Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded. We're going to call this meeting to order. We'll start engagement. Be with us tonight. We're going to discuss some important matters that reflect search by beach and uh our community in general. Uh be with us. give us the wisdom and uh research and good thoughts on making the best versions of each. Amen.

I pledge alleg I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Our first item will be a public hearing tonight. Um, we're going to be reviewing and opening a public hearing for chapter 17 ordinance language section 17806 non-conforming uses removal of destroyed or damaged non-conforming structures. Uh, and 170 17007 which includes the definitions of chapter 17. Uh this is amendments of certain sections of chapter 17 zoning section 17806 and 17007 non-conforming uses and definitions of a code of ordinance to the town of Sersside Beach. So we'll start this public hearing off um just to give some context uh a few months ago we had uh two uh locations in Surfside Beach uh that were new new structures being built. Uh there was a lot of back and forth. We had a stop work order uh stopped on one of these uh or both properties actually. And um there was some back and forth, some interpretation from uh the town itself. Uh and uh what came of that is we utilized a uh a word inside of our ordinances states man-made and uh there's no state law regulation or definition for mandate. And then we have no local definition as well for mandate. So, uh we we had this on the agenda a while back uh twice, I believe, and we discussed the second time mostly, but um but tonight is just uh there's a

proposal um for amendments on 17806. Um and we'll talk about those tonight. Uh next one will be uh any public comments around chapter 17 ordinance language section 17806 or 17007.

Hi, good to see you. I'm Madison Cooper. I represent the Coastal Carolina's Association of Realtors. Uh we have many members that live within the town, but of course uh the homeowners as well. Um, I am on page 50 of 8. That's 17806. And I admit I I'm not sure how many nonconforming structures actually exist. Um, excuse me. But my concern is down in section E when we see the language, you just take the page. Oh, I'm sure for me it's page five of eight within this uh packet. So your inside correct and then uh letter E.

All right.

And it says um shall not be restored or replaced Cword of the shore protection line. And so looking at SEDS, that language is not used. Shore protection line. So just hoping that we can all be on the same page. Does that mean the standard zone, the baseline? um the setback line, you know, exactly what we're referring to there. Um and I know that's not highlighted in red, but um I just hope that we can all be on the same page because uh dees has begun their review of these lines. I believe Surfers Side Beach is slated for spring of 26. Um the other concern is with I guess version two which is on the the second page. Um and how that would affect the property owner. Um we would certainly suggest that the version on page five where we are now is is much u more favorable for the property owner um that they have the opportunity to um rebuild or petition to rebuild. Um, so just hoping that you can um take a look at those and uh we can get this cleared up.

Thank you. Any other public comments? Next one uh which will be commission uh uh comments or discussion. Um Caroline, I know that I had asked you to do some modifications in 18 1706. I'm not going to put it on you, your general self, but um anyway, you could just uh kind of give us a good idea of the changes that we did create and uh the reasoning.

Okay. So, um Dusty had asked uh me to look at this and to consider whether or not 806 could be um basically eliminated from uh the ordinance. And I uh thought that uh eliminating it would be uh problematic uh without having an affirmative statement uh with regard to um uh what was prohibited. um along the lines of um some of the problems that we um we encountered with the use table without having an affirmative statement in the use table that said that if it's not listed you can't do it uh kind of thing. Uh so um that's where I came about and so I I did it as if uh you were not allowing any uh rebuilding uh if there was a damage or um uh one version where you would allow the rebuilding uh if there was damage to a certain degree. And uh uh I I personally think uh that um if there's damage um that we limit the um uh rebuilding uh in the area that is pro in the protected

area. So that um uh I know it's uh seems kind of uh hard on the the homeowner, but we're not saying you can't rebuild. We're just saying you can't rebuild into the protected shore area. So, we're um creating uh a situation where um the shoreline, which is um something that benefits the entire town and community and visitors. and we're protecting that over the idea that somebody could extend uh their structure, which admittedly was already extended past this line, but could rebuild their structure beyond that line. Um, but that's that's my personal opinion about it because if it's been damaged, why let it um be be restored?

Thank you, Carolyn. And um just uh some comments on that. Um yeah, I mean most ordinances and most zoning ordinances definitely uh restrict anything that increases the non-formmity or allows for it to be rebuilt in a non-conforming way. So I I think that's really the intentions of our ordinances. It's not that we don't want to allow someone to repair uh or renovate their home if it's physically damaged in a name storm or something like that. I think the more intent would be um if we physically just went out there and destroyed it or we don't want to extend or increase the nonformity that's already there and in any other district outside of the shoreline protection zone um if a house is blew away right down the street I mean we're not going to allow it to be built back in and building it back past the shoreline is basically a nonconformity because we don't allow it anymore I think that's pretty much what uh NPN is.

So just a quick question uh that shore protection area or line is extends onto the their own the property they own.

Yeah. So by the so if you look at the 17 um within the definitions uh it's going to be 17801 in the definitions the shore protection line shall mean a line seawward of the of which land and plants are protected under the provisions of this article and as determined under section 1802A. And if you go down to at 1780 187 17802 store protection line in areas established, it'll state that on all lots line continuous to the Atlantic Ocean, the shore protection line shall be determined to be the line 20 laner linear feet landward of the property line nearest the Atlantic Ocean and that is the rear property line or the line 20 ler feet lander landward of the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dune as the kind OCRM whichever such line is further from the Atlantic Ocean. That's the one the SH protection line shall be determined prior to any construction.

Thank you,

Mr. Sharon. If I could add to that. So, so the idea was the structure was already seawword of that line and an event whether it be a you know we determine it to be a a storm event or somebody just decided I'm going to knock it down that if you want to rebuild you have to rebuild within that line so that you are not shoreward or ocean word of that line any longer. You lose the ability to um have your footprint extend uh into that uh protected zone.

And I'll give you another example. Um in these uh structures, uh the previous home which was non-conforming did not currently have a pool. we allowed in the new design to allow a pool which extended the shoreline protection zone.

So, Mr. Chairman, in that scenario, if uh we were saying you couldn't build in the uh protection zone, but you didn't have a pool before, you could still build a pool as long as it was not in the protected area. Correct. Yes, ma'am. That's all right. Any other comments here? Have any thoughts, guys, to I mean, I I have to admit that I have a little bit of angst over making changes like this before we get our new director. I think we're so close to the time that we're going to have the new director that wouldn't it be beneficial to wait to really make any kind of recommendation like this until we get some input from him. I mean, this is this is a big deal. I'm not I'm not not saying I'm completely against it, but this is a big deal. This is a big deal to homeowners.

It's a big deal to Surfside on on both sides. It's a big deal. And I would hope that our new director is going to have some expertise in in this area. And I think it would behoove us to have his static. Any other comments, Mr. Chair? Yes, sir.

Yes. I am glad I'm not the only one who was thinking in advance of this meeting that this is these proposed changes are a big deal. Um, you know, the more I read into it and I think if my understanding is correct that there are two proposed versions. Is that correct? Well, I I uh drafted it in that way because uh Dusty had asked me about whether or not 806 could be eliminated. Gotcha.

And so I drafted it in two ways. 806 is eliminated, but it specifically says um rather than just crossing it out, it specifically says you can't build into the protected area if uh certain things happen. Uh the other one was to allow under certain circumstances um the rebuilding of things. So if something was not um uh destroyed to a certain degree, then you could make the repairs and come in. Uh uh I was just trying to offer suggestions as to

as to ways that we might uh might go. So, I have quite a few notes and I'll try to keep this brief because we go out on our agenda, but um you know on one of one of this one of the versions it it states which version are um well it's it's

17806 page 608. I think it's the first version. See there's four versions actually. Two of them are the edits of what is crossed out and then later on I think they're without all the crossouts is just the final version of what could be. So this is the first of the first. So page 608 it um 17806 and it's uh a and it says uh and we're talking about non-conforming structures. So uh damaged non-conforming uses or structures shall be removed within 90 days of the date of the damage. Now we have storms here every year. We have big storms every few years and we have devastating storms every 40 or 50 years. 90 days for one is pretty uh you know I mean when if there's devastation and you have to get rid of a structure and have it cleared out in 90 days that's in my opinion quite unreasonable. Uh it continues on 90 days of the date of damage regardless of the cause or degree of such damage. So that wording says, "So if I broke a window, you telling me that as a as a homeowner, I had to tear it down within 90 days, degree of such damage." Now, I know we're going to work on this, and I agree that I I think it's uh a little bit premature. I think it would be wonderful to wait to see where the director wants to go with things. Um, I have several comments I mean about assurance, about what happens if they don't conform to this and they don't tear it down in 90 days. Um, is there some type of taking or what what happens at that point? And if

I was a land developer, I'd be salivating, you know, at this proposed. I'd say, "Hey, let's put this in is, you know, it gets gives you the opportunity, I believe, of land grabbing for a pretty cheap way, you know, and if you're an individual um who owns a property and because it's not performing, that means it's an older property. I personally own an older property in Surfside and and this this makes my uh makes me nervous because I don't have a ton of money. I don't have, you know, unlimited. I don't have deep pockets. And so for something like this to go through, if it had to do with me, I'd be really concerned. And it is a big deal. And I think we really need to put ourselves in other people's shoes, put ourselves in the in resident's shoes. You know, if it were you, what would you do? What would Jesus do? Um, so I have other comments and I other thoughts, but again, I think we're uh I would agree that if we can put this on hold for a little bit and uh you know, I I think we can discuss things, but um making any motions um to to work I think is is uh a little unfair to the residents and to the land owners. Um, but I just wonder who it would benefit by proposing this and putting this through. Who exactly wins in this situation? And I think it's not necessarily who we want to have win over time.

