[0:18] If you'll stand for the pledge of allegiance, please.

[0:21] [clears throat] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[0:25] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation

[0:30] under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

[0:39] » All right. So, everybody's got a copy of the uh of the minutes. Um I'll ask if

[0:44] anybody has any questions about the prior hour minutes.

[0:48] » I have a motion. Have a second. >> Second.

[0:51] » Second. All right. Any discussion on that? If not, minutes are approved.

[0:56] Okay. So, we're looking at uh PC-2026-22.

[1:02] » Good evening. Thank you all for being here. Uh this is a request to reszone

[1:06] from commercial reuse to central business district five parcels located

[1:10] 206, 208, 210, 211, and 212 Cougar Street identified as Florence County tax

[1:15] map numbers 974086 78 9 and 35.

[1:22] These parcels are all located on um at the end the south southern end of Cougar

[1:28] Street which is between Chv Street and West Palmetto Street. They are all

[1:33] vacant right now um largely being used as parking lots for adjacent [snorts]

[1:39] properties and the um most of the properties around them as you can see

[1:44] are zoned either commercial reuse which is the purple or central business

[1:49] district which is the brown. So they're right in between both and the request is

[1:53] to zone them from the commercial reuse which is a lower impact lower intensity

[1:59] commercial use to central business district which is a mixeduse much more

[2:04] um not much more but more intense more dense um zoning district. It's the

[2:09] downtown district and there's nothing specifically planned for that but that

[2:14] would make the open these up to be um a little more flexible for redevelopment

[2:18] going forward. and um seems kind of appropriate for uh what is going on in

[2:24] there. The uh future land use map has them as corridor mixed use um which

[2:30] [clears throat] is what they would be used for as well.

[2:34] These are some site photos of them. As you can see, they're just vacant

[2:37] parcels. Um any redevelopment would be an improvement. So, um and everything

[2:44] around it is former residential. It's been converted to commercial uses and

[2:49] the as you can see the um school for uh France

[2:54] » [clears throat] >> um yeah Francis Mary and the medical uh

[2:56] school where circle park or circle school was will be just down the block

[3:02] from this. So that concludes staff's report.

[3:06] » Thank you. All right. That's a this is a public

[3:10] hearing. So um usually for public hearing we give 2 to 5 minutes um for

[3:14] response for and against. So I'll open the public hearing if anybody has

[3:20] anything to say for they can come up to the podium give their name.

[3:31] » Good afternoon. I'm John Deberry. I've made the application. I think um Elaine

[3:36] did a great job of presenting our case for us and um but I want to give you an

[3:41] opportunity to ask any questions that you might have.

[3:44] » Commissioners, any questions for this gentleman?

[3:47] » Can you point Can you point to where um Circle Park?

[3:51] » So you you see where the King Avenue and Greg Avenue round make the

[3:58] » semicircle there. >> Oh, right here.

[4:00] » Yes, sir. Okay. [clears throat] >> So, that's where the new um medical

[4:04] facility is being built. >> Okay. And then you these are right here.

[4:09] So, uh you don't have any there was no uh

[4:14] uh use. You don't have any uh plans for what you

[4:18] plan on. >> So, the plans that we have um don't have

[4:21] any current plans for these parcels at this time. Um they all right. So the the

[4:28] dark red right around it, those are already zoned CBD and these are parking

[4:34] lots that serve those parcels.

[4:39] And [clears throat] we're in the process of trying to fix up

[4:44] some of those buildings there. The tenants have vacated and want to put new

[4:49] facades on them and invite, you know, more activity down there. Um, and I

[4:55] think it's important it's this area is kind of in a donut hole because even the

[5:00] light shaded pink between Graham Street and Cucer and Palmetto, those buildings

[5:07] and uses are already operating like they're in the CBD. There's a bar in

[5:13] there. There's a paint store. There's a boutique. Um, so we were just hoping to

[5:19] make it more consistent with everything that's going on right in that area.

[5:24] There's a nightclub on one side of it, um, Osborne's

[5:28] and this would just be an opportunity to

[5:32] make all of that consistent kind of a consistent area and they'd have

[5:38] consistent setbacks with the other parcels and the way that all the other

[5:42] buildings have been built over the years.

[5:45] You say it serves as parking. Is this parking hooked to other parcels or just

[5:48] » Yes, sir. Um, so it is there's an originally what was the

[5:56] social security office building that faces Warley Street. This is parking for

[6:02] that. And um, two of the parcels have historically been parking for medical

[6:10] facility on Palmeta Street where Dr. McKay used to be. Mhm.

[6:15] » And um so it served kind of in both directions as parking for them.

[6:22] » The parking is going away. You're going to do development that

[6:24] » No, sir. Um for the time being that will continue to be parking. We hope to be

[6:29] able to landscape that nicely and really kind of like the downtown did, make the

[6:36] facades of the back of the buildings on Warley Street look attractive and and

[6:42] perform more as the entrance of the buildings to take advantage of some of

[6:47] that parking in there. Um, and landscape it nicely. And then then the idea is

[6:53] we've got a concept of a future possible another office building there if things

[7:01] go well with the the renovation or maybe some um some town houses down in

[7:10] there. >> Okay.

[7:14] » Any other questions? >> You say the word town. I fig that's what

[7:18] you going to do in the future. >> Well, That's one purpose of each one of

[7:23] the parts. You going to divide it up and try to do that, right?

[7:27] » No sir. Um so if we

[7:33] we would not divide that up for um well first of all I think the lane can

[7:38] correct me but right now I think it's it would be appropriate for town houses in

[7:43] the commercial reuse. >> Yes, I think town houses are permitted.

