Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded.

I called to order this regular meeting of the Plays Commission.

This is the August 4th meeting.

Heavenly Father, we come to you today humble in the duties before us. We ask your guidance in providing effective and productive leadership. We ask that you bless us with the ability to consider all factors in any decisions we make. We seek your guidance in assuring that Surfside Beach is as good a community as it can be today, and we set the foundation for it to be an even better community in the future. We ask for your blessings in these endeavors, in your son's holy name. Amen.

Amen.

Congratulations. Congratulations to the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, Under God, in the digital, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, so this evening we have no public hearings. We move on to agenda approval.

We get a motion for agenda approval.

Madam Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve the agenda for the August 4th regular Planning Commission meeting as stated in front of us.

I'll second.

Any discussion?

Okay.

All in favor of approving the agenda, say aye. Aye.

Is approved.

Can I likewise get a motion for approval of the May 5th, 2026 minutes?

Madam Chair?

Yes.

I would like to make a motion to approve the May 5th with the one change on page five. In the second paragraph, Georgetown County does fine $500 per square inch instead of the word fine. So change the D to an E, minor, minor, minor, but that affects it.

Thanks.

Can we get a second on that motion?

I'll second that.

Okay, I have to say that was so slow.

So you're saying fines, plural.

No, just the word fine, F-I-N-E, instead of fine. It's F-I-N-E.

But you want to change it to fine. Fine, yep.

Yep, singular.

George Town County does find $500 per inch of their trees, not just per tree.

Did you get a second on that? We did. Okay, who was the second? John. We need to have any discussion? All in favor of the amended motion to approve the minutes, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Now move on to the public comments on agenda item. If anyone would like to offer public comments.

Yes ma'am, if you don't mind.

I don't mind at all. Come forward. Please state your name and your address please.

Thank y'all. My name is Brown Matheny, 9402 Lake Drive in Myrtle Beach. I'm the managing member of Surfside Park Partners. We own five and a half acres behind the Antony where we're talking about mini storage. I just wanted to put a face with the name. We've been working on several different on this property. We feel like, with y'all's help, we can do a good project and hope you'll consider it. So I appreciate it. If y'all have any questions for me, I'm more than happy to answer.

Unfortunately, the way our process works, we cannot ask questions of you during this part.

Okay. Makes it easy on me?

Sit back and enjoy.

Oh, I will.

Any other public comments? Let's move on to the director.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of things to report on. The department had a long conversation today with the South Carolina delegation of FEMA, as well as the national representative from FEMA today, working out a language change to our ordinance that is in line with the national requirements, which we didn't have and we were interpreting in a way that they were not, let me be nicer, they were not fond of. So we worked with that today through a fairly robust conversation with them. And when we got to the final end of it, we came to the conclusion that the FEMA publication that they put out on this particular subject is what they call an advisory paper or advisory pamphlet. And it has a lot of what I call permissive language in it. And if you know the difference between permissive and mandatory language, you know that permissive language is, on our part, somewhat optional, what we adopt and what we don't adopt. It was clear by the end of the conversation that FEMA wanted to see us put it in our ordinance into mandatory language. We had quite a bit of what I would call a robust argument over that to the point where the national flood control, I'd say the national FEMA folks sort of backed off a little bit and said, well, let us review your ordinance again, and we'll come back to you with some suggested modifications that don't do the things that we think you think it's going to do because we had some real concerns over some of them. And I won't get into particulars because they're really in the weeds. I'll just say that they're really in the weeds about things that can and cannot be placed in the floodplain and what constitutes covering and what constitutes a structure and all that kind of stuff. So that was an interesting part of my afternoon. The other thing I wanted to bring to your attention is that we've received just recently a number of complaints by a resident to enforce to do a better job enforcement on highway 17 particularly as it relates to signage as you all know nick has a full-time job doing what tree stuff and house stuff and you know what i would call life safety type issues and he doesn't always have the bandwidth to do the signage stuff because the sign some of the signage stuff has been there for years and it's been just allowed to continue. So we've now placed that on Nick's to-do list as an immediate hit list kind of stuff to get those things under control. And my finding is that most of the time when Nick goes in and talks to these folks, it's never a problem. It's always, well, we didn't understand that we couldn't have that sign out there. We didn't understand that it needed to be over here, that sort of thing. So I think we're going to be able to knock that out of the ballpark probably within the next couple of weeks. And I think that's all we can really hope for because like I said, half the time Nick is out there doing tree permits and reviewing tree removals. And the other part of his time is spent on what I would call life safety issues, which are vacant cars that have been in the driveway for three years and the grass is growing up through the windshield all the way to rat infested houses. and houses where the house is almost falling in on itself. And there's a, this is purported, I'm not saying I've seen it with my own eyes, purported number of snake nests in the house where the snakes are now coming out of the house and going into the next door neighbor's pool at night. So those are the kinds of issues that I... Just at night. Just at night. I think they like swimming. I like that it was limited in my time, and they don't want to get picked off by an eagle during the day. So when I tell you that sign issues are not as important, I hope you understand what I mean. I'm not saying they're not important. I'm just saying that we have enough things on Nick's plate that I consider serious and egregious issues compared to somebody having a feather sign that hasn't been removed. Better yet, a temporary sign that was permitted 90 days ago, and they were supposed to replace it with a permanent sign, and they haven't replaced it with a permanent sign. That's the kind of stuff that I'm talking about out on Highway 17. The last thing is I'm happy to report that tomorrow afternoon I will be submitting a revised, a recommended revised tree ordinance to Sherry. for placement before the first meeting, before town council at their next meeting. Happy to hear about that. Happy to share any thoughts that you might have on that. But that's something else that we're doing, working on getting that out the door. And I'm just trying to think of, in the last week, what else has come up? That's probably, those are the highlights. The meeting with FEMA today was an eye-opener for me. I didn't realize that, and they did pay us a compensation. And I didn't think we were going to hear that during the phone conversation because during the phone conversation, you might have thought that we were the devil incarnate in terms of enforcing flood control. And they said to us, we don't mean to pick on you, but there is this issue. However, you are the shining star along the coast because your communities around you do not have as strict ordinances as you have. So you're doing a better job. You've got a higher CRS rating. We talked to them briefly about the program. And the best I could get out of them is it's dormant. And they don't know when or if the program's ever going to be reinstated. But they did page that comment, which was kind of cool. So they said, we're not picking on you. This is just one thing that we want to clarify with you. And you might have thought that we were a group of legislators at Senate debating words, and how words are used, and how words aren't used, and all that sort of thing. So it was an eye opener for me.

I'll just say that.

I don't have anything else to report, but would be glad to answer any questions that you have about anything that I've brought up or anything that you've heard out on the street that I need to know about.

I just have one question. If FEMA is calling us the shining star, why were they here?

I think because we made an interpretation that they did not We made an interpretation that was challenged by a resident. That resident brought it up to FEMA. FEMA then said, oh, we didn't know that's the way you were interpreting it. Here's the way we would interpret it. And when they said shining star, what they meant was, how do I say this politely? We have been on FEMA's radar for the last five or 10 years. We've done things in and around the pier area and in the R3 district that FEMA's not particularly happy with us about. But we've corrected those things. And they see that as a net positive, that we've made corrections, that we're doing things better, and we're doing things the right way. When they say, again, shining star, they mention that the ordinances in the counties and towns around us that are on the coast do not have as robust a set of regulations as we have when it comes to protection of the coast. So I thought that was kind of nice, kind of, it was kind of a backhanded compliment, but I'll take any compliment based on the, based on the tenor of that meeting.

Thank you. Anything else? No?

No, sure.

That's true.

Yeah, just a couple of things. Since we're on FEMA, I have a couple of things I want to ask without getting in the weeds. First of all, did the FEMA interpretation of whatever said statement or policy, did that just happen to line up with the complainant's view of how they interpreted it? Not at all. Okay, good.

Not at all. Okay, so. The complaint basically suggested that what was done was totally illegal, which it was not. It just wasn't built to, I'll call it FEMA standard, which requires certain things to be done on anything that's placed on the ground in the floodplain.

All right, yeah, I'll just.

Thank you for that question. I appreciate that question.

You know why I'm asking. Whatever the subject matter is, does the FEMA request for the adjusted interpretation, does that have a negative impact on the citizens or the town of Surfside Beach if we were to make the changes to their request? And that's a yes or no. I'm not looking for a no.

I think it's a perhaps. It will. And I want to be clear, it will be on commercial properties open, not the residents. They'll be on commercial properties in and around the pier area, and whether they can and cannot do it in the future.

Okay. All right. You kind of answered my question about whatever was going on with the summons.

Yeah, one of the things they said during the meeting that really got me frosted and Brad frosted was they were suggesting that they were going to try to make us retroactively go back to the property owner and have them remove the structure. And we said, you're using a discretionary document to make us take action on an item that we approved based on our mandatory regulation. And that's kind of how we presented them. And I think they saw the light at that point, basically saying, yeah, we go and try to make this property owner remove that, certainly we're going to be sued. And if we get sued, the attorneys from one side are going to look at the language in the discretionary document versus what we have in our ordinance, and we are going to lose. So I think they understood our position on that point. And the meeting left this way. We'll get back to you on our interpretation. In other words, they're going to re-look at their interpretation of their document and our ordinance. And I suspect we'll hear from them probably in five to six months. That's how quickly things don't move. But that's okay. That's okay.

I'm guessing the complainant lived next door to wherever this property is.

No. I think it was a drive-by and they saw something going up and they thought, I was curious. I don't know if that means the FEMA ordinance, but the FEMA, as I said, FEMA's using a discretionary, I'll call it a handout for that, but it's called a technical bulletin. It's called a technical bulletin that they put out. They put them out all the time. And it's always them continuously sort of, if you will, beating the drum for protection of our coast, which is what their job is, and that's a good thing. But every once in a while, they get into suggesting what the regulatory fallout from that discretionary language is. And that's where the rubber doesn't hit the road sometimes. Like I said, it was an interesting conversation. I hadn't had a conversation with National FEMA for probably 10 years, and it was interesting to have them on the phone with us. So by having that person there, it pointed out to me that this was a fairly serious discussion.

