Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody. I welcome you all to the um February 4th, 2026 planning and zoning commission meeting of Chesapeake Beach, Maryland. Um the first thing I'd like to do is make the hammer work and um make have the roll call after we've called everybody to order. Um, let's go ahead and start down at uh, Commissioner Han and please introduce yourself for the roll call. Kelly Han present. Mary Sman present. Aaron Ross. And I'm Cindy Green. Larry Brown. Rachel Weaver.

And please note that Commissioner Chris Smith is not with us tonight. So we will still have quorum. And everybody and Jan Rek. I'm sorry. Jan did not Yeah. Did not show up yet. So, we will have two missing tonight. Um, we're going to now stand for the pledge of allegiance, please.

Ready to begin. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for its one nation of all.

Okay, now we're on to number three, which is the approval of the February 4th, 2026 planning commission agenda. The agenda. Do we have a second? I'll second. And do we have any changes or modifications from anybody? Do I have um Let's have a vote then, please. All in favor of approval? I I don't hear anybody saying no. So, let's go to number four. Approval of the minutes of December 17th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve the minutes for December 17, 2025. And a second, please. Any changes? Any questions or changes? No. Wait a second.

Yes. We didn't have a Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It was that long ago. Yes. I know. Isn't it a January scene? It does. You know, that is before Christmas. I know it is weird. Um, so there are no changes to that minute to the minutes. So, please everybody um raise your hand if you approve. Okay. And I don't see anybody saying no. Number five, any public comments? Do any comments? come on up to the podium, please, and state your name and address. Uh, my name is Ethan Johnson. I'm over at 3327 Silverton Lane. Uh, I'm very unfamiliar with everything over here. I'm newer to the community in Chesake Beach.

Uh, but I'm trying to do at home residential uh, workplace. The only problem with it is it doesn't fall under any of the categories currently listed or anything. Uh, we are working on that currently. So, um, it may fall under at some point in time. It likely will not because it's very specific. Okay. And would you want to, um, let us know what that would be? Yes, ma'am. So, it would be a atome gunsmith. It's an FFL is another term for it. Uh, federal firearms license. So, it's essentially a gun shop. Mhm.

Uh in my particular case, I'm trying to do something where it's more customization work, where it's all uh by appointment. You have to fill out this form online. If you walk up, you will be denied everything. You have to fill out the form online or you will not get any service. Um are you in an HOA, sir? Uh, it is an HOA and I'm still waiting any information from them on if anything can happen there, but I'm trying to figure out all the zoning approval first. Okay. Okay. Because they have not gotten back to me after two emails already to them and is that right? I'm sorry. Is that Richfield Station? No, View. Bay View. Okay. Bayiew. I had I had a phone call with uh

I'm trying to remember her name over there. Uh, Tracy, you mind if I look it up real quick? So, I have it in my phone. I think it's Ellen. Oh. Oh, Ellen. Yeah. So, I had an email in a phone call with her. She wanted me to email her the rest of the information. Sent her the information about two, three weeks ago. Hadn't heard from her since another email earlier this morning. Hadn't heard back from her since. Yes. Isn't she like But she's a resident. She doesn't work the I think she's like a liaison. I'm not sure. But Well, she's not one of the manager. Is she? I think I do, but she's not a manager. She's just probably the HOA president. She's the president, but she's definitely newer to that area. I'm trying to figure everything else. So, I'm not completely positive on any of that.

Sure. Chairman, what do your bylaws state? Do you have a copy of your bylaws? Not provided to me now. You didn't you didn't get any when you moved in or do you rent? No, I I just moved in there. We just we bought the house in August. We've been renovating it since then to fix it up. finally moved in in September and we haven't seen any of the paperwork. It's online so you should Where is it at online? You you go well since it's Yeah. So you go to the um ProCom through the app and I can't find the bylaws. Well, if you go under documents,

I believe it because um I was um looking at them in relation to some of these things that we're going to be discussing. And so I the bylaws are there um and some other things the CCNRs and bylaws it's all online and they are required to give that to you when you move in. So I'm surprised you didn't need to be clearing booked. They haven't done that either.

You know, we pay extra and we don't get what we're supposed to. Yes. Um, so we are, as I say, going to be doing this for a few months. Then of course it goes then to the town council and they do their thing too to it. So it's going to make some changes from here to there probably. Um, but you know, we will talk about it and discuss what your type of business might, you know, it's very specific and hard to identify with any other category. It would be considered a service. It would be considered more of a service shop than it is. It would also retail as retail is part of the business, right? It would be part of it, but there wouldn't be any inventory on site. It'd be online retail. You'd be shipping it out.

It would be more like they give me a list of what they want. I buy it from the wholesale and then get it to them. It's not something where it's, hey, you come, you walk in, you see what's on the wall and buy on the wall. Okay. So you wouldn't have any uh impact from people coming in and stopping and No, the only impact that would happen is if it's someone coming in, they see something that I'm currently working on, but that would be something where it's like, hey, they have a more specific need of they want, say, a hunting shotgun and they want something engraved on it specific.

Okay. Well, I'm glad you brought this to our attention and um you know, that probably will be part of our discussion at some point here. So, thank you for coming. Yes. Do you have one more comment, please? Um, have you done this before in a residence elsewhere before you moved here? I have not. Okay.

This is something brand new to me. I'm actually going through classes for it for an associates degree in this, which only one college provides it and it's out in Arizona and you have to do it all online. Calvert Fire Rescue is paying for everything for it right now through the tuition assistance program. And uh the gentleman over at Gunbox, Chucky Got, he's helping out with me trying to learn the ins and outs of certain things. Uh another gentleman that works in Prince George's County with myself. Uh he's been helping around with it as well. I do know of one that's in the county, but it's not in Ches Peak Beach that does it from their home, but they do it as a full shop. Like everything's on the wall. Right. Right. Right. And that's SNS in Huntington. Oh. Oh, is that SNS? Okay.

Excuse me. So it'd be a little different than SNS. It'd be more like uh there's a gentleman further down in Prince Frederick. He does restorations, repairs, act true gunsmithing, similar to what I'm requesting to do, but he only has it where it's appointment only. They have to fill out a form, everything. Okay. Well, thank you for bringing this to our attention, Ethan. I appreciate you doing that. Um be safe going out the You have one. Can I ask a question that is to you all but I think would be helpful for him as well because I'm just procedurally how does the impact between HOA and our zoning laws work?

Uh let's ask our Okay, maybe we could ask either one of you who how do we want do you want to go ahead and answer the question? Yeah, we've got her here. So the town has no control over the HOA um operations, right? The HOA is separate and apart and we do not enforce their covenants. We do not enforce any of their um restrictions. So they deal with their covenants and restrictions. the town is going to um trump, if you will, yeah, whatever their So, if they let it a use occur and the town does not allow that use in that zone, then it can't happen. So, they're two separate.

So, both things we would have to change ours and then the HOA would have to go through the process it changing their bylaws if they so chose. Yeah. Because it's pretty that's can be really difficult. I would imagine, if I'm right, that um if an HOA doesn't allow something that the town allows, the HOA trumps. Yes. Because those are your enacting documents when you purchased your home. It would be something similar to where the state says you can do one thing, but the county says you can't. You have to go by the county at that point, right? Okay. I'm in Richfield Station and depending on what this is why I just ask what are your bylaws state because you want to get familiar with that because they don't allow it then all the other work you're doing wouldn't matter

for us in Richfield Station we have to I believe have 80% in order to change bylaws we'd have to have 80% of the residents sign off on something to have the bylaws changed to allow something. So that's one of the reasons why I was asking what what they say. All right. Well, I thank you. We need to move on. Unfortunately, we got a busy schedule tonight, but thank you for bringing this to our attention. Appreciate your time. Welcome, by the way. Yes. Congratulations for moving in to a very forgiving town. Okay. And now, as you notice here, we've got um um Karen Ruff, and she's from uh is it Leavonne or Lebanon? Leavan.

Levan and Ruff. and she is here to help us go through some things tonight. So, the first thing we're going to do is go to uh close session, but I do need a motion to go ahead and close this open session and go into close session. So, do I have a motion to close the regular meeting and go into close session? Uh, yes, Commissioner Bryceman. Yes. I will make a motion that um right now we close the open meeting as we need to go into close session. Okay. And um and do we have any discussion about this? Yes. Oh, okay. Well, we'll find that out when we go to close.

I I do just want to finish that. Um, and this would be pursuant to um statutory authority under the Maryland Annotated Code pursuant to general provisions article section 3305 little B subsection 7 to consult with council to obtain legal advice regarding pending matters. That's why. Okay. Any questions besides the why? And I think we're going to answer the why in a second, but um let's go ahead and all in favor of closing and closing the uh open session and opening second. We had a second. I think we had a Do we have a second? We have a second right here.

And all in favor of doing so, Adrian. Okay. And I see nobody opposed to it. So, do we want to go into the other room to have our closed session or how do you want to do this? It's fine. And I would just make it clear for those that are here, we will be coming back. We will get honey shortly. Okay. How much of our You don't need You don't need Perfect. I will take my coffee. However, I'm not a fool. Well, I mean, I am, but I mainly do bankruptcy. That's what I'd love.

Touch up. Well, consumer not anything but chapter 11.

Oh no. I don't know. What? She's right there. He's unmuting. Oh, this is like Oh, yeah. It's a comedy routine today. Well, if you're involved and I'm involved.

Is it Do we have um Oh, so we'll continue with the audio. Okay. Well, thank you for being patient. Um, I'm going to have a I would like to have a motion here to open the session after a um close session um just a few minutes ago. So, do I have a motion to open up the meeting tonight? Yes. Um, I would make a motion to reopen the meeting as we have finished with our closed session. I have a second, please. I second it. All in favor?