[7:48] So I don't think that you know makes a difference in this request but um that

[7:55] is really not you know originally my that's this is a later phase of what we

[8:02] have in mind if things go well and I was thinking another office building but the

[8:08] city did suggest to look at when I talked to Hannah um Davis in the

[8:13] downtown development department she suggested that we look at the

[8:17] possibility of putting putting some housing down there.

[8:25] » Any other questions? >> Thank you.

[8:27] » All right. Thanks, sir. Anybody else speak for this?

[8:32] Anybody here to speak opposed? If not, I'll close the public hearing

[8:39] and ask for discussion.

[8:43] » Any questions? Call for the motion. Make a motion to

[8:48] approve. >> Second.

[8:49] » Second. We have a motion to second. All in favor?

[8:52] » I. >> That passes.

[8:56] » All right. [sighs and gasps] Another public hearing. PC-2026-23.

[9:02] Elaine. >> All right. This is a U request to zone

[9:05] um NC15 pending annexation. A Whoops. A parcel um located at 2711 Ascot Drive.

[9:13] and um uh identified as Florence County tax

[9:18] number 00980181. This is another donut hole in Windsor

[9:22] Forest. Um these addresses probably look kind of familiar. We've got several this

[9:27] month and several next month as well. Um single family house surrounded by um

[9:33] houses that are already in the city and they just want to um probably got tired

[9:37] of watching their neighbors get their trash picked up and want to join in

[9:41] that. Um it would be zoned NC15 which is what everything around it is zoned and

[9:46] um the uh future land use map also has it as neighborhood conservation. So

[9:51] everything is in keeping. There'll be no changes to it. Um and as you can see

[9:56] it's a single family house. So um that concludes staff's report.

[10:00] » Okay. All right. I'll open the public meeting. Anybody here to

[10:05] speak on behalf of this proposal? Hearing none. Anybody against it? I'll

[10:12] close the public hearing. Call for a motion.

[10:14] » I'll [snorts] make a motion we approve. >> Second.

[10:17] » Have a motion to second. All in favor? >> I.

[10:21] » Motion carries. >> Okay. Uh PC-2026-26.

[10:28] I'm sorry, excuse me. PC-2026-25.

[10:32] » Right. Because 24 has been deferred for next month. Um this is a request to

[10:36] reszone from NC 6.2 2 to NC6.3 18 parcels located on North Aken Drive. I'm

[10:42] not going to read all 18 tax map numbers. Um

[10:47] here's the addresses and the tax map numbers. They're all um sequential on

[10:52] the um located along North Aken Drive, which is a small uh residential area on

[10:58] the north side of West Evans Street. And um as you can see here, here they are.

[11:04] And they were developed in the 1950s. these houses were built and there's

[11:09] there because there is a single family house on each of them and it is a

[11:13] residential donut hole surrounded by commercial general commercial all around

[11:17] it and the request is to zone it from reszone it from the NC6.2 2, which only

[11:23] allows single family and uh duplexes to NC 6.3 in order to give the developer

[11:31] the option of developing single family, duplexes, town houses, multif family,

[11:37] whatever works out uh whatever the market would work out. They just would

[11:41] like to have that flexibility. And um we did have [clears throat] a um

[11:47] one of the other property owners, one of the few that are left um was interested

[11:52] in that and just wanted to make sure um you know that this was a quality

[11:57] development. And as I told him that's not what this is for at this stage that

[12:01] um that would come under any redevelopment late at a later date

[12:06] because these lots would obviously have to be recombined and re subdivided to

[12:11] accommodate whatever the development was. But at this point for tonight,

[12:15] we're just looking at reszoning it from the NC6.2 to the NC6.3.

[12:21] Um and here's some pictures. As I said, there older houses built in the 1950s

[12:26] and they're all rentals at the moment. I don't believe there's any um uh owner

[12:32] occupied houses there. So, that concludes staff's report. Okay. Uh I'll

[12:38] open the public hearing. Anybody for or against this proposal? Come up to the

[12:43] podium. Sir, say your name. [snorts] [clears throat]

[12:52] Good afternoon. My name is Harvey Frierson and I'm

[12:58] are on the end there which is not listed on the map there regards to uh changes

[13:05] and I are listening to so far what's going on with the uh town houses and I'm

[13:12] like Mr. Akens years back in 1950 he developed that area

[13:19] [cough and clears throat] and my concern in 2026

[13:23] is concern about 20 46 you coming in are changing up modifying

[13:32] the neighborhood if so should be able to afford it and my concern was that if

[13:38] they're going to plan I'm going to bring it to your attention now that street

[13:42] likes should be your part of that planning. Sidewalks from Evans Creek to

[13:49] Evans Creek are back of the property is railroads

[13:55] and right now we're experiencing foxes and coyotes coming into the area and

[14:01] that should be concerned also. And Florence itself is growing yet

[14:08] nobody mentioned the senior citizens. So if they're going to buy that

[14:13] property, I would like to see some senior citizen living in that area.

[14:20] Now when you grow old, you're going to be young. What about the playground for

[14:23] the children? So those my concern if that's intact with the planning, I have

[14:29] no problem. But right now, I want it to be known

[14:34] that this is what uh some of the residents who's not on that

[14:41] map is concerned about.

[14:45] » Again, thank you for your opportunity to express my concern.

[14:50] » Okay. Any questions, Mr. Chairman? >> Uh what house do you live in, sir? I

[14:55] live in the first house next to the uh I think it's ENT building. I've been there

[15:01] perhaps about 20 years, 25 years. [clears throat]

[15:06] » So is is your house >> the first one the blue house?

[15:10] » Yes, sir. >> It's it's in this proposed change.

[15:13] » No. >> No. In fact,

[15:15] » you're outside of that. >> Yes, sir.

[15:16] » Oh, okay. >> And I'll be affected also. If you look

[15:20] at this zoning map, his is the first yellow parcel um next to the orange on

[15:26] the right where they the the pieshaped parcels. Um it's tax map number 006.