Madam Chair? Yes, yes. Sorry. So I'm really curious, but I understand we can't be specific, but we're in the ambiguity. In my mind, it's a hypothetical because I don't even know what you're talking about. Here's what I concluded. Tell me if a resident complained to FEMA about a structure on a commercial property possibly near the pier that is not in compliance with FEMA. Is that what we know? And that's all we can know?

No, I can tell you more. The structure in question, see this desk that I'm sitting at? Try to imagine this is a concrete wall. This is illegal. This is illegal. According to them. And according to our organs, not at all. As long as there's a certain opening and things for water to be able to move through and around the wall, we had that in there. And that's the way it was constructed. So they were using, again, I'll point this out, they were using that technical bulletin with discretionary language to try to convince us that we needed, number one, they wanted us to have the applicant remove the wall. And we said, absolutely not. And number two, we need you to change your ordinance based on discretionary language. And we said, absolutely not. And they said, we'll advise you in five or six months what we think the outcome of this is. And we're like, okay, fine. Thank you for getting on the phone with us. I believe this is the last question.

The resident, did FEMA disclose who the resident is? And if so, did you contact the resident? And I think that's the only question. No and no.

I bet you could go on Facebook.

Anybody else have any questions? Okay. Let's move on. I assume you're finished.

Thank you very much.

So our one and only business item is our bylaws. Is there a motion to approve three bylaws that set forth in the agenda?

I would like to second.

Any discussion?

Madam Chair.

Yes.

I just want to confirm that

because I apologize I hadn't looked at the specifics, but the one that I was interested in. Oh, no, I apologize. That's the follow-up part. I was looking at the chart.

I wanted to make sure we took care of the whole gas patient discussion.

Yeah, I'm getting ahead of myself.

between use table issues.

Just so everyone understands, what you're seeing is the edit to the bylaws that was discussed during, I think it was our last meeting. This is Sparky. It's a little fuzzy today. Anyway, so it's mostly just fixing the numbering system. I don't know if anybody needs it in the color version. Is there any way we can reduce color in our packets and

I don't know if it's, I don't think it shows up in color on the website.

It should be in color on the website, but I've been asked not to do it in color. Because it should be on the agenda packet online, but we were asked and I was told not to do it.

Can we register an objection to that?

I was going to try to sliver that a little closer to the bone.

Only for ordinance changes where we're doing red line strikeouts, I think that's where the color really, for me anyway, really makes a difference. Because I have the same packet you have. I don't have the color packet. It's hard for me to move through there. So I will register that complaint with the powers that be and see if we can get that part of the agenda packet printed in color, because that would be super helpful.

I think it's important for the public to see what it is we're going to change.

I understood, Angie, what's online is in color. It's just what's printed is not in color.

That's correct.

Yes, but we didn't have copies.

We were supposed to.

All I know is somebody stood up in a meeting one night and said about wasting ink. And I was told from there, you know, print my packets in black and white. I'll be glad to do whatever my boss tells me to do.

Okay. Mark makes a request. I'm going to also make a request because frankly, until I really looked at one of the discussion items and what was being done there, I could not see that it was being crossed out. I completely missed it initially. And if it had been in color, I think I would have immediately bought it. So we'll see what we can do.

I will make the request, and I will assure you that I will press for that.

Thank you very much. Okay, going back to the minutes, I mean the bylaws, the changes are changing section numbers in Article 1 and Article 2 just because when I did this the first time I overlooked changing these numbers. And then the only substantive change is the removal in Article 3, Section 1 of the language we decided to reject at our last meeting during our discussion, which is the language about whether we had to vote on public notice.

publication of notices in the newspaper before we could have those publications made.

Any need for discussion?

Anybody had enough time to peruse? I can't.

It's hard. Anyway, okay. All in favor of adopting the Planning Commission bylaws as amended in the materials in the packet, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Moving along to our first discussion item. The first discussion item is the self-storage facilities amendments. I will remark that sitting through town council meetings of late, I have noticed that they are making motions during the discussion items listed in their agenda. So I inquired because she had very emphatically instructed us earlier this year that motions had to be only restricted to business items. And so her response was that it was permissible to have a motion during a discussion item if right after the words discussion items in your agenda, you had the words to the effect in the town council agenda, it says, council may make motions. And so if it says that, it's permissible to have a motion. So it was too late. for me to add something like that to this agenda. And I think we should have that in our agendas moving forward because I think we could move some things along more quickly if we had the latitude to make motions during discussion. We cannot do that and we cannot change this agenda, which we've already approved, and we could not have amended the agenda to allow for that latitude earlier this evening. So in the next agendas that we do, I will incorporate that into all of the agendas. And then we have the option to do it if the circumstance is appropriate for making motions. And so anyway, Mark, I'll turn it over to you on mini storage.

And there we go. Thank you, Madam Chairman. As you all know, this is an item that we've had on the agenda a couple of times where we've had a general discussion. For your interest, this item came to us from Brown, who got up and discussed the agenda item during public comment. The concept was first, I'll start with this. If anybody was ever thinking of doing a self-storage facility anywhere in the community, one of the things that the project has to meet is its parking requirement. And the parking requirement was the most egregious parking requirement I've ever seen for any use in 45 years of doing this job. It was just way outside the boundary of what I call reasonableness. whether it was done on purpose or whether it was a mistake, makes no difference. Time is now to change and make that a fair parking requirement. So the first thing as part of this amendment package that's moving forward to allow mini self-storage facilities is to amend the parking requirement. And the parking requirement is found in the pages here. And I'm just going to give you a gloss over it The next thing was to amend the use table. Now, why are we amending the use table if self-storage is already allowed? Well, our ordinance, unlike any other ordinance I've ever worked with in 45 years, has the parking requirement as part of the use table. You following me on that? So it says the use is this, conditional or permitted. Here's the use. Here's some... sections of the ordinance that it relates to. And then the very, very last column is like an A, B, C, D, E, F, G, N, all the way up to the letter R, I think, or U is where we ended up. So the use table has to be amended to identify U is the new parking regulation. So in the parking chart, that chart will be amended to have now a new letter U with the new parking requirement. The use table is being modified, so the correct letter is after self-storage. And finally, the last one, and I think this is probably the most important one and the one that I want everyone to think about the most. And that is that we tried to fashion, and I think we did a pretty good job of it. We fashioned some what I would call restrictions on location. And the two that immediately come to mind for me are number one we are restricting the recommendation is to restrict self-storage to the west side of highway 17 and the second one is to prohibit self-storage from locating within 150 feet of the right-of-way and that is the frontage road in this case it's not from the what you call the state highway State Highway and the frontage road is part of the State Highway. So I asked John Adair, I said, where's the right-of-way? And he said, it's on that side of the frontage road. So it would have to be 150 feet from there. So I think those were the two key restrictions that I recall off the top of my head as I'm giving this presentation to you, literally off the top of my head, based on what my understanding is moving forward. And I would ask that of, it would be remiss of me if I didn't mention this. Both items, A and B this evening, have already been noticed in the public paper so that we can have a public hearing in September. That's how far ahead I have to get my public notices to the newspaper. They've been both run, and we've paid for them. I think we've paid for them. And those have been located. Now, the cool thing about writing public hearing notices, is that you have to basically say what your activity is, what you're planning on amending. It doesn't have to be so specific that it says, and we decided that it's, you have to be 147 and a half feet from on the right, which just has to say there are locational restrictions, parking changes, and changes to how these things operate and what they don't operate. I also think that one of the, Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not going to open my package. I'm trying to do this by what the main points of my memory are, and that is that we have a ... We wanted a condition that it wasn't going to be open storage. It was going to be self-storage, enclosed, building, and that we weren't going to permit boat storage, RV storage, those sorts of things and i had that conversation with brown to let him know that that's the direction we were heading in because i think there might have been um perhaps a misunderstanding on my part that they were actually possible thinking of that as a as a potential uh i'll call it side part of the self-storage complex if you will um and i think in discussing this with the planning commission in a previous meeting that that was something that we I believe unanimously nodded our head down that we did not want to see open storage as part of it. No matter what you did to screen it, we didn't want to see open storage. Okay. So with that, I would ask for you to make any suggested modifications to any of those three things, the parking chart, the use table, or restricted locations, so that I can bring this back to you public hearing in September for you to pull the public hearing out and ultimately go back. I'll stop there. Yes, John.

Mark, with reference to this specific application, you didn't finish your statement, so you made it clear to the

was that the Planning Commission did not want to see open storage, but you never said what he said about his development.

Is it going to have open storage or not? I think you'd have to ask the applicant, and the applicant is here, and the applicant could tell you if he was saying it's going to be open storage or not.

Okay. Well, I think we have the time to get to that part, so I'll leave that for the appropriate time. you asked for comments about the three parts of this that you put for 17396-8. And my question is also reflective of the general consensus of opinion by the Planning Commission about open storage. And it says, the wording is, if use other than warehouse mini storage or other storage facilities includes outdoor storage of any kind, a fence, mental height of six feet shall be provided and effectively block the public view. I think effectively block the public view is interpretable. And so I would suggest that we define the word fence better and give some degree of opacity for that data. I mean, however you wanna say it, I'm not gonna, you do this for a living, but my point is, define the word fence as opaque and not lead up to effectively blocking the view. I think that's kind of big news, so if we could make that change, I think that would be good. And I think, well, I guess my question is, Do we just assume that someone reading this is going to understand that we're talking about on the west side, the frontage right-of-way versus the highway? I mean, I guess they figured it out when they came in and applied for their land disturbance permit.

That's usually what happens. Most people don't come in. to me and propose something knowing everything that's in the ordinance. Usually I sit there with them and go, oh, and by the way, you have to be a hundred feet back from the front row.

