Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the August 5th, 2026 meeting for the Mechanist Planning Commission. First order of business is the approval of last month's minutes, which was the meeting of July 7. Before we get to the approvals, any changes, edits, comments regarding the minutes?

I have a request that the minutes be modified to reflect the fact that I was not present for the right Hyundai discussion.

Can you make that up? We will do that with that change. Can I have a motion to approve last month's minutes?

So moved.

Second?

I'll second.

We have a second. All in favor of the approval? Aye. Opposed? Minutes are approved. Let's start with the first order of the old business, which is PLC 26-14, Wright Hyundai dealership, the combined preliminary and final land development, block and lot 1206 and 218. Do we have a presentation?

Before we start the presentation, Mr. Chairman, I guess I have a question for the solicitor.

I was going to recuse from this, but if I do, is there still a quorum to take any action?

Yes. You still count for the quorum, but we would just need a majority of the remaining members. Very well. If they were to take action.

So you are recused. OK. You're excused also. Any presentation? Please state your name.

I'm Sean Mooney with Harshman C Group. Previously, my boss Jamie has been here, but he's on vacation this week. So you've seen this plan a few times already. But yeah, so we're here for the Wright Hyundai dealership project preliminary and final land development plan located at 10247 Perry Highway in the EMU Urban Zoning District. The plan proposes a car dealership consisting of a two-story building with an outdoor vehicle storage and sales lot on tax parcel 1206 and 218. The parcel is about 5.93 acres. We're proposing an updated stormwater management facility as well as increased landscape buffers for the site, which I understand the buffers were one of the concerns that you spoke about previously. Um, so we do have, like, some constrained buffers on the north and south side of the building. Um, they are still an increase from existing conditions. And we've tried to propose the limited buffers ordinance.

They are not increased from existing, which is good.

Yeah, so, um, Jamie, I don't know. Do you guys have it? Jamie provided a. He provided a little imagery here for the landscape buffers. He used like AI software, so it's mostly just a visual. It's not 100% exact, the plan. But basically, I'll just read off his notes here. The reduced landscape buffers to the north and south are to have densely spaced evergreen shrubs to establish a fully screened buffer within the reduced width requested. Other plantings are also proposed as per landscaping plan and within areas of full 15 foot buffers. The landscaping in the green scape between the front row of the parking will dramatically improve curb appeal, breaking the existing continuity of the sidewalk to pavement with low level mixed evergreen shrubs, such as hallway door fiber bar. And if you've seen the imagery, we have a few things there. Again, it's not 100% exact to the plan. It's just AI imagery, but we'll make sure that the clear sight triangles and stuff aren't a problem at all.

And we mentioned this to almost everybody who comes forward to There's a planting buffer. There are certain plants and things that are less deer appealable. I know nothing, I think deer will eat anything, but some of the plants are more deer tolerant and I would strongly suggest you go for those. Otherwise you're going to have some spindles instead of those nice full bushes.

Were there any in particular that you were more partial to?

No, just for you to look out for. Or you won't have a vegetative department.

Yeah, yeah. We can change the types there. Thank you. That's not a problem. Okay. But So at this point, we've pretty much addressed most of the engineer's comments. There are a few outstanding items.

Fairly substantial.

There was the traffic impact. And the geotechnical. Geotechnical, which we're still waiting on. We're still waiting on those. At this point in time, it's kind of up to you. We're going to request conditional approval, but if you guys aren't ready for that yet, I assume.

I defer to engineering to see what you think about where we are in this process.

Well, I think in reviewing the comments that are here, the one is the trip generation. I guess the question is, Sean, where did that 164 come from? Where's the supporting documentation to go with that 164 trips? Because maybe I'm speaking out of turn and saying this, but I would think that there would be more trips during the weekdays, during the morning and afternoon peak when people are bringing vehicles in for service and coming back to go. at their vehicles in the afternoon. I think there needs to be definitely some kind of a study to demonstrate how those numbers are being arrived at. I think if you do a study, maybe your 164 might come down.

OK, yeah. There was another engineer in our office who was working on the HOP. So I can get the specifics for you regarding the basis for their study.

You didn't just use ITE. You did some sort of projection yourself.

Yeah, we did some sort of projections, I would surmise. I can get a more precise answer for you on that.

And it's more than twice the amount.

It's more than twice the amount. It's 164 versus 75. You're right.

That's significant. I think some background and supporting information would be helpful.

Okay. Yeah, we can provide that. The other thing here is the 5 to 1 impervious to area to infiltration area ratio that's required. I think I would be concerned that there may have to be changes to the design of the stormwater management dependent upon the results of the geotechnical report.

Yeah. Those are the two major things.

Those are the two major things. I mean, there's requests being made here for modifications with some justification. And that's fine. But I think considering the major information that's needed, I think it would be in your best interest to table it. That would be my recommendation.

Do you know when this geotechnical report is due?

Hopefully within like a few weeks here. I don't know. But you don't really know? No.

Then I suggest we do table.

Any other comments before I just I just have one on one of the modifications you're asking for is the slope on the detention retention detention facility. Yes. You are a budding high school.

Okay.

And also a residential area, not suggesting that it needs to be fenced along your pavement line, but it would feel like that slope might want to be fenced from the high school. For sure, I suspect you have some traffic from the high school to. Very highway now coming through the site.

Okay.

That was just my concern.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Fencing on not so much from like our paid area but.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Right right. HAB-Masyn Moyer- You're going to be maintain or monitoring that.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- yeah that's not no problem.

HAB-Charlotte Pitts, My only comment would be when does our current extension run out.

You must be looking at it. I received one. I could double check. And I did receive one after the previous meeting. I would just ask that I would redo that process again just for formality's sake. The extension. Yes. Just send an email. I can follow up with you guys.

One other question. You were going to get some sort of communication and writing from the engineer regarding access to the site for deliveries.

Yes.

Did that happen?

Yes, I received a comment addressing that item. It was sent to me and I believe it was posted in the digital document and I'm happy to, I guess I can get that for you guys if you didn't have it yet.

Okay. So there is something in writing.

Okay, any other comments? No? Then I think the suggestion to table is appropriate. Can I have a motion to table this until next meeting?

So moved.

So moved. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Aye.

Thank you. The order of the matter of right Hyundai dealership will be, in fact, tabled until next month. OK. And we look forward to seeing you then.

OK. Sounds good. Thank you. You said we'd be in touch regarding this.

I also have an email to both you and Jamie in jail.

Okay, the second item, or the next item on the agenda is PLC 26-16, Peebles Elementary School Plan Combined Preliminary and Final Land Development and Lot Consolidation, Block Lot 716K248 and 716F34. And we have a presentation. Is that no more presentations?

I'll be quick.

Are you going to go through them individually or are you going to combine this? I mean, I can go through them all together if you want. Do you think it's better to go through them together or do you want to go through them individually? Sorry, I'm sorry. I don't know whether there's engineering comments would be distinct and therefore it's appropriate to go through them individually.

Yeah, there are some, let's go through them individually.

All right.

All right.

Again, I'm Craig Bishop with HRG, and I'm here tonight on behalf of the North Allegheny school district. And I, I don't have Brandon with me this evening. He's actually at another board meeting doing communication. No, he's there doing other presentations with the school board for some of these renovation projects. But I do have Ben, he's the architect on the project and I have my boss, Jenny here from HRG. But. Yes, I'll just go ahead and go in here. So just I'll just kind of do a quick refresher here. So for people's elementary school, last meeting, we talked about the parcel that they rezoned that residential lot, and then they were looking to consolidate that into the overall parcel, and then looking to do some site improvements there on the driveway. So Matt, if you go to the I mean, you can skip the first two slides because everybody's familiar with the site and we can skip over probably the existing additions. So just to recap here for the layout. So we're revising, looking at revising the entrance to have one, so it'll be one lane coming in and then we'll have two lanes going out. So it would be a left turn lane only going out and then a left or right turn lane going out as well. with additional then angled parking there in the front. And then as you kind of go back into the site, we were reconfiguring the parking stalls to try and maximize again additional parking that the school needed just for their operational, for whatever, logistics for the school. And then there in orange were the building additions were for the LGI and the administrative building. and then some of the classroom spaces there in the courtyard.

Can you shorten the sidewalks?

Oh, yes, thank you. Yes, so we did, I know last time we talked about the sidewalks and whether to extend the peoples or not, and we had concerns about the safety of promoting students walking along peoples where there wasn't sidewalks, so we did pull that in to That residential property, they have a sidewalk that comes out with steps that had a mailbox. So we, we cut that short at at that point. So we did not extend it all the way out into people's just to help justify our, our waiver request for that item.

And you left the sidewalk to support the parking.

We did. Yes. Again, just a quick elevation there of what this addition would look like there in the front for the administrative area. And then if you go to the next slide, Matt, that was there. In the back was the LGI area. And then here was our grading plan. And I know last May we talked a lot about these trees and What is there things that we could do to try and save some of them? So we did assess the site and we did have on this PowerPoint. You can kind of see where we have existing 2 to 1 slopes, which was kind of when we're hitting that with some of our grades before we were. Filling more over that area, so we revised our grading in that parking lot to limit. Our grading on that that slope to keep as many trees as we can on that slope. So I think later in the slide, I think I had a number. of how many we ended up saving. Again, there's still a significant amount that we need to replace, but we were trying to do what we could to keep as many existing trees on site as we could. That was our infiltration basin. And then we had in the parking lot, that little red box was a little bit of underground as well, which with those two systems, we're meeting the runoff rate requirements and percentages per the township code. And this here is our landscape plan showing the mitigation trees and where we're replacing those. It's kind of hard to read on here, but we ended up, we ended up, just flip, so I can give you the exact number of what we ended up. Removing 67, replacing 77 of the required 120.

Yeah, so previously there were 148 trees that we needed to replace.

So we, yeah, we're saving 14 trees.

So, it's, it's something I think just just a comment on that just to put the record, just to summarize. Um, you know, a conversation from from last meeting between the planning commission, I think, and if I'm speaking out of turn, please correct me in planning commission, but. I think all that discussion was that the intent, the ordinance was attempted to be made with trying to keep as many trees on the site. And I believe that is the place of town council to make any type of policy decision. Remember deciding on some type of. You know, acceptance of this modification in lieu of placing trees on an external site. So, I just kind of wanted to summarize that for the minutes and for the planning commission. And that way, if there's any comments that they can be stated now.

We're looking for a plan for the school districts properties, right?

I think the intent of my comments, at least in my staff report, was to present the options to town council written in a developer agreement could be whatever would be decided upon for that tree replacement. I do think that there's an opportunity for partnership between the town and the school to, you know, The requirement for the trees is for multiple reasons, stormwater, vegetation, green space, buffering. And I think that the intent of what the development is on all of these sites, especially this one particular that we're speaking of, all of the proposed tree plantings is having some type of plan between town and the school that would be agreed upon prior to a final approval.

And the only thing I would add to that, we were discussing it before the meeting is that the town's environmental advisory council be involved in developing that plan because they're very, very involved in trying to get vegetation in the town and maintaining vegetation in the town. So they can be a help.

Okay, and yeah, and I know in our waiver request for that item, we did put in the district. They want to do right with the community here.

So you offered it up.

Yes, they'll. Well, that's payment rule or funding some other project or something that township has that requires trees there. They're willing to partake to help meet this requirement.

That makes sense.

And then one more item there, Matt. Oh, sorry. Because it kind of came up at the last meeting about the screening on that parking to the right. I'm trying to indicate where. There to the left to that existing parcel there in the back where it kind of makes that little Z. There was a comment about adding additional buffering. And so we did add more trees up along the one end just to make sure that we were providing the appropriate buffer in there for that adjacent property owner.

What kind of lighting is being proposed in that area for the parking, the ankle parking again? Is it?

I mean, we'll have regular parking lot lighting. I think it's 20 feet high. Yeah. We're providing the appropriate shielding and everything to make sure we're not bleeding foot candles off of the property. Again, this was just showing them a monument sign they were planning and they kind of talked about the circulation. I could go into that again, but if there's no questions, we can move on. Yeah, that was then just a quick update. We did. Get our admin completeness. From the conservation district for empty desk permit. So that is now in technical review and we're still coordinating with Penn dot on getting that driveway permitted. Sorry, that's that's all right. And then just to recap, there were those waivers that we're requesting. So the waiver for the for the sidewalk. And then the modification regarding the tree replacement. And then we did have that slope waiver that we were asking for before, but we revised the grading to where we don't need that now. And we saved trees. So it was a win-win.

Thank you. Comments from engineering?

