Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you, Mike. Oh, mics are on. We always put some because Good evening everybody and welcome to the Chesake Beach Planning and Zoning uh um meeting for December 17, 2025. I'd like to call the meeting to order and have a roll call. Please start at uh this end, please. Commissioner Re present. Rachel Weaver, present. Lori Brown, present. And Cindy Greenold, are you present? I am present. Mary Sue Bryceman, present. Christopher Smith, present. Kelly Han, present.

And please note that we do have a quorum and everybody is here tonight. Thank you. And everybody, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Thank you. To the flag of the United States of America and to the stand indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [laughter]

Okay. Um, I'm seeking approval for the um December 17th, 2025 planning commission agenda. And uh before we go ahead and um make a motion to approve it, I would like to make some changes unless anybody else has anything they want to add. Okay, I see no other person here wants to make a change. So, I will go ahead and ask for several changes. One change is that I would like to um move the election of chair and vice chair to the end of the meeting underneath coastal resiliency discussion because we have a time consideration. We've got to get a lot done. Uh next and I want to continue the flow of the meeting if I can unless you all throw me out with a hook. And then next

would be a bulldozer. I'm sure it would be. And then next I would like to postpone the land use classification table which is 91 old business. I want to move that to January because we have got a lot we have to get done tonight. So I would like to move all of the above. Do I have a second? I second. Any discussion on the changes I'd like to make for the agenda? Okay. I'd like to have a vote, please. All in favor? I Okay, I hear no opposition. So, let's go ahead and continue with the um approval of the minutes of November 19th, 2025. Do I hear a motion to approve? Any second? Second.

And uh any discussion, any changes? All in favor? I. Thank you. Okay. So, now we're going to go down. Please show that I did not I did since I was here in November. Thank you. I abained. Thank you. Good. Okay. Um, now, [laughter] all righty. So, now we're going to go down to home occupations. So, please get your home occupations uh memorandum out. And we will first have a staff report, please, from Miss Franklin. My technology is turning off technology. Can you guys hear me?

Yeah. Okay. Um, so with home occupations, what the situation is is that they're they just aren't allowed in any of the residential areas and this is creating a problem because people are um wanting to conduct their business in their home which has no exterior impact. Um, and so that's why this has been brought forward to you. Uh the council in November also discussed home occupations and they would like you to address this specific part of the land use table within 90 days of their November November meeting. Um so we want to try to get this done uh expediently tonight if possible. Yes. Um, and so what I've proposed in the past and we've kind of put a pin in is that there be two different tiers functionally of home occupation. One in the more commercial areas and one in the residential areas. So a home occupation in a commercial area can have more visibility to it and more traffic to it versus in a residential area. Um, we've been discussing RV2 and so I kind of want to highlight that RV2 is currently in as a tier one, but I think it's something that you guys need to discuss. Is it a tier one or a tier 2 type of home occupation this evening? And to try to facilitate the discussion between the two tiers, um I have not just provided sort of a draft of what the language will look like, but there's a table uh on page four of your um memo about this that sort of summarizes each regulation and how it differs in the tier one versus tier two. You know, some people prefer may prefer to look at tables, some people may

prefer to look at the direct language. Uh, I'm just trying to make it as easy for you all to follow along as possible. Um, so putting that forward, um, I will also note that you have sort of an amendment to page two. You have a loose page and that's the amendment to page two. Um because we made some changes to items A, B, and um I think just A and B actually. What about A, B, and C? Did you not make any changes to H?

No, I didn't make the changes to H because I thought we should just run that. Okay. Okay. Um do you want me to highlight? Do we want to go through? Well, we're gonna we're gonna go through them and I'm gonna we're g we're gonna talk about that and just make sure everybody's okay with it. Um, I do want I just want to make sure that the definition is up on the screen while you're working because this is how it's defined in code now and some of the changes that we've proposed will require changing the definition and so it's worth kind of thinking about the definition. Do you want to work on the definition first to make everything else more clear?

Well, I think because when we changed letter C and removed family members from it, we get to the definition having family members in it and so we would have to adjust that part of the definition if you retain the proposed change to item C. Um, hold on just a second please, Commissioner. So, um, okay, let's let's go ahead and talk about the definition. Are you done with everything else that you wanted to talk about with RV2, RV 1, etc. Right. Okay, good. It's a summary. Um, so going back, this answers the two inquiries,

right? So, I've been denying people's home occupation permits for some time and saying like this is something we have to address because it doesn't make a lot of sense. And so, the inquiries are asking you to do this because they also can't get a permit to do what they want to do. This and both of these let's let's go back to the definition and uh let's talk about the definition really quickly here.

Okay. A a customary home occupation, an activity undertaken for gain or profit and carried on in a dwelling or building accessory to a dwelling by members of the family residing in the dwelling and up to one additional unrelated person. A customary home occupation is clearly secondary to the use of the dwelling as a residence. Okay. Now the couple issues that I know I have with it is when you have members of the family makes it vague and out of date [laughter] because family members, you know, how do you go in and say, "Okay, let me see your marriage license, whatever." Um when I went to the county uh the Calbert County website on home occupation, they use the term um permanent residence um as their way of going around the family members situation. So we have to talk about that quickly. Uh how you all feel about that. We can leave it as it is and take out um I think we want to take out the part about one additional unrelated person, don't we? because that doesn't conform to our uh uh our package definition of the of both use of both the RB1 RV2 situation or or what do we want to do there?

So it's up to one additional [clears throat] excuse me it's up to one it's not it doesn't have to be one.

Okay. Okay. So it's a it's an optional situation. We can include it and that makes it okay. Okay. So, let's quickly go through everybody's opinion about members of the family versus either permanent let's see the county has permanent residents or permanent occupants or however you want to say it but what do you all do you want to go and originally I know when Mr. Chubiac was here. We talked about homeowner versus non-homeowner. It was a homeowner situation. So now we're taking the homeowner idea totally out of it and making it um you don't have to own the home. You can just be a resident to have a an occupation, which to me makes more sense. But but anyway, I don't want to make an opinion until I hear from everybody else. So uh let's start down here. What do you think about the definition, Commissioner Han? I believe that we should take out members of the family because if they're renting the residence and you're a renter, then it's you you're you're not actually the owner of the permanent residence. Okay.

All right. And anybody anything else? Um, Commissioner Smith, what do you think? No, I agree. I agree with uh uh what with what the county says and and what Okay. So, you're thinking permanent resident. Permanent resident has a better So, permanent resident is um again what they said and a couple other towns I looked at also use that phraseology. Uh, Commissioner Gryman, what do you think? I first wanted to clarify because on the table was this piece of paper that says definition home occupation, which is different than that. And I want to clarify. Uh, that was mine. I just wrote that up. Okay. So, that was that was a separate one entirely, but this is the one that is actually in our Okay. our um Okay. code book. So this is a formal

uh you know town you know it's a legal definition in our thing. Yeah. We can change it. We can change the thing. So whatever you want to do and I want to make it quick because I want to move on from the definition as soon as we can. Well except that in in the chart because I do love the short version. One you can't have anyone but I believe the owner. So let me just here. So what page? Oh no, I'm sorry. Okay. Um it's the last it's the second the last two for the chart an activity by members of the family guiding it but only one of them allows.

