Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded. All right, we're going to call this meeting to order at 6 p.m. tonight. First item is an invitation. The Lord be with us uh tonight to discuss these important topics. Uh we've discussed them for a good bit. So, please lead us in a good path and uh try to progress these items um and best represent the town and residents of Cers Beach. Amen. Amen.

All right. We'll do the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [Music] All right. Next item will be agenda approval for tonight. If I get a motion for agenda approval. So moved. All right. Got a motion from Scott. Can I get a second? Second Mary Ellen seconds. Any discussion on the agenda tonight? All right. Uh everyone agree say I. I.

Anyone opposed? Say no. Agenda is approved for tonight. Uh next uh item is public comments on agenda items. Any public comments on agenda items? All right. No public comments. We'll move on to discussion items. Uh our first topic will be tree preservation ordinance of review existing chapter 17 section 17700 to 17750 and proposed chapter 18 tree ordinance proposed by the storm water committee and the comparison chart. So um I think last meeting we discussed a little bit about the direction we were going. Uh I think uh C or Commissioner uh Larry had uh stated that he would work on drafting up some comparisons of uh the differences of chapter 17 and the proposed chapter 18. Uh and basically I'll just turn it over to him. He did provide some documentation. Uh I think that was in their packets. Um but uh I'll turn it over to him.

Okay. Finally got to the tree ordinance. Um, as a as I said, I volunteered to try to compare the stormwater version versus the and uh it's pretty complicated because it doesn't line up exactly right. However, there seem to be three areas in the tree ordinance that are primary concern. One is tree requirements of the home homeowner or the property owner. uh penalties for doing something wrong relative to the trees and then the fines. So if we take a look at the proposed ordinance, unfortunately they decided to work versus lot category versus zoning district, which is what I think is the proper way to go. So you can't get a really onetoone comparison, but those of you that have the charts, you'll see basically what they did was they added more trees and more diameter versus what we have existing. Uh not much different than that uh in in the tree requirement section. And it if you look and then the next section would of difference would be penalties and uh my opinion we had pretty severe penalties in the original version. They've they're made even worse I mean even stronger in the stormwater

um committee version. like one of the biggest fines went from $10,000 to $15,000 and that was had to do with landmark trees. Um then finally work tree permit exemptions there storm order committee went very thorough and did a very thorough job on on that section. Uh overall I like that what they've written. Uh the exemptions in the existing uh uh the existing ordinance are basically just about what utilities can do. That was the primary exemption. Um personally I I don't know does anyone want to discuss anything further on those items? I have a little bit more to add. what I my opin I'll get right into the opinions I have of the tree ordinances personally I'd like to see us just scrap what we have completely um main reason for that is uh I just think we're really beating our residents and property owners over trees and uh making it difficult to do anything you want to do to your own property. I'm a big property owner's rights kind of guy and uh my opinions are the property owner should be able to do a lot with their property that what they want to do to it. And if that means cutting down trees, I think they should be able to cut down trees except for the landmark oaks. I mean I really think that is the most important tree we have

in town. Um so what I was proposing was let's try to develop a tree ordinance that is more as I mentioned in past meetings more offering carrots instead of big sticks. So if you look through my notes and this was just to get discussion started. I was proposing that we do something to protect the landmark trees. Any funds related to those would go into a tree fund. But that tree fund would be used to plant more trees and to try to get residents to plant more trees. Uh there's one way I think you know some I like trees. I I haven't planted any trees in my yard. Uh I'm thinking about putting one out front, but uh perhaps the town should take the approach of, you know, we own the right away. We could be planting trees in there without gaining any permission at all because town owns that. Um, however, to make it a little more friendly for the homeowner is you can town could possibly tell them, hey, we're going to plant couple trees in the right away in front of your property. Perhaps you'd like us to plant it on your property in a different spot rather than in the right away. And I think we should do that. I mean, it seems pretty simple. This is just a carrot. have the town plant the tree, which we gain. You know what we want? We want to get more trees in town and make the homeowner happy and our us happy without having threats of fines. Um, you know, forget about how many trees you need on your lot, that kind of

thing. um and how those affect uh you know getting permits for for other items like building pools and stuff like that. But anyways, the main reason I main thing there is I just wanted to get something to get a discussion going because these are my ideas, but they got six other de people here that have great ideas. Plus, I'm sure residents will will have improvements on what I've what I would propose. I'm you know what's the discussion perhaps?