[15:34] » Okay. That's near the AT&T. >> Yes, sir. Next door to you.

[15:38] » Yeah, I know what you're talking about. >> And and your concern is basically about

[15:43] future use. >> Yes, sir.

[15:45] » That's what you're voicing an opinion on.

[15:47] » Yes, sir. sidewalks, senior living,

[15:53] playground for the children or a shield against the railroad track

[15:59] or ownership for driers as well as wild animals.

[16:08] » All right. Thank you, sir. Any other questions?

[16:12] You good? I would need to recuse myself from this

[16:16] because I do have interest in this project.

[16:21] » Okay. >> So, we just can't have your vote. All

[16:25] right. >> Right.

[16:26] » Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Anyone else here to speak on [snorts] this

[16:30] proposal? >> Oh, would I be able to speak on the

[16:32] proposal? >> Uh, or what does the

[16:35] » You would um >> Okay.

[16:37] » You'd have to go out there and Yeah. as a

[16:42] » point of order the audience for this for this [clears throat] particular case.

[16:46] Yes, >> point of order. Uh because she's

[16:49] reclused herself, that only gives us four people.

[16:52] » That's okay. >> So, we can still vote. As long as as

[16:55] long as you start the meeting with a quorum,

[16:57] » correct? [snorts] >> Everything's good.

[16:58] » Yes, ma'am. State your name. >> My name is Xavier Sams and I have an

[17:02] interest in this project. Um this current project the owner has other

[17:07] rentals and as part of the echo program which also helps those who with domestic

[17:13] violence. Um they also assist veterans and seniors in those rentals because

[17:18] this property has been is very dated. The solution would not be to renovate.

[17:24] It would be to have an effective [clears throat]

[17:27] living. Um, they currently have different things going on with them

[17:31] where tearing down would be more effective as far as windows cost

[17:36] effective and different things like that. So, as far as building back,

[17:41] reszoning to NC 6.3 would give it more flexibility to build different things

[17:46] back there. Um in talking with housing authority and also city some of the city

[17:51] council who is also um excited about this project as well. They mentioned

[17:57] that um there is not a lot of affordable housing for senior citizens and for

[18:03] those who want to have some type of um when you have affordable housing they're

[18:10] looked at in a negative type of way. Um, [snorts] so rebuilding these homes to

[18:16] have I'm not gonna say upscale, but to have

[18:20] different amenities that they would actually enjoy when these are going to

[18:24] be rebuil rebuild back. >> What What else is in this area around

[18:29] these? Can you comment on that? Maybe you can.

[18:31] » Uh, Terminex was on the corner. Um, you have a CPA building. Um, it's like a

[18:39] it's right >> I can't reach it cuz I'm short,

[18:43] » but at the very beginning right here you have a lot of different offices there as

[18:48] well. Uh, and in front of it is the old health department. You can't even see

[18:53] these homes from Evans Street. You have to literally drive in there in order to

[18:58] see it. >> There's commercial running already.

[19:00] » Yeah. >> Mhm.

[19:03] » And you call that the Echo? What did you call it? Echo is a program for different

[19:07] individuals who need housing. Okay. >> Affordable housing.

[19:12] » And you also mentioned veterans too. Work with veterans. But put place

[19:14] » it would be veterans placements. They already working with the veterans. They

[19:18] work with uh senior citizens and they work with lowinccome also considering um

[19:22] housing authority as well. >> Okay.

[19:25] » So that was sort of address some of the things he previous gentleman was

[19:29] speaking about >> as the senior citizen population. That

[19:32] is something that is noted. Um and looking at some of the different floor

[19:35] plans that is being visited, that's why they have decided to do two primary

[19:40] bedrooms. If they were to rebuild, being that if there was a senior citizen who

[19:45] wanted to rent these, they would be accommodated on the first floor. Um a

[19:49] lot of homes are now as a realtor here in Florence are going to

[19:52] multi-generational homes just to offset the cost of housing. So, we lack a lot

[19:58] of affordable 4bedroom homes in Florence versus going back with the current one

[20:06] which has three bedrooms and one bathroom.

[20:11] » Okay. Any other questions?

[20:14] » Now, he addressed the issue about sidewalks.

[20:18] Are y'all planning on putting sidewalks there for them so they can walk around

[20:23] that circle? That has not been discussed as part of development when it go comes

[20:28] to zoning. So right now it's just in the reszoning phase.

[20:32] » That will be addressed Elaine. What that would be addressed for in future.

[20:36] » Yeah, I think it depends on the scale >> layout scale. Gotcha. Right.

[20:39] » It may require sidewalks. It may not. Um but it depends on the scale of the

[20:43] development. >> But there's rules and regulations. Yeah,

[20:45] there's rules and regulations you have to follow.

[20:47] » And that is a DOT road. It's not a city road.

[20:56] So, you're planning on putting back single family living homes

[21:02] because that's what's affected now, right?

[21:04] » It has been discussed to add town homes.

[21:10] » And you going to do single family homes also or this town?

[21:13] » It would be town homes. >> Towns.

[21:15] » All town homes.

[21:19] Any [snorts]

[21:28] other comments, questions for this young lady?

[21:34] » So, where will you put the each lot? We have a townhouse. That's what you have.

[21:38] » So, after zoning, um what was also discussed because of the setbacks, it

[21:44] would have to come back and have each parcel would have to be reserveyed. So,

[21:48] some of the parcels may have to be combined because it the setbacks and

[21:52] they're also the the lots are shaped funny.

[21:56] » I see. >> Yep.

[22:00] [snorts]

[22:05] » And it's on two sides of the street. So, on the inside is a pie shaped. on the

[22:10] outside is actually you could do more with it, but the pies shaped is the one

[22:15] that's going to limit that's going to limit everything.