Yes. Correct. So that to me is not consistent with what we were putting here. So it allows up to one additional unrelated person. It doesn't require No, I understand. But under the RV1, the part on the right, you're you can't have one full-time non-resident employee. And this I just don't think it's as clear. Confusing. Yes.

I'm a little worried that it's confusing. Um, and so when I wrote my little thing up there, I left that whole um, employee thing out and thought that if we came back and did a permit that required a permit for anybody who had the home occupation with an employee, that's when the mo when the permit comes in um, to fruition is when that occurs. But otherwise, I'm not sure the employee I think the employee kind of misdirects people into thinking, "Oh, I get to have an employee with my, you know, with my home office. Oh, this is great. I don't, you know, blah blah blah." I'm just [clears throat] worried that it shouldn't be in a general unless we say um unrelated a customary home. Let me see here. Blah blah blah. Unless we added to this definition and said reason uh and a depending on your district up to one additional unrelated person. Maybe we include that depending on your district

that you reside in or the district that it location something like that. I mean, we can it's the the district regulations, right, say whether you can have that one person or not, right? But you can absolutely I think you have to add it in here. You have to what? I think you have to make the distinction. I think you can't leave it like that. I'm worried that it's too confusing. It's it's two opposing ideas. Yeah, that's what I think, too. And I think that you have to clarify that one or you have to go back to the one that I wrote up that just basically left that out entirely. The two.

Well, okay. Mine is a home occupation as a business or commercial activity that a permanent resident conducts entirely within their residence and which the use is clearly secondary to the primary use as a residence. The home occupation must have minimal if any changes to the outside appearance and structure of the residence and has little or no negative impacts on the neighborhood where the business is located. I don't know. Well, I you know you got to finish down that side and then I'll Okay. Yeah. So, let's let's go. M uh Commissioner Brown, I'm comfortable with

Okay. could include an owner residing someplace else. But I I just find this much. Are you suggesting that it should have owner residence or owner should owner should be just like just like it is leave it exactly family. Okay. leave the family residing. Okay, you have a good point. Um, what do you think

residents? I would change members of the family to permanent residents using mirroring the language in the county. Commissioner Redk, I agree with that because that's vague to me. The family res the family is vague. I mean, uhhuh. you know, it it could mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but more importantly, it's going to open up a debate if somebody wants to try and make it a debate. And I think permanently.

Okay. So, we changed that language. And if we ch if we what about what about what we do with the additional unrelated person? Do we leave that in or take it out because it's going to make people think they can have that additional person? Well, it seems to me if you keep you have to keep it in because under some circumstances they can. So it's whether or not you want to add the descriptor. Okay. To say depending on some districts, but I don't think you can take it out completely if you are going to allow it in some places. Okay. Thank you. Commission and Commissioner Rea, you agree with that one? Yes, I do. And Commissioner Brown, [clears throat] what

do you agree that the members of the family res I'm sorry, and up to one additional unrelated person, we have to make it be a little more specific on what that entails, which would be adding something to the effect of depending on your district or something to that nature. Is that how you think that would work better without making life confusing for everybody? [clears throat] Um, yeah, you could add and under certain circumstances. Okay. Okay. And Commissioner Gman,

also that definitions generally in a [laughter] document, they're not considered to be like the law. So, I think that that's okay. Okay. Um the only thing is that when it says like for gain or profit suppose somebody works for a foundation that's a nonprofit foundation it's not for gain or I mean they might get paid or maybe they're doing it volunteer but that's their home office. Well and that's why I said as a business or a commercial activity you kind of make it you want to make that more vague than gain or profit. I think so because either you don't necessarily have to do it for gain or profit. I thought the same thing. Um, sometimes you lose. [laughter] You don't gain or profit.

That's that's that's your 1099 or whatever. Yeah. I mean, you know, some people want to lose. Um, okay. So, then we're just we're kind of breaking this whole thing into pieces. Uh, what do you guys think down there? I one more quick question, I guess. So, the one additional person, is that a permanent resident? No, an employee. That's just an employee. That would be just an extra employee you could have. And Commissioner Han here. I like your definition. I do too because I wrote it and there you have it. Um, [laughter] uh,

well, I mean, I kind of made it vague yet somewhat complete enough. Let me read it one more time. A home occupation is a business or commercial activity that a permanent resident conducts entirely within their residence and which the use is clearly secondary to the primary use as a residence. The home occupation must have minimal, if any, changes to the outside appearance and structure of the residence and has little or no negative impacts on the neighborhood where the business is located. So, what do you want to make a motion just to approve that? No. Okay. What do you want to change? Well, because it's a business um conducts entirely within their residence. Yes.

I don't think that's necessarily should be binding on somebody. They might go visit clients someplace. Let's say that they're an accountant or whatever. They go elsewhere, but they do the paperwork entirely in the house. Well, what what we're referring to as a home office is something that they conduct inside the house as opposed to outside of the yard. But that's conduct the entire business from that one location. You can have other locations outside of the town. We could put inside their residence, but not entirely. That word entirely to me.

Okay. Okay. All right. conducts within their okay, conducts within their Okay, that makes more sense. Probably a home occupation is a business or commercial activity that a permanent resident conducts within their residence and which the use is clearly secondary to the primary use as a residence. Now, Commissioner Brown's concern about it not being a family member. Do we care about the fact that this could be just somebody renting a house to use it as a I'm going to sleep here and use it as a business and it's not going to be my real home, but I'm going to just blah blah blah blah blah. Uh we did have that. I have seen that situation uh where people do do that. Um you just like a pretend place to

Yes. Well, for example, we especially had that um in my in my last gig where people would especially do massage therapy. So they would sleep in here and they would then have their shower would be used for their commercial business as well as themselves and they slept there and they did their whole you know massage therapy out of their own little place. That's just the argument seems to be if we say family it means that when family whereas we're saying like two friends live together or two unmarried people who are in partnership by saying permanent residents we are saying other to both be working for that business in

originally um when we talked about this before it is a owneroccupied business and we really stress that in this town. Oh, and make it nice and cozy. It's a owneroccupied that means they're going to love their house and just have a little tiny mom and pop business. And I think maybe that's what you're thinking of too. I don't know for you, but um um I'm just, you know, is it a concern owner occupied and family separate things? Like so we're not talking about the same thing.

Okay. Okay. So if you can say owner occupied with only permanent residents of the of that residence instead of family but this neither one of them currently what we're arguing against or debating to family or residence has anything to do

okay if I took the word entirely out of this particular definition would everybody be okay with it a home occupation is a business or commercial activity that a permanent resident conducts within their residence and which the use is clearly secondary to the primary use as a residence. The home occupation must have minimal if any changes to the outside appearance and structure of the residence and has little or no negative impacts on the neighborhood where the business is located. Should we make a motion? [clears throat] I still have one more thing I want.