Thank you. Any other comments,

Mr. Chairman? I I think it I think it might make sense to to put this on hold, but I would surely like to know how many properties there are that are nonconforming. Do we have any idea? Are we talking about three properties? Are we talking about uh 25? What what are we talking about? Uh because uh I think that's a factor. uh in in all of this and uh I don't know whether the town has records that was um uh we ought to have records of all these non-conforming uses because I don't I don't know how you keep track of them otherwise and um uh not in not just in this context text, but in other contexts like our our vape situation, uh, you know, how how are we keeping track of of that? And hopefully those folks have come in and applied for their bis new business licenses. I don't know whether they have or not but um we ought to be keeping track of this um particularly since it is difficult to um uh have language in ordinances that says if these circumstances exist as of the date of the enactment of this ordinance or its amendment or what have you those things those dates are not always clear. Um, uh, Dusty had sent me some, uh,

language and it continued using the, um, uh, as of the date of amendment. Well, if this is amended again, that extends the time frame for nonconforming uses. And so we we need to be I think particularly careful of those um properties that we are giving this um non-conforming or grandfathering uh entitlement to and so that we know as we march forward is this a property that has these protections or is it not one that has protection? Um, I'm just going to make a few remarks. I mean, the intent's not to rush this through. Uh, the intent is as a planning commission, we should be discussing this and moving forward and progress. Uh, we as a town, we've had a lot of issues and gaps in the last several years around not having that staff member that can help us. So, it doesn't it shouldn't even slow us down or stop our work. um we still should continue to discuss it, have a good plan in place, have notes, and provide that to the director to be able to help us move fastly through it. Um I think that's the intent of it. I I had no intention to make a motion to approve this tonight. I wanted to talk about it. I wanted to make sure we got the public hearing in front of us uh and continue that conversation. I understand that uh here soon we're going to have a group meet uh with the director uh and the director will be coming on board and I'm sure as we continue our discussions today and continuing in a workshop if we had it or any general that um we will be ready for that is that's the intent. I don't think the tent is anything pushing us through tonight or I think it's good discussion. We've already talked about

it twice. So here's the public hearing. We're getting the public input. We're gathering the feedback and we'll be able to present that to the director and move it along quickly. So that's the intent. Mr. Chan, Mariela,

I'm sitting here trying to decide how long I'm willing to wait to push through. And the whole thing and my understanding is it is a reaction to an unfortunate permit that shouldn't have or we wish wouldn't have happened at least. And I don't want that to happen again. Have we got that stopped or is it going to happen again while we're fooling around? That that's something I don't know. And there's really no no enforcement staff or director to ask. But uh I don't want anybody to jump on this opportunity before we fix the ordinance and go ahead and do the same thing all over again with a man-made knockdown structure and do whatever we want with it. So can we afford to wait? And I don't guess we know the answer to that.

And the options I gave was man-made. We either define it in the definitions. We either remove it and substitute it with natural causes and make sure that's clear or we just in general take the whole section out because technically zoning ordinances we shouldn't be allowing non-conformity anyways. So that's the point. But right now, it says what it said back when that incident happened. Nothing has changed and nothing's going to change until we fix it. I'm concerned that somebody's going to take the opportunity to jump in there. And I I wish the town administrator were here to assure us that that's not going to happen. That's what might happen.

Thank you, Mayor Scott.

Uh I also I I understand where everybody's coming from. I agree. Um, I also believe that we shouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction because of one incident as well. Um, and go to the other extreme. Um, you know, oceanfront property is the most valuable property not only in this town but in this country. And so this is a big deal for people and individuals and uh and people who are pro business, people are are residents, individuals and maybe people who don't necessarily have uh millions of dollars to um you know be able to have something torn down and build a big multi-million dollar property. um you know having a fair level plane I think is important. I I agree with progress. I I uh I think you know discussing it is important and I think there are some very strong opinions. Um I I wish I really wish that more residents would come out um because we're on this we're in this bully pulpit and um you know in in a way these are powerful positions where one person or a handful of people can make decisions for thousands of people out there and it may just be you know a power ego thing on our part and control which um I you know, it's it's always tempting, but I think it's important to find out, you know, what the residents, what the uh, you know, land owners and property owners and, you know, if any one of us owned a property on the beach, um, you know, I think it would be a different story. So, I'm just asking that late at night when all the

ego is gone and all the frustration is gone and um, you know, if you're in that property what what would you want to have happen? And also, very importantly, since the land on the beach is so valuable, I just wonder who is who is really driving some of this kind of thing. Um, is it individual landlorders or is it people who have uh more money than they could shake stick up? Thank you. one I don't believe that and much respect to Scott and you know that I have a lot of respect. I don't believe that any of this is coming from an ego and I think that we are really just trying to do what we can do to protect the town. I don't think that what we're talking about is completely unprecedented. I mean, there are condominium complexes all up and down the beach that were they to be destroyed, a certain certain percentage destroyed, they either would not be allowed to rebuild or not be allowed to rebuild in the location that they're in or maybe their pool wouldn't be allowed to be rebuilt. That has already happened. That's not it is, you know, that's not there are condominium complexes that have already lost their pools. Um and and if they didn't have enough room in their parking lot out front to rebuild, there are certainly some properties like that in Garden City that's already happened. So what we're talking about is not completely unprecedented, but I do think that it is important for us not to make a knee-jerk reaction. And I appreciate the fact that you're saying that we need to talk it through, get as far along with it as we can, and then

give it to our new director to get his input. Um I think that we are yes ideally we want to do what the residents want but we are never as a council as a as a commission our town council council is voted on and put in place to make the hard decisions. We are appointed to make hard decisions. Not Yes, we listen to the public and we try hard to do what makes people happy. But the fact is we are never going to make every person happy because half of the people want this and half of the people want this. You're never going to make everybody happy. If we were just doing what the residents wanted, there would be no need for a council and no need for a commission. everything would come up on referendum, but we're put in these seats to make decisions. So, I think that I'm I'm glad that we are talking about it. I think it's a very important discussion. I think we need to be having it. Um, I think we continue the discussion and in my opinion, wait until and and I understand Mary Ellen's thought process as well because, you know, we have the same thought process with trees. We've been trees have been getting cut down all over town and for 3 years we've been sitting and waiting. But you want to move ahead with something. But now we're just we're this this close to him being here. We need to give him a little bit of we need to get him in the door and give him a minute to get seated and you know not throw everything at him right away, but we need to get his opinion on some things. In my opinion, another just completely small thing

in this where where it talks about wrong place where it talks about um upon completion of construction of a I'm sorry page two of eight in this in the beginning of completion in section B and I think it's in another couple places as well of upon completion of construction of a continuous identifiable primary oceanfront sand dune in accordance with this subsection the property owners and it are encouraged is marked out and is changed to shall vegetate the dune with native plants in accordance with this section. I we is it is how it should be vegetated how much how little is that defined because how are we going to say vegetate it without really I think we need to if it's if it's there I didn't see it. Do you know you you see what I'm talking about? If it's there, I may have just missed it and it may very well be there. But I had a little bit of concern over that. I agree that saying you're encouraged to is not really an is not really ordinance verbiage, but if we're going to tell them they need to do something, we have to have a measure of what they need to do and how they need to do it. You finished?

