He buys up things. Volunteer. And I'll tell you, we get more reports of illegal tree removals from our 75 unofficial code enforcement colleges. We can go out there, and if they enforce, we pull the plans out, there's five replacement trees, and suddenly there's no replacement trees, I have something that I can stick my guns to. I can go after. Five years, though? Probably two, more like two. I don't think five years is really, I hope. I think if we place five in, then really all it's doing is just protecting that mass removal. Two is almost, frankly, almost manageable, where I could send Nick out 17 times in the summertime to go and check on those two-year annuals updates. Five years, jeepers, I don't know what's gonna happen in five years. I don't think any of us know what's gonna happen in five years. I like five years only because it protects us from that egregious removal. If we're really going to monitor the two-year, I'd almost like to say something like, we're going to monitor in two years, or we're going to monitor in two years and then come back if they've met their monitoring and then come back in five years or something like that. It just places a lot of... It just places a lot of burden on a single person. Because that single person, I can tell you, with just the tree removal permits that are going on this time of year, he's out strict. He is out strict. I mean, we're actually advertising right now for a second person. So we'll be able to do more. Five. Like I said, If somebody is taking trees down in year two, I can go after them in year two. I mean, they've got to keep until year five.

But we do require a report file manually by the homeowner then?

No, we don't require a file report by the homeowner. That's just too much work on the property.

Well, your office keeps an open file for years. Yeah, we have files on permits going back, by the way. I mean, even without it being five years in here, you could still go back to old folders and say, hey, remember this deal? Should we just run by and check on that house? Because they seemed a little suspicious. No, no.

What will actually happen is a neighbor or someone down the street will call us.

Yeah, if you have Gladys Kravitz, you don't need a code person.

That's right. We've got a whole pandemic. I've got a whole total enforcement through that. Undercover. Don't give us their name. Never give us their name because they don't want their name.

Is this portal business going to be up and running? Is it a thing?

It's a thing that's waiting for the New fiscal year, which starts tomorrow, which means I can go shopping for a portal system tomorrow. I've been told to stand down until the fiscal year changes.

Okay, so we want a portal to help with all of this?

It can be designed to help with all of this, absolutely, because it'll be a great file checker. We'll be able to pull up an address and know exactly how many trees are on that property. As will the Gladys Krebs. There will be certain parts of the portal that will not be open to the Gladys Krebs.

Okay. And Madam Chair, just for a point of reference, when you were talking about five versus two, you were saying you wanted to ensure that they had the best shot to reach the minimum thing. This was a branch or so, I think. Yes. But anyway, this was a branch, and I'm just counting the rings on it. This is 20 years old. This is 10 years old. I mean, if I counted them wrong, it's 19 or 21. But my whole point is to get to the three years. For this particular species, it took 20 years. So I'm just saying the five years is good, and that's more than two, and it gives it a better shot.

It also depends on what you're planting.

Right. What kind of tree it is. I know this is... To move this along...

Okay. I'm going to suggest that we divide this amendment into two. And so I would say let's vote on the amendment to cut off 1717E5 to remove all the language after the words post installation. Address that first.

Okay, second.

Okay. All in favor, say aye.

Aye. Okay.

And then secondly, with regard to that same provision, Janet suggested that we reduce the five years to two years.

Because it's still illegal, right, for them to remove the trees. So whether it says two or five, If they go back after three years and they're gone, they're still in trouble.

Even if they're under three inches?

Oh, they're under three inches. That's true. Why don't you make them put in three inches?

Yeah, we should have gone with two inches. No, no.

That's an expensive topic. Yes, for sure. Okay, so Two or five. Okay. The amendment on the table is whether or not we change the language from at least five years to at least two years. Second.

Second.

Okay. And all in favor say aye. Those opposed, nay. Okay, so I think we're split anyway. So it doesn't pass. Yeah, she had to leave. She's the smart one. Three and three.

if you weren't questions okay yeah okay so page five i just wanted to know okay all right okay page five top number six i just wanted to clarify that the license part there is surfside license it says the identity and credentials of the license bonded and insured for your mobile company we're saying they have to be licensed in search of Right, okay. But that's clear, right? Everybody? Okay. That's just a question. And then I guess I'm kind of up to page eight, just eight and nine, just about the fees again. You know, just saying, You know, I mean, these are extraordinary, but maybe like what John was saying about things are up to 5,000, but it doesn't say up to anywhere. It just says 5,000. And on the mitigation, then there was 10,000 on the removal of landmark.