I mean, the comments in our letter of July 30, they're all pretty much, I would say, administrative items that could be addressed. The one thing I will say is that shared driveway with the property owner that's adjacent. So we're asking that prior to commencement of construction, provide an agreement executed by all affected property owners regarding maintenance, ingress, egress, and re-gress. And I guess that's only something that could be included in the developer's agreement is language. That would be a condition. But everything else here, I think, I don't know any objections to approving the plan.

And to your comment about the easement with the adjacent property owners, the district has already met with them and had already started, I think it was maybe a week, week and a half ago, just to start letting them know what's going on. And they had some requests. And so there is dialogue back and forth. And the school district is working with them to make sure they're due right to those neighbors.

What would be a different consultation? Same one.

One at the picture. Okay, sorry.

So I think we're probably ripe for an approval motion for approval with condition specific condition that the items we have mentioned do in fact get completed and to the modification.

Yeah, you'll want to address the modification request for the sidewalks, the sidewalks and then the trees and then the plan as a whole.

You wanna take a motion for that?

Yeah, a motion for each, the sidewalks, trees, and then the plan as a whole.

Okay. All right, then we will need several motions. The first being a modification for the sidewalks that were discussed here. Can I have such a motion?

So moved.

So moved, second?

I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye. Thank you, Mark. Just for the record, that's section 1104.230A1.

Okay. I would have known that.

I'm opposed on that.

You're opposed to the sidewalk modification? Correct. Okay. So we're not unanimous. We have one opposition. Second one was the, correct me? The trees. The trees, so they're doing something in lieu of putting back all the required number of trees.

They actually had their letter offer some good knowledge for that. Do you have the application letter? Thank you. um requesting the waiver for um replacing the vegetation on site requesting that or we recommend um that the replacement trees in lieu of preservation qualified trees where the applicant is proven to the satisfaction of the town council that vegetation removal is minimized a written document or plan should be developed um prepared performed by a registered landscape architect or qualified professional showing no desirable layouts or possible locations on the site and that we should develop with the town a plan for replacement preservation tree planting on I guess the easiest thing, properties to be approved by the town. You're going to list for the school, but other town properties.

Okay. That was a mouthful. All in favor? Well, first, let's start with the motion to approve that.

I made the motion. Okay.

Second? I'll second.

All right.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

And just to clarify, that is specifically section 1104.320A4. Sorry. That's all right.

And the third.

No, just the plan as a whole. Plan as a whole.

OK. Can I have a motion to approve this plan given the conditions that we just stated? Approving the plan. Motion to recommend that town council approve. uh plc 26-16 people's elementary school plan combined preliminary and final land development and lot consolidation a lot in lock 716k 248 and 716f34 a motion so moved second second we have a second all in favor aye aye opposed We'll move on. Thank you. The next item is PLC 26-17, Hozak Elementary School Plan, Combined Preliminary and Final Land Development and Lot Consolidation, Block and Lot 827M-185 and 827D-176.

So I'll just kind of, I guess, do a quick overview again of this one. So the school district, they have two properties at the Hozak. So they're looking to consolidate those two properties into one. So there on that PowerPoint is showing the darker one was the one where the school is not currently on, but the one that they're really looking to consolidate that all into one parcel. Just skip over that one. This is just the existing conditions. There is a stream of wetland on the property, just as a reminder. The layout on this really hasn't, there wasn't really any layout changes on this site. So just to kind of recap, we were adding additional parking there in the PowerPoint presentation in the upper left. Just again, for logistics and operational standpoints for the school, they were looking to try to maximize parking. And then we had the building additions there in the orange on the lower part of that plan. City Council Chambers, move on to the next one, again, this is just was the elevations that we shared the last presentation just showing what these building additions would look like. City Council Chambers, Next. So this year was our stormwater grading and drainage plan. There in red was just showing where our stormwater detention facility was located on the site. And we did look to modify this and shrink the footprint to try and save more trees as well in this area. So I don't flip to the count, but I don't think it was quite as many as Peoples. Well, I guess it was 20, being 14 trees that we ended up saving by pulling that in. So again, we were asking again for that modification, similar to what we did on Peoples. with the tree modification. And then the other waiver request that we had on this project was the slopes, which we revised that to meet that requirement of the code. So this one would only have the tree modification request.

OK. Any engineering comments?

Yeah, there was just looking at it. Thank you, Joe. There was a sidewalk waiver request on this 1 as well, but it was only it was a small amount. Because of the way that property is, it was pretty narrow there in the front. So it was similar to our request that people's there's no sidewalk on people's road and we don't want to promote. People walking children walking to to to the school. So it's just a, it was a safety concern for the district is the reasoning behind that that waiver request. We had provided the justification letter.

So, to be a part of this, so your question engineering on the consolidation plan, we raised the. property owners and that the adjacent owner should be a signature on the plan for reporting. That's one thing. The remainder of the items, they're all housekeeping items that can be taken care of internally and

Then we will proceed along those lines. We'll start with the motion for the tree modification. So moved.

Yeah.

So moved second.

The prior motion moved.

Yeah. Yeah, same as the last. Second? I'll second. I'll second. In favor? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. I keep forgetting you're there, Mark. I'm here. All right, and the second item is the waiver on the sidewalk as was just described. We have a motion for the waiver for the sidewalk. So moved, second?

I'll second.

We have a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed. We have one opposition. So we will, I'll need now a motion to recommend the town council approve the PLC 26-17 Hozak Elementary School plan, combined preliminary and final land development and lot consolidation, block and lot 827M-185 and 827D-176. With all of the engineering and housekeeping things to be concluded as stated. All in favor?

Move.

Aye. Opposed? I didn't hear you, Mark.

Aye. Sorry.

Thank you. Thanks. The last of the school items. PLC 26-18 Ingimar Elementary School Plan Combined Preliminary and Final Land Development Block and Lot 943M309.

So I'll just do the same thing here on this one. Hopefully this one's a little bit briefer. But this is for Ingimar Elementary School. There is no lock consolidation plan on this one. So you can just skip. Yeah, so here's the, just as a refresher, this was the layout that we shared last meeting, just showing the additional parking there on the upper right, and then reconfiguring the playground where that parking lot will be going, and then renovating the baseball field, and then also with the additions for the LGI and the administrative office there in the front. Again, this was the elevations the same as that were shared at the last meeting of what these additions would look like. This here is our drainage and grading plan. The red there being the underground detention system that would be collecting majority of the improvement area and providing the rate reduction for the release rates to meet McCandless's ordinances. Then this here was our proposed landscape plan and when the 1 thing that changed from last time, as we did have trees planted. On the slope behind in between the school in the ball field, but the district. Um, as we talked about the last meeting, actually had concerns about the placement of those trees and not having an obstruction for the view from the playground. So they, they want us to remove those. But given the tightness of how tight this site is similar to the other sites, we weren't able to fit those back on there. So, unfortunately, we weren't asking for a tree replacement modification previously, but we are now.

Do you know how many trees are involved?

There was 11 trees that we weren't able to mitigate on site for that. And then there was, yeah, we did have that modification request on the driveway.

May I ask Council for interpretation? Our definition for driveway says it includes both ingress and egress. They have one ingress, one egress, and a driveway.

So is it two driveways or three? It's actually a question for Matt as your zoning officer.

So the way that the verbiage reads, it does in quotes say both ingress and egress. I have a hard time, as a professional, saying that's where someone drives into a site wouldn't be a driveway. Personally, I think that the way that the code reads is it does read both ingress and egress. It says the exact words. So the interpretation would be that technically that wouldn't be a driveway. You wouldn't require that modification the way it's defined. That was something that was brought up to my attention prior to this meeting, not included in my report. So I think that's just, you might not need that request because of the way that the definition's written.

The stance of the town, then I would retract then, I guess that that waiver request for the driveway. Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't even think to look in the definition of the driveway. I also did not say that on the record. So, so there was no driver waiver. I guess not. No.

Yeah.

Based on that, based on the definition of driveways within the town code. The way it reads that you would not require that.

stated do we have another defined term to describe what that cartway might be it's there are two driveways ingress and egress so they're split as happens on some sites like the funeral home i went to before i came here there was an ingress and an egress

So the way it would read would be that essentially like you could think of it as a like if someone had a governor's driveway that was cited to be one way in and one way out. That would be considered the driveway, both connection points in the code, both connection points, ingress and egress would be one drive connection. The way it reads. Just by the definition now.

whether that's right or not.

Is that something that in a saddle update in the future that I'm going to take a look at and consider for adjusting? Absolutely. But the way that the code reads, that's what the interpretation is. I also think that, in my opinion, that I think in this site particularly, it is a mute point personally. That's just my opinion. But that's what my interpretation would be based on the definition of what our code is.

OK. Does engineer have any?

I don't like it, but yeah. I would look at the one way in and the one way out as a curb cut versus a driveway. OK. That's something to consider in the future, perhaps definitions and things.

So the tree is that's I guess that would be the tree modifications in modification. Anything else from engineering?

Just some, just some housekeeping things here regarding the ENS controls and the water management, nothing that would hold up the approval of the plan. Okay.

Okay, we'll go through the same process. And can I have a motion to approve the A tree modification using the language that we have used in the past. So moved so moved 2nd. We have a 2nd, all in favor aye aye.

Opposed. Thank you. I do have 1 more later, but we didn't approve the plan itself.

Oh. See, just one item at a time.

There's a lot going on. I'm so excited.

Now we need the motion to recommend town council approve the PLC 26-18 Inglemore Elementary School plan, combined preliminary and final land development, block and lot 943M309. Can I have such a motion to accept?

So moved.

Second?

I'll second.

I'll have a second. Approved? All say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Opposed? No.

No opposed.

Now you're meeting. It was, I don't know, 20 minutes or so? Not bad. Better than last time.

We just didn't want to have to order pizza.

Okay, we are finished with the old business and we now have new business. The first order of business, PLC 2621, Bramble Lane Plan. And as Matt is walking in there, in full disclosure, I happen to live on this street. So I know Matt personally, and I know the people involved, and I know the situation pretty well. So having heard that, the issue before us is PLC 26-21 Bramble Lane Plan, lot line revision, block and lot 613D301 and 613D291. It's all yours, Matt. Good evening.

My neighbor is literally on his way. He planned to be here earlier, but he had two consults, ophthalmology consults at pass event at the last minute, but he may be walking through the door as we speak. We have lived next to each other for over 30 years. And about 10 years ago, Chris put in a new pool in his backyard. And when he had the surveying done, it was found that we had been using a lot line at the back of a lot that wasn't true. And in fact, part of what he had as his land, I mean, his land actually leached over into ours and part of his storage shed was on our land. So we had the, speaking of the devil,

Uh, this is the other is now come on.

So, at that point, excuse me, thanks. Also, that's on the other property.

Yes. And so Chris had had the surveying done and. Sort of lay around for years and then we decided we ought to do something with it. And at that point, we talked with Matt and he said, oh, we have new forms now get the new forms done. Well, we went back to the. fellow who had done the surveying and unfortunately he was dead. So we had to start from scratch and we did that with Scheffler and company and we've since had both the properties resurveyed and submitted the initial findings to you. You came back with edits that you wanted done. Our Scheffler has done those. And resubmitted them, and then I know that it's also gone to the. To the county, and we just got a note from them the other day that they want to make sure that all 4 of our signatures are on it. So, where we are now is we are ready to move forward. We're ready to get final approval and then get your advice on. How did who needs to do what to whom at 1 point?

And all the required setbacks and lot works and all that are still still my only comment is it's. really hard to tell what lot lines go into what lot line on the drawing so there can be a way that that's highlighted in the future it was it was more obvious in the big version yeah i mean basically it starts at the same time okay but it took me a lot yeah so it's like 12 or 14 feet yeah yeah so it's a very good it's kind of an angle it's a very simple it follows the whole thing it's just basically a very very thin pie shaped way

Yeah, and it's bringing it's actually bringing the use on the property into compliance, which is which is great.

A good idea. Yeah, because there is a fence along that line.

Yeah.

Okay. Uh, it's rather simple issue. We've done it before any comments from engineering.

There's just a couple of housekeeping things here. They need to be addressed with regards to. The front road setback is to be shown to be utilized to be 30 feet on the plan, and it's changing the site location map. But other than that, there's no reason why they can't get conditional approval subject to these items of the July 30th letter being addressed. So I'm tight. OK.

So you received the letter with the adjustments?

No, we haven't. When did the shuffler get here?

Yes, that was sent to you. July 23rd. Okay, your letter basics of your letter with the. With his notes and all of those changes have been made.

Okay, so the art we should let her data July 30th.

