Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded. This conference will now be recorded.

Workshop meeting of the District Attorney's Commission. We can stand for an invocation that .

Heavenly Father, look down on us to stay. Grace us with your presence, your wisdom, and your guidance in the decisions and the discussions we're about to have. Lead us in the image of your Son, Lead us to consider all matters from all perspectives. Lead us to decisions that benefit our community. We ask in your son's holy name. Amen.

our first discussion item tonight i hope would be a very short one uh it has to do with correcting the amendments to um the planning commission bylaws because i made a mistake i uh somehow ordering the number of uh events in the course of our meetings, whether or not they'd be with or without a public hearing. I left off the discussion items item, and I did not discover that until I went to create new agendas for our templates for our agendas. And I discovered I had to deal with that. errors. So I'm coming to get that corrected in our bylaws and we'll see that it's on page two of the bylaw document in your packet. So this is a new procedure I think for us that I learned from Sherry, but for a discussion item, we can have a motion. If we say in our agenda that commissioners may make motions in conjunction with discussion items. So I would ask if you could get a motion to approve or adopt the bylaws as amended. TO ADD DISCUSSION ITEM IN SECTIONS. ARTICLE 2, SECTIONS 3 AND 4. NEW SPEAKER THROUGH. NEW SPEAKER THROUGH.

NEW SPEAKER THROUGH. NEW SPEAKER THROUGH. NEW SPEAKER THROUGH.

all amendments as proposed by chair specifically in article two items three all in favor say aye aye

Okay.

And then the second item has to do with minutes. And I have been trying unsuccessfully to get this resolved. So I thought I would bring it to the whole group to see what people thought about us asking Mark to acquire some sort of device for us to get minutes more easily done and recordings that are, I'd like to say redundant of the town's recordings, but that assumes that the town's recordings are working. we have had a number of meetings where we don't have any minutes that we can put forward for approval because i can't access the recordings and that is a problem i have asked other people if they have the same problem that it's not something unique to me and others have the same problems I even raised it with the mayor and he couldn't access one of the meeting minutes. So I think we need to do something about it. We need to have minutes that are pretty fulsome, not the bare-bones minimum that in some instances are deemed acceptable because we have too many topics that at least in my opinion too many topics that uh come up during a number of meetings and so it's important to know what transpired at the meetings before leading to the point where we ultimately approve uh an ordinance change or reject an ordinance change uh just so we have a good record i myself have lately looked back at older planning commission and town council meeting minutes and they have been helpful in resolving some of the questions i have had with regard to ordinances uh particularly where i thought there were errors maybe than what ended up in Minico. So, Mark, is this something you can do for us?

I can certainly research it. I do not have an answer for you.

I understand. But do you have the funds to be able to do this for us? I have funds.

I don't know what this is going to look like. in a dollar note. So I'd have to reserve that. I don't know if I have the funds to pay for a $20,000 operation. No, no, no, no. But it's a, we're talking about a device. I'm not saying it's actually a device. I think it's just something that we have as part of this gizmo here that would record.

Does your JetGPT Pro

allow you to take a recording and then create a summary off of it if i have a yes it will i don't care if i could offer yes because i solution right and it's free it's free and it's free um as you're aware on numerous occasions i use the ollie app which is now turned on and it does not provide a recording okay so if you want to listen to it audibly it's not going to provide that however if you'll look at the transcript you'll note that every single word i'm saying is in the capture tool again for free can be the backup that you're looking for it is able to be loaded on anybody's smartphone and it will provide again i'd say a minute after the meeting is adjourned a full transfer and it uses ai to create what i have found to be a fairly comprehensive summary if you don't want to read every single word that was spoken during me Now, there are others. I chose this one because I use it in my professional life, and for the same reason, I have to keep up with stuff people said. And the tool works great. I'll be glad to record this meeting. The only thing that I would suggest, Mark, is whether it's this app, which is OLLI, or other apps, they do have a limit of about an hour, and a lot of our meetings run longer. So I have to pay attention to it, stop it, and then start again. But you can pay five or six bucks a month or something to upgrade to get the one that will record for longer meetings. Now, the only downside is that unless each speaker says their name, now when we have citizen comments they come up and they do state their name so you you know what's being said by him because they stated their name but as we speak um it does capture it as speaker one speaker two speaker three now it will be consistent it recognizes the voice so once it assigns speaker one it's always whoever speaker wants but you would have to have been here and read it and go, okay, that's Carolyn, that's John, that's Melody, that's, you know, whoever. So it's not perfect, but again, it is free and it does capture every word.

Madam Chair, can I ask a question? John, we're using that also with a nonprofit I work I noticed the hour limit too, but the other question I had is we sit at a table facing each other. I know some of the like purchased levels, I think maybe you can get on a general speaker or something like on a unit like that versus I'm worried like from end to end. You know, like say it's sitting where you are, Carolyn, is it going to capture the words? I mean, no mumbling people, right?

It does for us because you're talking in the speaker. Okay.

So you think it would still capture? Because I just haven't experienced it in a table like this.

I have never reviewed anything and gone, wait a minute. I've never had that happen.

It's very accurate.

It's definitely accurate. so since it is running right now did it pick up what you had said um john we're using that also with the non-profit i work for and we noticed the hour limit too but the other question i had is we sit at the table facing each other yada yada yada about everywhere

I mean, you still have to review the minutes to make sure it didn't change a word and stuff, but it does capture everything.

So, of course, I've been doing that town recordings to the extent access there on reaching them. Or the recordings cut out and things like that.

I don't think you can use this. And for a small fee of $100 a meeting, I would be glad to give you everything. I'd check every word.

I'll play it.

Madam Chair?

Absolutely.

Go ahead. I think about a year and a half, the name that should not be spoken amongst ourselves, our former chairman, Dusty McCracken, he applied live. which was the, you know, I think it's one of the probably the premier recording devices. And I believe he paid for a monthly subscription. The plot itself, I mean, it's nominal, $150, $200. And I mean, I have it right in front of me, 300 minutes monthly AI transcription. And what it's professionally used exactly for what we're doing. And I had thought, that town council already applied this with their meetings since we were doing it. It transcribed it into minutes and we even discussed it that I almost thought that the meeting minutes were so detailed compared to what we had before that I said, man, it seems like overkill because you have to read a lot of it. But it turned out, I think most of the planning commission really And I thought we were continuing that, but I guess we didn't continue it after Dusty exited.

We didn't. First of all, I found out the information from Dusty about it, and then I circulated that to what I thought were the appropriate town people, and there was no decision with regard to it. The most of what I heard was we're going to decide on a new system when we build the new council chamber and courthouse, because it's got to work with whatever the system is there, which makes sense. But that's a long time to go without minutes that we need. And we could get it, it sounds like, at least from Ali, fairly cheaply. The device that Dusty was using was fairly inexpensive, but the service was pretty expensive. So that was, I guess, part of the drawback to going down that road. And anyway. Larry, what's going on?

Oh, never mind.

No?

Yeah, I don't know.

Wait a minute.

That's all right.

You sure? OK. Well, it seems like we have some things to explore. And let's see, we get a free group job, at least temporarily. Yeah. And then explore the- So many books. I think those are needed to transfer

will work for me yeah yeah that's fantastic now i'm just getting the lessons what i'll do is i'll take the notes the transcript and the summary from tonight and um i'll shoot it out if it's okay with you to everybody just so they can see the the way it comes out before now If anybody's got a problem with it, we can address it, and if not, we can just use OLLI. I mean, you're not looking for the primary. You're looking for the backups, and you have all the details. The thing is supposed to be the primary.

I'm also looking for an easier mode of producing the transcripts. um where we're obliged to um have in our minutes a transcript of what gets said in public comments and angie sends me a document that she calls office recording and it needs significant editing because the transcript doesn't always match what the person said and you can tell by listening to it if the transcript isn't picking things up correctly. And so I've been correcting those things. The most onerous of those are the public hearings, because we have more people coming in to talk, typically. And the June 30th public hearing took me forever to end. because it was not just what the public comments were, but it was all the motions that we ran through with regard to the tree ordinance, which had to be recorded in the minutes. So anyway, okay.

We'll take the mic, see what it looks like, see if you feel like it requires excessive editing and if not, great. And if it does, I can get caught. He's good for me.

It's chat GPT. No, that's different. All right. Anything else to be said on that topic? All right, we'll move on to workshop items and HTC. We're going to give you the floor to tell us what Mark. Can you grant that microphone so that you have one? He's got one. No, he doesn't. No, no, no. I think it's this one that's not used. Yeah, that one's not used. OK, I'll take another one.

Here, I'll just take mine. No, this one. OK, OK.

Good afternoon.

