Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

There we go.

Ready to go if you all are ready to go. Hey. Good night to everyone. Good night. I should say welcome. I should say welcome, everybody, to the Town of Chesapeake Beach Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of July 22nd, 2026. We would like to open our meeting and have a roll call, please. Let's go ahead and start down at Commissioner Hahn. Ellie Hahn, present. Mary Strick-Reisman, present. And I'm Cindy Greengold.

Larry Brown, present.

and we have our town planner present, Sarah Franklin, and we have our clerk, Mrs. Hum, who's gonna help us with tonight's meeting. All right, so we are going to be short two commissioners, Commissioner Larson Weaver and Commissioner Smith, so please count them absent for tonight, but we do have a quorum, so we can continue. Everybody please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. You ready to begin? Okay. Now we'd like to have approval of the July 22nd Planning Commission agenda. Do I have a motion to approve?

I make a motion to approve the agenda for July 22nd, 2026. Do I have a second, please?

Are we going to do new business before old business here?

We are because it's going to be part of the old business as well. So we kind of have to clean up a little bit of this parking study so that we can understand what we're doing for the old business. So yes, it is kind of confusing, but we are going to do it. But thank you for asking. Would you like to second or? I second it. Okay, we do have a second. All in favor of approving the agenda for tonight's meeting, say aye. Aye. Okay, it's approved. Then we go on to number four, approval of the minutes of May 20, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. We did have some people out on that meeting. Do we have... Do we have enough people here, Ms. Sum, to go ahead and approve that one? No. What's that? He was the one who's absent. So if Commissioner Brown is okay with it, we could still approve the minutes.

You could do what? I wasn't there, so I'm...

May 20th right I know I'm just saying if he's agreeable to it then Because the problem is is that We'd have to go out. Well. I guess we could have Commissioner Weaver Larson Next time I guess we didn't have her approve it for next time Okay, I guess we'll go ahead and just move We don't have to worry about that, Commissioner Brown. We'll just have to move it to August. Okay. Approval of the minutes of the June 24th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Any questions about the minutes from last month? Anything you'd like to change or any issues? Okay, do I have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve the June 24, 2026 minutes. And I'll second. I will second the motion. Okay. You will second? Okay.

All in favor of approving? Aye. Okay. All approved. So that is a go. Okay. We don't have anybody in the audience for public comments. So we're going to go ahead and move to the ADU parking study and waiver.

Ms. Franklin, go ahead and do your thing.

Sure.

So, as you all know, part of the ADU state law that was passed says that if you're going to have a parking requirement for your ADUs, that you need to conduct a parking study. then your waiver you have to you also have to have a waiver which has to be based on that parking study and so we knew that this was going to come back up to us once we completed the parking study the town did want to do a comprehensive parking study that would be useful for lots of purposes unfortunately the interesting parameters in the state law Made this have to be a very specialized parking study Which it is and identifies that there's really limited on street parking in the town because of lot widths There is very limited access to transit, but there is some access to transit and so we Developed a waiver based on that parking study and Because time is tight, the town council is looking at this and you are looking at it. So what we'd like to be able to do today is come up with some recommendations that you can send over to town council for their next meeting. And as you know, we are also looking at the land use table. So we can adjust things in the land use table, but we have to get something for them to introduce in August and adopt in September.

Thank you. Let's quickly have any questions about the parking study before we look. I think Commissioner Hahn, do you have any questions about the parking study? Not at this time. Commissioner Brown, do you have any questions about it or any issues that you want to bring up? Of course, if you notice, there's a little bit of a memorandum on here that you needed to look at. It's a draft that Mrs. Franklin just put together to have us approve or not approve, whatever. The parking waiver, you mean? The parking waiver.

Right. Right. Yes. And I can take you through it, or we can just go through it.

Well, I'm hoping that everybody, I mean, if you have questions, certainly ask her about the questions. I think Commissioner Greisman has some questions. some changes she would like to see entertained on this draft. And if you take a look at her changes, they're on a piece of paper that says ADU property larger than 650 square feet. So if you find that piece of paper amongst all your other stuff.

If I might just note, I meant to delete the asterisked Discuss driveway regulations.

I wondered about that.

So you wanted to take this out.

Yes. So basically what she did is rewrote this draft.

Not hugely, but a little bit. Not a lot, yeah.

So if you want to take a look, she starts out with only, as it is on number five up at the top, only the parking requirements of this section shall apply. Requirements in all other sections of this chapter shall not apply, which is pretty much what was already said here. It looks like you took out, in all other sections of this chapter, you took that out. I'm sorry. I apologize. Okay. What you did take out is you took out, in all other sections of this chapter, shall not apply. Requirements in all other sections of this chapter shall not apply. I'm sorry, you do have that. Accessory dwellings are required. Okay. Instead of will, you put are required. You changed the word will to are. Did you notice that? I see that. Yeah, it's not necessary, but... Okay. Accessory dwelling units are required... Well, we should make it back to will, because I think will require two off-street parking spaces makes a little more sense than are required, isn't it? Accessory dwelling units are, no, I guess maybe are is okay. Accessory dwelling units are required to have two off-street parking spaces in addition to those required to the principal dwelling. Or the principal dwelling. Or the principal dwelling, which is pretty much what was in the draft, except for the word R versus will. Okay. Then you have ADU property larger than 650, so you made a category for anything larger than 650 square feet.

What we also added, I also added the on-site parking may not include parking on any part of the front yard of the property upon which the principal dwelling sits. That sentence was added. When was that added? When did you add that? Yesterday. Oh, I'm sorry.

Where is that located? I don't see that.

Are you working from the one that was sent to you in an email?

Oh, okay. So it should be right here.

Show me where that is.

One second.

Parking may not include parking on any part of the front yard. Okay.

Yeah, right. That is in the... That was not anywhere in the original. That was a last sentence of five.

Okay, I got it. Okay, I got it.

On-site parking may not include parking on any part of the front yard of the property upon which the principal dwelling sits.

I'm also thinking if the ADU is sitting on the front property, it may just... may just need to say the property or the site.

So then you took anything larger than 650 square feet. So you have ADU property larger than 650 square feet. Little A, a waiver may be granted from the requirement for one or two on-site parking spaces provided that the property owner provides proper documentation to prove the following.

And that is from the one that was provided to us. Okay. You changed the word demonstrate.

Yes. Instead of can demonstrate, you changed it to provides proper documentation. How does that sound to you? Is that okay? Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, that's fine. Then you go with the number one is access to the ADU is from a road which is more than 29 feet in width. And, colon. I'm not sure about all the colons and ands. Maybe Commissioner Brown can give us some punctuation alerts here. Number one, there is sufficient on-site parking for all other vehicles on the lot. Two, no other vehicles from the property park on the curb area in front of the lot. And three, the roadway is not a state highway. And... Number two, the lot is within a half mile of a Maryland Transit Authority transit stop and a Calvert County public transportation stop. And number one, the occupants of the ADU are made aware in writing prior to the signing of a rental contract that they may not park vehicles on the street. And three, the lot is within a quarter mile of a municipal parking lot where overnight resident parking is permitted. And one, the occupants of the ADU have received written notification prior to the signing of a rental contract that they must park in the municipal lot. So there's the part with the larger ADU, and then you have it separate out the ADU, and so does Ms. Franklin. She has on B anything under 650 square feet or less. A waiver for one parking space may be granted if the ADU is 650 square feet or less and only has one bedroom. Okay, and then you have recreational vehicles if a waiver has been granted under this section for one or two off street parking spaces any recreational vehicles associated with any occupant of the property must be parked on site Most of it is very Similar to what was already written.

There's few changes But

little stylistic and The recreational vehicle part and in the front yard So basically what this is saying well, let's just make sure that this so does this Conform to what your thoughts are about how this waiver should be written up miss Franklin or what do you think?

Yes, it's a little bit reorganizing and it's a little bit addressing some of the weaknesses in the original But you think it's it's made it a little bit more

complete as far as, well, I guess the RVs down below and the fact that we have it separated out with the size. Do you think we need to say at the top with the ADU property larger than 650 square feet and one or two bedrooms? Or do you think we need to add anything about bedrooms for that one since we have it down below? Or do you think it matters?

I don't think it matters for that one. I do. There's just two things. One is just like sort of the organization to fit into the format that you have will need to be just adjusted a little. So like ADU proper. It's minor, minor shifting of numbers. But then I was talking with Commissioner Greisman before the meeting. We were talking about the... Line, I think it's number AI1, where it says there is sufficient on-site parking for all other vehicles in the lot. We were talking about how it really should say something like the... all other uses on the lot conform with the town's current parking standards or this current zoning standards.

Which would then kind of indicate more what is deemed to be sufficient if you refer back to that?

Yes. Oh, so the word sufficient is a little vague is what you're saying? Or what are you saying?

I think like directing it to the actual code to say instead of sufficient for all other vehicles, yes, my thought was if someone has four cars, we're going to say you have four cars. But really, we really have to tie it to the actual code rather than how many vehicles they have. Right. And so it should really say something more along the lines of that – The other uses on the lot are conforming with the town's current parking requirements.

The other uses on the lot are conforming.