Yeah, I think just just to clarify, I think that there might have been some type of confusion. I know that we had an email chain back and forth. I'm not sure the letter that was issued for this property is on the 30th. And there's very minor comments on it. I don't think that they were addressed with on this plan. So, I mean, it's very typical whatever a lot line revision by any every revision I've ever looked at has had some type of minor comment. It's very typical in the process that applicant receives a letter. And there might be a comment or 2, and it's just prior to the process after a final approval would would be recording is that those edits would be corrected on the final.

We received the draft from, I guess, from your office or from your office, and those responses were made in red, and they changed the forms.

And we can, and we can confirm that, you know, that response letter prior to the plan being presented at town council for final approval. Okay.

So the, the setback in the front that's changed.

Is that what it's supposed to. It should be revised to be 30 feet. It used to be more than that, though, right?

It used to be 35. Right. I remember when I bought the house, it was almost 40 feet or something. So that was just a change that happened.

Is it changed? OK. Yeah.

Mayor Mrakas, Their monitor yeah their house and then we're not not nothing to know what your approval cool Okay, so do we find that change needs to be made on the master document correct correct okay i'm happy to.

Mayor Mrakas, You know, have a discussion after this meeting or sometime this week regarding the the process, the process moving forward that way you know exactly what okay next week.

I didn't see it. Would that have been that the email on the 29th that have been that was not on.

Yeah, I think what might have happened is that the draft might have gotten released and the finalized either. Maybe I'm not 100% certain. All the comments are typical in any deal.

I think we responded to the draft and then got the final 1 with the signature and it was all the same.

Okay, I'll just make sure that, you know, that the engineer gets those comments and that they won't get any final. Okay. All right.

So, yeah, we'd like to know, you know, what the anything next steps for us.

The next step, well, we will go through and through our motion process. You'll hear that tonight, but then you also go before the council, right? And that is on the 24th. Correct.

And then what would happen after if if they give you a final approval, what would happen is you would get the signatures of the completed. And the document that suffices all the comments that you received from gateways leather, you would sign that on your end, you'd provide that to my office. I would have all the town signatures and engineering signatures completed. I would release that to you and then you can take that to the county for final recording and then just give me a copy once it's completed.

And when do we do the notarized signatures? After the council. So, in terms of the county, we contact them separately. Is there a process that we need to I have a document out provider.

I don't think.

And we will ask chef for the redo the large documents.

Yep, they'll, they'll provide you with a, with a call with a final copy that they'll stamp. And then you can provide it to my office. My engineer will review it to make sure that everything is correct. We sign it, we release it to you and then you can take it to the county with recording and I'll have documentation to help help you with that process. Okay.

All right. So before you go, can I have a motion that the Town Council approve the PLC 26-21 Bramble Lane Plan lot line revision blocking lot 613D301 and 613D291. Can I have a motion? So moved. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No opposition? Successful.

Thank you.

A few more steps, but then you should be there. Next item is PLC 26-22 NASD North Allegheny Senior High School Preliminary and Final Land Development Block and Lot 1205H-138. We're at it again.

I'm back again. Now we're on a new issue. Yep. A new issue. Yes, so Uh, you see, on your screen there, I know everybody's probably familiar where the North Allegheny senior high school is, but this is just to kind of give you a little context of what their property boundary looks like. So, they're blue was their, their boundary. This here is the existing additions plan and that area dashed and. Blue is the general location of where they're looking to put at a building addition on to the existing senior high school. Go to the next slide there, Matt. So this slide here is showing our site plan for the site. So I'll start. Right there with that orange, the orange block is that is the. The building addition, which will contain an auditorium. So another swimming pool for the high school to meet their program needs. And then as part of that, they're also adding on additional. Athletic office and. Improving that space as well. So that is all as you can see in that plan is projecting out into the existing parking lot. So. We're trying to not lose parking spaces on this site. So, in trying to to avoid losing those spaces, the district has also been looking there in the upper right of adding additional spaces. So there's an additional 68 spaces will be adding as part of this plan to mitigate the. 68 spaces that they'll be losing for this addition. So one for one trade off? Yes.

Except more impervious surface, right?

8 more impervious service, so we'll have later on my slides, more stormwater and whatnot.

Yes, question on the pool, the presentation that I saw at the school board meeting, there was a debate. Whether on how, if the pool would be connected to the other pool, where the firewall would be, if you would have 2 pools, so 1 could be a warm up pool and the other 1 would be a pool for competitions. decisions was made. Do you know?

I actually can speak on that because I was part of that conversation. The school district is in the process of contacting the third party that the town was utilizing in the interim for our building to get clarification on the building code requirements so that they can adequately make that decision. So I think that decision isn't made yet. I think it's up to the interpretation of the building inspector, commercial building inspector and plans reviewer to say this is what needs to be done and then they can proceed accordingly.

Because there's a real advantage to having the two pools available with an island in between from a competition standpoint and being able to lease them. Well, other events.

Yeah, I'm not I'm not know where they're at with with. Yeah. Um, but just a circulation through the site. We were trying to kind of keep the same circulation that they currently use for their operations. So I know in that where the students, maybe Matt, if you go back one slide. So on this existing plan, you can see inside the blue dashed area, the edge of the building near that parking lot. So currently the students, there's a door there that the students, the drivers, student drivers funnel in through that door. And that drive aisle there in front of the building is one way. It's a 20 foot wide drive aisle. And so if you, Matt, if you flip back to the next slide. So in our layout, we were trying to, if you zoom in there a little bit, to mimic the same maneuvers here through the sites. We're continuing to keep that as a one way. directional traffic through by the new building addition for the drop off area. And then also the students would then be funneling in through that door as well and going into the building. So you can see we're thinking about how we're impacting some of the sidewalks there with some of the other student parking that's on the facility and making sure we're providing safe crossings for them across these drive aisles. And then we just to try and making sure we weren't losing space as we utilize that other little area to add additional spaces and bring some of the ADA that was not connected to the building that was kind of floating in existing parking space to bring them over closer to the building and make it more ADA compliant.

I think you said in your paperwork that the park your opinion. the school district's opinion is that the parking is sufficient even for events?

Yes. It all depends on how you're looking at it, but we're basically looking at like football was basically their high generator. The nonitorium and these events and when these things would be happening is not going to be overlapping with say like football or some of their high generator events. So by adding the addition, we wouldn't be changing or So modifying their high generator event.

I don't know that we have a parking standard for schools.

So the code, I'll let Matt. Honestly, I'm not certain. So we did look at it, and it's based on what? Classrooms. It's not classrooms. It's based on the need of the facility.

Oh, aren't we sweet.

Yeah.

Usually it's by classrooms and staff, and it's something like that. Yeah.

OK. That's what we're used to seeing. But it wasn't.

I don't know the area. Is there overflow parking in that part that they're paving up there?

That's where the overflow is. Where they're paving? Yeah.

Yeah, that's not giving them additional space. That's only a one-for-one trade-off.

Yeah. Yeah, but the overflow, when I've been to football games, It's grass.

Yeah, there's grass and we will still keep some of that grass out front. And then there's another explain where it's at, but it's, I guess, kind of across the street from that proposed parking. There's another grass area that I know I've been been through the facility during a football night and there's been cars parked in that area as well as overflow.

Do you not anticipate a parking? I'll ask whoever is out there. Do you not anticipate parking overflow problems?

You don't think there are any? So, unfortunately Brandon, the facilities director, he's not here.

Okay, so you're the only one who can answer that?

Yeah, so I mean based on... It sounds like there have been overflow problems in the past.

Stand up and come up front, please. As you were talking, I'm thinking because if they're assuming overflow within that lawn area now and we're paving it to make an account, I think we need to verify with them in the football stadium to exhibit how many or where, and or if they're shuttling potentially to solve that problem. It may not be now, but I know we've talked to other facilities that they may need to shuttle. So I don't have an exact answer. Our goal was to not lose, but we hadn't talked about losing overflow.

So we're matching it seems like a perfect time to do that. So I would ask and try to fix it all at one time.

Yeah, I think that I could just even just state just from like a logic standpoint that I'm sure I know that's adding impervious but like having a strike parking area that's dedicated for parking is going to be safer for kids parking and grass and having like that even an option on the site that's going to just buy two cents.

Yeah, a lot of times in school design, we'll look at two-way roads becoming one-way, and then parallel parking can happen. But there's also that safety need in thinking about fire truck access. So we can ask to get more information, since they're not here representing their overflow and provide an exhibit.

That would be great. Thank you.

Which would be more impervious surface, which would change the stormwater, right? Correct. Or it's more lawn. Yeah, no.

I mean, of course, I was there one time when I don't know, maybe there needs to be some, maybe some grass pavers or something, correct, to help, if you could use the grass pavers, you don't have the impervious area. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, it sounds like parking might be an issue.

Yeah.

Okay. If you check into that, that would be great. Thank you. Yep. Okay, we interrupted you. I'm sorry. That's okay. It's a good conversation.

um what else um oh there to the the back um you can kind of see a gravel area back there with some green hatching so with this building for the pool is it worse being as it's being constructed like they haven't excavated a lot of dirt um so that was where we were looking to place the excavated dirt to keep the costs down for the project and waste it on site. Where that area is shown on our plan, they have an existing gravel storage area currently where they have trailers or they have movable stands or things that they use for their operational purposes. Since we would be removing that with this fill, then we'd be putting gravel back over there to give them their storage area back.

And that would be excavations from the site?

Correct, yes, for the swimming pool.

And have the soils been tested?

Yes, we've had a geotechnical report.

No, I meant from a quality standpoint.

For contamination. I don't know if they did. We'll look at it. I'm not 100% sure. I know that they did.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I know that, yeah, they did the borings. And it was the geotech said that we could.

They didn't hit anything. They didn't hit anything.

We could place that on site. But I'll double check on that. OK, thank you. Is that a permanent?

storage area for the excavated materials, or are they going back to somewhere else?

No, that would be permanent. How high would it be? If you want to go, actually, this is a good segue, you can just, if you want to go to two more slides. So you can kind of see here. So I know there's a fill slope in the back. So you would still have part of that fill slope before you would get to the level pad area. But I think it's roughly like 25 feet of elevation change. And there's probably like 50 currently back there. So it would kind of be in the middle of where that fill slope is currently is where that would kind of level out.

So I think the question is, the gray area will be flat?

Correct. I want it to be a mound.

The question was, is it a mound?

No, I'm sorry. No, it wouldn't be a mound.

The utilization of the materials on site to then grade and then place gravel in place of where there was existing gravel.

Yes. OK. So now I guess, Matt, if you want to go back forward. Or back to you, I'm sorry. So this here are the elevations of the building addition. Again, this may fluctuate and change when we're actively going through this design review with the school district. But currently, this is what the rendering and elevation is for this building addition. So the architect is really trying, as they were doing on the elementary schools, really trying to play off the existing features of the building and to make it look like it was always part of it. And then if you go to the next slide, that's just the new entrance and what that may look like. And then back to this slide here showing our grading and drainage. So we kind of talked about the grading a little bit there in the back and where some of this excavated material would go. There outside of the orange box there for the addition, we'll be regrading Um, part of that parking lot, um, and raising it up, because just the way the grades works will actually be replacing part of the existing parking lot and replacing it then with asphalt. And then in that area is where we were looking to put underground detention systems for our stormwater management to meet the release rates to meet the stormwater requirements of the town. And then the upper parking lot. if you pan up a little bit. The new one? Yeah, the new one. So we're similar to like, since this, sorry Matt.

He's talking to me, all right.

Similar to the elementary school, since this is a renovation project, it becomes a struggle trying to capture the water to get it to our stormwater retention system. So we were doing sort of like a, A split, so we're taking some of the existing impervious, taking it to our underground system to offset some of the new impervious that's going and then out front where that parking lot is. So so that water actually would be bypassed and wouldn't go into into our new detention underground detention facilities. But it would then go into the existing basin that it's just kind of clipped off there on the lower left. There's an existing base and down over the hill. So it wouldn't be uncontrolled. It would be going into that existing basin and controlled. I think that was it for that one, so if you wanna go to the next one. So this is the landscape plan for the site. So we are meeting all the code requirements as far as landscape buffers, and we were meeting the replacement requirement on this one for what we were removing. So unlike the other ones, we will not be asking for a modification request regarding the tree replacement. And if you go to the last slide, just a quick update on permitting. So we have submitted the MTS permit. We're waiting on our technical admin completeness comments. Should be getting those soon. And then the sewage approval. So we have been working with MTSA. They did say we don't need to do a sewage planning module. However, they do want to do a monitoring of the flow to figure out what increase there is with an auditorium to make sure that the school district is paying the appropriate tapping fees for increased flow. So I guess with that, I know there's some minor minor comments that gateway had um there was i know that the fill we were on that fill area in the back we were showing it as a two to one to try and maximize the area uh so we would currently be asking for a waiver on the slopes and we'll provide a slope analysis on that with a geotech uh assessment and then um i know there was a comment in there about The sewer and the easements and things so we are working with the canvas town or sewer authority and they are televising those lines just because of some of the fill and the grading impacts that we currently have on this site just to make sure there isn't any issues. So we are working with them and we'll continue to work with them to making sure we're doing right with this plan. So I was going to ask for conditional approval. I know that maybe staff and Joe might have a different opinion, but I felt like the comments were minor enough that we could continue on. And that's right, you always ask.