I just look at it from the business person's standpoint. I wouldn't want somebody to have invested time and resources and everything. They've got their act together and they come to see you to apply for the permit and then they realize, oh my God, I was measuring from the road. You just took half my land. Okay, so

May I suggest?

If we're only doing it on the west side, it makes it easier because we've got frontage all the way down, right? So maybe just point out that it's from the frontage.

From the frontage, right.

You know what I mean? I just hate to see somebody think, oh, God, I got it, you know, and find out when they get there. And all we had to do was tell them it was from the frontage.

I think that's an excellent suggestion. Does anybody on the Planning Commission oppose that on that issue to the vote? Restriction? Okay, good.

That's all I got.

All right, thank you, Jim.

Yeah.

Anyone else? Yeah. In Section 17, 396.8, Restricted Locations, I have one caution about changing Item 1, which is the Sandy Lane Restriction. We all need to understand that that applies to 16 different types of uses right now. And if we think we're just striking Sandy Lane for mini storage, and I have no lower comments to the mini storage thing, we're also opening the door for 15 other types of things, including fuel and chemical storage, welding shops, manufacturing and distribution, just on and on and on. It would all then not be restricted to same thing. So we need to make the decision on this intentional and be well aware that it's not just about mini storage.

I agree 100%. There are so many things that point to this restricted location, but I think we just need to write an exception type clause at the beginning of one rather than deleting it. I would suggest that it say, with the exception of warehouse, mini storage, or other storage facilities, which may also be located as provided and give a cross-reference to whatever we end up with, G. The use shall be located on properties front of Sandy Lane.

Just continuing with this current language and then we could also say in 4G that the use could be on Sandy Lane or the west side of Highway 17. Are we saying we can't have it on Sandy Lane?

No.

I mean, is that... We don't want it fronting the highway. Right, but could it be located on Sandy Lane?

If the portion of the property was located at least 150 feet from the frontage road, it could be.

Which I think is definitely doable if you're on the west side of Sandy Lane. That would be my guess.

And I don't have an exact measurement in front of me, but I believe that you're correct, that if anything were to be located on Sandy Lane, it would be on the west side, if at all. I just don't know how deep that first property is. But I've got to imagine that since most of the properties along Highway 17 are all kind of about the same depth, I would guess that that first property is 150 to 180 foot length.

Well, we know this one is.

This one?

Yeah. Oh, yeah. This isn't on Sandy Lane at all. No, I know, but it's 150 feet from the front. So we know. That's why. It's linear.

And most of those parcels are linear that way.

Yeah.

So I would guess that you'd be able to do that. Thank you.

I'm not saying either, but I really think all the 15 other ones need to be restricted to Sandy Lane. I think some of them might be appropriate for non-furnished properties on 17. If I recall correctly, putting all this high-tech was one, research of various sorts. I think the town at that time had this vision of turning Sandy Lane into Silicon Valley. So we forced all those kinds of research things over there. Now, I don't Obviously, that hasn't materialized, and I'm not saying that I think they all have to be unsanitary anymore. But now we're hearing the whole warden's part. Yeah.

Well, if you were to come up with a standard thing that applied to all these facilities that represent this restricted location, Why would some of those things need to be on Sandy but 150 feet away from the right-of-way? Why couldn't some of them be on Sandy Lane on the eastern side of the street? I don't know the magic of the 150 feet uses other than this mini storage? Is there?

I would say there is, and it's more of a philosophical question. I don't know what was done in the past, so I'm guessing here. First of all, let's put that on the table. I'm guessing that the reason that we'd want to push everything like research and all of these other less than normal retail commercial uses to the back is to preserve the retail commercial frontage along Highway 17 as that. I don't think there's a general consensus amongst the community that we want to see research and development type projects or large office complexes located on Highway 17. We would want those, and I think you would agree, we would want those in the back. We don't want to take up our valuable retail frontage with those. But I'm here to do what you want.

So I'm not sure that there's retail frontage on the eastern side of Sandy Lane. I mean, it's really a tucked back area.

There's not, for the most part, no. Most of the properties on the east side of Sandy Lane are a public works facility is there. An auto body kind of repair shop is there. They're not what I would call the the retail commercial uses that we would all hope for, even though our C1 zone is very broad and inclusive.

There is a solution here. I don't know why, but Surfside Beach, the town of Surfside Beach, doesn't have a zoning classification for the type of application

We're all trying to restrict it to a street.

My humble suggestion, and I know what I'm saying, because I know how you're going to look at me when I suggest this. All right. My personal belief, and Mark can back me up on this, is that the adaptations that we're talking about would be anywhere but Surfside Beach would fit into a zoning classification called Light Industry.

Okay, that is...

a standard zoning classification in most cities, most municipalities. So my suggestion would be rather than trying to word it based on gotta be on Sandy Lane or whatever, instead of using the broad interpretation of C1 to include but not be limited to and all this stuff, we simply copy Myrtle Beach's light industrial zoning and then Then we're not worried about did we mess up 15 others because we took the Sandy Lane thing out of it. We just make those applications applicable to LI. Is there a downside to that?

I'll let the members of commission do that. I'll chime in.

I don't remember the details, but in recent history, and I'm talking about several years, been there, done that with light and dust drill. It did not happen, and I do not recall at the top of my head precisely why. The Planning Commission has been there. I don't recall councils. Yeah, at Great Neck. Really? Yeah. But I can't tell you exactly who shot who.

Well, I mean, I know that the public might. If you're light industrial, they get a paradigm in their head about what that is. But for the leaders, I mean, we get to define what light industrial is.

We were all the way there in 2016. It got lost for a few years, and we brought it back, I want to say, two years ago.

It's probably for the same reason, I would imagine.

I have to do a little research. I don't recall the details, but it's not like we haven't invented it before.

Melody, do you remember?

I don't remember. I'm racking my brain going. I mean, we had lengthy meetings about that. So we might need to look back pretty much to see.

Usually if they don't do it, it's because they're scared they're setting precedent.

I mean, whatever. I don't think that's what it was. I think it was.

I really don't recall why it ran so well.

I think it was closer to four years ago.

It was a while back. And there was a lot of discussion. We were debating on whether to call it limited industrial or light industrial. I think those terms are going back and forth. And some of it was We were hoping that we would put anything making noise or industrial that's not necessarily visually pleasing kind of more hidden away. And I, along with the others, don't exactly know how things kind of came to a halt. But I think already Sandy Lane is a light industrial area.

I'm willing to volunteer to do the research. I know that I'll win.

God bless you.

Thank you for that. I think we have attention here. Even if we wanted to go down the road that John has suggested, We have a hearing scheduled for next month that has to do with the language that's currently before us, as we might choose to modify it. But I don't think that modification can be as broad as creating a new zoning district and doing the zoning map and things like that. are not covered by the newspaper notification for the hearing. And I know this has been bouncing around for a while. So I think we need to stick with the current course. And then maybe several months from now, we consider whether or not we bring up a light industrial or a limited industrial, once Mary Ellen tells us what transpired before.

Yeah, my comment, and I apologize, it probably sounded like what I was saying. To me, it is a simple solution, but I wasn't familiar with the history. But it definitely is a solution that is much longer term to execute than what we're trying to do tonight as far as defining what the current applicant has for getting back there behind the hotel.

I have just one comment. I'm looking at all this residential property behind that area that we want to force all our undesirable-to-see businesses back there. I'm very sympathetic to what those residents see. So even though they're not in our town, they're in the county, I'm a little hesitant to.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Okay. That has got to be the main reason we did that. Because everything you said is logical until you look across the street on the other side of the properties of Sandy Lane. That's all. Yeah, I just drove it.

In another town.

And I don't want to be that community that does that to our neighbor. I mean, I've seen it done where we just turn our back on our neighbor and go, nah, let's go do it.

My point is, it's already done. Have you driven back there? I was just there this weekend. There's nothing.

John, what has organically happened, I believe will continue to organically happen. And that is, are you going to open up a retail store on that street? No, you're not. You're not, unless you're the type of business that is only drawn by online business or something like that. What will continue? And in a way, it's sort of unfortunate, right? What you're seeing back there is not the stuff that you'd want in your residential backyard, right? But changing it to light industrial kind of puts a rub kind of puts our stamp on it, basically saying, yeah, we're going to. That's going to be our armpit. That's going to be our dumping armpit, yeah. I don't believe that was the reason. You don't believe that was the reason? Off the top, do you remember kind of what the reason was?

No, I think we were flipping around with various staff changes and council changes and resurrecting a drop ball with the ordinance itself. It was very complicated. I was very involved, but I'm gonna have to go back and look and see what it is.

That'd be very interesting, because that, John, that was my first, when you said that, I went, ooh, the residential community's behind it. Totally, yeah. And most communities this size usually do have a light industrial zone someplace where these things can flourish and be kind of set off by themselves. But I'd be very interested to hear what the outcome of that is. The extent changes. I think that what was being considered was whether or not we had a universal location or we had a location for mini storage

that was slightly different than the other uses, and whether or not they go one way or the other. I think I am inclined, although I like simplicity, that I am inclined to have two I think it would be a mistake to not allow the variety of businesses we have in the use table that point to this restricted location standard. It would be a mistake not to allow them to be on the eastern side of Sandy Lane in the event that it failed the 150 foot measurement from the frontage road. I just think they're tucked back in there and if that's one of the goals, they're tucked back.

They don't need the 150 foot distance requirement on top.

I agree with that statement and I will tell you that I I think it was Jerry came to me. And we were looking at the map. And I think we were talking about something else. But I started talking about the Hampton Inn. I started talking about the proposal for self-storage behind. And he took his finger and he goes, we have a self-storage facility right here. And I went, I don't think I've ever seen it. He goes, I know it's there. You'll see it if you drive by. It's there. He says, but I think it's set back. far from the road. It's not right up on Highway 17. I was like, really? So you all are better historians of the pattern out there than I am. But I had to go out and look at it. I had to literally try to slow down to find it. And it's an older. It's one of these. Remember what mini storage was like 25, 30 years ago? Signal storage, kind of a garage door.