Yeah. And I'll just state we're not going to know everything either. We're not the experts around that. I I think as a planning commission we are trained uh to do the basics and uh we're uh that's why staff designines uh mandated by the state to uh help us and support and assist us. um not that we can't do things alone. Uh I think it's very important to understand also that we participate in the CRS program which the shore protection uh article uh is definitely part of that CRS I believe and also your chapter 14 uh flood prevention as well as some of the chapter 17 elements. So when we think about that, allowing a non-conformity past a short protection zone could affect our CR CS and uh I know Melanie has been a part of that a lot more than I have. I I've researched a little bit, but we got to think of those factors as well. So um I know that currently we get a certain percentage off of their insurance premiums annually for that and uh we try to maintain a certain class of leaf. So that's something else to consider as well. Any other comments,

Mr. Chair? Yes, sir.

Um, we also have to remember that, you know, at this point we have two versions and I actually I mean I'm not all against this completely. I I the the first version I think is relatively reasonable. Um, you know what's in my opinion what's unreasonable is any damage at all which could be a gutter comes down by law you have to uh completely you know do something dramatic. Uh so um you know working through some of the wording uh consider this but also comes down to we're going to make a recommendation to council. It it doesn't end with us. So um they could completely reject it if it's too far one way or too far another way um and send it back to us and we might have to start over again. So, you know, finding a middle ground and, you know, talking about the will of the people. We were appointed, the council was voted in or voted out. Um, so the council is a lot more political than we are. Um, so, you know, we do have the ability to make decisions that aren't very popular. Um, but then it it's up to council to make a decision that's a little more popular. Um, but I don't know that uh and all due respect I you know I have a lot of respect for you as well. Um uh I think some things aren't necessarily 50/50. Um there's a lot of things that are a lot more than like 80 or 90 to 10 or 20. Um and I think when we're considering that we should think about that as well. Uh but again, we're going to be uh

recommending it to council and I think uh as we're putting this together, we should consider that. So, thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Uh thank you, Carolyn, for drafting up that and appreciate you on that. Okay. You're welcome.

All right. Uh we'll move on. Uh, is there any uh other public comments before we close out of this public hearing around 17806 or 17007? All right, with no public comments, we will close this public hearing. Uh, and we currently do have another public hearing on chapter 17 ordinance language, article 9, design overlay, amendments of certain sections of chapter 17, zoning, article 9, design overlay of the code of ordinance of town of Southside Beach, South Carolina, chapter 17, and that includes section 17903 and 17911. So, if you look at 17903, basically all the changes is is we're modifying what we currently require uh anything over 20% of the Oy County appraisal uh to be updated to code and meet the design overlay. And we're going to change and recommend that we move that up to 50% of Hor County appraisal tax appraisal uh allowing businesses uh and property owners in the commercial district uh to be able to invest just a little bit of more money inside of their businesses before they actually have to come all the way up to performance. All right. Uh we'll open uh first by uh public comment. Any public comments related to chapter 17903 or 17911? All right. No public comments. We'll move on to commission comments. I won't keep everybody, but uh I will just put a little more context on it. Uh we've been reviewing this. We are going to continue to review it. But we do uh we are looking to make quite a few changes possibly inside of the design overlay. Uh but basically we want to get ahead of this to be able to allow our

businesses and stuff to invest and and try to encourage them uh to do some aesthetics in their parking lots or uh uh some building improvements or anything. We're actually this is just basically allowing them to go ahead and get a kickstart. Um we're looking inside of the ordinance. There are a lot of loopholes around who's required to do what in the design overlay, who's has the authority to do what. Uh some of the language inside the design overlay um is questionable as far as who's supposed to do what, uh what's required. There's some requirements in there that may not even need to be needed. Uh so we thought since it's going to take a little time to review that, that would go ahead and give the businesses an opportunity to be able to invest in their businesses. All right. Any other comments? All right. Um, with no comments, we'll move on to public comments. All right. No public comments. We will close this public hearing. Um, those, uh, notices were posted on July 13th in the My Hore News. All right. We'll move on to uh our regular uh meeting tonight and uh number five will be agenda approval. I get a motion for agenda approval for tonight's meeting. Move.

All right. I got a motion to approve the agenda tonight. Do I got a second? Mary Ellen motion. Do I got a second? John. All right. Larry is seconded. Any discussion, Mr. Chairman? Yes, ma'am. Uh for the minutes for the July 17th workshop, I thought that Brad Anderson was present. I did too. Uh we're not in the minutes approval currently. Is it a change in the minutes? We're doing the agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. All right. Uh any uh any comments on the agenda approval? Everyone in the grant say I I. Anyone opposed say no.

All right. Agenda is approved and then we will move to amendments rules. Would you like to motion to approve those or amend those in order to put it on the table for potential amendments? Uh I move to approve the minutes for July 1st, 2025 and July 17th, 2025. Okay. Got Scott motion to approve the minutes for July 1st and July 17th. Do I have a second? All right. Car second. Uh okay. Do we have any discussion or changes we'd like?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I uh move to have the minutes for the July 17, 2025 planning commission workshop uh amended so that it uh uh removes the language about Brad Anderson not being available uh because he was present at the meeting. All right. Any other changes? Not for me.

All right. Any other changes from anyone else? With no changes, we have a motion and a second. The motion is to approve the minutes with changings minutes on 717 2025 workshop uh to change for it says unavailable. Brad Anderson to change to he was present. All right. Everyone agree say I. I. Anyone opposed say no.

All right. Motion amendments approved and we'll make those changes and get those posted. All right. Next item is public comments on agenda items. Any public comments on the agenda item for tonight? Director's report. Angie provided uh or Jerry or Angie provided, I'm not sure. Um just the basic uh director's report uh that they provide uh town council uh it was included in the packet. It states number of permanents, permit fees. This has been collected and then if you look on the back uh it's number inspections and number of tree inspections. And then also from director deployment basically um you'll find that Brenda Anderson is three weeks into his duties and safe building official services are no longer needed unless requested which is great for the town. Um especially a dedicated specific person. I think very useful to the town of Surfside Beach. Um I think they will be in tune to our regular ordinances and not just county and other elements. So, I'm very excited to to have him on board. Uh I know that I had mentioned something to him a week or so ago and he's already pretty much taken care of it. So, um I'm looking forward to having that new position inside of the tunnel. Uh safe built engineering continues to be utilized asset performance storm water plan reviews and uh of course our planning director candidate will start on August 1st or about two weeks of August. Um, so I know he does have a I think we were invited to a meet and greet with him somewhere here. I got it.

He's on uh August the 13th. Uh, and he will be at the conference room at town hall uh from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30. So definitely encourage you guys uh to stop by or uh I'm sure that uh you can get his information if you'd like to properly meet with him. I'm sure you're more than welcome to do that, but the conference room is off.

Yeah. August 13th. Um, code enforcement officer job description has been approved by town council and those positions are advertised. I believe we actually add a sec added code enforcement as well. Um so that will be done and the fire marshall Keith Williams is assisting with code enforcement issues until replacement uh of an onboard full-timer is included with breakdown co enforcement activities. Uh we have requested our annual training. I know that we talked about that with Heather and Heather was working on that. Uh I have been in touch with Jerry a little bit. Uh uh we're looking to get that uh scheduled. Uh I think we're looking to do a uh in town training session that uh uh we will all be allowed to attend and I think the BCA and others that have required training will be able to continue as well and uh I think it is a educational piece around code unfortunately. So uh once that gets scheduled make sure you let y'all know unless y'all have already took your training this year um we'll be able to do that quickly. All right. Um, Angie is has there been any major subdivisions of lots approved this month?

No, sir. But we also have the uh June and July new businesses and the renewals. And have there been any minor subdivision lots this month? No, sir. Have there been any public projects that are required to be approved? No, sir. Any appeals to chapter 15? No, sir.

Thank you very much. Um, and yes, uh, I do have, um, in June, uh, we had new businesses at the cottage, uh, JP Productions, which I believe was the Royal Boy Theater, I think Sanderson and Boulder LLC, and the Tangled Web was new businesses for June. And then we have Palmetto something. I'm not sure what that is. And then precision precision beauty has opened up close to where the new coffee and tube place is. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Royal Bull has already um moved out. Yeah, that's what I heard.

That's pretty much uh Angie, do you have anything else that you'd like to communicate to the commission? No, sir. All right. I appreciate you getting that information for us and uh I think it's useful to know uh the businesses that it opens just for the fact we're looking for design overlay uh other elements throughout town. So good to know, Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am.