Yeah. One last thing quickly. what minimal I mean should we put in there that you know if any like also like CF section whatever whatever signs or you know because I'm worried it's a little bit too loose aren't allowed in you're allowed a little tiny placard basically is all you're allowed that and that's in the right that but that's in those regulations here right that we read for today which is okay I mean I don't want to say No changes because there's obviously going to be some change you know something. So that's why minimal you just eliminate them minimal

eliminate home occupation must have minimal if any changes to the outside appearance and structure of the residence and just have okay the uh no little or no negative impacts on the neighborhood where the business is located. Okay. What does everybody think about that? because that's the whether it's got uh minimal or no changes that's covered elsewhere. Yeah, that's true.

So then the home occupation must have must have little or no negative impacts on the neighborhood where the business Okay. Okay. Let me just say must have must have let me just take this out. Okay. Let's make a motion. I I have one question. Yes, ma'am. So, we we're saying home occupation. When I think of home occupation, it doesn't necessarily mean to me I'm thinking of a business and a home. Yes. So, should it be a business and a home occupation as the definition versus just a home occupation? Say that again. Should it be just a what?

So, when I think of a home occupation, I think of a family living in a home. You're occupying the house, right? And we're adding an additional if you're having a business in that home that you're occupying. But the the definition title is just home occupation. Like if they were searching for like a business in a home, like if they Googled it, Chesig Beach business in a home, would this possibly come up? No. Because it just says home occupation. Does Am I making sense? The word business is also in there. And wouldn't the search engine pick up like the first sentence? It could. I don't know, right? Oh boy. I'm not sure I think that would be an issue, but

Okay, anybody else has, let me know. I I think your suggestion is probably a good one here. The home occupation must have uh little or no right up here. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay, so read that. A home occupation is a business or commercial activity that a permanent resident conducts within their residence in which the use is clearly secondary to their primary use as a residence. The home occupation must have little or no negative impacts on the neighborhood where the business is located. [snorts] Everybody happy? Can we can we call that done? Okay.

One thing, should it be impacts or impact? Little impact. Uh, probably impact. I think I think it should be ne Thank you. little or no negative. What? You don't need to that one up there. Okay. So, I move that we change the definition of customary home occupation to the one that is on the board. Uh, do we have a second? I second it. Okay. Do we have any more conversation about this definition? Okay, thank you very much. Do I have a

um Okay, we've had a discussion. We're going to close that and let's vote. All in favor of it?

I Any opposed? Okay, we've got that cleared. Okay, now let's go back to um the new sheet that she gave us today that goes over the RV2. RV2, as you recall, is the area that is located basically across the street from Baya. It's that the older section with the larger lots. And I drove all through the entire area today again and noticed, yes, most of them have driveways, some of them have garages, there's a lot more room and space. So, I felt comfortable that if indeed they wanted to do businesses in there, they were there would be the room and and it would be a little bit more logical to do it there. Um and here are some of the um conditions that that have been placed um that we want to go over. Let me just read them quickly. A the occupation is conducted entirely within the dwelling andor accessory building and is clearly secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes. B. The gross floor area of the home occupation over all buildings on the property uses no more than 30% of the principal. Is that principal? Is that the correct? Uh,

it might be the wrong principal. Uh, it's PL because that's the the person that runs the schools. The P A L. How big your pal

um dwelling floor area. Uh C. All employed are residing fulltime. All employed are residing full-time in the dwelling except that one full-time non-resident employee may be on the premises. Again, this is only in the RV2 and then some of the commercial areas as well. D. No outside storage of equipment, materials, or items to be repaired or sold shall be permitted. E. No article or commodity is offered for sale or is publicly displayed on the premises except those incidental to the services offered. F. No display of products may be shown so as to be visible from outside the dwelling and no advertising visible outside the premises shall be permitted other than the permitted home occupation announcement sign. Okay. On this one, do we want to take out the words no display of products may be shown from out? Do we want to take out so to be? Let's see here. It seemed like we had too many words in there. No display of products may be shown from outside the dwelling. Do we want to take out soaz to be visible or do we want to leave that in just as it is?

You say no display of products are to be visible. No display of products. Yeah. Are okay. May be no dis. What about no visible display of products may be shown. Yeah, I think that would be Thank you. That's the way it really should be. Say that again. No visible display of products may be shown from outside the dwelling. Let's see if um so you're removing so as to be visible. Thank you. It's a little cumbersome. That's That was a little cumbersome when I was reading it. Did you get that one, Miss Franklin? I did. It won't automatically update there. So, can we get that?

Yes. Go back one. Yes. Quickly. What would be no article of commodity is offered for sale or is publicly displayed on the premises except those incidental to the services offered. What? What is that? Things that are incidental. That's things that are incidental. What? Things that are incidental. Do we want to It does sound a little circular. Is there a better way to to describe that? Um, no article or commodity is offered for sale or is public publicly displayed on the premises except those directly. You want to say something like most those directly related to the services. I'm with you. Um, if you're um

you Mary if you're a shoe repairman or if you're a shoe back to the cobbler cobbler guy. I love that cobbler. Probably have a cobbler in that area. You might sell shoelaces. Okay. You might want to show sell shoelaces, but no display of products may be shown and if you how's that in I mean but but from the outside, right inside. We're not regulating inside. So why would that even We are regulating. We are home. Yes. He said they couldn't do anything in their home till this moment.

That's right. You're saying that but it says or is Oh, so you're saying if the cobbler, your cobbler, your favorite person has public display of shoelaces inside. Yes. We're regulating that. We're saying they're not allowed to sell anything from within their home occupation unless it is directly related to the services that they're offering because these aren't retail spaces. What? So, okay. Well, thank you. All right. Good. Anything else from A to F or can we go on? Are you Are we cool? Everything's cool on A to F.

And I all I love how you changed that, Commissioner Han. Thank you. Number uh G. No exterior alterations, additions, or changes to the structure shall be permitted in order to accommodate or facilitate a home occupation. H. Besides the required parking for the dwelling unit, additional parking located to the side or rear yard shall be provided as follows. One space for each non-resident employed on the premises and three additional spaces for physician or dentists. Now, since we're only allowing one employee, don't we want to just say one space allowed for the one employee or I mean,

right, because there's only one. There's So, you're saying one space for each non-resident employed. It's again confusing. We want to make it simple. Resident employee. We want to Okay. So, one space for the one space for the non-resident employed on the premises. And I know this sounds interesting. Three additional spaces for a physician or dentist. That's fine. But it is. And what about the cobbler? He may have more than one cobble person cobbling in. [laughter] You guys are going to make fun of me for You're going to give me a shoe for Christmas. I know you are. Besides the required parking, what is the required parking for the dwelling unit?

There is Go ahead. So there are parking requirements in section 29020. Um and so if for a dwelling a single family dwelling that is detached, it's two parking spaces per dwelling unit. For an attached, it's also two. For town houses, it's two. For multif family dwellings, it's one and a half. And for accessory dwellings, that's one. Um, oh, we don't have restricted parking on the street. So if I mean h

So I was going to suggest that instead of um three additional parking spaces for a physician physician or dentist, it would say one for the non-resident employed on the premises and other parking requirements must be in compliance with section 29020.