Or conform to. Conform. Current or meet whatever the town's current parking requirements.

Parking requirements. Is that sufficient to lease? Okay. And I'll probably put the reference in there.

Okay, very good.

I have a question. Yes. So when I look at AI and then it starts and there's an end on after access to the ADU is from a row which is more than 29 feet in width semicolon end and then it has one that we just talked about modifying and there's a semicolon behind it but there's no end and there's an end behind two and the end behind three. And then it continues down end, end, end. And I want to clarify, in order for someone to get property, I mean, parking for the property, do they have to meet all of these? This is the waiver.

This is they want a waiver.

That's the point. Yeah. That we... say that they have to get all of these in order to meet it. Because, I mean, looking at this... Oh, okay.

That's what I meant. That's what she was trying to bring in with the ants. And then I got a little lost in it.

So, my concern is... I'm just going to use Richfield Station. If somebody wants to put an ADU in there, I don't know that there's a Maryland Transit Authority stop within the required half a mile.

I think this is a point of discussion for you all. So the intent was... Either the road is wide enough or you are near a transit station or you are near... Oh, it's one of them together. Okay. I don't think the commissioners are going to let the municipal parking, or sorry, the council is going to let the municipal parking carry on because they're going to have to talk to their insurance agent and like all of that. That may get struck, but... It may stay.

I mean, but my concern is looking at this, I don't think just looking at this that anybody in Ridgefield Station would be able to meet all of these in order to get this. So why are we wasting our time on this? Potentially no one can get this because I'm looking at this and it's like... No one can get it.

That is accurate. If it's all three... then no one would be able to get the waiver. That's why it was set up as an or situation. The transit stop proximity applies to 50 individual single-family homes in the entire town.

I guess that's why I wasn't clear. None of them are on 29. What was or and what was and. I wasn't sure how that was supposed to be understood. What was that last comment you just made?

There were 50 houses what? There's approximately 50 houses that are within a half mile of the Maryland Transit Authority transit stop. And where is that transit stop at? It's actually in North Beach.

You're talking about those commuter buses, right? There's one in North Beach.

The idea was that those people have proximity to transit, so a waiver could be possible. Then there are places, there's not a lot, but there are places where the road is wide enough to allow people. parking and so you could have a waiver there and then if the town council is willing to allow overnight parking in municipal lots that and you're close to them that's another way to get parking that's a council decision but it's a recommendation

So we need to change these ands to ones of each. Yeah, okay. So when it's I3, we should put or at the end of that one, correct?

Is that how you want to change it? Because number one, two, and three are all mandatory, correct? Correct. under one little A? Yes. So those should have the semicolons and the word and. Okay. And then you're right.

So after the roadway, on number three, the roadway is not a state highway. Or. Yeah. Or then you go to number two, little two there, those two I's, and then you go to At the end of street, you have to put another or. And then that would be the only or. So everything else would be okay, right? Because you don't need the and after I2. You don't need the and there, I guess, right? That would just be redundant. So you don't need that and. Right, right, right. After A, I, 2, at the very end of that, you don't need that and... Well, actually, I think you do need it because... Yeah, if it's all three.

If it's all three, it needs to incorporate three as mandatory. Put the and back in there.

So I guess it would just be or at the end of three and the end of one. Okay. So... Any other? That's a good catch.

Thank you there, Kelly, for asking that one. I do have one. Although I typed this, I'm still not sure how it should be written. In the last sentence, number five, the top of the page, when it says on-site parking may not include parking on any part of the front yard, maybe it should just be period upon which the principal dwelling sits. I mean, we just don't want front yards to become...

What if you don't have a front yard? What if you're a corner lot? How do you decide which is a front yard? There was a way. There was a way when we were talking about it.

Yeah, we just established that both are front yards.

Both of them are front yards.

Okay.

Just that we don't want that. So can you also refresh my memory? What roads in town or how many roads in town is more than 29 feet in width?

There are, and I'm sorry, it should be 28 feet. We changed that partway through. I didn't change it. There are eight roads that are between 28 and 36 feet and four roads over 36, so 12 total roads in town. And they are listed on pages 4 and 5 and 6 of your parking study.

Yeah, I measured my road is only 20 East Street.

Yes, East Street is not.

Did it say how many roads we have? I don't remember where that would have been.

You know, it might not say. I wonder if I can pull up the table and tell you.

All right, so did everybody understand how this is flowing? Does anybody think we need to make any changes to this waiver, or does this waiver look okay for an ADU?

So we're creating this waiver for 12 streets.

You're required to have a waiver if you have a parking requirement. There are only 12 streets that meet the requirements of the waiver. And then the 50-ish lots that would meet the transit waiver. And then I haven't done the math on lots that would meet the municipal parking waiver because I suspect that that is going to be struck, but I can do that math. Okay.

There was one little thing then. So then did you want to change where it says Maryland Transit Authority transit stop? Mm-hmm. Do you want to put or a Calvert County public transportation? Or do you want to say and? Because that means you have to be within.

What does A2 have to do with parking? I mean, a person can have a car.

Right.

Where are they going to park? They have a car, and the Maryland Transit Authority is there. Theoretically, if they don't have a car. They still have a car that they have to park.

I agree, except what if it's just a person who doesn't have a car, a teenage kid?

But it doesn't say that.

Yeah, it says that they're made aware that they cannot park a vehicle on the street. But it doesn't say they can't have the vehicle on the street. The problem, I've had this with another municipality where it's like, well, what if the renter proves that they don't have... A license, right? Yeah, a license or a car. Or a valid driver's license or a car. And then you have to track that every year. And then how do you prove the absence of something? So it presents a whole lot of problems because we did look at that as a possible waiver option, but it just was incredibly cumbersome. But, yes, it's correct that... They could, even though you tell them they can't park on the street, they could bring a car and park on the street and it becomes an enforcement problem. That's part of why I put both the Maryland Transit Authority and the Calvert County Public Transit because, sure, you can get to and from D.C., with the Maryland route, but how are you getting places on the weekend and other places? Maybe you're Ubering. And I don't have all of the Calvert County.

But if they have a car, you still have the parking problem.

Yes, if they have a car, there's still a parking problem.

So you all can say... And you haven't taken care of the person that doesn't have a car or a driver's license.

Right. There's not really a good way to take care of that person.

If they don't have a driver's license, that's...

Right. But then you've built a whole building that's going to last for some length of time. And so when the property is, say, you have an ADU... And your teenage or your kid is living in it. They don't have a car yet. They move out. Maybe you sell the house. Now the next person comes in. They have a house. They have this ADU that doesn't have a parking space. So they can only rent it to somebody without a license. And maybe the lot doesn't accommodate a parking space, so the ADU is built and there's no way they could put a parking space, and now you have this empty building that isn't providing housing for anyone.

And people without a car, without a license can't do anything.

Exactly. You could do it with a retiree, I mean someone who... Oh, yeah?

For those people that don't have a car and don't have a license... Right. and would like to rent an ADU, they still have to go through all this.

The renter doesn't. The renter doesn't. The person who's building the ADU and either, you know, putting a family member in it or renting it would have to do that. That's like part of the investment from a renting perspective. Yeah. I mean, I don't disagree that there should be, it feels like there should be a way for you to put your mother-in-law or your kid or someone without the car in it. It just creates these problems of enforcement down the road.

ADUs aren't really designed for relatives. We're talking about non-relatives moving in. And there are a lot of people that don't have cars, don't have licenses, but we haven't addressed that.

Right. And in California, this has been around for at least a couple years now. And there are a lot of people that don't have cars, but they can walk to transportation because they have a really good bus system out there, better than we have, of course. But they use a lot of their garages. So they've taken away a parking area. That's another issue. Being that we don't have an alternative to covering some of these holes, I think we've done as good as we can here. I think you put together a pretty good waiver. I can't think of any way, unless you have them have to have a decal or something to put on their car, which means... I don't know. I don't know how you identify...

I mean, do we even have the right to say that they cannot park on a public street? Yeah.

But... You can only enforce that if you have no parking on the street at all, right? So what we're saying is if you're going to develop an ADU, you really need to provide parking. And we can't solve the problem we actually want to solve, which is the problem that Commissioner Brown is bringing up. And so we're trying to create some other waiver to meet the state requirement. The way the law is written, the requirements of the parking study, the requirements for a waiver are producing legislation that is sometimes confounding. Okay.

Do you have any more questions?

I just want to say, will you do something with that parking in the front yard? Will you clean that up, please? Oh, yes.

And the town attorney is going to review this, too.

Okay, but if you could just make it look a little better.

I have put all of – I scanned yours in, copied it over, and have altered my text based on your – As long as everyone is amenable.

Is everybody in this commission okay with what Commissioner Greissman has modified or amended on this draft? Are we okay with it? Yes. I think it's a little tighter. Now, when you say recreational vehicles, do you want to add pickup trucks or working trucks, or do you want to add anything else? I mean, you know, a lot of these people who are going to come into these ADUs are going to be workers, they're going to be, you know, itinerant people, and, you know, that's, they're going to bring in trucks if they're going to have any probably vehicles. I know that's what I've seen in California. So, you know, is RV the only thing you want to include? Do you want to include something like a truck? Because trucks can take up, I mean, they take up a huge amount of room when you have, you know, certain size trucks. Or can recreation vehicles. So do we make a, do you make a?