[22:24] » Yes, sir. >> No single family.

[22:29] And the reason being is that you can put more affordable housing as town homes to

[22:37] accommodate the growth of Florence.

[22:44] You put elevators in it because you got townhouse. You might have to have

[22:48] stairs, right? >> You would have to have stairs in there.

[22:51] » That's going to be good for >> Well, that's why there are two primary

[22:56] bedrooms. One on the first floor or two bedrooms on the first floor, two

[23:00] bedrooms on the top floor. We're focusing on multi-generational as well.

[23:05] So, it's a mixture of everybody.

[23:12] All right.

[23:16] » Any other questions for her? >> All right. Okay. Thank you.

[23:20] » All right. Thank you. >> Um I'm going to close the public meeting

[23:22] now. Um any discussion

[23:28] before any discussion in options? Guys, >> can we reopen the public hearing or it's

[23:33] closed? >> That's up to the chairman. That's that's

[23:35] chairman. And we've heard both sides. to give both side equal equal amount of of

[23:39] of time. So if there's no discussion amongst us, I'll call for a motion.

[23:45] » Move for adoption. >> Have a second.

[23:47] » Second. >> Any discussion?

[23:50] » All in favor say I. >> I.

[23:52] » I. Motion passes. Okay. PC-2026-26.

[24:02] » All right. And what one point of order before we move on. The um the deferral

[24:07] of the Stratton Drive case, if you wouldn't mind bringing that to vote just

[24:10] to defer it so it carries forward to the next agenda. Sorry.

[24:14] » All right. >> I'll make a motion to defer.

[24:17] » Second. >> All right. [laughter]

[24:19] » There it goes. >> It's deferred.

[24:20] » Yeah. And everybody votes. Okay. Very good. It's

[24:24] » all in favor. >> We're official. Good.

[24:29] » Just to make sure everything's official. So, um, this is an amendment to a

[24:35] proposed amendment to the unified development ordinance regarding, uh,

[24:39] noise and vibration regulations. And, and this one's a a little different in

[24:43] that, um, this proposal would remove the noise ordinance section from the unified

[24:51] development ordinance, which is the zoning code that planning commission

[24:54] recommends on. But we would we have existing code also in the code of

[24:59] ordinances which city council takes action on. And um we we want to one put

[25:04] it all in one place um so that it's easy for the public and for for our police

[25:10] department who's enforcing this um to to comprehend and to use so it's all in one

[25:16] place. So we are um proposing that it be removed from the unified development

[25:23] ordinance and the the key um pieces of that be combined into the existing code

[25:31] in the code of ordinances. So, um, planning commission if they choose to

[25:36] would be taking action to remove it from the unified development ordinance, but

[25:41] that would be contingent, I think, I think, on it being placed into the code

[25:45] of ordinances by city council. And, um, this was brought to us by a member of

[25:50] city council. And it kind of started with um, a recommendation to extend

[25:56] right now. Um there's there's different decibel levels which I'll go over here

[25:59] in a second for um you know commercial districts and um residential districts

[26:05] but um based on decibel levels that they have to be reduced to a certain time or

[26:11] or a certain level um currently at 1000 p.m. um in our commercial districts and

[26:18] it was proposed that that be extended to 11 p.m. and that so that change is in

[26:24] here as a proposal. Um but also staff took it a step further and wanted while

[26:29] we're while we're touching the noise ordinance, we wanted to combine it all

[26:34] into one easy to use document. So I'll um all of that was in your packet. Um

[26:40] but um essentially I we put in the packet what the um current uh unified

[26:47] development ordinance has in it. Um and that's showing as as struck through um

[26:52] in this because it would be removed. Um the key parts of of this code are the

[26:57] decibel levels that is not in currently in the code of ordinances. But we

[27:01] thought it was important to tie that, you know, the sound to a measure um that

[27:06] that a meter that we could actually, you know, that'll hold up in court or or if

[27:11] even if the police just go out there and you know and you know they have that

[27:15] decibel meter and they can say, "Hey, it's exceeding that. would you quieten

[27:19] down? Because, you know, everything doesn't end up in court, but um they can

[27:22] just get um instant, you know, folks to instantly quieten down. Um but the I did

[27:30] want to show um you know, the code of ordinances are also in here. Um you

[27:35] know, this is what city council would have control over. um these first 12

[27:42] items, the the 10-9 and 10-10 and the first 12 items would remain unchanged.

[27:48] Um that's as it currently reads in the code of ordinances. Um but then starting

[27:53] with 14 is where we start the incorporation of the unified development

[27:57] ordinance. We took um language specific to schools where they that out of the

[28:01] UDO and incorporated it um so that that you know between seven and four people

[28:07] can't be making noise outside of schools. Um, and then we added number

[28:11] 17, which has to do with recreation, um, recreational motorized vehicles, you

[28:16] know, four-wheelers and go-karts and things like that, um, that that they

[28:20] can't be making certain noise levels, um, in in neighborhoods and such. And

[28:26] then um under the exceptions, we incorporated some of the exceptions that

[28:31] were in the unified development ordinance or all of the exceptions

[28:35] actually um such as construction activities and that's outlined um up in

[28:39] 1010. It has certain um time requirements on that. So you can you

[28:44] know perform um construction in the city and and the noise is accepted to that

[28:49] basically during the daytime hours um as is acceptable. Um also um the noise

[28:55] emanating from a um that's temporary in nature like landscaping blowers,

[28:59] lawnmowers and things. We all expect temporary noises from that within our

[29:04] residential and commercial areas as well as agricultural equipment in the um in

[29:08] the appropriate agriculture zoning district. Uh also emergency warning

[29:12] devices, that's you know your police cars, ambulances, fire trucks. Um and

[29:17] also um the um events that was already in there, but things like the pecan

[29:23] festival or special events that we held downtown, but we did add some times to

[29:27] that um because even though the city says it's okay, we should still follow

[29:32] some rules. So we put from uh 7 a.m. to 1000 p.m. That doesn't give the city

[29:37] free will to go out there and run the pecan festival till 2 in the morning or

[29:40] anything. So we did put some times in there. And um and then we made reference

[29:46] um to the appropriate section in the unified development ordinance there.

