Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We should throw more than a party, I'll tell you that. We'll throw a couple more. This will be in the American Legion, and there is that. Okay.

And we're going to talk about coastal resiliency, Daryl?

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Okay, now let's go to our... Oh, God, I hate to ask you to do this, but let's go at the very beginning because there are some changes. I just want to make sure that you're okay with any changes that have been made. There are some... New words, and as you can see on 290-9 under purpose and intent of districts, we've got C. We've got that changed, and it looks like that is fine, for me at least. Page 2 looks like there are no changes. Page 3, there are a few strikeouts and a couple changes, but I don't think the thing with FIDS is any big deal. I think that's fine. Did you also want to include that also in the RC, the thing about FIDS, or not? Oh. Because you have it in the RPC, but I'm thinking it should be in the FIDS. I mean, in the RC. I love RC tonight. Why am I loving RC? Yeah, we can stick it in the RC. So stick that also in FRC. I think the FIDS is kind of covered in both of those areas, so we want to make sure it's... Or you will hear about it, you know that. So let's make sure it's covered.

Okay, so the next page. Can I add it to a number that already exists instead of? Yes. You know what?

That is perfectly fine with me.

Okay. Where are we going to add it? As I'm looking, initially, I'm thinking it should go in number one, where it says maintain wetlands, surface waters, forests, and open space after forests, almost in parens.

I thought you were going to do number six, frankly. I thought it was going to go in number six. Number six.

So we can do it there, too. Yes.

Well, just choose one.

Six is fine. Well, yes, I'm gonna six is is an easier at it. So there we go.

I did it Okay, then I think if we go to page 10 and 11 they look pretty much without any changes But if you have any concerns about anything, please bring it up right now There might be something you thought of and we didn't talk about it yet as far as these zones are concerned Then we get into the land use classification table on page 10. Then we get into the standards of use. Is everybody okay with the prohibitions, which is on page 12, everything from adult entertainment down to smoke and vape shops? I'm not really sure I understand number 15 myself, but okay. You mean the where, for, and why? Well, yeah. I mean, yes. And I'm not sure it should be a discriminated... I shouldn't use that word in that situation, but it shouldn't... It's so popular. I mean, we've got one up by Thursdays. Seems like such a common... I have a business these days. I don't know if it's something that we want to necessarily prohibit. What does anybody else think? Does anybody else care? Nobody's going, yeah, yeah, you're right. So I don't think I'm hearing any support on that. I don't really, you know.

I'm with you that at what point, like...

We moved over tattoo shops at one point. Remember tattoos used to be prohibited and now we've allowed them. Smoke and vape shops seem to be, as much as I'm not for either one of those behaviors, but you know.

I think it's also perhaps that residual smoke might float out.

You're not smoking there, you're just purchasing the...

In the same way that, like, you can buy cigarettes at Roland's. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, I was thinking of the lounges, I guess, is more what I was thinking of. Those vape lounges. Okay. Just the shops. Yeah.

I don't think there are vape lounges, because nobody would want that. It's so unsexy.

No, I mean, I think I've seen them, unless you're a Turk, in which case they... Yeah, I'm saying that insects.

The shots, I've seen some, I don't know exactly where that have bombs. Yes, that have areas for people to vape and smoke in them.

Like in cannabis shops. And like when you're buying alcohol, you can't consume on premise. Most smoke and vape shops, you can't consume on premise. So anyhow, Cindy, I guess I'm with you that I feel like it's possibly antiquated a little.

Yeah, it's not a modern thought that you want to eliminate a business that, you know, yes, we don't like every kind of business out there, but, you know.

What about also saying something about the, like, they want to advertise and like every hour they like do something like that and put it out is that allowable like recording or whatever to bring attention in you don't talk about for smoke and vape shops which is in general for any of them in general to to bring the customers in like haven't we talked about signage

I'm talking about like a recording of something or like saying or something like that.

Where does that happen? Can you tell me like, I'm not sure I understand it would just be like a general loudspeaker. Yeah, like a mash like when they have the speech.

And so it still has First Amendment implications. So I would say that if that was something we wanted to discuss, we should probably do it. in sign which the council has not approved your version yet so i would give them we're not having to get that approved we are we have done with signs that is the others um i think there's i'm not going back you know noise noise and nuisance issues that's i think maybe what she's thinking but from a From a zoning perspective, if that was something you wanted to regulate, I would advise you to regulate it.

All right. Interesting. Okay. I have to bring up one other issue that concerns me a little bit. Do you? I do, actually, and I shouldn't, but I will. So 1 through 14, understand the slot machines and then maybe the casino gambling situation, and the cannabis grower and processor, maybe. But What I've been told, and you know, in my last town, we were not allowed to prohibit these businesses like adult entertainment. We had to put them in certain zones. We could not discriminate against any of these businesses. Is that not a thing in Maryland?