I discussion. Thank you. Okay. Um, now we're going to go ahead and um talk about our fencing um ordinance or amendment to section 2919 I should say. Um, can we have a um report please from our planner Franklin?

Sure. Um so we discussed the some changes to section 2919 at our last meeting um resulting from the fact that currently fences are only dealt with in the building code which really doesn't provide as much flexibility um as the zoning code does. And so we are adding fencing regulations to the zoning code which will allow people to go to board of appeals if they have a unique situation. Um, and so at the last meeting there were a couple of questions asked about why it was 48 in uh 42 in and why some of the language was the way it was. Um, and at that time we were matching the building ordinance because we didn't know if it was going to be repealed or not. Um, I have been advised that the town council intends to repeal it. So we could go ahead and use the 48 in 4T that you guys had wanted to use and change some of the other language. So I made some changes based on that information. Um and then I also have an initial draft related to wind load and construction but that is still with the engineer to finalize. Um, I think that still allows us to approve it to move forward this evening and just let the council make any adjustments that the engineer recommends.

I have any questions of staff, please. Yes. Is is what was placed on the I guess this is the same thing as what I printed out for my m from my computer. Graph Nothing's changed in this. No. Okay. This is Yeah, I forgot I printed it out. Okay. Okay. No questions.

Um, does anybody else have any questions regarding this um um this amendment? I do. I have one question, maybe a couple questions actually, where it says fences or walls that are less than 4 feet above the natural grade or to garden walls. Does it make sense? or two garden walls or is should it be or garden walls, steps or other similar features not more than 3 feet higher than the floor level? Do we want to the word two in there to?

Um, no, we can we can delete that. Another question. We were going to talk about street level as opposed to

Oh, yes. Go ahead and ask that question. Um, so this could be part of my not great at seeing things dimensionally and visually, but um, when it says that above the natural grade, that's kind of I I don't know how that's determined. Um, if someone has built up an area and then placed their foundation on top of that, I don't know how you ascertain the natural grade. And would it be easier to say from the street level, which is kind of obvious?

Yeah. In this case, the natural grade is intending to mean just wherever it's placed on the lot. So, if you say street level and it and you go up now, you really can't build anything because you're 3 feet above street level instead of 3T above the grade of your property. Um, we most of us build above street because we want the water to we well we can change the the word natural to finished so that it's whatever

that might be more precise actually because the properties across from me actually were infilled up so that there's a natural grade and then they had a pad placed on top so they go up higher. So the natural grade is actually below where their front door, you know, where they would put a fence, I guess you might say. So maybe you want to make it um what did you just say? Make it finished.

Finished. Um finished grade as opposed to natural grade. All righty. I have I have a question. Yes, ma'am.

So, for finished grade versus natural grade in Richfield Station, when the developer was developing it, they brought in a lot of back fill and built the houses on the back to bring the bring it up to street level and there's going to be more construction in there. So, when they are back filling it or things like that, all of that is pre-approved by the town prior to actually that happening. So, we'll have an idea of how much higher like depending on how they build it and back fill it, how big the fences are. All of that is in the um building permit. Okay.

And one last question on page two um on B2 on the very bottom where it says it was erected prior to the adoption of requirements for building permits for fences in the town. Um, did we want to put the date of when the town council actually approves this or what are you referring to actually? I'm actually referring to the the building code, right? So, I don't know when the building code was the fences portion of the building code was adopted. Um, but if there was a fence that was erected before that, realistically probably it should be replaced, right?

Oh, yeah. Was that long? Yeah, absolutely. Okay. But the point I want to click a date. Sure. Yeah, that's what I was prior to. Okay. Well, I was thinking, see, we've already done that up at um let me see here in 7 7 A and we thought maybe we should be consistent and and adopt a date and it probably would be or should we just put in there um let's see here date of enactment or something like that. That is that how you want to um change that or does it

I was I was confused because it didn't mention the building. I now I understand it's the building code but I wasn't I don't know if you want to reference that. What I'm going to suggest um is that we say it was erected prior to and then sort of insert date and let the town attorney determine a good date um for that. As I read it now, I think it'll be better that we just insert. Yeah, that's what I think. Then everybody knows what that date. Okay.

Uh All right. So, does anybody um have any other questions um or comments? Actually, I think we've made a few uh changes here. The one change of deleting the word two in front of garden walls. Um, we're changing, we're taking out natural and putting in finished instead of natural on 1B. And then we're going to put in a in prior to and then insert date on um 7B 2

and I think that is probably all that we are looking at changing at this point. Um, okay. Is everybody happy with the way it's turned out? Yes. Nobody is concerned about having chain link fences in the front yards like I am. Well, I mean, I am still concerned about that, but um I might, you know, let me just make one motion. And I would like to move that we um we don't allow chain link in the front yard, but we allow it in the backyard. Do I have a second for that? What about a What about sideyards?

And the sideyard. Well, the chaining can be on the sideyards, too. But if you're on the corner property, like right here going up 260, their front is facing the road, and they already have chainling.

Well, I mean, you're grandfathering those people all in. I mean, there's going to be a grandfather clause for all that. I'm just saying any new properties or any new um yards being fenced would not be able to use chain link in the front yard only. Or maybe the if if it's on the corner, it would have to be the side because that also be the front, I guess. But um Oh, and the other thing we were talking about was the double fencing. Did you want to um talk about double fencing? Oh, let's finish the motion though because we're we're still in motion. We're still in the motion. I'm so sorry. It just came to mind that we had that other one other item, but it Okay. So, I don't hear a second for my motion. So, the motion dies. So, let's go ahead to Miss Franklin. Did we want to talk about the double fencing? Um, you did mention that. So, I mean, we we can draft language to prohibit if your neighbor has a fence already, you adding a fence next to it. But yeah, I Yeah, we can do it, right?

You help me understand what I'm not understanding. I've got a You've got a fence. I build a fence. You're saying I don't build a fence because there's already one there, right? You don't double fence a yard. When when fence is there, you don't put another fence right next to it. But you have a problem. And I'm going to use my house as an example. He didn't put his fence on the property line. He did his fence two feet in and then I did my fence on my property line. So then you had you had feet because if I didn't put my fence up and I used his fence then I was then taking over his yard, right? Trespassing. I I'm not sure that would be called double fencing. That would be um that probably wouldn't be considered the same thing. But so I think

you have the additional problem of like say someone has a 4ft chain link fence and you are trying to fence in a dog or add a privacy fence that is 6 feet. Um, so while I think it it could be done, I think the question is do you do you want to how do you how do you want to handle these situations where if you want to put yours inside your fence line? Can you? And then there's still two fences and you've got to come around and mow it. Um,

and then you also have the aesthetics. So, if your next door neighbor has a fence that's pickked and it's only three feet high because they have a little little dog and then you have a dog that can jump over that fence really easy and you're putting up a six-foot fence like then you're you're liable now because your dog if you can't double fence it, your dog's going to jump over their fence and be able to escape. Okay. All right. I think we have the cause for not double uh not having a double fence clause. So, let's go ahead and Yes. Anything more?

Just on the chain link fences. I mean, I I don't disagree with you. I'm also sensitive to the cost, but I would make a motion that we that we not permit chain link fences in the front facing only because I think that front yard the front yard because I think that aesthetically to me chainling fences create a different type of ambiance way, if you will, than non-chain link fences. So,

okay, I'll second that. Um, any questions or issues about um the motion being um no chain link fences in the front yard, but chain link is allowed in the back and on the sides is what you're saying. And then I don't know what you do about the sides like where you know you've got two fronts because it's on a corner. Mhm. Mhm. Um, and I don't know how you handle that because maybe you just count one of them as the front. I don't know, but I think maybe then they both have to be non-chain link to be consistent. Yeah, it would have to be front yards. Exactly.

Okay. So, I second it. Um, any discussion or any questions? Yes, ma'am. I mean, I just want to point out we definitely had this conversation at length in December and we voted on it in December and I feel like we don't maybe we just move quickly into a vote because it doesn't feel like the best use of our time. Keep voting on it on it over and over again till Yeah.

Okay. Um so, uh let's all vote and we'll just eliminate this entirely. And all in favor and I I Okay, opposed. Okay. So it it it fails and we will move on to we now need a motion to approve this with all the addition with all the additions and changes. So who would like to make the motion to approve the proposed amendment to section 2919? Like to make that motion?

Make a motion to approve 290- Okay, a second. I will second that. Um, any questions or comment? Okay, all in favor? I I Okay, I don't see any opposition. Let's move on. Now, we're going to go to the discussion of a land use table, zoning map, and conditional uses. Franklin.

Yeah. So um background we started discussing the land use table and um issues arising from some changes that were made in RV1 that brought things out of alignment with the comprehensive plan and some concerns I had res regarding the RPC overlay. Um while while we had started that discussion, um the town council uh directed the planning commission to review the entire land use table, including the conditions and standards. Um and so we have until um the end of April to send them a draft of the revisions. Um, what I've done here for this draft that you're looking at now is I've kind of combined two ways of of doing conditions and uses for um zoning ordinances, which is what you have now, which is a land use table, and an ordinance that doesn't have a land use table, but has all the text that explains what can happen in each district for each use. Um the land use table makes it very easy typically for people to look and find what they want to do and determine if it's allowable. Um but one of the concerns that the town council had about our land use table is that it's become extremely long and hard to read and hard to find what you're looking for. So I have streamlined the land use table to have more generalized uses. And then instead of section 29011 simply having the conditions and standards for conditional and special exception uses, it now has the conditions and sta the standards condition and conditions for all

uses that are listed in the table. Um, so for example, there's now a category called office and it has all types of office uses would be underneath it. Um, and that way when you're looking at the land use table, it's easier to find what you're looking for and you also have that reference to get more detail question. So that's just what you're looking at. Um, this evening though, we do have the benefit of legal advice. Um, excellent legal advice. And, um, I would like us to sort of focus our discussion on what we started talking about, which is RV1 and RV2, uh, that RPC overlay. Um, and kind of talking a little about the zoning map, um, and some changes that we may need to make to that in conjunction with the text, the amendments that we're looking at. Um so with regard to the zoning map um you all have a a large format map in front of you uh that shows the it's our current zoning map and then I have um filled in the old zoning map over that. So, you're looking at that where there's color, that color is the old zoning, and you're going to try and follow the the blue outlines to get the, you know, the text that is written in um in print, like it's written from a computer. That's your new zoning. Um, and the key to the old zoning is all the way over on the right. um to the page. So, this helps you kind of see what zoning changes were made uh

with the comprehensive plan update. And you can see how some of the areas that we were talking about with regard to RV1 and RV2 seem to have gotten a little sort of specific and confused. And so I also wanted to kind of get into a little bit what spot zoning is and and how um we can avoid that. Um so I think it starts with your questions.