I hope to not keep you guys long on this topic, but I'm a partner here at HTC. Along with me is Zach Jeffords, HTC as well. We're here to talk about one of the towers we have right here at Surfside. As you guys might know, we know this tower as the Wild Water and Wheels Tower to ourselves. Of course, this provides sailor service to us here and everybody down the Strand, it seems like, for several miles. The Horry County Emergency Network is located on this tower, as well as the major carriers, ATC, Verizon, and T-Mobile. Of course, it's right next to the city access for its own water. So this is the property here that is currently not owned by HTC. That's three, two, almost three acres of property. So what HTC is, we're located right there where the red area is. That tower's there on at least a piece of 60 by 60 parcel. And what we're looking to do is carve out that one piece just for HTC instead of, paying continued land lease for that property, we won't own the property. While the current property owner does, helps things, other things with the existing property. As you guys know, you're probably aware of what's going on there. So we want to get away from that. So we want to meet the requirements as far as whatever lot space we need. So currently we've got a 60 by 60 fenced in. Of course, we're going to expand that and make sure we get out to a road property. And we're even talking about meeting up with the fenced in area that the water tower is sitting on, the water tank, just to make lines cleaner, I should say. So overall, the minimum lot size, of course, you guys have for This top property is 5,000 square foot. Moving this property to a 70 by 100, meeting the setbacks as far as the front setback, the rear setback, and the side setbacks, we're going to look at around 7,000 square feet. So this is an example, and we're here talking about this because of fall zones. what's required from a fall zone of a tower. So you look at what a fall zone is, a definition is area where the tower or components could fall during failure, collapse, erection, maintenance, or demolition. Determined by the structural engineers, of course, using the tower height, the guide, the terrain, the loading, the location, and of course, the work activity is gone. Way back, when I say way back, the tower we got here was erected back in 2006. 1996, I'm sorry. So there are tower standards that keep changing, just like codes keep changing for houses and hotels and so forth. Tower ordinances change as well. So back in 1949 was the first iteration of that. Of course, we have revisions A through H, fall zone practices brewed from the tower safety planning, structural risk management, and as well as the industry construction procedure, rather than just a definition. So you see the revisions E, 87, 2006, Rev G, H, 2017. So we've got several different towers. We've got lots of towers in our county that we serve and we maintain. So this tower in particular, you see a large foundation there on the left? We maintain this tower. We have someone go and physically climb and check every bolt on the towers every five years. So this is one of those. I mean, they've taken a micrometer and checking the bolts, making sure they're tight, making sure they're not rusted. or any kind of curation. Same thing with foundations. They're doing all of this. I'm not sure, every tower owner should be doing this. They're not, I think this is. But we do this, and of course you see, this was erected in 1996, and of course Red E was, of course, before Falls Lights was created. So just to give you a little bit of history, here's our structural analysis. Every time we make a change, in other words, one of the carriers change an antenna, pull up one antenna, one antenna, put another, put another cable going up or down, we run a, I say we, our structural engineers run a structural analysis just to make sure the loading is changed, make sure the standards are met. And of course we go through structural analysis in 14 and 16. do both a structural analysis and a tower inspection. And of course, you see the latest one, we did a tower inspection earlier this year. We've got those photos and things we find. When we find these things or they find these things, we go and correct those. They might have a dented piece of support or a little bit of rust or something. Those things are addressed right away. So here's where we stand. We've got an engineer, our engineers that do this work for us every day and others as well. They are providing a fall zone letter. And of course that was included in the packet that you guys had. So what that is saying, hey, this is a zero foot fall zone radius. So if this thing was to collapse or fail, it's an act of God, everything else is. leveled in the community as well. It's not just the tower. So just to give you an idea, this is another property right down the road in Garden City, Seagreeves Drive. Of course, this is a reduced fall zone radius that the tower was designed on. So it's a 120 foot hole. It's got a falls on radius of 34 feet plus 10% for the safety tag. And of course you see the adjacent property with existing residents within that tower height as well. This is another city of Myrtle Beach, same scenario. It's fall zone is 18 foot plus the 10%. So it's got 20 foot falls off. And it's a 175 foot tower. So the property we are looking at today, surfside, Bearden Surfside, is 275 feet. We've got the engineering stamp letter that you see. He's provided a letter of zero cliff policy. So what I guess our ask is, what is, of course, I'm trying to present to you guys this and where we are, we just need what a property is required to minimize anything as far as this property. but we want to meet the requirements of the tab. And of course the support for Mr. Mark there is next to the determination. I think he needs the support from you guys on reading that ordinance. It does state that both structural engineer will provide the fall zone. And it also states the fall zone is the height of the tab. So that's kind of, Trying to know which one do you go by, kind of thing. So if the tower, if the engineer's stamp, a zero-foot fall zone, of course, that would be my call. But, of course, I guess I need your support on making a determination on this matter. Any questions as far as this?

I do have a question. Sure. So the fall zone engineer, is stated this year. but it references an analysis that was done in 2023. Did FALSOs change over time?

No.

We can have it updated. Well, I don't want to have you do something that's not necessary, but it just seems to me that if there was any chance that something changes, then it's probably more current.

2023 reference. It's probably the last upgraded carrier worn on the town. So that was the last time CEP had to run calculations on it. That's their last reference point. And as Scott mentioned, we could have them basically run it for 2026.

Is that necessary?

Oh, why not?

why not um gentlemen here see me at my invitation and when i read the ordinance it was clear as several other ordinances it was clear as mud and i said there is no way that i am making the determination on this that you have a zero fall zone unless i get seven members of my planning commission to hear and for me to hear a full presentation on what this means The downside, or I should say, this one, if we restrict them to the fall zone, in other words, if 275 foot falls out, we can do the math fairly quickly on how much parcel that they are currently on has to increase in size to handle that. That's the money question here. The money question is, are we going to require a 275-foot fall zone when I have an engineer's letter and seal on his license that he stands behind this zero fall zone? So that's the question that we are here to try to unravel.

I know that there was a question as to whether or not these two provisions are inconsistent with one another, but I would posit that one is about the fall zone and F is about a restricted location and not necessarily the collapse of the tower, just how far away you need to be from certain things if you were to start to build this today. But you already are a use in town. I suspect that doesn't apply to you. It's not like somebody's going to say you've got to move the towers. You're too close to these other properties, which I don't think F is about fall safety. I think it's about other things of people not wanting to live next to you know, sidled right up next to a tower like this. But since you exist, I think you're okay there. I would add that I'm not sure about the setback because I think there are two places for setbacks in our code, and I think they make them look like pieces.

How does it impact this, that that lands not occupied right now? I mean, other than on the other side of that road, do we know like what the residential look of that area could be in the future to take that into account? You know, because like some, some, some, governments like Horry County, they do the special site review, but then it also takes into account the proximity to residential, you know, and we don't really know that because it's all deep there, right?

There are the data.

Right, but we would be changing it. We're not saying go forward with the current 275

area, right? Like we're talking about reducing potentially the fall zone, right?

Is that what we're asking?

But there is no falls on per se with this tower wasn't struck. Right. So the engineer is offering and is a design a zero foot falls on in this tower. It should not fail, let us say, except for extreme acts of God, of course, just like this church. So, yes, and this tower is an existing tower. It would be different if it was a new one. Then everything would be going through the proper channel.

It would be different if there was already houses around it, but Does that change what we allow in that area?

That area that we're considering is residential?

No, we're not at all?

No, the wild water project will not include any residential. That was a proposal that was brought forward to the city several years ago before my time here.

um and there was a request for some mixed a mixed-use project with commercial toward the front and mixed-use residential to rear and that went all the way to council council defeated at that level that's my understanding that was the whole property the whole part right this is this outline that they're showing there it's a subdivision of the whole property right to the two about three acres you know and so that is being proposed for residents

its own PD, I mean its own C1, I'm sorry. And certainly a proposal could come forward. I haven't seen any proposal. So certainly a commercial does allow residential, as we all know, but in very, very limited circumstances. So one of the things that I struggled with when that came forward here was, first of all, I look at what I call the non-conforming clause. This is a legal non-conforming clause according to our ordinance, okay? That means that it's allowed to exist and continue in its present form into perpetuity, unless something is added to the property to increase the degree of noncompliance. And that could be, let's say they wanted to put a sale on this. Let's say they wanted to put a 600 foot sale on this. Well, certainly if you put a 600 foot sale on there, I'm using that as an example, Carolyn, follow follow my train of thought here that would increase the degree of non-compliance because that tower would fly for a half a mile okay so uh the question i had to ask myself is well they're on a parcel legally created parcel they're illegally created use they're created before the fall zone ordinance now i have this fall zone ordinance and they're thinking of Well, this is our size lot. So I thought to myself, this is a call that I did not want to make in a bundle by myself because this is serious stuff. This is, you know, this is the type of stuff that you read about in other places that, you know, somebody chirped their duty on an ordinance and a tower fell and people were injured or killed. So the thing I looked at was, well, perhaps could we create the setbacks on the surrounding property? In other words, let's just say, for instance, there was a hotel going to be proposed adjacent to this. Could we, as a city, actually require that setback? And I think the answer to that is no, we could not. We can't burden another property to make this property whole, right? I'm in the uncomfortable position of looking at the non-conforming structure clause, which basically says it can continue to exist in its present form, and I can just go on that. But I don't feel comfortable doing that. I'm just being, I'm just, yeah, very, very wary of just doing that. If I have an engineer's, just like if I have an arborist's letter with a license on it, I feel a lot better about making that call that it's a legal non-conforming structure. And I have a very engineers certification on that tower. That's a zero fault tower. And that's where I leave. That's where I leave the conversation, folks. That's why that's why these gentlemen are here to talk to you about.