Oh, I I like that. There you go. Then you have to refer back to the other Okay. Can you go ahead and make those changes for us, please? On H. Okay, so we've got H uh changed to the non-resident employed on the premises and three addition and then the other places we have to refer back to the other code. I a name plate not larger than two square feet attached to the building and illuminated only by indirect lighting is permitted. Now my concern with this is what do you mean by indirect lighting? What is what does that mean? What is indirect lighting? Does that mean

so it it it means the sign can't have its own lighting? Right. So, um, you could shine. So, we need to have that in there at all because we don't want it illuminated. Is that what you're saying? A non-illuminated sign is what you're saying then.

So, you could illuminate it by shining something on it or or down on it. This is so this is your current conditions in the commercial zones. And so I wasn't really trying to make a lot of changes to them. Um but that doesn't mean we can't make changes to them to remove the exterior lighting.

I I don't think we I don't think they need a a sign lighted because there's not going to be any business conduct conducted necessarily at night, right? So, I am not sure they need a lighted sign or even indirect lighting on the sign. So, I'm I'm thinking just leave out a name plate not larger than two square feet. I mean, though, one thing is you're saying they're not going to conduct business at night. It gets dark in the winter really early. So, that's not that is in business hours. I guess that's a that's a good point. Okay. All right. Well, let's leave it. When you say two square feet, that means what does that mean? Two square feet.

Two square feet. It means, you know, one foot by one foot. So, okay. Okay. Yeah. That's not a lot, but that's okay. All right. Fine. Um Jay, a home occupation shall not be interpreted to include such uses as uh tourist homes, animal hospitals, tea rooms, restaurants. Uh am I the only one that thought that was random list of things that I'm like, isn't it just like any of the can't be So, okay, let's ask Miss Franklin fashion. I was waiting for the cannabis. Yeah, I was waiting for that. But do you want to go ahead and explain what we're going to do with that one?

So, I think that that these were called out. I don't know if they were called out previous to the zoning rewrite or if they just were already there. Um, but we may want to call out additional things that are not compatible with a home occupation like automotive repair or I mean to me though do we have automotive repair isn't allowed because it violates other things like and all of these things would violate other things because like an animal hospital is going to have people coming in and out and that's part of what like we're or like a restaurant or a t- room I assume. Do you know what I mean? Like they've

correct they're not allowed because they already something violated something else. So then to like specifically say anything seems weird because then it makes you think like well what about my weird thing that didn't get included? Does that mean it's allowed? That would be you. Yeah. Are we saying do we want to eliminate Jay entirely? Is it confusing? What do you think, Commissioner Brown? I think it should be eliminated. Commissioner Rek, I agree. Okay. And you say, and you say and Okay. And so everybody here, anybody say they know they got to have it in? Do we need to have it in? The only part that gives me pause is the tourist homes. The tourist homes.

What is a tourist home? They're short-term rentals, right? But the short-term rentals are regulated outside of this. So, I think it's okay. Um, I do want to reserve the right to change my mind if I Yes, I think you're right. It's a good protection to have it in there. Actually, you're I don't know that I would say tourist homes. I'd say short-term rental.

It's an addition to that. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Like if if somebody has to already be living there, it's can't really That's a weird tourist home. I think it's fine to take it out. I just want to I would say move forward with it. But if I come back and say, "Oh, we should have kept that specifically in." I just noticed I've harmed breakfast also. Well, that's got its own use. It's its own land use.

Reference the other code sections to say, you know, please see and then they just know what code section to access if they have a question. If you just said um a home occupation shall not be permitted under the following sections and then just tell them what the sections are. Well, a zoning permit is required and so they're going to have to come to you and tell you what they're doing. So, I I'm not sure what but I think the point is with a tourist home,

could you have uh could the person live upstairs and have tourists in the downstairs area and then, you know, using one bedroom? I I don't know. Is there a possibility of that? I'm 90% certain that the answer is no based on the rest of the code, but I I think you should take it out, but allow me to come back if that 10% uncertainty proves to have validity and and re uh or we can just leave it in and just say, you know, let it be quirky. I don't know, but does it look too quirky that these people are weird? I love a bit of whimsy, but not necessarily in my code. Right. Just family gatherings, but not an outfit.

Okay. But we will give you the right to put if you need to put it back in, you put it back in because I know you're going to be talking to the attorney about that at another time. And you know, I'll let you make that idea yours one way or the other. K. The establishment or operation of a home occupation shall be harmonious with the character of an neighboring residential uses and shall not create traffic, pedestrian or vehicular or parking demands out of character with neighboring properties. And then L is zoning permit obtained. Now we were talking about a permit earlier. I think for all this you do need a zoning permit for this for this for the RV2. This is all RV2. I think this all does require a a zoning permit. So, I think that is good. Okay. So, from A to L, do I have any last minute concerns or issues because at the end of the day, I think we've made some changes are really good changes. Um, uh, and if nobody's going to like ask me to talk, I'm going to go to number two. Are we okay? Go to number two. Let's go to number two. Conditional use in the RV1 now, which is all in green. the uh residential low density, the residential medium density, high density and the RPC subject to the requirements of the district where located except as herin provided. A the occupation is conducted entirely within the dwelling. B the occupation uses no more than 30% of the principal change that PL dwelling floor area. See, all employed are full-time residents in the dwelling. I think we use permanent residents, but we want to use full-time. Do we want to use permanent there or you want to keep it the same or what full-time

in Florida part of the year, but they come back and they do their I don't Yeah, that was written before. So that was why Florida existed before you had the it's not that I'm you for all this wooden terrible saying I used my language and then you guys created language but my language is what you're looking at from at home and so it can just be adjusted to your language. What do you want to do? You want to go to permanent residence or you want to keep it consistent with the other one which is what I think we should do. Let's change full-time to permanent residence if you don't mind. Yeah,

you're exasperated for some reason. It's confusing in the example of the Florida thing. Yes, because permanent. What does that mean? Well, there are legal definitions for that. And do you want to make sure that you are actually fitting in that? Because otherwise, somebody could claim residence in lots of different places and then you could kind of have an employee who isn't really a resident, but they could claim it.

You could do it by your license. Like I mean, like I know sometimes like where'd you register to de you know certain places where you intend to return and you consider it to be your your home. So but I think we have to do we want to go back to the homeowner slash rent uh person who actually owns the lease. I mean do you want to go back to more specific terminology like that? Whoever holds the lease or or owns the house. Do we want to do that again? No. Okay. We want to go back to that. We could go back to family and then get everybody's birth certificates out. I mean, what do you want to do? [laughter] I think what you did with the definition, I would just be consistent. So, put it permanent residence.

Okay. All right. So, let's go back um to um [snorts] K. I'm sorry, it was C. All employed are full are permanent residents in the dwelling. Okay, now wait a minute. That doesn't make sense. Okay. Yes. Because we don't have the extra employee coming on. That's right. That's right. Okay. D. No outside storage or equipment, materials, or items to be repaired or sold shall be permitted.