What said you do get to say?

Well, we have a five page comment letter here that has various things that are related to the different subject areas that there's land development comments related to the ada parking uh some clarifications on things uh identify slopes greater than 25 percent uh so it shows some utility crossings and other things grading we had some comments regarding addressed and did some general comments. I mean, I think it might be in the best interest to probably table it and get these items addressed. I would agree with that. I mean, it's the first presentation, and there's five pages of comments.

I just forgot to ask. I understand. I do have just a clarification question. The gravel section, that wouldn't be used for any type of student access, being that it's not striped. It would solely be for?

Parking or sorry, we've had this discussion and I know we met with you early on about this. So I think that that would. Likely have a gate on it, so it just so students couldn't signage. We could put signage on it as well. But yeah, they didn't since we weren't paving that we weren't adding lighting. We don't want students parking down in that area. So initially we would probably put a gate on that access. And then, yes, it was to replace what they were losing. So currently, they have a storage area. And so this, they would be getting that back.

There would be materials. Equipment.

Equipment. Equipment storage. Yeah. And that's not junk.

It's the equipment. Yeah, but with lack of lighting, lack of parking, it's not considered a parking area. So just confirming that. Just storage area. Yep.

Before we move to table, could you remind me of the timing of this project and the three elementaries?

um yeah so i'll i don't know ben you could chime in if i'm saying yeah the wrong dates here but i i believe um unless something has changed they're going out to bid the elementary schools in october and then receiving bids and then i believe november will be going to the school board for approval and then looking to start in the beginning of 2027 for the elementary school projects i believe nash is a month behind, two months behind that.

So the elementaries will be construction during school year.

The bulk of the work will happen, site work and addition work will begin during the school year. The bulk of that work, the heavy work, the interior stuff will happen during that summer. Then there'll be a pause during the next school year. And then the summer of 28 will have another There's some interior renovations that are going on, like finish updates.

And the high school is, the bulk of the work is summer of 27 or 28?

27 is when they're going to start. The work there is tied into swim season more so.

So the start of construction is tied into miss, to let some season happen and then start. They'll have to go through the wood fields and all that before they can.

Yeah.

And that one has a longer duration. Which is like May.

OK, thank you. Any other comments from anybody on the Commission?

Hearing none, so how about that? This is Mark.

Yes, Mark.

Yet one I just with using the fill and keeping it on site fully understand the motivation and the reasons for that. But when it does come back, I'd be keen to hear more. Really, the mitigation of building onto the site again with with compaction and other elements of the fill you're going to be using with and particularly with that two to one slope which gives a lot of velocity of flow off of that so i'd hope to hear more details on that portion of the of the plan over okay yeah we'll make sure when we come back we'll we'll try to address your some of your concerns with that

okay thanks mark thank you okay um all right then let's go ahead and uh can i get a motion to recommend the town council table the plc 2622 nasd north adriani senior high school preliminary and final land development block and lot 1205 h138 a motion to table so moved second second second we have a second all in favor

aye no opposition thank you thank you i thought maybe you guys might give me conditional proof so you have to see me again or another month can't get enough of you thank you all right the next item is the zoning ordinance amendment review all right um that is me give me one second to pull up my screen thank you state your name and uh

Thank you.

We'll see you next time.

Well, you're pulling that up that I did pull the parking requirements. So the table does say vaguely parking demand analysis and no further states, but that analysis should be. We would be limited because this is an expansion and enlargement to just demand for the new part of that expansion. But they were saying that the parking is going to be exactly the same. So you probably could push that. They need to add additional spaces for additional building space. It's going to be used for events when.

The point of the pool is to provide a 25 meter and a 25 yard pool, so they can do scholastic events and also do other events. Okay. So they are, I'm going to assume they're making a 60Million dollars pool. They're going to be looking at other. And if nothing else, just, well, not that many for practicing, but.

I would just put, I went to school there and I know that there's a parking issue. I mean, like that was years ago.

I can only imagine.

Yeah. I thought it was a very interesting point they made in their letter. Are we sure we have enough parking?

So I think we're definitely justified in asking for more, but I do think that we have to err on the side of caution a little bit because of the vague language that they definitely do get it interpreted to what benefits them. But I do think there's still an interpretation that you can absolutely require more parking.

Thank you very much. All right, now it's my turn. I will go over some of these draft edits to the zoning cleanup. We've talked in Almost a year now about zoning updates. I've given a few presentations 1 to this commission. We've discussed 1 to town council. I've spoken to. 1,000 residents, maybe about the, this item about zoning. I've talked to a couple 100 now on permits come in. What this document is, is the beginning draft with intention to have it in next month to have comments addressed from this draft, have an ordinance that we can then discuss and potentially go on next month. This is a draft cleanup. Just to specify, we aren't rewriting the zoning code entirely. As with any update to anything, it's a living document. You're going to review it in the future. I'm gonna go through, I'm gonna just explain some of the items here. Happy to pause. At any point, if you don't mind, just let me get through the entirety of whatever chapter that is. I have a section for each chapter. So I'll just start. I'm going to go through this whole document just so that we're all on the same page. This is an important document. It does impact the zoning. So it does impact where and what people can do. A majority of this is either a removal of certain restrictive And some of it is rewriting for clarification and adjustment. So just to go through first adjustment of 1301-220 recommendation is to adjust the language for interior renovations. This is just to match the way that it's written within the building code to specify You know, making sure that people are aware of an interior renovation. I get calls a lot. People like, I read that interior renovations don't require a permit. So I wanted to make sure that it specifically stated increased floor height or the exterior, because then that leads them to say, okay, well, there's certain criteria where they'd have to get a building permit. And the way that the town is set up is it has a. Application that is both a building and zoning from it's 1 on an application, and it becomes a building permit whenever the building code is referenced. So, if someone builds a retaining all the 4 feet, they must get a permit. And that permit has a building aspect in the zoning aspect. It was just a retaining all that was 4 feet. They would just require a unit permit. That's why this is. specified as well as you know for adding the section of zoning repair for in-kind we get a lot of calls where you know someone has a fence that they are replacing like a section of it because it rotted it's in the sun tree fell over on it so this is just allowing for people that already have permitted structures like a retaining wall a driveway an existing patio to be able to fix that without having to go through the process of getting another permit um this is how the this is how the town has handled this um historically um and then whatever the update was was written i just don't think it was clear so that's that was the intent of that And then the third item on this chapter, this section is expansion of, and just an adjustment of the certificate of use versus certificate of occupancy. It's really just a zoning item. There's a lot of municipalities that, typically municipalities issue occupancy permits if anyone has a building permit. There are some municipalities that utilize two mechanisms, occupancy and use. The town does not hasn't used utilize the certificate of use. I think I will look back. There's been 1 or 2 that had been issued. It's really just the verb. So we're just changing the verbiage to match whenever someone gets a certificate of occupancy, whether it's occupying the building to actually have the physical ability to occupy it or occupying it as use or just. Clarifying the verbiage to be the same, so it doesn't. Forced the municipality to use more resources to double up everything, because then you'd have to create an occupancy and the certificates for every item. I mean, just clarifies that and adding this line about building permits required to just follow in the requirements. Moving on if there's any comments, please stop me continues with a few other sections where that occupancy is. It's kind of sprinkled throughout here. And then the one section is, and I'm kind of just talking a little bit more of a broad term of approach to this zoning update. So there's kind of three main, where I would say, convoluted ways that this code is written that affect people's interpretation, engineers' interpretations, even zoning professionals' interpretations. I've run this code by a number of colleagues of mine, and what that is is essentially the The thought of, like, a secondary street versus front yard versus just there's just ways to write it in zoning code. And it's very, I would say, a typical. To have something that establishes specific setbacks side setbacks. There's a lot of imagery in the code that. For certain people, it helps, but I would say for majority of people, they have no idea what they're looking at when they look at the code. And I've had multiple people bring in. The pictures of of where what and where things are within our code that has caused more confusion than assistance. And I personally don't think that the way that some of the. The code is written is strong and there's parts that are inconsistent and I'll get into some of that. I'll kind of just go with the interpretation of setbacks. They, they tried to. In the zoning, from my, my opinion, they tried to capture everything, everything with this, which is not possible for any zoning code. So my suggestion is to do a few things limit the specifics of certain interpretations of the code for use. And keeping it really to like, where setbacks are. Um, there's kind of a convoluted way of writing in some of some of this code that leaves more up to interpretation for my position than what I think the zoning officer should be interpreting. Um, and that's why I have some suggestion to pull out some uses and things like that. That's kind of City Council Chambers, Why there's a zoning hearing board if someone had you know if you have specific language you have a zoning hearing board that's that's meant to you know clarify those things so. City Council Chambers, My my suggestion is to eliminate the segment portion of the town code to it, we have both a definition for front lot mid lot rear lot segments. And front mode in rare yards, it's very typical and majority of codes around here. They use yards. And so the, the, the interpretation of a corner lot is that any front yard, but have a front setback that applies to any. abutting a street. That's how it's applied now. You just have a secondary setback that allows some projections, I would say, which was just rewritten. I take the secondary street projections and kind of put them into a projection section, which I think is how it should be written. That's kind of the justification for why we're removing parallel. That's why we're adjusting the, the, the verb. It's to say in a corner, the front setback applies to all the lines of buying a street. That's how it's interpreted now. It's not changing anything. It's just changing the verbiage. And then with multiple line streets, this is where the basically. The, the entirety of secondary street concept was able was able to just put it into a projection. It's the same, it's the same exact requirements are in the code right now. It's just written in a different way. So it doesn't confuse people. And then it leaves the interpretation up to a front setback being a front setback and allowing those projections in there. If there's comments on what those projections should be, I mean, I'm happy to revisit those. I kind of just kept it with consistency to not change what the regulation was, which has changed the way the regulation was written. Um, here we have exceptions to set back requirements. These are projections and setbacks. I think it should just be labeled for general projections. I think that's just a little bit more clear, more clarification. The way I read this portion of the code is if you have a existing structure. Any structure you could put a, you know, a window or projection. So where that kind of where that didn't sit well with me was. Do we want to allow someone that has a permitted driveway? That would be 5 feet from the property on 10 feet. And some of these districts would allow them to project 3 feet further. for an accessory structure, when I think that the whole purpose of this is to allow these type of features on the home or on a principal structure to say, hey, your building's allowed to be set back at the setback, but these architectural features and use features for your gutters, bay windows, these things, they can't have that projection. So this is just clarifying it to element it out for principal structures. There is a section of- Which section? I'm in 1302.170, exceptions to setback requirements.

I wanted to do something before that. Sure, sure. The phrase right before that, there is no definition for primary front yard, so it should just be front yard, right? So. You just said anything on the street is a front yard.

So, yes, you're right. The way that the, and we can, and we can write it that way. The way that the codes written now is that there's a front yard and there's a secondary street setback. Those secondary street setbacks are less than what the front setback is. So, if we make the interpretation that everything is a front yard, you would then say. Correct. So my suggestion would be, and I agree with you that there's no definition of that is rather than leaving the interpretation of what the principal front of a property is, is we could have a definition that says that the primary front yard principal front yard, however we want to write it would be the, you know, the. Where the streets facing or whatever that definition may be. I do think that is imperative to have some type of specification. So, what the front is, if you're going to allow these projections, if we're going to pull the projections and not because basically what this allows is if you have a. let's just say that you're in the rbl district and you have a thirty five foot front and you're on a corner lot. This allows you to project to twenty feet, which is what the standard is right now for side setback or things along those lines. So this is just a different way of writing the secondary setbacks by saying rather than having a secondary setback, you have a front yard and then you have a, you have the primary front yard, which would be like. Your corner lot where your door is facing, which is how it's written now. It's, it's actually written very loosely where it says. It says in the definition, typically where the front door is, which I don't think is a very strong definition where your addresses. It can't yeah, it couldn't be that because there's there's properties that are addressed to. To grab the other on a private street that would never address there. So my recommendation is that I do think that that you're you're correct in that comment. There should be something that establishes what someone's. I think principal might be the best way. Your principal or your primary front yard and your secondary front yard. What that does is it just eliminates the confusion of the secondary street because that's where people get hung up. I mean, we could just say, no, we want a front yard and we don't want to have any We want to add more limitations to people who have corner lots and say, no, there is no secondary street. You have to go and get a variance. I mean, that's, that's a very, very, very typical how zoning is. I mean, if that's something that we want to consider, I mean, that's, that would just be, that would make things a lot simpler. This was my attempt to remove the confusion of secondary side setback, but still keep the same regulations. I wasn't trying to change a lot of the regulations. So, I mean, if there's, if we have a,

I vote for front yard is a front yard.