I have a question for Angie. Have have we uh done anything to notify the nonconforming vape businesses um their obligations or are we just letting them uh on I don't know some sort of uh learning their new obligations and then coming in to apply for their new business licenses. I realize that's really Nicole territory and not yours, but there's some overlap. It seems like letting them know that they had this obligation. I haven't.

Thank you, Andy. Thank is that all Carolyn. Yes.

Thank you. Are any other questions uh around the director's report or any other commission would like to seek out? All right, we'll move on to business items. A uh chapter 17 orders language 17806 non-forming uses removal of destroyed or damaged non-conforming structures and 17007 definitions. That's amendment of certain section of chapter 17 zoning section 176 1707 non-conforming uses and definitions of code ordinance of counties are site each. All right. Anyone want to offer a motion? Mr. Chair,

very correct me if I've got this wrong, but I I make a motion that we table a table and work on this ordinance until we have had an opportunity to discuss it with the new PPC director. Works perfect. Thank you. Second. All right. I got Mary Ellen looking to table this uh to work alongside with the new director of planning, building and zoning and Melody accepted that. Any discussion? Uh everyone in agreement say I. Anyone oppose say no.

All right. Motion pass. will be looking good uh when we give you. Uh, next item is chapter 17 ordinance langu article 9 design overlay district amendment of certain sections of chapter 17 zoning article 9 design overlay and code of the ordinance of family surf beach South Carolina chapter 17 sections 17903 and 1791 get a motion to approve make a motion to approve the amendments of the 20% and 17 or 20% % 50% and 17903 and 1791. I'll second all right dusty motion approve and Scott has second that any discussion. All right everyone say I

Mr. I do have a question. So if we are approving the increase to 50%. That is allowing a property owner the same leeway as a business owner. so that the property owner um is um uh less likely to um enhance the property um because we're not drawing a distinction between a property owner and a tenant uh in this. Is that correct? Uh the way I look at it is it allows if the property owner would like to invest in his div or his property, he's allowed to spend more money and make more changes to not be obligated to adhere to the rest of the ordinances. So I think it's an incentive on that side. that I I personally my personal opinion on it is I I understand the differencing of owner and tenant, but I also understand the agreement standpoint of when you're renting a business is if a landlord has a property and he's the property owner and your business is tenants, then if the tenant needs something or if the town is requiring certain requirements to be able to continue his business of renting these locations out, then it' be incentive of him to make sure we're making the changes and incentive of the business owner as well. So it it's kind of clearcut for me because I mean if I went to rent a building and this town says well I got 90 days to apply to a certain color landscaping and I go to the land a property owner and

say hey the town's requiring me to do this it's not in my lease agreement to do this. It's either you can do it and not continue your business or the business owner is going to look for somewhere else and it's going to be a breach of contract because I mean they can't basically continue to be there if they're not compliance. So I think it's still forcefully to the businesses. I think it's how you enforce it and how it's determined. Uh I can tell you that I had a conversation uh with the fire marshall around the design overlay here recently and his intent was exactly that. uh he understood that one of the buildings was not compliance with a design overlay. So he and also he found other elements that weren't in the complex that were not up to code or needed to be apparent. So he's bringing those things to the property owner and also working with the business itself. So I think that's the intent of the ordinance. Uh, it may not be clear-cut, but what you're stating is, yeah, I mean, it does allow the business owner to be able to spend more and not have to comply with it. And the business owner also, if they want to beautify and the property owner allows them to do that, then they're able to spend their money and spend more money as well. I don't object to the business owner, the tenant being able to spend more because I don't think they can do a lot to change the exterior. But are we allowing the property owners an escape for not having to comply with the overlay uh because we're increasing that percentage. Well, I think the escape in this intent is only going to be temporarily. I think we're going to continue to work on it and uh that may be that be addressed as we address the full ordinance itself.

Um, as we've stated multiple times, uh, this this adjustment was only to get ahead and allowed the businesses, uh, the business committee approached us to let us know that the businesses, some of the business may have had intent to be able to invest in their businesses and their structures and, uh, aesthetics and other elements. And they couldn't do it because once they spend their threshold inside their buildings or outside their buildings or if they're replacing HVAC systems or anything, they're meeting that goal already. and you basically have to wait a certain amount of time before you're allowed to invest anymore in it. So, this is the temporary fix, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir.

As as a business owner, I would imagine um that you you don't want to have to jump through a bunch of hurdles to improve your property. You're trying to improve the looks and aesthetics um in this efficient way. I think the intent of this is to um give the business owners an opportunity to instead of doing nothing, they could do something and stay compliant. Thank you. Is there a different alternative you like to see? Um

I I understand we're doing this peace meal. I'm just trying to understand what doing it peace meal means. And um I'm still confused as to how it would be received. I know that uh the business committee proposed this um and I guess they were proposing it from the standpoint of the tenants, not the property owners. Um but uh anyway, I I'll let it go. Um, is there I I hope I hope we come back around to this because I don't think it helps to accomplish um improvements on uh uh the Highway 17 corridor. Um anyway, that's just my take on things.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am.

My understanding that We're what we're doing here is the town will make the policy and the town will not involve itself in refereeing the contracts between the landlord and the tenant. We just say it's going to be this way and how they work that out or how they contact that among ourselves. It's just something we don't need to be involved in. But I similar to the vape question someone asked earlier. Somebody's got to tell these ducks. Who is going to give them the information and the correct information? I think that's more important than anything else. That's all I have. All right. Any other comments? All right. The motion is to approve the amended uh sections and cited that's article 9. Um, no other comments. All right. Uh we'll look to move this. Um so uh every everyone in agreeance with amendments say I.

I. Anyone opposed? Say no. All right. Motion passed unanimous. All right. We'll move on to uh 10 discussion items. Uh number A or letter A is tree preservation ordinance review progress and tree pres preservation proposal. Uh in our packet you will find some work that uh the commission and commissioner Larry has been working on. Um hope you got a chance to review it. Uh I did a little bit but it looks ongoing. Um but I appreciate you Larry if you want to uh take it over. Actually can Yeah. Yeah, sure.

Um, first of all, I apolog for those of you who have seen it. Uh basically the my aims in doing this were to simplify and shorten the current ordinance and try to bring more balance between property owner rights and the public public's desire to maintain the town appearance and canopy and things like that. Uh so what I ended up doing was I started with the old with the current ordinance. Um and uh I made a lot of changes and cut a lot of stuff out. Uh there's a lot of uh u stuff that you you you see in there over and over again. If I cut that out, uh it could be that uh to for an ordinance it may have to be put back in, but I figured let's start with with shorten short and sweet and see if it works and then if we need to expand by putting more complicated scenarios in that can be done later on. Uh so basically the main changes I made was uh and I used a lot of the storm water committee uh document also uh I started out I put in all their uh definitions and I moved that to the front of the document and that'll be edited as some of those things will not be in the new ordinance I don't believe so we can cut those out. Um, I ended up sticking with the landscaping design uh section uh to what the original ordinance had. Didn't make many changes there. Uh, what I did like was to do it by zone instead of by lot size.

Um, you know, I could be overruled on that at some point, but I thought lot size was much more confusing. U, you really have to have a survey. I had to look up my survey to see how big my lot was and uh so I know where where it fits in that. Uh I shortened the tree protected they're protected the landmark tree list significantly uh down to six items and uh then you'll see up below that you're going to see the the main do part of the storm water committee and the original document has this table that goes over the required number of trees per lot by zoning district and the diameters and I basically took the stormwater committee numbers and put them in there. Uh the main change I did there was to line up to the zoning district instead of the lot size. I changed the number of trees versus the diameter required of the trees from an and to an or which I think is critically important because uh now if you drive down or walk down uh Hollywood that's a beautiful street with lots of big trees on it. You can rock walk by lots and you can see two huge oak trees on that lot and that's all they have. but it covers probably threequarters of the lot with a canopy. Um, under the stormwater committee, they wanted you to have eight trees on that lot. I don't think that's necessary. Those trees that are big probably are going to cover the the 60 uh 60in diameter that was required in that table. So, I figured

the ore was much better than the end because a lot with two big oaks on it, you're going to be hardressed to get another tree to grow on that lot. So, we don't need to have eight on that lot in my opinion. So, um but most of those numbers are going to be what was in the stormwater committee version. uh working on in the document. There were lots of sections I cut out with variations in the lots and uh you know I can't even remember what I cut. There were so many of them and the tables were put in there over and over and over again. So I cut all those down into one an approach of nonconforming lots versus conforming lots. So, you'll see that in here. Um, I said the uh numbering is is pretty much non-existent at this point. I'll try to smooth that out when I get the uh the next version of this document out. But, uh I did look at uh the ordinances from Brier Cliff Acres, which is a a neighborhood near near and dear to me. And uh I also looked at Mount Pleasant ordinances. They are both very complicated and long. I did uh there were some things I liked about them. Um and I tried to incorporate some of that into this document here. Uh one of the most interesting parts and I'll go back to the very first page to the second page of my thing. uh from Mount Pleasant. They had a real interesting section as you know if we're going to require replacement trees and there if you look at what I've put together there there is a requirement to