Yeah, we're in discussion now. Um uh I do have a question for you, Mr. McKe. Um do we have any other town or city uh locally or a far that you know that has a relaxed policy like that? Well, in South Carolina, I'm not sure, but when I came from New Jersey, I could do anything I wanted to any tree I had in New Jersey, and we had plenty of trees. My house was in an orchard, so um I did not do that part of the research to see if uh there are relaxed tree ordinances. Maybe there's a towns with no tree ordinances. I don't know if that's true or not.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Uh, chair. Yes, ma'am. Mariel, I've got a collection of books that cover. Yeah, sure.

For one thing, I I think it's really unrealistic of us to expect that Surfside Beach will ever in the near future have enough enforcement capability to work with the complex ordinances we have. The town has for years been uh rearranging the paragraphs and changing the commas on 20page ordinances and I I don't know that that's really gotten us anywhere at all. I think we need a very simple ordinance. I think basically we should save a lot of oaks and be generous with the homeowner safety issues. Um, as far as penalties, I understand that last month there was a homeowner that cut down four live oaks in the yard. Does anybody here know what he was buying $440,000? I kind of doubt it. Anybody know? Okay. So,

enforcement. Uh, another point is that when u we're approving plans for very large houses on very small lots and I don't know if we're actually following the uh impervious coverage rules or not. It surely looks like we're not in a bunch of cases, but uh if you're going to approve a very large house on a very small lot, clearcutting is is not a sin. It's a necessity. And I think then once settled in, most people with a nice new home are going to want trees and are going to plant them. But I I question just how big a house we should allow on what size block. And I know we have rules to cover that. Um the only other thing is that I'm not sure about planting trees in the right way, Larry. Looking at the recent nest we've had with HTC and Grandstream, the water lines and all that, it it just seems to me like trees in the right way might make our utility situation worse, but that's that's something that's way beyond my expertise. As far as the town donating trees, I don't think that's going to fly. We had a recent situation where council was talking about uh spending some money on landscaping for for businesses and that I thought the consensus was you're not going to spend a lot of money on private property. I don't think it's a bad idea, but I doubt it's going to fly. So anyway, I'd like to have a real simple ordinance, maybe 10 things you may not do, five things you can do with a permit, and uh just just be more realistic about it. In my memory, as far back as I've been here 22 years, and I don't ever recall a time when we did not have an issue with enforcement because it's just a monster ordinance. And I'm

not just talking about three ordinance. There are other ordinances United States, they think about. We read these elaborate books and then we expect one half die with everything else he has to do to go out there and enforce it. It's just it's not happening, folks. That's all I Thank you, Marilyn. Any other comments or statements?

I look at um first of all, I'd like to commend uh Mr. McKeen for his work on this research and and in particular his kind of opening statement. I think uh laying out the rationale and the principles of you know what we could think of and and what his proposal is I think was uh well received by me at least. Um, you know, to kind of add to Mary Allen's uh comments, I would agree with her. Keeping things simple, my uncle used to say the KISS method. Keep it simple. Uh, stupid. I don't know if he was calling me stupid or just in general, you have to call yourself stupid. Just keep things simple and it makes uh I think it doesn't confuse, you know, the residents. Um, and you know, I I believe it actually could be a stronger ordinance because when it's simpler, people know what they can do and what they can. When there's just page after page, it's just a bit much. Um, from experience, I'm from Pennsylvania, which is uh Penn's woods. So there trees grew like weeds and it actually became in Yuri Pennsylvania it became a problem. They had it was a planned city and they uh grew these amazing oak trees. But then the oak trees became older and they started you know ruining the uh the plumbing systems and the drainage systems and there were things called widow makers which were tree limbs that would hang over and you know in an ice storm or something they'd fall somebody and create a widow. So, um I you know and one more comment here. I

uh my mother just purchased a property and it has several trees around it. And let me tell you the the difference between the shade and not having shade is dramatic. Those the leaves and the trees uh uh underneath that shade. I think you know the amount of savings you can have probably for air conditioning is traumatic. So that's a way hopefully you know the the idea of you know carrot is to encourage people to say hey you know these trees can be wonderful for shade and um you know helps with you know preventing erosion and um you know we have flash floods or every you know tropical storm we get quite a bit of rain and I think they they do a good job at you know drinking up water. So um to finish I commend you for doing this work and and making us aware this first page I think is fantastic and I even you know mentioned it to you directly. So thank you for that. Thank you all.