We got up to

Well, 500, when we all agreed, needed to be that. But yeah, I was thinking that it was up to, it wasn't automated.

I think that came from me because it was 500 up to 5,000 fine for having something three inches or lower. So it wasn't necessarily in the verbiage. But, you know, one, the lowest is 500. the highest of what we're discussing is 5,000, though there's more higher fees elsewhere, 10,000. But there's something different.

So do we need to address that, or are you guys okay with it not staying up to, because that was brought up a couple times? Or are we saying that if somebody doesn't know this beautiful ordinance that I mean, someone isn't a reader of ordinances that lives here and has really thick glasses and is 80 years old and doesn't know that it's even on the website. And there's been no training by the city and no, you know, communication path out to citizens. I wouldn't have known it was there personally unless I was involved in this, even though I love regulations and laws and read all that stuff. Would we fine them that amount?

So I'm going to weigh in here. These numbers save the numbers for from E to G. Those are all in the current version of the ordinance, except I can't remember whether or not it is just related to being without a permit. I can look at that. So those are just carried through from the current ordinance. like I said, I can't remember whether or not the current ordinance, unless I turn on my laptop, limits the fines to situations where you are doing the activity without a firm. But that was the goal, was to limit it to that kind of activity with the exception of the damaging a tree during construction, or failure to do the replacement from effort. As to whether or not fines would be less, my thinking, I can't remember if we talked about this in the advisory group, Whether a fine is reduced is up to the judge or whoever is dealing with the circumstances. Is that Mark? No. Who's the judge? Oh, the actual judge, okay. Yeah, I'm sorry. Mark has no authority other than to say, I'm going to issue a citation.

It's like a job. It's a citation.

A citation is fine, and then it has to be a judicial kind of thing.

So Judge Judy is going to make the decision.

I'm not sure you would appreciate me. Whoever, judge whoever, is going to make the decision. a resident because i know like we've talked about a lot of these things are you know put in place because of the situations that have occurred and it's not typically residents that are purposefully doing stuff it's it's a lot of times the construction groups right and so that's why i just get worried about you know i'm a resident i i could do something stupid you know You don't want it to cost five or $10,000 and go to jail and stuff.

The resident wouldn't be cutting the tree anyway. You're going to hire somebody. I don't see you with a chainsaw out there. And so you hire somebody who knows all these tree guys who were licensed to work in town. No, you need to commit every one of them. So, you know, If they lie to you, well, there's perhaps some other way to deal with it. But ultimately, most of us living in town aren't going to cut our own trees down. I had a permit.

I did this one. You cut that one down. That's right. We're going after you.

Yeah. I mean, it's just less likely to happen in my experience. and the judge, he's the nice guy.

I just wanted to bring up the fines one more time, but still have a couple other items, so.

Okay, can I just add in with the fines, I'm going back, I've been saying this for a year, is it's really up to council what the fine ought to be. I would suggest that we put in this document that these are the fines unless they're changed by council in their annual fee. Something to that effect. So we get it in the regulation, council doesn't like it. They can change it very easily by putting it in their annual fee schedule. They have to be changed every year.

Does it need to? It's not really a fee. Fines. Fines and fees?

Fines and fees. I thought they were bonds.

I believe they are. It's mostly fees. It's mostly fees.

It's called the fee schedule. That's what it's called. So what is the process if we're setting up new ones? If we're setting up new fees?

Yeah. They'll set the, what I call the, the ground or the base for where the fee is. And let's say we're down five years down the road and we all feel that fees need to be increased. We will get a proposal to council during their budget deliberations that the fees need to be increased.

But since that was already done for this year, these aren't included, right? No, these are not included. So is it even legal for us to put them in here if they're not in the fee schedule?

You could simply have a statement in here that, basically on fees, says per the fee schedule.

As approved by the council annually or whatever and take all these fees out? You could, yes.

Because we do have a lot of fees in the current schedule for trees, but I can tell you not for every single.

Because then you don't have to change them every time the fee schedule changes and they get packed in. totality versus every ordinance having separate ...

Frankly, it's appropriate for the council to be the one who modifies fees. We made some changes this year on fees that hadn't been changed since I was new to Edward Schwarzhofer, and the council generally supports the department being able to have fees that make sense.

Yeah.

You have input to that, the schedule that they put through here? Absolutely. I stand in front of them and have to support every one of their modifications that I've recommended.

So, Madam Chairman, can I make a motion to ask to have those fees

removed from this document and reference the document the fee schedule document that council approves annually b a b c and d you you certainly could make that motion the problem i have is that schedule has already been addressed for that the coming fiscal year. And so that would mean that there are, that this is not covered.