Include RVs and trucks. I know that in my HOA there's certain trucks, where trucks are prohibited. And certain trucks with lettering, advertising.

Do you want to use recreation vehicles and trucks that are used for business? Or is that getting too restrictive? I'm not sure. I think it's too restrictive. Okay.

I mean, because, refresh my memory, how many HOAs are there in the community? So I think we're only like... Four? I think we're only like... Five? But we're at maybe 30%? With single-family homes, it's not...

It is most of the single... You know...

Well, so the reason I'm saying this is because most of the HOAs will prohibit it. Yeah, that's true. So that only leaves about 30%, if I remember my numbers correctly, that's remaining. So if they're not an HOA, we shouldn't take it potentially away from those. Does that make, I mean... Say that again. So the HOAs will remove that, the lettering in the certain trucks, right? So that leaves 30% of the beach that will potentially have ADUs that could potentially have trucks with lettering on it.

On site. On site. No, on street.

Right. So I don't think, that only leaves 30%. I don't think we should take it away.

It's too small for a... Yeah, I mean...

I mean, the only problem is that the people in the 30% that you're talking about, a lot of them don't have their own driveways. A lot of them have to park on the street.

But it says right here in order to get this, you have to have two parking spaces, right?

If you're over 650 square feet. If you're under 650 square feet, you have a waiver for one parking space. Right, only one. Yeah. I'm just saying, usually you're going to put a, not usually, I don't know this for a fact, but it would seem logical if you have a smaller place, you're going to have a smaller ADU structure, and it could be possible that you may not have any driveway or any place at all to even park your own car, let alone your ADU occupant. So how much do you want to crowd out everybody else who don't have driveways? Because in this 30%, there are a lot of these places here that don't have driveways, let alone garages. And adding somebody to their, I don't know, I guess a lot of them don't have, well, I have a basement, but not everybody has basements. Or I have a structure. It could really restrict the parking for the resident the other residents on that street.

No, I guess I think Commissioner Hahn if I had your point Probably it's like because of how this is written. They're going to have to provide the parking for their their lot already On site on site you mean? Yes, because of how we've written it they have to they have to meet the requirements for the principal use and And then the ADUs. I think that's what, is that what you were trying to say? Yes.

I mean, according to the way I understand this, in order to do an ADU and to get to off-street parking, they have to have the space on that property for those two vehicles to park.

Yes. Yes, unless you get the waiver. Right. It's the waiver, I think, that is...

The waiver is only for the ADU parking spaces.

Only for the ADU.

Not for their parking spaces. Not for the principal dwelling. So if they don't have enough parking for their own vehicles on the lot, then they can't get the waiver.

And that's what you meant about conforming with other...

Yes, but actually that... You've made me think, so A should be, or it's A now, sorry, but one, the thing that it now says, the principal use on the lot must conform to the town's current parking requirements, should be under each of the Roman numerals. Okay.

And you should just move that right up in the top paragraph. Yes, that makes more sense.

Oh, there you go. That's a very good idea. Just move it to the very top paragraph. Exactly right. There you go. Is that the A or is that under 5? That would be under 5, she's talking. Okay. Right? Isn't that under 5?

It's going to be... Wait a minute. It's going to become A. All the numbers are a little shifted, but it's going to go before. It's going to be its own letter prior to where it says for ADUs on properties larger than 650 square feet.

Yeah, so it would be under number five. It would be under the five up at the top, and before you get to ADU property larger than 650. Correct. Right, exactly. Correct. Right, exactly. Have you redone all this? Is it already redone? Can you print us out a copy by any chance? I can print you or I can bring it up, whichever you want to do.

The print would be easy for me.

Because you want us to send this to the town council tonight, right?

Yeah, they are looking at it at the same time. So it would be nice if they had your thoughts. So I can send.

You're looking at it right now in real time?

Not right now.

Because we're here. We're here in real time.

At the next meeting they're going to look at it. At the next meeting they're going to start. But I think that's why we had to do this quickly or immediately is that we had to get that done so that they can.

I just want to confirm something. When we talked about Ms. Gresham's attachment and we talked about the 29 feet and you said it was 28 feet, in the parking study dwelling, it has 29 feet throughout it. So that should be changed also, correct?

Parking study says 29. Or it should go back to 29. 29 feet. Yeah. I thought I caught them all. Oh, I know. So it's really 28, you're saying, or is it really? What is it really? It is really 28 and 36. The town engineer and I are working on this parking study for multiple years. jurisdictions, and the numbers, there were a bunch of different numbers that I was looking at, and so I asked the town engineer, like, we got to pick one. We didn't have to. You could all have your own number. But we picked one, and that's sort of like internally there were different jurisdictions had different numbers, and I wanted to make them all match up.

On page three and page five.

Yes, I caught that. Or I didn't catch that. You caught that, and I got them both adjusted. If you want me to print this out, I can. It's a track changes document, too, so it's going to be...

I just thought that the commissioners would like to see it before we actually send it off, just to make sure that they're okay with it before we send it. We've made so many changes, it seems like. I don't want to send something off and not have...

I do have one question on the traffic study. Is Franklin on page four? Mm-hmm. sort of halfway down when it says the cost to construct off-street parking for the property owner, the range is $1,225 to $1,750. But on the little chart below, it says $1,225 to $2,975. Was that just a typo of some sort, or should that not match?

No, there's a subtotal.

Oh.

Here's your subtotal, and then that's the subtotal.

Oh, I see it.

Okay. No, I think you're, yeah. I see it. I'm going to ask about this because this is not, this is something that the engineers, I need to double check with them before I change it.

I think what they did was they added.

I may have written this, but I'm not certain if I wrote it or the engineers wrote it. And so I will feel better if I just make sure.

I'm just going to do the math because.

But I see what you're saying.

Actually, what they did was they added that two nine seven five is what is it is?

the addition of The one thousand two two five and the one thousand seven five Oh, so it's probably right because they took those two subtotals to come up with that total I mean you you could just change it and say The cost to construct off street parking for the property owner is estimated in a range up to two thousand nine hundred seventy five dollars.

Yeah, I I'm putting this in here, but I do want to just run it by Wayne before I finalize. I'm going to check the printer, but I'm not sure how many copies it was able to print.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

We're getting somewhere on our poster.

That's an important thing tonight, too. I'm going to get to that. Oh, no. Do not tell me. Do not tell me. What happened? It's out of toner. I thought only people at home got it. Where's our scribe? A fountain pen. Oh, my gosh. It really only got one copy. And, like, just one part of the next one. I'm sorry. I don't. Is there only one printer in this town hall? Can we not afford a second printer anywhere? I don't know. I mean, I'm a contractor, so I only have access to one printer. I don't. Well, then what we'll do is we'll carefully pass it down by the end of the meeting. We should figure out what we're doing.

So that's the printer. Is there a copier available?

I can put it up there, yeah. Is there possibly a copy on the copy machine? Okay, let's quickly put it up there really fast. The copy machine and the printer are the same thing.

Oh, it's a combo printer?

Okay, let's quickly look at it. I only want to take five minutes to just make sure we understand all the changes, because this will be going over to the town council, and I want to make sure that we look intelligent. Even though we're not.

Well, whatever. I was actually. I know, I know.

Let's make it bigger, too.

We'll need a magnifying glass. She's going to make it larger, I'm sure.

Readable for everyone? Yes, I think it is perfect. Thank you.

It's actually easy to say.

Sorry.

Okay, so you're going to start. Okay, so start back there. So only the parking requirements of this section shall apply. Requirements on all other sections of this chapter shall not apply to ADUs. Accessory dwelling units are required to have two off-street parking spaces in addition to those required for the principal dwelling. On-site parking may not include parking on any part of the front yard of the property upon which the principal dwelling sits. A, the principal use on the lot informs? Or shall conform, okay. Shall conform to the town's current parking requirements in?

I just want to put where they are in code.

For an ADU that is larger than 650 square feet, what do you have at the end of that feet? Do you have a period or a comma or a colon?

What is that? I'm not really certain, but we can make sure that... Why don't you put a colon in there? Oops, that's a semicolon.

One, a waiver from these parking requirements for one or both spaces may be granted if the property owner provides proper documentation to prove...

Demonstrate? No, to prove the following.

Prove the following. So take the word... To prove the following. Okay, one, access to the AD was from a road that is more than 29 feet in width. 28. Cody, do you want to change it to 28 or no? Yeah, I want to change it to 28. 28 feet in width and... And then we skip this. That's just... No other vehicles from the lot park on the curb area in front of the lot... When it says no other vehicles from the lot, okay, from the, okay, from... We can say from the property. I think we should say from the property so we don't have a lot in there twice. From the property, park on the curb area in front of the lot and... No other vehicles from the property can park? Yeah. No other vehicles from the property may park on the curb area in front of the lot. Is that no other vehicles from the ADU or no other vehicles?