put in replacement trees under certain conditions. There may be times where a homeowner can't put them in. That's when Mount Pleasant has a fee they they uh offer you in in lie of actually planting the tree. you will make a a pay a fee to their tree fund um which is basically two times uh a given tree diameter. And um on the page before you'll see I I looked up how much trees cost. These are live oaks. And if you got a 3 and 1/2 in you want a 3 and 1/2 in diameter live oak going to cost you 650 bucks just to buy the tree. uh and get it planted. I don't know how much more that is. And so what Mount Pleasant does is the fee they charge is two times the the s you know the value of replacing that tree and that goes into a fund that the town will use only to plant trees. Uh anyways, you know, if anyone would like to make comments about this, I'm going to work on this uh a lot more over the next month. Try to get it into a little uh better order. Um, incidentally, uh, I was, uh, up in North Myrtle Beach this week and I saw a sign, you know, an electronic billboard about North Myrtle Beach's tree fund and they're they advertise for donations to the tree fund. So, and those that fund is used only to plant trees and to park public properties and rights of way. I found it interesting that they mentioned planting

trees in the bridal. Anyways, that's all I have to say for now. U anyone wants to make comments, you know, I'll I'll take them and take notes on any comments anyone has. Larry, uh just appreciate your uh um working through this. Uh, so far we understand this a rough draft and uh that you're working on. I do have a few comments uh uh on 17700 there. It's still estate zoning permit indicating approval by town staff may be required. You may need to adjust that if you're going forward.

Y especially if we are requiring a permit or not. It definitely needs to be clarified if it shall or must. Then moving on down. Um I been in review when it when I review ordinances a lot of times it states that the code enforcement official uh would permit uh something and I've seen that you have adjusted some to official instead of co code enforcement. But um Angie, just a question that you may be able to answer. Um, does the code enforcement official actually produce or provide the permits or do you provide an permit? I do. Okay. So, the code enforcement does not issue permits at all.

No, he just inspects and gives me the approval to do it. That's so I would like to keep that in mind throughout this because that is definitely something different than other codes because if you look at it, I have And then also if you go back to page 12 under penalties uh we have code enforcement officer which we have definition of code enforcement official. So might need to keep that straight as well.

And bas basically these are I'm sure by the time you get to a final draft you've done review this multiple time just to cut some of the things that I had noticed. And I did have a question around uh you had mentioned that you uh had cut down to six landmark protected trees. Uh how many currently were they before and what was the reasoning of that? Well, they had uh protected and landmark trees and urban trees or there was a huge list of trees. Um, basically I just cut it down to the oaks. Um, I don't know what else is important to have, but I figure uh somebody who knows more about trees would uh would say we should add something. Uh but as far as also uh the other ordinances excluded palm trees in the town and uh that being a state tree, I don't think that should be excluded or limited to only two per lot. Um, so I took that part of it out and I also took out the part the argument about uh crank myrtle trees being a whether it's a bush or a tree and uh just left it as a tree whether it's stopped or not every uh every spring. So

and can you just repeat me to me which ordinances you were looking at? You said Mount Pleasant. Where else? Mount Pleasant and Brier Cliff Acres. There any other uh kind of ordinance you've merging up with or review? I haven't, but I'm open to suggestions comments, Mr. Chair. Melody, Carolyn.

Okay. I just I just have some questions. So um if uh a property is a nonconforming lot in terms of the numbers of trees at the time of enactment but the property owner wants to remove trees. Can the property owner do so as long as the trees are once covered by an exemption? I would yeah I would think the intent would be if it's covered by an exemption which is probably means it's a safety factor uh damage to the home factor or something along those lines that you can remove that tree but you should plant theoretically replant something to make up for it nearby. by but it doesn't have to be it can be one tree you know

okay so I don't think we're saying that I I I think we're basically saying that if you're a nonconforming lot and you're not going to you know do any construction or whatever on your lot that involves the trees that you basically could remove all of the trees as long as those trees are of uh a smaller variety. So if you didn't have any large trees on your property, you could take them out. We'll have to deal with with that particular

So I'm I'm asking are that's the situation. Are you then um violating the clear cutting? I I just don't how how you're getting into the back part of this. Excuse me for interrupting where I hadn't had much time to focus on it. Uh, as I mentioned last time, I had the grandkids here and I just went back to Boston today. So, I did as much as I could in here and some of that stuff I've overlooked. But the intent, my intent would be to if you remove a tree due to an exemption and you're a non-conforming lot, you got to put another tree back in.

Okay. But I think we need to say that somewhere. Yeah. Don't let me forget. Okay. I I I mean I'm just raising sort of drafting things. Yeah, that's great. Which way uh are we going? And um uh and also if if you're uh a non-conforming lot to begin with, but then you're going to undertake some construction project, but that project doesn't require that you remove trees, do you have to add trees? Uh my my intent would be no, you don't have to add

trees. You you only have to add if you're taking the leap. Mhm. I'd like to see them add trees, but uh I don't think it's fair to require them to plant trees if they're going to put a pool in and you haven't taken anything out. Okay. So, my point, Larry, is that I don't think it's clear that's a that's a thing that needs to be I I got you. I'm not surprised uh addressed in this. So that something that okay clear to uh uh homeowners and builders as to what they have to do.

Now you I do have sections in the back for redeveloped or undeveloped lots that was uh versus residential lots that I don't know if I've gotten worked on that much because that's at the end of this thing and the But these are combo com combinations we have to deal with. And as I get my next attempt will probably be better, but I'm sure there's going to be holes you you will help me fill. Okay. Are you I'm finished. Thank you. Melody,

Larry, I may be misunderstanding, but on on page 613 where it has the min and the number of trees required and the diameter circumerence um you're saying for R1, eight trees per lot or 60 in. That's This is what I think the strong committee suggested. So, and it's currently five. No, it was Oh, it's currently five or six, I think. I think it's currently five. Okay. Five. I remember. I think the inches. I don't remember what the

inches were maybe six less. I think they added six inches to the old table when the storm water committee. And what about R2? Do you remember what I

Well, you see, they didn't The thing is is the R2 R1, we can change these numbers. I just kind of like wanted to keep a lot of the storm order committee's suggestions in here. Um so um yeah eight eight trees we that's just a number which I think we can debate and compromise on but the as I said the importance of that table is both of the regulations the new proposed one and the old one had and it and I don't think that's uh I just don't think that's a reasonable thing to Mr. Chair Melon.

All right. Oh, I'm sorry. No, I'm still thinking. Go ahead, Mara. Uh, I understand the ordinary is coming from these just numbers right now, but be prepared down the road. I am going to be arguing against raising the number of trees on any existing property. I I think that's that's something we just don't need to do to people. I'm required to have five trees now. And I've got five trees, but I don't need somebody knocking on my door telling me how to eat eight. I've been there 20ome years. I'm not going to go along with that. I had something else to say, but I can't.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Scott. Yes. Um I'd love to knock on your door, but I don't want to force you to just to say hi. Um I had a conversation um with John Adair and just met him officially after all these years and learned a lot from him. He's been involved with the storm water committee obviously you know doing a lot around town and um you know some things that we can consider and by the way really amazing work and I mean both of you for taking the time I don't know where you're finding the time or the energy to put into these but Carolyn and Larry thank you so much um it's it's really wonderful and creative ideas um and really logical thinking I think it's something that we can probably all um agree on that and and a way to work out work it out. But anyway, what I would what I learned from John Adair is that we get certain funding from the state and with uh the way storm water um is released into the ocean. there's certain standards that we have to maintain in the tree ordinance and in our ordinances so that um we're compliant and we can still get funding from from the state. So I asked him if I mean if he could stop by just even to give his opinion or his view because um you know he's he's worked with us for a while and you know he has a lot of insight on practicality of tree ordinance and he pointed over he says you know here are these houses right over here as we were on third avenue they're building a new little deck on the third avenue and dogwood drive and um he pointed out over to these other house and they're they're so close together and and there's a driveway in front. He says, "You know,

how are you going to get three or five trees on that property?" I'm like, "Yeah, how would you? I don't know how you do it." Um, without lifting the concrete, without lifting the the pillars and things. So, um, you know, John, if you're listening, come on out. We'd love to have you stop by. But, uh, it was very insightful. I think you know it it'd be wonderful to have some of this input so that we can actually wrap our heads around you know the important things like well we want to maintain this state funding and I don't remember exactly what the state funding was but um uh that's all I have to say. Thank you sir. Yes,

that Melody.