[29:50] [snorts] And um then everything in the uh the black font there is um already

[29:56] existing in the code. And then um these are all the sections regarding the uh

[30:01] decibel levels and the times um that was taken from the uh unified development

[30:07] ordinance and placed in there. Um the changes from the unified development

[30:12] ordinance to this document um are are that that first section there the one

[30:17] through four um the primaaci violation and um it that establishes um for the um

[30:25] codes enforcement or or the police department who who's on the scene uh you

[30:29] know a way to actually show that there's a violation. Um it it says that they

[30:34] have to have a a meter a decibel meter. Um it tells the scale by which it's

[30:39] measured. It's got the American National Standards Institute or ANIE. Um that the

[30:44] you know the meter itself has to be certified by and it tells where it need

[30:49] you know it needs to be taken at a reasonable location on the property

[30:52] where the sound is occurring. So you know if I call that my you know that I'm

[30:56] in my living room and I can hear my neighbor's kid playing the drums then

[31:01] they basically need to come onto my property at a reasonable location and

[31:04] and show that decel level. they don't need to go onto the neighbor's property

[31:08] to do that. So, it establishes things like that. Um and um the the one change

[31:15] is that um you know from uh 7 to 10 in residential districts it has the

[31:20] different decibel levels and then um in the commercial districts it's from 7:00

[31:25] a.m. to 11:00 p.m. And just to um give you a um if I can might have lost my

[31:31] sheet of paper here, but um the decel There it is.

[31:37] So to give you a gauge for decibel levels and this is decibel this is a

[31:43] logarithmic scale. So um you know from 55 to 60 it is a huge increase u but you

[31:51] know a normal conversation um kind of with some or some background

[31:57] music um if you're in a um in a doctor's office or something like that would be

[32:02] around 60 dB. So that's just kind of normal conversation, uh, normal kind of

[32:07] chatter. Um, if you're, um, and that's, you know, more in the range of what's

[32:13] acceptable in residential areas. Um, but then if you go up to commercial areas in

[32:19] that 75 range during the daytime, um, it it's talking about a vacuum cleaner, you

[32:25] know, um, you remember when you were a kid watching cartoons and your mom was

[32:28] trying to vacuum and you couldn't hear the TV? That's the kind of noise that

[32:32] that is is is that level of of noise. Um and then uh at night it would be

[32:38] expected to be 70 dB which is more like office noise or inside of a car at about

[32:43] 60 m hour or so. So it's that kind of noise. And then industrial areas have a

[32:48] a different decibel level but it's even quieter at night because most industries

[32:53] tend to shut down at at night and we don't have a ton of industrial areas

[32:57] within the city. Um but we did we did incorporate that chart um with the with

[33:02] the change times into the proposal um within the um code of ordinances and we

[33:09] also incorporated um some of the um other language about

[33:14] proposed barriers or structures that could be um incorporated and also

[33:19] section um 10-xx. There I put an XX because we haven't assigned that a

[33:24] number in the code of ordinances. Yes, but yet but um the code of ordinances

[33:28] didn't have anything referring to vibrations, but the unified development

[33:32] ordinance did. So we took that section and put it in there as well. So, um that

[33:38] outlines some of the proposed um changes and planning commission I I think if

[33:43] they choose to um uh move forward with this would propose to remove it from the

[33:48] UDO um and then give council uh the ability to add it to the code of

[33:54] ordinances here. So, and that concludes staff's report and I'm happy to answer

[33:58] any questions. >> I have a question on [clears throat] the

[34:01] decibb. I have a problem with decibb. So, I'll tell you right now, [laughter]

[34:05] if me and Mr. Moses are outside having a barbecue at his house and we have our

[34:09] wives there or kids, grandkids, whatever, you will exceed every decibel

[34:14] you have there. >> Without question.

[34:17] » All right. So, I have a very sensitive uh when it comes to decibel readings uh

[34:22] in Georgetown County. Um and I've actually proved my point. All right. Um

[34:27] so, uh I you this is too restrictive in my mind. I'm gonna tell you right now,

[34:32] it's too restrictive. And I'll tell you, I know at least one um uh city council

[34:36] members, I don't know what's going on with them, but um I don't I don't think

[34:40] that uh when you start limiting, you know, um common sense, and a police

[34:46] officer comes out, does this stuff, and you start putting decibels behind it, uh

[34:50] decibb, you'd be surprised um in a in a normal conversation how you will exceed

[34:55] some of those that you guys come up with. So, um that was what I had say.

[34:59] Any other any other comments or questions for Jerry? I'm with the same

[35:02] thing also because see, you know, if uh if the police can come in my yard, tell

[35:10] what's going on in the next yard, then we're going to have a lot of fines with

[35:15] coming to uh to the to the person or stuff and then it's going I see where

[35:21] I see where you talking about that take like downtown you have you after five

[35:28] and it's after 7 o'lock. Am I right? I think it's over to 8.

[35:33] » Yeah. >> And you you exceed that. That's because

[35:35] you got a ban plan. >> Yeah. Well, for city events, it would be

[35:39] till 10 p.m. So >> 10 p.m.

[35:41] » which would align with Yeah. It would actually be ahead of what's proposed.