When you come in for your waiver, if, you know, the waiver comes in and I say, hey, does anyone know if there's usually cars in front of this lot? And people say yes, then you can't have a waiver if you're using the spots the ADU is going to use. Do you see what I'm saying? You can't get a waiver if, say that again, you can't get a waiver if what? If you're using the spots that are for the ADU, right? So the point of this waiver with regard to the 29 foot or 28 foot roads is that There is space on the curb in front of your property for the people in the ADU to park if they have a car. I see. So if you're meeting the requirements of the code, so it says you have two parking spaces per single-family dwelling. If you have two cars in your driveway and you're parking two or three cars on the street and then you want to waiver... That's going to be something that is generally known most likely or easily observable by town staff while reviewing the permit.

Wouldn't we potentially want to do another driveway to free up those spots on the street? Or am I not thinking about this the same way?

Another driveway or...

Well, if they, you said no other vehicles from the property may park on the curb area.

Right.

So, but I'm like. If they have an ADU and they have two cars in their driveway, which fits their driveway, and then they have the two cars from the ADU on the street, wouldn't it be better to give them a waiver and let them put those two cars that are on the street on the ADU property lot so it frees up two more spaces on the street for others?

Am I thinking about this different? I think it's backwards. I mean, the question is, do you want a whole bunch of cars on somebody's front yard? Are you talking about putting them on the front yard?

But they said it can't go in the front yard, right?

No, it can't go in the front yard. You're thinking about it in the way that you're thinking about it, and the state is thinking about it in the way that if the cost of building that parking, or if you can't build that parking... is going to limit the development of a house that someone can live in, then it doesn't matter if it's taking parking away from others. It's providing housing for a person. So, it's not that you're wrong. It's just opposite of the State's thinking behind the legislation. Does that help? Even if it's disappointing.

It's the goal to lower costs, housing costs. All right, so no other vehicles from the property may park on the curb area in front of the lot and is not a state highway or the lot is within a half mile of a Maryland Transit Authority transit stop and a Calvert County Public Transportation stop. A, the occupant of the ADU is made aware in writing prior to signing a rental contract. You want to say occupants or do you want to say occupant? We can just put the, we can do that. Occupants of the ADU is made aware in writing prior to signing a rental contract that they cannot park a vehicle on the street. And who's going to enforce that? But anyway, the lot is within a quarter mile of a municipal parking lot where overnight resident parking is permitted and the occupant of the ADU is made aware in writing, the occupants, you want to put an S again? The occupants of the ADU is made aware in writing prior to signing a rental contract that they must park in this municipal lot. For an ADU that is 650 square feet or less. Oh, I should say or less. Or less, yeah. A waiver from these parking requirements for one space may be granted if the ADU is 650 square feet or less and there's only one bedroom. A waiver has been granted under this section for one or two. I guess you want to take out one of those ones. Yes. One or a waiver. Oh, if a waiver has been granted under this section for one or two off-street parking spaces and any, it should say any, not any.

Oh, any.

Sorry, I'm typing. I'm sorry. Any recreational vehicles associated with any occupant of the property must be parked on site. Okay. Did we have the part in there at the top where we wanted to make that addition about the ‑‑ she added it. I got a question. The other uses of the lot are conformed to the current parking requirements. Did we put that in there? Yes, that's right here. Okay.

All right, we did that. And the reference, I'll put the reference in there.

Commissioner Hahn, your question?

Do we want to put anything in here, just a caveat, that before they even come to the town, if they have an HOA, they have to address the HOA?

Legally, we cannot require that.

It's also for, oh, you have single-family homes. That's right, there's some women too.

Yeah, I mean, there's some property that they could do ADUs in the different neighborhoods that have HOAs.

Do HOAs know about this? Have they been notified in any way so that they can

And they do about it.

They do about the law so they know it's not a violation.

In other words, they're going to have to know about it once it's all going through, but it doesn't go through yet until the council makes a decision.

HOAs are addressed in the state law. So we're governed by the land use article, and that's what this law complies with. But there's also the changes in the real property article that prohibit the... I'm trying to think of the phrase, but they prohibit HOAs functionally from creating any regulations that cause an undue burden, or it's one of those phrases, to basically prevent them. So HOAs have to allow ADUs. It's the sum of that.

They'd have to probably rewrite their, you know, all that stuff for new...

You've got to get, what, 70%, 80% of the... They just can't enforce the bylaws.

Oh, yeah. Is this okay with everybody? Can we go ahead and give our complete and utter permission for Ms. Franklin to send this to the town council? Is it okay with everybody? Do I see a yes and a yes and a yes? I don't know about the utter, but yes, it's okay.

I would be no, but that would stop it from going to the town council.

I agree it's not a perfect situation. We all know it's not a perfect situation, but I'm not sure. Do you have any other ideas of what to put in there that would make it a yes medium?

Can I make a suggestion? I wasn't going to create a whole resolution for you. No, you're not. Perhaps a letter that would convey it could also convey Commissioner Brown's concerns about people who do not have a license or a vehicle. We have talked about that at council level, and if somehow the attorneys or someone comes up with a solution to that, then... It can be addressed, and then that way his concern is transmitted to counsel.

What do you think about that?

It needs a lot more work. All right.

But no time here to really think about it and figure it out. Well, we'll work on it more, too. We are going to work on it. We've got a deadline. I mean, the town council is going to be working on it, but there's a deadline for this, right? Yes, but this is going to go into your land use table.

So once we send this off and over, you can work on it again through the land use table. All right, very good.

Okay, let's switch gears, and then let's go to the old business, and let's go to our draft 290-9, purpose and intent of districts. And the first thing I'd like to ask everybody, and maybe we've done this a thousand times, but let's just go through it quickly one more time. On A, you have, are you already on there? Have you gotten on it? It says purpose of districts generally. Can we just cross out purpose of districts and just say generally the zoning districts are established to provide – I mean, do we need to have – we've already said purpose and intent of districts at the top. That's true. Do we need to have purpose of districts generally again? Oh, can it just start at zoning? Just start it as generally, comma, zoning districts are established to blah, blah, blah. Okay? Got it. And then is everybody else okay with A? Can we move on from A? Any questions about A? A is okay. B, the RLD, I didn't know any little changes you made. It looked good. I read over that. Everybody read over that. It should be good. C, the RMD. I saw one little thing here. The RMD district benefits From compatible infill development and vital public spaces, this district is intended to provide, promote, insure.

Okay. It didn't have the is characterized by. That was what it was. Say that again. It doesn't say, like, B says the district is characterized by, and C doesn't say, likewise, what that district is characterized by.

I did want to suggest that maybe we put it allows compatible infill development, because it says it benefits from compatible infill development. Or should we say it allows compatible infill development? I'm not sure that ‑‑ yeah, I guess we could say it benefits from compatible, but that means that it's already been ‑‑

What am I trying to say? Does it mean that it's characterized by? And I'm not sure that I would say it's characterized by that, so I'm not sure that's... Well, what we're doing in the RMD is we're...

It's not...

Allows.

It allows for compatible. It doesn't benefit. Right. I'm worried that the word benefit doesn't really work there. It should be allow. So the RMD district allows compatible infill development...

And... Period. Yeah, period. And it has vital public spaces. I mean, it should be either another sentence or you could say, and has vital public spaces. But it should be rewritten a little bit more clearly, I think. So, reread what you've written there now in that one.

The RMD district is characterized by vital public spaces and allows compatible infill development.

Yeah, do we need to have vital public spaces? Do we need to have that? You wanted to get characterized.

Don't you want to have the parallelism of?

Yeah, okay. So say it again then. What do we want to do then?

How do we want to say that? The RMD district is characterized by vital public spaces and allows compatible infill development. Okay.

Does everybody like the way it's been rewritten now? I think that sounds pretty good. What do you think? Do you think it sounds better?

This district is intended to provide, promote, ensure.

I think we've rewritten that to make that sound okay. Any questions about C? D, RV1, residential village. It all looked pretty clean to me. We made some changes. We took out the S's, so it's provide, preserve, encourage. Then E, RB2. Oh, just take out the space. And E, take out that space between the comma and and after narrow streets.

That's justified.

Yeah. F, resource conservation. It looked to me that everything was changed there to be more appropriate, at least 1, 2, 3, and 4. And then we get to 5. Ensure compliance with all environmental protection and land use laws and preservation agreements of the town of Chesapeake Beach and the state of Maryland. Okay. And then six, do you want to take out the word two? Because we have the word to already up under where it says F. The district is intended to. You don't need the word to again. You see what I'm saying? Say preserve. Just preserve. So you just put in preserve open space, okay? And actually open spaces.

Open spaces.

Thank you. Put an S at the end. Thank you. Open spaces and prevent. To preserve open spaces and prevent residential development of parcels dedicated. Exactly. Thank you. G looks good to me, and if anybody raises their hand, let me know. I'll just call on you. H looks good, neighborhood commercial. I looks okay, the town commercial district. J, the plaza commercial district looked fine. K, the maritime commercial district in that.

Actually, we're adding, I spoke with Ms. Franklin. Yes. Because it says marinas, plural, parks, plural, the hotel restaurants should be plural as well.

Well, hotel not, but restaurants yes, right? Yes. So we have more than one hotel? That you could.

Okay.

Yeah, you can put it, yeah, I don't care.