Are you talking about the facility behind Dagwoods? Are you talking about the facility on Poplar?

I don't know. I'm sorry. Oh, by the way, one of the things that I've asked for from the facilities department is to post our zoning map right there.

I cannot believe that we conduct business here talking about zoning without a zoning map. So they are making the map.

They're making a frame. It's going to be super cool looking. But anyway, I'm sorry. I don't know. I'm sorry, Carolyn, I can't help you on that. All I know is it was down that end of Highway 17. It's behind that. It's behind that. It's behind that. It's a newer one than our process, but I don't know. I don't know their grandfather, for sure. Just for your interest, I didn't. They're very quiet uses. They don't tend to draw a lot of attention. In fact, here I am, what, almost a year into the position, and I was like, there's a mini storage on Highway 17. So I had to go out and drive it. And I didn't know that it was back and backwards, but I guess that's what That's your landmark.

And I would guess it meets the 150-foot. Anyway, so we're done, whatever. And I'm also guessing the other ones I'm talking about are behind the golden egg. Oh, that's right. Yes, on this side.

Yeah, yeah.

And they are much older and you rarely see anyone. At least I do. What I mostly see is people coming through between the units to get up to Dagwoods and other retail and restaurant things in that strip.

That big facility behind Dagwoods, actually, I rented from there for about eight years. It's a nice facility and you don't, you have to look for it. As for these other ones over here, I would love for them to be put out. I hate to say it because they're eyesores and beach services uses one of them from their storage. Yeah. So they have a big section of one of them.

Pieces of information that I have. So how do you want to change that first? I need some help here. I need some help in drafting something.

Carolyn had a good idea on how to word it.

Well, I have an idea on how to word it, but rather than my wording creates two different location situations, whereas we could create a universal if we just required that wherever they are, they're 150 feet off of the frontage right-of-way. That's the easiest thing to do. If you're not mentioning Sandy Lane, you're not mentioning it.

You have to include Westside. Yeah.

Westside. Westside of 17th. Right, 150 feet off of the frontage road right-of-way.

Right. I will attempt to draft this, and I will send out a general email that I don't want you convincing with each other about. Send me your comments on the language, and I don't want to try to, I call it, make sausage tonight, but I'll come up with some language that fits what I believe I understand, and... move on. That allows us to move on.

I can offer this to you right now.

Oh, please read it into the record so that, because I'm not going to try to write it. I don't shorthand.

Okay. The use shall be located on the west side of Highway 17 and a minimum of 150 linear feet from the edge of the town's frontage road right of way.

Can't argue with that. The only one that makes me notice, and I'm sure it's got its own set of rules, is the one about fuel and chemical storage. But I'm sure there could be other rules, environmental rules, that will restrict that. I'd imagine there are.

And are those allowed in the C1 or C2 district? C1 district? I almost want to say they're not even permitted in there. Oh, that's, yeah, that's what it is.

Among the 15 that are genetic research, et cetera.

As far as that existing large storage facility, I don't know if they still do, but they used to store RVs and boats back there. I mean, you'd have to go in there to really see it.

So it was open storage?

There was some open storage, not a huge amount. It was mostly enclosed, but... So those things probably have gasoline in them.

Yeah, for sure. For sure. You know, one of the conversations, and I'll share a conversation that I had with Brown. We were talking about open storage, and Brown raised a really good point. He said, so if I had a half-million-dollar mobile home and I wanted to park it back there, do you want to see it back there? And I said, honestly, no, we don't want to see it back there. And I thought to myself after that, if I had a half-million-dollar RV, I'm not parking it outside this sun. You know what I want? I want Brown to build some storage units that have a giant 22-foot roll-up door that I can roll my RV into. That's kind of how I saw it from a zoning perspective. But I understood what he was saying, is that there are people in town who travel here part-time of the year, and part-time of the other year, they're probably in Utah traveling around. They have RVs. They need a place to store.

Do you really believe that there is anyone with one, two, three, up to 50 to 100 RVs that doesn't see the monotonous amount of RV storage you have within walking distance of Surfside Beach? I am not worried about anybody trying to store an RV in this general area. There is, they're not.

Ample. Ample.

Yeah, beyond ample. I mean, no, that is not a concern.

Okay, all right. I just wanted to bring that up so you all were aware of the conversations we were having.

Yeah, these guys.

Cool. Continuing with the outdoor versus indoor storage, I'm confused. because are we suggesting that the warehouse mini storage and other storage facilities can have outdoor storage or that they don't have outdoor storage?

As I read it, it says that they could have outdoor storage provided that it's In a fenced area with a minimum of six feet high provided by an effective block to public view, which is the part that gave everybody a lot of heartburn, and I agree with that. What's public view?

How do you read the, excuse me, how do you read the parenthetical in two?

If use, okay, so if I have to go to, I didn't write this. I understand. It's there. We have to deal with it. If use, okay, let's jump over the parenthetical. If use includes outdoor storage, okay, I get that part. If use other than warehouse, many storage, or other storage facilities, I'm thinking to myself a little bit, what is it? Okay, the way I read this. Something like a garden center that has a garden center for perhaps that has outdoor plants, and they want to, you can't have them indoors, right? You've got to have them outdoors. That's what I think that's getting. is the provision for outdoor landscape materials and things like that.

But the way that she's reading it is that for warehouse mini storage and other storage facilities, the fence is not required.

You see what I'm saying? And that is true. It is not required for an indoor unit.

No, not an indoor one. If it's outdoors... And it's a mini storage or warehouse or other storage facility.

I didn't draft this, so I'm confused. No, no, no, no. You need to fix it.

It requires no blocking fencing. No, I don't care. I'm confused. OK, so if number three.

Warehouse mini storage or other storage facilities shall And then you go down to F. Open storage of any item is prohibited.

Well, I thought it was of those items. No, it's without those items. It's anything other than those items, right? It says, if use other than warehouse mini storage or other storage facilities includes outdoor storage. So it's worded poorly, but.

Skip down to number three, where it says warehouse, mini storage, or other storage facilities shall, and then it has A through F under that. It should be indented, it would help. Open storage of any item including, but not limited to, boats, trailers, blah, blah, blah.

shall be prohibited i think it's very conflicting it is and i like that number one i would almost just delete that whole number one that's on the use because it's it's saying anything other than warehouse mini storage or other storage facilities so other storage facilities it's very general to begin with It's not just so it's saying everything, but these hundred things is going to be going to that includes outdoor storage. Wouldn't you want to say, like, what might include outdoor storage versus, I mean, is there anything allowed for outdoor storage? So, So just like what he just said, the landscape. Right. I would never get that out of this statement because it's other than warehouse mini storage or other storage facilities, you know, okay, so what is it for, you know?

You almost want to say what it's for.

Right. It's a double negative.

Yeah, I wouldn't. I would just want to rewrite this.

I would too. I would suggest for F, which I have to say I didn't really focus on the relationship, that open storage of any item shall be prohibited is enough. You don't need all that extra verbiage. Okay, so you're at F?

And open storage of any item shall be prohibited. All right.

I'm going to cross all that out.

That's a lot.

All right. That's good editing.

I like that. And then I would say, too, where outdoor storage is allowed, you have to have the fence.

Yeah.

And you could just say, if outdoor storage is allowed, do you want to call out more specific, like is allowed for that type or that whatever? For the use? Yes, that's it.

For the use?

If outdoor storage is allowed for that specific use type, then a fence is required. A big opaque.

A fence with a minimum height of six feet.

It's called an 80% opacity fence. That's what it's called.

Legal zoning terms. Not just opaque, 80%. 80% opacity, which means that you can still see somebody over there doing something nefarious, but when you drive by, you don't see anything.

Police don't want it to be completely opaque.

Works with Photoshop, too.

Opacity. Opacity, yeah, you turn it up and down. Same thing, same way. It's a little cheaper. Sorry. Oh yeah, wonderful.

I get more robocalls in a day. Okay, so that sounds way better.

Okay, wait now, I'm not sure. And we gotta make sure, because I know I have been terribly bad at this, is making sure the right person has the floor.

So it's better during that. I feel like we're wordsmithing something right now that we're not even sure about the whole picture. I think we're doing some dangers right now.

The only items I really want you is on the two last ones. Be located on the west side of Highway 17 from the frontage road, which we've added. and be located a minimum of 150 feet from the Highway 17 and from the frontage road on Highway 17. I mean, yeah, that could be right over there. But what we're doing, and you're right, is that we're kind of going into this section and making changes that really have nothing to do with what the proposal before this is. And I understand the temptation to do that. Because that language and that second one is just, I'm the zoning administrator and I'm supposed to, I looked at that and I went, oh, oh, what's that mean?

I don't disagree that some of this needs to change. But for us to start saying, oh, this has to have a fence, we've got to think about all of the implications.

I can bring those back to you in a cleanup, yeah, I really can. And we can separately hold the public hearing for those cleanup items. a lot of time.

Madam Chair, can we confirm that the current application, now that we're getting back to what's actually on the drive, can we confirm with either Mark or the applicant that the application being considered does or does not have, because now that we've talked about line four, the storage is reading it the way we are, specifically meaning F3F, the storage shall not have outdoor storage. So do you know the answer to that question, Mark?

I would prefer that the applicant answer that for me.

I think we can allow that. It's more simple than having Mark pause and go back and do it.

