Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the May 20th, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of Chesapeake Beach, Maryland. Thank you all for showing up and coming to our meeting tonight. I would like to call the roll, please. We'll start at that end. Commissioner Hahn.

Christopher Smith.

I'm Cindy Greengold. Mary Sue Greissman. And Madam Clerk, will you please note that Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Larson-Weaver are not here in attendance, but we do have quorum tonight. The next thing on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. Can I have everybody stand, please? Allegiance to the flag. Okay, I'd like to get to number three, approval of the May 20th Planning Commission agenda. Do I have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

I'll second. Any changes, deletions? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. No opposed, it'll pass. Number four, approval of the minutes of April 22nd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Do I have a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Do I have a second? I will second. Any changes, deletions? Seeing none, all in favor say aye, please. Aye. Any noes? No. Number five, any public comment? We're going to hold the public comments for anybody who wishes to speak in the public hearing. I'm going to go ahead and begin the public hearing. So what I would like to do is close the regular meeting and open the public hearing. And I will open it right now. Whoever would like to speak, I need you to please fill out a card in the back and bring it forward. When you do come to the front, after I call your name, has anybody brought a card up to the front? No? Do we not have cards?

There's a sign in.

Oh, we have a sign in? Okay. Well, then just somebody come on up and go ahead in any order and give us your name and address, please. Okay.

Andrea Smith, 4010 13th Street. Good evening, commissioners. I'm here today to speak about the proposed change in data center zoning in Chesapeake Beach. First, I'd like to say thank you. The recommendation to rezone data centers from being permitted in marine commercial zones to not permitted at all is a major step, one that our Board of County Commissioners should observe and follow suit. However, that currently is not the case. Two proposed data centers, campuses are being pushed through both in Lusby. Due to the fact that our County commissioners signed NDAs with both occupiers and that the mass public only found out about these proposed projects when Amazon, occupier one, began posting job openings in our area this year, it is imperative that we are on high alert. Even with increased community backlash and demands for a moratorium, our county commissioners continue to push these projects through. What's to stop these data centers from making their way up our beautiful rural county? This is where Chesapeake Beach comes in. Being proactive is key. Residents should be informed immediately of these proposed projects, environmental concerns, human health concerns, infrastructure concerns, And finally, economic concerns such as our electricity bills going up. So I have two requests. One, that you begin with complete transparency. When did Marine Commercial get rezoned to include data centers? Was there public input? And two, in addition to not permitting data centers as one of two chartered towns in the county, I urge you to add in additional restrictions if legal. a five-mile safety zone buffer from town limits. This will prevent data centers from being put near our children, the wildlife, and destroying our bay and tributaries that make Chesapeake Beach so wonderful. Thank you.

Thank you, I appreciate your comments. Before we go to the next speaker, I do want to, one thing I was remiss in mentioning is that this public hearing is on, and indeed that was an agenda item, on chapter 290, article three, zoning districts and the official zoning map for Chesapeake Beach, Maryland, for the purpose of correcting and modernizing the land use table, clarifying the standards and uses, bringing the town code into alignment with recent state legislation, and 290-43 definitions. So hopefully if you do come forward, it's gonna be pretty much in that particular agenda item. Okay, anybody who's coming up next? There we go. We've got a brave soul coming forward.

Deborah Buckingham, 3806 28th Street. my discussion would be on the town, has stated these revisions are intended to motorize and clarify zoning ordinances. However, this proposal also repeals and replaces significant portions of the zoning code, including zoning districts, land use tables, standards, use of definition, the official zoning map. Since the comprehension plan is intended to guide the future land use policy of the town, how has the commission determined these broad changes remaining fully consistent with adopted of the Comprehension Plan without first formally revisiting and amending the plan itself as per our charter? Secondly, since you really didn't close the meeting, the first half without a vote, I'm gonna continue with my discussion here. Second question for you guys. During the planning commission discussion, data centers were initially listed as the previous lady has called you out on, permitted within certain districts, later being changed to prohibit all districts. Can the commission explain how the data centers were originally introduced into the draft use reversions, who recommended the request, their inclusions, and the factors ultimately led to the commission to reverse the course and prohibit them. I would like to know who brought it to discussion without the town being told. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. And Mrs. Buckingham, thank you for your comments. And hopefully some of those questions will be answered in our little presentation that Ms. Franklin's going to offer, I hope.

Well, I hope so because I was at the town meeting with Ms. Sarah and she said none of this was going on when I asked her at a previous meeting. So something was up. So I had to come tonight. Well, I'm glad you did. Because it's on record that she did mention at a town council that none of this was going on. So thank you very much.

Thank you for coming in. Hopefully we can be as transparent as possible and you'll get some answers because I want everybody to understand that we are not trying to hide anything. So thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Hello.

Hello. My name is Dan LaValle. I'm going to ask direct because it's side talk. when it says proposed correcting, I haven't really been given what the mistakes are that we're correcting. So show me what we're correcting before we change things. Two, We have a comprehensive plan. This isn't in line with it. Three, is there a directive? Four, I haven't seen where your commission report has actually said that you were going to do this. I thought there was supposed to be something else. I find a very good way for productivity is to kind of have a subcommittee, to kind of have people that go in and really use that opportunity to talk about a subject. That subject then gets brought to review and it has context to it. Quick movements on things isn't the way to go. So one, I would like to ask directly, what are the items that were needed correcting? Where was the mistake? And if there is a mistake with the current one, going back to where there was no mistake is often the way I find the best way forward. If you are on your travel and you get lost, you make a wrong turn. Most likely you're going to have to go back to where you made a mistake at and get back on course. That's what I'm proposing.

Thank you, Mr. Duvall. I appreciate you coming up, talking with us. And again, hopefully Ms. Franklin's presentation will help clarify a little bit of this. We had been working on this since January. I think it's about January we started this and it's been an ongoing process and So I think we've been pretty clear about the fact we've had this particular public hearing planned. And I think, didn't we also talk about the fact that we had some issues we had to clarify and change up? So I think we've been talking about it.

Yeah, we were directed to modernize and simplify by the town council.

Okay, so the town council did direct us to do this. And trust me, we wouldn't want to do this if we weren't directed to do it. It's such a long and hard, arduous task. But anyway, we've been working on this since January, and we're still not done. So whatever you guys help us to try and figure out tonight, we will obviously consider and put it into our thought processes when we make decisions. We're not there yet tonight, so we're going to keep working on it. Who else would like to come and speak to us tonight? Okay.

Hello, my name is Felicia Johnson. It's regarding property 8329 on Bayside, which I recently put a contract on. I do live in the community. I live in North Beach, so I'm not a resident of Chesapeake Beach. However, I'm a resident of this community, which is grocery store and everything else. My kids go to the local high schools. My granddaughter goes to elementary school. So very concerned about the topics that were brought up tonight. So I do appreciate everyone's attention to them. However... with the modernizing Chesapeake Beach and the land use, you know, I've gone on your website, kind of just perusing how the land use tables are outlined, you know, they're a little bit abstract. You have to really kind of take a fine tooth comb to kind of figure it out. When I put an offer on that property, it was listed as like MCR, you know, like either multi-commercial residential or marine commercial residential. Although I made an appointment with Ms. Sarah, came in, realized that it's, you know, kind of residential V1. I think you all are kind of considering expanding that parcel land between maybe Horizon and maybe kind of close to, before we get to this light right here, to kind of maybe break it up between like V1 and V2 and different things like that. And so I'm hoping that that is, and I haven't, of course, there's a proposal here and maybe some things will be a little bit more clear. Maybe your new land use and your zoning will kind of clear this up, but really trying to, you know, as people kind of, Since COVID, things kind of have evolved to how people work from home. I'm a licensed mental health therapist, have private practice, kind of really wanting to be able to work in my community, invest in my community and things like that. However, when things are kind of destructured, especially on this kind of main road where they're destructured just to be residential, even though like that particular property is in the same parking lot as by a coastal Italian restaurant, a couple of other grandfathered properties that maybe have businesses prior to the zoning. So really just hoping that as we kind of revitalize and vitalize the community, making sure that we're taking in just the understanding of how many people are now working in the same place in which they live. It just kind of expanding the ability to have multi-use properties. I appreciate the conversation about the ADUs and really kind of getting in line with the legislation because I think that's important as we're all trying to kind of figure this thing out and really, you know, taking that kind of point where COVID was. and continue on what it looks like to still be in your community, but expand and making sure that you're investing home money into home. And that's really kind of what I'm looking to do versus having to go out into another community to have a private practice or have a storefront and things like that. Really hoping that how we're looking at the zoning makes sense, how people want to use their properties and having a little bit more liberty with that. So that's my... spiel and hopefully as I'm watching the presentation, they'll make things more clear. And I do believe it's very important to clarify and reorganize the land use table just because it's not really, it's not user friendly, it's not searchable in a great way, how it's categorized, and you know, just different things like that. So I think that would help the public tremendously. And they wouldn't have to kind of come in and make an appointment and sit down and really try to have a conversation about how these maps look and what is this referring to and where's the parking at for this and what's public and what's private and things like that. So I do appreciate you all's time and attention.

Did you already talk to Ms. Franklin about all this? I know it was a great conversation.

Yeah, it was very informative. And actually I was going to come to this meeting, but of course she encouraged me to come to this meeting just because, you know, all the information that we're going over as well.

Perfect. Perfect. Great. Great. I'm glad you came. Thank you. Good luck on the contract with your home. Hope it works out for you. And thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else that would like to speak before Duke?