Well, looking at the map, um what specifically are you wanting us to address tonight? Now, I know we're if you start at the north and look at the RV1, um you have RV1 in or it looks like you have an orange and then you have it in brown. So, or tan or whatever that color is.

So, um just kind of take you through the colors. The brownish tannanish is what used to be your RV zone. So, anything that looks that color used to just be RV and was not split up into RV 1 and RV2. The orange is actually um used to be residential medium density RMD. Um the red used to be residential high density. Your pink was your commercial areas. Um yellow lowdensity residential, blue is marine, green is resource conservation, and that gray area that I did not color in is the residential plan community, which is what it was actually zoned at the previous map as well. Um, so it is a little hard to see in the more detailed areas and and you'll see that I wrote some stuff in pencil there. Um, but that just helps you see the changes that were made. So in that northern end of town, residential medium density got changed into residential village, right? And across the street um a commercial an area that had been zoned for commercial got converted to residential village as well. Um and then res RV so your medium density um that little orange area for some reason got scooped into the RV one in instead of Hold on let me see. Yeah. Got scooped into the RV1, which makes like a little box around that RV2 zone. Um, which seems a little unusual. Um, do you see what I'm talking about?

The little pink elongated pink. Well, so there's the rectangular correct between the RV1 and RV1 the RV1 brown and the RV1 orange or whatever. I mean those two different colors of RV1,

right? So, that got changed to RV1, but I'm talking more right along the shoreline. There's RV1 at the top and it is also colored in orange. Um, but if you look underneath it, like there's just been a an unusual sort of separation of an RV2 area out like kind of cut out from RV. What else is what is RV1 almost everywhere else except for that one little parcel that's zoned RC? You refresh my memory. What's the difference between RV1 and RV2?

Yes. So RV1 and RV 2, the intention of RV one is to be a lower density residential village. And then RV2 is meant to include more intense residential uses. Um, it doesn't specifically say that you can't include commercial uses. Um, but that wasn't the intent or that wasn't what you initially did when you did your comprehensive reasonzoning. However, um the owners of Horizons came to the council after this map was amended and requested a zoning text amendment to allow certain certain commercial uses as um conditional uses in the RV1 and that request was granted. So now we have an RV1 that allows certain conditional uses that are more intense than the RV2, which is not like the RV1 was always supposed to be less intense than the RV2. Are you following or um

are you are you proposing changes to the map?

I am proposing that we we should likely make some changes to the zoning map. Um, there are some areas that are very specifically zoned. Um, and I'm not certain I'm clear why those changes were made. Um, I'm not proposing the specific zoning map changes tonight. I'm just allowing you to see the changes that happened. So, you can see why I'm a little concerned or confused about some of the changes that happened and think that we really should take a look at the map as well as the text.

What's the legal definition of spot zoning? Oh, this is why we have our attorney sitting next to me here. Here we go.

You're up. So spot zoning occurs when a small area in a district is placed in a different zoning classification than the surrounding property. Now its validity depends on the facts of each each case and it can be valid exercise of police power where the zoning is in harmony with a comprehensive plan and bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare. Um, that's kind of the summary of what the case law says as the definition. Is that sufficient or do you want some more?

So, so if you have small zones within larger places that have specific zoning, case law would say that can happen, but you just have to be able to have a really good reason. Well, it can happen if the two things are met, right? One is it's in harmony with the comprehensive plan and bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare. What they're trying to say is you can't go in and zone Harry's property a certain thing because Harry has asked for it and you like him, right? Yeah.

Because that's a personal benefit to him.

Yeah. We don't like Harry. not there's no public um safety health safety welfare issue there. Um so one of the other cases talks about how spot zoning is when zoning ordinance or an amendment puts a small area in a zone different from the surrounding area. um if it's arbitrary and unreasonable designation of the area to use um to a use inconsistent with the uses to which the district is restricted and made for the sole benefit of the private interests of the owner then it's invalid. So on one hand you have comprehensive plan substantial relationship with the public health safety and welfare on the other hand you have is it a sole benefit to a private interest of a particular owner that you can't do

if we go with horizons on the bay when they were when it was initially platted and everything else it was the if correct me if I'm wrong with planner it was allowed and it was in there that they would have businesses on the whole bottom floor and when they did the comprehensive plan they didn't include that which is part of the reasons why they came back to us if I recall correctly because we didn't allocate that is that right well so I don't know the details of them coming back right but it is true that the building was developed as a mixeduse building with commercial businesses on the bottom floor

because the lady came and she wanted to put a nail salon in there and we couldn't do it because of the the regulations were done. And so that's never been fixed. No. And and if if you can correct me if this is is it not it's possible that it could have been done with a grandfathering clause instead of an update. Are you do you concur? Is that not possible? It's possible. Okay. I unfort it wasn't done with a grandfather, right? Yeah.

Then either we'd have to do a little research into that to figure out how that occurred to know how to properly answer your question.

So there are legal ramifications if you spot zone and you don't have good cause other than the fact that Joe Blow was my friend. I mean you could get into all kinds of legal issues that way. So obviously spot zoning is not something we want to do. But I think the point is that it looks like that's what we've done with some of these areas. Is that what you're saying, Miss Franklin? Is that it looks like a spot zoning situation? Is that like to say that? I mean, I'm just I'm just asking why are we, you know, if we're not worried about a legal situation down the road as far as um being something valid, we obviously don't want to cut off some of these little um zones and make them look like a spot zoning situation. So um if I might interrupt you briefly

um so not knowing how it occurred and the rationale behind it I would like to assume or presume for the sake of our discussion at least that it was done because it it bore a substantial relationship to the public health safety and welfare. Right. Yeah. um until we do that research to understand why or how I I wouldn't necessarily call them spot zoning because as we said it can be valid and I wouldn't assume it's not right.

Well, I wasn't referring to that horizons on the bay. I was referring to our um our actual map and I was really asking if you thought that we had done some spot zoning generally other than the horizons on the you know that particular situation.

If you look at this map am I looking at a spot zoning situation as being a small area like where we've got the TC in pink is that would that be such a small zone it be considered spot spot zoning or no? So I I think that what what attorney Ruff just said, right? Correct. So some some of the areas as you zoned to them are do have that substantial um connection to the health, safety, and welfare. Others, it's unclear if they it's unclear to me why they're zoned how they are. That doesn't mean that they didn't. It just means it's not obvious to me and research has to be done if the zoning is going to be maintained on that property. So, what you're saying we have to really do is change the map before we actually allocate or well, I guess we can still go ahead and do the uses, but we want to know where um where these uses are going to be going into, what areas are we going into before we actually So, we really do want to um understand this map a little better, don't we?

Yes. Um, I would say yes,

I'm sorry to keep interrupting. Um, so whenever a jurisdiction with zoning authority goes through this exercise and they're doing a review of their zoning and land use policies and what uses are going to um be acceptable and where they're going to be acceptable, you're necessarily going to be looking at that zoning map, right? Because as you go through the text and you make changes perhaps to the uses you're going to allow in different zones, it then may make sense to alter the zone on the map, right? But you don't know that until you go through and identify the uses you want in those zones. And then you can go through and you can go, "Okay, so here's um an RV1. Does it still make sense for it to be RV RV1 or um if that makes

Okay. So, go ahead and do the uses and then come back and do the zoning map to to reidentify where we want those uses to go into. That's what I would say unless Franklin has a different

No, I think you're I think you're right. But also I think as we're doing this we should be looking at both not one and then the other necessarily because it will sort of just in my experience working with you guys on this with the RV1 and the RV2 so far a lot of the discussion has been like well what areas are we talking about? So I think especially with RV1 and RV2 sort of looking at how it it was how it is and evaluating along with the uses because that's really the location and the uses are tied together very closely for these two that we should have both of those out at the same time. I think for other districts then it's fine to do the map second. So, the RV1 and RV2, they used to be all one residential village

zone. And I know that a few years ago, um, we, you know, Mr. Jacubak and and the group decided, well, let's let's divide them up because um when you looked at RV 2, um the thought was as far as what I remember that the lots were a little bit bigger, the streets were a little bit wider, there was a little more parking, there was a little bit more of historical use of um business businesses in the homes, that kind of thing. So, I think there was some history there. Um and I I think so the RV but the RV1 which is along the coast as you can see um um particularly in the north in fact it's all in you know um north of 260 of route 260 is the RV1 um and then you have a little bit actually uh right around 26th Street you have a little RV1 and and right around 260 you have a little RV1 there too. So, the RV1 was supposed to be, as you say, less intense, almost all residential. Um, and as I recall, they talked about, of course, then I look at the RV2 down the road, and I think they were thinking that they were going to develop that into more business um maybe more mixeduse type situations as you go down Chesby Beach Road um to uh you know, to the west. So I, you know, as I recall, and if you know, maybe um Commissioner Brown might have another view of RV1, RV2, but that's I look at it as more residential for RV1 and more of the home business, home office type situation in RV2.