Thank you Scott. Any other comments? I can add one little thing if I may.

Yes sir. Um I did request from the town uh tree mitigation uh payments and uh from 2013 which was the beginning of the current ordinance to present. Uh there were no records of any payments that they could find before 2022. But we went 9 years without perhaps having or maybe they book cap them differently. uh since 2022, actually up until June of this year, there were $52,700 worth of of of payments for for tree mitigation fines. Uh most of them in 2022, it almost looks like it's one property or one set of properties cuz it's all the same voucher number. Uh but there's only uh 12 12 uh entries on that. just now there there's been some work done finding people but uh it just hasn't worked out very well I don't think sir any other comments suggestion

yeah chair Alex couple random items there way for us to get toll train permits approved and denied year to as we understand scale of the problem if there is a problem and how often they've denied any request. Um Angie, I'll pass that to you. I know that they were working on a spreadsheet they were reporting out to council. Do we know if that is 100% accurate or I do remember seeing like declined on something approved June 30th. Uh there were 138 trees issued permits

approved. Yes. Well, I say approved. Um that was what was in the system. And I would say yes because you know I don't usually key in a permit for a tree that can't be removed that's been denied. So I'd say yes. So what you're saying 138 permits from the entire year from January 1. Yes. And uh would you have record or be able to uh provide what was declined or did not? I don't have that record with me but I can check this off. be easy to produce.

I can check his log hopefully before he leaves tomorrow.

Um, related to some of the commentary thus far, I I think I'm strongly in favor of simplified approach this document. The previous existing ordinance, both of them are mind-numbing. And if I were to couple that with what we actually experience with volume of permits specifically how many of these are actually denied then us switching from five trees to six trees or any of this stuff if it comes up point but back to the simplicity notion. Yeah, I'm in favor of, you know, a very simple non-subjective grid of based upon your zone. Here's the minimum number of inch circumference trees you need to know. If if it's 60 in and you're able to get there with one monstrous tree, great. If it takes you 20 spending trees, super. This is what we're looking for in this. And it's not retro. It's just starts new. You're not forcing anybody to plan anything. And if it's a landmark tree, I agree that that should be a carve out carve out specifically. And right now, as of my understanding, the few instances where we do request an arborist to write a letter to the town, the arborist can also be a guy with a chainsaw, right? There's certified arbit, right? So all in effect we're doing is asking a homeowner to pay more tree because we're just can you, you know, extraund bucks the tree cutter pay. Uh there's another notion here like that that was mentioned the character of the stick but you know if if a property owner doesn't meet a requirement or a new property that comes up you know is there a way to do like a storm water search charge and so you're building a house or other and you're below you know the minimum inches of trees you should have

given the you're in R2 or R1 or R3 that's fine if you're that's your right to do it but you are affecting the overall town storm water capability. Everybody here pays storm water fees if you're a property owner. Yours is 5% higher. Or you can flip it to the inverse. Say for those that abide are 2% lower. That's it's a it's kind of like a flat enforcement versus hunting down, you know, big spandom $10,000 fees which are dubious actually charge just a different approach to characteristic.

Thank you, Alex. Melanie. Um Larry, can where you lived, where you said you could do whatever you wanted to, how much property did you have?

I had uh probably a quarter of an acre and I had at least 20 trees on that quarter acre. Most of them were puff pines, but uh at the border, but uh New Jersey, I was shocked when I moved down here. We had a tree come down in a storm and I was just going to get my chainsaw and glove out there and chopped it up and decided to hire somebody. He says, "Oh, you got to get a tree permit." What? And so that was my introduction to it. And uh I ended up not having to get a tree permit because of the storm damage. But uh that was my exposure to living in the south versus living in the north. I thought it would be, you know, much more property owner stuff here than it was up up north, but it turns out it isn't. So

So I I I don't think that it's actually a north south thing. I think it's uh the area that you live in. I think that a lot maybe not necessarily where you live, but I think a lot of places in the Northeast the lots are a little bit bigger than than what some people have here.