Whichever. Can I ask a question? Yeah. Just from my notes. I need to go back to G. Yeah. Yeah. G4, I have a note here that just says FIDS question mark, and then a little note on change, but I don't have anything else on provide the opportunity for protection in environmentally sensitive and critical habitat protection areas.

Maybe you wanted to say particularly any forest interior dwelling species habitat, just to like call it out, which we could do.

Okay. So what did you want to say then? You want to do what, Ms. Franklin?

I suggested that it was possible that Commissioner Hahn wanted to be specific, and so I said at the end we would add particularly any forest interior dwelling species habitat.

Okay. Okay, good. Thank you. All right, let's go back. So the K maritime is done. 290.10, land use classifications table. That looks all good. And then we go to 290.11, standards of use. A, overlay and floating districts. That looked clean. B, prohibited uses. The only question I have is, were we going to think about data centers and if a size of a data center mattered to us or not? Or did we want to just say, forget it, prohibit all of them?

I thought we did no data centers. That was the ending conversation last time.

So, yes, my notes, the chair and I discussed this because my notes said that you guys wanted a memo about these micro data centers, but I wasn't able to provide that in the timeline. I still can provide that for discussion next month.

Let's just ask our commissioners, do you have any desire to... Have her bring back the micro data center idea? No. Okay. No?

I won't be here.

You won't be here, so you're not going to care. Okay, then let's forget about it. Let's move on. Residential uses. Okay, now here's my question on C, residential uses, one dwelling, single unit. Okay. Do we need to include one principal dwelling unit located in a lot that does not contain any other principal dwelling units except for a permitted ADU? Do we need to include that?

That would be an accessory dwelling unit. I thought about this, too. But that's why it says principal dwelling units. So your lot only has one principal dwelling unit, no other.

Okay, other principal dwelling unit. Okay, good. Okay, there you go. There is that word. Okay, double unit, three or more dwelling units. Okay, dwelling unit, multi-unit. The question I have on number four is do we need to put anything in there about parking, or do we already have that covered in our parking regulations?

Yes, it's covered in the parking regulations.

All right. Otherwise, those changes that are in bold looked okay to me. If anybody has any questions, please raise your hand.

have a question yes ma'am c three presidential uses dwelling townhouse three what are the number of townhouses or dwelling units do we have in a row realistically in town like what's the number so you're you're any new rpcs that come in it's four

So, old RPCs are old RPCs. But, yeah.

»» Does that answer your question there, Ms. Hahn? »» Yes, thank you. »» Good. And then we have six, dwelling with commercial use. There wasn't anything changed on that?

I didn't alter that. I'm sorry? I did not alter that. Yeah.

Then D, accommodations and group living. There was a lot changed on that, and I hope, hopefully, you went over those changes. Again, the question, oh, I know, on the next page, 15, where it says 10, one off-street parking space, It's provided for each guest. Okay, you do have one off-street parking space provided for each guest room, but that doesn't include the owner. They have to already have a parking space allotted, right?

You mean off-street?

Yeah, I mean, we're talking about the guest room, but do we want to include anything about the owner, manager, workers, or whatever?

Good point. Yeah. Okay. Yes, you may want to add... For each guest room. I'm wondering if it... Well, no. Yeah, okay. So, and one... You could say for each bedroom, so that includes the owner's.

Instead of guest, just take off the word guest. Yeah, and we'll say for each bedroom. Right, that includes the owner's bedroom. For each bedroom. Okay, so we'll take off the word guest and put bedroom. And so what about our employees over there? Right, and that's a question to you. Up to two non-resident employees. And an additional... Off sites, I'm sorry off street parking per employee. How do you want to do that?

Her bedroom Yeah, you can say I guess there's two employees there at a time, right? So plus two off-street parking spaces for employees.

So additionally, one off-street parking per employee? Is that how off-street parking per employee?

Well, they can only have two employees there at a time, right? Right.

You can have up to two at any one time.

At any one shift, right? Yeah, one shift. Plus two. Employee parking spaces.

Per employee. Oh, and additionally, one off-street parking per employee. Okay. Everybody in agreement with that? We have to cover the parking over there. So, okay. So we're going to allow the other rooms to have, you know, refrigerators. Do these guys have to have some kind of certification from the fire department, or how does that work? This would come under the occupancy.

They're going to have to be licensed, right? Yeah. With the state. And so that's going to give them all of those certifications. Okay.

All right, let's go to dwelling for resident caretaker. I'm trying to figure out if we even really need this one at all. I've never understood that one. Do we need dwelling for resident caretaker? A building on a permanent foundation arranged or designed to provide living facilities for a resident caretaker. I've never understood what that is in reference to.

I guess that's sort of a question because, you know, there's some things in here that I am not certain of, but then you all say, oh, yeah, well, we had this situation. So a resident caretaker is going to be someone who's living on a property, but it's because they're managing it or maintaining it. I don't know, do the marinas, maybe the marinas used to have a resident caretaker. Hmm. I don't think you have that for a construction site anymore.

So... Nowadays, would you speak called an ADU? Lady humor. Because now we have to have a parking situation for that too, don't we, if we're going to have some kind of a condition for the dwelling? Or should we just leave it as is?

As I'm thinking about it, I think you want to leave it because you've added private parks, and your private park is going to have a manager on it. So I think don't take it out. Okay, leave it. Okay, fine.

Group homes, not much change there. Do we want to do anything about parking for that?

I think they have a parking requirement. Let me see what it is. Oh, they might not have a parking requirement because you took them out. Hang on. Group homes have an asterisk, and the asterisk means as determined by the planning commission.

Well, I mean, the group home that was just near my house, everybody had either a truck or a car. I mean, they were all coming and going constantly. So I don't think we can avoid the idea that they have to have parking on site. Was that around that curve? It's right near the barbershop, actually. It was right by the barbershop.

I think as determined by the Planning Commission, it gives you some leeway, right? If the group home is for people who do not have parking, Well, they can have vehicles, though. It depends on the group home, right? There could be a group home where they're saying, well, nobody is allowed to drive at this group home for whatever reason. And so by saying as determined by the planning commission, then you determine your group home is going to have, people are going to be driving, then one space per resident. your residents are not driving, okay, then just spaces for employees. Does that make sense?

How about if we just say one parking space for everybody who has a driver's license? I like that idea, the driver's license idea. I mean, certainly if they're, you know, underage people, they're not going to drive, whatever, but...

I'm thinking because it is determined by the Planning Commission... Right. Maybe what we would say is in determining the parking, the required parking, the planning commission shall consider the number of drivers that will be living in and working at The group home.

Isn't that going to be like a varying number? But that doesn't come before us. I mean, that never comes before us. Group homes have never come before us.

Couldn't that change from year to year in terms of residents and licenses? I mean, group homes have to come before you for their parking permission. That's the way it's set up, right?

If they come before us and they don't just do it.

What are the requirements for the state license?

Well, I don't know those, but I can get them and provide them to you all.

I don't know what they are.

Yes, I don't know what they are either.

We would need to duplicate them.

You mean the parking requirements for a state license?

I think it depends on what kind of, as you say, what kind of group home it is. Right. All right, how are we going to handle this one? Let's just, I think.

Do we have any group homes in Chesapeake Beach?

Yes, we do. We certainly had one on my street a long time.

if someone came to me for a permit for a group home, I would have to bring it to you because I can't determine their parking without you. And so I think that's the question. Do you want me to have to bring?

Well, we look discriminatory if we do it, you know, just willy-nilly when somebody comes in for a permit for the group home.

But no one has asked for a group home permit because it's never been brought to us. So there are no group homes in Chesapeake Beach.

Not since September of 2023.

Since you've been here. It sounds Orwellian a little bit.

What if we said, what if we come up with a parking requirement and then say an exception to the parking requirement can be granted by the Planning Commission? after consideration of the number of drivers that will be living and working. So someone, they have to meet this parking requirement, which is one spot per resident, and I don't know if there's employees or not employees, and maybe it's the same as the bed and breakfast, right? Maybe the same as an ADU, I don't know. And then they can get an exception By coming to you.

Coming to your house, Cindy. Not you.

Well, maybe they need to go to the Board of Appeals. You want to send them to the Board of Appeals for me? Maybe they should. Oh, I see what you're saying. Because I would otherwise just say one spot per... Bedroom again. That's what I would say.

But then if you have visitors or anything else, I mean, and it has up here eight individuals, so they could have two people in there, so then, I mean.

You're thinking there'd still be a parking problem on the street.

There's going to be a parking problem on the street. There's definitely going to be a parking problem, but. I mean, if they have eight individuals and then they have friends or relatives or visitors.

Even if they park off street, there would still be. Potential problems.

Now, how did we come up with eight individuals, first of all? Because wouldn't you want to have, are you going to double up? I guess you could have two in a room.

I'm pretty sure that I, I'm not certain, right? Because I've come up with a lot of things, but I'm pretty sure that I looked this up. And we, I think we also compared it to multiple other zoning ordinances. And that's how we got to eight.

I don't remember how that worked. I know we can't deny them and I know we can't be discriminatory I just I'm hoping that if they came back at the last minute to ask about parking that would look discriminatory So we can say one spot per individual and two or and per individual and employee my question about that is They might have one year have X individuals

which could change, but if you make it... We have to make it the worst case scenario.