So does this get a, if they stay in when it goes to council, does that approvals act as an official approval or does it still create a gap year because they're not in the official fee schedule?

These fines have been in the article seven um for a long time at least yeah differentiated and fines and fees okay at least these fines have been in uh the article seven um i believe since 2017. all of them are just efg All of them.

Oh, okay.

They are all in there. The only addition that we have discussed or added, at least as part of the advisory group, is E, F, and G because those things ... Well, first of all, clearcutting isn't in the current ordinance that we were addressing that. And then we were trying to deal with replacement trees to make sure that we're replenishing. And then there was never any discussion of damaging trees. And I think it was during one of the workshops.

Yeah. I just said, I had it backwards. It was A, B, C, and D. Yeah.

They're all in there. They just don't have... letters that correspond, but they're the same failures or the same actions without a permit and the same dollar amounts. Yes, these only come into play if you do these things without the permit, except for EF&G, which is not They're not, oh, no, no, E is tied to without a permit, but F and G, they're not. Other than Larry's suggestion, which I think town council has the authority to do anyway, if they want to up these amounts, they can just up these amounts. I don't know that we have to tell them or remind them. Couldn't they reduce them to a menu? They can do anything. They can do anything.

And then you'd have to come back and adjust it. That's right. Oh, in the version of the come back to you. OK, that's how I put it through. OK. OK.

I can move on. So you're removing your effort to amend. No, because I was only asking.

Okay. It didn't actually. Next. Okay. So the next item is, and I might have asked this before, but under 17.750 definitions, I just wondered under where it says does not include hard escape areas again, if it should include permeable paper. Water does go through them. They are a good tool. It stopped flooding in that area where it used to be cement and using them a lot more.

So just to keep the discussion rolling here, would you say a driveway that was paved

It's not landscaping, but there is what permeable pavers used in a lot of spots like next to pools and around landscaping and stuff that is permeable and water does go down through. So even though it's called hard scaped, you know, like you have cement around the pool, but then I have permeable pavers next to it. The permeable pavers is landscaping and it is water.

Right, but is the goal to that we have some beautification, whatever, or that we're just covering soil surfaces?

Well, I think sometimes you can't. You have areas grass doesn't grow. And so no matter how many times you replant it, it dies and it looks like dirt. And so you put in permeable pavers and the water still goes through and it looks nice. And I think a lot of people have done that or they put the fake grass and it's no different than fake grass, right? And that's included. So I think I would make the case that permeable pavers are nicer than the fake grass. You know, and you wouldn't put it all in your front yard, right? But I mean, the usage of it shouldn't be. That's the point. There are lots. Right, right. But I mean, then you're getting into the use of them versus you're just listing all the things it does include and doesn't include. And it says, does not include hardscape areas. And I disagree with that. because I think there are cases where permeable pavers do count in and are way better than the fine straw and all that stuff. Snakes.

Okay. Well, make a suggested amendment.

So instead of saying it does not include hard-scaped areas that are not permeable pavers and does not improve like we have to say something about driveways right because you can you don't want it to be used for a driveway right yeah i mean it's used in our driveway too but the word is emperor emperor right so you just change it to you put the word inference in front of the

the paper and you take care of that. And then you just add a sentence that says, can't make you hold that gun front going. That was it.

You're going to give us the Georgia version?

I'm counting on our resident attorney to interpret that.

She's shaking her head. I know. I think it's a positive.

Well, uh, Could, before hardscape area, insert the word impervious? That?

No, pervious.

No.

Impervious. You want water to go through, right? Right. That's pervious. No, but what it's saying is it can.

We're excluding the things where the water doesn't go through. Because it says it does not include.

Okay, I thought you were allowing pervious.

Okay, so that would deal with part of that, but then do we want to deal with you can't have your whole front yard be a driveway?

I can give you the Georgia version, but I don't think that's what we want to put.

I mean, I get what your point is, but I'm not sure how to word that because there's so many, I mean, there's people who don't even have driveways. They just drive up on the grass.

Well, and it's, maybe we, maybe we frame it this way because there are, there are driveways that go around and they're not visible from the street. You know, they go around. And so you don't want to say driveway because then people are like, God, can you see this? So maybe frame it with the sentence that says a percentage, a total percentage visible from the street in the limit of what that would be. You see what I'm saying?