And if you live are are fairly close together, even in R1, your houses are are reasonably close together. not not quite like they are in R2 and R3 obviously, but when you're in situations like that where your home is that close to another, where your property butts up to another property and it's that close, what your neighbor does has a direct impact on the value, not only the value of your home, but the quality of your life. And whether it be that they paint their house purple or whether it be that they cut down all their trees or whether it be that they don't cut a tree that's dying and getting ready to fall on your house. The things that that people do when you live in relatively close proximity has a direct impact on not only the value of your home and absolutely it does have an impact on the value of your home but also on the quality of your life. So I am having said that I was just I I I um I am absolutely a proponent of making things as simple as they can be. I am kind of in the middle between I believe that it is our job to certainly look after what is good for the residents of the town and their and their rights certainly but I also think that it's our job to protect the overarching picture of our town and if we allow just clearcut cutting of trees except for the live oaks, then

we're going to get we're going to get what we asked for. I I um and I'm just I'm just thinking that I didn't I'm surprised at some of the comments. So, I'm kind of thinking while I'm talking and rambling a little bit, but um I believe that we have to find a blend of the two. a blend of protecting trees and protecting the aesthetics and the the aesthetics of our town, the you know the storm water component, the I mean honestly the property value of our town. If we are taking down on if we're allowing all the trees to come down, you can bet your bottom dollar, it absolutely impacts the way this town looks, which would impact the value of this of the property in this town. So, I think we've got to tread cautiously. I'm not I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I I'm not a proponent of of just saying we can do what we want to do except for just certain trees protect those. I'm I'm not I'm not I'm not in favor of that. Um am I in favor of simplifying things if we can do that in a way that gives it enough legs to make it enforceable? Absolutely. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. Mine,

I uh agree with Melody. I I worry that if we um uh adopted this what whatever goes approach uh that we would have um a lot of people taking down a lot of trees um which I think would be uh a shame. Um but as I I was reading over what Larry did and the uh sort of the topics that he focused on at the beginning of his work which I thought provided a very good road mapap for our consideration. So thank you. Um is it I started to think well what is our objective here? What what are we supposed to be accomplishing with um a tree ordinance? Are we focused on the trees themselves, on the landscaping, on storm water control? Are we focused on aesthetics and property values? Are we focused on our status as a tree city? Um or maybe is it some of all of the above mixed together? And we should um take into account all of those things, but yes, come up with a very simple way of approaching this because what I see around our town is on weekends a lot of uh tree maliciousness happens. Uh and um I I think it's because our ordinance is um maybe too complex, maybe too ownorous. I I don't know. But I think

people um bring those trees down on uh the weekends. I know myself. I was trimming my uh river birch trees this uh the other day and I thought, you know, I think under the what's been proposed by the storm water committee, I would be breaking the ordinance that all I was doing was shaping things up, but because I was trimming a tree that was, I don't know, given higher status or what have you, I thought, well, I'd have to go get a permit just to trim this up to do what the arborist told me to do to have the tree look nice. And that that seemed wrong that we shouldn't have those kinds of limitations on people and how they uh address their property. At the same time, I'm thinking all of this that as a uh relatively new uh uh property uh in Cersea, but my current home is a relatively new property. I was required to have a lot of swale area in order to handle the storm water and I am obliged under our ordinances to maintain those swells, keep them going, make sure that they are helping us with our storm water. Well, a lot of homeowners because their homes are older don't have those requirements on them, but they have trees Um, I mean, I have some trees, but not uh as many as some other properties, but the trees are helping. Now, maybe

they're not uh soaking up as much storm water as my 1 inch of rainfall that doesn't leave my property or whatever, but it's a contributing factor that is protecting all of us. And um I agree with Scott. I think it was Scott who said the shade factor which I think is a really big factor uh in town particularly as things get warmer and warmer. Uh I know just in our yard we have installed awnings and things like that to help with the shade whereas the trees would definitely u help with uh with all of that. I don't know, but I do think we need to fix it. And um how we go about it um might be just taking the uh pen and lining out certain uh requirements and uh keeping others. Um uh I do think maybe keeping some minimum tree requirements. um uh would be a a good idea so that we don't have people who all of a sudden decide, hey, I don't want to rake leaves anymore or they mess up my lawn or you know, whatever. We also have to worry that by um reducing some of these requirements that we end up with um landscaping, not just the trees, but landscaping that's inadequate to um protect us against uh storm array issues