I'd like to hear a little bit on the side. You have to get a variance.

You have two side yards. You have two front yards, two side yards.

Yeah. Correct. On a corner lot.

On a corner lot.

Which is how it's.

So you actually end up being able to project further.

Well, I don't want to require people to get variance. To me, variances are difficult and cumbersome and confusing to most people.

They should have to get variances, but you also should not be able to change all the other houses that face on that secondary street have a front yard. They're not a corner yard. They're required to have that front yard. So you're now changing the dynamic of that entire street.

Just to make it really simple, the question here is, if somebody lives on a corner lot, should we have something written into the code that will allow them more usability into the section of their yard that is not in front of their house? Basically, what we would limit is any structure or any building in front of your house. You have their front yard. You have your front door. You have your walkway to where your driveway is or your front mailbox, whatever it may be, to limit any type of accessory structure there, which is the way it's written now. Do we want to have that limitation? continue to what is another front yard or do we want to have a section of the code that establishes a primary front and has some allotment for projections into the non-principle front yard, which is the same. I'm just explaining what the concept of secondary street is. It's just putting it into the projection section rather than writing it into the every section of every use.

So it makes everybody else on the secondary street where that is their front yard, you're not the same. You know what I mean? You're allowing. And because you allow a corner lot to have two side yards, you've got more room there to be doing things like accessory buildings and whatever. I mean, I'm a corner lot. And I believe that I should have two front yards. Now, there's a storage shed that's been in the front yard for quite some time. it's because the code was written with a secondary.

And just to let you know what this would do is if you're on the corner lot and you are in the RVL district and you have a 35-foot front, you would have a 20-foot front on your non, like not in front of your house, on your side that is considered a front yard. And what I would let you do is you have a house that would be sitting in front of you and offset a little bit, you could have a shed. Or you could have a porch. Yeah. Or a garage. Yeah. And that's what we're talking about. We're talking about those structures. This doesn't apply to fences. Fences have a different sending code. So that's what the concern is. Forgive me.

I'm confused because I thought you didn't want that. I thought you wanted everybody on the Quirk side street to have the same frontage. That's what your point is. So you don't want what he just stated.

That's what the code says now. Correct. I don't agree with what the code says now. I believe a front yard is a front yard.

And I can just speak from, like, my professional experience. Like, that's how I would interpret it. Also. That's how I've interpreted it. The way that the code is written. It doesn't. It's not. It's not what this decision would be is, are we going to limit like, we're going to allow more usability for corner lots or are we not.

I think the corner lots get more usability because they have two side yards rather than a rear yard.

They do. That's very true. They do have side yards, so the allotment is different. Rather than having a 40-foot rear setback, they have two 10-foot side setbacks. That's kind of the difference here.

That's the toss-up. And I believe the code was written like this because the prior code dealt with secondary streets as if they weren't even front yards. So this was kind of a step towards front yards on the secondary street. You know what I mean? It was like a one step towards, believe me, I've written 30 codes and they all are a front yard is a front yard. It's just clear.

Hey, this is Mark. You know, I guess what would, So I have two questions for you. One is, would there be, if the zoning is changed, will there be any enforcement actions done for existing property owners?

They're non-conforming.

There's a lot of non-conformities. With the way that the code was adopted in 2023, there's a significant amount of non-conformities in the town. And part of this is trying to alleviate some of those non-conformities to be in compliance.

So then with that, would it be possible? Again, I'll talk to neighbors. People ask me questions about it to show specific examples of what, you know, again, not necessarily we can redact it, you know, but what we're actually trying to accomplish from this.

Yeah. I mean, I could, I could, I mean, I'm happy to go to my GIS right now to show you an example. I mean, that's, that's, um, that's our problem. Okay.

Okay.

I can picture the issue. I never thought about it.

I was worried she wouldn't be able to fit behind me.

I was trying to scoot forward, but I don't have much room. So this is the RM district that we're in. Essentially, right now, the way that the code's written is there's a principle. You're doing a front setback, which would be Yeah, I mean, yours is Perrymont.

My address is Perrymont.

I've been to your house. Her door is on the southern side of this property. And I mean, even right now, I mean, even talking about this right now, like we're considering which one of these is the principal front setback. So if I go and I measure her property here, roughly speaking, there's a 65 foot front. Should be 20 on the side. And 20 ish on the 20 on the side. Yeah. So what that allows what that secondary street projection that I've written here. 20 feet in the district. It's established that every not would be her primary front, because that's where her doors facing and that's where she's addressed to. That's like, that would be the, we would write that into the definitions. And then that would permit her to have a 20-foot setback on Louis Street, which is the same as the regulation right now. The regulation right now would allow a 20-foot side setback for the accessory structures. So what that caveat would say is that, you know, She can have that projection now, but there's a lot of properties like, and that whenever you rewrite totally zoning codes that may become non compliant.

So, there it is 20 feet for the.

I also talk about it.

Yeah, so I've got 2 front yard. So I'm pretty sure.

um so just you would yeah and it would basically allow some type of projection into multiple fronts i i do think that um like if if you wanted my my opinion i agree with ann um the reason that i have that section into the code was to establish the existing regulations and have discussion so what is the consequence of non-compliance nothing it only affects future development

Yeah, anything that is currently existing becomes a legal nonconforming structure. And so it's allowed to remain. The only other potential impact is if it's destroyed past a certain point, then they would be considered new development.

And there's a caveat in the code for nonconformities that allots for in particular situations, like increases and things like increases and expansions of nonconformities. So basically, like, That would limit it would limit new construction and for anybody that has something that's not performing, which is a lot of properties. Now, it would go through the nonconformity expansion. Process, or they'd have to demolish whatever the structure that is, and then build it to compliance.

and legal nonconformities aren't like a local protection that we provided for in the code that's a constitutional protection so that's not something that could change based on policy or who's on council so that protection is built in permanently yeah does that answer your question mark um no there's no consequence there's no no consequence to any

existing property that would be made non-conforming. The only consequence would be if I decided I wanted to build in what is now a front yard and these projections that we allow in the current code would allow me to project on the Louise Street side.

Right, so I'm not trying to be the devil's advocate, but I will be. So, and I don't have, I wish I had, again, a solid example, but Four of the eight houses on the block have the porch or they have the, I don't know what they call those really fancy outdoor living areas. And I'm number five. So I'd like to have mine because my neighbors have them. But now it's a nonconformance. So they get it, but I can't.

Well, yeah, that's what the variance process would be, is to say, hey, you have to provide a justification because they have two fronts. And the whole reason that you have fronts against streets is to limit any potential safety issue with site triangles and those type of things. um but i mean that is but you're not wrong i mean like even right now people people come in with the existing regulations and say i want to build like i had a woman who wanted to build on a corner property she wanted to put like a like a chicken coop and you know even like you you have that requirement um like she she could meet the the some of the the where the distance is that she had to project into her you know into her like in front of her house and i was like you can't you know you can't we can't allow like we don't want to allow any structures in front of homes that could impede anything like that um but you know her neighbor has more usability behind her house because they only have two uh two sides so each adjacent property they would have less you know they have side setbacks but they still have a 40 foot rear whenever her her challenge was that she had two front setbacks that were now one was 35 and one was 20 feet so mark looking at the picture that that um nat has up

My house is set back double what, from Perrymont, double what the front yard setback might be. So I can still build on what Matt is calling the front of my house and what 911 thinks is the front of the house too, because that's the definition they, or that's the address they gave me. I can build right to the front setback, which would be the 20 feet.

Yeah. So I look at that picture and I appreciate that. Right. So like there's 143. Yep. Right. So you're what you're saying is that I guess I'm looking at. Right. So 143 is that close to Paramount. It so that property owner in Paramount could build towards 143, meaning all the like you said, the safety fire, whatever. But this zoning, they wouldn't need a variance to do that.

Yeah, well, right now they could build up to like, what would be a lot of, you know, let me just pull it up because I don't want to reference it wrong because we're in the RM district. So right now that property has a 25 foot front and a 25 foot side. So for principal structures, it doesn't change anything. We're strictly just talking for accessory buildings. So an accessory building right now has to be 40 feet back. So they'd have to be, it'd have to be 40 feet. So that's basically where this property was built. And then if we make the regulation, they would have to have 40 feet back before they could have any type of accessory structure. With the projection, it would allow them to have 20 feet opposed to 40 feet. That's what we're talking about.

So she has two front yards. Her garage meets the requirement right now for a front yard. The garage is the building behind the house.

Yeah.

And her side yard, I don't think meets the requirements, but she has two side yards. The one side yard is 75 feet long. So the primary reason why you deal with two front yards is so that you have a building line essentially that people are building to on both streets. So you don't allow, you know, my other neighbors up the road on Louise, they should be protected. They've got their front yard requirement. I shouldn't be able to do something more than what they're allowed to do in projections into that area. That's all I'm saying. And if you look at new plots, so this plot was done in the 40s. Yeah, new flats, they do that. The front yards are this. I mean, the builders just do that. The front yards are on corner lots of the same as the front yards on the adjoining lots. Just for visual, they do that.

let me add something you know what we're coming of reviews subdivision plans new ones that have corner lots i always ask that the recorded plan designate which at which street is the front so so it becomes recorded and memorialized in the future so so they can't be So, so it's, so it's defined. So it's defined.

Well, it's a corner lot.

So it has 2 fronts. But in some cases, my, my experience has been that you can have 2 corner 2 fronts. But the 1, it's not the 1 in which the house is facing can be half the distance.

And what we're saying is they don't need to be the same. Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, and honestly, it's just, I mean, this is just a. People can have different opinions on what is right for this. I mean, there's not a right or a wrong way to consider this. It's just do we want to allow people to have more free them to build closer to a side street whenever they're on a corner lot or do we want to have them have more more of a restricted zoning requirement and then if there's some type of justification that they can provide through a variance process that they would be able to provide it and that would be the interpretation of the zoning hearing board I mean, that's kind of, that's like the more Yakutian traditional way of zoning that's been done since the 70s. Chicago Plan, 1909, I think. But yeah, I mean, that's kind of what, that's the thought.

So how would you, let me ask you the question. So it's obvious on my parcel because Paramount's a state road and Louise is a town road, so that would be the amount would be the primary. And Louise would be the secondary, but if you've got a standard subdivision. A new subdivision where you're building 2 town roads. Sorry, I got it. How would you determine what's the secondary work?