I mean, I know people that, I mean, again, because in the beach area, I mean, you have people that are up front. area is rocks because they're rentals. And so that people park on the rocks then next to the driveway. And it's no different than the papers. As long as water gets through them. I mean, I just don't think you can totally be an HOA. You just can't legislate it. Yeah. You can't be an HOA. You got to assume that people are going to want the million dollar homes that used to be, you know, $20,000 10 years ago. they're going to want to take care of the value. They're not going to make it look totally ridiculous, but, you know, but then there's the people that do, and we don't enforce either where they have grass two feet long in the front yard and they, you know, get to do that. We don't have people that can drive around and do all that all day. So this, okay.

Let me interrupt. Okay. None of this landscaping requirement relates to maintenance of your landscape. It only applies if you are needing a zoning permit and your activity that you need the zoning permit for involves an area greater than 800 square feet in your property. So nobody's seeing the landscape police running around and saying, you didn't mow, you didn't You didn't, you know, whatever. This is meant to be forward-looking if you are undertaking some construction-related activity.

But I don't think it says a lot of that here. That's why it's just hard not to include it, you know? Okay.

Then let's focus on 17751 to see what we might need to change there of make it clear that this is not the landscape pollutes running around town saying you didn't know your address.

Oh, and there is a typo in the table, the 049999. instead of three nights i'm sure there's lots of no that was the only one i found okay but um yeah there's not a lot written here either so it's sensational I mean, you're going to get an issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, and so wouldn't that be the final check to see if anybody was being crazy?

Yes, but it starts with, okay, you're making a change that involves more than 800 square feet, and you need the zoning permit for that change. I don't know, you're building a pool or you're doing what have you. And then that brings these landscaping minimums into play. Otherwise, they have no application whatsoever. So if I have, you know, to mow my yard or I have, I don't know, I don't meet these minimums. There's no consequence for that. It's irrelevant.

Well, I think it's hard to come up with every situation because the areas close to the beach are different than the other normal yards. There are people that their whole front is just driveway. I mean, that's just how it is.

Well, maybe our solution is just to put impervious before hard-skinned areas, and then let's see how it shakes it.

Because even Melody, before she left, she said, make sure we keep in mind the beach areas. And I said, yeah, I know, because I live there too. And it is different. And even though we have eliminated kind of the zoning concept, it is kind of a different world. when you have 15 cars parked at one house to stay there for the week.

Yeah, which is another question. Exactly. Exactly.

Madam Chair, can I make a motion to approve this before the line is ending?

I'll second that. Sweet. And any discussion on having that? Okay, all in favor of inserting the word impervious before the word landscape areas and the definition of landscape area, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say aye.

Okay, okay.

And I would like to relinquish the microphone at this point. You'll be so grateful. Thank you. But while we are on. Okay, while we are on this definition section, I would like to make a motion to amend the definition section to do something that I think should have been done right from the start. And that is it needs the introductory language that is the same as that in 17701. added to that part because we're not having definitions that overlap between the two parts. So I move to add that introductory languagement to the beginning of 1750. Second. Any discussion needed?

Wait a minute. I've got to find it first.

Okay. So go to page one.

Well, it's there now.

Page one, the introductory language under definition.

Yeah, that first paragraph.

That first paragraph. All I'm saying is to repeat that back over in 1775. Yep. Okay. All in favor of that.

Did you get a second?

Yes, Mary? Say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Any other motion for the typo, or are you just going to take that?

I think typos we don't need motions for. There is another, it's not a typo exactly. It's a formatting issue that appears, and I'm just going to let everybody. Nobody should be bringing it up. Wait, wait, wait, one second. One second. So on page four, under 17710A, you'll see that following the one, there's a paragraph that goes back out to the margin, and it says any permit issued under this section. That should actually be two. And then two becomes three. That means if I could solve all the formatting issues in these ordinances.

I don't know whether I need it.

I don't think I need to mention that. That's just a fix that needs to happen.

Okay, so Larry, I think you want to... One other forehand issue, since you brought that up, that A shouldn't be there. I mean, if you look at that seconds, see what it takes. Everything below it follows under. Remove the A and re-letter. That's in 17.711.

Outlining teacher from however many years ago would have told me if there is not. Is that acceptable to everyone?

I don't even know what you're talking about.

I'm fine. Okay. Okay. Sorry about that.

What was that?

who would like to score next did you need to all right and it goes back to public tree care 17.704 if wanting to reinforce that the town is responsible for

All threes in there right away. So that's in your front yard, that 15 feet. You got a tree there, you shouldn't be trimming it. It should be the town's trimming it. Because it's their tree. I don't know if that needs to be explicit, but that needs to be the understanding in my mind. they should be responsible to maintain that right away except for mowing it which is you know part of mowing and edging which is in one of the other regulations that says the town the uh the property owner that abuts that land is responsible for doing that. I just don't think they should be responsible for trees.