Right, right, right, right, that's, I agree. Because the one that we had on our street was always full. I mean, it was just a jammed parking space. We could say, unless there are minors involved, unless there are people under 16, let's just say, you know, if it's, I don't even know what kind of group home that would be, I'm sure there are some where there's just minors. But if it's other than minors, I think you have to assume they're all going to be driving.

You're saying if it's eight plus employees, they need to have ten parking spaces?

Yeah. How many parking spaces does this group home say is on the street?

There were five spaces. It's that property right next door to where the barbershop is. And, I mean, there were a couple trucks that took up two spaces, but you could literally put five in. And some people angled their cars. On the street.

Yeah.

They were all in the street. No, it's actually their front yard. It was their front yard that they took out and made into a parking area. That's what they did, basically. Okay. But you could fit about five cars in there. And I think there were five bedrooms. But I don't think there was any manager there. Because I think they eventually had to all move out because I think they damaged the house so much because nobody was on site. It was one of those loosey-goosey situations. But anyway... I mean, the question is, if we put in eight parking spots, there's nobody around here that can accommodate eight parking spots that I can think of. But it's up to eight, so it could still just be four.

Oh, that's true. Unless all residents are under the age of 16.

Okay. One parking spot per individual. Let's put that in there. Let's put that in there.

Then you still could have problems parking, driving on your street, let's say.

You could still have visitors and, you know. On the street, yes. Exactly.

But your neighbors could have a party and you could have trouble too.

Okay, so how do you want to put that then? How did you say that?

One parking spot per individual, unless all residents are under the age of 16, shall be required in addition to any employee on site at one time.

We could be potentially having 10 parking for that.

I don't know how someone could do that in a neighborhood. I don't either. They would have to have a very big house. So it's functionally going to be a smaller group home.

Again, unless you're near a bus stop. You know, that's why I'm saying it's like the ADU. If we could have them near the buses... then they wouldn't have to have the one per person.

Well, if you want to say one spot per individual shall be required in addition to one spot per employee that is onsite at one time, a parking waiver may be granted by the Planning Commission or I think it would be the Planning Commission.

Okay. That's fine.

That's good.

Good. Any other questions or concerns about that? Again, trying to resolve issues that are, I don't know if they're even resolvable sometimes. And maybe we need to re-look at what Commissioner Brown said, look at the licensing requirements and see what the parking situation is. Maybe they have a standard. I don't know. Then what about the motel-hotel situation? Do we need to put in any parking restrictions for that? They had something.

Do they have them? I found it. I don't see the part. I looked, and maybe I missed it.

Maybe I imagined it. I didn't see any part.

It just says, oh, here.

I see circulation and parking shall fulfill requirements of all proposed uses, principle, and accessory. But I didn't really understand what that meant, I guess, is really what that is. What number is that? Number eight, little eight. It's circulation and parking shall fulfill requirements of all proposed uses, principle, and accessory. I was a little bit unclear for me. Oh, right.

I see. Well, I agree.

Yeah.

Now meet the requirements. Circulation and and parking for the site. Shall meet the requirements. Outlined in and then there would be the reference. Proposed uses circulation parking for all uses all uses on site. Shall. For meet the requirements in section blah blah blah. To be filled in by the actual section.

That's better.

Okay, good. Wanted to clear that up a little bit. Private park. This is one of my favorite ones. Look at all the things that Ms. Franklin had to put in here. I learned about all sorts of regulations on private parks.

She really went wild on this private park thing.

The one thing that I see is that I think we need to have a restriction on how many nights in a row somebody can use it as a campground.

Mm-hmm.

Like they have that at some of the other camping sites in the area, and I think it should be a six-night stay only, and then they have to move out.

Take the bed and breakfast language and just change the numbers.

This is over 100 acres. How many private parks do we have in Chesapeake Beach?

You have some very large... RC parcels You have what you have some very large parcels in the resource conservation district and it's just giving the resource conservation district another use No The FIDS area cannot be a private park because it's protected in other ways. Remember, there's a couple of them. I'm pretty sure that other, I want to say there's like three of them. I don't know if they could be private parks, but I get phone calls about them a whole lot. Like, hey, can I build a house? Because they get advertised as someplace you can build a house, even though you can't. There's one kind of near Richfield Station. There's one like north of Brownies. That one's all in a wetland, so that would not be in a floodplain. And then there's one more, maybe on Cox Road.

So the point is, yes, there are a couple parcels or several parcels that are over 100 acres and can be utilized in different ways. So we thought we could add this. But I do think if we're going to add camping as one of the uses that we do need to restrict to a six-night stay. No more than that. Does anybody disagree with that? Why six? I think that is what they do down at the beach down... Breezy Point. Yeah, Breezy Point. They have a restriction. It's either six or seven. Because I know my kids camp down there and they have to get out after six or seven. But that way it gives other people the opportunity to use it, et cetera, et cetera. And you don't want people just using it for three months at a stretch. So I think six nights stay would be appropriate. If you want to make it seven, I'm good with that, too. But six nights and then usually they have a switchover day so that the next group comes in. So usually it's a six-night thing if you're going to be a property manager for this kind of deal. I just took the bed and breakfast language and changed 21 to six.

So it's still within the three-month period.

Okay, there you go. And then I have a question. You have it can't be located within 100 feet from any public road, but how do you get to it if you don't come off of a public road? Does it have to be 100 feet in from the public road?

Yes. So it has to have access.

It has to have access to a 28-foot-wide paved public road.

Right. That one can't be used anyway because it's floodplain. All of the ones that I'm thinking of could be. get access if they can make the site work, which I don't know that if they can make the site work anyway, but.

Female Speaker 1 They would have to come for us with permits for us to review before it could be.

Female Speaker 1 This is a commercial use, yes.

Female Speaker 1 Now, if you turn the page, what I wanted to also do, and I know this sounds goofy, but number eight, the following commercial uses and facilities are not permitted in or accessory to a private park. I would like to, yeah, we don't have to have the recreational vehicle campground. We can take that out. I mean, wait a minute, hold on. That can be not permitted, but I really want to permit like a mini golf course or a Frisbee golf course. So I want to permit some things, maybe not a fairgrounds, maybe not a zoo or a hotel. And in fact, maybe we keep that in, but I think does that preclude us from allowing like a Frisbee golf course or can that still be a usable?

So I would suggest that you would want to limit the amount of... Because what you're... your resource conservation areas all are very heavily forested. So the idea behind this was how can we create a use without reducing forest? So if you're going to allow something like that, I would limit the number of square feet that can be cleared for it because you are clearing most likely.

I have to clear the trees.

Yes. We're a tree city. Well, yeah. I mean, the interesting thing about Frisbee is that you're trying to use the trees. You're trying to use the trees, not eliminate them. But, yeah. Well, okay. I can just leave it. It doesn't really matter to me that much. But I do wonder if we want to include that all parking and roads should be pervious materials. Or do we want to add something like that to this list? I think that having concrete in there doesn't make any sense to me. I feel like that language is somewhere else.

All parking roads should be made of pervious materials.

I think it's somewhere else. So I'm going to write what you said, but then I'm going to pull the...

It's under environmental science. It is, but it's not under private parts.

No, I'm saying that he was looking for the language. Yeah, I'm going to use the same language.

Yeah. So while you're doing that, I just want to bring to your attention on that same paragraph where it starts bold and underlined. It says e-tail, and I believe that's supposed to be retail. It's supposed to be retail, yeah.

It's on page 21, 5-3. You have the addition of impervious service coverage shall be strictly limited to only that amount necessary to enable reasonable use, blah, blah, blah. So I guess we're going to take that language and use it in the RC, in this. Yes. I'm going to just estimate it. So it's under environmental science. It's on page 21 on our agenda.

I add impervious services.

Well, it says it shall be strictly limited. So the addition of impervious services coverage shall be strictly limited to only that amount necessary to enable reasonable use of the property. And where feasible, pervious services should be used as an alternative. I'm not really sure I like how that's said because it gives too much leeway to not using pervious services. And we should really focus on using just pervious services in services.

that area so it should be kind of it gives you all the leeway though right um because you're the ones that are you know they're going to come and say to you it's just not feasible and you may say oh but it is right or or prove to us that it's not feasible

Well, instead of saying where feasible, shouldn't we just say, and mostly pervious services should be used as an alternative? Shouldn't we just say, and mostly pervious services should be used? Instead of saying where feasible, because they're going to say, no, it's not feasible, and we'd have this back and forth on what's feasible.

How about enable reasonably used to the property, and where feasible... Where feasible, but at a minimum, some percentage, right? Whether it's 25% or 30%, then you're just going to get that percentage. But I wouldn't say... The where feasible is to prevent, like, all or nothing and to provide flexibility in there.

Okay, so then you want to add at the end of it, no more than such and such percentage shall be impervious... So no more than what, 25% or 10% or what percentage?

I would say 25% of all impervious surfaces.

Because we have it under environmental. We have a lot of these. So we have to get this just right because we have not only this one with the park.

Sorry. 25% of all lot coverage shall be pervious.