Um, just that I think we need to move along with this and I understand Larry's had some time restraints and I appreciate so much the work that he's done, but we shouldn't be putting it off on Larry to do it and bring it back to us. And I it's it's not there's nothing easy about it. But when you sit in a room and get the thing done, we had a we had a workshop, but you know, we didn't really get into the meat of it. I I think that we need to, you know, Mielen saying, you know, I'm just so you know, down the road, I'm going to have a wins down the road. We need to go ahead and do some of this that I mean previous planning commissions have worked on it for years. Storm water worked on it for years. We can't work on it for years. We've got to there's no reason that six or seven people can't sit in a room and if we have to go through it line by line, go through it line by line. That's what Larry's doing. And instead of making him do it, which I appreciate what he's doing very much, but I instead of having him do it, why aren't we sitting and going through it and doing it and and duking it out, arguing our points as we go? It might take us several meetings to do it, but why aren't we doing that?

Mr. Chair, Scott, are you finished?

As as a response, I I respect that viewpoint. Um, I, you know, I don't know how long we want to have these meetings. Um, I think what Larry's doing is amazing work and I think just so far I think he's doing a wonderful thing. If individuals want to spend time and find things that they want to do, I say go for it. Um, but if you recall and you were part of this commission, we passed the tree ordinance and we didn't kick it down the road. We have something on the books. It's already there and um you know is it enforced? You know that's an issue. Um did Storm Water spend a lot of time and effort on this? Yes, we have a little different uh some individuals have a little different worldview than some of us maybe. Um so they're going to have different ideas, but I don't know that we can't uh find a compromise. And you know, I think what Larry's doing is great. um you know spending hours together working together I think it's going to be a long long meeting where him spending how many hours have you spent so far

I don't know maybe six or eight

six or eight times 6 time 42 hours if we have it you know we would all be discussing this six hours so um but I but I respect your viewpoint u but that's that's just I think we're moving along and And I think it's good. We have something on the books. So, it's not like we're kicking it down the road. Um but um you know, whatever we as commission want to however we want to approach it, but I think so far I think we have a good plan. The storm water committee spent how long? Three years in this thing. Um so, and and we spent time on it a few years ago. I don't even remember what year it was. What year?

21. Yeah. Yeah. I lose track. So, But anyway, that's all I have to say, Mr. Sh. No,

I'm not taking not one thing away from what Larry's done because I've appreciate it very much so much. But we respectfully, we are a commission. We are not an individual and the commission is supposed to do the work. And I think that we should I do think that we should be sitting and going through this and figuring it out. It's been, you know, it we've had a lot of going back and forth with storm water going back and forth and I know a lot of it was, you know, just now we just we need to do it. We need to deal with it. All of us. Yes. All of us. Marilyn,

I understand. And I live I've lived through all the frustration of the tree organs over all the years we've been doing it. But in light of other things that are on our plate. I I have trouble supporting any urgency in getting it done because I'm going to say something kind of blasphemous, but three ordinance we've got right now ain't all that bad. We're operating under one that isn't being enforced in the first place. And I don't see where I I can see it could be improved with some tweaks, but is it a major deal? The changes? I don't think it's going to be. So, I I'd rather put some other things on the the front burner. That's all I

Yeah. So, uh back to the same thing around uh our previous conversation around 1706. I mean, I I'm never going to as a commissioner, chairman, or whatever, uh, I'm never going to allow us to not progress. I think we should definitely continue to work with it. I think we've had workshops over it. Uh, we talked about it in several meetings already. I think we are making some progress. And I would never put any commissioner out on doing their own thing because I think they have legitimate reasons as a commissioner to bring forward anything. U they can create a whole ordinance if they wanted to and bring it and we can discuss it and that's our job to debate and have that conversation and amend it if we needed to. That's why we have seven individuals here. Uh I'm not going to negate that's your opinion on working together. I absolutely agree with that as well. I would love to have John and Dar here and some other folks that are educated and know about trees and I have no problem getting that scheduled. Uh I think if we were going to go lineto line, I think one of the things that I really understood in our previous conversation is we needed a baseline to work with. So if we can get the baseline and then we all bring our ideas or suggestions or as we review the old ordinance and the new proposed ordinance and we personally as commissioners be able to produce what we think we may need when we have that baseline at least and then we can have those discussions but we don't even have a baseline right now. It's either we have the baseline of the existing ordinance, the baseline of the new proposed ordinance and then uh we know exactly what we wanted to do with both of those. So I think that's what we tasked Larry with and I think after he gets done and produces a baseline. Uh we'll be able to create our comments and needs out of the old one and comments and needs out of the new ones and as

each commissioner will have that workshop like you're saying and be able to interject and create ideas or add or delete or modify from there. But currently we don't have any baseline. So uh I think it's important to allow Larry to continue his work. let him get finished with his finalization of that and then that's our baseline and then we'll bring both both section of the ordinances inside of that and um we'll be able to produce a pretty good order. That's my thoughts on this. Any other comments? Um Scott, you mentioned um Donna Dire. Is there anybody else you would like to possibly attend the workshop or besides my mother? No,

I just mentioned it to we had the conversation. he seemed well uh informed and knowledgeable and had a pretty good view on the subject and I thought you know whether we agree with him or not I mean he had a lot of insight in different ideas and I think he's had to work with it on on both sides of the spectrum you know working with councils um and the town and you know having to work with residents so I think it was it was a good perspective I I I I I know he's a busy guy, so who knows if he even make a meeting. It would be wonderful if he could. Thank you. Any other comments? All right, this is a discussion item, so we will move on. I appreciate your work, Larry, if you could continue. Uh I know that I asked for the draft here. It was just for discussion. I didn't expect you to have it. I know that we gave you two months. So, uh don't think you failed us. You did not. So, appreciate that.

Thank you. And I mean, if commissioners have any ideas or anything they didn't bring up or not, I'm sure that you can email. I think Larry has his new email, official email, so you will be able to uh email him on that as he prefers. All right, next item is B Capital Investment Program. So, appreciate Scott uh uh presenting that to council. Uh we got a little feedback uh back from that. Um, well, has everybody uh received that feedback or does anybody still need or was there something in writing? I think there nothing.

Well, then how the heck are we going to have it on the record for future?

I request. So basically uh this was presented to council council debated back and forth if it was required. Um I think a few mentions was we had already had a workload that we should be working on. Uh I think it was presented to them that it by law that it was a requirement to be completed. Um I think there other elements. So I think the intent was to push it back to the commission. uh let they would like to see uh some of what we were looking for, the guidelines uh of what we would present and then they would be able to tell us if they um wanted us to move forward or if it was a smaller version or how much investment we really wanted as commission and uh they wanted to be able to allow us to continue working on our other workload as well as being able to do something uh before the budget as well. So did a little more research. So this is something very important. Uh capital investment program. Uh it is mandated uh to be required by the South Carolina planning enablement act. Uh but it is only required by the planning commission to prepare and recommend that if uh a jurisdiction has development impact fees. So, uh, if you look up South Carolina code 629720, um, it states that, uh, we're only required as a planning commission, uh, to prepare and recommend that, uh, if we have, uh, development of impact fees. So, that's very important and kind of changes the stance as well. Um, I will make a note that me being a resident and a commissioner here, I think it's very important regardless if it's a mandate or not that we have something to work off. I can

tell you in my 14 years here in South Beach, uh, we're very stagnant. We look over things, there's no plan usually. We're just working off all different directions. So therefore, if we're looking at the 10-year comprehensive plan, most likely, yes, we do have facilities being developed. We do have other elements, but it's important that inside of those 10-year comprehensive plan, we have 33 priorities inside of those. We should at least touch those 33 priorities somewhere down those 10 time frame. I understand we're not going to say, "Hey, we want to spend a million dollars on sidewalks, but we at least need to have a plan to say, hey, in these 10 years, let's get this stretch of sidewalks or let's get this stretch of underground utilities or let's make sure that we are upgrading our facilities, which we are. I'm not saying the town is not utilizing monies or funds currently, but I'm saying a lot of elements inside the 10ear comprehens comprehensive plan, which is from the public feedback and a lot of work. I think we spend $50 to $75,000 to produce the plan in general. A lot of feedback's collected in there and that's what the people would like to see in your vision. So I think it's very important that if we're not going to produce a capital investment program, we at least need to be able to have a plan or the town have a plan to be able to utilize and move forward and progress on some of these items. So that's my two cents. So Mary,

the only way we're going to do that with any continuity is for somebody to track what these 33 items are and track our progress on them. I took the staff at that in one photo in time about what six months or a year ago, but that's not a job for us. That's somebody on staff needs to be checking off or the progress that's made on these uh 33 goals. Yeah. So, I will also mention that there is a conflict. So, yes, it's not mandated by South Carolina for us to prepare a capital program, but our local ordinance does require us to prepare the capital investment program. So there's a conflict of South Carolina and their local ordinance. So either we need to recommend

we need to recommend the local ordinance be updated the state or by law we should produce and prepare the capital. Mr. Chair.