So much of our way is about locating our That's not the issue here. The tower is already where it's always been. We don't worry about locating the tower. I don't see the problem. HGC is carving out their piece make it tinier to get it out of the bigger wild water and wheels mess. We've got an engineer's letter that says it's a zero fall zone. A lot of the stuff about where the tower is located is irrelevant because of the continuing permission by our own ordinance. I don't think we need to make a mountain out of a molehill here. It seems to me that It's a minor subdivision. Mark is uncomfortable and has asked for our concurrence. I don't believe the Planning Commission needs to vote on it. We just need some sort of consensus to make Mark feel more comfortable with this decision that's his authority. And the nonconformity continues. I'm not expressing this very well, but I think we need to not get tied up in how the tower is located. That is not the issue here. It's always been there.

Yes. It's rare that I 100% agree with Mariel, but I do. Where is the burden? The burden is really not on you. The burden is not necessarily on us. The burden is not on the HTC. I think the burden of this issue would be those who purchase property around and they're taking a risk of trusting in this uh engineer here trusting that we don't get a category five bird king with 170 mile sustained winds um but even that i i'm not sure that um says uh it will withstand wind speeds of 148 according to this engineer um hugo i think was category or do we get low form? Anyway, I would agree with Mary Ellen. I don't think it's our burden. The tower's already there. But I do understand where Mark is coming from. He didn't want to just sign off on this. He wants to share some of the . Yes, thank you.

Mary is next.

The background, because about what I have to say, I'm a PhD chemist. I was also a corrosion engineer as a member of the American Society of Corrosion Engineers for a long time. I was really pleased to see your comments on bolt inspection, torquing. You were measuring, they had a caliper or something to measure. I would imagine they're measuring torque and stuff like that on those bolts. I really trust the engineers, especially these ones that come with their certifications. I'm a real safety-minded guy. I'm inclined to trust this guy, though I do worry, as someone mentioned, about 150 mile an hour winds. We had an F2 tornado here 25 years ago, that hit 150 miles. So that's right at that limit. A little bit of a concern about that. And the other concern someone else mentioned is earthquakes. While we haven't had a big one here, we've had a big one in Charleston in 1886, and it was a 6.9 to 7.3. I don't know if that's the potential of earthquake.

that kind of magnitude.

It would be interesting if it did, but all in all, I'd say go ahead. I'd give Mark the go ahead to do what he really wants to do.

I'm pretty confident about it. Yeah.

So just the basics. So what is compelling you to be here? the fact that buying the property instead of leasing it. So with respect to the to the engineering, I realize you are the man of many skills, partly the Rust-Oleum group there, but comes in handy once it. The engineer's certification of safety Um, does that anyway absolve any liability for the city? In other words, let's just say something that does that thing falls. Somebody gets hurt. All right. Worst case. So, the planning commission director. We said, okay, we did that based on, you know, trusted certification. And I'm fine with all of that. My only question is, what does that do as far as any liability? I'm looking at the risk versus the reward here. There's not really any reward, and I prefer there be no risk. I mean, you're a attorney. I don't practice that kind of law.

I'm not offering any legal assertions. I would think is that this is a tower that's there. If we say, no, buy HTC, you can't subdivide, you can't whatever, the same circumstances still exist because the tower is there. So, I think those kind of concerns are not something that can be addressed at this point.

So, then all we're left with is the expansion of our areas today to 7,000 square feet, because I think you said the fence line is currently X, and it's going to be 7,000 feet. actually drove out there and took pictures looked at the property and there is a chunk of land you got to go in a little ditch there to get to the gate and i couldn't get over to the other side because all the bushes but the the whole thing is fenced in now at the size it is now and what you're saying is you're going to make the fence bigger no i'm we're not going to modify the stance or anything oh we're just going to appease the setbacks Oh, and the setback is what takes it out to the set, not the problem. Oh, okay. I misunderstood what you were saying. So, okay. Then even more so. Nothing's changing about it. It's there today.

Rock on.

No, no. The trepidation I was having is the... Arcel, correct me if I'm wrong. The parcel that they're currently on, that they're leasing, I believe is larger than the parcel that they're going to purchase. In my mind's eye, in my sort of swirly thinking, that if we've got an existing tower and it's on a one acre parcel, that tower can fall all day long and not hurt anybody. However, if that same tower is on a quarter acre parcel, Now it's falling onto an adjacent property. That was, I think, the crux of my concern. And again, if I have a letter from an engineer saying it's a no-fault tower, I felt very comfortable with that when we had the conversation. But I certainly did not want to make this very, very important distinction. and approval without more people, new people hearing what the issue is and directing me one way or another in the way that you feel. I would tell you my inclination was to accept it because it's a legally, it's what they call a legal non-conforming structure. And legal non-conforming structures are always allowed to continue into perpetuity. The only time they aren't allowed to continue is when the degree of non-compliance has changed. I was a little nervous about the degree of non-compliance possibly changing here because you're going from, again, I'll use the one acre parcel. I got a tower on this table and this table is an acre, falls on my own property. However, if I shorten up my property lines and it falls now, now it's on somebody else's property. Is that increasing the degree of non-compliance? That's my issue. And I don't have an answer on how to resolve that.

So two things I did not see in here. I didn't understand that. the property that you are leasing is larger than what you're trying to sell.

I think you may have spoken a little bit. So the property, we currently have a 60 by 60 square, and I'm just going to, that's the property I leased, a 60 by 60. So just to satisfy some, I know the side setbacks are zero, but I was going to widen it out, what I was going to purchase. away from the fence, so there will be additional five foot of setback on the sides. The front, where the gate is, you access from the road, I was just going to carry that to the property line, get to the right of way. And then on the back, I was going to satisfy the 20 foot setback on the backside and purchase that existing on an additional 20 feet. So existing, the whole property is, gosh, the entire property parcel. 3.8?

It's a foul for me, too. It's 3.8. I'm not sure if it overspread. I mean, the radius today. So, like, the example that was illustrated, if it falls in this direction, it's fine. But this house and this house are within the 275 today, as well as the water tank. Potentially, at least. As it is today, there's almost a small area that's not impaired, if something were to happen.

What does the blue line signify?

That's the current part of it.

That's a part of the current isolation?

No, no, no, we don't. We did not lease. I didn't understand that word, the red square. So the red square is roughly where our lease area is showing the impact. most of the purchases will be bigger, but this is kind of, if you will, roughly are this area. Inside is the new area. Yes.

But what is the blue area outline?

That's the parcel, the entire parcel.

Okay. That's the parcel and you want to subdivide so that you end up with the red square. Correct. And somebody else ends up with the blue parcel.

We're just going to set out the piece that the tower sits on. That's actually the parking lot in the kitchen. Actually, where the slides and everything were, were just a little bottom side of that.

That's this property right here.

That actually, all the slides and rides was on a different parcel.

Parcel, okay, okay.

I thought I understood what you're saying. So you're currently leasing 60 by 60 area. you want to subdivide to a 70 by 100 degree just meet setbacks i mean i'm good with the 60 by 60 but i want to please the minimum i just want to understand i don't want to understand where the confusion of where help me understand i think they clarified it for us what i'm hearing now is and and believe me i didn't understand the entire picture so 60 by 60 parcel now releasing a 60 by 60 parcel now

I didn't know that. I thought they were policing a much larger parcel and they wanted to subdivide smaller. What it sounds like is that actually decreasing the degree of non-compliance by actually subdividing a larger parcel into that, out of that square.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Yeah, I wanted to make sure I understood that. That actually- That's a big part of that. That before made a big difference. Sure, sure.

That's exactly why I wanted to hear you say that.

And also, not an attorney brain and not an engineer brain, but Just a question. The letter from the engineer says, therefore, theoretically, this structure may be considered to be designed for a zero foot fall radius. Does it make any difference that they're saying theoretically versus it is a zero?

I think it's a calculation. They're just running a model on the GUI.

And based on the results, they're saying that this tower isn't designed to fail whatsoever. And Scout was painting a picture that we're doing our due diligence. And insurance requires us to inspect it. And we just sort of meeting that, addressing the kind of items that they're calling out. So it's not a structure that's neglect, which is not to be a huge concern. So the engineer is saying, this isn't going to fail whatsoever. what they can't account for is in our book, or a category six. So whatever the event might be, the water tank would be gone in whatever event we're talking about.