Thank you guys for having me. Wes Donovan, 8187 Windward Key. I can appreciate what the town council asked the planning and zoning board to do with respect to the home occupations and then the need to update the ADU classifications. And I understand that I was reading the town's website today that the RPC zone is, you know, an overlay zone and there were some clarifications that were needed with that. I guess my challenge with what's being proposed and what's drafted is the map. There are changes on the map that weren't necessarily asked for by the property owners, me being one of them. The property on Cox Road is getting down zoned from RV2 down to medium density. Also, where Sten's Restaurant was located, that zoning got down zoned. And then I don't understand fully why the zoning map would be changed that way. in those areas when it wasn't discussed either on the town's website. And they weren't zoned with the RPC anyway. So, you know, I'm against downzoning anywhere in town, but especially when it's not being asked for. I would like to suggest that, you know, How the changes that were reflected in the bold print or the all caps print or deletions that get the strikethrough, that the land use chart have those same type of changes? Because it was very... I mean, I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable on how to read all that stuff. And it was very challenging for me to go through each page and find each change or proposed change. Anyway, I just thought I would add that. And again, yeah. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate you guys looking at everything.

Mr. Donovan, before you go, where is your property on Cox Road exactly?

Is it – I'm trying to – In between Cox Road and Route 261, that whole section, not just my property, but all the properties in between Cox Road and 60 are currently RV2, and they're being proposed to – RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT WOULD CHANGE. AND WHERE SENATE'S RESTAURANT WAS LOCATED, IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED TO RV2. IN THE PROPOSED MAP, I'M NOT JUDGING ANYONE'S WORK, BUT IT'S A LITTLE LOOKED LIKE IT WAS DONE WITH CRAYONS. AND IT'S VERY UNCLEAR. Again, I'm not judging. I'm just, it's very unclear. And I think even where there's a lot of changes on the Zandu map, actually. All of Bayview Hills has changed. Windward Key is getting changed. Seagate, I believe, is getting changed. The area from 260 north on the east side of Route 261 is getting changed. Chesapeake station is getting changed. Um, yeah. And it, none of it makes sense other than, uh, I don't want to assume that there's an initiative by the zoning commission to down zone everywhere in town, but it certainly looks that way by changes that are being proposed. Um, Sorry, I know I kind of rambled there on you, but it's in between Cox Road and 260.

Okay, so I'm getting a question. Exactly where between Cox Road and that whole... So are you saying that entire area between... I'm sorry, so are you saying the entire swath that's between Cox and where 216 meets? Oh, so that entire area you're talking.

Yeah, it's currently RV2 with no RPC overlay.

Right, right, right. Okay.

It's right where it says Chesapeake Beach Road on the map.

Right, same thing. Well, that was, yeah, that's another thing is we don't have the roads really delineating very well on this either. Okay. Well, I thank you. I appreciate all your comments. And again, hopefully Ms. Franklin's presentation will help clarify a little bit here. And this is still a work in progress. So we want to hear from you. We want to know what the challenges are. how we can make things right for the town. So if there's nobody else that wants to speak, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing. Is there anybody else who wants to speak? No, I think everybody's done. Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and we're gonna bring it back. The first thing is I'm gonna have Ms. Franklin do her presentation and hopefully she will shed light to some of us. These changes are all about.

Sure. So just how these changes came about, there's a couple different ways a zoning ordinance can be amended in Chesapeake Beach. One of them is that the Planning Commission initiates a zoning change and sends that over to the Town Council. Another one is that the Town Council requests a zoning change and sends that over to the Planning Commission. And then the last way is that a property owner requests a change. And that goes through planning and the town council. And so one of the confusions that has been happening is folks are aren't clear exactly where this is. And so this is not at the council and that's what I explained to the council, but it is at the planning and zoning level. And that's the best place for the public to get engaged because it's the earliest part of the process. And so we are going to take in the public input, but I would like to describe what we did and why we did it other than that we were directed to modernize and simplify the land use table and what used to be called the conditional and special exception uses. And it's the modernized that leads us to a whole new repeal and replace situation. So I don't know where I need to push this to make it go. There we go. As we went into modernizing and simplifying the land use table, we realized there were other issues. When the comprehensive plan was adopted, there is a zoning map in it. The zoning map in it is inconsistent with the text in the comprehensive plan with regard to RV1 and RV2. And the text with regard to RV1 and RV2 is also a little consistent with what's existing in the RMD zones. And So as we were looking at land use classifications and how do we handle what's allowed in RV1 and what's allowed in RV2, we realized we needed to go back and solve the problem of RV1 and RV2 through the zoning map. And so that is why you see the zoning map getting involved in this process. So, when you want to know your zoning, you start with the zoning map. You look at the zoning map, which normally looks a lot neater, but because we know this is going to have a lot of changes and because we're trying to be cost-conscious, I am actually using Photoshop to produce this document and edit this map. It needs to go to a GIS company when we get there, but that will be an expense to the town, so we're trying to be efficient with those funds. Step two, you say, okay, this is a zone I'm in and what does the land use classifications table say? Right now, that is an index that is very complicated and it's difficult to find what you're looking for because of how it's organized. And then once you find your use in the classifications table, what are you allowed to do? So you want to look at definitions, you want to look at your standards of use. We have one piece that's a little separate tonight, which is the accessory dwelling units. And that is part of your land use classification table and standards of use. But we have had to pull it out of this large document because those regulations need to be in place by October 1st of this year. And so we need to move them along a little faster. So starting with your official zoning map. So there were a couple of issues with the base layer. So this, the zoning map first separates the town into different districts and determines what can happen in those districts. The current zoning map had a couple of issues with how RV1 and RV2 were applied, how RMD was applied, and the goals and descriptions of each of those categories in the comprehensive plan being inconsistent with how they were laid on the map. And so we sought to resolve that. For example, you can refer to them as the campgrounds was all zoned RMD. But functionally, when you're in that area, it is RV1. And it matches RV1. And so that's why you see that change there. Okay. And so when we did this, I drove around and looked at all of the underlying land and made recommendations to the Planning Commission related to the goals of how the land is used. And that's why you see all of the changes you see in the zoning map, except for the RPC overlay. We don't know when the RPC overlay got, the underlying zoning in the RPC overlay got lost. But it got lost at some point in the past, many zoning maps ago. Or maybe it wasn't, the overlay wasn't applied properly when they came in. I'm not certain. However, because there's no underlying zoning in the RPC district, zoning is really what the original plan that the developer put forward is. And that... over time has not been implemented consistently in zoning. So people have been allowed to build decks or build sheds in certain places, even though it's inconsistent with the RPC. And so to be equitable and fair, we can't continue to rely just on that. We need to have some underlying zoning. So when people want to build a deck, they want to build a shed, they want to put in a fence. they have something to look at for those regulations. And so that's why you see RMD for all of the residential areas in the RPC, including the townhomes, because they're still subject to that RPC overlay, which is a blue hatching. And so that's one of the bigger changes. to the zoning map. This kind of talks a little about defining like what residential use is where. Your comprehensive plan talks about low density residential, being more rural, having more open space. medium density residential having more variety for the different types of housing. And this has really been applied to mostly the HOA areas that have RPCs and did not have the underlying zoning because it allows the uses that are allowed in those districts. And then we have RV1 and RV2, which the Planning and Zoning Commission has had a lot of conversation about, I would say, since November, really. The RV1, per the comprehensive plan, is sort of a historic area with narrow streets. And I can make this presentation available to the town to put on the website. And so the roads are more narrow. The houses are closer together. There's not a lot of off-street parking. And so the rules you see there are the current rules, not how the land was initially developed. In the RV2, it's still a historic area. It still has slightly narrow roads, but it does have off-street parking. And it does have slightly wider roads. And so that allows you to have more uses like your home occupations, your commercial uses in combination with a dwelling. And so more variety there. Then we get to the land use table, which previously the land use table attempted to list all of the uses. in as much detail as possible in the land use table. So you can kind of see it there. It's very long in each section. It has multiple uses in each section. And so you actually have to read the entire land use table to find out whether your use is allowable or not. So it's not very organized. It has overlapping categories. It's very wordy. And so we're proposing a new one. And that's why it's not a redlined version. It's a whole new version. It consolidates the categories from the old land use table and it gives them sort of an overarching name. So, for example, we have retail neighborhood and retail general. And so that now, instead of saying you can have a pharmacy, a grocery store or Now, pharmacy and grocery store are both under general retail. And then the other retail, so neighborhood retail used to say you could have a shop that sold one type of item, like a box. Now there's a list, when we get to our standards, of all the different things you can have in that neighborhood retail place. So you know, okay, I want to have a retail establishment Here are the two places I need to look to see if my retail establishment is allowed. I don't have to read the whole table anymore. So that's why that's happening. There's also, to further simplify it, there were four different categories before. Not permitted, permitted, conditional use, special exception use, and special exception use with conditions. Before, if it was permitted, that was it. You didn't have any sort of information about the regulations around it. It just was permitted and off you go. If it had conditions, you had to look it up and see what those conditions were. Those conditions were sometimes very confusing or contradictory or just inconsistent. Then you have a special exception, which means you have to go to the Board of Appeals and you have to meet requirements of the Board of Appeals to be granted that use. And then you had a special exception with conditions, which meant you had to go to the Board of Appeals and they were going to give you their requirements and the requirements listed in the code. And so that felt overly complicated. So what we did was we narrowed it to not permitted, permitted, and special exception. And then we gave every single requirement land use category, definitions, and standards. So that no matter what you're doing, you have somewhere to go to find out what the rules are and have them there clear and as plain language as we can get them. So we will move on to that. I just want to note that there were some things that were prohibited that we can't prohibit. And so we needed to do some updates for state law.