So, the way that it's written now. And let me find it in the code. Because it's written very... I'll have to find it. I think it's actually in... Give me one second. Yeah, so... This is what's written in the, it's in 1302.160 under corner lots. The front setback applies to the primary street frontage, typically the side with the front door, and the secondary street setback applies to the other street frontage. The reason I dislike that language is it's very interpretive, subjective to my role. And I don't think that I should be the one that's deciding that. I think it should just be established. That's kind of, I mean, that's kind of like where, I mean, there are interpretations where the zoning officer has to make those calls. I just don't think that, like, I personally disagree with having any type of language in a code that says typically. Like, that's just not a way that it should be written at all. I mean, it should say that it is if they wanted to do it with the front door you could say it's the front where the front door is facing and where it's address whatever whatever it is it just needs to be established um and that's kind of why why it's it is a simpler process to say no projections two front yards it's there's no confusion um And then leaving it up to the Zoning Hearing Board to say, is there a justification for someone to have a projection into a side yard? Because the thing is, anything that's already existing is existing. It's the way it is. They have it. It's in the nonconformity anyway. And so that's the thought. I think that for that one, I'm happy to. I think we've beaten this. Yeah. If you were to consider this and have a conversation about it, I mean, I do think I know that this is One line of code, but this is the critical. I mean, it's very critical to what the entirety of the zoning is and setbacks. But I don't know if you want to say something. Just to move on, keep going through. So that's kind of, and I touched on a lot of what's through here. So you go to the next section, which is 1302.170. um so this is where uh you know some of that for multiple front yards like this is where it justifies some of that you know accessory structures may project 15 feet in the front yard provide that no portion of the accessory structure is beyond the principal building elevation so this is the language that would allow what we're talking about is these type of things so i could have an accessory structure in my

HAB-Masyn Moyer- front yard in front of my house.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- No. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yeah, not in the front yard. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Not in the, not in the principal building. Yeah, so the way you'd have to write it is you have a, you establish what the principal building elevation is, which is what would you say the front of your building. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And then you have a front yard. Nothing can be established in the front yard. If you have a secondary street, you could put it on that. I mean, this is just a simplified way of taking out the concept of secondary street and allowing the same type of this is without changing the actual regulation right now. This is a different way of writing what is written currently. And I'm happy that if we were to think about that and each planning commission member wants to individually provide me comments, I can take that and then address that into the next document that would be presented. So moving on, you can see there's a number of things that are being removed, some of the interpretations. In the the districts, so 1302, each district, there's a number of adjustments that I'm recommending. Some of these are, some of the wording is written, I mean, there's a few places in there where they missed like minimum, like it doesn't say the word minimum. It means minimum, like the lot area, like there's a lot of area that just says 20,000 square feet. Doesn't say if it's maximum, doesn't say if it's minimum. It's supposed to be minimum, but that was something that's missed. there's in this in the special district technically the special district district that's the way it's written right now so there's like small cleanups throughout here um i have highlighted in each district the impervious cover i think that my recommendation would be to do a five to ten Whether you want to do it is like a percent there should be some type of percent decrease and it could be significant from what 80% in a district that's meant to preserve parks. Open space is absurd to me allowing. I mean, we're talking. Every commercial district, every single one, even the neighborhood district is all allows 80% impervious cover. That's a lot of impervious. Um, I are in our district, we are all 30% impervious. And I worked in the municipality before this that I had 18%, just just for a comparison on the size of those lots. I mean, if you're talking about a, I mean, 30% of some of these massive massive lots and a lot. So I'm going to recommend that in the next. In my next iteration of this that I'm going to do a, I don't have any justification for how we do it like percentage or. How it is, but doing a impervious cover reduction across the board. I just wanted to I highlighted that because I wanted to just bring it to everyone's attention.

And if anybody had comments to comment on it now, can I ask you guys what you think of? So, Matt and I had a conversation before the meeting. We have a use regulation table, a table that says each district and what's permitted all of this. Minimum lot sizes and setbacks and everything can be put in 1 table. So it's not all written out. You can just look in 1 place. Does that make sense to you guys?

I know for simplicity. Yes.

Yeah. So basically what we could do then is rather than having each, like, I mean, you can see how long it is and this is without velvet without the pictures too. So, in the, in the zoning code right now, and I'll just pull it up so that you can see it. I can't figure out what it's very long. So, what if I wanted to go just to just open into the district. I mean, this is how long we're talking for for 1 standard. Um, is this that's 1 district you could, you can simplify this in the same way that we have. Some of our uses here, and it would be like this. It would be something that's just in the table that has everything listed. You'd have 1 table that has the. It would just be, I just have to rewrite how I present this, but that's not too big of an issue. It's the same. Concept pages, so that's like, I mean, yeah, I think that's something I can I can totally redo in the next month and have that done. So, just to just to go through the actual regulations, you can see here that we're removing secondary street setback. There is a requirement for setback from 25% slopes. I don't think that that should be within the zoning. That's that's a, that's a solid item that they put in here and it's already addressed for addressing steep slopes and you can't build in steep slopes. So I think it's a redundant regulation. There's the secondary street setback for the accessory structures removal of the private frontage and some of the parking design requirements. I think that they are, I think that these items should be. Um, in the saddle, I mean, a lot of them are already in the saddle and a. A difficulty with a lot of these transparencies is. The interpretation of the transparency and the actual. The, the, the realistic portion of some of these transactions, it's, it's ridiculously expensive and difficult to review. Our engineers have expressed difficulty in reviewing new applications. You know, I think that. With some of the form based removal of items that are in this code and what my suggestion is going to be is that we remove the code to simplify some of these zoning items that are that are difficult to review and then look at the intention of what these regulations were when they were written in 2023 and then applying them to specific locations like. In the more I spoke to people that were a part of the zoning rewrite. And when I asked them to explain to me why they adopted some of these reasons. Most of it was because they wanted to make in the more look like a walkable area. The issue is, is it doesn't just apply to a lot of different properties.

They were trying to. Project into the future that this is what it would look like.

And I think that we're not going to tear down target and I think that the intent is I, I agree with the intent. I don't agree with the practice and so my suggestion is to remove. And then to in 2027. Have some type of overlay district or some type of. Design element, like a lot of codes do all the codes that are old codes when they get rewritten, they rewrite the codes the way that they are and then they add in a design feature that is applicable. That does not blanketly like, make it difficult for for development or lead people to. develop things in a way that wouldn't be efficient or wouldn't be cited to even be matching of what the existing is. I think that the approach was too drastic and steep, intent great, but too drastic and steep in function and applicability. So, just to continue on, I'm just, I'll go to 1302, 200 now. Okay. Regulations are there. None of the regulations are suggested changing, just changing some of the clarification for how it's written. Right now it says W slash N within for. The way that it's written on that, that 15 feet or 24 foot allotment, the regulations are staying the same. Nothing's changing. That's just how I'm writing it. You can see that the setbacks being adjusted. There is the district. Same thing. Removal of building form.

I questioned you the other day. No, parking structures are permitted in front yard, except driveways. What's the parking structure? So, a parking a parking structure.

Is it got to be building parking structure? I would interpret it as drive as any type of. Basically, what this limits is people being able to put parking pads.

No parking structures if you take out the segment. Except except drivers, no parking structures, except drivers. I would imply drivers are parking structure.

Correct. I, my, my definition of what the parking structure would be. And they even wrote it in the code is already written. It's not capitalized. So if we want to, if we want to add a definition for parking structures, we totally can do that for clarification.

We've got an awful lot of these that are nonconforming at the moment.

So, so the challenge you have is where and later on in here, you say no parking in the front yard. Okay. Well, everybody's driveway goes through the front yard. And yes, they have the ability potentially to park in a garage.

But if the cars are not in the garage, and I disagree with the, I don't think that zoning should be able to, like. Say that you can't park on your property where there's a driveway. Like, that's not the intent of what this is. The intent is to say that the use of the property for the structures that are being placed and where they're being located. Not saying, like, someone could just like, I've had people come up to me and ask me, am I know the park in my driveway in my front yard and I'm like, no, that's not what it says. This is saying that we don't want to have every single property on every single residential street have. An additional impervious that's added that lets you park 3 cars along the street. And that's that's what the intent of saying that no parking structures are permitted in the front yard. I think clarification of what a parking structure within the definition.

So you're looking at a driveway. So you don't want to see.

Parking pad garage, any type of any type of parking pad also beyond the driveway.

So I have a, I have a L shaped driveway. So, like. Um, well, I just hear I have a driveway and then I have a driveway that goes over to my shed. So are you saying I shouldn't have that driveway that goes over to my chest driveway?

I would say my interpretation would be that would be a driveway. I mean, the intent would be to honestly, like, that would kind of be up to, like, my interpretation of where someone comes in for a permit application to say. Hey, look, I want to put this parking pad in front of my thing. I can say, no, you're not committed to do that. If someone comes in with a new house and they have an allotment for a driveway and that driveway is permitted, like, just widen their driveway to be, they're currently single lane, but they want to widen it to 2 lanes.

They could do that right now. They'd have to deal with, but they can't have a non contiguous pet. Because then we just say you can have pets. So, what point at what point is a pad versus an extension of your driveway?

People parking on the grass in front of their house.

There should be no parking on the grass.

That's that's that's a property.

But I'm talking about, I've seen many people that build a little 10 by 10 foot asphalt pad on their front yard. That is just off of their driveway. Sometimes not even off of their driveway. It's not continuous with their driveway and they park on that. They're on a pad. They're not on the grass, but they're also not on their drive.

I would consider that part of a parking structure that would be limited if they were out once they're past that front yard setback. That's where it would be permitted. Under my, I don't know how I would interpret that.

Oh, that's what that's most of them are not that most of them are right along the street.

Correct. And that I mean, that's what that's why this is written to not allow everyone to be able to do that. If that's not something that I mean, that's what the way it's written right now is it is it's parking permitted on driveway only. And like, the way that I interpreted that is that you only can have a driveway in your front yard. You're not allowed to have a parking pad because this isn't saying that this is not limiting. someone's physical ability to get out of their car and park. It's supposed to be limiting. I don't know how even legally standing that would be if someone challenged that in court. That's something where I don't I mean, personally, I would say I could even suggest that we remove the parking requirements in every single district, because I think that it's something that should just be established in a subdivision, the land development audience of, like, where you can have structure for parking. And then an accessory structure would be interpreted as any accessory structure, which would be a patio or a parking to define still structure, accessory structure.

So part of the issue is that people do park in the grass right next to the road or walk their driveway.

And that's where we have to, as town employees in code enforcement, have to approach that from a violation standpoint to say, hey, you aren't allowed to do this. If they continue to operate it, then you go through the violation. So where people are parking and how they park and operate on the property is on the maintenance code. And this applicability should just be for the structures of the parking.

If there's some codes where they .. And again, your definition of structure is what?

We don't have one yet.

There's not one within here. And I think that we could add one.

It's not a building, OK? OK, well, that's .. So it's definitions that are .. It's some sort of conglomeration of materials that do not .. constitute a building. So it could be a fence. It could be a wall. It could be a parking place.

I definitely agree that a definition would be helpful because I do think this would be one of those where it's vague. We have to interpret in the favor of the property owner.

So we'll get a definition.

Yeah, I think a definition would be good.

And just to specify how it's interpreted right now, So, for example, in the district, really lot segments, parking's permitted, including lowercase parking capital structures. The definition of a structure within the code is any manufactured objects such as a building or fence having an ascertainable stationary location on land or in water, whether or not fixed. So, like, right now. My interpretation would be anybody that's putting a structure that would be used for any type of applicability for parking. So my interpretation right now in the existing code would be that that's how it would have to handle it, is any structure with that definition that applies to a lowercase parking, which makes it really difficult to really understand what that means.

Yeah, I was going to say, because I feel like parking pads, someone can make an argument a parking pad isn't a structure, I think, based on what we have right now. There was a carport is obviously a parking structure. I think it's I think I think we can make it clear. That's all.

And I think the parking structure and the definition would be any type of, you know. I can look and see how other municipalities write it, but, you know, any type of. Accessibility from a vehicle driveway carport. a garage, like all those items. Because the thing is, is in the other sections of the code, you'll see in the parking requirements existing, there are like garage recessions and like certain like specific requirements that are in there that are like, you can't have your garage has to be behind your house or certain like elements that they try to implement. Um, but just for the sake of continuing, um, just to keep going. Um, now I'm in the R. I'm still in the district. I'm going to move on to, uh, yeah, there's a lot of area. I highlighted minimum. Uh, there's it doesn't state whether 20,000 square feet is max minimum. So. the intent is to admin them so we're adding that there's same thing with the parking placements rm is very similar same same regulations secondary street setbacks being removed removing the frontages removing the projections and putting them into the projection section removing the parking sections there now getting into the commercial districts this is where there's a couple different adjustments one is Um. removing a lot of the particular architectural features in the minimums that restrict certain certain properties. Not, you know, allowing the maximum, not allowing the minimum principal cloud height removing requirements for the ground floor height removing upper floor height. Those are both items that should should be included within some type of design overlay in the future, considering decrease in Very large impervious cover, which is 80%, which is astronomically large. And I want them to say astronomically again, because this is supposed to be for small shops, cafes, local restaurants, setbacks are small. I understand having an impervious cover and allowing people to have space, but like. If we want to be a community that cares about storm water, we should not allow a ton of seas of pavement. That's what this allows is a sea of pavement.

I think though that. This this district covers Perry highway, right?

Very highway.

All right. And Perry highway has a bunch of small pauses. And small is what used to be houses that have been made into businesses and. The parking lot pretty much by the time you get the house and or the building in the parking lot, it's pretty much that's it. there. So I believe that that might have been put in to not make them nonconforming. There may be a better way to address it, but it was based on the existing.