I believe you can prohibit them. I hear what you're saying, because there are laws that... Yes, very much so.

Number one and two in particular. Number one and two is really what I'm thinking of mostly.

But I'm not sure... I'm not sure the laws specifically, and I'm just... There's several different things. I'm not sure they prevent you from prohibiting them entirely. I think they prohibit you from, if you allow them, regulating them differently. But I need to go back and look because there's several different pieces of it.

If you wouldn't mind making a notation, just make sure that we are okay with prohibiting them. I'm fine with that. But the other thing that we didn't prohibit here are... Fortune telling, you can't. I think we're going to say fortune cookies. And so if you can't discriminate against them, how do you then do one and two?

And also, from just something I'm reading, You get into a sticky legal situation when you're trying to say, this is a masseuse, this is an adult massage parlor. Nobody advertises as adult massage parlor.

My next question is number two. What are we talking about there?

You know what we're talking about.

Those are illegal.

I know this is uncomfortable, but there is actually a definition. I mean. If everyone wouldn't mind turning to page 55. 55, would you say? It would be great, yes. It's called a therapeutic massage when you, you know. So it's not specific here, but... Adult massage is not specifically defined here.

I think there is it on 55 and just this cannabis business spread out.

Oh, the 56. It's in your definition.

Adult bookstore, okay, yeah. Yeah, because that also feels like a little bit hard to be like, what makes it, I mean, I do know what an adult bookstore is, but like, I... Well, I would just note that Justice Stewart on the Supreme Court said, I may not be able to define for you what pornography is, but I know it when I see it. I think some of that difficult thing to... Sure.

It's a question when we're doing, you know, when we're prohibiting. I just want to make sure that we're on legal ground with these. We weren't in my last town, so I can tell you that for a fact. We were not. Okay. Well, let me double check, but... Okay, now, so we're gonna double check that, and then we're going to move on to residential uses have been changed as far as the wording is concerned, but it means the same. So we don't want to, in our residential uses, you're saying one principal dwelling unit and does not contain any other principal. Okay, principal. Principal is the key word there. Never mind. Thank you. I answered it myself. Thank you. Okay. And then, of course, we have a lot changed on the dwelling multi-unit. What has really changed here, though? I mean, it was always 5,000 square feet, right? Right.

So I believe... The lot size? No, so this has to do with the map change and one of the comments, because what happens with the map change, by removing the high density and changing some of them... Oh, OSB. From the RV to the RMD, then you would... because RMD is 7,500 square foot minimum lot size versus the high density is 5,000 square foot. And then in the RV1 and RV2, you have the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size, but then you also have the average minimum lot area per dwelling, which is your density in those zones at 6,000 and 5,000. And in high density, it's 2,500. The high density is already built out, right? So what's happening is when you move the RV2, I think that RV, it's RV2 now, and we were saying we would move it to RMD, you remove the average minimum lot area per dwelling. And so... what this is doing is saying, okay, because in the RMD, you can have multi-unit dwellings under a special exception. So we made this change. So under a special exception, you can have a multi-unit dwelling in the RMD provided that it basically meets the minimum, the density, right, of the RV2.

Right.

And a lot of these regulations that you'll see here actually are sort of tied to some previous regulations you had around increasing density. Right. And so they're modified and... Sensitive areas are considered, but that's how I came up with these.

Oh See no development is permitted with a hundred feet of any steep slope as defined in blah blah blah Why do we not have that particular one in number two dwelling double unit?

Or dwelling townhouse for that matter development is permitted with a hundred and I Well, because this is, these are sort of conditions for a special exception in the RMD with regard to, let's see, so those other, the other, you've got a double unit and a townhouse are allowed in the RMD, the RV2, and the RPC. And so there are steep slope regulations that have to be followed for all dwelling units. And so I added this about the steep slopes because you're permitting a special exception. You're allowing someone something that's not usually there. And so... And it's not just townhouses or duplexes. It's multi-unit dwellings. And so there's a higher intensity. There's sort of this tendency to say, what is the lowest cost land, right? Or the land that is... has this potential that has environmental hazards on it. And then let's go ahead and locate our lowest value housing on that land. And then we've created affordable housing, but we've increased the risk for residents who cannot afford higher housing. And I think there's an equity piece tied to that. And so that's part of why I put that piece in there.

Can I ask you a question? What you're saying, it kind of brings back. In Richfield Station, was it streamwalk way that the houses all of a sudden were having sinkholes and the ground was shifting? Yes.