Before you continue, there was a question about down zoning. And there was also an issue where we eliminated a zone, which is the high density. So I just want you maybe to go back and refer to the fact that we did take away a zone. So you might want to do that.

Yes. So we did combine the residential high density and the residential village too. They allowed the same things for the most part. And so we combined them into a category that actually allows all the things that were allowed in both categories and a few more things. So I'm not sure it's a direct down zoning really with the uses that are permitted there. I think it's, very comparable and more uses are allowed.

I'm going to continue with, I think Mr. Donovan was asking about that area on Cox road going from an RV two to an RV one. Yes.

Um, Of RV2 to RMD. And so this will be a decision for the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Town Council. When I drove around, one of the things that we have to do when we have sort of the conflict in the comprehensive plan between what the map says and what the text is saying is we really need to have a good basis for how... the map is formed, right? Is the map tied to the text? And so I was driving around looking at what are the underlying features of the land use in these zones and what is the most appropriate category per the comprehensive plan for those zones. And so the largest reason that Cox Road, I recommended Cox Road being changed to RMD is based on the fact that it's not really a safe corridor for commercial. If you have more commercial uses happening there, the pedestrian walkways are not very safe up there. And And the land is very sloped in a lot of places. And so that creates a lot of challenges with regard to expanding any commercial uses out there. RMD, it has a lot of residential uses. So it's really just the commercial uses and then the minimum lot size, which we can look at separately. But we already bit off a lot.

Yeah, right.

And so just to kind of go over. The, well, I'm going to actually skip this one because I think I addressed most of this, just the legally mandated additions have to do with cannabis uses, psychic readings, that's a case law, group homes and residential group homes, and actually solar energy systems. But we also found that some things like massage, tattoo parlors, and private parks, like we don't feel like those need to be prohibited any longer. So that's just sort of a modernization. And then home occupations were a big thing. The council just passed some interim home occupation regulations, but we have split those up into major and minor so that you can do less in the more just residential areas and a little more in the areas that are more mixed use. So after we changed the table to be easier to read and alphabetized, we went into the standards of use and every single use on that table now has a definition and it has standards if they apply. So this makes it very clear for people. There's not a lot of ambiguity anymore. We worked really hard to use plain language as much as possible. Sometimes there is technical language, especially for things like solar energy systems or cannabis regulations. That was unavoidable. But we did our best there. So we are now in legal compliance with everything. And I'm going to move on to the ADUs because I know I'm talking for a long time here. So the state has new mandates with regard to accessory dwelling units. And our regulations don't comply with those state mandates. So we have to update them. We have to allow accessory dwelling units on any lot that has a single family home, which we do. The size of the ADU can no longer be limited by the town. But we can actually limit the number of rooms in it, which we hadn't talked about yet. So we'll talk about that tonight. We can't require higher setbacks than are required for other accessory structures. And we can't have a parking requirement unless we complete a parking study. That parking study has not been completed because the guidelines that the state provided for the parking study are not something that a standard parking study, a company that does parking studies, has the capacity to do. So they have to contract out and I'm trying to work with some of them too so that we can get something developed. But in the meantime, we're going to update what we can. And this kind of shows a little bit about how ADUs are regulated. and, you know, they're going to have a setback from the house is in our regulations. The height is going to be the height limited by the height of the main structure. They do require a separate entrance for safety. If you want to convert a shed and it doesn't have road access, you're not going to be allowed to do that. You have to have road access for converting sheds. so and no longer it doesn't matter what size your lot is anymore we removed the lot size requirement and that is the end of my presentation on that so

Um, thank you. I think we're going to still have more questions. One thing that I did want to bring up, and I just, I just saw this in my, my bank of notes here, um, that we did have a comment from Ms. Susan Webster page that was sent in on an email regarding, uh, the RV to critical area district that she apparently is in and the alleyways, um, Let me see, let me just read it quickly. Many people in the RV2 critical area district access their parking from the alleyways, including some people who have been denied access to their parking by the closing of alleyways that were never abandoned by the town. Therefore, I believe any rezoning without a provision for resident parking constitutes an uncompensated taking of private property. The town's comprehensive plan states its main directive is to preserve the small town charm, particularly in the cottage area within the critical area while encouraging a diversity of housing that is compatible with the existing homes. This tax amendment destroys the effective use of many of the original homes in that area, as well as it contradicts the vision of the comprehensive plan. And I think you've addressed this with her, correct?

Yes, I have. And I actually forgot to answer the questions on data center, so I want to go back to that. But that was, we discussed heavily the RV2 area that is at the corner of 260 and 261. And when we did the streets and roads analysis, part of it really fits in the RV1. But we ultimately had a discussion about the preferred long-term land use, the historic land use, and moved it back to RV2. And so that's important that our basis for what we're doing has a conversation and a an actual reason for it. And that's why we need to have those conversations. But I do want to answer the data center question because I realized I didn't. Data centers are currently permitted in Chesapeake Beach. I do not know. when they were permitted. I don't know why they were permitted. I came on board in 2023 and they were permitted with no regulations, nothing. They're just allowed. And so that's why in an early draft, you saw them as permitted and part of the discussion. And when the planning commission saw that they were permitted, they said, why are we permitting these? And I said, I don't know, but you don't have to. So they said, we don't want to. And so that is why They are being removed, but as far as how they got there, unfortunately, I don't have any answers on that.

All right. Yes, sir.

If you could go back to the picture of the ADU in the backyard that you had there showing access, a separate entrance for the ADU. So is this like kind of a picture of a corner lot or would this be in like a hypothetical alley to access the ADU?

So this – yeah, so there's no driveway connection in this. Yes, I did let Notebook LM help me with the slides. Yeah, sure. Right, and it's not perfect. But – Yes, I think you don't necessarily have to have driveway access, but you do need a door, right, in the ADU, and that's what it's talking about. If the only way for a fire truck to get to your ADU is an alley, that's not going to work, right? And so in this one, the setbacks, I think, are sufficient that a fire truck would be able to get to the ADU Even with the next lot is going to have similar setbacks. You've got probably 16 to 20 feet. And that, yes, is enough for the fire truck to move there.

We have long hoses that can reach everything.

But I think some lots are configured a little strangely and it really would be difficult to reach some of the. Existing sheds, maybe not in Chesapeake Beach, but in the state. And so the state allows us to put that regulation in. I think it's good to put that regulation in in case we have a situation we don't know about directly. I just need to switch screens when we move on to... You want to... Oh, yeah, right.

I'm not ready to do that actually yet. Was there anything in the public hearing that you heard that you could address right now as far as... I think Ms. Buckingham was talking about the fact that we're not in sync with the comprehensive plan. Would you like to address that?

Sure. So the issue, right, there's a couple things, typically, right, and you know this, because you just did it, you do your comprehensive plan, then you do a comprehensive rezoning, and then you're done for a while. The map in your comprehensive plan and the text of your comprehensive plan and the actual characteristics of the land in the town, they don't all line up, right? So there's inconsistencies existing. And so... That is a reason to look at the map to make sure where there's an inconsistency, we have a rational basis for why. Why are we making these zoning districts what they are?

Give me an example of an inconsistency as far as planning is concerned. What would you refer to as inconsistency?

Right. So the RV1 and the RV2. So Horizons has a mixed use, right? And it's in the RB1 right now. And the way the, so the zoning that you sent over initially, right, was consistent. And any commercial uses in Horizons, when they ceased being, would no longer be able to continue. And so Horizons came to the town council and asked them to do a text amendment, and they approved the text amendment. But now the RV1 allows more intense uses than the RV2. And the comprehensive plan says that the RV2 is more intense than the RV1. And so the way to have handled things like Horizons and Baia would have been, even though they're still going to be nonconforming, to put them in the RV2 so that they are in the more intense area and matching what you have. And so that is one of the areas. Now, the comprehensive plan also talks about, you know, steep slopes and sensitive areas and limiting development on those ends. And pedestrian connections and pedestrian safety. And that is why I recommended the RMD and Cox Road. It doesn't mean you have to keep it. You can say, we're going to go with what the map says in the comprehensive plan rather than what the text says. And that's okay. But we need to have that conversation and explain what that basis is to try to bring every, give everything a reason that, you know, Even if there's an inconsistency between the text and the map, we can explain why we chose which one we chose.

And it was your recommendation that we resolve the inconsistency so that it would be more user-friendly. Yes. It makes a little more sense when somebody off the street or somebody new to the town looks at it and goes, okay, this makes sense. Yeah. From the town planning standpoint. Yes. Whereas when you look at it, it looked like there was a mishmash of...

There's also a couple of like individual lots that are zoned differently than those around them. And I think that was just an error because like RV1, RV2, you know, so I don't think... They're so different that one little lot needs to be different. And I think that's also sort of what happened on the north end of town. And that may be where Stinnance is. There was one little block of properties that were zoned RV2 in an area that's all RV1. And so we just are aligning that with what the road network, because we use the road network as the basis of the differentiation between RV1 and RV2.