The town mows the right of way in front of undeveloped lots.

Would that include the removal of dead palms from palm trees?

If it's in the right of way, yeah.

So keeping track of things here, are you making an amendment to change any- I don't know how to- 17704? No, I'm not. I'm just expressing my concern about that. The public's- I just have an idea of it.

Okay. That paragraph is talking about all the town's rights, but it's not talking about the town's responsibilities. Maybe we need to get that word in here somewhere.

That's a good idea.

Responsibility.

Oh, yeah. And responsibility to maintain.

Yeah. Do we know what they are? Well, all of the following, yeah.

Yeah.

It would be after right to plan.

After right to plan, you would put the words and responsibility to maintain.

I don't know that they want to do that.

I know they don't want to do it.

So are you suggesting that after the word right, Maybe the word rights becomes plural. Rights and responsibilities to plant.

Or just right and responsibility to maintain.

Responsibility to own. Right and responsibilities to.

Maintain.

So it sounds like we're in favor of this, but are we using the words in the plural or singular fashion? I think it's singular. Okay, go for it.

Madam Chair, I'd like to amend section 17704, public tree care. The first sentence, I'd like it to say the town of Surfside Beach shall have the right and responsibility to plant, food, et cetera. just adding two words after right.

I will second that.

Do we have any discussion?

All in favor of amending 17704 to insert the words and responsibility after the word right in the first sentence, say aye. Aye.

You got to get an A on me on that. Just because I know the burden. It's going to pass.

Okay.

But there needs to be one A vote on that. Now you bring it up. All right. We'll give you the name.

The name. I'll be a second name.

I retracted.

No, I agree. did you yeah did you say anything i mean no he said i i said i okay we have to back up and vote again yes yeah please okay so on the question roll call amending 17704 to insert the words and responsibility in the first sentence after the word right all those in favor say uh All those opposed, say nay. Nay. So I think we have four yays.

Yeah, four to two.

And two nays. And one. Well, nobody's no longer present. OK. Larry, are you finished? OK. OK. Who's next? You have nothing.

I guess I'm left, right?

Larry is finished, and John, you are finished. I'm finished. Okay, Scott, I'll make it.

Oh boy, I'll make it really quick.

Okay.

Since I haven't talked much today, I understand we are Tree City USA. We are near the ocean. It's important to have a tree canopy. We love it. It's beautiful. We're currently in a drought and the trees are drinking up water, but we won't talk about that. I respect and appreciate the hard work that has been put into this tree ordinance. I also agree with John's comments and Jeanette's additions, subtractions, and edits. Pretty much on all counts, I support what they were saying and the amendments that have been made. I am personally asking that for the most part, I mean, I think we're doing much better than we were at making this proposal more reasonable for residents and contractors and business people. The permit process is pretty intimidating to residents and people. I mean, you're kind of opening up Pandora's box sometimes when you have to go to the city and ask for permission to cut down a three inch, some would consider it a sapling, but some call it a tree. I know it's a tree to be. I think we're here, my philosophy is that we're here to represent residents. We're here to represent business owners, property owners, and You know, for them, sometimes it's intimidating to actually come here. Sometimes they're really busy. Sometimes they're uninformed. Sometimes they're just living their lives. I hope that our philosophy is not to be elitist, meaning that we believe we know what's best for the residents. Because if we think that, I believe we're in error. Saying all that, Our last tree ordinance had a DBH of eight inches. And that was a time coming from Pennsylvania, Penn's Woods. I thought it was pretty aggressive. And now we're proposing it be three inches. And I've discussed this with other members here, and I've discussed it with residents, and I've discussed it. And the response I get from some is it's absolutely crazy that you have to go and get a permit for a three-inch tree. Now, I do appreciate the adjustment for the limbs, so that is – and by the way, I did bring props. I lost some of the props. And I was not in cahoots with anybody, any of the residents or anything, but I'm glad I was able to show that this is three inches, which, you know, imagine this, that's a pretty small tree. And if you have a piece of property, you can have several of these. And we're all into the law. We're all into, you know, ordinances, but the average person average resident, really, let's put ourselves in their shoes. They just want to live a peaceful and quiet life. That's what I want to do, and it's impossible these days. We're making these proposals, we're changing these ordinances, and probably most residents aren't even going to know we're doing this. And so they aren't going to know these new laws are in order. Jeanette mentioned something about that, that the education for the residents They won't know. It's not very hard to cut down a little 3-inch. You don't even need a chainsaw. You can use a reciprocal saw. So if somebody did it not knowing, and they got rid of the evidence, and this is where the $5,000 came into view, if it isn't known what the DBH is, the town can charge them $5,000 for that one thing that they didn't even know they were doing wrong. All I'm asking, and something to consider, and I'll make a motion if there can be some discussion, that we make this three inches a little more reasonable to, I mean, we were at eight, and we're all down at three inches. For the sake of residents and the sake of people who might not want to be informed or aren't informed or are just living their lives, making that a little more reasonable. I know, well, unfortunately, Melody is not here. And I was asking others if I'm crazy, if I'm being unreasonable, saying that this seems draconian. And from most of the people I've talked to, they say, well, they admit that I'm crazy, but not crazy on this particular matter. So I want to throw it out there. I'd like to make a motion. This was the size, 8 inches, was the size that we were at as far as being able to trim your own trees, cut down. There's something that's even bed, 8 inches or less. We're now down to this in this particular ordinance. I'm just asking that we come up with something a little more reasonable so that I can feel good about voting yes on this thing. Is that unreasonable to ask? By the way, I wasn't in cahoots with anybody. They didn't know I was bringing this. I don't even know these gentlemen. So I guess I'm opening it up for some discussion.