So that's what I was trying to address there. Thinking outside of the box,

Do you have any, have you ever thought or had any need for a place to put a building other than the tower to, you know, what you're saying is you're looking to open the piece of parcel up to have some set tax, but does the HTC need to build a building? We have some property right over here. I guess the question is have you even, crossed your mind of purchasing more?

About this time. Okay. About this time. All right.

I guess. Thank you. And a very strong name, by the way. Yes. So I do have one other question.

I think it's one other question. I don't know if we have an issue with regard to setback. I read 17340 to say that the front setback should be 75 feet. And yet the chart from 17303 Tells me setbacks could be 20, the front yard could be 25 or 75 and then references a footnote. And I don't know which one of these controls.

The one that controls is the one that I feel controls. Okay.

That may be the best answer we have.

The footnote is actually something that I had to use several times And it's basically for properties that do not front on Highway 17 or the frontage road. There's properties that are pushed back, like on Sandy Lane, for instance. Sandy Lane, if those properties on Sandy Lane have a 75-foot setback, there wouldn't be any property left to build anything. And I don't have my code in front of me, Carolyn, so I'm not, if you want to read the asterisk to me, I'm fine. But I know that I have two charts in my office for C1.

and one of them is for highway 17 and then one of the other ones for other properties okay because i i think 7340 pretty clearly said 75 feet but it might be in here and it's for uh lots that front other than highway 17 which would this would be right there's not 75 feet there There could be, I guess. I don't know what the front side is. What's the front side of this front? I guess it was. Facing Seacroft. Yeah, facing Seacroft.

Yeah, that's maybe 30 feet.

Yeah.

Front side would be 60 by 60. It's roughly 25 feet. I think we're just outside of that 25.

That's me standing on the road. I know it's pretty close, but I didn't know that was being.

The only thing I would be concerned with, I use this clause all the It's an existing non-conforming situation. So even if it were 75, we don't have a 75-foot setback there. The power is allowed to exist on that parcel as long as they're not shortening the setback or shortening the distances on both sides. As long as those stay consistent, they are protected. And we call it, you all call it the grandfather clause, but I call it a non-compliant structure clause. As long as they don't make the situation worse than what it is today, they're okay.

Thank you. Thank you, everybody. I appreciate your time.

Because we've been over this one before. But what I'm going to suggest to you is that there are three amendments in the code that take place in order to move storage forward. First one is the parking chart. As you all may recall, parking required was Strangely high, I'll just say it that way, it was unusually high. So we are amending the parking chart to include a new letter that identifies what the new parking regulation is based on Horry County's parking regulation. So there's no surprises there. On the use table, the modification is, to not only okay there's two things on the new statement actually there's three things to get done in the newspaper one of the things that gets done on the new stable is that we move the letter u now to that far column over on the side it says what the parking regulation is and the other one is that we have a series of what i'll call restricted location uh requirements that would be okay let me back up let me back up Any storage is a conditional use. We have modified the conditions for this use by restricting location. And we have a four alpha set of restrictions on what the restriction locations are. Briefly, those are on the west side of Highway 17, Sandy Lane or Azalea Lane, and a minimum of 150 feet from Highway 17. Second was a series of screening. Outdoor screening areas shall be screened from public view by a minimum six-foot opaque fence. Performance standards are usual for this type of use. No use shall create orders, dust, smoke, glare, and so on. And storage facility operational standards only be used for dead storage, not stored hazard or explosive materials no conducting of any sales of any type on the property no operations repairs or fabrication of equipment that this was a key one that we discussed last one was to prevent open storage that is limited to 25 percent of the gross lot area remember we hunted that number around a bit and the number is at 25 percent and We then went into some detail about the opaqueness and the type of screening that would be used to screen the project. So those are all new revised conditions under which I would approve a project opportunity for bank storage. That would have to meet all of those conditions. The last piece of the is restrict, I'm sorry, the restricted tables of what I just So there's three. There's parking. We're modifying the parking regulations. We're modifying the use table. And we are adding conditions called restricted locations as part of the use table. The applicant that applied for this is here this evening again with us. He's here to answer any questions that you might have. I know Carolyn had some questions about what the conditions were, where they're placed and those sorts of things. And I think that's something we can iron out because this has to be a public hearing ultimately. And we've already noticed this for public hearing in the first meeting in September. So without sounding like I'm rushing you, we need to get on with it. We need to. this down the road and if there's any suggested modifications to the restricted locations or any restrictions or changes that you'd like to make to the use table I'm here to hear those what I Carolyn what I what I would ask is that Carolyn is very good at spotting not just what we're doing but she spots other things in the use table that give her heartburn and I think sometimes wants to roll these in roll some of those into this modification. And I'm not adverse to that at all. But I would like her to describe to you in her own words, what she feels those other modifications are because, and Carolyn, I'll just start it, if that's okay. There's not just mini storage as a storage facility, we have warehousing, we have warehousing allowed in PL, which is public, all the PL zoning that we have in town is all owned by the town. So it's, you know, it'd be on us. And there's a, and Carolyn, there was one other thing that you raised about the use table as well relative to, was it PL?

Well, two things that I think need to be addressed. And that is that many storage has allows a conditional use on public lands. And I suggest that we should take the C out of the column on mini storage for public lands.

No, I would ask. because I'm your zoning administrator, why would you want to do that if it's not part of the, I'll call it the public hearing issue that's going to be going forward in the public hearing? We can come back and do that, but I'm not sure that anybody like John Adair would perhaps be that kindly to that because maybe he's thinking of a mini storage on a publicly owned property or something like that. I'm just saying that We seem to be picking that out of context a little bit here.

Well, mini storage falls under manufacturing and industrial uses. So would public works need mini storage? That was

okay they might and i and i will tell you that without giving us the whole story away they're thinking of doing some work on their public land property on sandy lane as you know they just added a parcel next to it that is going to be coming back to you for zone change by the way um but i'm telling you more than you really need to know for tonight's subject okay i don't think removing c mini storage under public land really gets us anywhere. I'm not sure what the, and I don't mean to sound like I'm annoyed by this, but what's the ghost in the closet that you're anticipating? I guess that's what I...

Okay. It's not a ghost. It's right here on this piece of paper. Go ahead. We are saying in the modifications for 17396.8 with regard to storage facilities, that it can only be used for dead storage of personal property. John Adair couldn't do that, right?

He could do dead storage.

Dead storage of personal property? It's not personal property, right?

It would be public property.

Yeah. So there's lots of little- Again, Carolyn, forgive me.

Forgive me. And I don't mean to just come after you like this, But again, it's not in tonight's playbook, I guess is what I'm getting at. I see that as a cleanup item, but it seems like whenever we get on a code issue, we'd start attaching things to it that are not germane to the main subject matter here. And I want to keep us on that. I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying,

we want to keep adding these you know these oh and by the way we want you to remove c from mini storage under pl uh well i just thought that was that if i'm a councilman i'm going mark why are we doing that i just thought that was a more simple fix than going through all of the things in your paragraph four that might make mini storage on public lands, not work.

I understand what you're saying.

I'll tell you what, I'll make a deal with you. I'll write a letter to John Adair and ask him what he wants me to do with conditional use of a mini storage on public land, because that's what we're talking about here. I understand.

And in that same group with mini storage, the manufacturing and industrial use category, we have something called wholesale storage and distribution. It points to 17396.8, as does, well, mini storage, once it gets fixed, it doesn't. But how can a wholesale storage and distribution facility meet 4A? It can't, right? Only use for dead storage of personal properties?

We would not be able to meet that. So the answer there is, and I do agree with you on this one, is that we would take, we would, okay, so we have two choices. we either remove the condition from warehousing and leave this one standalone, or we number this one nine, and we leave eight where it is and leave it the way it is. That'd be another way to solve the riddle, I think.

I might agree with you there, but then you're losing the location restrictions. Right?

If I understood you right. You would lose some of the location restrictions. That's correct. But I will submit to you. Just take one in front of me. It's restricted to only what, the C1 zone?

The warehouse? Wholesale storage and distribution is restricted to C1, which was what I was suggesting. we should maybe do for mini storage. But I don't know, it snowballs because of restricting things to personal property.

Thank you.

Yes.

Yeah, I think we should just strike personal, leave it as property because mini storage might be used by home businesses. They need a place to store. the wares they're selling on eBay or wherever they're selling it. And what better place to store that than in a mini storage area? So I don't think personal property should be.

Okay.

I think the commissioner would see any of the other operational standards under storage facility as being injurious to warehouse and storage. You know, the screening I think is okay, right? we're not allowing we wouldn't want to allow any operation or fabrication because then it starts taking on an industrial use and we certainly don't want to conduct any types of sales from the warehousing so it's supposed to that's that's not what it's supposed to be there for Larry I think you you may have solved a large part of that issue

Yeah, if you take personal out, you don't need to change it to nine.