I'm happy to talk about it. Let me just, I want to give you a little history about this. In the last three years, my partners and I have spent a small fortune cleaning up homeless camps on this vacant piece of property. What we are planning to build $35,000, just to give you a number. Police ran them out. We had to post it, and we had to clean it up. Not our fault. It backs up to a residential community that's in the county. The type of storage facility we're going to do is multi-story climate control. It would be, if we had any, it's going to have fencing all the way around it for security. It's going to have a gated entry. with key code. It's not the old school storage facility. It's a multi-million dollar facility. We have no intent to do outboard storage. It would be nice to have it as an accessory use, because you do have $250,000, $300,000 campers. I just priced a boat. really easy to spend three hundred thousand dollars and every one of your planned communities around here have restrictions on boats trailer storage they can't even have a utility building in the back on most of these subdivisions so i would caution you in looking at this that your community in some ways needs a secure facility that would be screened would be lit, would be secured if they ever so decided to do some outside storage. The real money for us is in the vertical, but it would be nice to have that accessory opportunity. It would be limited. You have enough land in that lot? Five and a half acres.

money on verticals.

If I could fill it up all vertical, we'll do that.

I mean, you're making more money that way. We're risking more money, too.

The cost of construction, there's a risk return. And you're right. It would be nice to have it, and I'm going to fall on the sword about it no but i do caution when you start looking at limiting some of these things in the c1 use and 18 years on cab my wife was a mayor up there for eight years in my own beach different area different group but when you start restricting uses and i'm also a commercial realtor you start impeding value and you all are You want to get as much revenue, tax revenue out of it. You want to get retail revenue out of it. And I understand that that was the 150-foot setback was so you could protect your retail quarter where you could get the retail, hospitality fees, and those things on the front. Get it. I understand. But 150 feet off, it's protected. It's going to be a good-looking facility. I won't do anything unless it's a good-looking facility. and it would be secure to protect it. But our intent is not to do outside storage. Does that answer something?

Yeah. It does, thank you. Okay. We also have to consider that some other use might include nothing but outdoor storage, I guess, so that we have to factor that in.

You get into Flex Warehouse, and you're going to want people who want that layout. in that C1 zone. And then there's gonna be, average flex warehouse is 70% warehouse, 30% office, and they use another 25, 30% gross floor area for laid-out and art, which they have an opaque fencing. Some people require a four-foot berm and an opaque fencing up it, so the grade level takes you to 10 feet. So there's some ways to give breaks And most of these things are rocked, lit, they're quiet. As far as the storage, our type of storage, many warehouses, you might have 30 people, is that going through there? It's low traffic. It's very clean, it's interior, and it's quiet. And I would think that's what you want from that area. Appreciate y'all's time and everything.

Do you have thoughts of doing what Mark had suggested with, I guess, indoor storage of vehicles like RVs and boats?

The problem that you have when you start doing stuff like that, you have to have radius turns, and you've got to have column widths. It works if you find an old mall, or if you find a big Walmart that had free stands, and you start getting into free stands, you You're driving construction costs way up. We see some, in some of the storage facilities, we've seen where they've done carports. They've loaded carports with solar panels on top of them to offset the cost of electricity and these things. People just park their trailers or boats in it.

I think the one up behind the Walmart area on Beaker Run. Mm-hmm. that they have the cardboard set up in addition to the indoor storage.

And it's done very tastefully. The guy that we would partner with is sort of the godfather of Robert Hyde. He's the godfather of many warehouse facilities. He's done a lot of them around here. We're excited about it. It'll create a good ROI for us, more so than doing some of the other things that we've looked at. But when you start getting where your second row, like that, your desire for commercial uses and retail commercial uses become less and less, sort of like Sandy Lane. And the dollars drop. So this is a way to get a high revenue return for everybody. Taxes, tax revenues, everything else. So we're excited about it. We hope y'all work with us on it. But it would be nice And I think the accessory use of outdoor storage done tastefully is not bad, because it's also an amenity to your community and to your neighbors. Thank you.

I just want to ask one more question. Yes, ma'am. So you would recommend that we scratch the prohibition on outdoor storage and we just allow mini storage or self-storage or whatever you want to call it, to have outdoor storage as long as we put up blocking.

I would think it's good. If you wanted to limit it to an accessory use where it's not principal use, that would take out somebody going in and just doing straight open storage. Then you could put a percentage on that. I think To me, that would be the better, most efficient way to do it and to deliver it where it services the community and it also gives the developer an opportunity to have, you know, because we're going to have to have green space and we've got to have open area setbacks and all that stuff. You can, your parking blocks and some of those things can go into that area. I think it would be a neat use It would be done as long as it was opaque, secure. And all of these new facilities you go into, you've got a keypad. I just rented one for my daughter, and you don't even see them for the key. They leave the key on the inside of the unit for you now. It's amazing the system they have set up.

So if it were in accessory use and allowed and such, what kind of percentage would you suggest to it?

No more than 30%. I think that's, that would be what we're doing, maximizing vertical, and it allows us to move it out for storage revenue. But you're, I just, you go back to the Dale Webbs, the Surfside Beach Club, and all these places that are around here now, a lot of them can have, a lot of them, they can't even have more than two cars. And most of them have to be in the garage. It really is a needed use for communities that are doing a lot of track development homes like this. You know, we could do it without. We would prefer the other, if it was available.

Thank you. A while back, Mr. Field will remember this better than some of us. We talked about open storage from 17 years. rather large public outcry. Big fuss. Before we get too far down this road, I'm wondering if any of you are interested in researching this and sharing with you what happened last time.

I can tell you what happened last time, and it was not fun. We had both pieces of property, the outland piece and the piece behind it. We were doing mixed use on the front, and we had storage facility pull We just had a restaurant and then we had some small shop in line into the mini storage. And it was actually flex office where somebody could come in and have a rental, short-term rental office space. It became very obvious that the city wanted to protect their retail board. They didn't want to have any storage on the front. There was also some good pieces done with my wife and I. Not very fair. You're used to that. My skin's gotten very thick. I'm trying to think of the other stuff about it. Honestly, that was during COVID, and it went to council, and I think there was a gentleman that was on council that couldn't figure out how to get his phone off of mute because it was during To tell you, you know the story. We've gone from trying to do rental properties there, apartments, that was blocked. We tried to do camper, like a little campground, that was blocked. To the point I was trying to find a non-profit to tell you, and just give it to them. We did the Santee Cooper substation. That was when we originally started. The city of Surfside needed that to be able to offer power. And the administration or the zoning administrator at that time wanted to block it as well. And that's a public utility. They had the ability to go in and just take it. So I've had fun with this. I'm ready to build something. It's time for us to do something.

Anyone else?

Yeah, I'm just asking one question.

If you are, as your architect, have you already seen the elevations? I thought we haven't seen any. No, I'm asking you.

Yes, we have. You've seen it. So is your fence as well?

I mean, I'd be happy to do a four-foot berm and then a six-foot fence. So I'll put it up to you.

But the fence, is it a chain-link fence with Byzantine wire? around the top for security?

If we did 10 feet, I don't think we'd need the Constantine wire. Okay. Yeah, Constantine. But I think most of that stuff, when it comes to six feet, it has the angle. Yeah. We wouldn't probably put Constantine. We might put some barbed wire or just regular wire on it. I think that's how it comes. Right.

No, that makes sense, but it is chain link.

Chain link and no cutting slats.

Yeah, that's right.

It came up about three or four weeks ago, and we have a funky requirement about chain link vents, that it has to be the finished kind on top rather than the wrapped wire top, which I thought would be better for security. But I think people were thinking appearance, so that all of the tops of the pieces of the vents had to be that triangle type rather than the twisted, exposed points of And it's in the code.

What I was looking for was the slats. Yeah, we'll do the opaque. We've got to landscape it. We've got to do all the things. If we did, we would have parking lot lighting because people are able to come there 24 hours. It is a good product. If you're out on Highway 90, if you go up International, take a right, Robert had built one there. I think he built one out on the bypass close to here. He built one on 544. I think he's got 10 or 15 of them in the market, and they're all good-looking. So it's very clean, very well kept.

So my first reaction when you said 24-hour lighting, which I think is a good idea, How are the people who are the guests in the hotel going to react to that? Is there?

Sandy Cooper makes us have a bleed over. We have to do a light study. Oh, okay. So it doesn't slide to the other side.

Okay, it's just downward.

Yeah. You have to do a whole photometric thing where you don't have bleed going outside the property line. Okay. We did that on CDB for years with it.

Madam Chair.

Yes, Scott.

I have just two questions. One is, you had mentioned, let's see, no more than, you know, as a business perspective, no more than 30% of, if you were to do outdoor storage, what would you say would be the minimum that it would be worth to have an outdoor storage?

20%? I mean, you get much past 20%. sort of scratching our head on really doing it. I mean, 25, 30% I think we could live with. And again, if y'all say no, we'll just build the storage facilities. But I do think it's an amenity to your community. And I do think it offers something like the one that you rented over there. It's a nice facility, it really is. It's an older facility. But this is a newer facility, better lighting, better security. And really, they've come a long way with storage. They understand that.

And the only other question, and I'm familiar with the one storage unit that's over here. I helped somebody move some furniture. Nice facility. But are there hours of the ability to go in? Is it open 24 hours?

It's open 24 hours, but you have to have a code number. okay that you go in and you punch it into the gate to get into the facility and then all of the um doors into the internal hallways because not oh it's indoor yeah it's all internal hallways and you have to punch that code in it's a magnetic door it only opens so that's the main reason i was asking is there's a hotel right there

And if you have 24, you know, the other storage units, it's outside. So noise shouldn't be much of an issue.

And, you know, average study on these things is 30 to 40 people a day. If they're lazy like me, they're not going to do anything. You know, 8 o'clock, I'm looking for a pillow. That's all right.

Anything else? Thank you very much. Anyone have anything else to offer to guide Mark in the rewrite, I guess?

I want to point one more thing out. that has sort of gone by and it hasn't come up in the discussion, and I don't expect it matters a lot to you. But I want you to know that this is a design overlay. So there's going to have to be landscaping and all kinds of really good, good stuff going with the project. So I don't want you to fret too much about the perimeter design, because there's all kinds of buffer requirements. Is the berm part of that? Berm is one of the options that you can't employ. It isn't required. I like the berm idea.