So to answer the whole idea of down zoning, it's not like there's an intentional reason to take properties and reduce the amount of uses on them. It's in order for, as a planner, in order to realign things to make them a little bit more logically placed so that you can understand where the uses would be consistently put. So, I mean, when you brought this to our attention and when the town council, I guess, asked you to make it a little bit simpler, I think you decided to do it all at one time. kind of make the map a little more concise while adhering to what the town council wanted, which was to, as my understanding is, to try and simplify and modernize, make it up more up to date, you might say, because this was a little complicated. I mean, it's still complicated a little bit, but it's less complicated than it was. But I think, you know, I'm trying to

Yeah, I think you're right. What happened was really we were trying to resolve the RV1, RV2 issue. And in order to resolve the RV1, RV2 issue in the text, it was going to be really complicated. And things were not going to be simple. They were going to be really confusing. And that was against the task we were given. And so in order to keep it simple... We have to update the map to put the areas that should have some commercial uses allowed and should have more intense home occupation uses and commercial and residential together uses allowed into RV2. And so that's really what the impetus for fixing the map was, was we cannot simplify the taxed unless we change the map.

So the way that the map has been changed at this point in time, you feel, is going to make the rest of the text fit into it more easily, is what you're saying. It basically will align better at this point.

I mean, there's changes we don't necessarily need to make, right? The RV1 and RV2 changes in the north... end of town have to be made in order to make the text simple but what we said was well when we look at the campgrounds they actually match rv1 they're just now identify where the campgrounds are for those who don't know where the campgrounds are this gives me like oh it does the campgrounds are i share and because i've got that the south here yeah there you go So those were traditionally zoned RMD. They've always been zoned RMD, and I don't know that anyone really thought about it, right, as to whether they should be RMD or RV1. They fit in the description of RV1 more than they fit in the description of RMD. The map shows them as RMD. You could absolutely leave them RMD. It's just my assessment was done to say, what does their road network say? That's how we defined the difference between RV1 and RV2.

And practically speaking, the RV1 versus the RMD would have been what as far as the changes in uses?

So RV1 only allows single-family uses. RMD allows townhouses and duplexes as well as single-family homes. Now, I would say, frankly, duplexes, as long as there's available on-site parking, right, don't substantially impact that. But you can only do it if you can provide the parking spaces. So certainly that's a change that could happen.

Okay, so the concern that some of the speakers had tonight about some of the areas that we've down zoned. How significant of a problem would it be if we hadn't changed it? I mean, is it a problem if we went back to the other map that we had and keep it?

So it's not a problem for the folks who have spoken today for anything really south of 260. So we can change the stuff south of 260 back without a problem. We just need to discuss why we're doing it to explain why we're doing it.

Okay, so show us on the map the south of 260 that you were talking about.

Here's 260, right? The RV1, RV2 issue we're trying to resolve is up here. So all of this was done because we need to discuss why. What is the difference between RV1 and RV2? What is the real reason we're changing this zoning? Because we're tying it to the text in the comprehensive plan rather than the map in the comprehensive plan because the map is creating is creating inconsistencies between the zoning and the comprehensive plan because mainly of horizons being in the RV1.

It does seem like it started out with that one particular issue and then it kind of mushroomed.

Excuse me, Madam Chair. Yes. I have a question. Yes, please. If I recall correctly, and I could be totally wrong here, but when Horizons was built, wasn't there a caveat in there when it was built to have commercial space on the first floor? And that's why it was allowed?

Yes. So the problem is that it became nonconforming when we put it in the RV1. And that means that whatever is in it now is the only use that can happen. So I think it was back in November or maybe it was even October that we had someone come in who wanted to put in a yoga or Pilates studio where there had been a physical therapist. And we had to say no, even though there's not like a lot of difference there. And so... What we're trying to solve for is, you know, does Horizons have to always make sure that's a physical therapist? That's a challenge. And when you have a mixed-use building, that's not really the intent. But if we allow certain things in the RV1 that we don't allow in the RV2, we start to get into this allowing more intense uses in the RV2.

So do you recall, I'm sorry, I don't recall when we changed it to RV1 and why we did it?

It was changed to RV1 after the comprehensive plan. And it's a little strange because that was changed to RV1. And then there was this block of space that was kept as RV2 that isn't intensely developed. And so we were just trying to align things with what was actually on the ground. It's a little cyclical because addressing horizons puts the zoning out of alignment with the comprehensive plan, but the comprehensive plan map is in alignment with it. So we're coming to the text of the comprehensive plan and looking at that and using that as the basis to update this map map. And we can say, well, we want to change certain things like we did with this RV2. There we go. This RV2 here, right? We talked about how this bottom of the RV2 here is really like an RV1. But we discussed that we were changing it back to RV2 because those properties have traditionally been where you have some commercial uses in association with residential uses. So that's why. So we just need the why if we want to change anything else. It's all about why we're doing it.

Right. Did that answer your question, Commissioner Hahn? Yes, thank you. Okay. So your point is we can go back to the way we were. We just have to redo the text or redo the reasons why? Or what do we have to do if we went back?

Yeah, if you want to change something that's on this map, we just need to discuss why and what the basis is for changing that. And then we can do that as long as it remains consistent with either the map or the text of the comprehensive plan. And because those two are sometimes in conflict, that's where the problem is. And yes, maybe the comprehensive plan should be updated. It's the five-year cycle is next year. But the town council did ask us to provide this to them within six months. We are approaching that deadline. And so there wasn't time to update the comprehensive plan and then update the zoning and simplify it. So, you know, we're...

So I guess the question is, should some of this wait? What is the most important thing we do now? Or should we wait to do some of this until we change the comprehensive plan again?

What is the best for our what's the best for our residents?

I think at this point, right, the. I did show Ms. Johnson the new land use table today, and I said, you know, as just a resident looking at this, is it simpler? And she said, absolutely. So I hope you don't mind me sharing that. So I think for the residents, having that simplified table is good for them. And so we could, right, We have to deal, I think we have to deal with the RPC for our residents as well, right? Provide that underlying zoning there. We could say, okay, the map that we've provided is ideal, but what we're going to actually do is we're going to have the map. We're going to change this map so that the RV2 continues on Cox Road, the campgrounds goes back to RMD, and we're going to leave the situation on the north end of town the way it is because that's the specific problem we're trying to solve that is creating the inconsistency, right? So here's the basis we made all these changes on. But we've decided, because of where we are in the comprehensive plan cycle, to only fix the thing that's creating the problem. And we're going to leave everything else where it's at. And that's a valid reason for making the decision. We just need a valid reason.

Where would we document that valid reason so if there's questions that arise, they would be able to find why we did what we did?

So the RPC, for example, I overlaid that, but I have been reviewing past zoning meetings, and there are changes that have to happen to the RPC based on that. So that layer is going to get refined. And so that's really where the documentation is. However, I think you guys went on the website and saw that there's these documents, the who, the what, the when. And so there's an extra part of those that's not in them. It's called the U. It's for me to fill in after this public hearing with the public comment that came in and the changes that the planning commission made based on that public comment. And so that will be another place for documentation. Yeah, thank you.

So, okay. So now we are...

We're muddying the waters a little bit here because we're trying to figure out what we're doing.

I'm just a little concerned that we change a lot. And then again, the comprehensive plan changes again next year. Mm-hmm. And either that could align with what is going on here. Because what you did do, I think, is after driving around and going through and characterizing every district specifically by what it looks like, what the... the kinds of roads it has, how close the houses are together, et cetera, you did quite a good analysis on what the different districts look like and how they really function, I think. So to me, the land use classification table was actually coming around to looking pretty reasonable as far as that's concerned. But I also, I don't want to downsize people, or I shouldn't say downsize, down zone them if indeed it's going to be a real hardship to people. So that's my other concern. I'm not sure I know how to rectify that because we have to change the map in order to have our new land use classifications table.

We have to change this little, this area of the map, right? sort of ish here in order to address our land use table. We needed to go through the exercise that we've gone through, right? Of why are we doing this? What are the underlying land uses? That was a necessary step. If, in response to the public comment, you say, we actually, for these properties, we want to match them to the map rather than the text in the comprehensive plan, then that is also the step. And we can make, there is, there is this one property on Cox road, like right here, it's zoned RV one instead of RV two. So if we're going to put this back to RV two, it should match that. Cause right now it's spot zoning. It's just the one property being zoned.

Oh, I think I know which property you're talking about.

So that has to be fixed. But I, you know, You all decide. I advise you, you decide. I make sure we go through a process that gives the town the background it needs to tie things the way they are. But you guys are the decision makers.

But we rely on professional assistance here to make any decision at all because we, you know, we have to learn from you. Yeah. Okay. I think that since, let me hear from the dais here. I haven't heard from everybody. Commissioner Grice, what would you say? What do you say?

I mean, I think if I distill a lot of it, you have to have consistency between, I guess it's three different buckets. It's the map. Mm-hmm. And the comprehensive plan. And then I guess the statutory language of 290, I guess it is.

Section 290.

Yes. And I guess in the best of all possible worlds, it would have been nice if the timing had aligned that the critical, not the critical, the comprehensive plan modifications or review could be done at the same time. Right. I do feel that you, when I went through the table, I felt that everything looked cleaner. It made more sense. So to that extent, I mean, I think that a lot of the work that we did is shown and that you have done. And I guess that's all I have to say kind of right at this point.

I thank you for that.