Your thoughts, I think Scott got to make a, you've got to make a motion to, to, to, to do to do that.

I guess the discussion would be. Something reasonable to be 6 inches would be back to 8 inches.

Well, what is the more reason to make your make your motion and then we discuss what what your. you know, putting on the table.

Okay. All right. So.

For discussion.

There are several places that has the number three as in three inch DBH, 17711E, 17713, 17731A. There may be other places, but anywhere where it's, asking for a minimum of three inch diameter breast height to change to I think six inches is reasonable. We were at eight inches. And so my motion is to change the number that is anywhere mentioned as three inches to Six inches.

Okay. Discussion. Scott, you want to say more?

I think I've said most everything that I wanted to say, but just as a reminder, let's remember who we represent. And. And.

I want to weigh in.

I'll weigh in.

You counted the rings on this, right?

Yep.

Now let's suppose we have a six inch tree. How many years do you think it takes to grow a six inch diameter of tree?

You asking me?

No, I'm asking any

Well, that's three inches, and that was 20 years. So six inches, I would assume, would be at least four. Depends on the tree.

And you want to be able to cut that tree down just on your own. Take your chainsaw out and cut it down. Just like we've been doing for the last... I couldn't afford that. Can't afford that. 40-year-old tree.

Anyone else?

Well, I want to respond to this.

Oh, okay.

All right. I know some of us. Okay. Well, it was directed to me. I guess it's. Madam chair?

Yes.

Okay. There are fast growth trees and there's short growth trees. I'm not an arborist, but one of the issues that builders have is that they're using two-by-fours, which are pine-treated lumber. And they're nowhere near the type of . One year, it can grow an inch or two. But that's an issue because the building isn't as structurally strong. So your argument is, in my opinion, nullified because it depends on the tree.

Are you finished? Sure. Okay, so I would like to respond. I am not in favor of changing it. There was a lot of discussion in the advisory group that we had about how to address this and how to plan for this generational replenishment. And if we are not protecting the smaller trees, we're not gonna get the generational replenishment of the canopy. So I think we need to protect them. And you made the point, Scott, that people don't, People won't know about the three inches. Well, I would say they don't know about six inches. They don't know about eight inches because people are not necessarily focused on this until they need to take some sort of action with regard to doing something in their yard or whatever that needs the attention. So I don't know that changing the number increases public awareness of the requirement. But I do know that when the advisory group was talking about all of this, we thought it was very important to bring that number down. And as I recall, during the course of the workshops that we had, we moved that number down to three from four because we thought it was important to protect the, like I said, the next generation of trees in the town. Anyway, so I'm opposed to changing the number. You may.

Okay. These three-inch trees, do you really believe that every resident is going to cut down the three-inch trees that are starting to grow? No. That's not – most people aren't even going to cut down any trees. I shouldn't say that. Just because we put in an ordinance saying that three inches is the maximum before you get a permit doesn't mean that everybody's going to cut down these trees that are going to grow. There's going to be plenty of trees that will grow. Just because we make an ordinance doesn't mean that we're going to save a bunch of baby trees that are going to grow. I'm just saying that, don't you think residents should have the freedom to do that if they want to redesign their yard? Without having to go through the whole process. I know it's not a big process. You know, I know we have good people in town that you can talk to. But people don't want to go through that hassle. They just want to be left alone. And Three Inches, again, in my opinion, is draconian. And again, you look around the area, there's no other places in this area.

three inches in order to get a permit. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Yes. As far as cutting down three inch trees, the regulation doesn't say you can't cut them down. You can cut them down as long as you have the number of trees on your property that are required. So if you have an overgrown lot with 15 of these trees, get a permit, cut them down. It's not a big deal, in my mind. In your mind. Yeah.