and erosion. Um uh there's property near me that the erosion control is awful and uh as far as I know we're not doing anything about it at the town. So, uh I don't know where the balance is, but I think we need to spend more time coming up with the uh with the uh with the balance and not just um protecting the uh landmark trees or the live oaks. Uh I don't think we need permits to do a lot of the things that the storm water committee uh was proposing to us. I think that overburdens everyone uh and in particular our uh town staff having to deal with some of those things. And it encourages people to be um uh weekend uh workers to um o overcome whatever their tree issue is. uh which doesn't benefit uh any of us and irritates a lot of people in in town. Uh I can't tell you how many people it's the limited time I've been on the planning commission say who do I call on the weekend when somebody's taking down a tree. Anyway, yeah, it's uh it's a problem. So, um I'll stop there. Thank you, Carol.

Yeah, just my two cents on it. Uh, as just to piggyback some what you guys said, um, I I would not be in favor of just free for all either just for the fact. Um, we've been talking about the design overlay quite a bit and we're pushing to create and require business owners to have landscaping and aesthetics. that then we may have a created idea where yeah you own your property and I believe in property rights too absolutely 100% but like to utilize my property how I would want it but also I think about a lot of people move to Surfside Beach just for how it looks our tree canopy the things we do around storm water the things we do around the community itself so I think free-for-all definitely I would hate to come here and look at the area with no tree canopy or be cautious about the free-for-all and that also drives to say hey uh it goes to our landscaping piece and say why require landscaping for anything as well. So I'd be cautious about that. So that's my two cents.

Any other comments? Were you reading my mind?

Well, um, wow. It's it's interesting the dynamics of seven people and their viewpoints and I I understand everyone's and I uh I was just you know thinking uh one thing I absolutely disagree with and I support what you're saying um is that just because you have more lenient laws doesn't mean that everybody's just going to go and break the law. We have some really good people here or do horrible things. Um, you know, I think there's some pretty good solid quality people here in Surfside that want to improve the aesthetics of their property and trees do give nice aesthetics. Uh, especially the, you know, palmetto trees and and I love the crepe myrtles. Those are beautiful. Love the way the skin falls off of those. is amazing. Um, you know, so just because we make something more lenient and give power back to the residents doesn't mean that they're going to just cut down everything and we're not going to be Tree City USA. So that is one thing that I wanted to say and I think you read my mind on that. So, um, but I understand we need, uh, an ordinance and, you know, I think we can work together and and really come up with something that's that can be simple but that can be powerful and maybe, you know, spread a message of if if ideally I think if we could keep a simpler straightforward ordinance yet educate and show the importance terms of trees and what they can do for tree canopy, for erosion, for storm water. I

think we'd be doing a good piece. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other discussion, comments, Mr. Chairman, Carol? So, um I agree with Scott that we should make it simple and um uh I I think people would only run wild if uh we took everything off the books. But, um all that said, if so, if you were going to simplify this, what would be your simple ordinance? Yeah. I I mean that's that's I think to a tea we've all agreed we need something that's more simple.

Yeah. So how do we make it more simple?

Yeah. I mean this is just an opinion and spur of the moment. Um but in many ways uh I agree with Mr. keen on his approach and encouraging people. Um somehow if you know the I like the idea of funds and just because you know maybe the town you know in that right away um the easement um the idea of maybe not necessarily putting a tree there but having some incentive to plant trees I think is a good idea. I think um you know keeping I I don't think anybody's against having trees on their lot. I I I don't understand the I the you know are there I don't know people who just hate trees and they just want to clear cut everything cuz that sun gets hot and having trees and some shade and you know those leaves just absorb that heat which is a wonderful thing. So, um, keeping, uh, some of the, you know, maybe a certain amount of trees on the on the property, I think is a good thing. And I think incentivizing somehow, I don't know if we can fiscally incentivize and, you know, I don't know how you do it, but, you know, planting uh, these palmetto trees, which are they're also wonderful. they do absorb a lot of the storm water and um you know, but give the residents some credit. I just because you give them the freedom to um make their own decisions and not have the government force you to do certain things doesn't mean that they're going to do just the the worst thing to their property and ruin the town. That that's the premise that I absolutely disagree with. Uh so uh it's a lot more complicated. I don't have the complete

answer but I hope that gives you an idea of my So do you it does do you think we should have a a tree permitting uh system that you have to get a permit to do something with regard to trees? I don't know what that something is, but do do you need a permit or can we just say no permits?