I do too. And they'll have graders in there, and that's the first thing you do. Yeah. So in other words, if you go with 30%, that's X number of square feet divided by the full property versus if we said 20% of the developed property. To me, 30 is a big, big number.

We use the word gross acreage.

Right. That's the denominator.

That's the denominator of gross acreage.

30%. So when you're at 30%, 50% of the developed property, maybe. I just want to go on the record, is make the distinction of what your denominator is, and if it has to be the gross developed, then I think we're looking at a lower of 30%. But we can take that up when we get to it.

Any other thoughts? I like the language you proposed to prohibit it. Yeah, I agree.

Well, I mean, that's why there's seven of us.

No, no, no, just anyone else want to offer Mark any thoughts?

I have another issue on these warehouse storage or other storage facilities. Maybe I don't know what other storage facilities are.

Are we inclined to leave that?

I would bring it back as a cleanup item. There's going to be months in the fall and winter where we're not going to have a lot on the agenda, I'm hoping, compared to what we've been doing. Then I would come back with a cleanup of that, and I will just add that to my list. If you've ever been to my office, I've got a chalkboard of hit list things going on that list that I'm going to bring back to you at some point. That would be a cleanup item, and then we'll propose. strongly that we not make that modification because I'm afraid the public hearing notice might get challenged because of that addition.

My other question is, where's the use table that goes with this? I could not see it in the packet. Maybe I missed it. Is it in there?

I don't know, but this particular one, I know I could see the gas station, but I couldn't see this one because as you might recall from my last discussion with this, there was lacking a, that's the use table?

Yes.

Yeah, I didn't include the entire chart. It's this page right here.

Okay.

And the reason I did that is because all we're really adding to the use table is that letter U and the It's 24. Yeah, that's a good question. I'm going to correct you. I wondered what that was. Yeah, no, that portion should be there. It should be there. Yeah, .8. That portion should not be there.

OK.

I'll make that correction.

So then the other applicable standard fell out?

The other applicable standards of the parking regulation?

No. No. mini storage. I thought there was one. Carol, remember we got the administrative error? Yes, but it's with the administrative error that this cross-reference fell out or the other one shouldn't have been there.

It was that it wound up and they newly added item above it instead of where it should have been.

I do remember that, but I thought nonetheless there were two There should have been two references, right?

Yeah. Point eight did not wind up in many stories.

Right, but I thought there was also another section that was referenced.

Yeah, I don't remember.

I think maybe it was just design overlay.

I'm worried that maybe we are...

I don't remember. There were supposed to be two, then there was one.

Yeah, it lists 17396.42. Yeah. It's a specific thing about the warehouse storage facility.

Did somebody read that in chapter 17? 396.42. It is. Regulates warehouse and storage facilities.

Yeah, that's right. Like the breweries was added. So, and somehow, you know, we don't want to put that, that was not what should have been included.

Okay, so, so I think that when you looked back, did it list both? Because...

Both were in the original ordinance that was signed. Okay. Both did not make it to the Unicode.

Okay, so what should be listed for these facilities are two applicable standard provisions, 396.8 and 396.42.

Yep. All right.

It needs to be right there. And interestingly, 396.42 permitted zones

Wow. I know. Allowed in light industrial and PL districts. RC1 slash PL, depending on code updates. Don't forget what that says. Second one is no open storage. Zero open storage of junk or salvaged materials of any kind. Distance rule must be at least 150 feet from any residential zone. Already got that in there. Fencing and buffers.

No, you don't have that. I mean, we have it in there because it's there, but it's not in what you're...

I understand what you're saying. Oh, okay. Just please add that number to the chart. To the chart. Yeah. I will clean that up. Yep. Absolutely. Okay. So I'll make that add to sheet. Got it? Okay.

So 396.42 applies to mini storage or doesn't apply? I think it does because of the use table, but this label suggests.

What it says, and I'm reading from what our code says, section 17-396.42, regulates warehouse and storage facilities. Right. That's really all it gives me until I scroll down and it says, You can review local municipal documents via the Town of Surfside Beach Agenda Center. Allowed districts and rules. I mean, it says allowed at LI, Lighter District, so they must have been anticipated.

I don't know what you're reading. What I'm reading is the ordinance.

Okay, go back. Do it on yours, because I don't trust what I'm getting here right now.

Okay, I'm looking at the code.

Yep.

And it says... 17396.42, which I hope someday we can broadcast up there so everybody can see this. It's entitled warehouse slash storage facility. Does that mean any? It says warehouse or other storage facilities are allowed in the C1 and PL districts provided, once, There is no open storage of junk or salvage materials of any type in conjunction with the operations. Two, shall be located a minimum of 150 feet from any residential zoning district. Now, that becomes, I think...

No, it doesn't become obsolete.

If we say they have to be on the west side of 17, I think you still need that residential because there are some town residential areas over there. I really wonder why those are known. It means our town. I don't think it means.

Yes, we do.

We do.

The next thing we're going to talk about.

If you use west, if you use, rather than just using Sandy Lane, if you use all of the west side of 17, there are minor pockets, I think, of some residential stuff in Surfside.

We're getting ready to discuss one whenever we get off the bus.

I know, but I think there are some.

However, I don't think there's zoned residential. I think there are residential pockets, but I don't recall any residential zoning on that side.

You're right. There's no residential zoning, but there are residential properties.

I don't know if they're actually in the town or whether they enter the property. They're in the county.

I'm not sure.

There's that church, couple churches back there.

Right, right.

It's a tiny little road when you go along Azalea.

When you go down on Fifth Avenue North or right behind Grabby White's. Yeah.

It's only, it's like three or four or five that are actually. Okay, that's what.

Anyway, Mark, sometimes it gets squirted.

I try. What I don't want is I don't want to go into too many other ordinances and make other changes to other ordinances.

No, no, no. This is currently in the ordinance. What was the thing that fell out was the reference to 396.42. Yeah, and I told you I'll reflect that. Yeah.

That will be in the draft. It comes before you in public hearing. I've got it circled in red. And I need, not I'm sure, I need a head nod or an idea from, because there's seven of you, to decide on the outdoor storage. Give me an idea of, well, I can put anything I want in there, you can change it.

I think you should make a recommendation to us, and then we decide after the public hearing whether or not we- Okay, fair enough. What you propose for change. Okay. Do we have anything else on this topic before we move on to the next topic? Absolutely. Okay. The next topic is gas and service stations and auto service stations and the amendments to the New State of Oklahoma conditions related to those two uses.

John raised an excellent point. In the U State, there are two locations where one could interpret that gas stations or auto service stations are the same thing. And I did some research, and auto service stations is something from my world. back in 1965. And that's because what you saw in those days was basically four pumps and two roll-up doors with two lifts and a little store that you might be able to go in and pull a candy bar out of a machine. That was an auto service station. Nobody builds those anymore. I looked online. I wanted to see if somebody wanted to build a retro one. No. So the first recommendation is to strike auto service stations from the Now, we get to John's question. John's question was gas stations, gas and fuel stations, whatever you want to call them, whatever they're called at your state. The point being, this is what I focused on, was currently they're allowed by right. It's a P. And I believe, and I'm looking at all of you, that we all agreed that that was probably not a great thing, that we probably needed some kind of conditions to place on new gas fuel stations coming into town, particularly on Highway 17. So the modification would be modify the use table to cross out auto service stations and come up with, new conditions, recommended conditions, but what we would do if I was confronted with somebody coming in and wanting to do a gas station. Now, as you all know, in the use table, a conditional use is a permitted use. However, a C in that means it's a use that's permitted with conditions. So the use has to meet the conditions, has to meet the conditions that we agree on that have to be met before I can allow it. The idea was is that we would come up with some suggested conditions. I'm having trouble finding where they are in my packet. They're on the very last page. Here are the following. All fuel pumps and or roof coverings for fuel pumps shall be set back a minimum of at least 25 feet from the right-of-way of any street. The establishment is located on a street intersection. Mid-block locations are not permitted for fuel charging stations. C, the establishment is not permitted on Sandy Lane or Azalea Lane. the establishment is consistent with the design overlay. No part of the principal building or pumps is located within 100 feet of any Surfside residential district. I made sure I put that word in there. No more than five vehicles may be stored within 150 feet of any Surfside residential district. I don't think I didn't think that was going to be a real problem because we really don't have service stations anymore. But I thought to myself, well, what if somebody is doing minor repairs? We want to limit how many cars they can have on the site. So I put that in there. That's for you to consider. You can take that one out if you want, but I like it in there just in case somebody decides to start changing oil or something. All vehicles stored overnight in open view of public streets or adjoining properties are currently licensed in operable condition. I don't want to see any flat tires. I don't want to see grass growing through the windows. It's got to be currently licensed in an operable condition. Finally, all wrecked or disabled vehicles awaiting body or fender repair are in legal disposition following an accident. And again, I'm thinking, what if we get one that does? So I'm On one hand, we're doing auto repair fuel with or without. Title is auto repair fuel with or without a convenience store. Some ordinances split those in two. With a convenience store, without a convenience store. I didn't see the value in that. I thought we should just have. all the conditions placed for either or with it. I haven't seen a fuel station proposed in the last 10 years of my existence doing this without a convenience store. They almost all come with convenience stores. So I'm just pointing that out to you. So the conditions are A through G, And I would tell you that the last two are remnants from the old auto service extension use that we probably haven't needed. But if I'm being ultra careful, and I think this type of use does deserve careful consideration, that we make sure that all of these are in there. And I'd be glad to entertain any conditions that you might think of.

I just had a question about with it saying auto repair fuel with or without convenience store. Do we think that that confuses people to think they can have a service station because we're putting them together versus keeping them separate? here's an auto repair place and here's a gas station convenience store because when you read the items it's like we're approving it because it's in the list of things they can do but if we separated them i think you know like auto repair is definitely a specific type of business right correct so That's the first thing that just hit me, I guess.

And that's a valid comment. I would say that it would be probably clearer if we simply said fuel.