So 25% shall be pervious surfaces.

No more than 25% or yes, at least 25% of lot coverage shall be pervious, right?

Only a quarter of the lot will be pervious?

No, of the lot coverage. That means all of your infrastructure, buildings, roads, anything that counts as lot coverage, at least 25% of that has to be pervious. Okay.

Those seem like a lot.

Well, you're building... Of the 100 or more acres you're talking about? Mm-hmm.

So 25% has to be pervious. No, 25% of anything they put on it. So buildings, decks, roads, anything that counts as lot coverage, sheds, outbuildings.

25% of the... You call it the coverable? What do you call it? Lot coverage. The lot coverage must be permeable. Okay. So you're going to take that paragraph and stick it into each one of these.

You want to adjust wherever this is? Okay. Yes.

Yes. Or do you just want to put it in the front where it says the RC? Well, I guess we are going to have to put it on each one, aren't we? Yeah, we have to put it on each one. Okay, put it on each one. Okay. Yes. Okay, so you've got that, right? Then we're going to change that. Okay. Okay, so let's continue then to residential care facility. Again, we have parking issues. Do we have a parking situation here? How do we deal with that?

It's written the same as before.

I mean, they're clear about the toilets per person, but...

That was one that was like in every one I looked up, and I was like, this has got to be for a reason. It's because of shredded lettuce. Oh, very funny.

So do we want to just make the same as we had for the group homes for the residential care facility?

Yes, I think so.

Even though people in residential care facilities typically are too ill to drive. Yes, that's true. But... or they're not capable of driving. So I'm not sure it has to be the exact same as a group home. The group home in my area was simply just drugs and alcohol rehab, and so everybody drove. They would bring their trucks home from work, so my husband and I would say, oh, we're not going to use that company because that guy's on rehab. It was not a very good advertisement for that company, I have to say.

Actually, well. Okay, now we're going to use them.

We won't use them. Anyway, so how do you want to do residential care facility? Because that's going to be different than a group home.

Well, and I think a residential care facility, all of these are commercial uses, right? Yes. So they're coming to you anyway.

Yes.

Okay. And so we can have the same language as guidance. And what I wound up saying is a parking waiver may be granted by the Planning Commission if residents will not have vehicles on site. Right? So if we put that in both places, then you have that flexibility. It says may be granted, not will be granted.

But don't we need some more guidance than, you know, just, well, whatever, you know, they come and tell us? I mean, we should have something a little bit more, with some more teeth in it than just whatever an applicant's going to tell us at the time and then have it change on us. I think a residential care facility, we should really focus more on the employees for that one. So I think there should just be one parking spot per employee is I think all we need for that.

For employee on site.

And maybe a couple for guest parking and a couple for guest parking because there's going to be guests at a residential comfort center usually, always. I would say one parking space per employee and let's just say three for guests or something like that. One parking space per employee per

On that shift, I've got it. On that shift, yeah. I said it one time.

And additionally, there should be handicap parking and there should be guest parking. What about for emergency services?

I was thinking about that.

Emergency services usually park out on the street. You have all that? Mm-hmm.

She's still thinking. One parking spot per employee that is on-site at one time is required. Additionally, three parking spaces, two of which are handicapped spaces, are required. That's not written right, but... Is that the gist of what you want?

That's the gist. I think you've got to have three for guests, one per person on each shift employee, and you've got to have the handicapped spot. Yeah. I'm not sure you're going to have any of these people needing cars in this facility. I could be wrong, but... I don't know. What does everybody think? Is everybody okay with that? Or do you think we should add more? Is everybody okay with what we just said? Yes.

What do you think, Commissioner Brown?

Is he good? Let's move on then to number seven, tourist home. And you didn't get anything written up for tourist home, did you?

No, that did not make it onto my list for some reason.

So we're going to come back to tourist home. So that is going to be in August. Okay. Short-term rentals. E, institutional recreation on educational uses, assembly. Parking requirements shall be met on site. I'm not sure I know exactly what that meant. Okay, so you're talking about everybody should be parking on site. Okay. Cultural facility, same kind of thing. Do we have anything about parking on site there? We don't, actually.

Can I go back to the E? It has institutional, recreational, and educational uses. Shouldn't there be a comma after the recreational?

Thank you. Yes, probably. I love you.

I also love the Oxford. So I apologize.

Apologize to me.

Apologize to myself.

So a cultural facility, we need to have something about parking on site.

So the difference between the assembly and the cultural facility with regards to parking is... An assembly is kind of your church when things can get pretty chaotic on a Sunday and people are parking all over the place, whereas the cultural facility, that's generally not the same problem. So that's why the one has the parking and the other doesn't. That doesn't mean we can't add it. I'm just providing the context.

Well, I think we need to add it because if it's a museum or any kind of a place where people come to visit, you've got to have something on site, don't you?

Well, you're still going to have your parking requirement for a cultural facility.

Is there such a thing as a parking requirement for a cultural facility?

I don't even know what that is. What we would probably do if we had a cultural facility come in is we would... So churches have a one parking space per four seats. Library, museum, or community center is one parking space per 500 square feet of gross floor area.

Oh, okay. And do we have to put that in our...

I would not put it in two places. Okay. And really the parking requirements that we're putting in here should really be in the parking and also how many pieces of the zoning ordinance do we want to pull into this. So we might need to... I'm not sure what's going to happen when it comes to the council because the town attorney, correctly so, does not like to have the things in multiple places. And so... We may, I hate to leave them in and say we're coming back to them because then what happens? But there will probably be some more discussion of the parking issues because they should only be over here. And the only reason that the ADUs talk about parking issues is because this section, which is 290... 290.20 parking and loading has a different parking requirement for accessory dwellings than the standard and uses. And so that is why that one specifically, it's trying to clear up the confusion so that I don't have issues enforcing it when it happens. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Any more questions about cultural centers? I think that's kind of clear cut. Okay. Daycare center, we have the daycare center and the daycare home. We have two different types of daycare facilities. The one that I'm concerned about is number three and having a parking, but I guess we have the same kind of situation with the parking there, right?

Yeah, so daycare have, so home daycare is one parking space per staff, daycare, nursery center, school, kindergarten, or other agency giving care to persons. As a commercial operation is three parking spaces per classroom.

And that's in our code currently? Yes. Okay. So we don't need to put it in here then. Okay.

I have a question about 5. Yeah. It says outdoor play areas shall be sufficiently screened and sound insulated so as to protect the neighborhood from noise and other disturbances. What is screened and sound insulated since it's an outdoor play area?

That's a great question.

I would imagine. Can I just say, you know how they have on the beltway and everything, they've built all those sound barriers? I mean, it might be that there's a play area, but there's some type of, I don't know if there's technology that buffers the sound that can kind of be freestanding or it's something built into a fence.

Anything that's going to be quality is going to be so expensive they won't be able to put it in. It won't be worthwhile for them to put it in.

Yeah, it's... And I'm just thinking of, like, as I go down 260, we have Bright Beginnings right there on the right.

Yep.

It's the corner lot. Yep. I don't see their play area.

But that's why they should only be on lots that join 260 or 261. If they're in the interior of any residential or community area, you're going to create noise issues.

I mean, then you have prime time, and they don't have any buffers, and they're backed up to...

They are backed up to residential.

You're right, and they seem to go along happily, but... I'm pretty sure that this is language I left in and didn't change. Like, it sounds like other language, whereas kind of like, I don't really know how you do that. But I didn't want to change it.

If we're questioning it, then those reading it are going to question it. Yeah.

I don't think... I think it's more of a distance issue than a screening issue. I mean, even if you put up the bushes, you're going to hear noise. We can't have people installing big, unattractive sound buffers, and I don't think that's safe for... That's not safe, but...

Does anybody have any desire to put the daycare center, which is a licensed facility... Have a restriction that they're only able to be put on one of our state highways. If nothing else, for egress, ingress, for privacy, for noise issues. Because you're talking, how many kids can be in one of the daycare centers, the licensed daycare centers? You could probably have... 12 or more, according to this one. 12 or more, but what's the maximum? You could have... Depends on how much space you have. You can go up to 30 if you needed to or 30, I mean, more than that, which means you'd have to have a lot of equipment for these kids to play and whatnot. We don't really want them facing interior areas where there's going to be residential communities.

Well, you don't want them playing near a state highway either.

No, but we have them on 260 and 261 right now. Mm-hmm. Their parking lots or their play areas face onto those loud, noisy streets, so it's no big deal. I don't mean that they're going to throw a ball into the street and get killed. I'm saying that there are playgrounds adjoining the loud streets. I'm concerned that if somebody says, oh, in the middle of, let me see, what area could they put these into? Well, some probably in the RV, too. They could probably put them in the RV, too, couldn't they?

20,000 square foot lot plus 2,500. I mean, I think it would be tricky.

Unless they bought property and they knocked it down.

Yeah, if they bought a piece of land next to it or there was a lot next to it or something. So, I mean, my concern is if you do this in the center of the RV, too, it could be quite a noisy situation for their residential community.

Where do we have them? I just have to check the use table. So they are permitted in the RPC and the TC. Okay. from per the use table.

Only the TC and the RPC?