Uh, it's too complicated to answer that right now. Y'all can probably jump in on this to put a little bit of historical perspective on it. As long as I've been in town, as long as I've been coming to council meetings, as long for as long as I can remember, the tree ordinance has been an issue. And it changes with councils. you you you'll have a lot of residents coming to council and complaining that the tree ordinance is too strict, it's too prohibitive, it's too tight, if they can't do what they need to do. So council sends it to planning commission. It gets loosened up and then go on for a little while and then they realize wait a minute and maybe with the next in the next couple of years they have a couple more different people on council and they hear from everybody too many trees are coming down. We're upset that too many trees are coming down and then so that council sends it back to planning commission. Planning commission talks about it again. This this the pendulum has been swinging back and forth ex to extreme for as long as I can remember. I think that it is very important for us to there is not going to be a perfect ordinance. There there just isn't going to be no everybody is not going to be happy with it. We have to do our best to come up with something that is doable, that is not extremely prohibitive that but also

protects the look and feel of our town. And you know, maybe we start with the chapter 17 ordinance that we have. Maybe we go through it line by line and talk about it and say, "I like this. I don't like this." And maybe that will um you know that it will certainly create conversation you know for us. I it's a I don't know what approach you guys want to take with it. I don't think that starting from scratch is necessarily the thing to do. I think we've got the storm water committee did some good work. Previous planning commissions have done some really good work with the with the tree ordinance already. I don't think we have to start from scratch. I think that we need to pick one or or look at both and and figure out what we want our overall hierarching picture to be and then go through it and say this this works, this doesn't work. Or maybe we could say this or maybe we could say that. That's I think we've got to start somewhere. We can't I don't think we should just start from scratch. We'll be here this time three years from now working on it. comments.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, just one more. We've referenced a few times previous evenings the town of Mount Pleasant as something to look at in various ordinance because, you know, a certain look and feel there that some of us think is is nice. South looks nice. You had north maybe not so much. So like if we're going to make a decision and if none of us have got years of experience creating tree ordinances maybe still something that has worked elsewhere. So their tree ordinance is 25 pages long. Their all their forms, their remediation, everything is done online, right? There's a lesson on there because, you know, dad was overworked. There's so much going on, right? A lot of this stuff could be done online. They also have mitigation forms where we can take down a tree. I'm removing this tree and replacing it with these two types of trees. So much of this is done easily and trackable, but they also have got a pretty detailed tree protection plan that maybe we should all take a look at if we're interested to see if I guess one, if we collectively define, hey, maybe they've cracked the code or figured something out better than we have. Maybe take a look at what they've done. So we don't have to recreate a wheel here. Not saying lift and pasted into what we do, but I would agree with the son. I think Larry, you raised the town last meeting for something related to signs or up along the highway, but yeah. And I had uh pulled Miss Helier aside at the last uh council meeting after the meeting. And uh I was just asking some random questions around the tree ordinance that was proposed. And uh one of the question was uh if she really liked a particular ordinance that uh was

already implemented in the surrounding area and she actually mentioned beach for one of those. So may be a good idea to look at that as well. Any other comments? Just briefly. Yes, sir.

Um, I appreciate everyone's comments. This is exactly what I wanted to hear. I had no idea of the positions any of us had uh on this thing. I did not intend to have it just willy-nilly like everyone has pointed out. That's the way it came out. But, uh, you know, just cut if you want to cut. But, um, I appreciate everyone's comments. I think, you know, we can get something together that'll satisfy all of us, uh, mostly. And it's kind of like compromising. You don't always get everything you really would like to see, but, uh, when you compromise, you get something that works pretty well for everybody. Thanks.

Thank you, Larry. Thanks. Thanks for your work on it, too. And I hope you didn't take it this week. Back in the free. I don't think anyone for a moment. All right. Any other comments? Mr. Chairman, not to put Larry on the spot. It's got a a volunteering to take it to the next uh step on his part uh to uh take what we've all said and see what he can uh do to uh uh reformulate.