I don't believe it's a it's still good for all of the the other applications that reference. There it where you get a good start.

Yeah. If you want.

Does that solve it for you, Karen?

That one part of it, do you want to hear from the applicant?

Well, I would ask that before you ask the applicant up here, because that could become a long, protracted discussion that I don't necessarily think that he's here to engage in this evening, because he's read into where we're going with this. And unless he has, and I would encourage him to, come forward if he has an issue with anything that we're proposing, because I certainly want to know that.

I'm only reacting like that because he's acting like it.

We do. I think that's an important question. I'd like an important clarification with the audience if it's appropriate to address. It's a workshop.

Yeah, it's a workshop. Bring your tools. Just identify yourself. Yes, ma'am.

Charles Suggs, G3 Engineering and Survey, 24 Commerce Drive, Ballard Island, South Carolina. we were the original applicant for the text and relative to the parking we understand it's you know transition to some ordinance cleanup we really appreciate where we are and you know your ability to work with us it was really a point of clarification rather than a change um with the location restrict restriction i'm sure we're all aware of the parcel we're referencing i don't believe that parcel specifically fronts on azalea lane So, I just want to make sure that that specific section would not preclude the use from a current on that side.

It's on the list, so.

Correct.

Yes, sir.

So, I guess my question is- It's not an and or nor.

Yeah. Okay. I get you. Yeah. Okay.

Perfect. That's solved the problem with the question.

Your measured setback is more than 150 feet, so you don't have a problem with any of it.

All right.

That's all I had. Thank you. Yeah. I'm hearing about your location. It says on the west side of Highway 17 and then B is on Sandy Lane or Thaling. How about adding an or? Yeah, or would be good. A or B or C.

We can just add more after the end.

There's a choice there. If you just look at B, it's like the only place you can put it in the same way.

Madam Chair, the other choice would be where it says the use shall only be permitted if one of the following. You could add just a few words there versus adding more everywhere. If one of the following is correct or one of the following. Yeah, so either way.

Yes.

We don't want to be. And I can see or on A and B. but C needs to be in there, right?

For B and C. Right. Good catch. Thanks so much. Yeah. Yeah. Excellent. Excellent. Yes.

Sandy Lane and Azalea Lane are on the west side of 17. So why are we?

I think there was a general consensus amongst the Atlantic Commission that we wanted to make that very clear right from the get-go on the west side of 17 only. We didn't even want to have a conversation. I understand that.

But since Sandy Lane and Azalea Lane are already west on the west side, why do we have Sandy Lane and Azalea Lane?

specified there i don't there are a lot of other streets on the west side that we wouldn't remember we were talking about making that and uh they're built like industrial zoning because that's where we allow this stuff the only good answer i can give you is that there's a

Right down to Water Park, as a matter of fact.

So, John, you just said there are a lot of, there are other places west that we wouldn't want to.

There are other roads. I mean, we're just designating these roads.

I don't know if he's saying anything on the west side.

And it'd have to be zoned out.

Yeah. Okay, well, then, yeah, if we, if we're going to allow it in here, I thought the point was we wanted to keep. Yeah.

This was just not this was not what I thought our discussion was last time. So I was confused. So. When I saw the Sandy Lane and Azalea.

Yeah.

I agree there may be places that we wouldn't want it. And if there are, we need to figure things to say what they are. Because right now, if we say, or. It can be West of 17 and they're okay. Right.

Yeah, maybe we put.

And between a, and B, and the, or after me.

No, because... I have a question. No, because... So, John, for instance, the property behind the hotel that they're talking about, that's not on Sandy Lane or Azalea. Right. So... Yeah, I can't

Do we need to have Sandy Lane or Azalea Lane at all?

Well, I think that's what Melody was saying.

I mean, if there are places west of 17 that we don't want them to be, we need to know the answer to that. I don't understand why we are saying Sandy Lane and Azalea because they are already west of 17. I don't either.

I think that the right... Here is the 150 feet. West side, 150 feet. That gets everything off of what I call the retail corridor, which is what we're trying to protect. We're trying to protect the retail corridor from storage or anything like that.

Is that enough to protect the retail corridor?

I believe it is. But remember, there's a whole list of C1 uses in C1. And a lot of them are not like this. We are restricting this 150 feet from the frontage road. I would submit to you that someday in the not too distant future, we're going to go through all of the uses in C1, and we're going to clean that table up entirely. Okay? But I'm not trying to do that tonight.

No, and I'm not trying to make it difficult.

I just feel like what we've had here was like... I don't think we need Azalea or Sandy on there, no. I'm just trying to think of why we would have done that. And I can't come up with. Because initially.

Initially, we were trying initially when there was a storage facility that was being discussed where the hotel was going in. Where the hotel was going. There was uproar, outcry. We don't want storage. So what part of the discussion was at that point? Restricted to Sandy Lane. Okay. Restricted to Sandy Lane. But why we're, I don't, this language doesn't make sense.

Unless anybody disagrees, I would suggest that we just say on the west side of 17 and 158. Yep. I'm thinking of a map and I can't think of a good reason to leave those two streets when there are several other streets in that area that go this way and go this way.

But regardless, right now, if we put A or B, it can be any street west of 70. If we're doing or, we don't need Sandy Lane and Azalea out there. What we would want to do is if there's something we don't want, a location that we don't want, then it would need to be excluded.

So is there any reason that we wouldn't want this on Glens Bay? Because that's west of 17.

Yeah, if you took it 150 feet up Glens Bay, you actually almost run out of land that's in the town. And as soon as you go over the line, there's a storage facility right there. zoning mapping this thing for about three months yeah right the area of the hotel got to make a frame it's got to be this big it's got to be made out of this so folks like anything else let's bring in one thing and you guys put it up on this here okay so then

It sounds like what we want to have happen is to strike B from this and put an A at the end of A. So it's clear that you have to be both on the west side and 150. And then I just have a question. What does it mean no portion of the east shall be located contiguous to the Highway 17 right?

I mean, nothing can be on the frontage roof.

It's got to be at least 150 feet back, right?

But if you're 150 feet back, what additional information does the last second provide you?

I'm sorry, I wasn't following your train. Yeah, we can strike that sentence as well. Yeah. Yeah. That's what happens when you make ordinances. Sometimes you're thinking about something and you put it in and then you added something new and you forgot to strike out the original language. Because remember when we had that conversation, the whole portion of the shuttle located on Iowa 17? I remember having that conversation. All right, that's good. I like that.

I can go with that. Yes. I can't remember the last part of the entire ordinance in front of me, but we're working on section 17, 396.8 . But this also governs rape shots, for instance. Did we just allow rape shots on 17th? This doesn't just govern storage.

All those things that are restricted to family ages popped up on 17th.

I'm sorry, I'm not clear on that. We currently have a location requirement for vape shops. We do. And you all know the vape ordinance, and I don't. So what does it say? Wait a minute. I do.

I have it in front of me. I have to satisfy the conditions in 17453, and you have to be 1,000 feet. around a residential zone or residential use, churches or religious assembly, libraries, daycares.

You're essentially selling it out, what you did.

Yeah.

Explicits that would still satisfy, but it would end up really on Sandy Lake.

is to get rid of that 390-50.8, or, you know, 390-50.8, though. Don't fix it. This is the problem.

This is the kind of question that I include in the HTC tower, folks, if we got into a discussion of that in the tower.

step because i do that is the same sort of thing is this is it's a location restricted so it's it's not about the tower and it's falling down it's how and they just used the tower height as the buffers the buffer if you will so um Oh, residential. So the question is, when we use residential area in our... I know what you're going to ask. I know what you're going to ask. Okay, well, let me get it out there so everybody else knows what I'm going to ask. So if we say residential zoning district, that to me very clearly says it has to be an area where the town has zoned it residential. If it says a residential use or a residential area or whatever, does that mean it just happens to be residential, whether or not it is within the confines of the town? And that is a question that I wish we'd get a legal opinion from our town lawyer on it because, anyway, a good ordinance.

I would argue that.

A good ordinance would tell you. Yes, it would. Yeah. I don't know how I feel about it. This one was all based on the sexually oriented businesses.

But back to Mary Ellen's original point. which was, did we just open up everything to fake shops and sex shops?

I don't think so. Because it doesn't... Okay.

All I'm saying is check it before we move.

Yes. This is what has plagued me. I know Mark doesn't like this, but I... Now you've got... We're doing this by... Yeah. and the cross-reference is applied to multiple things and so it's it's a domino time that's a problem um question is debate shops and other things are they governed by 396 good um i don't believe so and if if that would work in case we do make it nine yeah um Oh, there's boodles of things that reference it. Yeah. What's my concern? You can't just make it nine because there is a nine. Yeah. You have to make it like that.

It is not when they're blank. The cannabis stuff in 17 Article IV, Division I,

where we detailed a lot of the argument.

So Mary, he's answering your question.