[35:45] » Where's that 12:00 at? Um, we're proposing 11 p.m. for um the uh downtown

[35:53] area in general for for businesses and but for city events it would be

[35:59] » this unified district is so strict with the city of Florence. We we got this

[36:05] unified district. They got they're strict with a lot of thing here in

[36:09] Florence. We let them have their way to run Florence and this is part of it

[36:15] right here. But see that unified district, we got to do something about

[36:19] unifi. I think that unified district is getting way out of hand.

[36:24] » Well, are there any decimals current are any decibb currently in in ordinances?

[36:29] » It it's currently in the unified development ordinance. We currently have

[36:33] » But what levels? What >> these levels? I didn't change I did not

[36:36] change the levels. That's what's currently on the books. I didn't I

[36:40] didn't touch that at all. I wouldn't I wouldn't feel comfortable voting on any

[36:43] of this until I actually see the decel monitor and I know what 70 dB is, what

[36:50] 80 is. I I get your point of saying us having a conversation is 60.

[36:56] If that's 60 I how is 80? I I don't know. And I I know

[37:02] » demonstration. >> Yeah. I feel like I I mean just to cuz I

[37:06] feel like Yeah. I mean, I I get college football, they're like 120 dB. So, if 80

[37:13] if us having a conversation is 60 and that's 120, I I don't feel comfortable

[37:19] knowing that I would understand exactly what 70 and 80 is. I think that you do

[37:24] need to have some type of regulations and parameters on what is too loud and

[37:30] what's not loud enough. But me personally, I couldn't sign off on

[37:34] anything until I actually saw the decibel meter

[37:38] » and saw how it works. >> Well, right. Right. Now, so who has

[37:41] control? So, who you mentioned they're two

[37:46] separate. So, who enforces each one? That's why it's co code the police

[37:52] police have authority to enforce any of it and codes enfor codes codes

[37:56] enforcement division assist us with that typically and and this is very complaint

[38:00] driven. This is not something we go out and find. I mean that that's just

[38:06] » full full honesty on that. We we don't the police department does not go out

[38:10] searching for loud noises to to throw fines and and and you know throw tickets

[38:16] at people. But when it's complaint driven, we do we do have to respond.

[38:20] » I got you. But I But very specifically, the question I have combining these,

[38:26] » what what more restrictiveness are you adding or if if any All you're doing is

[38:31] extending the time. Right. >> That's right. When I read through,

[38:34] » there's really no change. It's just making [clears throat] it easier for the

[38:38] public and for our our officers and and us in in planning and zoning to to have

[38:45] all in one place. it it always used to reside in the the um code of ordinances.

[38:51] When we adopted the new the new unified development ordinance, it had the noise

[38:55] um section in it. Um we adopted that as part of it, but as we've applied it, it

[39:00] gets a little confusing. There's a little bit of contradiction in it.

[39:04] » That's right. So, the four-wheers and the go-karts and all that, what what

[39:07] explain that to me a little bit more. What are you What are you referring to?

[39:10] It's um so no person shall operate or cause to operate any recreational

[39:16] motorized vehicle on a public rideway or a private property in a manner that it

[39:21] that emitted sound levels exceeding 40 dB at or across the boundary of a

[39:26] property receiving the noise. And um so it's essentially saying you can't run

[39:33] » and that's in it currently or is that >> that's in the unified development

[39:36] ordinance currently? >> Studio currently, right?

[39:39] » Yeah. And we're we are open to any recommendations coming from planning

[39:43] commission to to move forward or if we need to have a demonstration.

[39:46] » I have a question. Where are the most complaints coming from

[39:52] regarding this in this district >> in in our central business district in

[39:56] our downtown area? >> Sure. You have a few people outline that

[40:01] call with you know >> Yeah.

[40:03] a loud burp or something, you know, just occasionally we get um construction

[40:07] complaints from from projects going on um you know or or pumps that might run

[40:13] at night in certain areas um you know throughout the city at various places.

[40:18] But um but for mostly it's within our downtown district or or potentially

[40:25] within some of our commercial districts where you know a a bar or a nightclub

[40:29] backs up to a neighborhood >> and you're adding vibration on this one,

[40:32] right? >> Um vibration is currently in the unified

[40:34] development ordinance. It would just get moved over.

[40:37] » Yeah. >> So basically it's giving city council

[40:39] control. >> Well, they have control over the uni. I

[40:43] mean ultimately they vote on the unified development ordinance too but it would

[40:47] be without planning commission's recommendation.

[40:49] » Yeah. >> So Ventura Court is also in the city and

[40:53] over there when the band is practicing at Wilson High School that's a lot of

[40:59] decibb >> but it's recreational of course it's

[41:03] extracurricular activities. Let's say a resident on Ventur Court

[41:09] to complain on the ban. What would that look like?

[41:12] » They take that decimal meter out. >> Technically [laughter] the band

[41:16] technically the band is in Wilson is in the county. It's not in the city, right?

[41:19] » But you can but you can but you can Yeah, you can hear it in the

[41:22] neighborhood through the trees. >> I hear that at my house.

[41:25] » I I love I loved hearing it. Yeah. >> But you may have someone who I think

[41:31] we'd be forced to deal with it based on the current the codes we have on the

[41:34] book >> on the current stuff that I think all

[41:36] this is doing is just taking it out of our hands. We have no say in it. with

[41:39] the city council ultimately has a you know they are elected leaders. All

[41:42] right. So um but it it it combines everything and we we don't that's not in

[41:49] our purview anymore. Is that correct? That's how that's what we're doing here.

[41:51] Right. >> Mhm.