Yeah, I think that, I mean, I think there's so much nonconformity that like, for me, looking at future, I don't want a bunch of pavement all over the town. Like that's kind of why I think that should be decreased. And I think that Just from the number of people that have come and talked about stormwater, how much we talk about stormwater with this committee is that would be a good change. Another issue that we've seen firsthand with this planning commission is the concept of build two areas. Really difficult, really difficult going from setbacks to having a minimum and maximum. It makes it really difficult for new development. And I just don't think that it's, I understand the intent. I understand the reason behind it. I don't think in practice that it works. We haven't seen, I mean, there's been literally almost no development regarding any replies to any of these options in any of these districts because you know there's issues with that I mean even look at right Hyundai's coming in right now we talked about them tonight they don't meet the maximum because they were granted a variance so do we want to have very stringent requirements that just lead to going to the zoning hearing board or should we just establish what setbacks are and and have setbacks that are more traditional. That's the approach that I was taking, and that's what you see here. So there are some regulation changes. I kind of went with the medium. So rather than have a five and a 10, you have a 10, you're still permitted to have projections like for your front stoop and still project things like that. So you can still allow rockability in the front. You just don't have the stringent architectural requirements. And especially for corner lots, like you're not making it very hard to even develop. You just have an established yard. Um, that's very clear for people that that applies to both principle and accessory. You can see what's being removed. Parking placement. You can see I've removed parking requirements entirely in commercial districts. I think that that should be established within the salary and it is establishing the salary and keeping buffering requirements in. I don't think it hurts to keep those in just to make sure that people know that they're there. Um, even though you could probably argue that we could remove buffering from from the zoning and only having the sound also, because it's in there twice. Same thing with the MC district removal of architectural features, conservative cover setbacks. It's the same.

You can look at your overlay. Let me just go back. I think that. The section of Perry highway.

Lower section probably should be an overlay that I think that I think that would make sense is to have some type of, like, zoning design committee that would like, look at. Each each commercial, like, district rather than not just like, each separate district and saying, like, hey, we're going to applicability here. And then obviously this commission would be a part of that. I think that would be great. And you district similar, you know, this is 1 thing where I would say that within within the next couple of weeks. Consider, take a look at what is established. What would I put in the front end requirements? So right now they want MU to be built closer to the street. I don't think in that MU district that it makes sense. Drive up through the portion of town where the MU is. I mean, there's a small section where Bruiser Drive is. Look at where the MU is. Look at what's existing there. Look at McKnight Road. look at the recent news with people being along mcknight road i mean do we really want to facilitate having very close structures to mcknight road that would push people close to high volume traffic and also looking at the pre-existing conditions and i'm not talking like old buildings that are going to be fixed there's a significant amount of new buildings HAB-Jacques Juilland. : That are going to be here for 40 years and that are now non conforming to the code so it's just something to consider. HAB-Jacques Juilland. : That 24 is is based on like looking at some properties, looking at what my general recommendation would be, but I don't I think that someone could probably represent an argument to say like 515 I mean there's there's these are numbers that are. That should be considered and could be commented on and if we want to think about that for a little bit and give me comments prior to. Within the next 2 weeks, so that I have time to make addresses for a formal ordinance to be posted and presented at the next meeting. That would be great. Just to keep going the town center district. So this one is the biggest change. So this applies to like 10 properties. And the properties. i i fundamentally disagree with what the with how they how they zoned this district there was presented images of what conceptually this would look like it would it could be it was high it was high rises along mcknight road in front of where the shopping center is it doesn't work they overwhelm those stories They overlook the actual topography of what we're talking about here. So this is Rave Cinema. So sure, you can make an argument that they could build buildings closer to the street there. And there's... Which street? Blazer or McKnight? Where Rave is. Blazer. Well, either side. You wouldn't do it toward McKnight.

There's a creek there.

Correct. Correct, which is exactly my point. There's a creek on the other side, too, where these images that were included in the zoning ordinance changes For justification that showed high rises built over an existing stream. It's literally not permitted by the environmental protection by our code. Our salary doesn't permit any construction there. So I think that this. This district was very visionary. And it needed to be, it needed to be corrected. I mean, for example, there was a high end restaurant that wanted to go in with Dover salary was tear down, build a new building, high end restaurant. I had to, they weren't permitted because if they tear that, if they tore that building down, they'd have to move that structure within five to 10 feet of the street. It would be a convoluted because there's multiple uses on that property. And it would have to be a minimum of three stories, three stories. Three stories and three stories, minimum of three stories with the first being required to be commercial. So my recommendation is to remove the minimum requirement, keep the maximum requirements that are already a lot of there. So that whatever is their plan for construction can be built. We can consider if we want to adjust those and then just adjusting the. The, you know, the setbacks in the same way as the. So that's why there's. That minimum is removed. I think that's a necessity. I think that it limits existing properties and you'll see that when we continue on here, just moving forward. I'll get into, like, the uses and how that applies as well. The special district, we're going to change the name. So that's special district, not special district district. That was just probably some type of that was left in there. Considering impervious, considering the same regulations for the side setbacks, just removal. And then the architect dual features. Micah Chappell- Moving on to the uses. So this is where I spoke. There's a few use regulation changes that I'm recommending Micah Chappell- And most of them are based on use of logic. I think that personally, I think that some of the decisions that were made were not based on professional practice and based on possibility feelings. So this is just a I'm straight up looking at the uses, looking at how they're applying the districts and where they're located and adjusting them. You can see that I've adjusted some, some properties to be conditional. The reason that I do that is because. These properties, they can be permitted in these districts. But these districts should have more. Regulation for that type of use, if you want to have a townhouse dwelling in the district in the district. It should be conditionally a lot. It's permitted by right from for an apartment building, but you can't allow townhouses. That doesn't make that's not a logical. It doesn't logically make sense. Those are 2 pretty similar uses. The difference is just density. So my recommendation is to permit the townhomes in the end. And you, sure i'm referencing here in the mu district and then in the tc just district removing the ability to buy right at an apartment and adding the conditional ability to have those uses there whether or not we want to not allow those in the tc i think that you could make that argument but i don't think that it makes sense i mean there's actively being townhouses built in the mu district that are now not allowed they're being built currently um so that would happen it's it's a lesser use to allow it there so assisted living

Is that was that permitted before?

And now you're no, I'm just suggesting that in in the special district where there are assisted, like, where there's stuff that that use would be. Would be permitted there conditionally. It's it's just there. There already is an assisted living facility located within special districts. There's one at passive it. Yes, and there's so it's just it's just putting it to that.

So you're saying it was not on the table previously.

Yeah. If if if there's you can see under hotels in the M. C. District, if something was existing, that cross out is it was permitted. And now I'm suggesting that we change it to conditional. Okay. So that's that's the justification there. Um, assembly and neighborhoods and corridor districts just being consistent with, um, Where, you know, where, what uses are allowed in what districts there is for retail uses. There is the, the addition of a shopping center. Now, this is something I wanted. I brought not completed. I bought this as the 1st stab. There's not a use for a shopping time. There's nothing that really states if you have a shopping center for Duncan Plaza, it's hard to apply any of the regulations that exist to that use. And there needs to be some something in the code that says. That that use exists, but I don't want to just say that it's permitted by right. So that a bunch of people can just throw up a bunch of shopping centers. Because I do think that that's not what the type of development that we want. So, my suggestion is to permit it conditionally. So that you're, you're bringing into compliance some of these uses that are not conforming and then having a standard that says that shopping centers have to be single used to have to be, you know, whatever, whatever this is. I took a very broad definition of what a shopping center is with the intention that. I could get comments from the planning commission and then present a solidified definition of what we're looking at there. Is there a definition of a shopping center?

Existing in the code now this would be it. This would be the definition.

This is the, this is the very, very loose definition. That is not the final product.

This one here.

Yes. So what my ask is, and I don't even want to really get into diving into this right now is if you can just consider this and give me comments on on what you're what you're. What your comments are, and I can even provide to the Commission into the public, like a findings of of neighboring municipalities. Just do some research. You have a list to say, hey, this is how Hampton does it. This is how Franklin Park does it. This is how X. Y. Z. Does it that way? We have some idea and we can have an applicable regulation.

The only thing that I've commented, well, there's a couple one would be. I'm not sure what our definition of commercial is and then. Perhaps to be consistent with multi family. To make it 3 or more, you know what I mean? Just to make that time.

Yes. Yeah, that's something to consider if there's just 2. yeah, I agree with that. And, you know, and a lot of these things are like, we need to think about them and then provide, like, like, we need to provide some type of comments. So what I'll ask is that, like, we can individually provide me comments. I can address that in the memo that states where our comments were and then make a, because what the next item that you'll see is an actual ordinance with these edits in it. That would be more solidified so that we can, we can discuss that and move on within the process. Let's keep going.

Can we go back to the residential one? Yep, 100%. For manufactured home community, do we have a definition on manufactured?

Yeah, I think we do. Yep, I can pull it up for you.

For sure. And we can't exclude them. We can or cannot? Cannot. I'm seeing a lot of modular stuff, so I'm curious.

So this is the definition of a manufactured home. Let me get the actual, I think it's in the... You think I know this whole thing off the back of my hand right now, right?

It could be fabricated or...

Yeah, so I'll just read it. It's made me go back up for some reason. A parcel or continuous parcels of land that has been so designed and improved that it contains three or more manufactured home spaces for the placement now of manufactured homes. Manufactured homes shall be developed pursuant to Article 1107, which is in our code for manufactured homes. There's a remote manufacturing home parks. There's a lot of standards in the building code that establish what that is. So the way that reads would be 3 on a partial or multiple parcels in a row.

Something what's the factory or what?

In accordance with part 11, which is our subdivision line development ordinances that establishes what a manufactured home is. There's a lot of like, I could dive into it, but there's a lot of dialect in the building code that establishes what a manufactured home is and establishes what regulations there are and how we can apply them. Hopefully that answers your question. I think so.

I mean, theoretically, it could be brought in on a chassis. Okay. Or it could be, I don't think manufactured includes fabricated offsite.

Yeah, that's different. And this is meant to be like for like a trailer, like a multiple. Something on a chassis. An actual use of those. Like if somebody wants to .

It's manufactured offsite.

Yeah, right. That's typically what it is. Right. And so most of the builders have their framing done offsite anymore, or just bring in the. pieces. They don't know how to frame.

And thank you for adding that. Just to keep chugging along here. I appreciate everybody being out here at 921. Thank you. Even you back in the back. Next time, I might bring pizza. Next time, I might. I will bring pizza next time.

Question for the next section. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

1303E, Principal Use Service Uses.

So Dallas centers will be included within this. I was instructed by our town manager and our solicitor that they were going to do a standalone ordinance. I asked probably a month or two ago if they wanted me to include it in it. They felt that it was significant enough that they wanted to make sure that it was standalone so that it wasn't like they wanted to make sure that it was standalone so that we said, hey, we have an ordinance that states for data centers that this is what. So it would be applicable and it would be written into this portion of the code. It would just be written in a separate ordinance. That's not included in this.

But it has to be included here on where it's permitted.

Yes, yes. And in the way that they're going to, you know, like, they're putting that together and then that would be applied to the zoning in the same way as if in two years from now, we need to add some other use for some other new thing that comes up. Maybe we'll add some pickleball use or something. But yeah, that's what you're welcome. So this is just permitting. This is one question I actually wanted to ask the committee. So we have an application right now for variance approval for that will be heard at the next meeting for a child daycare located in the MC district. There's already, I think, two existing in the MC district, child daycares. This was left out of the MC district. I believe the intention was and the thought was the MC district is where industrial uses are permitted. So they didn't allow child uses. So my suggestion was to permit them by right because there are existing ones in there.

That's- The concept was that it would be accessory to an industrial user or whatever, not a standalone. You know what I mean? So if a business wants to go in there and they want to have a daycare center, it would be accessory to their business, not a standalone. That's kind of a conversation I remember.

Interesting, because that's not written in. There's nothing that writes that into.

No, but they could do it as accessory.

Well, it's not permitted in the NC at all. As an accessory use, it's not permitted in the MC at all.

Yeah.

Yeah. So, so my, my point, what my, my justification is. We permit. that use in both the lesser and the greater talking of like how you know yeah development for commercial we're on both so my it just makes sense to have it be permitted and all um someone could easily make an argument that is against that my recommendation is to permit it but if if anybody has any comments on that i'm happy to hear that Um, going to, uh, adult uses just for occupant, just adjusting the occupancy, same with accessory uses. Um, in the town code, they have written for PCC, which is the Pennsylvania construction code, which is what's adopted by the state government. But the applicability is the UCC. And whenever you go to the PCC in the definition, it says also can be used as the UCC. So, No one's ever heard of what the PCC is. No one references the PCC. The UCC is the correct terminology. That's why we're adjusting that. Accessory buildings and structures. I think to Ann's point that what I'm going to probably include in the next in the next Definition section would be clarifying the definition of what these are. Um, it's sprinkled in, but it is kind of left up to interpretation.

So I think that it should define accessory building.

We just don't define accessory structure. So I think accessory structure should also be defined just to be consistent. I mean, it's referenced multiple times in the code. So that would be just if I would just have a consistent definition. Um, this is where I'm just reiterating that, you know. prohibited, can't have any accessory structure in the front yard. opinion, the fire code, it doesn't justify that it applies to any building or structure, there needs to be a three foot separation. So if somebody wanted to put like a garage, and then put a shed, there should be set, there should still be fire separation between those two items. And that was kind of recommended to me by our fire marshal. So that's why I'm recommending that there's fire separation for every building.

Three feet is enough.

That's, that's what the code the fire code a lot.

So, so, theoretically, They could build it as one building. Yep.

Yeah, you can tell you can build a building. This is just saying that if you're going to have multiple buildings.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Because I and that's another reason isn't just that just justify this. Last week, I spoke to one of the people's firefighters. And he had told me he works in for different EMS. And he had called out to a house fire. And there was a house fire in the it started in a shed in the shed was was up against an accessory garage and the garage column fire, shag on fire. And if you had that three feet of separation, there could have been more time to allow for services to get there and maybe limit the extent of that fire. So, I mean, that's a justification. And I really don't think that that's going to limit anybody for what we're doing in the grand scheme of things.

Hey, but the building code, I mean, it's there.

It's applicable anyway. It's just being.

Yeah, you're just stating it. Yeah.

Big one right here. Fence requirements.

Yeah.

So this has been one of the biggest... People want this to change. They really want it to change. Also, the general standard for a lot of fences that are sold is four feet. I think that this is based off of neighboring municipalities. I think that this is an applicable code. It brings the front of town hall into compliance with the fencing requirements. I think that there needs to be more usability. There's no clear site triangle issue if you have 50% capacity and four feet. It doesn't limit

But it should stay in the front yard or the front, there's no front lot segment anymore. So what, where are we talking?

You're right. And I would change that right now. Yeah. So one thing I do need to double check whenever I go through and put this in the ordinance form is are there any like front lot segments that I missed? So I just, I mean, I looked this up.

You can do a search for that.

Yeah, I can do a search for that. So thank you for pointing that out. But yeah, that would just be to front yard, which is already defined in the code.

So thank you. Make that yellow. So that's it.

Um, and then also just stating just that it doesn't apply to retaining walls because. How are they retaining while we have any capacity?

Um, continue the next 1, no parking is permitted on a lot other than in parking areas. Do we define parking areas?

So that's where I think you could say, like, that's what we're talking about with this parking structure parking area item. I don't think that necessarily this needs to be defined. I think I mean, you could have be my interpretation. I think it's very easy to add two definitions that state parking area and parking structure. I think it's really easy and clarifies everything. And I will make a note.

Do that. And then when you use them, typically when they're defined, and then when you use them in the text, they're capitalized. I don't know if you do that consistently.

Yeah, it will be. Because you can even see in the existing text that there's sections that say capitalized structures and the lowercase is parking. So it's just that they left it very much up to my interpretation. I'd like to simplify that. And then just adding ADA requirements just to have that within the code. I think that all parking should have some level of ADA accessibility. And then also for, so it's funny, I had this section here crossed out today and I didn't go through and edit it because today was the first day that this has ever applied to the code. There was a property that was rezoned for an R2 district to an RVL district. And my concern was that there's existing patios that were permitted to be up to the property line in the past because they weren't regulated. And the way I read this, when it says rear patio, I don't know if it explicitly states Like I think that rather than removing this because there was a woman who had an existing deck on her rear property that projected into a setback because the entirety of her whole property doesn't meet the the whole zoning district was changed. So her rear setback doesn't meet what was already permitted. So she should be able to have like that addition there. She already has an existing deck. It's just not covered. So this is what allows that. So my concern and the reason I had removed it was to say, if someone has a patio that's off their property, detached. So I think that this just needs to be clarified to add for attached to principal structures. And that would fix what it is. And I'm very happy that that came in today because my brain was like, we shouldn't allow this at all. But there are applicability with the way that the code's written. And without rezoning the entire property again and redoing everything, this has to have some applicability. So that's going to be my suggestion for 1304.200 is to keep A in, but add a caveat that only permits it for attached to principal structures. And I think that's what the intent of the code was written for. Removal of the design features for porches. This is where the projection, so this is stated in every single, this is stated, I also have this in, like, this could probably be added in, rather than being here for porches and stoops, we could put it back into, because what I didn't want to do was have this regulation in every district. I mean, we wrote porches and stoops seven times. I was like, how do we write it once? I think it's way more palatable in a table. So I think I might just suggest to put that into the table, unless people think that it should be listed where there is a accessory structure section. It is a little bit difficult. I will just say with a lot of what I was constrained to do with this from town council and from our town manager was to rewrite what the code is. We just want to fix what we feel like are deficiencies and one deficiency in this code. It's not a deficiency. It's just a it's how they apply it was that. There's a section for accessory structures. A lot of times everything is listed in one section. It's all in one place. They just have additional criteria in a separate section. So that's kind of why I have it there. And that's what that justification is for swimming pools. This would the the building code permits a certain cover as a barrier requirement so our code requirements are stricter than what the building code permits so we require that you have to have a additional fence even if you have the twenty thousand or ten fifteen thousand how much it is it's really expensive um cover that's automated you can access it from your phone it has like a detection system it's it's a very very safe HAB-Jacques Juilland- Building code approved mechanism and basically just allowing people to build it in accordance with the building code, rather than having additional requirement. HAB-Jacques Juilland- And just for reference, the zoning hearing board has approved two of these cases already based on configuration of what things like that. But I do think that this is something that we need to address. A lot of people are really upset when I tell them that they have to have a fence, even though they show me their app. They say, this is what the app does and it's way safer than a fence. Someone can climb over a fence, someone can open a lock on a fence, but they can't unlock mine. a pool cover because I have access to it and I'm the owner. So I do think that there's a safety argument. I understand someone could make an argument and say, no, if you have a fence, if you have a pool cover, if someone doesn't open the pool cover, there's no barrier. I think it's the same with the fence. If you have a fence and you open the door, It's the same process you can walk into it. So that's why the recommendation is to pull that off. I also think that, I mean, just from discussing with the zoning hearing board, I think that if they see a lot of these items come in, they would be more inclined to approve it because the building code establishes safety standards. And I don't think that our zoning code should establish an additional safety standard whenever the building code has that recommendation. Just to continue, just to wrap up. So these are, I just added some, I added some of the definitions that are applied to what I have in the front. One being accessory buildable areas, principal buildable areas. That's just establishes that height requirement. It didn't really have it in there. It was kind of up to interpretation. So this just solidifies that. This is something that would, this is kind of where I need some guidance from everyone. I mean, depending on how we want to to consider this front yard side yard business or secondary street. This is how, if you had multiple front lot lines, you can leave it up to zoning officer determination to say this is your front. This is your side. Or we can write it to establish in a front yard, front elevation or a front yard being wherever that regulation would be. So that's kind of something for us to like maybe think about and discuss. I think that after this conversation, I'm probably going to remove this out of there. I think that from and i'm curious to see what everyone will will say i do think that it's it's it's it gets convoluted trying to add all these things in and apply everything where if you just have a these are your front yards this is what your front is it's way simpler and way more intuitive for people um and not frustrating i don't have to explain to This is a gentleman for, you know, I mean, like, to be honest with you, I talk about the front, the secondary setback probably 2 or 3 times a week to people that come in for just normal apartments. I mean, there's that many people that are getting permits. They have questions or they're working to buy a lot. So that's why we need to address it. removal of the segments, as I said, removal of the PCC, removal of secondary streets, removal of design elements, in addition of the UCC definition, just to state what the UCC stands for. I those are my comments. I'm happy to hear anybody that wants to discuss anything. I do think that what my ask is for the planning commission. I'm going to give you guys a little bit of homework. I apologize for giving you homework. It doesn't need to. I don't need everyone to go through and give every single comment for everything. If you could just read through. Even if it's a sentence that you give me your thoughts, highlighting things that you think I should consider if you want to call me and discuss that. And I am allowed to individually speak with each financial member about these items. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. We just can't have a quorum of members on a chain. So I will have availability in my schedule to meet over these items to answer questions. I think that's another big thing. Answering questions if there's any questions for why I put something in here, why certain regulations a certain way, how other people do that. I'm happy to do that back in research. I would like to have a little bit of a individual with me and each member communications in the next month because. These are big decisions, and we aren't the only people that are deciding these, but we are the people that are going to. put it in here and then I have to take what we decide to town council and give them a justification for us as a whole. And no one person, zoning officer or not, is making these decisions. So I appreciate everyone's time. I'm happy to answer any questions if they have any right now. I probably talked you out, I think. It's its length. And if you guys, if we want pizza next month, I will definitely buy pizza. So you guys, if we get a quorum of pizza, I will.

We only have one item on the agenda next month.

You have one item, but I think with a little bit of homework, I'm happy that I will get pizza for us next month.

If you want to as well, just to help with, like, duplicating, like, you don't having to answer the same question, maybe like, 5 or 6 times. You could have people send you questions individually. And you could respond to the group and then just say no responses to this email. So, like, if everyone agreed to not respond to Matt as a group.

And that could be you individually too.

And that way you can see all of the answers because you might see a question, but that's a great question. I actually have a follow up question that question just to save you from answering the same thing.

And I think at the end of the end of that, I will have some type of document. For us, but that says what we did, like, I don't want I don't want anyone that would come in the future. That's lucky. I mean, we don't have nobody in the public tonight. There could be some people listening to us right now, but I don't want anyone to. To think that, like, we're just making decisions without consideration. So I plan to document all that and provide time for all of you to to make sure that this is done the right way. Um, I want to, I want to make sure that we're not overlooking something. I want to make sure that we clean this code so that it's usable and it is a living document. I mean, in 2 years from now, we could change make changes. I mean, that's that's totally something that's acceptable. And I appreciate everybody's consideration in time.

Okay. Sorry, man, this is Mark. Just one with, you know, I saw the email you sent out late tonight. So we're making our comments. I'm still remote here, but I'm making a comment on the correct document. Okay. So, is there any way to clarify this is the 1 you'd like to get the comments.

So, so this document is a draft document that was meant for tonight for me to go through. Yeah, most likely going to write write this and I'm going to talk to our solicitors to make sure that I do the right way is my guess would be to have. something more solidified and it's like a completed excerpt that shows all the changes. So I'll send you this, I'll send everyone here an email with this document so you don't have to go into OneDrive and find it. That way we know exactly what document we're reviewing and then I will have an ordinance that essentially The labels that is like exhibit a, and then because there's so many changes, it would be. These are the changes as shown in exhibit a, and then whatever document that we come together, there will be a more formal document that would be voted on in the future. And it's next month, I'll take comments and your comments could be email. You can call me, you can come in and meet me. We can do a team's meeting. If you need to, whatever it may be, we'll have some type of comment system. I will. I will document what those comments are. I will make the adjustments to this document and I'll put it into a formal. Approval reviewable document for planning commission that could make a recommendation to counsel.

Just no comments in the shared documents. So, like, for instance, like, I saw you highlight the 1 word that you want to go back and change because, like, it's active don't comment in that document because if you guys are all commenting in there, then we start to push.

Yeah, if you want to save a copy and make comments and put, like, and use word, make comments and send it back to me, you can do that. You can send an email. We can talk it whatever you want to do. I'm I, this is the. Just just so you own, and this is, I think this is the, this is the biggest portion of what my, what my role is with the town is to make sure that this is done correctly. So I want to make sure that I dedicate as much possible time before we get this in front of public and counsel for final decision.

That's really put it in the planning commission. Portal whatever as as a PDF, not a word document.

I have it as a word, but I can, I will, I will, I will pull that out. I will put a PDF in there and I will send you all the word document.

Okay. Cause I mean, we can comment on PDFs. You can make a comment. You just can't change. Yeah.

I just don't want anyone commenting in the like live shared ones. Like for instance, like, yeah, it's like a word shared word.

You can go in comments right now and I could, I can add a comment that says, and I could see it right now on my computer. She can see that I'm doing it. I can see you right now. And I wouldn't want you all to be able to see each other's comments.

Because then it would it would be that, like, deliberating you guys talk about.

Oh, let's make this change. And that's just more like, you know, it's a technicality. It's just for optics.

You know, we can always we can fix it on the back end, but just. The goal of transparency, obviously, and that was everyone's priority.

That's fine. Thank you.

All right.

So I guess we are okay. General public comment. Do we have any general public comment?

Oh, come on.

All right then, given that we have done, I need a motion to adjourn. So moved to second all in favor. Opposed everybody.

I would love to be done.