I don't mind doing that. Uh my next two months I've got a lot of uh I've got a book I'm writing that's due. Got grandkids visiting for a month. So, it's going to be tough to get it like for the next meeting, but if we're thinking two meetings out, I might be able to.

I I probably would think two meetings. Um, what I would say I I think the best route would be to just make sure we're capturing the themes that we like and don't like in the ordinance and what we're looking for an ordinance to be and then we're able to present that. I know we have a new director coming. He has a lot of experience on toad. Uh so I I'm hopeful that if we capture as much information um that we can as a commission uh he would be able to review those notes and kind of get an idea of where what direction we should be headed and if he wants to help us produce simplified ordinance I I think he probably should have that experience and do so. So just a quick question on legal procedure. If I draft something I don't can't share it with more than I can share it with individually with people sequentially and

you can but I just can't get more than three people on the same document at the same time. Very good. Yes sir. Um, my understanding is that he can send it out, but we can't pretty much comment or make decisions on that as a quorum because when when you're debating and coming up with ideas in any communication, including email, um, that's considered a meeting. So, putting something out, I don't know that is would necessarily be breaking that uh code.

He can absolutely share it. to also have a notice and one email, but it's very uh it's uh they try to uh make sure that uh you don't meet that quarum because you never know really when you cross that line. Um discussion is I mean it's interpretation basically. So I mean uh if I say one word that can lean you and change your opinion and then then that should probably be discussed in the public setting. Absolutely. If he wants to send it to all seven of us and we want to reply individually or keep three people to that, I I would definitely say that's our route to go. But I'd be cautious about keeping us on the whole. Okay.

And if you want to do separately, that's perfectly fine. You can do that as well. But uh as you know, we've had a workshop every month. So it's not like we don't meet often and uh can definitely have that discussion and meet. Any other comments on what? Anybody got an idea of how we should move forward or do we kind of just like capturing idea ideas, having some conversations? Uh Larry possibly sending out some information, having that back and forth and be able to produce something later on. Chair. Yes, ma'am.

I'm very comfortable with Larry doing what he can with what we've discussed and uh bouncing off us individually or any way that that avoids a quorum. And that way we'll be ready to go and just about in perfect timing. By then I hope our new director will have his speed at least damp if not wet. And know we can't hit him with everything this first week. It won't work. Yeah. But uh hopefully that two meetings out and the new director and a semiolid draft should be a good plan. I think

I think so too. Any other comments? So Larry, I think consensus is uh you could uh continue to work on that. Um if you don't have it for next meeting, that's perfectly fine. Uh like I said, I don't know when the director will start or when he will be in full force or even attend our meeting. So uh I would look for two months out. Mhm. And if you want to share your work as you progress, then you could do that also. Okay. Very good.

Thank you, sir. All right. We'll move on to the next item. Um that' be chapter 17 ordinance language. Uh design overlay review of certain section chapter 17 zoning article I think it's four or nine.

Design overlay of the code of ordinance of the town of Sersside Beach South Carolina review recommendations from business committee chapter 17 section 17400 uh to 17440. Um, so I know we originally I was just going to leave the the tree topic on here for this workshop particularly, but I did about the code for enforcement official out to us. Uh, and I figured it would be a good time uh, to make sure we had that on discussion for the design overlay since we were actually reviewing that and looking to make some changes on that. And then also uh, wanted to give the opportunity for tree preservation. Uh, but he was unavailable to attend tonight. Um, so we uh, still had the design overlay on here. Um, I would mention that we do have a public hearing scheduled for uh the next regular session meeting. Um, I know we talked last meeting around possibly just going ahead and move forward with changing the percentage uh and uh compliance to that design overlay. So, I thought we'll go ahead and move that forward with to a public hearing and then we'll be able to take a vote on uh changing that language in particular. I I think all that will be proposed is the 20% to the 50%. At this time, unless y'all have something you'd like to see in it change tonight, we'll make sure. All right. Any comments?

Any public comments? No. Any comments from the commission? Yeah. Is everyone okay with just the changing the percentage of compliance or did they want to see something else in this change? Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am.