Okay.

For what city?

For us. For us, under Section 17-12. protected tree currently is at six inches. So I don't know where the, can somebody tell me where the eight inch came from? I'm wondering if that came from the stormwater committee's recommendation. Because I'm sitting here looking at the actual language as it is online today, 17-12 protected tree is a six inch DBH or greater.

So I think it comes from a lot of the confusion in the current ordinance where there are multiple sections trying to deal with similar things and it and it primarily like 17 723.4 uh deals with the pruning or removal of protected and specimen treats um for existing residences I don't know why we have such relations and things. But anyway, the issue is getting a permit if you have a situation where it is exceeding eight inches in diameter or 25 inches in circumference.

Yeah.

Yeah, so it's interesting. So I did not go back as part of any of this and study where the decision maker went in from, but I thought the stormwater committee, which Larry may be much more familiar with, I thought they were trying to reduce the DDH, too.

I thought so, too. They were.

Because they thought that anyway.

More discussion?

One other thing. Unfortunately, I can't find it.

I have a comprehensive plan, which many on this committee had voted for. Oh, there's tree stuff in here someplace. Tree city with references I just came up for the whites. So protecting the canopy and maintaining our tree city standing was part of our vision.

Sure.

And that's what this committee does is, you know, we're not here to nitpick and, uh, get people angry with us, but we have, this is probably the most important work that is done by this committee, is the comprehensive plan, which is the 10-year vision of what this town should be doing to move forward. And I believe the tree canopy is part of that. I certainly can understand people's property on it, but When you join part of a community, there's more than just your individual rights. You've got the rights of the group as a whole. I'm open to maybe a change in this, but not to six, not to eight. To what? Three and a half.

I'm just asking for something reasonable.

Your definition. All right, well, four is going to be, for an oak, is going to be a 25-year tree. If it's an oak.

Hardwoods and junipers. Yeah, yeah.

Southern Yellow Pine, which is the tree we shall not name. Their rings are a lot wider.

They do not have much answer.

Okay, so I can tell you that because I had this electronically.

Oh, thank you.

It's that on... Seven, the comp plan is for the maintenance and refinement as needed of zoning standards which protect the town's Specimen and significant trees. We chose to use a different label, protected trees, because specimen and significant are not particularly helpful. And we required, because we're requiring minimum tree plantings and retention thresholds, and it, WANTS TO USE PROTECTIONS FOR PUBLIC STEP AND TO MAINTAIN OUR TREE CITY STATUS AND TO CONTINUE TO FOLLOW AND PROMOTE BEST PRACTICES IN TREE LAND.

I AGREE WITH ALL THAT. Discussion?

Okay. So the amendment on the table is to substitute six inch DBH for all locations in the proposed ordinance where we use the three inch DBH. all in favor of making that change, say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, nay. Nay. So that amendment . I thought it was 5-1. Do we need a roll call?

Okay. I just didn't know if the second maker down there.

She doesn't have to be in favor to second. I know.

I just didn't hear. Oh, I should hear.

Okay.

No, it's Jeanette.

Jeanette. Okay. So do we have any other questions? amendments to be proposed?

Okay.

Then I think the motion has to be whether or not we approve the rule. the proposed amendments to chapter 17 article 7 as amended during the course of this proceeding chair yes i'd like to make a motion to approve overall proposed amendment of chapter 17 article 7

inclusive of all amendments made.

All amendments that passed.

All amendments that passed. Yeah, good. Not made, but passed. You're right.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. To note that Scott left before the vote. So then the other item of business is the cover document. Anybody? Yes.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the proposed cover resolution to council for the chapter 17, article seven, the tree protection and landscaping code.

Yeah, and there weren't any references in this

We did not change the 5 years.

No, no, it didn't pass. Okay.

Yeah, the 3 is still there on.

There's a table on page 2. Yeah.

We're driving around on the fifth year.

Not a problem.

We even have a new vehicle for it. Let's call you Gladys.

Call the car.