So, you're saying take the word outside and move it to a different part of the sentence? No, no, no. I'm just wondering if it tracked the language of the other of of the RB1, I mean the RB2 if there was similar language. That was all. All right, you think about it and we'll come back to we'll go down to E. No article or commodity is offered for sale or is publicly displayed on the premises even if it is incidental to the services offered. That's in the premises, not on it. Right. Because there are no services offered.

Oh, because no service because this is just somebody who's like working from home there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This is a and if you go to um the chart that she has on pa now uh before we go to the chart on page four if you look on page one that chart is kind of misleading because it has one employee under where it says use. So that is incorrect actually because then we have uh C for all the districts and um it's kind of misleading. So um we're going to be changing that, right, Miss Franklin? On Yes.

the chart, of course. Okay. All right. Now, um, did we get all of the Wait a minute. [clears throat] After E, do we have Okay, the same for FG. So, FG and etc. is is the same as it was. F, no display of products. May we just change that to match the other one?

Okay, so you're going to make that exactly the same. Okay, good. Is everybody okay with changing F to the same one that was the other one? Okay. Change. G. No exterior alterations, additions, or changes of the structure shall be permitted in order to accommodate or facilitate a home occupation. Okay. H. The occupation shall not require any additional parking or loading beyond that required for the primary dwelling. Yes. Sorry, can I come back to something though?

Yes. I keep thinking about this no exterior alterations or additions to the structure the G yes part and I just feel like postcoid people were getting additions to make home offices on homes and like I mean I kind of get why it's there but I also like if somebody if somebody was like putting an addition onto their home to office like Yes. Yes. if they were doing it, people were doing it not because it was home occupations, but because they had a federal job that now they were working from home. And I anyhow, I just knew people who Yeah, I'm not so sure G is really relevant now that I think about it.

But I also do understand the point. I mean, so I'm bringing up something I'm not quite sure how I feel about. Let's have Miss Franklin weigh in on this one. What do you think? So, I see the concern. And then the other piece is that the size of the home occupation is being regulated by the size of the primary dwelling. So in contrast to I just added an office, not a big deal. I just doubled the size of my home so I can double the size of my home occupation. Now it's pro problem. Yeah. So, but if it's somebody's fault that they have a small house,

so it's maybe it's any let me think about how maybe it's that the any exterior alterations or additions, right, that are made to accommodate it shall not be counted towards the 30% Right. So you could you could add an office but it doesn't increase your the capacity of your home occupation. So any new So how do you want to say that? I have to think that because okay let's say you have a a thousand foot home originally you're only allowed to have

33 feet used for your home occupation. But so you're saying if I put on a 500 square foot addition, shouldn't I can't now use or if I put a 450 whatever would couldn't I put that on as long as it still remains under 30% of the total blueprint not from the original. Yeah. What Yeah. What I'm what I'm saying is if is if you leave it where you can alter the exterior, you may have someone significantly alter the exterior to increase their capacity

even though they're really still only going to be able to use a third of any of that space that they Right. Yeah. I was going to say, do we even care though? Because if someone just wants to expand their house because they want to have they want to put in a um exercise room. I mean, does it this from the outside to the neighbors, it's just an expanded space. And if it doesn't affect the neighborhood or the parking or anything, why do we care if they get increased for the occupation versus it being for any other reason that you're going to have so many loopholes to have to jump through whether or not you would get that addition,

right? It has to get all of that thing. But so the fact that it could or couldn't be for an home occupation seems irrelevant to me. Me I that's unless we're missing I think in tier two you're right. It's irrelevant. But in tier one, right for the RV1 I think um which is confusing because you're using that as tier two. Um but the RV1 I don't think it really matters and I don't think we really care if they want to enlarge their house. Um the purely residential tier of home occupations. I think it doesn't matter. Uh, would anybody mind if we just deleted G? Does anybody have a big concern? No. No. Commissioner Brown, what are your thoughts? You're not saying anything. He doesn't care. Certain rules and regs [clears throat] anyway.

Okay. So, let's go ahead and everybody let's eliminate eliminate G. [laughter] Good point there. I think H, the occupation shall not require any additional parking. We got that one. I, no on-site retail sales are conducted on the premises. J, a home occupation shall not be interpreted to include such uses as tourist homes, etc. Again, are we going to eliminate that? Well, can we go back to I for a second? Yeah. So, potentially there could be a dentist, correct? Not on this. Not in RV1. No, not in the RV1. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So,

we're going to then eliminate we're going to eliminate G and we're going to eliminate I. I mean J, I'm sorry J. Their letters are so small here. K. The establishment or operation of a home occupation shall be harmonious with the character of neighboring residents res residential uses and shall not create traffic, pedestrian or vehicular or parking demands out of character with neighboring properties. And then then you have a zoning permit is obtained. But getting in a zoning permit. Okay. Yeah.

So, let's go to the um zoning permit idea. I definitely think we need a zoning permit for the RV2, that tier one you're talking about with all the conditions. But for the other one, the RV one, etc., I don't think I I don't see a need for the zoning permits. And I want to ask everybody what y'all think. It seems like we have minimal impact on the community at all. I mean, almost nothing. Um, we're going to we're going to cheat anyway and have our own home office and just not tell anybody. So, why put a person in a situation of just not be, you know, conforming to the law? So, I'm for just having a two-tiered system of a permit here. And you can have an optional permit if you want for your IRS issues, whatever. But I think um requiring a permit for the RV1 group uh I guess that's zone two or that's level two, whatever you're calling it, I think is superolous. That's my opinion. Uh Commissioner Han, what are your thoughts?

I agree. Uh Commissioner Smith, I agree. Everybody, you I agree. And what do you all think? Anybody? What do you think? He's good. So uh okay, so let's And uh Mrs. Frank Miss Franklin, what are you what are your thoughts really? I mean, you're concerned about that. Some people might need a permit, right? Right. For their But then you're not saying you can't have a permit. You're just saying you don't need a permit. So, so on L, can we have a zoning permit is optional? Can we just put optional instead of obtain?

I think it's fine to just delete it and then if somebody needs a zoning permit and comes in because they need a permit, the town would surely give them one. But their accountant might tell them or something and then they come in. That's what I'm Yeah. Then they can get something. They can get something. Okay. So that my friends that it's how you do it is how [laughter] you is there is there anything else we need to do for home occupations or did we cover it? I think if you've covered it then we need a motion for it. You're going to Yeah, you're changes so you can forward to the town council. But don't we need to look at the appendix? Don't we need to do what?

Look at the appendix A to make sure it matches. Appendix that you mean the table that I provided you? That was just for your information. It's not going anywhere. Okay. That was just because I know some people work better that way. Thank you. I'm wonderful. Okay. So, let's make a let's somebody make a motion if you wouldn't mind. Um should she Jan Does anybody would anybody like to make a motion? um that would uh include all the changes we have made. We're going to assume that they've all been typed out appropriately and effectively. Uh and I I'm thinking somebody around here should make a motion.