I'm just going to say what I said about the tree ordinance. I think not now. now and let's just do the 20% change but eventually when we get into this design overlay I think a lot of the same things I already said apply and that is that it's way too complex and I I think it's unrealistic that we will ever be able to enforce it properly that's probably true of a whole lot more ordinances too it's all high in the sky when we can't force it

thank Any other comments, Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Just to follow up on the last conversation on this, there was a bit of a discussion of should we delineate tenant versus property owner in instances where they're two distinct entities. Um, and kind of assign responsibilities to adhere to the design ordinance for either of those parties. For example, exterior signage is the property owner in you know uh windows or the tenant. I did look around. I didn't see any local jurisdiction that had any approach to that of actually assigning ownership of getting something up to the overlay standard. It was simply here's what the standard is. I'm not saying that the notion was right or wrong. It's just, you know, when I went to look for examples of how that's done, I got a personal opinion on it, that's not enforcable. Maybe a mild overreach, but I didn't see where someone else has done that. Some of the surround areas, I don't know if anybody else bothered to look or conversation. Yeah, I think uh I think we were discussing on looking to see uh around what they were doing with that and also possibly looking at other design overlays as well and see how they were being forged. Um yeah, I mean we definitely got some work to do on the design overlay. A lot of enforcement issues with that design overlay to begin with. uh a lot of stuff. I do know the business committee is working on a new business

uh packet. Uh I think we previously had that uh many years ago. I think we had a pamphlet or something and I think that was finally provided to them. So I think they're revamping that. Um also uh I've uh the administrator had uh had some discussions around me that they were adding some layers on the business licene portion uh where there's a section for sign off just particular to the design overlay as well. So I think they're going to uh create a section where somebody particularly has to sign on saying that those codes have been met too. So I I think that's a step in the right direction. I think there's definitely a lot more to do uh ministerally uh to make sure we're complying with change of use and owners and all that stuff, but uh I think they're recognizing some steps that they could take to at least give us. Um but I I kind of agree with you too, Alex. Uh I think uh creating that separation. Um, it's great to separate it for the owner and the business in general, but at the end of the day, the standard's the standard. So, regardless if the tenants doing it, and I agree, uh, the tenant can go up there and modify the exterior of the building or paint the exterior, but the tenant can definitely have a lease agreement in their hands to say, "Hey, uh, I'm leasing this building. I'm operating with the town saying, "Hey, I got to do these improvements." And more than likely the the property owner is going to have to say, "Hey, well, I mean, I could have a bridge of lease or I cannot have a tenant at all. I'm going to have to do something about it." So, I think that's where the the current ordinance stands. Um, I don't know how we can say the tenant or the the owner in general. I don't I don't know how that's going to work or how we could even do that because at the end of the day, the standard is the standard. So I think we just having that on the ordinance as saying, "Hey, this is needed." I think that should be worked out in the property.

Any other comments? All right. With none, we'll move on, but uh just plan to have a uh public hearing uh on that topic in general and uh we'll be proposing that 20% to move to 50%. and look at that front and see kind that'll probably give us a good idea of if we got any movement at all in that 20 to 50%. So looking forward to see what we get out of it. All right, next item is public comments. Any public comments? All right, we'll move on to commission comments. Any commissioner comments? Alex, Mary Ellen, Melody, Scott, Larry,

no, Carol.

Yes. I would like to again thank Larry for the work on getting us going on the on the trees. I think we needed uh a good start and he provided a good start and uh I'm I'm sorry I volunteered you for the next uh um but I think you're the right person to get us to the next uh uh step and uh on on the overlay I uh I am still hopeful that we can get the word out to the property owners cuz I think they don't know that they are u part of the the problem and the solution. Uh but I am very anxious to hear from our new director um his thoughts on how one might uh go about getting um uh some of these older properties um uh get the getting them to get a faceelift. That's it.

Thank you, Carol. Um I agree. I I'm excited about the new director. Uh I like the years of experience and hopeful uh I know when somebody mentioned can't hit him with everything, but uh unfortunately the commission work has to continue as well. I'm sure he'll get his feet planted. Uh like I said, he's kind of experienced out here. So uh hopefully he can take it all in and uh we gradually progress as we have right now. So appreciate everybody coming out and uh thank y'all. All right, we get a motion to adjurnn. So move motion to adjurnn. Got a second. Second.

And Carolyn has sec seconded. Everyone agree. Say I. I. Anyone opposed say no. All right. Mr. Chair, I would like to say that Chris Cochran has resigned as of tomorrow. He's no longer with us after tomorrow. Yeah.