I know what did you think about all this or do you have any memory of this?

Yeah, me the same. And you look at what uh what you've got up here in RB1. You've got town houses in RV1. I don't know what they're very small. Um, and the lots in RV2 are also to me. They're all the same. Um, I mean, it's the same type of people living in both

areas. But that's that's history. And I lost that battle, you know, when we were arguing it. We lost a couple battles when we were arguing. Yes.

You weren't discussing it. And so and so your comprehensive plan calls for there to be an RV1 and an RV2. And so to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, we need to have an RV1 and an RV2. Um but I do think the where that where is that line is a question that should be asked. like why why in the north is there a little RV2 carve out in the middle of the RV1? And um is this really like what what makes the RV1 and the RV2 different and and on the ground what do we want to see different? are the specifically so there's an RV2 area that's you know from the intersection of 260 and 261 to the north west right and that has smaller lots and smaller streets and it's RV2 and you would have you're basically allowing more dense housing in that area and why in this area um but not in why why is it okay in this area if the streets are still narrow and the lots are still small.

I can't I can't answer the questions. Um but since you say now that in the comprehensive plan we have the RB1 and two two separate zones, we can't change that. Is that what you're saying at this point? You do need to have two separate zones, one that is less intense and one that is more. We have to have the two. So would you identify two different areas, one more intense than the other? Would you be able to do that on, you know, with the RV1, RV2?

Um, so we can do that. I just think we have to identify we have to identify what the the 20-year goal is, right? Like what what what was it the redevelopment of that area that was being visualized? Um, so that's that's sort of the question. The other option, you know, that might have been it. I don't know. Yeah, that could be part of it. The the other option of course is that we can amend the comprehensive plan.

Um that is a bigger project than we've been given. Um but that doesn't mean we can't put it on the agenda. But I think it is a question of what's the difference? And I think we've been having that conversation with regard to allowing commercial uses in RV1 and RV2. What is the difference between these two zones? Um, and I think establishing that may be for the map.

Okay. I guess my question is if indeed it's allowed in the RV2 eventually um to have um home occupation situations where the there's a non homeowner uh at the helm and you have customers coming to this to the um to the home office. Let's just say that um that level of home office,

that would be your major home office, I guess would be called. Um would that type of use be um amendable in like where you live? Um Commissioner Brown, in that RV1 area, you know, would would your area, which is RV1, right? Yours is RV1, would you be able to have customers coming to the homes in that area and stopping and parking uh and that kind of thing? Would that be amendable to that kind of intense use?

Sure. Sure. The um I mean the difference in density is it really should cox roadly a lot less dense than down by the water or in the area uh between NC and TC. And I think with the RV2 in the in Cox Road, it it was we would like to see as this area redevelops that it would become more dense because it isn't currently dense. You're talking about the RV2 up on Cox Road. You would want to see more dense?

No. I think that's the decision you made. No, it's you know, I don't know. I don't necessarily know because I wasn't here. You would you'd have to ask one of the um town council members who on the commission and argue promoted it all over

um you know I am amendable to changing the um comprehensive plan if need be too if if if everybody here thinks thinks that the RV 1 and two is just uh an exercise in confusion because I think that's uh that's not a good way to plan either. So if you think that in the RV1 where you are is it would be the same um uh it would be the same intensity as the RB2 up let's just say across from Baya in that area. Um I I I you know I don't know. I mean there were definitely some strong arguments um for changing this I know at one time and I can't recall what the reasons were exactly at this point but I know our planner went along with it so he you know obviously he didn't think it was too ownorous at the time

yeah it's coastline I mean there's fragile there's when you're by shoreline I think you but but it feels arbitrary we have RV1 in orange on the shoreline and then RV2 also on the shoreline. That's where like that design that change in designation there is what makes the whole thing feel a little like huh cuz you know what I mean just that that same street where it is crowded and then it doesn't get less crowded but the designation designations don't reflect the reality. Yeah, in my opinion. Madam Chair, I have a question.

Yes, ma'am. Would it be possible to ask Miss Franklin to take the zoning map, look at the zoning map, and you as a planner determine what you think it should be? Then potentially have you look at the RC where it projects out 20 years and code it that way. And then we compare them. Um, we could certainly do that if that's um I don't know. I mean, if you want to make changes though, we then do have to look at redoing the comprehensive plan or, you know, amending the comp comprehensive plan.

I think part of it, we are a little in like a chicken and egg, right? We have options, but part of it sort of does hinge on this conversation that we keep having about home occupations. Yes. Right. and yes, the intensity of the home occupation

in an RV1 versus an RV2. And I think if we can identify do do we want to allow a a more intense home occupation, which I have now classified as a major home occupation um versus a minor home occupation in an RV2 and not allow it in other residential areas. Um, and so I think that's sort of the question. Or would you allow a major home occupation in any RV area? Um, but isn't it an interpretation and everybody could potentially have a different interpretation of RV 1 and RV2? Like in in the sense of major intents. Okay. So for me, if it's a single house sitting on say a third of an acre, half an acre, but that single house has a family of six living in it. Is that going to be classified as one way versus having that same third of an acre and you now have town homes and you have four town homes on it and it has 20 people living in it. So, how like where are we going to draw the line on that? And

that's also going to change could change sales. Well, and if you look at the RV1 area right as you turn onto Chesapeake Beach Road, those little cottages um that actually don't have any parking except for maybe one or two, you know, spots in the back. They're very limited in their parking. I think that was some of the idea too maybe is that um to intensify use would require more uh more need of parking and they were very limited and I think if I remember what the conversation was that was part of it. Um so you couldn't have the intense home office use if in those areas in particular just because of

um the in inability for people to drive back in there and you know you have a little alley you have no parking etc etc. So I think that was some of the thought. Um but um could RV1 in that section remain and you know some of the others of the RV1 change into RV2? I don't know. I mean if if if Commissioner Brown is saying that in his section which is um over there by the well the north coastal area up there and he thinks that they could handle more intense business use and maybe that should be RV too. and spread RB2 over that way and leave RB1 over where there's very little parking, very little ability to drive through and there's little tiny alleyways. Maybe we need to look at it like that, like accessibility

or you make it conditional.

Well, we can make it a special exception use. Um, yeah, there's there's more than one way to address it. And I think the we're talking about sort of we're layering two things. What is there right now and what do we think should be there? And you know, the comprehensive plan is what do we think should be there and then we change the zoning to match that so that it shapes and adjusts based on that. Um, and so I think hearing, well, RV1 along the shore reduces the intensity. Well, then maybe we should look at RV1 along all of the shore. And maybe those are areas that you you don't have a major home occupation and all the RV that isn't adjacent to the shore becomes the RV2 and would allow a home occupation uh or a major home occupation but also would allow conversion to town homes um town homes and multif family dwellings

over time. Basing this on parking? No, I'm not basing it on parking. Oh, you can probably base the major versus minor home occupation decision on parking and street width, right? Because it's whether you have customers coming or not that differentiates those two. Why would you? So I because I heard someone say we want, you know, a less intense use along the water because it's a sensitive area. Um and that so that's why I threw that idea out there.

Um but I think if that's the argument you have, you know, you have high density and medium density along the water too. So we would want to make it consistent if that's the goal. Um, so it's partly what exists now, partly what would we allow to exist in this space. Oh, I'm looking at our packet, the memorandum, and they say for residential one, and this is uh page 5925.

It has general land use categories, and it says residential village one. Uh, the purpose is conserve traditional cottage neighborhood character. And a primary example is a single family detached house. Residential village 2 conserve traditional cottage neighborhood. Single family detached with allowance for other housing types compatible with the neighborhood character. The high density is a single family attached with multiple family buildings. That's in the comprehensive plan on page 59. Okay. Um so

so where do you want to go from here? Do you want to do you want us to direct you to go ahead and um make modifications or changes on this and then bring it back next month or how do you want to do this map? You can tell that we're a little bit, you know, eh, we don't really know. Um I um the residential village I know was historically Mhm. one I mean historically the RV1 and RV2 were all RVs was just all one RV, right?

So that has um that is what that used to be. I think everything else used to be somewhat the same, right? Their RMD, RHD was always the same. I mean that was residential high density, medium density, low density, etc. That was pretty much the same. Of course, you don't know because you weren't here. They changed Richfield Station. Well, Mr. Dubie, he changed it because there was a couple of us that didn't want it changed. Um, what was it changed from? I I'm looking at my notes and I can't find them. Um, and what was it? Okay. Well, that's interesting. A portion of Richfield Station had been zoned RMD. That orange spot in the middle, but mostly baby That's Baby Hills, right?

No, that's um Heritage. Okay. So that section that's orange was removed um before we leave the RV zone and move on to the RV overlay which that is bringing up. Um I think

the what I would like direction from the planning commission on is what approach you would like to take. Would you like to maintain the differentiations between the RV1 and the RV 2 zones and try to identify what are defining factors to determine what those areas are so that I can update the map based on that. or if you would like to look at amending the comprehensive plan to consolidate everything back into um just one RV zone right here. Um okay. What would be everybody's pleasure? Yes, Commission.

I feel like my strong preference at this point would be to amend the comprehensive plan make a single RV because it feels easier. it I mean maybe not easier but it feels like easier for other people to understand and it feels like the differentiations between what we want to do and one and the other feel like we get into like a little bit more dangerous territory. Personally, that's how I that would be my preference moving forward. Okay, Commissioner Brown.

Yeah, I would I would I'm not sure what we're doing. Are we are we dealing with this? Are we are we amending this? Are we back to the original? I mean, that's we're we've got balls in the air and I don't know which one to deal with. Right. So, there are there are a lot of balls in the air and the question because there's a problem, right? And the question is how do we solve this problem of these three balls that need to be coordinated with each other um

and that have become uncoordinated. And so there's multiple ways to address the issue, but if the last the last time we dealt with this, we had public input. Yes. Right. And it's going to arise public input. it. Um, if you're if you're dealing with changing this, um, now changing this doesn't matter because it doesn't mean anything until you change this. It's a chicken and egg situation.