Yes sir. So um I had the honor and privilege to stand before council. Um we I had just a five to 10 minute uh introduction just to define and kind of give a little context to explain about uh the research that Alex sent me and some research that I was able to come up with um on you know what a capital investment or capital there's another word for it improvement plan could be um the council I I time I watched it online and I was standing there for 43 minutes talking back and forth to council members. It's a long time or and I made a joke at the beginning. I said set the clock to 60 minutes thinking it would be 5 or 10 minutes. Um, so, uh, you know, there were a lot of questions and I think standing there I I had the impression that many council members thought we had a lot on our plates and there were a lot in their things maybe more important things or just important things that we should be working on and that they have a decent handle on, you know, capital where it goes. However, um they didn't give us a mandate that I picked up on, but they did suggest they said, you know, if you're going to come with something that it be limited in scale and uh present it to us. And the reality is is that all we're doing is we're making a recommendation to the council and they can take it or leave it. So if we spend and we have 33 items or so if we spend crazy amount of time on it and dot every item cross every tea hate to see them just say well it's just too

much. Sorry. Um, however, if we can come up with something, five or 10 items and not even necessarily uh, you know, how where the funding comes from, you know, because there are different ways to do it or, um, you know, I I think that as a commission, I think we we could do something. So, um, that's all. So uh any any one have a idea of where to move from here? Uh I mean do we need more clarity from council? I mean do we want to move forward with creating a simple by simplified version to produce? Um, currently by law, local law, it's still required of us and budget year is coming. We only have a few more meetings this year. So, yes, sir.

Yes. Um, what I didn't mention is, uh, Alex, I think, has already, as we know, spent a lot of time on this. Um, I don't know if you've had a conversation on whether he was hoping to kind of spearhead this a little bit. Um, you know, you know, he did a lot of research and I had to get wrap my brain around it to be able to answer questions. So, it's unfortunate that he's not here tonight, but um I'm sure that he has some viewpoints as well that would be helpful.

I can see us requesting that, you know, this has been Alex's Bailey with all the water. I could see the question that Alex there if he's willing a reader's digest version of what he may have had in mind. He may not be willing to to do that, but uh I I I don't think I didn't hear I listened to it too and I did not hear that council's interested in us. We can keep it short and sweet and not waste much time on it. we can check the box of having done what is required by our ordinance if you would prepare something short and concise and maybe next year we'll be able to do something a little more elaborate. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Marion that it should be this short list and my takeaway from the town council comments on all of this is that um and I admit I'm reading between the lines because to me there's a distinction between budget and long-term planning. And so I viewed the capital investment program as being the the long term. So we want to have these things on the list. And so as we go through budget cycles, we're um addressing some of these as we move forward over the five years, over the 10 years. We're not expecting that these things are taken care of in the next budget cycle. And so I would think that we would cross off the list many of the things that are already being addressed. And that that was some of my takeaway from the town council meeting is like, well, you all have on your list a lot of

things that we're already doing. So how are we supposed to deal with this? So I would recommend that we pair down the list, make it truly capital investment things, not things like personnel and what have you, but but capital improvements for the town. Um, I have a fondness for the sidewalk issue. So, I would say that is a capital investment that could go on the list and we tell town council. So from now through the next 5 years, let's see if every year we can get so many linear feet of sidewalk in installed and that would be something that meets our comprehensive plan is a capital improvement and is something that the citizens are very interested in in having. So, if we could, you know, whittle the list down and give them something a little bit more concrete to work with, and then it's up to them to figure out how to um uh blend that in with the budget cycles for the next 5 10 years or to say no, we there's no money to do this particular thing. Uh, but I would encourage us to do the the short list as Marielle said, the Reader's Digest version of things and that we really hone it down and make sure it's not addressing things that are already on the um improvement list or the project

list or uh covered by the budget. um but that we do it soon because even though it's not a budget item, it has to be worked into the budget cycles.

Yeah. along with Carolyn stock taking sidewalks for an example. You might not get a certain number of linear feet every year, but you might have a certain amount of money put into a fund that is earmarked for that purpose. Maybe you get a certain number of linear feet every however many years, you know, for because you know, um, so many other items like that that not you're not going to get some every year, but but you might be able to budget for some in the future. Yes, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree that I view this as an exercise in earmarking funds for the future

planning and that yes, planning planning and that if we can uh work together to come up with something and then uh convey that message to town council and we see where it goes from there.

Yeah. Um, I agree Carolyn and I like your I read the lines about just like you did. Uh, the only thing that I would see different is um I would not take out the pieces that you mentioned that we're already working on. I would make sure we're not including anything else, but make sure we're capturing what we're doing in those elements so that the public is aware and as we produce those plans, those are in there. If we're doing $6 million on new town hall and that could go in the facility upgrades or additions, then let's make sure we state that inside of the plan. I feel like so it's not that we want to add anything or anything like that, but I would like it to be captured inside the investment because when you're looking at the total investment plan, you could see where that money and what's being invested and you can go back five years and say, heck, we put this as the priority number one every year. Maybe we need to move on to a different field as well. and then you're capturing the money and investment that we're doing that. So that's the only thing to change out with.

Mr. Chair, Melody,

I'd also like to say that in listening to that meeting, I felt like, you know, when we went through and Alex sent us the list of 33 or however many items was and said to rank, you know, rank them. You know, we all kind of did it, but we never s sat with each other and said, "Okay, this is the one that came out to be number one. Should it really be?" That was never like an official list of ours. That was just something that we got started on. And somehow the information kind of got conveyed that this is our list and this is this is our opinion. This is our list. I mean the way I took it, we it was just something that we were getting started on. It was not like this is this is our priority list.

It's the it's the 10year comprehensive plan priority list. I felt the same way. Well, it was the it was the the ranking was not the priority list. Yes, the items were on the 10ear plan, but the way we ranked them was it was not necessarily I don't think that we were saying this is number one, this is number two. It was just a a place to start that we never really went anywhere with it. And I agree with it because if you remember, I think we did the exercise twice and it had changed time. something else.

Sure. But I think, you know, with that information, some of the council people thought this is your number one. Well, that's not even our number 13. Yeah. You know, I just think there's there's can be too much room for miscommunication.

And that's why I say I don't want to take an in and out. Uh there's 33 priorities. Let's list them. If we're working on them, if the administration is working on them or if grant funding's working on them or anything like that, it should be listed in those sections. Not that we're going to remove them or not stay on the Mr. Chair Scott, during the meeting, I definitely received that I picked up that vibe of what you're bringing this to us and we need to vote on this. And I tried to make it clear, I believe a couple of times, that this was just an exercise that we put together and they said, "We'll work with the top." And and I I tried to emphasize that, but but again, they're, you know, brass facts. They want to know. And I said, "We're just we're coming here not making a proposal. We're coming here for you to tell us whether we should spend the time and energy on this." And and I I I defined it. I explained that it was the law, state law and local law and um and I think they the initial presentation I don't think they quite captured it because it's a lot of information in five minutes. So um but later on in the meeting I think they got an idea and so it's now in our lap and I think we should um you know figure out what we want to do and and

Mr. Sure. Melanie, I say one more thing. Sure.

I I would I would also like to go back to what you said at the beginning of this and that is that state law differentiates from what is local and local is trying to go by what state law is. If that's the intent, then we're not really following the intent. So maybe that's what needs to be that's what we need to ask them to look at and address. If state really only wanted it to be for areas that have impact fees, do we need to be talking about it? And yes, I understand that it's local law right now, but should it be? If the intent was only for areas that have impact fees, then should it be?