So what we did with the use table, even though what we did was correct, is it's to the article and the division, you know, we graphed it as far as makeshift. It doesn't represent.

But really.

so it's true it's not even just like these storages i don't think that's it but i think it's one of the one reference yeah i mean that is 6.8 no it's yeah record totally is records yeah thank you sorry yeah as long as i reject it yeah 336 is for auto uh store records

I don't know. It's for a lot of things. It's got a whole lot. If you sign just that screen. I'm looking at the chart. I don't think you're 96.8 anywhere. Oh, well, then go under manufacturing industrial. Where are you?

I mean, thank you.

Oh, yeah.

There's a whole lot of evidence.

Medical, dental labs, science labs, screen, sheet metal, machine shops, sign manufacturing, welding shops, wholesale bakers.

What makes it hard to transcribe it when people are talking over each other? Okay. Okay, so I'll submit to you.

396.9, which takes it out of the use table altogether. It's a special just for it. But now there's already another.

It's under massage. Nice. Body work here. So you have to go to. 36.10, well. Well, actually 14, actually 13. I would suggest that you go to 396.43, because that one we might be confident it's reserved. There's one in the middle that's reserved, but who knows whether it's really reserved.

All I'm saying is be careful. Yeah, be careful what you're holding. No, absolutely.

This is . Submit to you.

But as I look at the list under manufacturing, industry, Zabava 396.8, I would submit to you that our locational standards should apply to every one of these. Should be on the west side of Highway 17, should be 150 feet away from the right-of-way. That way we do not get any of these uses on Highway 17 taking away our retail corridor. I mean, that's a broad brush. It would be much easier just to number it something else. We'll be done with it. They're already restricted to Sandy Lane, are they not?

Yes, they are. They're already restricted to Sandy Lane. Yes. That's right. We don't want to let them loose on 17.

No, I'm saying that if you said, just forget about Sandy Lane for a minute, and you just say 150 feet up in the right of way, you don't have to worry about Sandy Lane, right? the depth of that, the depth of those properties? You don't think it's 150 feet back in the properties? I don't know. I think it is, but that's because I had given you something that little bit. Well, the simple, the simple step forward here is to simply renumber this section specifically for how many storage devices. And I think I would submit to you that

In the chart, we have it as 17396.8.4. But then on the thing, you just add it as 396.8.4. You've already got .4 on the name storage. Yeah.

I'm not sure that's the clean way to do it, but that's a path forward.

Well, I mean, where did the 0.4 come from that's on the chart?

Yeah, I just don't know. That's why I'm looking at the chart, because I see a 396.42. That is a location. Yeah, that's where it came from, probably.

Okay.

Well, you can make it 396.18.1. or you can make it 396.14.

I mean, is the goal not to just make it a unique number? It is to make it a unique standalone.

We don't want to put apart everything else.

Do you want it to also apply, because we've already had this discussion, to wholesale storage and distribution? why we were going with what Larry suggested about taking personal out as a modifier of property for it with 4A. Right.

Then whatever number we come up with for it, we change the wholesale storage reference to that number as well. Yeah. And that's.

I would suggest that this become 396.43. All right.

And then also change the reference to 317.396.43 for the sales search.

And I think that's an impact.

It is called wholesale storage and distribution where the and is an ampersand.

Is there a number associated with?

A number meaning the applicable standards?

No, no, no. Just an identifying number for that. It's just by the text. Full cell storage and distribution. Okay. All right. I'm going to make the motion.

You can't make the motion. This is a workshop. You can recommend if you want what we do.

All right. I'll make a recommendation.

madam chair yes do we need to deal with the wholesale storage right now because that's also labeled as an i not a r for restricted and do we need to be able to see it and review it before we jump into that one changing to and again kind of getting off track um where can we just get one done and go back to this one when

I think the parking for those types of uses, the chart is all L. So I'm going to submit to you, and I'm going to make it up right now. I'm going to submit to you it's not wildly crazy like that parking limit. All right, again, so parking storage for each IJ, one space for each 200 square feet of floor area devoted to patron use.

I or L? It could be either.

Just seems like a rabbit hole and then once we think about it, what about this? What about that? Can we just work on the mini storage to be done with that? Because if I see it one more time, I don't think I can take it.

Since I have this in front of me, I would suggest that we could because we 96.8 doesn't have the language that I found to be problematic for warehouse storage. So I think you could leave it. It has to be on Sandy Lake. Okay.

That's clear. John, was there something that you wanted to add to the mosaic here?

Yeah, I wanted to make a recommendation so that we can move on. is that number one you change the code reference on many storage units storage facilities to 17.396.43 and you also change your file section 17.396.43 as well. In addition to that, I would like to recommend that you remove and put the word and after item A and then make item C B. The next change I'd like to recommend is that you remove the last sentence of B

No portion of.

And the final recommendation is that you remove the word personal from item 4A.

Got it. Yeah, that's it.

Madam Chair, quick question. If we're changing the number, do we have to change the title? Because this one just says restricted location. Does it have to say restricted location mini storage, or how do we differentiate?

You can just leave it restricted location, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to restricted location for self-storage. Okay.

Mini storage.

Mini self-storage. Mini slash self-storage.

It's mini storage in storage facility.

Yes.

I would suggest that it's more than a restricted location. Maybe you should just call it mini storage slash self-storage standards or something. Conditions. Conditions. There you go. I liked what Janet suggested, and I liked what John suggested. I think though for public consumption, when the use table is done for our hearing, it needs to have 17396.42 listed and red light out, scratch out, because that is what is currently in the use table. And we need to be telling The public and town council, assuming we adopt all of this, that we are changing that particular thing.

So it would be 17396.42 slash through with red, right? Rough sound. Got it. Got it. I've made that change.

All right.

But just for consistency's sake, you guys are saying in Section 1 to make it A and C. No, I said change C to B. Okay, so make it A. But you're saying to add an and in there?

After, yeah.

Do we need the and? I don't know what I said.

You stated earlier that I needed the where and.

I understand, but I'm saying, do we need the word end? Because in Section 1, it says the use shall only be permitted, and then it shows both of them in Section 4. It says warehouse, many storage and other facilities shall, and then all of those, they have to do all of those things, right? So is it insistent?

I always err on the side of, is it clear with the end in it? and as your zoning administrator the word and i don't have to fight with i don't have to fight with people but it says camp so but it doesn't say and in section four does that make it inconsistent and more further madam chair i'm just asking not whatever

To play off of what you're saying, Melody, could we just make one sentence that you shall only be permitted on the west side of Highway 17 and a minimum of, you know, and like have two sentences in a paragraph versus A and B, because if you're not going to three items, does it, do you need to list them?

That actually should work. Yes, I like that.

John, is your own camera?

Yeah. This is all just sausage. It'll be captured.

It's built.

Is it where it ends in shout that it has the next word in each one of those is like shall only, shall not, shall not conduct, shall not operate, shall not permit, shall not, it includes all of those. That's the way I would read it. This is only the entry. It would be add. Or you could put the colon in order of facilities. I could put a whole bunch of shells in there. That's not the way that would be working. That's not the way that would be working. That's not the way that would be working.

That's not the way that would be working.

That's not the way that would be working. Are we good to move on to the next item on the workshop? No, that's.

Anybody have anything else for a minute story? Thank you. Thank you.

The next item on the agenda is dealing with gas and service station and out of service station amendments. And you may recall from the conversation and I'm broad viewing it here. is that we both we had both we had gas and service stations we had auto service stations the one was a conditionally used one it was permitted by right um rightfully pointed out like what's going on there so what we've done is we've gone back in and um we are uh modifying 396.3 Lenny Bean, Norcal PTACC, 390 what i'm proposing, it was that since we're not going to cause first of all i'm going to start with we're not going to call it service we're not going to call it. Lenny Bean, Norcal PTACC, Auto service anymore and we're not going to go gas station we're now calling it and I consulted on this one's vehicle fueling station. Lenny Bean, Norcal PTACC, that's a much, much better. Lenny Bean, Norcal PTACC, So that would be included in the chart. Lenny Bean, Norcal PTACC, One station and we would have. Some locational requirements with those and idealizing those, those would be, these are pretty much coming from existing conditions in the ordinance. All fuel pumps shoving 25 feet from the right of way of any street. Fuel establishment is located on a property at a street intersection, that's new. Establishment is prohibited from being located on Sandy Lane or Azalea Drive. The establishment is consistent with provisions of Article 9, design overlay of the zoning code. That's important. And no vehicles may be stored on the property after establishment hours. Parking at charging stations is limited to actively charging vehicles. And I got that from another code. And no light trespass onto adjacent residential properties. One of the main issues with fueling stations is They leave those big high-mass lights on all night long, and it floods into the adjacent neighborhood. And I've had calls about existing ones on that issue. So I would say no light trespass onto adjacent residential properties. These are all pretty – let me read what a vehicle fueling station is just for everybody and put it in record. Vehicle fueling stations are establishments where fuel or energy is dispensed otherwise provided for the operation of motor vehicles including gasoline diesel fuel electricity hydrogen compressed natural gas propane and similar energy sources accessory uses may include convenience retail sales food service automated car washing and other usual customer services any vehicle repair body work and long-term vehicle storage are expressly prohibited What's your, what's your wish on New Year?