Oh, wait, one more thing. And I do understand, though, that when you kind of start driving through the areas, you then see the reality versus, I guess, just old documents or old maps that then help inform your decision or your advice because you're actually seeing the infrastructure and the neighborhoods. And I think that that's important to have done.

um commissioner smith what are your thoughts yeah um that was something i was gonna touch on there too it's as far as uh from where we started looking at the land use table to where we've come i do think it's gotten a little bit clearer um and driving through and matching up the areas that just make sense converting them um I mean, I'm in agreeance of a lot of this. But I'm glad that, again, I encourage, I love having these public comments so we can hear. I love hearing our local residents talk about why they do and don't like these things. So I think we're on the right track. And if we can touch these things up, I think we're in a good spot.

Okay, so touching up is interesting. And I know we want to get to the ADUs because I know we want to try and complete that tonight and pass it forward to the town council. Where would you like us to take the map? How do you want us to proceed with the map? I, for one, appreciate some of the changes that we've made, for sure. I like the fact that we've identified the RV1 where the campgrounds are. I like how we've identified that because... We do have parking issues over there. I think there are some things that we've really identified pretty well. But on the other hand, if we're seeing that the Cox Road area – is not making any sense to the landowner or to, you know, the whole area up there. I, I, I know right now there's a lot of single family homes, but we've also got some townhomes up there as well on Cox road. So from right now, we have more of a variety of housing types, which would indicate either an RV to our, or an RV or a residential home. RMD, I should say, right? So either way, it could probably lend itself to either one of those zones.

The multi-unit. I'm sorry? The difference between those two zones is multi-family housing.

Well, yes. The multi-family housing would be in the RV2. It's in the RV2, but not in the RMD. And the RMD. So the way it's been converted is into being... RM down to that's RMD. No, wait a minute. What is, yeah, that's RMD now, right? Yes. The way we have it now is RMD. So there's less ability for the homeowner or the property owner, I should say to develop into multifamily housing now. Okay. So that's a big question. So we've already got multifamily housing up there, right?

Town homes?

We have town homes up there.

Right. Well, town homes are still permitted in the RMD. In the RMD. Everything that's there, everything that's in an RMD is allowed in an RMD, except for, I guess, the condos that are in the RPC, but they're different.

So the only other thing is that the RMD would not allow for the... The major business, the home business?

The major home occupation. Major home occupation. Dwelling with a commercial use. It's the commercial uses and the multi-unit. And the reason I recommended that it be how it is has to do with pedestrian safety. Pedestrian safety. Okay. Because there's not enough...

Road area, there's not enough sidewalk area. There's no sidewalks there.

And it's not just the lack of the sidewalk. It's the sight lines and the visibility if there was a sidewalk. And then you also have a lot of steep slopes in the area and environmentally sensitive. So it all added up to this is better for RMD from my perspective.

Okay, okay. All right, so you absolutely have reasons why you changed that to the RMD, and it's from your professional opinion that all those reasons made it less suitable for the RV2 rather than go back to the RMD. Okay. And then there were some areas along the coast, I guess, that were brought up to us as far as making – well, of course, the campgrounds was one area that was changed. Mm-hmm.

um but what else area along the coast was changed that was significant besides of course mr donovan mentioned stinnets in it yeah that's right the senate area and i think that might be maybe that's why that little piece of area is rv2 because remember we were wondering why is this rv2 in the middle of the rv1 it doesn't make any sense it's all the same as the RV1. And so it's possible that when I drove the streets and updated this, that had been in RV2 and went into RV1. Let's see if I can see this better. I'm not 100% sure because, again, we haven't paid somebody to do this map yet. We're Photoshopping. We're trying to see the roads and the different colors. But that's something we have to define once we're ready to move on to the next.

Okay, so we still have an area of RV2 there.

Right, so there's still RV2.

So there's still RV2. It's just where the RV2 extends to.

Right, and that's defined by the multifamily and townhouse units that are there already. And I'm guessing that Stinnett's is maybe outside of that.

You're talking about Seagate?

Yes. Yeah. So my guess is that Stinnett's is just outside that zone and that's what happened there. So if you want to put it back in at the request of the property owner, as long as it's like right adjacent to that, you could do that without creating too much issue. But I wouldn't recommend extending it too much further than that. So you'd extend it, I'm sorry, how far would you extend it? If you want to extend, if you want to put the RV2 zoning back at the request of the property owner, which I'm guessing is why it exists in the first place, right? Then you could do that and you could say at the request of the property owner, because this RV2 area is adjacent. is adjacent to where we've drawn the RV2 line. So I think Stinnett's is right now a vacant lot. Am I correct? Right? So it's right next to Seagate. And so I'm pretty sure this line on the map here is right below it. And so you could say we're just going to bump that into it because the property owner requested it.

Right. And also, if there is a chance, because I don't know what he's going to be doing with that property. It's a challenging property because of the flood zone.

It's elevated out of the flood zone, but all access basically floods.

I mean, I don't have any, if it would, you know, certainly if it's going to be a challenge by the property owner, then it would be simple, I think, to just make it back to the RV too. I think if it was at one time, how does everybody feel about that? If we readdress that issue right here, right now, do you all understand what I'm talking about? Taking the, the, orange color, which is the RV2, in the northernmost section of the town there on the coast, and just going north to the edge of that rectangle area.

You can say just going north to include Stinnett's, and I can make that change.

Changing this to go north to include Stinnett.

Okay. And you, Sarah, can you show us? Yeah, kind of show us.

Yeah. Because I think the colors up there are different than the colors we have. So I'm kind of confused. They could be because it's.

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. See, that's a little bit different color. So if you went a little north to include that grassy area, That's the area he's referring to, right?

Right now, it's grassy area. It's surrounded by floodplain. It is subject to flooding. That's why I didn't put it in there. But we can actually put it in there at the request of the property owner because they feel it's a sound zoning and the comprehensive plan has some inconsistencies, right? The comprehensive plan has some inconsistencies. So it may be best to just do that now and then fix it do an amendment to the comprehensive plan map to bring it in consistency with the text in the comprehensive plan, and then you can do an update.

So change it now and then change it back?

Put just stinnets back in the RV2 and then have a discussion next year when you revisit. You don't have to amend the comprehensive plan next year, but I think there's some issues that we may want to fix as an amendment.

Oh, just to clarify and make sure I understand this correctly.

Yeah.

If students ask for it to be changed back and we do it, then anybody else that comes to us and ask for theirs to go back, we have to do it.

I would say that you would want to do that. Yes. Um, Yes. That would be the basis, would simply be a request? If the basis is that people are requesting their zoning, go back to what it currently is because there hasn't been a comprehensive plan change, right? Then you could do that. The only one that I really think you can't do that with is that little RV1 spot there on Cox Road because that should not be like that. I don't know why it is.

Can you, I'm sorry, would you mind going up to that one and just showing me what you're talking about there? No, you too.

That's a better map than I got.

Okay, okay. So it's that larger house that's overlooking the, yeah.

I think so.

I think I know what you're talking about. I don't know how that got like that.

I think I know what you're talking about. I would make that one RV too as well. Yeah, because that shouldn't be like that.

Yeah. So I think it's right. Okay, so where's Cox Road at? I think it's right. It's that large house right here that is, you know, land. Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Right here.

And it was RV2. Oh, that she felt that she... That's the only... She goes that it should be RV1 because of the... No.

She says it should go RV2. Right, isn't that what you just said?

Right now it's technically spot zoned, right? Because it's one property with a different zoning than everything else around it. And that's not really supposed to be what's done. And so right now on the new map, it's RMD. But if you change Cox Road over... back to RV two, it'll be spot zoned at RMD. So you've got to, whatever you do with Cox road has to happen to that one little parcel.

And that's okay.

Whatever you do with Cox road has to happen to that one little parcel on the other side of Cox road.

Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah. Right. And you're recommending that it.

He's zoned. RM.

I've now gotten lost the thread. Yeah. So. I'm going to go back and kind of sum up what we're trying to decide here. Right? You have a comprehensive plan text that says one thing. You have a map that doesn't align with the text. And that's in the comprehensive plan. So... We have a zoning map that aligns with, for the most part, with the comprehensive plans map, but not necessarily the comprehensive plans text. Oh, okay. And it has created problems with the RV1 and the RV2 in the north part of town, which have to be fixed. Right. The basis for why we're doing that, because there's inconsistencies in the comprehensive plan, we needed to create a basis for what we were doing. Right. So we did this exercise.

Right.

We can move forward with this map. It has a basis. It is tied to the comprehensive plan. But we have the public saying, hey, you're rezoning my property, and it's not through a comprehensive plan process. It's not through a comprehensive zoning process. I don't feel like I've been involved in the process enough. that's valid, right? Normally we have the public heavily involved in these processes. So you can say, The public has come out and said, please don't do this without my input. And so what we're going to do is we're only going to fix the problem that is triggering our inconsistencies right now, which is this little piece up here. That prevents you from having to say, oh, we changed it because the property owner asked. What we're saying is, Planner, please go back and fix only the inconsistencies that we have to in order for the zoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. And so we're going to go with the map that's in the comprehensive plan book for everything except for the area that creates our problem. And our basis for doing that is this area is creating a problem because the map in the comprehensive plan is wrong for this area, right? You're limiting it to just one area. You can also say, let's move forward with this map the way you drew it because we have a basis for it, right? Those are the choices, right? We have a basis for this map. Let's move forward with it the way it is. Or we have heard what the people said. They don't want things changed without the longer process we usually engage in. And so we're only going to fix that. problem. But while we do that, we are going to make sure that we don't create spot zoning and we are going to resolve any spot zoning and fix our RPC problem, right?