Make a motion. Well, you should not be pointing. So, you're saying to make the motion to adopt the changes as discussed, notate the specific changes. I don't remember all the changes. No, no. They they have them up there and I think we can um assume that they've all been made correctly up there. I can't I'm having a hard time seeing my word document if you want to look at them. I can't read. But it's gonna be harder to read. Yeah, there's like Oh, is it just that one? Yeah. Or this one says to That one just tells me to update it to match the other. It doesn't actually show it in here, but um

yeah, I don't know if you can how well motion to see uh approve as amended. Basically, approve as amended and bring to do we have to say anything about town council and transmit it to the town's C. Yes. And you can transmit it to the town council. You can do that too. Uh but mostly what we have to do is just approve as amended the home occupation motion to approve as amended the changes to the home occupancy code and forward on to the town council.

Do we have any more discussions on this? Okay, I see none. No questions. Okay, let's vote, please. All in favor? I. Any any opposed? Okay, that that clears. and at 7:00. Now, we're moving on to the uh fences or not or not. Okay, Miss Franklin, go for it.

So, um what is being proposed is that the town adopt fence regulations in the zoning code. Uh this is being proposed because right now the fences are regulated through the building code and they are at the discretion of the public works uh administrator and there is no way to achieve a variance if you have a specific condition and there's not a lot of guidelines for the public works administrator in decision-m um by moving them or adding them to the zoning regulations. We can provide some clear regulations. Uh and we can also provide a variance process. Um generally you cannot have a 6ft fence in your front yard, but there are some unique properties where that means they can't really have a fenced yard and they might have a dog. Now they'll be able to go to board of appeals rather than just be told no. Um and so that's part of the purpose of what we're doing. So, um, we're trying to provide clear, predictable regulations on location, height, materials. If you all would like to regulate them, I have not drafted that. That's a discussion for you guys to have. Um, we're trying to reduce confusion and provide for the variance procedure through board of appeals so that town council doesn't have to look at them because right now are the very or the uh person that gets appealed to. Um, so obviously what you're looking at on your your word your word document is going to be easier to see than what is up on the screen, but I have basically amended sub subsection G of the zoning code which reply applies to fences and walls. Um, and so because the first thing is a little wonky is it's subject to subsection J,

which just defines what happens on corner lots. And I propose amendments to later, but for right now, all you know that subsection J deals with corner lots. the provisions of subsection A which are the dimensional requirements. And in this case, what that means is the setbacks don't apply to fences and walls. And so the reason it says subject to subsection J and provision of subsection A is so you can have a fence that goes all the way to the edge of your property. Um but if you're on a corner lot, you can't because then people wouldn't be able to see to turn. So that is all what that means in the beginning. Um and so now we can move forward with fence regulations because you can put them at the edge of your property line. Um there was some discussion. A lot of this text is the attempt is to match the building code because we don't know if the town council is going to change the building code. And so we want to try to have similar regulations so that what zoning is reviewing and what public works is reviewing match the probably they will make adjustments to the building code and that would allow us to do things like change the fact that it says fences walls have to be less than 42 in which isn't quite

it's [snorts] three and a half feet

right it's not four feet it's not three feet it's three and a half feet it's a weird amount Um, but for right now, what I've done is try to match building code. If you all advise me that you would like to do something different, I will make those notations. And then that way, you know, when council gets it, they can decide to match it back to building code or they can decide to take your advisement and adjust the building code to match. That's going to be up to them. Um, so A is your existing regulations. [laughter] B is what we need to add in to allow people to get fences through a zoning permit. It allows you to enclose your rear yard from the center of your side property lines back with a fence that is up to six feet tall. If you want to enclose your front yard, it's got to be 42 in or less. There are some additional regulations, um, which it C includes a gap at the bottom of the fence panel that's typically there to allow water flow um, throughout the properties. And then D is a little funny and we've talked about maybe adjusting it, but the idea is that what's been happening is that sometimes there's some severe storms and wind and those vinyl fences with the solid panels in them, the panels are actually coming out and flying around um which is a safety hazard. And there are other ways to have vinyl fences that don't pose that safety hazard. The idea here is

that you would not abs you would not have solid those solid panels. So you're talking about those white panels that are like five feet or four feet that they can just put right up together.

It's the thing inside the, you know, it's in a frame. It's that thing inside comes out and flies around. So, I have some I have some images of like alternatives when we get there. Um, E is that they [clears throat] we can't restrict access to town rights of way and it gives us permission to remove the fence if you put it over the town right of way. Um and then uh F is just there because there are commercial properties that are required to have 8ft fences and have screening uh in section 29021 and so we need to allow them to comply. [laughter] Um, and then so that covers the fence regulations. And then I've also proposed an adjustment to subsection J, which defines your corner lot to create clarity around the corner lot. So I have proposed that we clarify that if you are on a street, it's a front yard. And then I have proposed two options to define what the other two yards are. Um you can have two sideyards. Your other yards are sideyards and that makes that easy for enclosing the rear yard lot. It also gives you a little more flexibility because you have 8ft setbacks instead of a 20ft setback. Um, and usually that's helpful for a corner lot because usually they have a bigger front yard and less backyard. Um, option two allows you to have a a rear yard and a sideyard. Um, and it's a little more complicated and it may require us to make some adjustments to the way the rest of it is written.

So we can start by coming back to I think Jay we can come to later. Um but we can start by looking at the visual examples because I think that's kind of whether you want to regulate materials and how that all fits in. So I've got some metal fences. Typically these are more open. Um, not all of these are six feet. Got a variety of options there. Uh, and I can go back and forth. Here are some wooden options. So, you can see that these panels up here, even though they're a panel, they're actually not solid. So, there's like a little gap in between each of the spaces. And then the lattice reduces that amount, right? Um, this these are not solid either. there's gaps and they're individually placed. Um, and this I have an example on the um vinyl as well where it's it's staggered. Uh, and that's becoming more popular. So, here's some vinyl options. This is the staggered vinyl option. Here's your vinyl option with the little gaps like the wood. This one also with the lattice has the gaps like the wood would. Then, you know, this is obviously an option. Uh, and then there's the hor there's horizontal um options and that some of the horizontal options are kind of like on an angle so the air is still flowing through but there's a little more privacy created. So all of the different materials can accommodate avoiding that solid panels. And I think with the location of the beach and the increasing storm severity, um it is concerning that people you don't you don't want your fence to fall apart

either, right? [laughter] Yeah. Um, so I don't know if you want to talk about like if you want to include requirements for certain types of materials or prohibit certain types of materials in this regulation. So it's something to think about too. All righty.

What what do you do about grandfathering someone who may exceed these rules? Is that covered? Mhm. So, we can add grandfathering. Um, there are a lot and I don't know if they all have permits, right? There's a lot of fences that really are sixoot fences in a front yard. Um, I think if they have permits, then they have permits and they would continue. So you with regard to grandfathering, you can say everything is non-conforming and all non-conforming fences need to come into compliance within a certain timeline or you can say which I think is more sort of what you all will be amendable to all non-conforming fences are permitted to remain until such time as they need to be replaced. Um and then they need to conform.

Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah, it's not fair. people might not be able to afford it and they might have bought a house. I I think the second option I mean in Richfield Station they have to go through two two phases. They have to get the previously it used to be they have to get the town permit and then they had to use the town permit to get the HOA permit but now they've changed it and they get the HOA permit first and then the town permit. Do you have any pictures um of the of the fence with the panels? Yeah, the solid white panels. Yeah, the the

ones that we don't want. Just so that people understand that if we don't have a white sometimes we don't know what we're looking at when we because I don't have a white vinyl fence. But I'm assuming that it's it's a solid like square or something that's in a frame and they don't want that because it's a solid piece of vinyl or wood or whatever the whatever the material is. It's solid. It's catching the wind. It's just going to catch the wind.

But it's it's not just that. I mean, you will see clear glass like around decking and things like that or plastic around there. It's the same thing. Now, a friend of mine from California, she did the acrylic as fence cuz they were on the water, but they had young kids and they did acrylic, but they had holes drilled into the thing so that the wind could come through it, but they to offset the wind, but it still gave that appearance of see-through. So, is that a solid piece right there? And it just doesn't look like a solid piece. This? Yeah. Usually they're like this. I'm not 100% certain, but that looks like Yes.

Oh, okay. Okay. So, you don't even really know by looking at it. You would only know by Okay. Just I guess those lines don't go all the way through. They're just to me, right? It's just an impression that it looks like wood type product. Pretty much all the vinyl fences that you're seeing around are Oh, is that right? Oh, okay. All right. Okay. And there's been the public works superintendent has pictures of panels in the beach that have come off. Oh yeah. Um some of those across the street have come off. I've seen those come off. Um over at Winwood Key.

Um do you have a picture also of the sideyard? We were talking about the sideyard. Did do we did you can you find something? I was in meetings and was not able to.

Okay. because I'm still a little confused about that. And what I'm referring to is the option one and two on the last page of our of our memorandum there that talks about the T yard shall comply with our requirements for you know sideyards. I'm a little confused about what we're talking about with option one and option two. So um we're talking about corner yards, corner lots I should say. And there's a lot of corner lots in this town as you know. So, um, option one considers the remaining two yards to be sideyards. Option two identifies a rear and a sideyard. Uh, every time I read it, I still get confused every time I I just

because you're saying that a a sideyard has less setback requirements. So, we're we're saying like we're kind of giving them that they can both be called sideyards since we've taken away your option to have full fence,

right? So, this is the town of Berlin. It's something they have on their website. It's helpful to look at in in Berlin. One of these is a rear yard and one is a sideyard. And they're showing you like there's a bigger setback for the and that's functionally the same if you ignore the like any numbers on there. Functionally, this is option two, right? You have two front yards. One of these is a rear yard and one is a sideyard. And so you have less area. So like you're struggling with this. I am. I'm sorry. No, I think you too. I love I love pictures. I need them,

but I don't get the additional yard you were speaking of. So, if you look at the sideyard setback right here on the right. Yeah, it's this lighter color. That's a sideyard setback. This is the rear yard setback. This lighter greenish grayish color in the back. See your I'm not feet back, let's say, versus just a two feet back. It's not the actual help. Yeah. is

and that's under option. That's more the second option too. Let's say would make the back also the thinner thing so that they would have more options since they already have to have the a more challenging setback requirements because they have two front yards. We're trying to like kind of throw them a bone and say you don't have that these are both sideyards now, not a backyard and a sideyard, right? So you can do backyard and sideyard or you can just call them both sideyards and then you don't need to worry about which is your rear yard and also you have more yard,

right? Okay. Because like, you know, if they were trying to put a shed in it because it would just mean that they could push further back on that further on the backyard and still be within the fence, but it be Yeah. Gotcha. Whereas we're just giving them more potential usable area. So give us the Okay. So go back and give us on option one and option two on these sideyards. Which are the advantages of option one in your in your mind?

I think option one is is simpler to administer because everything's just a sideyard. Um, I think option one gives corner lots more flexibility in those other yards that they are losing in their front yard. Um, so those are the main advantages I think. What's the advantage of option two?

You don't want to give them as much flexibility. I guess in I'm just trying to think of a a corner lot in which their neighbor would feel like they were in the backyard, but I feel like generally a corner lot both of your neighbors are kind of sideyard neighbors. Um, somebody if if you allow the larger rear setback like you have more setback for that neighbor there that is that backs up to you that backs up to you. Okay. All right.

Sheds can go in the setback so they're not like but you're you could build an addition that goes further back. um if you have the two side. So you're you're limiting because you're reducing the amount of like an addition that could be done in one direction. So option two is more neighbor friendly. Neighbor well no I think option Yes. Yeah. Yes. Option one is more homeowner friendly. Option two is slightly more neighbor friendly, one could argue. Right. Right. Right. I I think that's

okay. So, [clears throat] this is referring to the um corner lot situation. So, we've got two things we're looking at here. We're looking at just the fencing and we're looking at corner lots. So, we've got a couple things going on here. Um, going back to um, uh, page two, I guess it would be. Um,

Oops. I'm sorry. There's not numbers. Um, we were talking about um, okay, let's go to um, let's go to D. for the purposes of safety during storms and to ensure that no fence shall obscure the circulation of air or the scenic view of adjoining property or of adjoining property owners. Fences that include solid panels are not permitted. Um we were talking about splitting that up into two separate ideas. One being the um u the air circulation to prevent you know prevent a safety issue from happening. Uh, and then the second one would be um the scenic view issue of not, you know, putting a fence up to so that people can't see the the water or whatever.

Yeah, I think that just personally I think that part should just be removed because if you have something with this little tiny crack that's not helping me see. Yeah, I'm surprised at that. Stopping me from putting addition up and building up, you know. Yeah, there's all sorts of things. And it just means that if someone went up to your fence and looked over and wanted to see the view right in my view. Okay. All right. Miss Franklin, how would you like to talk about the view uh the uh scenic view issue because uh it looks like you were the one who put that in there. So let's talk let's talk about the scenic view idea.

So the scenic view idea is in your building code. Um it has definitely caused some conrnation in administration. Um, and the building code actually allows the public works administrator to go to the neighbors to get their approval. And I think that go Yeah. Um, don't like [laughter] and and so that kind of ties into that. So

if your neighbor builds a fence that blocks your view, that's impacting you. I'm not saying I'm not saying we should have permission, but if we separate these out and say, you know, for the purpose of safety during storm, fences that include solid panels are not permitted. And then another item that says no fence shall obscure obscure the scenic view of adjoining property owners. Okay. All right. Before everybody starts talking out, I'm gonna

Okay. So, let's go back to the first one. Let's go back to the um fencing structures must allow for air circulation due to wind hazards. I mean, do we need to do anything more than that? Fencing structures must allow for air circulation due to wind hazards. Do we need to say anything more than that or do we need to get more specific than that? Because it says for the purpose of safety during storms and to ensure that no f I mean I mean for the purpose of safety during storms. Say what you said fencing.

Okay. I just basically said fencing structures must allow for air circulation due to wind hazard hazards whatever. Do we need anything more you know more detailed than that because that takes away the idea that you can have a solid panel. Will a homeowner know that? Hopefully the fence company would. But I have a question. Yes. So years ago when we first arrived, we went through we went and had a fence a a fence built and we did them each individually like she showed. Yes. Each individually hurricane come through.