That's what I was writing down. Fuel. Fuel station, with or without air.

Yeah, fuel. Do you all follow me that fuel would include electric charging? Yes. I think electric charging is fuel.

Yes. Is that correct? Going back to the separation, I think the fuel convenience store should definitely state no auto repair or maintenance or You know, body work or whatever you're going to do on cars should be allowed.

All right, so what I would do is, and I'm just talking out loud, just having a conversation because it's a discussion item. The last two would be no vehicles are to be stored overnight. No rectally disabled vehicles are allowed on site. Right.

And that other one where you had whatever it was.

No more than five vehicles may be stored. I have to say no vehicles may be stored. I mean, that really just cleans it up. John, I'm trying to think about what you were thinking about other than we simply allowed these as a permitted use and we didn't have any controls over them. Exactly.

I'm sorry, can I still have the floor? Because I have one more question. Just coming to my mind was tow trucks. A lot of gas stations have tow trucks. Is that a separate item or is it? Because then it definitely impacts all the no-car stuff, because they're usually towing them somewhere, right? But it's still a tow truck sitting there.

Okay, so if your car breaks and you have a tow truck, you know, you have it towed to a gasoline station with a convenience store, or you're having it sent to the VW dealership, the BMW dealership, the Ford dealership, or the independent automotive dealership.

Right. So normally you would be taking it somewhere, but maybe the owner has said, well, I don't know if I can get the right thing at this place or this place. Can you wait till tomorrow to bring it there so I can make some calls when they're open in the morning, you know, and make sure, you know, they can take the car or, you know what I mean? Like when I had a flat tire, I, you know, a tow truck came and took my vehicle to a place, well then that tire place didn't have the right tires, so then I had to get it towed again to another place that actually could get the right tires.

I come back to my, and you know, I'm looking for all of you to help me, because this is new territory for me, but you're still towing it to some place that's going to repair the car. You're not having it towed to a fuel slash convenience store location. I don't think, I mean.

Unless it You know, like I said, unless there's not a place to take it that first night, you know, it just depends. But do you want a tow truck sitting there too? That's the other question.

Tow trucks typically, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be having everything to it. Tow trucks typically, if they can't find the location for it, they take it to a yard. Okay. They take it to a yard. They're not going to leave it at a gas station. Okay.

That's right. Hang on one sec before you finish. Okay. And then, did you want the floor? I thought you were trying to get in, John. No?

Okay. There you are. I just wanted to remind you, Annette, that actually liquor services and coke trucks are in restricted areas at point eight, which is good.

Anyone else? Go ahead, Larry.

I'm just going back to the fuel. Because fuels of the future aren't necessarily going to be gasoline. You could have hydrogen.

Hydrogen.

Electric. Electric. So using fuel is a.

Is the right word. All right.

So I do have a few things to say. So I find it confusing that we're using different words in the conditions section than in the use table. So in the use table, I think what we were calling this was gas and charging station.

Yeah, so I'd have to change the table. Well, naturally I'd change the table.

Yes. Gas is a charging service station. I would come up with different fuel.

Yeah. Going back to Larry's comment of cleaning this up and going back to simply the fuel approach. Yeah. And I'm not going to say with or without convenience, because I think that really isn't in play here. Right. We're trying, I think, if I'm reading the tea leaves, we're just trying to protect ourselves from fuel stations. Now, the conversation that I had this afternoon with you, as you recall, is did we want to place a condition that limited the number of pumps? And the reason I ask is because I think of the largest fuel station that I can think of is called Buc-ee's, and they've got 121 pumps. Now I know we don't have a site that would allow that. Do we want to proactively try to do that, or is that something that, it's just the nature of the size of the site, they're gonna put the number of pumps in that they need? Are we trying to restrict the free market too much, I guess is what I'm saying.

I remember after we had that conversation, I said I was going to do a reconnaissance, and I did a limited one. But my difficulty is I was, when I started to look at our various existing gas stations, what constituted a pump?

Shoes.

So really, I mean, is it the, I don't know, the frame, or is it actually the gun that you're using? And certainly, like, I'm going to use the Circle K. I think they have six what I would call boxes. And they have the guns on either side. There's three on each side. There's six boxes. And they have multiple guns on each box because, you know, they've got the high test or whatever. And so I don't know how you count pumps. And so I don't know whether it's fair to do that unless we are very particular as to what we mean by a pump. And it's destruction. Well, it's not clear to the untrained person.

You're right. And some people might say, and the reason I say some people might think differently is because I go to a gas station, and I have to put the pump number in. If I walk to the other side of that thing, there's another pump number out there, right? That aside, I think John's correct. I say most people, and I realize that in zoning code, you can't just sort of say, well, most people would say it's the frame. It's that box, right? I'm of the mind that I'm not crazy about modifying or restricting the number of pumps because it takes us down another road that I suspected we really weren't originally thinking.

And I don't think, if we're saying that you have to have this on a corner lot, that we have corner lots where we would end up with anything more than maybe what you see at Circle K or what you see at the refuel has more boxes. There's more boxes. So I think we don't restrict pumps because we're, in effect, doing it in another course without introducing all of this complication that I just described. And I would suggest that in the use chart, if you use fueling station, that Because we're on the cusp of most people thinking about different sorts of fuels that we have a parenthetical that says gas, electric, you know, just to get to have people thinking that way because there are plenty of people that would go into this news chart and search for gas. And where's it going to be? It's not there. They don't do that.

They come to me and ask.

Okay, well, I'm letting her.

Aren't you all gas stations? I go, yes, under fuel.

Anyway, I would offer those, and I would like to say that we should require electric charging, but I don't think that that's for us. For today, we're electric car drivers.

I don't want to get off subject. I like that idea, but we're going to have a really hard time.

That requires a lot of space. Mostly tongue-in-cheek. Okay. There we go. Okay.

I don't know how well electricity and gas mix. It's just a paradigm.

I have it in the same car. So there.

Me too. I'm talking about it for the purposes of electricity.

No, I'm just kidding. I understand.

Where did you put it? I do agree with

Jeanette, that they should be separated out. Okay. And so that would mean restoring auto service, whatever, and then you could, you know, or vehicle services. I think it's under a section called auto. I think it's auto service.

So just leave that alone.

Well, except for the cross-reference is to this same section. And so.

There's always so much cleanup.

I would use the same reference, and I would create an A for our new fueling stations and a B for auto service stations.

Or something. Auto repair, not service.

It's called auto service and repairs.

But service means it's on like a gas station. You know, we always tend to think we always drop a pedal in the pool. And John just had the idea of just adding some conditions to gas stations that he wanted. And now I'm thinking, now I'm hearing, okay, now we want to do auto service stations. I'm like, reel it back. Let's just have fuel service. fuel with or without convenience, whatever you want to call it, fuel stations, and have the conditions in there that we want for fuel stations. And are you suggesting now that we go back to the old auto service station, 1960s thing, and try to modify that?

I'm suggesting that I like Jeanette's suggestion that we not lump these things together. And if we go with what's on the paper presented to us as if it applies only to fueling stations, we then have no conditions whatsoever for our other term, which was auto service station.

So when I made that comment, if I can to clarify it, it said auto repair, not auto service. I think auto service should retire. Auto repair, I'm assuming, is somewhere called something, right, where you actually do auto repair. Auto body shop.

Yeah.

And that's where I think those conditions would go. On the fuel conditions, I think we should have something where you don't have the 40-foot tall diesel boxes for semis.

So now we expand to auto service. If I look at the use table under auto-oriented uses, there is something called auto body shop repair.

And or maintenance.

And or maintenance. And it is a completely by right, because it's a permitted use, not a conditional use. so is what we're suggesting is if we we're lumping what would be auto service station or auto repair all the things that were previously in 396.3 we're just whisking them away for an auto repair or service station i think we're kind of saying that the service

part of the gas station, it's gone. And then we either have an auto place that does any kind of body or maintenance, or we have a gas station. But we don't have a mixture, like you said, of the old days where you'd both get gas, get your oil changed, your tires rotated, and all that at one place.

Let me send that to you. I'm just going to back away from this. We started with the fuel thing, and now we're expanding into auto service. And I submit to you that under auto-oriented uses, the fact that it says auto body shop repair and or maintenance, and it's allowed by right, makes me very nervous. But I don't want to try to, I'm trying not to expand what we came here tonight to talk about. Again, we could spend the next, week going through this list and deciding we want to make that conditional and we want to add these conditions to it i'm just saying i want to just stay yes i want to stay in this fuel station swim lane for tonight and for the public hearing simply because of what i've noticed in the public hearing notice again i don't want to stay i want to stay in our swim lane for the public hearing that's all i'm saying i i understand that but i'm really concerned about that from the standpoint of

I would have read auto service station in its conditions as Applying to someplace like to Falco's Okay, even though they don't have pumps And and so if you just wipe that out of there By crossing out auto service station and its related conditions and

then a facility like that is completely unregulated in terms of having conditions on its operation.

I see your point. I see your point. I'm just groaning. What am I groaning over? You're right.

Okay. That's what I'm groaning over again.

That's easy.

Okay, so I was part of the John effort to get this dealt with, and a shortcut, if you will, that I had thought might work was just leaving gas service station there and saying C, and changing the use to C, and then have it direct the reader to auto service station and the conditions in 396.3 or list 396.3 as the conditional use for a gas station because it had conditions that related to the gas pump operation as well as the service operation depending on which camp the business fell in. And I think you could still do that and just include these additional conditions that you had added about, you know, not being mid-block and not on Sandy Lane and things like that, but those things still work even in It applies to both things, which I realize is counter to what I said. No, that makes sense. Separate. That makes total sense. I just don't want to go from a regulated scenario to an unregulated scenario just because we thought it might be easier to cross this off the list.

And Madam Chair, do we want to do the same with the charging part of it? Because my only concern about adding charging to without thinking this through is charging stations require a longer time and more space typically. So then would we have to look at other restrictions too and things? I agree with you that we need to address it. Can it add to your list?