Anybody have that?

I just wanted to ask the 17396.3.

Yeah, it's scope 3 on that one. Is there anything else referencing that? was there anything you'd like to track from that over into there or no i'm just saying like just happened on the last one i'm just making sure it's clean yep that we don't we don't know so rabbit hole is something else but you make sure now 73 96.42 the other that one was already there yeah Other auto oriented uses that references. Oh no, wait a minute.

Madam Chair, did you see under education?

There's private trade and vocational schools, Rockthorne-Spurston-Rainson, 17-396.30.

No, that might be 30 and not 30. Yeah, that would be 30. That would be a bad numbering system. Okay. Yeah. I disagree with that. Okay, so I think.

I don't think we have any problems.

But the only thing that referenced it was our auto service station.

which is the thing with the red line. I would suggest or make a recommendation to you, Mark, that when this goes out for the public hearing document, I know this can be hard because I'm going to be pointing, that this red line page that we have be the top part of the page and then the bottom part of the page be the new language so that it's understood that we are branching this and substituting this. No, no, no, in a courtroom I would be blistered because the record wouldn't be clear when I got a point of view. Okay.

That's the more recommendations.

Number one, move the last sentence in your introductory material and make it A.

Under vehicle fueling?

I want to make sure I'm on the same page as you are. Yes, under the vehicle fueling station. You make vehicle fueling A. The sentence says, any vehicle repair bodywork. So the last sentence in that paragraph, I would make that A. so that it stands out that that's really a standard as opposed to a description thing. And I would also suggest that the current D, which references the design overlay, fall out because the use table Make sure it makes makes the design overlay inflictable. OK. Yeah. And. We don't want any of these things on the scene. Sandy Lane. That's the commission's question.

I don't know. That's a question to you. From a traffic perspective, I wouldn't want it on any one of those streets. if it has to be in mccormick it would still be a better it's got that why is the yeah there was a reason what was the reason for track on circulation at all i can't think of a better one i will tell you though a short story i promise we did have somebody calculus who wanted to do an electric charging a rapid charging center and it was 150 feet away from highway 17 I found one of those back streets that I can't remember. It wasn't on a corner. And I was like, but he owned a lot next to it, which wasn't on a corner. I don't know that we have to put it in that it has to be on a corner, but that's a genuinely commercially acceptable thing because of traffic circulation from two sides of the street. What you do when you have it in the mid block is you have the entrance and the exits. Usually sawing against each other. It's usually not a runway system. It's what they call a saw entry. So it's two-way and two-way. It's almost impossible to restrict a gas station only in one entry, central. But I'm not married to any of these. These were suggestions.

electric vehicle charging thing was rejected just because it couldn't be on a permit?

No, no, no. No, they have not followed through on their following up on any of their permits. Their first thing they were going to have to do is remove trees. And they still haven't removed the trees. So I'm still kind of waiting around to see if they're going to come back.

Never waiting on us to get that tree ordinance passed.

Yeah. I really think you're right about at least the current day situation with gas stations. But I'm not sure that a vehicle, electric vehicle charging thing is really just a parking lot where...

It's a short, long-term parking lot. Yeah. It's not coming in for convenience. It's not coming in for a six-pack of beer and running out. It's not that kind of thing, which is what gas stations have become, as you all know. They're more or less little mini stores now. Oh, and you can get gas there while you're there. I don't want to parse it, if that makes any sense to you. I would just assume, take the intersection thing out, if we think that a supercharging facility in town would be helpful. And I would tell you that I would submit that that is something we would really like to have.

It would be, but you're still going to face the same problem. Which is? The ingress-egress. I mean, that doesn't go away.

I guess it's the traffic numbers you wouldn't support the constant turnover a gas station has. Only simply because, John, because of the length of time that it takes you to fuel a car. You have to sit there. Well, no.

But I mean, at the end of the day, it sat there longer, but he's still got to get out and somebody else has still got to get in. I mean, I think the variance would be one more of just the percentage of electric cars on the road now versus the percentage of electric car, gas cars on the road is what generates the high traffic. And my point is the reason you're doing the electric car thing now is in anticipation of getting ahead of. the future when electric cars will be more higher percentage of the cars on the road. And I'm just suggesting that regardless of how long you sit or whether you get a Scooby Snack, you're still going to have to get in and get out.

John, I'm not making this argument for anybody. I'm just going to point out the difference here. The difference is the rate of turnover. In an hour, An electric charging system car, even fast charging, is maybe going to see 50 or 60 cars an hour. A gas station is going to see 50 or 60 in 15 minutes. It's just a much faster turnover. So the average daily traffic that drives into a gas station is probably 5,000 cars a day, whereas the electric charging was probably 250, 300 a day. Right.

The only thing I would suggest to you, I agree with you, but there's always going to be people who are always going to be in vehicles and they're always going to be going somewhere. Now, whether or not they're driving them or not, that's another question, whether they're gas or electric or not, whatever. But all I can tell you as far as the rate of charging is, think back to when electric cars first came out and how long it took for them to charge them. And then now it takes 20 minutes. So this suggests to you that the technology will evolve. And at some point, getting electricity in your car is probably going to take about as long as it does to fill the thing up with gas. Now, today, you're right. There is a disparity. But I think in the future, you're going to have... higher percentage of vehicles on the road that are that are electric versus gas and i think the technology will progress to the point where hey you know it's the ingress egress frequencies turnover or whatever will be similar lives yeah and i'm i'm i guess my question you is what's the downside to just keeping them together i mean i get that there's differences right now but Is keeping it with the same corner lot, do we think that's going to prevent the supercharger from coming in?

No. I would say the corner lot location is a soft condition.

Well, they can apply for a variance.

No, not application. You'd have to show hardship. You know the variances.

Yeah, you're right.

So you can't show hardship. So I would say just take the condition that they'd be on corners out. if that's the philosophy.

Madam Chair, are you finished? Yes.

As a car owner since the first Tesla Model Y in 2020, I just don't see gas stations as a big issue right now. I mean, they're everywhere, but I mean, hotels, parking lots, You need more room and, you know, there's usually a string of them, not just one or two, except if it's at a hotel, there's probably like two, but, and not all of them are fast. Some are slow still, but most of us also have our chargers at our house. So unless we're going on a long trip, the charger I have at my house is pretty fast too. So it's, I just, I don't see this as a discussion that we need to have now, if it comes up. and there's like a situational approval, I think, you know, deal with it then. I just don't see that many gas stations right now to make this a big deal. Maybe in seven years, five years, I don't know, when we're all dead. Scott's going to talk. So just to ask, what you're suggesting is, what with regard to the way to do from well i think for now this is fine and i think what's going to happen in the future is you're going to get a hotel or something that asks for it this won't even help you so you're going to have to separate it eventually this isn't going to be a solving you know forever right what might it be pretty close is the hint suggesting uh charging location Some of them have them.

At this point, they have not. They're very easy to install. Usually, the issue is infrastructure. They have the power to put in a supercharger. The place that was thinking of putting in the supercharger, I suspect that's why I haven't heard from them. That is 90% of the time, that's the issue, is they can't get that. I'll just say they just can't get that big a wire into the space.

just to add to this about talking about the future and you don't know the future. I personally, hydrogen cell is the future. And I mean, really, we didn't know that electric cars would be what they are now. And so I think it is, I agree to that.

I think that's it. I thought we'd be there by now.

Anyone else have anything?

Is there anything on electric cars or anything on the whole section?

In the use table?

I have comments on the section.

Oh, yes, anything.

I got a problem with the storage prohibitions in here. In that last sentence of the first paragraph, it would just lead to A. It says, long-term vehicle storage is expressly prohibited. I think in the first place, long-term storage is read for, and then you go down to property after establishment hours. Well, that's almost, can't we just say in one place, no storage of any kind

Long-term is vague.

After-establishment hours is kind of weird. Because some of them might work. Yeah. Yes. What we're saying is don't, you may not store vehicles. Period, right?

Mm-hmm.

Just say it right away.

So people just take it.

And I've talked, like, I just might need to read it again, but I think I'll talk about it. Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

long term is a perfect definition so if the upper top it says they'll be able to repair body work vehicle storage all that's pretty good and then we get down to e and it says you know vehicles may be stored on the property it's still redundant but if you if you have it in the e why not just take it out of that yeah you can Need to be in both places.

That's what I'm saying.