I agree that I agree that RV1 and RV2 are basically um the same except for along Cox Road. Um, but I there's this pink section up here along Route 261 that uh that's new. So, that's that's the old zoning on top of the new zoning map. So, okay. I'm just kind of trying to show you what it was and what you changed it to. Um, just for reference. Well, that's the commercial. What it was doesn't matter anymore. We aren't going back to that. We're going forward.

So, well, you wouldn't be okay. We don't need to be changing the commercial zones, right? We're just talking about the RV1 and RV2 at this point. I I'm not suggesting that we go back to the old zoning. I'm just suggesting that it can kind of inform our discussion. Um, well, let me ask you this. If we didn't change anything, how would would that be a problem if we didn't change anything and just go ahead and and deal with the uses and deal with them as this this map reads right now? What is the most efficient use of our time to make it that it all collectively works together?

Okay. So I think I kind of would like you you all to sort of make a decision as to what method you want to take. updating the comprehensive plan or coming up with a basically decision matrix of what constitutes RV1, what constitutes RV2 and splitting them up based on some objective and clear defining features. um so that we have this basis for why each one and and then that way I can go back and update the map based on that information. Okay. So you're saying that what is written in the um comprehensive plan is not definite and precise enough to to give us enough feedback to make further plans. Is that what you're saying?

It it's not that. It's how what's written in the comprehensive plan is applied to the map. Right. So, I heard someone say, "Well, RV1 should be on the shoreline because it's less intense." Well, if that is the decision factor, then we should change the map to reflect that. But if the decision factor is based on the existing street layout or proximity to 261, then we should update the map to reflect that consistently. There's basically not a consistent defining factor that is helpful to identify what constitutes RV1 versus what constitutes RV2 when looking at this map. Okay. So, when you did your um um the land uses in in this new um chart,

you did the major and minor home occupations, right? I took what we did last time and instead of putting it under one use, I split it into two different right uses. So I guess the question is is it um if we took the the major home occupation which I think we you would indicated to be an RV2, right? It was an RV2. I I the my land use classifications I didn't carry those over properly. Oh, okay. So that carried them over. It said RV2. I wasn't sure. Um, so, so you didn't then suggest that RV2 be the major home occup or allow for the major home occupation versus the RV1?

I carried over what we did. I didn't put my recommendation. Okay. Okay. Okay. Because I was assuming that you assumed that RV2 was um had an the area was more applicable to that kind of intense use than the others. But, you know, I'm happy if you guys want to as a group go ahead and uh amend the compress of plant and and just make it an RV uh district. You know, I'm I'm perfectly happy to go that route too if that's what everybody's Should we go ahead and make a motion to do that or what would everybody like to do here? Because we're not going very quickly here. We open up the comprehensive plan and make a motion on it. Don't we have to put it back before the public for them to

Yes, we have to go through the whole nine yards. Yes, we do. If we change this, don't we all have to have we still have to have a public hearing if we're going to make some changes like that. We still have to have a public hearing, but I think the comprehensive plan is going to open up warm worms, a bigger can of worms. And if I could, so that we've been given we've been given a task by the town council. And while amending the comprehensive plan may make sense to address this problem and maybe we say we're going to address RV1 and RV2 by amending the comprehensive plan after we've provided you with this

zoning ordinance which means then we'd have to come we'll have to keep making amendments. Um we can absolutely do it that way and that may be something that comes up. It's just this question of to your point, what's the efficient use of time is do we want to say we're going to address RV1 and RV2 by putting them back together and amending the comprehensive plan or do we want to address them by coming up with clear guidelines for the difference?

Okay. Yes, Commissioner Weaver seems to me especially because time is of the essence with us like getting this done. If we say our recommendation is that our I mean this is just what my thought is. Our recommendation is that we bring RV1 and RV2 together and while we are going through the land use, we just make RV1 and RV2 the same for now. So that then when you later bring it up, it would be later than if we were changing the comprehensive plan. It was already set up versus us going through lots of discussion in any given thing and being like, oh, that can be an RV1 and this is an RV2 thing and that's an RV1 and that's an RV2. We would just treat them

the same for us for now with the recommendation that they are combined later. But isn't that spot zoning? And what would that do to you with them coming to you as a with permits? So I would say that if we are going to put them back together, we need to leave them alone right now because I think what she's saying is we leave them alone. Leave them alone. But as the columns in the columns here V1 and RV2 are identical. Yeah. More or less. That will make it inconsistent with what we So in in the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan says one thing has to be different from the other. So now,

right. So in the comprehensive plan, residential village, it is meant to be traved cottage neighborhood character and the only example or the primary example is single family detached homes. So if we then allow other housing types and commercial uses, we have brought ourselves out of consistency. So it is actually if we are going the route of amending the comprehensive plan, it's a three-step process. Make these changes now, leave everything as is, amend the comprehensive plan, come back and make changes again after the comprehensive plan is amended.

U that's pretty complicated. And our and our goal is to have something back to town council by April 1st. Um by the I would say we would vote on it at have a public hearing and voting on it in our April meeting. In the April meeting is that six months. Now we could ask them for an extra month. Two months, right? Yeah. We would have March or February because this isn't our February meeting. This is our January meeting. So we'd have a February and a March meeting. Yeah. They requested it in um November. We had some discussions in December. Um, right.

I think we can ask our what do you think about this? What do you think would be the easiest way to go on this? I mean, you know, you probably have seen this. How counselor? Yes. You think would be the best way to go? Well, my answer to that would be it is really your call. Um, good job. The comprehensive plan was was produced years ago, couple years ago

with other people. I mean, there's a few of us left, but most the entire town has changed. Most of this commission has changed. It's it's not locked in stone. We don't have to comply with it. That was a guideline for the future. And when you have new people with new ideas, better ideas, you don't have to go back and change the comprehensive plan, you execute those new ideas. And then when the new comprehensive plan comes into being in 20 uh 30, then you you write a comprehensive plan that acknowledges that.

That's why I was asking council council here. What what do you think is the best way to hear what you have to say? So, if you look at state law, it's going to tell you that when you adopt zoning regulations, they're supposed to be in accordance with the plan. So, the plan is important. Um there were some recent changes in zoning from the general assembly and there are some currently posed um which if adopted I think is going to require a possible amendment to your comprehensive plan. they were there. They were there anyway is what

so I'm gonna defer to your planner but and it depends on what the general assembly does whether these things are enacted. Um but with respect to the comprehensive plan when was the last one approved? It is 2022. Um okay so April sorry four years. Yes. How long did it take to do that one? I believe I believe the comprehensive plan says that we will not have cannabis within the town.

So now do we have to go back and change the comprehensive plan so that we can change? That's what I'm saying. I don't I think it's a guideline that changes over time. Oh, so um sorry the cannabis is the state preeemption of local land use authority. though it invalidates what's in our comprehensive plan. Um, but we still have to have our zoning be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Though, if state law has invalidated a portion of that, then our zoning has to be consistent with state law. And we don't have to change the comprehensive plan.

And we don't have to change comprehensive plan, but we don't have state law talking to us about RV1 and RV2. So if we kept RV1 and RV2 as it is right now and try and work with this, you know, these uses as it looks right now, would that be something that would be what the town council would be looking for is that we use the current or I mean did they want us to change the map or did they say anything about changing the map?

They they did not. Um, however, as I've delved into the land use, it's it's very clear that the map really has to be looked at. Um, and so I mean the problem is doesn't need to be looked at right now. I mean, we need to that's the problem is do you have to do that first before we do the uses or how are we going to be doing this? You want to do the uses with the current configuration of the map is my question.

I get what she was saying earlier though. sometimes hard to say if what use we want for one place if you're thinking well we might need to shift that if we're like because RV1 and RV2 are not currently don't have any consistent standard that seems to divide RV1 from RV2 then it's hard to say what thing could go in one place or the other because you're like well if it's high density or the do you know what I mean if it's where because the roads are narrow that we don't want things or there's not parking but that hasn't been consist consistent in doing it. So that's what I think she's presenting as being the issue. You want it to be enumerated so that we have standards objective standards.

Yes. and and because they are currently easy easy because like R the RV2 that's right below the RV1 in the norththeast corner of town that doesn't bear very much resemblance to the RV2 that's over on Cox Road in I mean Cox Cox Road is a little different because it's aspirational rather than existing. What's aspirational? Cox Roads RV2. Oh. Is that the intention is that that area will change over time to mimic the land use pattern that you see in your RV2 zones, right,

that exist? Okay. Um All right. So, let me ask you, Miss Franklin, where do you want us to go next? Do you want us to go ahead and allow you to make changes on this map while we uh should we avoid RV1 and RV2 right now as far as making the uses for and and try all the others or or what do you recommend here? Because I'm it's a chicken and egg thing. I mean, do we do this this first or that? I mean, I'm I'm totally baffled on how to proceed here. I see the benefit of making it all one zone. Um but, you know, uh it would take a lot of work to do that. So, you know, we want to do that.

Does it make sense? I don't know. This seems to make if we start going through and looking at the specifics and we know and then that is when we would start to know like, oh shoot, that doesn't really make sense as an RV1 because we would want that there and then that could make zoning. That's when then we would know how we wanted to shift the map. But I think if we start with the land use table, right? I think so. You're asking for my recommendation, right? As to whether you exactly whether you should update the comprehensive plan or whether you should amend the zoning, right? Yes.

Um since we don't have the exact answer ourselves, um we are asking you to answer. We are asking for help here and I appreciate everybody else's um two cents about it. I I just um I think it's going to take us a while to change that um comprehensive plan. It's a problem. Yes. But I I think I think you can the three-step process is is fine, right? You can take the three-step process. I can take you through the three-step process.