[41:53] » Now they would have to take away or amend or add whatever they wanted. Um

[41:59] but you couldn't crank up a four-wheeler anywhere else currently in the city. I

[42:03] mean, if somebody pressed it, you know, I mean, you there's and I I I understand

[42:06] if I'm trying to sleep and I work third shift,

[42:09] » you know, bike, I get it. I get it. You know, if I'm downtown and, you know,

[42:14] wherever and the band's kicking up, I, you know,

[42:17] » I get it. So, I I think there's uh I think if you're an elected official,

[42:22] there's consequences uh to what you do and what you don't, and that's what

[42:27] elections are for. Um, but I I I think uh I think that uh personally I think I

[42:33] don't like any restrictions at all, but they're already there. So I think elect

[42:37] officials should be able to >> make the ultimate decision on that

[42:41] because their constituents are voting for them.

[42:43] » Um we're just a recommended body to begin with, you know. So

[42:47] » I get your point too, my man. I I completely, you know, it's listen from

[42:51] 60 to 80 it it's graduated. What what he means is when you talking like this and

[42:55] it keeps going up it it's like a 3 to one 401 5 to1 ones it goes up higher for

[43:00] hearing you know >> but it it ain't much I'm telling you

[43:02] it's not it's not much so anyway any any other discussion

[43:07] » or any other comments what what do y'all with we have to agree on this to send it

[43:14] back to city council or we'll defer to tell the city council come back with

[43:18] some more information about desk >> well I mean I think

[43:22] » that I mean, I think you need to take action on it, either for or against it.

[43:26] Um, or you could defer it or you could defer it and ask staff, you know, to do

[43:32] more research in a certain area if we need that.

[43:36] » And I think there's there's multiple options.

[43:40] » I mean, I read through all of it and when I read through some of I'm going

[43:43] this this stuff's already in effect. I'm going Jesus.

[43:46] » Yeah. >> It's already this is already in the

[43:47] books of law. You know, I start reading this stuff. I had no idea.

[43:50] » See, that's where they're changing it. Well, no, they're not changing. Well,

[43:53] they're extending some of the hours, but this this stuff is going to be in effect

[43:56] one way or the other. It's already in effect. They're just trying to combine

[43:58] it under one. >> We are,

[44:01] » you know, instead of us being involved recommending luckily, we don't have to

[44:05] enforce this very much. I mean, it doesn't come to light, but if it did, we

[44:09] we we would have to because it's on the record.

[44:11] » That was my next point is how we don't have to enforce it. It's just a rule.

[44:15] » That's right. We It's It's very complaint driven.

[44:18] » And I think that you're cleaning it up a good bit, right? for when you combine

[44:22] the other things that's being cleaned up.

[44:23] » We're trying to clean it up. That's right. Yeah.

[44:26] » Mhm. So, [clears throat] all the rules are basically there. You only extend it

[44:28] one hour. So, so these rules are already in place. Nothing we can do about that,

[44:32] right? >> That's right.

[44:33] » Defining them a little bit more. >> As a planning commission, you can you

[44:37] can recommend >> you take the bull by the horns and

[44:39] » Yeah, we could go at it. What you do? Because

[44:44] » let them come make me some more decimals going be higher stuff. It's we just

[44:48] don't go ahead and put it in there because real they open the door for us

[44:52] » and let's keep that door open while we can

[44:54] » until they come up with something else. You know, they open the door.

[44:58] » Do we have a motion to have a motion to defer?

[45:01] » Motion to defer. We have a second. >> Second.

[45:04] » Any discussion? All in favor? >> I.

[45:08] » Any opposed? >> It's deferred. Okay. I think we just get

[45:12] a little more little more >> little more, you know, background and

[45:16] being comfortable with it and and >> Okay. And that'll give planning

[45:19] commission some extra time to review what's what's in place and um

[45:23] » so let me ask you this. If we come back uh like Mr. Moses, I think what I get

[45:28] what he's saying, >> how could some of this be changed by us

[45:32] if we make a recommendation that things are changed? Is that is that way it

[45:35] works? I mean, >> I think um I think because it's tied

[45:39] currently to the UDO, I think that does give you guys some say so in it. Um and

[45:45] what I would do is I would um I would take any recommendations that are made

[45:50] in your motion um for this and put it in the staff report and present it to city

[45:55] council at that time. >> And I think that would be good. I mean,

[45:59] I think if I mean, I think it's a good opportunity. We, as Mr. Moses said,

[46:03] "We've opened the door and we kind of thought this might happen that that

[46:07] planning commission might have some say so in it and um for for you guys to have

[46:11] some input in it and have some recommendations."

[46:14] » Mr. Mo, so the motion you made, we all approved. Can we just add to that motion

[46:18] of what we're talking about? >> That's up to you to make it take care of

[46:21] you. >> I'd like to add I'd like to to add to

[46:23] the motion Mr. Moses and everybody voted for. What's some of the things if Jerry

[46:28] can just list them out that we that we want to look at? Now I for one 60 80 dB

[46:33] I mean that's that's me and him you know having a conversation about football and

[46:38] that that's you know that can get a little I mean you're you're in violation

[46:43] you know what I mean and and so what would you anybody want to suggest but

[46:49] what we need to do we need to verify what what's the decimate we got to come

[46:53] up on that we got to be educated on that that's number one and then we as a group

[46:58] I think we as a group need to get together.

[47:00] » Sure. Well, h how about a staff comes back to us with examples of Jay, I don't

[47:05] know how to do it. Just just sound and decibb. Um

[47:08] » yeah, we we can see we can do two things. We can one, we can we can look

[47:12] and see what other municipalities have in place as far as decibel levels. So,

[47:16] we can put that in a chart so you guys can see what other places have that that

[47:19] that do it by decibb. And we could possibly also do a demonstration where

[47:23] we might could get bring in a decibel meter and have some sounds and show show

[47:27] y'all what that looks like. We'd like to add that. I would like to add that.

[47:31] » Got it. >> Yeah. That way everybody hears it

[47:32] firsthand. >> Yeah.