Well, agree. I just think uh whatever the law is currently, I won't follow it. if they want to address it. It's uh one of those sections that I don't think that we I don't think it's in our section. So, I think they can bring it up and modify the ordinance. Mr. Chair, it's in administrative I believe in the planning commission.

I doubt very seriously if it's ever going to get brought up at council unless we suggested who's going to suggest. It's like it's nobody's action right now. I think in in response to this whole CF thing after at least they and by the way please look at changing our ordinance to match state law because I I don't think that anybody else is going to voluntarily do that. It's going to get lost like so many things do because we have no continuity. Okay. Do you want to uh just send a letter out stating, "Hey, we have a conflict of state local law. We can get somebody to review it." Or do you want us to propose amendment or

I think No, I don't think we ought to be writing it. It's not our amendment to write. As you said, it's not one of the planning commission things, but I think just a simple piece of paper saying, "Hey guys, I I don't know who pointed it out that state law is a little different." Me. Yeah. All right. Well, anyway, I think you know it's come to our attention that blah blah blah. So, we recommend you put this on your to-do list, something along those lines, and then then we've at least done our thing of not a piece of paper. It's never going to get on any agenda. Mr. Chair, I finished. Yes. Sorry.

I completely agree with Mary and I I mean, I would think that they would appreciate that we're saying, "Hey, we we saw something. It's not our not our purview, but we saw something and if you guys talk to us about it because it's maybe it's not something we really should be doing, why are we spending our time on it if it's not really something that we should be doing and it's something that they can look at and change fairly I mean without too much difficulty. Agree.

Any other comments? All right. Um well, we'll get some letter out or something. Um so we'll move on to uh C. Um reschedule September regular meeting 85 2025. Uh well, this is actually supposed to be 9 92 2025. I did make an error and I will take that out.

Uh 92 2025. So, of course, Labor Day is on the 1st, I believe, and our meeting is on the 2nd. Uh, I think we've worked hard this week, this year. Um, I also think it's holiday week, and uh um just wanted to have some discussion around if somebody wanted to um propose a no date or if they're okay with meeting on that Tuesday or um how y'all want to go about it. I'm okay with that Tuesday. I'm okay with it. I'm okay with that. Okay. Scots are good, too. All right. Will we keep it on?

Um, we'll move on to 11 public comments. Go first. Okay. Be good evening. Thank you all for what you're doing. I know it's a lot of work. I wanted to comment on three things. Oh, my name is Bill Kenan, 1312 North Dogwood Drive, Surfside Beach.

I uh I have a question. If you, and this is for property owners, not the business owners, but if you give them 50%. How are you going to make them do anything to beautify the property? Uh, I mean, if they can do 50% and not cover the overlay, I I just question how that works because we haven't enforced the overlay since it was written. And I just, as you all know, I'd like to see us do something on Highway 17, even if we do it with uh parking funds, but I'd love to much rather have the owner property owners, not the business own people, but the property owners do that work. And I just don't know how that that works. That's my one question. Two, that list of trees you have is way too short cuz I don't like any of those trees. I've got them all. I wish I had uh maples and something else that I could get leaves up in 6 weeks instead of 6 months. And then on the the last on the uh Captain program, I would love to see you give us a list of five things cuz I think um if I remember right, I we're we're going to do a council chamber uh courthouse. I think that was number 13 on your list. Well, that's number one on ours because it needs to be done. This building is not satisfactory for the courthouse. It's worked well as a council chamber, but it's not satisfactory for the courthouse. Um, give you an example. I'd like to see us pave the made the proposal to pave the

streets from uh on Cedar from 16th all the way to 8th. So that ties into the uh sidewalks there on uh Hollywood. Well, the problem is you can't use hospitality a tax money because it's not tourist related. Sidewalks and R3 because that's tourist related. So you have to figure out where the money's coming from. to do what I want to do is going to require uh either tax money or uh business license some something else other than a tax and hospitality. Um but we need a list to work from. I mean we're doing we're working on some of the things in there but it's not your priority. It's our priority. Well, we need to know what yours is. Now don't give me 30 33 cuz that's not going to happen. But if you give us five or maybe five is a good number, let us work it in and see what we can get done. And then let's get two of those done and then give us uh two more. Let's narrow the list by having a short list to work from, not a long list. 33 leaves too much interpretation from seven members. Five narrows it down. And believe me, I would like to see us work on that. Um, I I think probably tomorrow I'm meeting with a uh administrator and I'm going to suggest he looks at this ordinance and see whether we need to change our ordinance to match state law because that's a good point. So, I appreciate you all the work you're doing. I got to go because I'm driving a golf cart and it's almost 8 o'. Have a good night. Thank you all so much.

Thank you. Good night. Chris Dying 7:15 the Cedar Drive North. Uh as y'all most of you know I was liaison on the storm water committee and we worked on this tree ordinance for a long time. I my question is why ain't you reached out to somebody spent three and a half years working on ordinance and asking questions from them people who has done the land work for you already. All you got to do is ask them, get them here, get them talking to if it's Miss Helier or anybody else on storm water, then people probably can answer a lot of questions that y'all don't know and give you the answers for them pretty quick that you won't have to go research and and spend your time doing. So with when I sit here tonight and listen to you talk about the tree ordinance and what M Larry is doing. Uh seems like you're doing a great job. I mean I have no problem with you doing it but reach out to the people who has spent three and a half years on a lot. So with that being said I'll say thank you other public comments. Uh we'll move on. No other public comments. Um we'll move on to uh commission comments.

Mary Ellen, I don't have any specific comments, but I I would like to have someone address what was you just addressed about reaching out to the tree to a mortar committee and I get the impression that's been done without success. Yeah. Um, I addressing my public comment. Thank you,

Scott. Um, uh, I guess matter at hand, tree ordinance. Um, I I'd love to hear comments, uh, opinions. You know, we also worked on a tree ordinance a few years ago. Um, and I think a multitude of counselors, there is wisdom. Absolutely. Um I think a big part of it um from my standpoint is um world view and local law and um keeping finances coming from the state and uh finding a balance between all those uh you know uh there's a phrase that uh those people I've worked with they said um you know love you can love the creation but love the creator more and sometimes we worship the creation more than the creator. So I think we need to do a little bit of both. Um trees are beautiful, trees are wonderful and they they do a lot of good. Um and uh but we also have to keep our priorities straight. Thank you Larry. Uh

I don't have anything to add. Uh Carolyn, I do not have anything to add. Um I think I'm seven or not tonight.

All right. Thank you so much. Um so I'll finish off. Um I will address uh the comment there on the storm water committee. Uh I have approached Miss Helier. Uh I wanted to continue our partnership. Uh I I explained to Miss Hyer uh that the commission was working wanted to get her heads around the current ordinance, our proposed ordinance and what direction that the commission was seeking. Um I'm one person, we're commissioned, so uh we decide things together. Um if we want to invite somebody here to do that. Um I will also mention that I was a huge supporter of uh requesting the tree ordinance in general. that it was never provided to the planning commission. Uh in all the work that they did for the three years, the planning commission was never invited to be a part of their discussions or anything in the creation of a new storm storm water proposal. Um so it's not like we haven't been open. I'm open to this day a partner with storm water committee. I very appreciated of all the work they did. They did a lot of work and I'm very appreciative of that. uh I want them to be a part of creating this ordinance. They are very educated in storm water and very educated solely in trees now it looks like. So, um I think as a commission we need to work as a commission and uh at when that time comes that we uh seek additional assistance as Scott has already recommended uh we would look into John Adair and maybe a code enforcer uh to be able to attend those and I'm assuming that's the exact route that stormwater committee did as well. Uh they created their workload when they first began. That's what the commission's doing right now. So later on, we'll be able to invite all those stakeholders as well as council members and other members that want to be involved in creating a tree ordinance. Outside of that, um, great conversation today. Thank

y'all for participating. Uh, uh, as I've encouraged the commissioners before, we do have a lot on our plate. Uh, I would continue to, uh, in your downtown if you can find it. Uh, continue in uh, reviewing the ordinances that we have on our plate currently. uh noting any uh items or suggestions for future conversation uh because uh I do want to allow the director to be able to get his foot in the door and uh get settled in a little bit, but at the same time uh we still need to move forward as well. So uh if we're prepared, I believe it will better prepare him when he gets his feet in the door uh to be able to move us along as well. So with that, thank y'all and uh everyone have a good night. Going to get a motion to adjourn. So move second.

Got a Mary Ellen a motion to adjurnn and Melody has a motion to or second. Everyone everyone any discussion on that? All right. Everyone in agreeance say I. I. Anyone opposed say no. being enter.