It didn't matter that they were each individually because the hurricane had a big impact on the fence. The only thing that saved that fence from flying was that it was cemented in. But my fence wasn't like this anymore. It was like this. So, right, I do not see anything on here about it being cemented in, which I would think would have a bigger impact on it versus a solid piece. All right. So, how would we

So, one way we can address that is we and I've talked with the town engineer about this a bit because we've all had this conversation about the fences that the public works director's been improving. Um, and so we can ask the engineer to kind of craft us a a letter to add here that says fence construction must xyz and then that way it is whatever an engineer says you need to make it solid in a wind situation because I'm not an engineer. I mean, just realistically, we have enough hurricanes come through here and tornadoes. Oh, yeah.

That pretty much Oh, yeah. We can try our best, but I mean, traders, it it ripped I mean, the building, it ripped the the things right out. Just the material. It's how it's placed uh into the ground. And it has to be a licensed contractor in my opinion. Shouldn't be just a a do-it-yourselfer. But I mean, so do we want to leave it for Jay to come up with language or what do we want to do about this then?

I think if we can agree on everything else, we can speak with the town engineer about coming up with a sentence to put in here about what those requirements would be for the fence. Um, and then we can either bring it back here in January. You guys can look at it and approve it or that can I mean I don't think people are installing fences right now. People aren't doing plot permits. Um,

one I mean I don't know the stuff that much, but like a fence in a hurricane is, you know, they're probably going to come down some, but but there is something about those big panels and the way that wind gets them. Like, you know, a fence that goes down in a hurricane that is individual things. That's one thing. It's not going to like fly kind of in the same way that those panels, which is why we have to think the safety. We can only look at the safety aspect, not the fact your fence is going to blow over, but we want to make sure that it doesn't fly and injure the the homeowner next door or whatever. What are the county regulations on this? I don't have them.

That's a good question. I didn't look those up. That's a good question. Um, who has a computer here today? I didn't bring mine. Um, okay. Um, then we get to Okay. So, if we wait on that um and go to the one on the view, which to me is even more challenging to figure out. I'm trying to determine what in whose mind is there a view? Who's

how do we objectively look at what a view is to somebody? And I guess that's what everybody's concern is is what is a view. And let's just say that Commissioner Brown wants to give himself some privacy. Can his neighbor actually impose a well get that fence back like a few feet so that I can look down the water a bit? I mean, how does that how did it work for you? If you don't mind me asking, [laughter] I think he doesn't mind. I think he minds. No, I mean, is there an issue with fencing along the waterfront there? I mean, how does that how's that going? I'm assuming that's what the views are that where we've got a problem with, right?

It's limited. It's limited to a six foot fence, right? Yes, it's limited to six foot six feet above the ground. Yes, that's correct. So, you're really going to block somebody's view with a sixoot fence? And if they're laying on the ground, I guess you will, but they're standing up. Uh, they're going to see over it. If they're on a porch, they're going to see well over it. I I don't think it has a place here. Well, where where are we having issues at? Let me ask you that. We haven't had any issues. Okay. I thought you said we had issues and that's what No, other places have had issues. Okay. I definitely know other states have had issues. I know that. That's true.

If you want waterfront, you buy waterfront. You can't like tell people what they're gonna that you can't block their view with the Oh, you'd be surprised when people are you would be shocked at how they do this. Yeah. So, when it's under D and you said we're going to separate it, that makes sense because I was interpreting this that if you had any type of fencing that didn't show it, cut off a sliver of of a view within between the slats. That's because we're talking about not having a panel. So, I don't see

No, there were two separate ideas in one in one uh section there. Okay. Um I'm just trying to think of any um situations where somebody along the coast would put up a six-foot fence that their person behind them can't look over and see the water when they had a chain link up there before or something like that. Um I mean I you guys are more likely to know than I am. Apparently not. If they want to see the water, they should buy all the Oh, listen to you guys. I mean, not everybody has a gazillion dollars to buy. But yes, I I mean, I guess you got a point.

Isn't there um there's no requirement when you build a house. So, for example, in Larry's neighborhood, you build build up four stories, you're blocking the view from the guy behind you, but that's life in that situation. So this is so subject to interpretation. I mean a view to me is is woods and I I I think that's untenable. I just don't think it can be enforced reasonably.

Well, I think when you have a height restriction that certainly helps. I mean that that you you are rest there are certain restrictions that are already existent or extent that I mean you can't put up a 10-ft fence. So therefore like Larry said you know there going to be places where you can still see if you're on a porch like if or if you're like on a second level deck you can still see potentially. Pardon me. Potentially. Mhm.

potentially where your house is, right? Because if you use the thing that she just said and your house is behind the house that they just built that's four floors, you've now lost your water view, which diminishes the property value of your house. But it's the same at the same token, you didn't buy on the water. So, you're subject to whatever they build on that front lot. And this is something that affects waterfront communities everywhere. It's a big deal. Absolutely. No question. It's a big issue. I'm sitting here trying to think um how if we would have problems if we went ahead and uh took it out, but I'm thinking as you are I I feel like you're thinking take it out is what I'm sensing from y'all.

Well, it's so subject to personal view what is a scenic view? Well, it depends. If a guy have if a guy I'm I'm looking right over here at this section over here because this is where you've got a flat area and a lot of homes in the second and third position behind the water can actually see through because not everybody's put up a big block, you know, six foot wall of fencing, you get glimpses. You do get some a lot of water views. And in fact, one person's trying to sell their property with an ocean view or water view because there's no fence in [laughter] front of them right now. But if somebody came along and said, "Hey, I'm going to put a, you know, big solid fence up there." There goes his prop. It severely goes his property value.

And I guess the question is to whom does that benefit in your, you know, in other words, and I think it was I understand Larry's position. And I understand like both positions, but the person that bought the the waterfront, they bought that. And perhaps the other person was like this kind of beneficiary of that, but is that like a vested interest that's equal to or higher than the actual property owner? I I don't necessarily know the answer, but yeah, it's a more of a philosophical viewpoint than a, you know, real I mean, obviously they have the right to any kind of fence you have. Yeah,

obviously you have the right to any kind of fence at whatever we decide we're going to do here. Um, so would anybody totally object if we just uh uh took out the uh the sort of sort of on number D uh or okay take out or the scenic view of adjoining property owners. So you would have for the purpose of safety during storms and to ensure that no fence shall obscure or how about restrict the circulation of air instead of obscure restrict We got to change that word to restrict or something. I thought you changed that already to fencing structures must allow for air circulation due to wind hazard. Oh,

okay. If that's okay with you. I mean, if that's simple on or I I wrote that down. Okay. I mean, is anybody okay with the fencing structures must allow for air circulation due to wind hazard? Is that okay? And then just leave out and then just leave out the the whole thing about scenic view. Is that okay with everybody? It's with me. Yes. Okay. So, we'll change it to that. Um, and we'll forget about the view. Forget the people behind you.