So when we make these changes, I would like to make sure that we document why we made these changes and that when we go to look at the comprehensive plan next time, we're not changing them again that like if we are taking into account the resident's request and we're making those changes now, then I believe that we have to make sure that we keep that request in mind when we look at the comprehensive plan in the future. That it's not like, oh, we're going to say, okay, we'll listen to you and we'll do what you want now. And then the comprehensive plan comes and then all of a sudden we're changing it again. I want to make sure like, We're not doing that.

Right. I think that complicates things with, for example, the campgrounds, right? Because I don't know if anyone's come here from the campgrounds. But right now, with the campgrounds, it is single family. But it could have townhomes. It could have duplexes, which, again, I don't actually think there's a problem with duplexes as long as you can provide the off-site parking because it's not really changing the character. But... If you say that, then it eliminates your ability to say, let's match up these categories with what the land and the road network actually says. And remember the campgrounds, part of our reasoning there too, was we can target parking regulations in the RV one that address the lack of off street parking. And so that's part of why we wanted to change it.

So if I understand what you just said, we could be saying to the residents, okay, we'll listen to you now and we'll put it in place now. But in a year when we do the comprehensive plan, it might change that.

I mean, yeah, the problem is that your comprehensive plan has inconsistencies between the map and the text. And I believe that is because the comprehensive plan map was responding to specific property owners' requests, right? Wow. And so the map became out of... It no longer matches the text. And the reason that caused a problem is because of the RV1 and the RV2 and how it was applied to Horizons. So it's created this cyclical problem that the best way to resolve is to have actual basis for how you establish RV1 versus RV2. And you should have that basis for all of your zones. And so it's just complicated because you're out of cycle. You have to provide this. I mean, we could go back and say we're not going to change the map, but we then cannot provide a simple map. a simple set of regulations to the town council because Horizons is still going to be in the RV1. And so we're going to have to allow commercial uses in the RV1 that are only allowed in a multi-use building, right? But that's going to confuse people when they look at the land use map. They're going to think, oh, I can do this. They already are going to think that in the RV2, but at least there's something they can do in the RV2, right?

When we changed the map and then went ahead and changed the land use classification table, it seemed to all be in sync a little bit better. It seemed that it fit the characteristics of the neighborhoods better. The campground area... It really can't handle much more density. I mean, it's already a very dense area. It can't handle the townhome idea, the multifamily housing idea. So when you recommended to go to the RV1, it really made a lot more sense. And I've been doing this job for a lot of years, more than just this town. So to me, it makes a lot more sense to make some of these changes because I think you're right. I think there were some errors made. And because of those errors in the last comprehensive plan situation, I think we're now bogged down with, oh, now we're going to make a mess out of things when we change it to a new thing. But Do we actually change it to something that makes more sense and is more logical to the town? Or do we just keep making an error because, oh, it's easy? Passing it on. Passing the buck like we see it in so much of the national politics situation. But right now, the way that you have changed things, actually, even though it may not supposedly sync up with the comprehensive plan, I think there have been some issues. And you're right. We've already addressed some with the horizons, et cetera. But as I see the RB1, I think that's a majorly improved area right there. I think... The fact that we're providing RV2 area with a better defined set of uses, especially with the major home occupation situation, I think enhances their area a lot. So I think there are some things here that we've done that have really improved the whole town, in my opinion. Maybe there is, you know, like maybe that Senate area I'm not sure about. But as you say, that was a critical area. I mean, that's a flooded area, a flood zone up there. So we've had problems anyway, figuring that one out. The RV2, I mean, the RV2 converted to the RMD, or I'm sorry, it's the RPC, which is that Cox Road situation. I think you gave some really good points about why you changed that from the RV2. Yeah, I didn't even think about the fact that there would be, it would be kind of, I guess you would consider it a down zone of sorts. I never thought about it because right now they're not doing anything that the RV2 zoning would allow. I mean, I don't think anybody in that area is using any of the uses that the RV2 would actually use anyway. So it's not like anybody would be hindered by this, I think. I had an idea.

Yes. What you could do to avoid having to make changes to the map, right, is you could allow multi-unit dwellings in the RMD with a special exception. Okay. So, because you can have them in the RPC, and so then maybe you're still going to put standards around it, right? In the RMD, multi-unit dwellings are limited to... a certain size or a certain amount or whatever that is. And then they can still, they still have the zoning. They just need to go to the board of appeals and meet their requirements. I understand that that's an extra hoop for people. But it's not, it's not a process that necessarily prohibits you from doing things. It just, yeah, I see what you're saying. So that, that could alleviate some of the concern.

So what would it cost them and how long would it take them To use that to go to the appeal board.

I mean, I can't say what it's going to cost someone to go to board of appeals. Madam Clark probably can say like how long it usually takes to have a meeting set up and get through that meeting. Typically, I think with the zoning cases, it's only one. I don't know. I haven't done any zoning special exceptions yet. Yeah.

A couple months. The only reason I ask is because I remember the lady that wanted to do Pilates and Horizon and talking about how long that took her, and it took her months and months.

Well, she's doing a barbershop now because that's permitted, but she still wants to do Pilates. She still can't do Pilates there.

But she can do a barber?

Yeah.

Oh, interesting.

Oh, I didn't know that she changed this. Why can't she do Pilates and she can do a barber?

Because your current zoning is inconsistent. It hasn't changed. And there was already a barbershop there. Barbershop was one of the allowed uses for the space. It's what we're trying to fix is the current zoning doesn't necessarily make sense.

Okay. So you're saying just modify the RMD to incorporate the extra use or the extra ability to have the space. The townhome.

To have multi-unit. I think it's the multi-unit. I mean, he's not here, so we can't say what, I don't know what it is that he wants to do there.

Oh, I don't know that he wants, does he have a plan of what he wants to do? I don't know. But right now, if you're looking at the area, they fit into an RMD program. Right. The big difference, right. Which is what was right now, but you know, he's, I guess there's vacant land up there that he's, you know, maybe, I don't know what he wants to do, but so you're saying enhance the RMD to allow for more usage that if he, if that particular property owner wanted to build something more elaborate than just simple townhomes, he could do that.

They would, yeah. They would still have the zoning to do that.

They'd have to go,

They would have to go through the board. You could just permit it, frankly, because most of your RMD is in an RPC, right? And so the RPC is what governs it. But there is a bit right here near the F in draft that is RMD without an RPC overlay. So that would allow multifamily there. And so that's why I'm recommending that it would be a special exception. Because that's a little far out from a walkability perspective. I mean, still have concerns about walkability from Cox Road with multifamily. You have more pedestrian.

I do remember that when we were doing this last map that I think it was hurried. And I don't think the last map was done fast.

Yes, from my review of all of your meetings.

It was done very hurriedly, and I think it was done exactly as it should have been. So I know that there are changes that should be made here to be – accurately reflecting what this town is all about. So let's talk about that. What does everybody think about changing the RMD to reflect what Ms. Franklin was just talking about? In other words, allowing for a more, what would you say, more multifamily housing? Currently, multifamily housing is an RMD. Let me see here.

Are you talking apartments? Is that what you're saying? Multidwelling.

Well, that's what I think you would want to put the conditions, right? In the RMD, it's going to be condos, right? It's not going to be an apartment building.

Or townhomes.

Townhomes are allowed in the RMD. Yes.

When you say it wouldn't be apartments, where does it say that it would not be that?

Well, that's what I'm saying is you want to put some conditions. You want to put that into the text or direct me to put that into the text. In the RMD, you can have multifamily, but it has to be a lower density or the buildings have to be smaller scale or whatever that is to match the concerns about the number of pedestrians generated, right, and the safety on 260 and the concerns about the environmental features in the area. So that can be drafted. I can't draft it on the fly tonight because I just thought of this idea while we were sitting here.

I think that might be an excellent idea. And especially if we, I don't know. So are you still thinking about the Senate situation that he was asking about or what? Do you think that that should be?

That one is.

Because it's in the flood zone. So you want to leave it?

No, we can change it to be RV2. And then we're doing the coastal resiliency, right? It's just from the coastal resiliency perspective, because even though it's elevated out of the floodplain, it floods all around it. I have access concerns, especially since there's issues with the road over there. That doesn't mean you can't put it back in there. And then we use the coastal resiliency overlay to address those concerns about flooding and all the impacts of climate change.

And with the coastal resiliency, there'd be additional requirements for them to meet, correct?

Right. Yeah.

Okay. I'm liking the idea of, it sounds like we're spot zoning, but I don't think we really are. So why don't we do that? Because you've done, I think, a pretty remarkable job on trying to clean this up. Because I do remember that there were issues that were pushed through that probably shouldn't have been. So I think that's probably a smart move. Keep what you're doing, but let's try and incorporate a change. Okay, so how do we want to do that? We want to write down, let me see if I can get this. I'm trying to find my map, actually. I lost track of my regular, here it is right here.

Okay, so let me write that down.

Oh, no, I'm just going to write it down here. So we're going to include Harm T. Would you be able to come back with language on how to add language? That kind of change to that area right up there. And you know, the area we're referring to. Well, it would apply to everywhere for RMD. Okay. Yes. It will be the entire RMD. Okay. Very good. Right. So it's not spotting. Okay. That's good. Okay. Good. So then we have that change and we have possibly that area above where the Senate area is. Okay.

So if we do RMD up by Cox road, what is the town's responsibility or walkability or anything else like that?