Yeah. Um, I believe that unless you guys really have a sense of what differentiates RV1 from RV2 amongst yourselves here, then it would make sense to put them back together, provided there is not any intense resident feedback. Um, it is my understanding that people were concerned about RV2 increasing density in their neighborhoods, but I I don't have all of the residential feedback. So, I I think in under that I would amend the comprehensive plan. Um, okay. So if you don't want us to then take a look at this map and go okay let's examine why RV1 was identified as RV1 and why you don't want us to sit here and start identifying different I mean we could do that and we could you know come up with some ideas you know I my personal idea is that the RV1 looks like it has less room for parking more vehicles it has less you know room for people dropping off people and so that would be my my look at RV1 as um as it stands currently. Um I see RV2 as having more ability to eress ingress. Um you've got uh I think more parking in front of each lot. Um there are more garages in RV2. Um more driveways in RV2. Um so I mean um you know, am I pulling that out of a hat? No, I'm pulling it out of actually my experience of being around those areas. But um you know the RV2 that is up there on the on the top right where you've got the or

orange RV1 up at the the north section and then the RV2 down below that looks pretty intense right there. That RV2 area right there. So I don't know why that is necessarily RV2 unless maybe it's in fact maybe you know what is that area right right there where the RV2 is. Commissioner Brown what where am I looking right here? Um what is in that particular uh that's a townhouse seagate gate I think. Oh seagate right there. Yeah because Seagate is north north of Horizon.

Okay. Okay. So RB2. So that is why that became RB2 because it wasn't a single family same situation. So I I can see why now they've you know why that came. But the RB1 at the top um at the very northern section um that must be very small lots, very intense area up there. I think I I haven't been through that, but I so I mean I could probably go through and identify and we all probably could if you know we all thought about what those little streets are all like. And so maybe just for tonight because we have a couple other things we want to discuss and we have the attorney here with us. Yes. That it might be a good idea to say, okay, we're all gonna go back, right? um and think about what makes the most sense so that when you when we come to our meeting at the end of February, you can vote to decide whether you want to create those objective um distinguishers between RV1 and RV2 or whether you want to amend the comprehensive plan and because I do think it is it really should be your decision. you know, you sort of pushed me to a recommendation that I've thrown out, but I don't know that I would

I mean, the other the other thing we have to remember is that the person who really really really wanted to make these changes is now sitting on the town council. So, I mean, could it possibly be that whatever we decide here about changing could go back and revert back again? So, I mean, there's that. We're also dealing with three things, separate things that have to be approved by the town. change to the comprehensive plan, a change to this, a change to that. Got three independent things.

This uh doesn't depend on that. We could we can work on this and get this done and then deal with the the map and the comprehensive plan later, but this this is what the town council wants from us. Yes. In April and they haven't they haven't asked for this and they haven't asked for a change to the comprehensive plan. So I say we work on this. That's what I think and then get done what we need to get done. Exactly. That's what I think too.

And so I think then in that case with the land use we we still need a set of objective standards that allow us to decide what is in RV1 and what is in RV2. But isn't that already in the comprehensive plan on page 59? And it gives a primary example,

right? But that's not what's in the zoning anymore, right? The zoning has been changed to allow more intense use in a specific area of RV one. And we're being asked, we had a we had a public come here and ask us to allow more uses in the RV1 specifically in that one building and that in specific individual was asking us for her own specific business. So I think we have to address the issue either address the issue of horizons and and whether there's a different way to handle it than it's been handled and make adjustments

or we have to determine what uses we're going to allow in each zone and what our decision factor is for that. I I do know that residents were sort of assured that they would still be able to do things like their homebased businesses in the RV zones. Um and and they can't. So that needs to be addressed and these other uses need to be addressed. So regardless of how we move forward, we need to distinguish how we're deciding. we can at least give um all the RV area

at least one type of homebased business. Right. We can do it do the minor. It's the major one that I think you were implying to go into the RV2 into the more Okay. Right. So, um I guess I want to ask Miss Ruff now, how if we had this one building that is a multifamily housing unit and it's in a in it's located currently in the RV one one and that's supposed to be our less intense area with single family housing, but somehow it got put into the RV1 zone. And I think that's about the only anomaly we have, isn't it? Because I haven't I don't remember there being another anomaly like that one

in the RVs. No. and the RVs. How would we address that situation? Change the map to I mean, that's what I would do is I would change the map to reflect it if you're not going to alter the land uses that are permitted in the Okay. So, basically change the map. So, we can change a portion of the map if we want to. When you know you want to bring it back next month, we could do that. and still and and just do the horizon on the bay. Just do that section to reflect RV2, I guess, make it an RV2 area

and and then would you permit all the uses that are in her horizons in other areas of the RV2? I mean, I guess we would or would you grandfather? Okay. Do you have to? Okay. So, you would have to once it's in that zone, you have to allow everybody in that zone to have the same uses, of course. So if it what I understand is being said and I might not have it right and I would ask so in in the RV1 is where this multif family is located with businesses. Yes. But it's not permitted in the land use table.

Not anymore since we updated it. So then you either have to amend the land if it's not going to be non-conforming, right? You have to amend the land use table to allow that use in the zone or you have to amend the zoning map to reflect the proper land use for that. Okay. So, if we um modified the map to allow uh Horizons to be in RV2 and we we allow RV2 to have the major home business section, then that would be that those businesses in there are all compatible with the um the R the major home business, right? Am am I No,

no, because they're not homebased businesses. They're actual commercial space. Oh, that's true. They are actual commercial. They are not You're right. I mean, when they built that building, it was the intention of mixed use, which is why it was designed that way. I mean, I've gone to the businesses in there over Yeah. my history of here. Yep. And is there overlay over that? There isn't an overlay. Um, there used to be an overlay, I think, that permitted it. Am I right? The the density bonus overlay. Is that how it was allowed? I don't recall. Well, I thought it was when they were building that building that it was part of the approval process that they could do mixed use in there, but you would have to verify that.

I know they're allowed to do the mixed use in there. The problem is, you know, the original uses like a physical therapy office. I can't remember the others, but the the physical therapist is moving out. And so other people want to purchase the space and they're not a physical therapist. And so physical therapist is the use that's allowed. And so people want their uses to be allowed too. And so how you know we're amending the land use table to allow every different use somebody wants in there to be in there. I think that there's a grant a way to do non-conforming or grandfathering that would be simpler.

Didn't Didn't we recommend to the town council that they could have this basement. A yoga. It was a yoga. She was She was It was She wanted to do Pilates. Pilates. It's an exercise. Yeah. Right. We have to update the land use table in order. We have to land allowed in the RV2, right? No, that's so that's where we're at. We're saying what is the difference between RV1 and RV2? and what is the the objective decision factors for what uses we will allow.

Okay. So I think we need to say might I suggest that turn to the table of uses and focus on the RV1 and RV2 and confirm that you want to continue to have the the uses here permitted or not permitted. Once you know that, then maybe that will help you decide whether you're going to keep them as two separate zones or whether you want to um well, the first issue we've got is the different different types of residential uses. And

um when you look at um the RV1, we have the attached uh the single family attached and the townhouse dwelling not permitted. Multif family dwelling not permitted. I think that's what a lot of the RB1 people felt that they were going to be single family detached only and then the RB2 people I think felt that you know there was mixed use there was already mixed use in there I think they already you know uh were used to having a mixed type of housing situation in the RB2 and I think that might have been how this thing was divided up was on the types of housing maybe um because um It is consistent that the that the RV ones that they have here are just single up here on the map are single family detached homes. They're not town homes or attached homes or any of that stuff. But in uh all these other areas

where in the RV1 where is that? You mean the RV1 area? Where is that at? South of uh Horizons. There's that's not in the residential high density. It hasn't moved into that. Uh it so residential highdensity chain the red is covering up RV1. So where it's right below the RV1 is where the red is. Yeah, you might want to if you have your your actual zoning map and so the two overlaid, you might want to look at that. Okay.

Um but I think the type of housing is what created this RV1 RV2 difference is is really that plus the density and all the you know the parking etc. So, I think there was a method to this madness. Um, but anyway, I think uh if we if we start looking at the first page, we've already got an issue with well, okay, um uh do we change up what's permitted in the RV1 and it'll start allowing townhouse dwellings and multif. Do we change that all up? I mean, that would certainly make everybody happy in the current RV1. What? There's gonna be town homes here. Um, so I mean, so that's a big issue. Um, but if you look at the current the current situation, you've got RV1 and it's totally just detached housing, whereas RB2 is all these other types of housing. So is that how the I think that's how the map is is situated, isn't it? I mean, if if you look at it, I think that's what's what's going on here because I don't think that there are any RV ones that have town homes or multifamily housing in the area except for, you know, maybe the Horizon issue. Of course, we got that anomaly, but I think everything else is pretty consistent with the RV2 is um got the different types of housing and the RV1 is all single family detached.

Uh I Aren't there town homes south of Horizons? Say that again. Aren't there town homes south of Horizons? They're in an art. Yes, there is a little section of of town homes right behind Bay or right behind Bayia or adjacent to Baya. Um is that zoned RV between Baya and Hara and Horizon Seagate? Seagate homes on the water single family homes on route 260.

Yeah, but that's all zoned RV1 now. So, it's not it's not that it was split up entirely by what's there, unless that RV1 should have been RV2. Um, well, anyway, so um yeah, I think that the the bigger issue that aside from the residential is actually the commercial uses that are permitted.

Right. Right. If we went back now and went to these RV1 um homeowners and they go, "Guess what? We're going to change you to RV and it looks like you're going to now have town homes, multif family home dwellings, uh single family attached coming into your neighbor, possibly coming into your neighborhood. I think we're going to have some issues." I, you know, I think they're probably thinking at this point that they're in a stable situation of just having the detached homes. Otherwise, you start becoming like Waldorf.