I want to be very careful about what is in the newspaper that's already been published. I can't pull it back if it's been published.

If it's the notice that I saw, I think it covers exactly what- Do you think it's broad enough?

Yeah. We did write it intentionally broad. Very broad. Because I know my planning commission. And a pebble in a pond ends up being a big, big radius.

So the bottom line is you leave auto service station in as a conditional use referencing 17396. Then you make the change fuel and charging service station and it's conditional and it's C or you just reference it. 173963. Yeah. And you're good to go.

Some things apply and some don't, just like with the mini storage.

Yeah. Yeah.

But do we need to save charging though now? Is that in the notice? I consider fuel charging. Yes. I'm just thinking there may need to be further conditions or whatever based off of our inexperience with electronic charging, are there things we should be aware of and be putting in there?

Let me take an alternative route with you. If somebody wanted to put a charging station in here, I'd be saying, how can I help you? Where do you want to put it? I wouldn't be pacing any conditions on them at this point.

That's me.

That's because we haven't got it. We haven't got it.

I mean, you almost have to go to a mall nowadays to find a charging station. And that's what they do now. They put them at Targets and malls, and there are long strips of them and stuff, and that's why I was thinking it's probably not going to be one little charging unit.

It would be one charging unit, but I have seen, and some of you may be familiar with these superchargers, the fast chargers. They're standalone, and there's like eight of them, and they're on a site all by themselves, and I've seen those. And if you have a Tesla, you push a button, and it takes you there. I would submit to you that I wouldn't even place a condition on one of those. Okay. Until, really, until I know what the, and I can look this up, obviously. I can research this. But right now, I can't, sitting here, tell you what the condition is on a chartered station. Right. Who would or shouldn't? Well, would you have a setback, and would you have a... It has to be a setback. It was already a setback. Setbacks in place.

And would you say that it should be on a corner? No, I wouldn't do that. Or you could say that it could be mid-block?

That I could see being mid-block.

Okay. Well, then I say take it out. But the consequence of that is the missing language in our use table says at the top, if it were there, if a use is not listed here, you can't do it. And if it's not listed, in order to do it, you need to come and get the use table amended and go through that process. So if we don't have that kind of thing in here, which I don't think we do thus far, we can't allow any of those electric charging stations at all, technically.

A lot of times hotels have them. too, but Hampton's not doing that, right?

I don't know. Most hotels have. I'm wondering if our new hotels have. That's what I wondered. Yeah. This is a conversation for another day. The use table, the way you just suggested it, if it's not listed, it's prohibited. Not the way we play. I use interpretation based on the existing uses that are allowed to decide whether I allow the use or not. That's called a permissive use table.

Say that again, Mark.

Nobody today writes ordinances like this where they list 137 uses. They use maybe like 15. Retail doesn't define retail. Gas station doesn't define fuel, blah, blah, blah. And it allows the zoning director, planning director, zoning administrator to decide if it meets one of those criteria. When you do a list like this, most people believe that if it's not on this list, it's prohibited. I can go out on Highway 17 right now and shut down about five businesses that aren't on here. That's not the way the world works in the world of zoning administration. And one day, in the not so distant future, I'm going to come to you and tell you I want you to delete the use table and approve the following three pages of uses and limited uses. Praise be to Jesus.

Before January?

And these types of tables are a dinosaur. They're a thing of the past. I haven't used a use table like this in probably 20 years. And because if you listed every use that we wanted listed, the use table would be 75 pages long. You just cannot list every use that you wanted for me. You've got to give me, you've got to let me do it.

Yeah, well, because the electronic car charging, we may want to have a standalone, so it can be at hotels, it can be at restaurants, it can be at gas stations.

It could be, I think, it does other uses, because it's a .

Right. I'm sitting here laughing, thinking about a new stable that I had once that was so old, it would say, it said livery stables. And leather cans. I remember those uses clearly being in the use tables back in the 1960s.

Well, Brown might even want to put one in his storage facility for people that are, you know, putting farts in there.

And you'd be approved right away. There you go.

All right. Bring it back. Okay. So I'm going to strongly suggest that you provide me with the language that you think, because my mind is totally spun out of orbit now. I just want to stick with what John said, and that is remove auto service stations because they're not going to play anymore. Come back with something that calls fuel and have the conditions on. We'll get to automotive repair later. We'll get to all kinds of things we could do. There's all kinds of things we can do that just, frankly, just complicate the daylights out of this. And I'm trying not to complicate it.

Okay, but I'm trying to make sure that we're not crossing off something and making it unregulated. Such as? The auto service. Right now it's unregulated.

Gas stations right now are unregulated.

No, no, no, no, no, no. Gas stations are, but auto service stations aren't a traditional use.

That's right. Right. But there's nobody building them. But there's nobody building auto service stations anymore.

Right.

That's why I want to take that. Nobody's building them anymore.

And if they did, they would come to him and they would say, okay, I think I'm going to build an auto service station, but I'm looking at your chart. I don't see auto service station. You can say, yes, sir, that would be found under fuel service station. It is a conditional use. It is subject to the terms located in section 17-396. Okay, so it has no application to anything existing.

Correct.

And one hasn't been built in probably 40 years in this town.

Okay. So, DeFalco wants to do any changes or what have you. It has no, it would have no restriction or whatever on it.

Just like it does today.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. I'm trying not to write ordinances for what use. I try not to do that.

No, it's the only one I can think of that off the top of my head.

I'm trying to get at what you're afraid of.

I'm just, somebody opens.

Defalco comes in here and wants to do what?

No, somebody opens a Defalco-like facility.

Okay. We go to fuel stations with or without defalcos.

Well, what if they don't have pumps?

Then it's an automotive repair facility.

And then we have no.

Not auto service. We have no. I told you that we need to come back and have auto repair.

Yeah, there's none today.

We have them today. Okay. Because they would fall under auto service.

Auto body shop repair and or maintenance. If somebody came in and wanted to do it. That's where I would find them. Auto body shop, repair, and or maintenance. Every auto body place I could think of is maintenance. They're not building new cars.

So we've got that covered.

And frighteningly enough, it's a permitted use by right. So we'll come back some day and we'll get that. But don't complicate this. I want to keep this. I'm trying to keep the split line narrow, folks. Whenever we open this up, a lot of things come up that we could have, should have, would have done, but let's take these one by one fight at a time.

I just want to make sure that we have sufficient coverage and that we haven't created a hole in our regulation. I think someday we just need to define

The whole is already there because auto body shop repair and maintenance is a permitted use. And if somebody wants to come in and ask for an application to create what currently we would call an auto service station, which is conditional use, they can say, well, I don't see it on here. Mark would tell them, no, that's a fuel station. It's a conditional use and it's subject to $17. I mean, the hole you're trying to plug is there now.

I hope so. Well, you're an attorney.

I mean, you also know.

No, because none of this stuff is defined. And that's part of the problem.

We can spend the next two weeks working on definitions on all of this, too. Okay. At some point, you have to let the director do the job. I mean, you just can't write everything. You know, you just have You have to, I hate to say it, just trust me. I understand, I understand. You're thinking that marks leaves and somebody comes in and doesn't come in. I know, I get it, I get it.

So moving on to future meetings and topics. I put this on here because I know we have coming down the road, these two public hearings in September. So both have been noticed and we're set to go there. And we have the HTC gentleman coming on the 18th to talk to us about his proposal and the I guess the issues that arise there. August 18th is, yes, and for future reference, all of our meetings at 6 o'clock.

Thank you. Whoever did that, thank you.

We're all at 6 o'clock. We don't know anything. And what else? John, you said you had something to say.

No? I thought we were talking to the HVC guy tonight. I wanted to get straight because I had to drive over there to look at the map, the picture, you know, where that was.

It still doesn't appear to me to be in our city.

Matt Blair had was, but I thought our city limits was east, was Sandy Lane, and it was east of us.

I invited the gentleman from HTC here because I didn't want to make the call.

So I want you to add

the benefit of listening to what the proposal is, and then direct me where you want me to take it. Good call. Yeah, I didn't want to make that call. That is a rough call. That is a rough call. It's a tower. The way our current ordinance reads is that the property that that's on has to allow that thing to fall on the property. Guess what? That property that it's on is about this big. Yeah, I'll look at it. And they want to continue that way. And I'll let him explain it to you. It's more complicated than my understanding of fall zones and engineering of cell towers.

Well, the documents he provided that were stamped, specifically addressed, in no uncertain terms, the likelihood based on the construction requirements having to meet the 140 mile an hour minutes or something like that.

Can we, this is for a future meeting. The only thing that is a request related to that is that I have asked Mark to see if he can get the electronic version of the the water park. Subdivision flat. Flat. That was being talked about at the town council meeting. So at least we have a rough idea of a map of what's around and what ideas, because we can't go exploring too much back over there. We can't.

We wouldn't do it at night.

That's okay. I'd rather go over there. Did you get out of your car and walk around?

I was in my golf cart, and I got out of it and walked around, yeah.

That's John. Anyway, I'm like... Oh, I want the map, too.

Don't get me wrong.

I thought it was part of it.

I don't think it's going to change much for you. I'll bring it back.

I'll take you over there in my golf cart.

Are you scared of snakes?

Any other topics that we have for the future that we either know about or somebody wants to put on our clip? Moving on to public comments. I'll make it quick. I live next to a storage unit. Excuse me, John. You have to provide your name.

Oh, yes. My name is John Hyatt, and I live at 505 Lakeshore Drive in Surfside Beach, South Carolina. I live near a self-storage unit once, and I really support some percentage of outside storage because they ran a U-Haul business and I don't think it would harm us to have a U-Haul business connected to one. So something to think about. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Anyone else?

One last question. I know we all want to go home. If you look at 20% of the land area, that's just a smidge over an acre. And if you look at how you can park RVs there, just Google it, you can get 25 to 35 RVs per acre. So 20% would be 25, 30 cars. Yeah, okay.