[47:34] » Anybody else having comments or we good on that? You look you want to say

[47:37] something? >> Sure. I understand.

[47:40] » So So let me get this straight. Um ultimately the um unified development

[47:47] ordinance. Uh the ultimate goal is to move it into the code of ordinances

[47:52] which would take it away from this. >> It would take it out of the zoning code

[47:56] and put it in the in the code of ordinance. ordinances. That's right.

[47:59] » Which would be well everything's governed by the city council. Yeah.

[48:03] » But it just go straight to city council. >> That's right. That's right. And and and

[48:08] to be honest, it is most municipalities and counties it noise ordinances are

[48:13] housed in the code of ordinances. It's just, you know, these bits and pieces of

[48:17] it got put in the the new code when we adopted it. Yeah. So in in most places

[48:21] that is where it resides. Um so we we thought it best to just combine it in

[48:26] that category there. Okay. So, if we could if we could kind of

[48:31] » chisel at it while we got a chance, this is probably a good opportunity to do it.

[48:34] » I also would like to add um other municipalities their

[48:40] uh decibel ordinances. Well, not decel ordinance, the same thing.

[48:44] » The amounts the amounts of, >> you know.

[48:48] » Yeah. Sure thing. Yeah. >> Their version of this [laughter]

[48:51] » the upper limits of the decimals and stuff like that.

[48:53] » Yeah. Sure thing. We've um we we've looked at a good many and we we can

[48:57] organize that into a little chart. >> Thank you.

[49:00] » Anything else, guys? Nothing. >> That's [laughter] right.

[49:05] » I know I can't hear as well as I used to. Probably because of some of these

[49:08] loud noises. [laughter] >> It's the low. It's the low vibrations

[49:12] here. All right. Thank you guys. Okay. Um so, uh let's do PC-2026-27.

[49:23] Do we have to vote on that to defer? >> Oh, we added it.

[49:26] » We already voted further. We added >> Yeah. And I just got some direct from

[49:28] planning commission. >> Yeah.

[49:32] » All right. All right. How is everybody? >> Good.

[49:36] » Live it. Now, let's go. >> Over the next [laughter] 45 minutes, I'd

[49:38] like to explain the Palm Subdivision. Now, this is uh the Palm Subdivision

[49:44] sketch plan. If this looks familiar, >> this was approved by planning commission

[49:51] back in 2023. Uh back then we were looking at 179 total lots, higher

[49:58] density. The developer is coming back with uh a different product uh than what

[50:04] we've typically seen on the on the market right now. So it will be uh 39

[50:09] lots as opposed to the 179. Uh, so here's a location map. Everything's

[50:15] zoned RG2. It is historically the Oakdale Golf Course. So this is an

[50:21] infill development around existing single family detached homes and that is

[50:26] what is proposed.

[50:29] So here's the sketch plan. I printed out the latest and greatest.

[50:35] So they are looking for a conventional single family type development. Uh in

[50:41] the staff report we said 42 were shown. Uh it got reconfigured a little bit just

[50:45] to make sure we were meeting all the minimum lot widths and uh lot areas for

[50:51] the RG2 subdivision and those are uh 80 foot lot widths and 10,000 square ft um

[50:58] which is what is shown in the sketch plan now. So the setbacks that will be

[51:03] observed will be 25 ft in the front, 8t on the

[51:08] side, uh 12 feet for street side and 25 ft in the rear. Uh water is available to

[51:14] the property. Sewer is not uh the individuals when they build the homes

[51:20] will request from uh sedes which used to be dehack to have uh septic tanks

[51:28] installed. Uh so no new infrastructure will be

[51:31] installed by the developer. City water and storm water infrastructure is

[51:35] already in place. Uh compliance will still do inspections

[51:40] uh along the way. Uh the proposed subdivision does not require a traffic

[51:45] study. It is under the 50 lot threshold. Um and um

[51:53] [snorts] we just asked the engineer to kind of

[51:56] clean up some of the parcel shown to show what was proposed versus what was

[52:01] existing. And we feel he's done a good job of that. Uh staff erroneously

[52:06] thought that with the first sketch plan they were using Lake Oakdale to get

[52:11] density bonuses from preserving the open space. Lake Oakdale is still going to be

[52:16] preserved. is still in the hands of the homeowners association. The developer

[52:21] just feels that it's the right time in the market for

[52:25] maybe some larger parcels and to give a little more choice uh to the citizens of

[52:31] Florence for uh different housing products. So the engineer did turn in a

[52:38] revised set of plans which is what's in front of you now and it does meet all

[52:44] the guidelines of the unified development ordinance. So that concludes

[52:47] staff's report. Okay. [clears throat]

[52:53] » All right. This is a not a public hearing.

[52:57] Any questions for staff? >> So you said it went from 42 to 39. Yep.

[53:05] » Right. [snorts] Right. We just um I think it was just a

[53:08] choice of the engineer and the developer. It was not anything mandated

[53:12] by the city. They were meeting the minimum standards that are required in

[53:17] RG2.

[53:25] » So bigger lots, single family homes. Mr. Moses,

[53:29] » these are generousized lots. These are very generous size lots.

[53:36] » All right. Any other questions? >> Essentially, it would get rid of the

[53:40] golf course itself. Right. >> Right. The infill development. Yes, sir.

[53:45] » Golf courses no more. >> Yes. Not being

[53:48] » any other questions, comments?

[53:53] [laughter] >> All right. I'll call for a motion.

[53:55] » I'll make a motion approved. >> Second.

[53:58] » I second. >> Any discussion?

[54:01] All in favor say I. I. >> I.

[54:03] » Any oppose? Eyes have it. >> Second.

[54:07] » All right, that's done. That's done. Motion to journ is good to go.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript