Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Testing,

testing, testing.

Cheryl, I hear an echo. Yeah, but it's not playing on. Hello. Okay.

Thailand. Yes. The closest mic I have is one. I'll move down. I'll move down.

You sit in the middle. Use all three. [Applause] Okay. I'd like call this meeting to order. Um, we have a quorum. Oh, there you go. I'm not I'm not I'm not that fancy. Um, so I guess we can stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [Music] I if we could uh get approval for the minutes have changes or approval of the agenda.

Uh we can do Okay. Uh do we have any changes or can we have an approval for the agenda? I have a motion to approve the agenda. I always try to skip that. And I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second.

All in favor? Unanimous. Okay. So, now let's go to approval of the U old minutes from uh May 6th. Everybody look it over and if anybody wants to make a motion, please feel free to do so. Make a motion to approve.

I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. All in favor? I think I see one on the third page. Okay. No, it's right. I thought we were referring somebody else. We're good. Excuse me. Okay. He thought you was wrong, but wrong, but you was right. Backwards.

Okay, I have a motion and a second. If you want, we can uh wait for some discussion or we can take a vote if you want to look it over a little more. Everybody good? If we'd like to take a vote, all in favor? Unanimous with that leads us to LDO.

Yep. So, I know the last meeting then we talked um at it was talked about possibly looking at article 8 of the LDO um at the minimum lot sizes. I don't know if y'all had a chance to look at that um since our previous meeting, but I had pulled um from three surrounding towns kind of just to get an idea what their lot what their minimum lot requirements are. And what I found was that we are fairly close on some of the um lot sizes. So for example, uh Kramerton's lot sizes, they range from 8,000 to 12,000. Um I got my catapults. They range anywhere from uh 8,000 to 20,000. And then I also pulled from Ran Low. They range anywhere from from the lowest of 11,600 to se then it jumps to 17,450 to 34,900 for their minimum lot sizes. Ours ours range from 77,450 to uh the next one's 11,600 and then SFR4 is 7,800. So, um I think the question here, um that we that I'd like to discuss with y'all is the minimum lot sizes for the SFRs and the uh Main Street um residential main street transition um lot sizes. I don't know if y'all have any thoughts about this, if you like the way they currently sit. Um do you think they need to be adjusted up or down? Um, but I'm open for any discussion that you may have.

Well, I know the there's a lot of people that question the main street transitional, the houses that were built right down uh towards Sundrop. And uh that's what I think one of the things that sparked this is there's been a couple projects that have been a little right um within within the zoning law, but maybe the zoning law uh may need to be looked at. Okay. Did did you have like the map the big map? Uh I can I can get the I can pull the the map up.

We still do. Do we all have one in our boat? There one in the middle. I really want to think you were talking about too. It's not as much the lot size as the setbacks from whatever street the main street they were on.

Yes. Well, I I think that's a part of it, but I think a lot of the questions are that that I'm getting are the actual lot sizes um being too small. Um talking about the ones on Bridge Street,

the ones that Yeah, I think that's kind of what spurred this off is looking at those and how they were able to put four on there. Well, the well the zoning down there is the minimum lot size is 5,000. So, you know, looking at something, you know, looking at um increasing the increasing that lot, you know, the lot size there if you think that's what is needed or, you know, leaving it leaving it as is. I don't I don't think necessarily the setbacks were what was being in question. I think it was more or less the lot size. be interested to know what that compares to like some of the houses on Black Street because those are I mean I think it's just because that was new and different. I don't think they're I mean they're small but

Right. So So yeah. said just like for a compare like in comparison um the new single family homes that are going down on L Spencer Mountain at the true homes developments uh most those lots are ranging from 16 to you know 20 down there and that I believe that is I believe that zoning down there is u sfr3 where the new. It's a new one. Yeah, like the the True Homes development down there. They're the most the lot sizes in there are ranging from 16 to 20.

And that that's not the one that's past postal park though. That's that's correct. Yeah, it's not past. It's the ones that they're currently constructing right now. Okay. Okay. So So for SFR3, the lot size is about twice what twice what this is 116 versus 5,000 square feet. Yeah. So I see. Yeah. Big difference. That's a big difference. So, when we're talking about 5,000 square ft to acres, we're talking about um1 acres. Okay. Yeah. That that would be consistent with like Riverside.

Well, if we're talking about the houses they just put up right here on Bridge Street, those lots are about1 for each for each one. And how big are the houses? I would say probably 1,200-,400 square feet.

I guess Yeah. Excuse me. Go ahead. The purpose of this specific district was to have denser housing, but I feel like maybe that doesn't really seem like it's part of downtown. I think that's part of the problem. It's kind of outside in in the middle of the neighborhood,

right? And I think it yeah it was for you know for walkability accessibility to our downtown. I mean it's like you said it's not necessarily in the downtown but it's within a walking or biking distance. And I think that's kind of what from my understanding of what how this particular district was written to try to draw more folks to the downtown from a walkable, you know, from a walkability standpoint. Um Well, without the map too, I it's it's hard for us to envision. For me, it is to say where does where does where does this transition end? You know, where

what's the marker on the city website has the zoning map. Can we pull that up though and look at them? So, so it looks like it's a part of Bridge Street, Oak Street, some a third and um looks like maybe over by High Street. So, it's not a it's not a real big it's it's it's really not that big of an area. I would say there's probably 50 parcels within that RMST district, right,

that um that the zoning effects, but it's and again it's just mainly focusing in that area. Right. Right. Yeah. You see the Yeah. And and for me again, I can see the the staging of of of the uh of the requirements on these lot sizes as you move out of town. So that the stair step in effect that makes sense to me.

But the biggest concern, as I've said earlier for me, is what about the setback from that that main road, right? And I don't know how we would address that versus the size of the lots and and not because maybe every road that's not as big a concern. Mhm. As a main thorough affair if it's a side street and the setbacks what these houses are. Mhm. You know, it may not it may not be uh a concern, but we know that sooner or later this road right here is is going to be widened because it's not a side street. It's a main thorough affair, right?

And when it is widened, we're going to have a big, you know, more problems. So the setback is more of a concern for me on these houses that are built on thoroughfare than it is uh to than a concern about the actual lot size. Okay. And I'm willing to take any and all suggest and I'm willing to take any uh suggestions or comments, you know, and we can look at those. I mean, if if it if you think that the lot sizes are, you know, that that that they're adequate for these particular districts, then maybe it is looking at just the looking at the setbacks. Yeah.

Um well, again, for me, my my personal opinion would be it is in a certain area. it's isolated to that area and the lot size was determined or decided on with a purpose of of being able to bring more dense housing. So to enlarge that we take away the goal of that the whole move for that. Right. But either way it doesn't resolve the issue of the of the setback I don't think. Okay. What what is I didn't bring my book. I apologize. What is set? Yeah, the setback. How far is it?

Let's see if I can for the RMST. Yeah, the transition. Yeah. Um, yeah. So, from the minimum front street setback is 12 12 ft. Yeah, there it is. What about on R3? Uh, 20. Which one? SFR3's 20. So, it's the setbacks for SFR3 and SFR4, uh, they're 20 ft. And then for the Main Street, uh, transitional district, it's 12. So, we say that's a big big difference. Yeah. 12 to 20 ft. Yeah.

Yeah. And in isn't my house 50T 306? Uh, I don't um No, it has to be. It might have been when they built it. Yeah, I don't I'd have to look and see what I see.

I'd have to look up and see what zoning you are. [Applause] Another piece of it is is like next to the Dollar General. Um, what's going to happen in that space? It's mixed use. So, next to the Dollar General, didn't they try to put a McDonald's in there or something at one time? You remember that?

Yeah. I I haven't received any um plans or anything of what's going to go on in there. Well, you you it's right there in my neighborhoods. I know this one very well. But on uh the front and the back of the block and that's why they built those apartment buildings in kind of a residential zone but main street transitional apparently and nobody really realized that until they already built them and they're building them and we're like oh wow. But but there again that that's that's a main road coming in and that's zone different so the setbacks are different. I think it's MU1 or two. Yeah. MU1. Yeah. So,

but that's on the front side, but on the back side, that's residential and that's also MU1. And I I think that's where maybe uh uh we kind of maybe need to look at that and figure out if that's right. Cuz a lot of the neighbors complain. They're like, put all these apartment buildings right here in the middle of the neighborhood. It's like, well, it's zoned for that. So, exactly.

But, um maybe maybe it shouldn't be. Uh I don't know. But it's too late for that one. But there's probably other pieces sitting around that you I mean do we want to slow that down? Do we want what what's really the goal of the city at this point? I mean it it was the expansion, the growth and really steering it and had a vision and now I don't know what the real vision is. Um I mean do we need this um the high density stuff close to downtown? Is that still our our vision for the future or?

Yeah, I mean I I think you know you know the growth is definitely going to it's definitely coming. Obviously it's the making sure that we have you know the right zoning in place to accommodate this stuff. Um so that's so I think that's kind of what we're you know kind of what we're looking at. That's cool. So, but uh yeah, but David uh David Jennings, you're in RMST, so yours is 12. Okay. Yeah. So, and we got D we got David Williams here. he

that's um we're just going over uh some of the minimum lot standards and kind of going over um you know setbacks and things like that for the for the different different districts. Um and you feel free to chime in if you want to on kind of why they maybe have wrote this ordinance the way that they did. Um and maybe you can enlighten them on some of this stuff. Okay. But if you do, I need to think. But uh Yes. That I think that's kind of what we're looking at right now.

So So are you So we So are you saying that we you're okay with how the standards are written or do you think there should be some changes in it? I'm okay with everything that we've we've dealt with up to this point except the setback. Okay. On those main thorough affairs agree with that we do will have a winding project at some point that's that's we and to address the vision thing I I think I don't

I think the vision is is going to doesn't change. I think the vision is growth and it's going to always be that. Even if it's directed in a different way, speeded or slowed, it's still growth and we got to think about it that way. And and thinking strategically, we know it's coming. So, what we need to do is say try to make those decisions based on the fact that it it is going to grow. It is going to grow. things are going to change. So, we don't want to backtrack, I guess, is what I'm getting at.

I I'm not I think I agree with you because I don't know where we would go. I mean, you can't really let's undo everything because that doesn't really lead us to the future. So, I think you're right on that. And I think visions and goals are two different things. And so, the vision is not going to change. The goals might have, but the vision should be the same. Okay. So, we're thinking on the RMST where it has the front setbacks of 12, moving them to what? To the 20. I say 20. I say 20. Yeah. Okay. Where What's the setback on R4? I 20. Yeah, there's 20.

Yeah, cuz it went from it's cut to 12. I mean, I don't understand they should I would have been somewhere in the middle there in the beginning, but Yeah. Okay. And then we're u as far as the rear and side setbacks, you're good with those and five and eight.

I think the denser housing is inevitable. I think that's not really the issue. I think the issue is is how it's going to affect the city and if it's right, if it's right in this place and right in this place. And I think that's what um I think we really kind of need to look at the detail of where this main street transition is. We blow that up and we can kind of look, we all know the city and we all look and kind of see and we might see a spot that maybe we need to really look at. Maybe it doesn't fit for Main Street Transitional. But I think as a whole, I think um I think Norris has hit nail on the head. I think the setback is good from the front. The sides the sides okay. I don't think the sides the side. Yeah, it's the front. Yeah.

Yeah. So, if they're a little little tight, uh just in this zone, do you want a particular area on that? Uh just the the orangey color, the main street transitional. Yeah. Right there. And I believe I believe you said that we would we're only talking about about 50 parcels. Yeah. In that in that area. And you know how many of those 50 are on a main thoroughare and and how many of them actually are vacant to be built on at this point in time. Right. So,

and maybe maybe David you could help us with that. What what are we how do you isolate how do you isolate a setback from main thorough affairs and non-main thorough affairs in that area? I think we almost need need to just make it like if it's going to be 20 like our our our three we just make it 20 and then 20 across the board less confusion. Um the only thing is is

well from 12 to 20 create a problem building main street transitional type projects. Uh, so like the four houses that went up down here towards Sundrop. Mhm. If they would have been had a they had a 12oot setback. Yes. Yeah. So if they would have been 20, they may not have been able to build the four houses, right? Right. So is it the setback from the actual fiscal structure? Right. Not the like I mean obviously not I know they have the little side driveways and that sort of stuff doesn't count. Right. Right. middle of the road, right? Say that. What? It's the setback starts at the middle of the road. Yeah. From the rideway.

Okay. So, if it goes from middle of the road to the front of the house to the Then it would go from the side road, middle of the road to the house. So, you've got two two frontages at that property, right? Well, you've got you're going to have the minimum front setback uh measured from the rideway and the rear setback um in the side. What's what's the side set back on those? Four. Yeah. So, is that is that the same as R3 then? 4 foot. 4 foot.

Uh uh R3 uh SFR3 is eight and SFR4 is five. So, eight rear and side for both three and four and then five and five for rear and side, but the lot widths change from SFR3 to SFR4. So, the minimum lot width for three is 60 and the minimum lot width for four is 50. Want to buy me one more time?

Um, SFR3 lot width is 60 and SFR4 lot width. SFR3 is 60. SFR4 is 50. And main street transistor is you have I can't find it. The lot width is I see is that yeah 42 40 as 40 42 42

Okay, what do you think of that? So you have lot width from R3 down to main three transitional. So then sides, the sides are uh only 4 foot where R3 is eight. And then question I think that I don't see a problem with that cuz we're moving the the as Tyler said looking. Get back here. SR 4 the width was 50. Yeah. and we're cutting it down to 42 to encourage the higher density.

U I think too that just the fact that if we consider the setback on those streets that forces some restructuring of what that higher density is going to look like without reducing a lot size. We don't want to kill it where nobody could use it, right? Uh, and without looking at it on a map and running those numbers, we don't know. But it's very possible, like you said, instead of building what was that four houses, they might could have built three, right? Uh, which resolves could resolve every one of those questions and issues to h too much on the lot for some people.

Mhm. Uh, uh, better setbacks from the main roads. Uh but still getting more out of the the land that's there. All right. You got to look at the vision envision what the future will look like for this this area too to where you know the rest of the town is you know we all R3 pretty much. I don't know about you,

but so we're in that kind of range and you drive through the city and you see everybody's got a nice yard, big yard and this and that and you're going to squish it down a little bit. So it's going to look a little different, I think. So, um, that's one thing we got to kind of consider too, right? Because we're going to jam a lot in. But you think just the setback in the front, you think that's all for me? Setbacks along as highways go to 20, you think? be consistent with everybody else. Uh the R3 and the R4. That's why. Yeah. Okay. So, leaving lot sizes as is.

Yeah. I I don't know. You guys want to mess with the lot. I think Norris Norris is a genius. Uh that's all there. But once again, I think he hits the nail on the head. Um that's going to discourage what it's trying to encourage, right? So, um, how how how much would it affect people that come in here? Uh, if we go from 12 foot front, uh, set back to a 20, um, how big of a problem you think that's going to cause with people that are looking to develop things in a more dense environment? I don't think it stops them. I mean, I don't think it's that No, I don't think it's that big of a deal that way. I don't think I don't think so. instead of

I'm just trying to think in in my mind too looking if we think of those houses and those streets there's two streets right was it two side street and the front street now they're 12t versus 20 if if those house everything was set in and back eight more feet that shaves a good bit off that lot size that's right there were three if I remember right three lots they combined to one do you remember exactly I think I think it was one one Maybe two they combined into one. I think I think they combined something. There was a h Yeah, there was a house on there that they obviously tore down. Yes, I think they combined the lot that was on Bridge Street to make, you know, four lots.

They combined two lot. That's what I think. Yeah. Thank you. So, just something. All right.

Well, I think that's progress. I think that's good. I think that's and I think that'll help control things going uh I think that that'll look better a better aesthetic kind of when you're driving through. It's not like let's jam everything we can on it. it's going to be done, I think, a little more um aesthetically better and and in extreme high density when you get in this high density housing, there's been a lot of studies and there's a lot of information you you probably know better than me on this one that it can bring pro higher the density of the housing, the more problems that that can it it brings within itself as well. So, I don't think we're gonna we don't have enough to really make a difference like that. I don't think

but especially with the existing houses. But if you look in that and as as we've all driven around town and stuff, do you do you see any lots or anything that looks that might be more problematic if we don't do something about it or do you think everything is kind of kosher and um you think it'll just cuz I'd hate to change something and then somebody comes oh my oh this is a pro oh and then it' be some big problem we have to come back and change it again. Try to think out everything. Maybe our expert has some. What do you think about this? Do you you ready? U Mr. Chair.

Yes. Go ahead. Grab the mic. You're I'm uh Dr. David Williams. Um I don't know what else I need to uh say. Do I need anything else with?

No, I'm I'm with uh Ability Development Group. um for me uh and I've been in planning for over 31 years, certified planner. I'm professor of UNCC, but uh I think what you all are doing is uh the right thing. You mentioned vision and goals and you you're defining a uh what your density is for lower. It's not what Monroe does, right? It's not what you know Carrie does or corn is. This is what low density does. So once you once you figure out that vision and determine what the density is, then that's what you you got to stick with. You know what I'm saying? Gastonia may have a totally different density, but that's Gastonia. This is low. You have great access to uh Charlotte. You're going to have a lot of interest in l. Um, and also when you're talking about the setback, you know, increasing it from 12 to uh 20, I think another question might be what what's that rear setback going to be? Because I think once you determine the the the front setback, the side setbacks in the rear, better determine how much you going in terms of lot size, Mr. Chairman, how how many units per acre you can get. So once you develop a a framework of what your density wants to be, it really it really don't even matter what the zoning district is is that we're only doing two units to the acre, three units to the acre in this particular area and everything else falls falls into place. Now I haven't studied this or anything. I'm coming I was really coming as a spectator just to you know support Mr. Cobb and what have you. Uh, so I I'll definitely need some additional time to help and look at that if that's the pleasure of the manager and you as planning board um to give my feedback on I've worked with a number of towns and counties and that type thing. Uh, but

just just being mindful what what you what you are doing is you're trying to you're establishing density for L. You're not establishing a density for Monroe or Belmont. You're establishing a density for for low what you what you think is appropriate. And I what you're doing I think is the right thing to do. Now, is it perfect? He's g you say you may have to come back, Mr. Chairman. Uh you you you only come back if you there's some situations that you might have to do a variance or may do a text change or something like that, but the large scheme of things you feel like, hey, this is a density that we support in the downtown area of of l and you know, the areas adjacent and contiguous with it.

I don't know if that helps. Mr. Chairman, what what is the set? What's the rear on on uh Main Street and it's 40 four four four feet.

Yes. What do you think about possibly in light in light of his comments and um that that setback that's already on the backside as he said, what if we what if uh Tyler could could we take a look at theoretically the lots that we know have been used now that seem to have created a problem? That's where the questions are coming from. If we if we looked at a 20 foot setback, how would that have affected where those houses are in relation to the setbacks that you know from the from side setbacks as well as the backside? Uh again, we don't we don't want to say like 20 feet and without knowing would this make some of these lots unbuildable. See?

Yeah. We don't want to get into that. So, I think we we need more information before we actually say we ought to recommend 20 ft to the council. Any That's a great point. Comments?

No. No. Mr. Chairman, members of the planning planning commission, that's an excellent point. Uh because what you don't want is, you know, people come back say we we changed the setbacks and what have you and we can't do anything. you've been in this business a long time. That's what people are going to say. So have uh Mr. Cobb can can examine that situation and then you know look at the reduced setbacks and and in terms of what you can do cuz obviously you got water and sewer so that's not an issue

but in terms of what density you can get. But what you don't want to do is render uh the lots that people can't use and then you get people, you know, complaining and saying, "Hey, you know, you want the highest and best use. We want to be able to use it for what we want to." You trying to strike a balance with that, but I think I I agree additional research would be uh appropriate. U Yeah. Before it goes to before you make a recommendation to the town council, town board. Yeah. Is Mr. Cob, is that is that Yeah. Okay. Um and and it would really be hard to say what it would look like now,

right? Well, what about I I think probably what like we've said before if we if we went and we did we updated the setbacks speaking on that lot that we're talking about. I think probably what would happen there is is you would cut into it. Instead of putting four, you could have put three. And I think that's I think that would I think that would, you know, make for the end goal of kind of what everybody's looking for instead of trying to cram, you know,

as many as they possibly can. And I think by putting like I said those that 20 um you know 20 foot setback again would would definitely play a huge part in cutting down on the number they can put in there and it's only 4 foot on the back. That's correct. You said that's from the rightway not the middle could be from the middle of the street. And have they the lots the four houses that are there? Yeah. Have they already recorded a a plat that shows what size they are? Uh I don't have

what I'm thinking. You know, for instance, uh right now the way things stand, it has to be a five 5,000 a minimum of 5,000 square feet. Right. Right. Right. So if we knew for instance what one of those or maybe all three as far as that goes lots were you know are they are they 6,000 square ft now? Oh, okay. I see what are they are they 5,0001 square feet.

I can tell you if they're very close to that 5,000 mark, we know 20 foot setback an additional 8 foot times that lot size could have said you're not going to be able to build here. Well, give me one second. I may be able to pull it up. You follow me? Yeah, cuz 20 foot would push them too far cuz it wouldn't leave enough land. It would it would possibly make the lots less than the required minimum required lot size and it may not reduce down by one. It may reduce further because three because you're going to have to contend with that each house. Yeah. Yeah.

Huh. Yeah. And if you give me one then I may be able to pull it up here. Cool. just well I I think as a consensus is mainstream transitional uh if we tweak it is it still appropriate in those those areas everybody is everybody anybody got a thought on that is it no I definitely think we need to tweak it for it's for those setbacks but the main but we keep the main three transitional but we need to see like I said 20 ft's great keeps it consistent with everything else but it's 20T unreasonable. Mhm.

We know 12's not going to work. That's what we are now. We know it's got to be more. So, it appears that um I'll just read them out. One one lot is 5,953 square ft. Another lot is 6,829 square ft. The other lot size is 6,469 and the last one is 6,78 square. So the 5950 lot is that a lot that's on that is the lot that runs to Grove Street. That's the that's the first house

going out Gro Street. Going out Groves. Yeah. So that one's that one's the first one. And then the second one that is 6829. That's at the corner of Bridge and Groves. Okay. Okay. And then the and then the two that are on Bridge Street are 64 69 and 6708. And they're all 12t from the uh the front whatever roads in front of them. Yeah. So a 20 foot though. So that's go back to I'm the main concern looks like to me here would be the 5950. How what's the width of that lot on on Grove Street?

Um it is 52.8. So 52.8 8 * 8

400 400 each. Yeah. But but again, they all have they all have different frontages, right? Well, but that one was the only one that was closest to 5,000 square ft. That's what I was kind of looking at. The other one is really wasn't close. So, so 400 uh more feet off of that lot would not render it would not have stopped the building. That's right. But it would have brought it a lot closer. Yeah. That lot would have been 5,500 square feet. Instead of 59 it would have been 55. Exactly. So that says at least to me it says 20 feet is is doable.

Yeah. Cuz other lot the other widths are 74 Yeah. and a half and at least 50 right on the other two. So So I think Yeah. So I think if we if we moved it to moved it to the 20 I think we'd accomplish what what's being asked, right?

What else? That's all that's all I had. just kind of get get some direction to take to council. Um again, if we want to come back next month and discuss it more, we can. Um or have David here, let him look. I think what we may do is is plan something for next month. Have David look over, you know, get any other questions that we may have out there. We have we'll have another month for this.

Um get them to him and uh kind of go back from that. kind of go from there. And then if if if still the consensus is, yeah, I think we should move them to 20 and leave everything as else as is, we're good. But I think, you know, with him being the expert, we have him answer questions. Yeah. I I will comment one more thing on it though. So by moving it, if we if it was 20 today and those houses weren't built, they'd still be able to build all those houses. That's correct. Right. So, we'd still have people complaining, but we would feel safe with that road frontage,

right? That's the key. Look better. Maybe less people. Yeah. And and how many more situations with 50 parcels? Again, we don't know how many is even available. That's right. Or will become available. I But, you know, that's an isolated case. I think the only one that I know that's really available is is at Dave. It's right right by you. I know that I know that one's on the books being reviewed right now. Uh let's see for three condos. That's right. That's what they're slated. That's what that's what's being proposed. Like I said, that's still under review. There's nothing pass from the fix it place right over here.

That the big brick house on the corner. Is that point at all? No. What? The first house pass office. Okay. And then there's an open area between there and my house. Okay. And they're going to put a triplex. Well, that's what they're proposing. They're wanting to put a triplex. Well, you live next to it. How do you feel about that? It seems that way, but I'm not a builder. I'm not really opposed to it. it, you know. So, because we we had those apartment the the two buildings went in on Mil Street

and um at first some of the neighbors were upset about it and one said he didn't care and then now that they're kind of built they're like it really they don't really don't really care. Well, I think part of what caused all the uproar um on Bridge Street and Grove Street with the four houses, there wasn't anything there, right? And then all of a sudden, you see these four four structures. Mhm. And and you know, you've changed something,

right? And and that's the same thing on on that on that Mill Street, the Mil the Mill Street that y'all were talking about that it's the same zoning district as Bridge Street in in that area. So it's still the 5,000 square ft lots on Mil Street. Yeah. And it is two lots there. Yeah. They just have to build them back a little further if this goes through before they get going.

I like that. I think that that's the best part of of uh this whole this whole meeting was exactly that. I think the aesthetic wise you you you're putting a lot of houses densely and then it's really close and it's kind of in your face when you drive by and that setback kind of puts a little more I I like that idea. I like sitting right on top of the road. Yeah.

And uh has much better appearance, you know, when you drive around town, when you drive around any town. Um, we're a small town. You drive around. A lot of stuff's R3 and there's less open and it's green space and all this and that. So, it changes when you go to the more dense stuff. So, um, in time, we'll probably be surprised at how many houses get torn down, big houses, and and other structures are built. So, this town's going to change dramatically. Yeah.

So, I think that, you know, uh probably long we'll all probably be long gone and they'll be building all these big houses through here will all be apartment buildings and who knows what will happen with all this stuff. So, um try to get as right as we can, I guess. But the 20 20 foot setback, I think, will bring a lot more aesthetics and and get them kind of back off the street a little bit to where and have a yard at least a little bit. I think that's good. You know, you go to Belmont and you see all the uh the town homes that are built right almost to the street and then they have a park in the middle, which is a neat idea. It's really cool idea, but but when you're driving, you're kind of you kind of feel a little squished cuz you like it's all buildings and buildings and so it's it's um

that also is it gives you more of that driveway. I assume you having front loaded driveways, but when you got a short cars are parking and if you have sidewalk, it's blocking the sidewalk. It's up to and you're gonna get a lot of complaints from that as well. That 20 foot is going to give you a little bit more driveway uh in terms of the vehicle from that perspect. And a lot of lot of some of the towns are dealing with that and you know that's an issue for them that the driveway because the setback is so close you don't have much for a driveway. Yeah. Yeah. If you got a 12T Yes, sir. set back. You got to have a little car.

Everybody's got to have a Fiat or something, you know. Yeah, that's it. Well, that's Well, that's all I have. Cool. For the main. Okay, I think we kind of got it. So, Main Street is still in. We're going to make a little changes. We're thinking the 20 foot setback. Was there anything else? Anything? Anything? I think that's it. That's it. Okay. Well, um if that's it, then uh can I get a motion to adjurnn? So move. I got a motion. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?

Unanimous. What? That gives us uh something.