Right now it's zone RV too, which is allows commercial uses and high density uses. The town, the comprehensive plan talks about extending the road up there and safety and I have concerns, right, and this comes back to the comprehensive plan, that even if you extended the sidewalks up there, it's not necessarily a safe walk. And so commercial certainly, like trying to get people to walk up there for commercial, is encouraging trips to a level that... I think compromise is safety unless you really do traffic calming on 260, which is going to be a challenge because it's 260. It's a state road. Traffic calming on state roads is really difficult to achieve. College Park has had some success, but they are College Park with a lot of pedestrians over there. I think you can still have the pedestrian connection when you have multifamily. You're still going to generate trips because multifamily generates more pedestrian and bicycle trips, but it's less trips than if you have people walking up there for commercial use or even driving up there for commercial use.

That creates more conflict. Right. Okay, all right, so is there any other areas here that we think might have a similar, I don't know, maybe there are other areas, but I don't see it. Okay, so is everybody then okay with the few little changes we're making here on this map? And are we good to go with it otherwise? Or do you see any other changes you'd like to make? Just looking at you, Chris. No, I'd like to see what's up. Like an airplane, whatever.

I'll make sure I understand the map changes.

So we're talking about the RMD. That's a text. The text changed to RMD. And then that little area where this, well, I'm talking about the Senate road thing. If you just move the RV2 up. Okay. To include that little area up there. And I think that was it. Okay. Well, that's what she knows. That's what we were just talking about.

Much better than we walked in.

Yeah. And then that way, if we fine tune this guy, it'll be more lined up with the characteristics and the definitions of the zones that you've created here that, you know, That we're at. Okay. All right. So right now, so we won't pass this map off tonight. We're going to have to do a little fine tuning for the next month, right?

It's worth it because I think kind of like a hype, you know, it's sort of like a compromise that works. I mean, given the circumstances and the properties, it seems to work.

Well, it may resolve some issues, and it also might be the right, the proper way to go as far as accommodating everybody's needs.

So let's hope that that works. It seems like it's going to work. Just to clarify, we also took into account Ms. Susan Page's, Webster Page's area.

Yes, hers was already addressed last time. I think the challenges for residents need to remember this is a draft map. That's why it says draft on it. That's why it keeps changing. And that's part of the process. And when it gets to town council, it may change again. But that's the process.

Yeah. Is it kind of safe to say that some of the problems maybe that we inherited, you inherited, is because things maybe were done a little more quickly than we need to take this extra time because otherwise you create problems known and perhaps not known years down the road?

I don't think it's anyone's fault, right? I think everyone wanted to move forward. I think based on listening to the meetings, there were a lot of differing opinions on the planning and zoning commission. And In building consensus, I think in some places, inconsistencies arose and it's kind of hard to deal with all that while you're working on the consensus building and you're on a timeline from town council and the state and all of that. So yes, I think we should try to fix it now.

Okay.

I mean, yeah, I think it's, you got to stop and fix it sometime. Now, the one thing that we need to try and get done tonight for sure, since we're not going to be able to get the map done tonight is the ADUs. And so if you go to the draft, uh, Let's see. It says page 47 on the bottom.

You have a new one. I'm sorry? You have a new one. That's just one sheet of paper. That's not in your packet. Wait. You have a separate sheet of paper that looks like. Oh, thank you. Oh, no, wait.

That's your descriptor.

This? Okay. It was separate. It was kind of underneath your packet when you came in, if you had a packet there.

I'm afraid.

Actually, it's today's.

Not this thing with all the little houses on it.

Well, it does have today's. No, it's not. It has today's date in very light gray at the top. I didn't realize how light that was.

It's 2290-11, page 47.

Oh, then that is it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Here, it's this thing. One page.

Yeah, that was on here. Yes. Yes. All right, let me use yours because I somehow don't see mine. Here, I have extra. No, no, I can get one from there. Oh, it's probably one. This is the one that you retyped. Okay, good. Thank you. Okay, good. All right, so let's go over it quickly. I think we've already heard some during the report that Ms. Franklin just gave us. 290-11, Conditions and Standards for Conditional and Special Exception Uses. The following conditions and specific standards apply to land use designations C, conditional, S, E, special accession, and S, C. Now, you're going to explain why we're going back to the S, E, and S, C.

Oh, right. Yes. So because as I think everyone has seen, right, these changes to 290 are complicated and have pulled in other parts of the code and maps. And this has not been a short process here at Planning and Zoning, and it's not going to be a short process at Town Council, nor should it be. However... Accessory dwelling units need new regulations by October 1st. And if we're under pressure to pass a whole big complicated thing by October 1st, I think we could wind up making... changes that create inconsistencies because we're rushing it so i have taken the adus and made the changes to the existing code not the proposed code so what you see in here where it says conditional use in the rld rmd that's because that's what the current code says and that is what these changes are going to be applied to um in order not to rush anyone through anything um

All right, so if we go to A, accessory dwellings, conditional use in the RLD, RMD, RHD. Of course, we have to notice there's RHD in here. RV1, RV2, RPC, NC, and TC districts subject to the requirements of the district where located except as herein provided. One accessory dwelling shall mean the following. a dwelling secondary to the primary dwelling unit which is on the same lot, parcel or tract as a primary detached dwelling unit and not greater than 75% of the size of and subordinate in use to the primary detached dwelling unit. This includes a structure that is separate from the primary detached dwelling unit or attached as an addition to the primary detached dwelling unit. It sounds complicated, but I think, does everybody understand what, you know? That's state language, right? I mean, that's state mandated. Number two, the size of the accessory dwelling shall be determined by the square footage of, we've got two ofs. Oh, we do have two ofs. Of the primary structures, and you need a capital S there, well, whatever. Above grade living area as recorded with the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation, SDAT. Three, the accessory dwelling unit shall have no more than one bedroom, one bathroom, and one kitchen in addition to any living area. Number two. Well, let's see here. Okay, number two.

Number two, we initially thought that we couldn't have the owner occupancy requirement, but we later found out we can continue to have the owner occupancy requirement. So that was put back in.

Accessory dwellings are limited to lots that are owner occupied. Okay. Number three, all height, area, and bulk requirements shall apply to the accessory dwelling. A detached ADU shall not exceed the height of the principal structure. The parking requirements of this chapter shall apply. Accessory dwellings will require two off-street parking spaces in addition to those required for the principal dwelling. A site plan is required. Accessory dwellings must be architecturally compatible with the principal dwelling on the lot in terms of similarity of building materials, roof type and roof line. Only one accessory dwelling unit is permitted on any lot with an existing primary detached dwelling unit provided it meets all other standards for accessory structures. Accessory dwellings shall have their own ingress and egress separate from the primary dwelling. A detached ADU must be set back eight feet from the principal structure. All accessory dwellings must comply with the town's water and sewer manual, floodplain ordinance, building code, and any other applicable regulations. An accessory dwelling unit is exempt from the calculation of density for the lot parcel or tract upon which it is located if the property associated with an accessory dwelling unit is subsequently subdivided so that the detached accessory dwelling unit is now located on its own lot. The accessory dwelling unit is included in the density calculations. And finally, accessory dwelling conversions of existing structures must have vehicular access from a road, not an alleyway. Any questions? I think now she added the bedroom situation. That one you probably are new to. So what does everybody think about the bedroom?

So I just want to clarify something. So if you have an unfinished basement, and you go and you finish your basement, and say your basement is 1,500 square feet. You put a kitchen down there. You put a bathroom down there. You put two bedrooms down there.

Mm-hmm.

Because you want your teenage child to move down there or whatever. More space. Technically, would that be considered because it has all that in ADU?

That is an ADU. Or depending on how big your house is, right? If that's more than 75% of the size of your house, you've actually created really... It should be a duplex, but it's not per your code. We can change that if we need to. But... Like if you have one floor and your top floor is 1,500 square feet and you just did that to your basement, now it's not an ADU. It's a duplex on the same lot, which isn't... Yeah. And two bedrooms is not... So you can change this from one bedroom to two bedrooms if you want to, but we... we were at a meeting with MDP and Calvert County was, and, um, Charles County was there. And I can't remember which planner it was, but they said their regulations are limiting to two bedrooms, right? Um, And that alleviates this concern about having a whole single family home in the backyard because of the 75%. Because your regulations previously limited to 650 square feet, that's why I chose to put one bedroom, not two bedrooms in yours. If you want to choose to change that to two bedrooms, then that's a board decision or commission decision.

I would definitely recommend that we increase to two bedrooms. I don't have a problem with that, especially when we're talking about the size of the dwelling. What was the percentage of the house it can be?

Your ADU cannot be more than 75% of the size of your primary dwelling.

You can easily have a two bedroom, yeah. I also, I have a little bit of a problem with, because, I mean, these are accessory dwellings. And so, I mean, I take that personally as a dwelling, additional dwelling that's on the property. A basement dwelling that's attached to the main house, I personally, I'm not sure if I see that as an additional dwelling as part of just part of your main house.

That's my state defines it as an estate defines that.

Do we have the ability to change that? We do not.

So we can have, we can have, you can finish your basement. Just don't put a kitchen down there, but you can put as many bedrooms as you want. And then it's not considered an ADU because you don't have the kitchen.

Yes, that's correct. Okay.

Okay. And wait, what is technically considered a kitchen? I'm going to be very specific here. You're right. No, because I'm looking at this and I'm thinking about this and you all know my thing. Why are we enforcing regulations? I mean, why are we having regulations if we're not going to enforce them? And why are we taking away rights of homeowners? So this is where I'm coming from with that because I'm just thinking about the future. Like there are a lot of houses that don't have finished basements because they can't finish them right now, possibly because of financial reasons. So in the future, if they go to do it, I don't want to put more restrictions on there possibly than we need. So that's why I'm just curious of like what encompasses a full kitchen that would make it that way? Would like if you put a small refrigerator and you.