I know some friends who could help with that. I know 75 of you. Anyway, so we've got a pending motion for approval of this cover resolution. Okay, let's proceed with the vote. All in favor of adopting this cover resolution or cover document, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? So the next thing on our agenda is discussion on this. OK, so July meetings. I know that, Mark, I think it's not available for our July So seventh meeting. So if we can have a quorum, I would suggest that we proceed with a July meeting, even if the only topic is fixing our bylaws. unless that's a problem for people.

Is this a public hearing?

It's not a public hearing.

So we're not voting.

It would just be a regular meeting. It would be a regular meeting, but we could vote on what happens to our bylaws because we don't really need Mark for that. If it's not on the 7th, it's a special meeting. Correct. It would be a regular meeting. is July 7th. And so that's already been published. No, no, no.

It hasn't been published. It's on the random calendar. Unless it's Council. Right.

And so the question really is proceeding with it in Mark's absence. And if we proceed the topic, then I would propose that since we don't have Mark that we address our bylaws, which still have an issue. And we don't need a public hearing for that. We just need to have it as a business item for a July 7th meeting. And if there are other topics that we could discuss without Mark, then we can add that to the July 7th agenda. I'm just trying to get the discussion going.

It seems like if we're not having critical items, like, and if we don't have multiple items that, you know, maybe to take up time, that's pledging allegiance and praying and stuff is going to take longer than our item. Should we just move that item to the next meeting since there's no criticality?

So the next meeting, as I understand it, is the meeting for which we would have the public hearings on the things that didn't happen today. Is that right? So this is the storage step in whatever, and the publication of the notice for that in the newspaper, the newspaper publication, has to happen by July 9th. Is that correct? Did I understand that correctly?

Yeah, in order for it to be on the August meeting.

Yeah, on the August 4th, right? August 4th, yeah, August 4th. is your next regulatory schedule?

Correct.

Yep. July 7th.

It would be there in time to be on August.

Right. Okay, well, if we do what on July 7th?

If in the July 7th meeting, whatever, that we want to come before a public hearing to be heard and to be voted on that has to be published. Anything, in a minute, I'm gonna make a suggestion, which is fine, I'm writing that up. So I'm just saying those items, if we discuss them in the July 7th meeting, we have time for them to be.

We can do that. Sometimes, you know, having these, preliminary discussions it's important no it is good yeah yeah yeah um uh so obviously mark has language for us for storage stuff and we could be can we discuss that without you mark absolutely and ask some questions well we haven't decided if we're going to hold a public hearing on office i need to do that immediately i may have already missed a date from

being real honest with you.

So you just have to publish that the meeting's going to take place.

Please give me the grace of going back to my calendar and looking at the data.

Oh, no, I was just going on your TV.

Yeah, I know.

Discuss it.

What I'll do is... probably tomorrow, because I will probably post the public hearing for August 4th tomorrow, if it's in time. I will let you all know by email if it's not in time. I think tomorrow's plenty of time. I would think so. It's over a month. You are going to be blown away, and I didn't bring it with me. I actually had a copy for all of you this evening of the dates that we had to do it, and it was just

Well, so long as we know ahead of time when our scheduled meetings are, then we can back up to where we need it.

Even if we have to make it on the September meeting, I'm going to post it tomorrow.

Yeah, you don't have to post the agenda.

I don't have to post the agenda. No, no. I just have to say I'm having a public hearing on storage. Right. Period. Okay.

No, I was looking because I didn't know there was a – Somebody who was expecting the hearing to be tonight, and you were emailing with that person. Yeah, yeah.

And I'm going to have to correct. Again, just give me the time to. I don't want to state anything here unless I'm absolutely 100% certain of what I'm saying. Sorry. I support that 100%. I don't want to just go off.

Well, if we discuss those amendments, Mark, too. Yep. number two and three as they're listed here. And we decide to vote, we can vote on this.

Not like one of them, we could have if it was.

But we can't vote the 17-201. We can vote on it to pass it to town council. Because we already had the public hearing on it. We already had the public hearing on it. That is not the case with regard to the storage units. So we can definitely, okay, so we're going to do the 17-201-1H. Madam Chair, can I say a couple of things? Sure.

Can we please change this to the workshop for July 16th or 17th, that Thursday? Because Mark and Brad both are going to be out next week. I'm doing year-end stuff, changing fees and things, and I will only have Monday or Tuesday to get that agenda online for this meeting. And we've got the holiday.

Yeah.

And I'm going to be bombarded with questions and things with the inspections for next week with Brad being out. and having to get probably safe built to fill in for us.

Well, how do people feel about?