So, put it everywhere. Like, I think you guys are making that decision, right? I'm not suggesting that you allow all these higher density uses in the RV1. So, it sounds like what you're saying is we should keep two categories for the residential at least. I think that was designed with the change. I think that's what you know, I can't remember, but I think that's probably what it was. Right

now, we may have some anomalies. As I say, we might have that section of town homes on the water that should be in high density housing or something or RV2. I don't know. Probably high density housing. So, we probably need to make some adjustments, but I don't know that we should change RV1 to become just like RV2 because I think people have already become accustomed to understanding that RV1 has different um uh different thing different types of housing. And I don't think they're thinking it's going to be high density housing. I I don't know if I want to ch, you know, be on the uh ch I don't want to be on the planning commission when that changes. I don't think they would be happy. Um so anyway, my my thing would be that we we make some of minor adjustments to the map. Maybe put um those town homes in high density housing. Maybe take Horizon and put that on RV2 or something. and then wait for the town council to approve it and then we come back and do

No, I think in the meantime we've got to work on this at the same time. We got to do both. This is what they need. And and I think it comes to with the commercial uses, which ones are you going to So, you're going to keep them separate. You're going to move horizons into the RV2 to solve this problem. And then which commercial uses are you going to allow in the RV2? and how are you going to

Okay, let me go back to Miss Ruff. So, if we have um specified uses and then all of a sudden you've got this Horizons which is a um standalone multiuse facility. It's got the commercial on the bottom and it's got the you know the multifamily housing on the top. Can you have um can you adjust the use because it's standalone and it's not or do you have to make sure that all the uses conform with what it says in here? So, in other words, can they have a more intense use with that building if it existed or was allowed to be developed prior to the zoning being enacted or amended such that it was no longer permitted? It should be a nonconforming use. Is it a non-conforming use?

Not being treated like a non-conforming use. Well, okay. on cuz it's not just that. It's that when you go from physical therapy to I want other to now I want to have a Pilates studio. Yeah. But but adjusting this land use table into the categories as I have may fix that because now physical therapy is in the same category as a Pilates studio. Right. So you expand the uses because it's a personal service. Yes. Yes. Yes. Right. supposed to be a conditional year. That's right. That's right. That's right. So maybe that's how we approach this.

Okay. Does everybody Does everybody kind of go along with that idea? Just make a few little minor changes, not make a tremendous change in the RV system because I think it's going to be a really hard road to try and uh have it go up to the town council and make a change because I'm not sure that's the way they want to go. I I would just stick with this. make a few tweaks and try and develop this as best we can with the current RV1, current RV2 situation. See if we can get there. See if we can go. Okay.

Okay. Just because I think as you know the logistics of this is going to be challenging otherwise and we would have a really a lot of angry people if we changed RV1 to RV2 all of a sudden. I think I agree. Um okay. So let's let's look at the first P. Uh, should we start on the first page? Is that how we want to do this or where how do you want to I'm sorry. Go.

All right. If I can just make sure that my direction is clear. Um, I'm going to be moving Horizons and any town homes into the RV2 district with a map amendment. And the we're going to update this land use table so that once it's updated, personal services are going to be permitted in because they're an existing non-conforming use in Horizons. And that's how we're going to address there's not actually going to be any commercial uses in RV1 and RV2 except for home occupations. Is that that would sound good to me. What does everybody else think? Is that okay?

I just want to make sure I understood that you just said that in RV1 and RV2 there will be no commercial businesses. Only home occupations.

Only home occupation. So what happens to the businesses that are currently in horizons on the bay? So because because the land use table is changing and personal service is all in one zone then you can have any personal service use in horizons. I'm not sure because it looks like attorney Ruff maybe has something to say about that. If personal services and neighborhood retail were conditional uses in the RV1, what would stop them from being located elsewhere in the RV1? the conditions that applied to those uses.

The condition of the uses in the RV1 was specifically that it is part of a mixeduse development that was approved before a certain date. And so we can go that's not how it's written now. That's not how I drafted it. Um, but given this, this is what I'm trying to confirm that what I'm going back to do is to reddraft that condition back into it for just the RV2 zone which will be updated with the map to include horizons and solve our intensity issue. So my thought and this is where I'm coming from of the business for that building right now. Say they have them all the lower floor rented out and then somebody moves out and now they don't have that rent coming in and someone else wants to come in and potentially it's not personal use.

Then it's denied and they're on the hook because now they don't have someone coming in for personal use and they're not recouping money for that part of the building. Does that make sense? Is that are those condos? Are I thought she purchased that from the physical therapy. Didn't she purch Isn't that aren't those for sale and purchase? I don't think they're rental rental situations.

I don't I think each unit is different. I am pretty sure. I I don't want to specifically say because I'm not 100% certain, but I think some of them are rented and that one is definitely purchasable because she was purchasing it. Um, okay. So, um, going back to this then, if right now, uh, we don't know what all the uses are in there. We, well, we know that they're, um, conforming, don't we? I mean we know that there's a Pilates and no Pilates there was a physical therapist which counted as a personal service but Pilates would be

so in your existing land use table right you can have a physical therapist you can have like a doctor's office that's right um but there's not a lot of you can't have everything and so what we do when we add personal well I think you can have a personal service now. But that personal service doesn't currently doesn't include fitness studios. But we could we could add that. Right. Right. That so the new version that you've received today includes fitness studios as a personal service. Yes, it does. They already have a fitness gym in there. Yeah. Well, it's it's not

sure. It's not the gym isn't the business, right? It's amenity of the building. That's a different thing then. Yeah, that's different.

Let's go over to the first page of the land use um chart here and let's just take a look at it. If we look at residential uses right now, it sort of conforms with our map in the sense that, you know, the RV1 has pretty much just detached single family housing. Um, of course, um, when you get down to the multifamily dwelling, etc., they're going to be NP not permitted. Um, and then the RB2, everything's permitted, I guess, is what you would say. Um now the dwelling unit in combination with commercial use um that gets a little more intense and that of course um would I mean is it something that uh it's not currently in the RB2 right now? Do we have commercial in the RB2 right now?

Um welling units with commercial in it? I don't Yeah, your RV2 allows them conditionally now. Okay. Okay. So that's consistent then, right? Yes. And the RPC. Let's talk about the RPC. Um, yes, sir. Dwelling accessory. You're talking about accessory dwelling units. Yes. ADU. Yes. That's going to be something that we're going to allow, I think, in all zones. Correct. That's one of the changes that the state of Maryland's going through.

That's conditional in RV1. So per this state code right changes any zone where you allow single family housing you have to allow accessory dwelling units. Um there were some new changes that occurred um that require us to evaluate our regulations around ADUs um frankly around ADUs, cannabis and solar. And so I would like to kind of put a pin in those those uses and tackle them all together because we have state preeemption at play. Um and that's how we really need to look at them is what are we required to do?

Okay. So accessory dwelling well I'm further on when we get into this accessory dwelling unit is limited to 600 square feet or something but in the state law

it says 75% of the uh main house. It says a maximum of so it doesn't ha we don't have to allow 75% but we can allow up to 75%. We can't allow 80% of the size of the main house. So I I think as the conditions for accessory dwelling units are are something that we do need to talk about but they're like sort of a bigger discussion. Um, and I think if we can while we have the attorney here, talk about the overlay if we're we're ready. I don't Okay.

Um, if we're ready to move from RV1 to RV2, not that we don't need to talk about the accessory dwelling units, but I want to make sure that we're okay. Tackling our question or her main questions. Yes.

Can you just do me a favor? Somebody mentioned RPC. Can you refresh my memory on the difference between RPC and RC? So the RPC is the residential planned community and the residential plan community is a floating zone in your zoning ordinance which means it doesn't it sort of hovers up here in the air and it doesn't land anywhere unless it gets applied to the map. So that means that you have a base zoning map and you can have any area in your base zoning map and you can drop the floating overlay on top of your base zoning map. Um I have gone back historically um because Richfield Station and Bay View Hills, no Bayiew Hills and Heritage all have the RPC overlay dropped on them, but there's no indication what the zoning that they're on that the overlay is on top of is. And so the we need to address the underlying zoning, but also the RPC its point is to be a planned residential community. So a planned residential community in the future, if someone's going to have that overlay applied, they might want to have a neighborhood grocery store in it or or some other type of thing. You can only have those things once you drop in the overlay. You get your development plan, you approve the development plan with the overlay, and now that is the regulations for that area. So Richfield Station wouldn't be allowed to have a neighborhood grocery store because it's not in the plan for Richfield Station.

But if someone else came in and said, you know, we annexed some land that wasn't developed and someone wanted to put um a neighborhood in there and they wanted to have a grocery store or a daycare center or a school or whatever they wanted to do, then that needs to be permitted in the overlay zone when we apply it so that they can use those things. that overlay zone is is it's meant to live on top all the time so that the development plan is what's being followed but you're also supposed to have underlying zoning. So that is why you have with RPC you've got permitted uses um all the way through that include stores and you you include a lot more with the RPC because a new RPC might want

okay because previously Richfield Station was an RPC. Yes. But I don't know what it was originally. So, we we'll want to provide it with underlying zoning. I think we should do that for the homeowners to make it clear what their setbacks and lot coverage and everything is. Um, so even though Heritage is an RPC, it's listed as RMD here.

No, it's RP. So, currently it's Heritage and Bayiew Hills only because remember you're looking at two maps on top of each other right now. The Olden and M. I see. I see. Yeah, it used to be RMD that was underlying it, but still that means a homeowner's setbacks for like their shed, okay, are going to be RMD setbacks. But interesting redevelopment is going to be the RPC, right? Well, I don't want to get into it now, but that was a big issue when we were going through it that we didn't want Richfield Station changed to RPC.