Mm-hmm.

Okay, so in the RPC, they're not allowed in the RV2 then. They're not allowed in the RV2.

Right, and they're only going to be allowed in an RPC if they were approved as part of the RPC's plan.

Okay, right, then I'm not going to worry about it again. Okay, there you go. Okay, so then we go to, so then if anybody has any more questions about the daycare centers or daycare home, we'll go and move over to environmental science, and you're going to add that one issue to the parking. Mm-hmm. which is on number three there. Yes. Okay, turn the page. I don't see anything that you changed all the way down to nature preserves. It looks as all that's something we should have read before. Parks and playgrounds. These are open space including any buildings or other structures designated as used for active or passive recreation. These are parks and playgrounds that are public public parks and playgrounds, right? So do we want to put in there public parks and playgrounds or do we not want to bother? Because we're differentiating it from the private park that we went, you know.

Yes. And the parks and playgrounds here might also include playgrounds in an HOA, which are not exactly public. So I wouldn't want to, I mean, they're public, but they're also private. For the HOA members. So I think just leaving it at parks and playgrounds.

Okay. That's fine with me. Private club. I don't think there was anything. The parking. Okay. Then we get schools again. Anything about parking on schools? Do we just leave it to not put anything in there about parking for schools either?

Let me see. I think they have a. Depending on the school, right? So professional school, studio for music instruction, dancing school, similar as one parking space per five students. Okay. I assume that the county has their own regulations for their schools.

We go down to water-oriented recreation. Any changes anybody wants to see in the water-oriented recreation? Alcohol sales, office and commercial uses, F. We're almost towards the end of this thing. Office and commercial uses, alcohol sales, I've got a question. I don't remember. Yeah, what have you got a question on? Well, there's nothing.

It goes to the next page. Right, but it says F. Then F, then one.

Oh, right, that's because that's how they are.

Yes. And then that's alcohol sales. Okay, that just seems odd.

It's how all the headings are working. So there's like a, the letter is the heading, so residential, industrial.

Okay.

And then we put the uses in alphabetical order. Oh, that's right. That's right. Definitely feels weird when you're reading it, but it feels like makes sense in the chart. Right. Exactly. I got you.

So Office of Commercial Uses, we have alcohol sales, animal care establishments, cannabis dispensary, a contractor's shop. Do you want to put a contractor with apostrophe S or how does that... Is it a contractor's shop, or is it contractors with a... That's a great question. I'm going to put an apostrophe, but I'll check it. That's silly, but anyway. Number five, entertainment and recreation indoor. Can we add an S? Huh? Indoors. Yeah. There's a visual in it. Okay. Entertainment and recreation outdoor.

Or should it be outdoors? They should match, shouldn't they?

What should match?

Well, did you say add an S to the indoor? Mm-hmm. So then we should add an S to number six.

Outdoors. Oh, indoors, outdoors. Yeah. Okay, well, okay.

It would be consistent.

We have very precise people on this commission, I have to say.

It's because it's like comma, so indoors is supposed to go first, but we're trying to make the alphabetical make sense. So that's why there's no S. We should just be consistent, I guess, whatever we do. Because when you read it as like indoor entertainment and recreation versus indoors entertainment, does that make sense? But I wanted them to be next to each other on the table. Okay.

So game and establishment, I think we're clear on that. Home occupation, minor. Do we want to, on the next page, 28, do we want to, on number little five here, no regulated article or commodity is offered for sale on premises. Do we want to say no sales of regulated or illegal items or commodities is allowed on premises?

I mean, regulated... Do we really have to say illegal?

I guess we don't really have to, but, you know, I'm thinking...

This comes to you from the council, right? You guys sent it without the word regulated in it. Okay. The council added the word regulated back in.

When they say regulated, what do they mean specifically about regulation? It means just like gun...

Well, I know that you had intended for the gun situation because you had someone present. I know that you hadn't intended to prevent that use. But an amendment by a council member... put the word regulated in here, and so that does prohibit that use. Now, there have been questions about this, and so you can send it back to them without regulated into it. Now, what you're looking at matches what you sent to them before, if that makes sense.

I guess in a minor home occupation, maybe that does make sense. I guess that does make sense, actually.

But I mean, it is also difficult, right? Like what is regulated? Isn't a bakery regulated, right? Like isn't everything regulated? And so I think that it might be better to think about that word from the planning commission. Like what is maybe... What is the council trying to get at? Or maybe we ask the council, like, what are you trying to get at with regulated because we think it should be different?

I didn't really think that for minor home occupations we really wanted to have anything separate. sold in the minor home occupation. I thought only in the major we had things for sale. I thought that we were looking at the minor one as being like a home office where you're mostly just passing paperwork around or working on the computer, but not having sales of any kind.

So we can just say no article or commodity is offered for sale. That's how that reads. You don't need regulated in the minor.

Nothing is allowed to be sold under the minor home occupation. Anyway.

And so it doesn't matter. Right. Right. How are we analyzing it? It comes into the... it comes into the major home occupation because the council added it as number seven. So, like, number six is no article or commodity is offered for sale or is publicly displayed on the premises except those incidental to the services offered. And then seven, they added that to both sections when they made their adjustment. And so...

Because to me, what you're saying is that everything else is allowed, just no regulated articles or commodities. Right. But I'm saying we shouldn't be having any sales of anything in a minor home occupation. Correct.

And I think that's part of the... It's confusing to me. It's confusing because they amended it as they were adopting it, right? And... So all of the implications of that amendment weren't clear, right? So it's unclear because you're right. What it now says, the current law says, is if you have a minor home occupation, that you can sell things that aren't regulated, right? Right. And so we should fix that by deleting that from minor home occupation. And from major home occupation, it's added... It's been added, so it's kind of saying, like, you can sell things that are incidental to the service you're offering, right? Because you can have a bakery, but you're not selling those baked goods out of your home. You're bringing them elsewhere. And so that's where the no regulated would come into play because there's things that are being offered for sale. But I think we should be more precise than regulated because...

Okay, let's go back to the minor home occupation. Can we just say no sales are allowed in a minor home occupation? Yes. So can I ask before we do that?

What is considered, refresh my memory, a minor home occupation?

So the minor home occupation is meant to be that... home occupation that is in your residential area and you don't even know what's happening there so an architect or even someone who is maybe making wedding cakes but then they're taking them out and they're delivering them you don't have deliveries coming in you don't have people coming on site um so a sewing person would not be minor they would be major Someone who's sewing on-site and not selling any of that on-site, right? Maybe they have an Etsy store and they're bringing it to the post office once a week. But they can be a minor home occupation and sell goods. They just aren't selling them on-site.

Okay. So if they are doing alterations, then they're going to potentially have more than five visitors And five trips or visits per week. So then they would have to be a major.

Yes, then they're a major home occupation, which is not going to be in most of the residential areas.

So going back to the minor, are we going to be okay with saying no sales of any kind are allowed?

I have a problem with that.

No on-site sales. No on-site sales. But you're saying... on-site sales.

No on-site sales.

I do.

But this is a minor home occupation.

If they alter it, right? The person owns it, they are modifying it, so it's not really a sale. It's a service.

Why are you having a problem, Commissioner Hahn, with a minor... home occupation, not having sales.

On-site sales. She mentioned bakery. So let's say they're baking cupcakes and they have some other candles to go on it or hats to go with it or something like that. I mean, if they're minor and they're not going to be doing big business, what would it matter how much they're selling?

I don't look at home occupation major as being big business. I still see that as being a small entrepreneurship, but I don't see that as being a big commercial venture necessarily.

I think that the minor and major, the difference is where those cupcakes and candles are being sold. The major home occupation, you can sell them from your house. A minor home occupation, you are delivering those cupcakes somewhere else or selling them at a store. No one's coming to your house to buy them. And so that's the difference between the two types. And then the question maybe is what you're saying is why would we have minor home occupations? Why don't we just let everything be a major home occupation?

I mean, who's going to enforce it and who's going to know?

You know, I mean, that's what everybody, and this is what our problem is altogether here, but it's your neighbors who are going to probably, you know, question everything.

I guess it depends on how good the cupcakes are.

Yeah. And then if we said no on-site sale for the minor. It still doesn't deal with the regulated versus non-regulated. The regulated thing still, I mean, can you not then do regulated sales on-site?

So if we just change that number five to say no on-site sales are permitted, then that resolves that, right? Yeah. Okay. Certainly, it doesn't resolve the concern issue. I guess the issue is that the concern that kept coming up was two specific things. One, cannabis, which can't be sold out of a home occupation anyway, so already addressed. And the other was prescription drugs, like a compounding pharmacy in your home, which I'm not sure how that would be permitted and licensed. But there could have been other things behind the concern. And so... The question is, does that matter? If somebody is, obviously cannabis, that's not an option. You can't have cannabis within 100 feet of a residential zone, so you can't have it in a residential zone. But does it matter if someone is selling or doing compounding pharmacy out of their home, if that's even possible? Which I don't know that it is.

Compounding pharmacies, you could put inside a home. You just have to have the right ductwork. You can put it inside your home.

Compounding pharmacy?

Yeah, compounding pharmacy.

Pharmacy isn't regulated?