Pick it out of A and just leave it in E. Okay, so A will say any vehicle repair body work automatically is not R. It's expressly prohibited. And then down in E, just say it may be stored on a property to carry it. We'll stop after the property? Yeah. about parking at charging stations, or are you suggesting that toll of E after properly parking at charging stations limits your activity? Well, if it's a loophole on storage, you can only park at a charging station while you're charging your vehicle. Right. Period. I mean, that sort of makes sense. I'd keep it. because they don't bring parking at a charging station story.

Anyone else? I just have one question, just out of curiosity.

On the redlined page, anyway it says no part of the principal building or box is located within 150 feet of any residential district that's not on the is there a reason we took that out which you should just really carry it over and i just wondered if you had a reason for taking there and you guys think i prefer to leave it in i think we should still get into then please change it to

I'll try to be done. Residential district, or are we going to just leave it as a residential district? I mean, might as well.

In town zone.

Well, different. There are residences that are on C1. They're on the second floor of several of the businesses. So we've got to consider whether that counts as a residential property or not.

Now, that's why I would suggest to you that we don't use the word property. It would be no part of the principal building if it's located 200 feet of any town zone residential district. All right. Okay. So I'm dragging B over to, I think it would be G. No, probably not G, it's probably already F, but I'll make it G for now. I like that suggestion. So C, G, all right.

Anyone else?

That's improved. That's better. That's why we have .

So in that same vein, what is meant by residential properties or residential districts or what have you? Oh gee, huge difference, yeah. uses adjacent residential properties. So if I am the refuel, residential area that is Deerfield and not Surfside Beach, do I have to have no light trespass? Make a recommendation. Okay, so I need a... I'm not going to tell you. I can make a recommendation, but I would make it very verbose, I hate to say. onto adjacent, any adjacent residential properties, regardless of jurisdiction. Is that too lawyerly? No. No, it's not. I mean, does the regular citizen get that that means Deerfield and San Francisco?

We need to be respectful of the surroundings. Yes.

I think this is, redundant i don't have the that's already in the ordinance it's about light on from any business on c1 along with 17 they cannot trespass onto residential properties and i know it's occurring down down the street by whale store so here's my here's my take on that and it's also my take on the tree ordinance one of the things that annoys me about the tree ordinance

know it is that the reader has to refer back to chapters previous and the thing you need to understand where he is and where he's going uh i like having the language in the depth and things of the person because it would the correct way to do it larry would be according to section 17 3.95 this project shall comply with the light trespass i don't think you got to go back and

I don't like your point of view as long as maybe the language is the same as in that.

It should be the same as the section that, yeah. I will look that up and so look it up. Yeah, that's good. I'll make them the same.

In that same way, when a conditional use permit is issued, Will it spell out all this language, or is it just going to reference 17396?

When I issue a conditional use permit, you will have every condition on the permit.

And has that been the case before you?

I don't know.

Okay.

The correct way to issue a conditional use permit is to permit with an attached list of conditions that go with the permit. That's the way it's supposed to be done.

And so there's no way for us to find out whether or not it has been done by just a cross-reference before. This is my concern. We are taking out auto service station, but are there existing auto service stations that have a conditional abuse permit that cites to 17396.3 and then don't laundry list conditions? And if we just wish them away, there's no reference and that the permit holder, I guess, can do whatever they want.

That's not the way the conditional use permit should have been issued. The use permit is a permit that I issue and the way I do it is there's a permit on top And there's an attached list of conditions that go with that. And sometimes I even add conditions. I add my own conditions sometimes because it's in a weird spot or something. I can't do this. And I attach it to that. That runs with the land. That permit runs with the land. Now, I'm sorry. I can't tell you what happened in the past here. I'm just telling you what the best practice is. Best practice is the conditions are attached to the condition use permit, and that condition use permit runs with the land.

What I would suggest for this, because I have to deal with this with documents, it's just always changing. You create an archive file. Okay. And then what you get. Yeah. So yeah, go ahead. Sweep it away. Yeah. But you maintain an archive file for everything that gets swept away and gets swept into the archive file. And you always have that for a point of reference. You know, I mean, For each section, you don't want to have one archive file for the whole thing. I mean, you're looking through. Yeah, create an archive file for probably the primary use category, and then you'll only have five or six in each one.

Yeah, I agree.

But I deal with that all the time.

I agree with that. I think it would be fantastic. I think the difficulty with that is that we have had very little continuity as far as staff, councils, planning commissions. And when the problem is that marks may say, I'm keeping this archive file, but the next person may or may not. And there's not always an overlap. Sometimes it's an under, and I don't know what the fix for that is. I'm just saying that that, is a continual, the lack of continuity has been a huge problem.

It'll be nice tomorrow.

I also have something called, and you probably don't care, but I also have something called director's interpretations. And I keep a file, a director's interpretation, so that the next person, they run into the same thing. They can read my director's report. When I got here, there was no director's interpretation. There is a book with some written ones in it, but there's got to be, just like you witnessed this evening, the use that I brought to you this evening, that was an interpretation that I was very, very uncomfortable making alone. And I think you can understand why. But that was an interpretation he made this evening. So that's how I'm going to write the preface, an interpretation. And it's going to go into the director's interpretations. So the next time, is there another tower in town? Well, there's water towers. No, no, no. Like 275s. Is there one other one? Well, if we ever get a new one, they have to comply to all the new regulations.

Oh, yeah. Hey, I know how you do it, Mellie. I was just thinking about it. Jerry put it in the job description for... for this role that you have to maintain the archive files for any .

But it applies not just to PB&Z. It applies to lots of other parts of the town administration.

Fortunately, we have some members of the Council of Independence this evening who were listening to this conversation might consider broadening the scope, but I think our scope

no you're right but i'm just saying in our lane yeah clearly just in bbc we have had directors depart the town getting a scorched work policy on their way out the door like burn the violence, it's that bad. That's part of our continuity problem.

That's why we have a second amendment, but that just eliminates my rule.

Okay. Sticking with this topic, Angie, do you happen to know the answer to the question of whether or not prior to MARC, any of the conditional use permits were issued with just a reference to a section number and not a laundry list of the conditions from that section number?

I don't have access to the previous director's files.

Oh, geez.

The permits aren't... Oh, no, no. Permits are a different world. There's drawers and drawers of permits that we can find a property we can pull, a permit that John Poulter has pulled 10 years ago.

On paper.

On paper.

The only way you ever solve this is through technology. You're not going to solve it through paper. It's just, it won't work. You could cross-reference everything online and have it all loaded up, all the paper from as far back as you can get it. and then you would have it all there but until the town puts that money out for a system it is what it is exactly well even like a an actual system of processing system where it moves things from status to status so it's going to the planning commission and it's going to town council and then it got approved or disapproved and it tracks all of that with all the detail where the data moves from thing to thing

have reporting that kicks out you can do searches you can you know the whole shebang i invited a contractor to give me a price on what it would cost if they fell over paper files all of our maps all of our subdivision flats and put them electronically in a format that you're just talking about where you searchable and all that sort of thing and the number came back and when i stopped watering i went well we're probably not ready to do that just yet but it was close to sixty thousand dollars

Yeah, we're there.

And that's a very reasonable price next year's budget.

I mean, I'm going to put that next year's budget. But I think we also want to make sure that we buy the technology that takes us forward and not just a little, you know. Right. Well, we just got to the nineties. I'm pretty sure we are removing the public comments yet.

Are we, I think that the vehicle fueling station, are we okay with what is being done with the use table? I don't know. Can we specifically address that?

I'm just deleting gas and service stations.

I'm deleting and it's not here. I'm deleting the auto service station, or auto gas, or whatever it's called.

I'm sorry.

So I have an issue with the use table, then, because the use table, at least the one that has the red one, it is putting in 17392.42. as the applicable standard, and that relates to storage facilities on public land. So I don't think that belongs there. I don't know where it came from. All right. This is the auto service station. I think that number was in.

Would you mind repeating the number that you just gave me, the 17, the chapter 17 reference? Okay.

Yes. But we've crossed out other service station, and it cuts to the vehicle fueling station. Right. And there's a red line there that says 17396.42. The list, it's in red on mine. It is red. And it shouldn't be there. The reference that's to 17396.3 should be there. That's the current section that's cited.

Okay. I will send you what I have. I want to make sure I get that right. I don't want people looking for something else. All right.

We'll move on to public comment.

I have a whole lot.

I'm not as facile as you guys on all this, but I think you just recommended that there be no cars allowed at a mini storage unit. But I think you meant outside, because a lot of people use mini storage units to store their old empty cars. So that's just something I wanted to bring up. Thanks. Yeah, we're not prohibiting that.

Yeah, we're done, I guess.

In fact, I would strongly suggest if that's in there, we remove that because a lot of people do use these. I mean, the amount of money in classic cars and storage units is astronomical.

Oh, yeah.

It's crazy. And we were talking about gas stations.

Yeah, we were talking about gas stations.

Yeah, exactly. No storage on gas stations. Marcelo wasn't as fast, obviously.

Thank you everybody.