Okay. Um, it's always been RPC though. I thought it was I thought it was our I thought it was something else, but maybe I'll go back in my notes. Did you want Miss Ruff to talk about the overlay zone then or what did you want her to I mean, I guess if you just if you have questions or if you want to say things about legality is I mean this is complicated. It is.

I guess I would say I'm not sure I can add much to what you've said because an overlay zone is placed on the zoning map over your traditional zoning. Um it it allows you it's it's a planning tool that you can use that um adds targeted rules I would say on top of your existing zoning regulations that's supposed to address specific conditions or goals within that area. So rather than replacing that base zoning that you have on your map, overlays help you protect sensitive areas, critical area overlay, um guide growth near transit. you've heard of transit diff transit district overlays um or address downtown issues or respond to any kind of a unique um local issue or context um without having to rewrite your entire code. Right? So that's what that little overlay zone does. Um, and it allows flexibility at some level and precision on the other other hand because you're going to target a certain area, right? Um, let's see. So, you're saying the R, so the heritage is the RMD was the original, but there's an overlay on top of it. That's that's the RPC,

right? So if I got an application for a shed from the heritage, even though it's not on our map, I could say, "Okay, I'm going to use RMD's regulation." Now, fortunately, your dimensional regulations are pretty consistent throughout, so I'm able to just apply them when someone in an RPC comes in, but that's not technically the correct way. There should be an underlying zoning layer,

the RMD. So it could be it actually doesn't on some on some level, right? It doesn't matter. This whole gray area could be zoned any underlying zone that's residential and you won't be able to do you still wouldn't be able to say put houses in where we have RC because the development plan doesn't show houses in that area. So there's no approval for houses in that area. Um there's some confusion with the RC resource conservation as far as development because there are private properties in the RC that have development on it.

So some of the RC properties are privately owned and some of them are part of the bids, right? And but some of them a lot of them are also dedicated open space. So, a lot of your RC districts are locally protected lands through Mhm., but if somebody had private a private um lot on the RC, um they've had it for many, many years and they wanted to develop it, they could put uh a structure on that property if it was not within the RPC overlay. So, if

Right. If it's not in the RPC overlay, right? If it's one in the Yeah, I'm just saying in the R. So, even though we think the RC is totally protected, it's going to be forested forever and there's still pos potential for development in certain properties, private properties of the RC. No. Well, yes and no. Um, so private property that is in the RC that does not have an RPC overlay on it and is not locally protected. land could have in it um let's see you can have water oriented recreation a private club government facility parks and playgrounds environmental science centers uh game and wildlife preserves nature preserves

aquaculture seafood processing right you have to have you have to allow some uses on any prop property. So, marine storage utilities, there's a couple of uses that are allowed. And I if you don't provide private use, then it's Yeah. Yeah. That's right. That's right. So, can you help me understand this? For Richfield Station, the FIDS, the 200 acre FIDS is right now RC. Is that correct?

Correct. Is there an overlay of the RPC over the RC or is it just straight RC? The map shows it as just straight RC, right? But that's not sort of technically correct because there is an RPC overlay on top of it. Um, so the map needs to be updated to show. So you can have you could change the underlying zoning there to be RC. you don't need to because it can't the RPC is on top of it and it's not the RP the development plan does not have that being developed but you can have it RC and the RPC can be on top of it and it should be on top of it because the development plan which includes the preservation of that land should apply there.

Okay. So help me understand it should apply but it there's competing factors what you just said it should apply but it's not showing.

Part of my understanding of the fids is the agreement was the developer would turn over that 200 acres of the fids which is not currently RC because he was allowed to develop streamwalk way that has not been turned over yet. what is to stop him from future developing because he's going to start developing in Ridgefield Station. So, how do we the town who also entered into this agreement? How do we make sure that he turns it over as part of the agreement? Oh, I I can't speak to that, but what I can say is that the RPC overlay that he was granted was based on a development plan, and that development plan included the preservation of the FIDS. So you want that overlay showing on top because it's actually like you can put resource conservation underneath but that overlay is defining that as being dedicated open space as part of his permission to have the overlay. It's actually pro another kind of layer of protecting on that map. Um typically overlays are shown kind of like by hatching on a map. So you have the underlying and then you the hatching indicates the overlay has been applied.

Okay. Okay, Miss Franklin, do you have an understanding of of what possibly you can do with this MA map by next month after she takes a week off? um without changing I mean I think we would be it would be to our um betterment if we did not change too much of the RV1 or I think if we keep it mostly as is but just change a few of the little like the heritage and that kind of thing

just to I think I can bring things to consistency and recommend underlying zoning as I have not been able to find previous underlying zoning. Um, there's no reason I don't I don't think there's a reason, the attorney can correct me if I'm wrong, that we can't just put our own underlying zoning apply it now, but we do want that overlay showing on this map, okay? Because it forces you to look at the development plan

so that next month we can knock this whole puppy out right here. Because I think once we actually see where everything goes, I think we can kind of then say, "Yeah, it should go there." Not, we can actually designate the uses more easily. Um, does anybody else want to say anything before we tidy up and kind of close off for tonight? Because I know we've got a a time frame here we've got to end on. Anybody else have any questions or issues before we um close it off? So the next So the homework for next month was going to be really just trying to um um figure out how we want what kind of uses we want and where we want them and uh try and do it within pretty much what we've got right here so we don't have to uh start from square one again. What else do we want to do for next month? This is going to be pretty much all we're going to do next month, right?

Yeah. And and I just want to reassure you all that I haven't forgotten about coastal resiliency. No, I understand. We've got to get to that, too. But but we've got a time limit on this. We've got a time frame that we've got to complete it.

What I did with this was I reorganized. I added definitions. Anywhere that I sort of had to I combined uses, I may have gone through that section and and modernized the language and updated sort of what's in there. But anywhere I didn't have to make those changes, I might have left it how it is. So if you are if if you would like me to provide recommendations to changes to things that didn't need changing to provide you with this new organization, then I can do that for next time so that you have sort of a basis to talk about. I just wonder if we want to look at B really quickly and ask you to put some of uh the prohibited uses into the chart as well. Well, I mean, maybe we want to um have you do that. So, in other words, casino gam gambling,

wouldn't that be something that is going to go into our chart somewhere because we already have it, right? We're already it's one of the uses we have. It's it's explicitly not prohibited or it's explicitly not permitted in any zone. I know, but it's obvious that, you know, that's something we've got to put into the permitted uses. Correct. So, I'm just saying there are some things in in B, which is prohibited uses that we need to go ahead and put into the uses, right? We have to make it prohibited. Sorry, I I haven't been to any that have gambling in them. Are they slots only or are they Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Wouldn't you consider this slot um this the stuff that we have at Rodri and Abnner's? No.

I'm gonna defer to the attorney. The slots in the casinos are different, aren't they? Casino gambling. Wouldn't that be what we have as slots at? Yeah. I can't imagine. I think though there's a legal definition that's different allows slots where they don't allow

Yeah. Just the slots at the restaurant versus um Okay. All right. So, casino. Okay. I always go, "Oh, the casino." All right. So, we need to check the definition. All right. Um, and I guess there are some other things that um, you know, we might want to include on our, you know, for example um, you know, tattoo parlors. Are we going to keep those? I don't know. I mean, but you might want to change some of We might want to change some of these things. And do we want to then move them over and then just change them at, you know, when they're in the chart or do you want to how do you want to do that?

So, I guess in regardless of whether we change them or we don't change them, they all need definitions. Um, which I haven't you'll notice that there's not definitions there. Yes. Um, my intention was to create the definitions and then stick them into the definition section rather than have them here cluttering things up. Um, but Oh, so you don't want them in the in the land use chart if they're prohibited. I don't like we're just making the table longer by having a table that says

massage. Are we not going to allow like any therapeutic massage or is that not the same as a massage parlor? I guess that's another definition. And you'll see that these are your existing prohibited uses, but you'll notice that in professional services that massage is something I'm recommending, right, you allow. So, um, I do need to work on these definitions. So, I will provide you with definitions and then maybe it's a discussion of

whether you want to permit some things that you didn't in the past, whether there's additional things that you want to prohibit. Um, I did already move cannabis because it's state, so we have to address it. Okay. Right. Okay. Um, and do Okay, fine. So, you've already done a lot of the definitions. You just have some more to do. I guess I just did the permitted uses, not the prohibited use.

And I guess our job really is just to to determine what we want to put in what we currently have as RB1 and then RB2 separately. Um, okay. Um, thank you, um, Mr. Ref, for coming and and helping us get through some of this craziness that we're doing tonight. Um, is there any anything else you want to need to think about? I don't know if the attorney has anything else that she would like to add or say. No. Is there anything else you would like me to address though while I'm here? Um,

yes. I know times we wish you were here. commun communicated prior and there were were items that were brought to my attention. I think we touched on all. I think we touched on all. Yeah, we did. We the overlay zone, the RBRT, the spot zoning, and we did actually I think pretty much go over everything that we needed with you. But thank you very much for your attendance here tonight. Thank you. Um, okay. Quickly, is there anything that anybody would like to add tonight? Do you have anything you want to say as u council comment? I was not here for the wonderful snowstorm that we had, but I really want to thank the town employees for their dedication on clearing the roads. Yes,

I know there was some grumbling because of especially in Richfield Station when they were, you know, when they were clearing some of the roads, it it blocked at the town houses, you know, the people and they had to shovel it out. But I mean, for what we received and what they did, I commend them. Yeah, I think they did a great job. Commissioner Bryceman. Okay. Um I need a motion to adjurnn. Who would like to sheep over here? Do I have a second? Second that one. We have a second. All in favor?

Thank you very much. And meeting is closed. Thank you. Appreciate it. This has been a challenge tonight. A challenge. who creates. So yeah, I