So the dwelling unit is defined by the state as a single unit providing complete living facilities for at least one individual, including at a minimum provisions for sanitation, cooking, eating and sleeping. To respond to the other part of what you're saying is finishing the basement, right? If you want to allow... A duplex is going to have to have its own entrance, right? When you finish the basement, it would have to have a separate entrance. But if you want to allow a duplex that is functionally on the same lot... whether that's a basement, however it's split, then you can do that. You can adjust that. So the issues around accessory dwelling units and even around the duplex is how it ties into short-term rentals in this community because there is an incentive for developers to come and purchase lots And this is why the ownership requirement remains in. And convert that into two Airbnbs that create a lot of noise, create a lot of traffic. And in this community, in the comprehensive plan, says we want to be a residential community where people... have their, you know, quiet residential living. And so balancing those two things ties into the owner occupancy requirement. But I would say if you want to allow finished basements, they're going to be larger than, they could be larger than an ADU. And so you might want to handle that separately because if you only have one floor and then you want to finish your whole basement, you're going to you're going to have to close off part of it that you can't finish.

No, we're not at public. We can't have public comment at this point. But at the next meeting, you can come and do public comment. Or at the town meeting. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah. We've got so much to try and figure out.

I'm sorry. If you want to push this, there's still time if you send it to them next meeting. And we're still waiting to deal with the parking issue, right? But I want to give council at least two months to look at this and discuss it. And so that means they need to be introducing it in August and

But what's their schedule? Are they going to be meeting in August or will they go dark?

Well, I think they're meeting in August.

Okay.

So they'll need to introduce it in August and adopt it in September in order to be in compliance. And so I don't want to get it to them too late.

Okay. So your concern about an ADU is, That is a detached, it doesn't matter if it's, it's got to be, okay, let's just say a detached ADU, we're not talking basement, a detached ADU, you're worried about developers coming in and putting two bedroom ADUs in to try and rent out two different, the primary and the ADU.

If you don't have the owner occupancy requirement. I think that's what is happening with your neighbors, correct? There's a lot of concern about ADUs. I could be wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, we don't have short-term rentals, right? They're not allowed in this area.

You do have ADUs right now. You currently only allow short-term rentals in commercial areas. The reason I'm costing you to think about it is it's something that's being discussed, right? And so I will caution the town council to think about it too. Like what is the impact of the short-term rentals elsewhere and how does that jive with your comprehensive plan but it's ultimately you all are the decision makers here and the town council is the decision makers at town council um and i'm just here to provide my professional advice and tell you what your comprehensive plan says and what best practices are and what you should think about um so that's what i'm doing okay so i guess the question is do we um

We've got about five minutes. Commissioner Graysman, you keep moaning and groaning. What is the point? I need to talk.

Please, please talk. I just want to make sure because I'm having an issue with you. I think Commissioner Kelly, you couldn't afford to finish your basement when you move into your house. Times get better. You finish your basement.

Mm-hmm.

let's say that you cook a lot. Thanksgiving, you have 60 people at your house and you need another oven. You need another kitchen. And it's not used all the time, but there are times during the year when you need it. I have a problem that that becomes an ADU and it's not just a kitchen with, you know, I mean, it's not just, you know, a finished basement, right? With an occasionally used kitchen.

That's state, right? So back to the state, and we'll have to send this over to council too, the state requirement for a dwelling unit is that it means a single unit providing complete living facilities for at least one individual, including at a minimum provisions for sanitation, cooking, eating, and sleeping. And that has to be adopted. That's the state regulations.

Okay, so I guess the big thing that we're having to talk about is the number three, the accessory dwelling unit shall have no more than one bedroom, one bathroom, and one kitchen, in addition to any living area. So the question would be, is one or two bathrooms the way we want to go? You mean bedrooms? I mean bedrooms, I'm sorry. One or two bedrooms. I mean...

My thought is I felt that one of the reasons for the ADUs was because people were having a hard time getting home ownership, finding reasonable, affordable places to live. And I think one bedroom is a little penurious. I would agree with Chris that I would go with two.

Okay. Commissioner Hahn, do you have a thought about it one way or the other? I would go with two. Okay. All right. Well, let's go ahead and if everything on the back is, I'm not sure what we've read before. It's just that one thing.

One more wrench to throw, you know, as far as, as far as like connection fees, right? Yes. A dwelling that's in the house. Do we have to worry about that if we're on the same sewer line, the same water lines?

if you do the basement.

if the basement you're at.

So the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn't manage the water and sewer manual. That said, an interior unit is going to be able to be connected through the existing connection, the same way multifamily dwellings will have sort of one connection going off. Your exterior unit, if it is over 650 square feet, has to have its own tap. Um, I think that the, the town council will need to look at the water and sewer manual in relation to this, but I think the limiting the bedrooms and the bathrooms helps with that, right? Because before you could have, depending on how big your house, you could have a three bedroom, two bathroom house, which really should have its own tap versus a two bedroom, one bathroom, like Maybe that doesn't need to.

I think that could influence the size, the size that people would want to have. Yeah.

So if you added the extra bedroom, then does that change the parking requirements?

So right now we're not touching the parking requirements because we don't have the study now.

You've got to get somebody for that.

the study is complicated because, again, it's not how parking studies are usually conducted, and so it's been challenging to get someone. But we are addressing it one way or the other before October.

We need to get the multi-bedroom in there before we change the parking.

Well, that's the question. The question is... Is the extra bedroom going to be a concern for the parking? Let's just say you had two different people who had two different, you know, would you need more parking with the extra bedroom? Versus a parent and child. Or whatever. Yeah, I don't know, whatever combination. I'm just saying, does it add to the need for more parking? I don't know. I guess that's what the parking study comes in. They would determine that, right? Yes.

all jurisdictions are going to have the same problem getting that kind of parking study, right?

Yes. Everyone has, there's been some creative solutions to the situation, but so right now you're single family detached. and attached dwellings and townhouses have a parking requirement of two parking spaces per dwelling. And the ADUs have a requirement of two parking spaces per dwelling. I think ultimately that will stay in there and then there will be a waiver process because the state requires a waiver process for certain places where on-street parking is available, right?

You have a lot of...

Right. You also have places where on-street parking isn't available, and that's why I'm recommending you keep it in there.

Right. Does two spaces in a garage count?

Per your code, garage parking spaces do not count as parking spaces. And I believe you changed that because people are storing stuff in their garage and parking on the street. Right. So there's other parts of the code, right, that as we do all this, it comes up like maybe we need to look at minimum lot sizes. Maybe we need to look at parking requirements. But we also have a coastal resiliency we've been trying to get to. So there's a lot that needs to be addressed, but we can't address it all at once. And so we're going to do the best we can.

Okay, let's at least take care of this ADU situation. Would anybody like to make a motion to approve staff's recommendation, or do you want to change it, or what do you want to do with it?

Make sure you say the two bedrooms in the motion.

Right, they would have to make that change if that's what they want to do. waiting for the person who wanted to make the change.

He wants to do this will be one of my first motions make a motion to adopt the ad to you for a two bedroom one bath. One kitchen.

With that change.

And to approve this. conditions and standards for conditional and special exemption uses.

OK, no motion to approve. Do we have a second? Did you second? I'm sorry I didn't hear it. Did you say yes? OK, we have a motion and a second all in favor by any post OK will have that stand so we will move at least this on to the table. Done. We got one and done. Okay. So it's five after eight. And I think we have gone as far as we can go tonight. And next month, we're going to try and come back with that map.

Just to review my direction, I'm going to adjust for the stint property on the map. This is not direction, but something that has to happen based on previous votes. I'm going to fine tune the RPC zones. And then I am going to make a text change to allow multifamily housing in the RMD under specific conditions and standards. Anything else?

That's all that I can remember, that's it. All right, thank you everybody for coming. Do we have any commissioner comments? I think we're going to have to hold on the old business of any of that old business of land use table. So any commissioner comments, I'm sorry. Commissioner Hahn? Not at this time. Commissioner Smith? I would just, I'm sorry.

I just wanted to congratulate Commissioner Smith.

Well, thank you. I'd like to thank all the residents that came out today. In a time where we're worried about a lot of national stuff, I think your local stuff really affects all of us. So I appreciate all you guys coming out and speaking, if you did, and look forward to working with you guys.

All right. I have nothing. Yes. Madam chair. Yes.

Do you want to recognize Ms. Blackwelders?

Since we didn't actually get to any of that tonight, I was going to hold on that actually. So I will have to text her and let her know. We just didn't get to any of that and I will bring it to the next meeting. So I'll let her know that tonight, but thank you for bringing that up. So, okay. So we are going to meet next month at the regular. I don't know what the date's going to be for the next meeting.

Is it June 24th? June 24th, is it? Same bat station, same bat channel.

Okay, we'll adjourn to June 24th. And the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much. Oh, I need a motion to adjourn. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. I'll second. And all in favor of adjourning? Aye. I don't think anybody's going to turn that one down. And no, yeah, no nays on that one. Now we're adjourned. Thank you. Did you like the bat channel? Yeah. I'll tell you. You're a funny girl.

You're a funny girl. You know, it's different when it's lighter outside. Yeah, I know. It really changes. This is you, right?

That's you.

Yes, it is. Okay.

This is mom.