So I don't know specifically where that might be. It is my understanding that that wasn't necessarily related to environmental features, but that's just from hearsay, like people saying, oh, this is because of this or this is because of that. I don't actually know the specifics there.

I don't know. I heard about it after the fact. But it happened to a couple of homes there, and there were some steep slopes that... When the houses were built, they weren't shored up and has caused a lot of problems. So I'm listening to you, and this is what I'm recalling from the steep slope. Because if I recall correctly, there's going to be more houses built on that street.

So the steep slope ordinance is part of the building code. And anything that is built moving forward has to comply with the steep slope ordinance. It is not 100 feet. It has to do with global stability analysis and all this engine. It's a lot of engineering. This is saying, if you want a special exception to develop a multi-unit dwelling, multi-family dwelling in the RMD, then you're going to have to meet higher standards, right? You're getting a density, you're getting more density. In exchange for that density, you're going to stay further away from sensitive environmental areas.

You said the slope, there's slope guidelines?

Yes. So in the building code, which is 110, I'm sure of that, there is a steep slope And that is Article 4, construction on or adjacent to steep slopes. So not just on steep slopes, but adjacent to it. And that requires global stability analysis, storm drain discharge and stormwater management plans. The engineer, anytime there's a steep slope, I am sending that off to the engineer for review and comment.

Just a short comment about, I'm sorry to raise this again, but for the dwelling multi-unit, there's some ands and then there's not. Is that, I'm not sure, I mean, if all of these things have to be. Oh, yes, there should be ands.

Well, there's like one and, there's two ands, and then, so I just caught my eye. Yes.

Hmm. Going to any other questions about dwelling multi-unit? If not, we'll go to number five, dwelling accessory. And I think, did you want to do some explanation on number five, ADUs?

Yes. So what you're seeing in front of you is... Essentially what the council introduced at their last meeting I can't say whether they're gonna make changes at their next meeting, but you're getting close to done So I wanted you to have something to work off of There are a couple of things because the council is sort of making changes as they go That the way the change was made just could have been written better if if it was done through you all, so there's some of those changes in here. But it essentially means the same thing and is mostly the same as what the council is looking to pass for ADUs at their meeting next month. And it still complies with the state? It still complies with the state law. What we did was we added, because ADUs aren't really a full dwelling unit we added some the water and sewer requirements into this part of the code so they don't have to update the whole water and sewer manual for them and so each adu is allotted either oh dear i have an extra zero in here um either a whole edu A quarter EDU, a half an EDU, or three quarters of an EDU based on its size for allocation for water and sewer. And then an EDU that is over 1,500 square feet is considered a whole EDU. It's a whole dwelling unit, so it has to pay all of the fees associated with developing a new EDU. UNIT, WE ALSO HAD CONCERNS ABOUT IN SOME AREAS OF TOWN, THERE IS A HOUSE, AND THAT HOUSE OWNS FOUR LOTS. AND THOSE LOTS AREN'T SEPARATE, BUT THEY'RE ALL SMALL, TOO SMALL TO DEVELOP ON. BUT YOU COULD PUT YOUR ADU ON ONE, RIGHT? AND OF COURSE, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SELL IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SELL IT WITHOUT ITS OWN WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION, BUT WE WANTED TO JUST PUT SOME CLARITY AROUND THAT, SO THAT'S IN HERE. The waiver is in here. The council did make a change to require only one parking space per ADU to start with and then provide waivers from that. The one that we might want to think about how we can... adjust is so they for an accessory dwelling unit that's 650 square feet or less you can get a waiver if there's only one bedroom i would say that most 650 square feet adus are going to have only one bedroom and so this piece feels administratively awkward for me to be administering because If you don't ask me for a waiver, then you have to put a spot. But if you do ask me for a waiver, then you don't have to put a spot. And I don't have any guidelines for the waiver except for that it only has one bedroom. And so I don't know if you guys want to think about... WHETHER WE SHOULD JUST SAY WHEN WE SEND IT BACK OVER TO THEM SAY YOU DON'T NEED THE SPOT AT ALL IF IT'S 650 SQUARE FEET OR PUT SOME MORE GUIDELINES AROUND THE WAIVER OR IF IT'S SOMEBODY ELSE THAT LIKE WHAT IS IT THAT'S TRIGGERING THE WAIVER IS IT JUST THE ONE BEDROOM IS IT THE SIZE IT FEELS A LITTLE AWKWARD ADMINISTRATIVELY THE WAY IT IS AND THAT'S JUST BECAUSE THINGS ARE HAPPENING FAST AND WE'RE TRYING TO MEET A STATE DUDE LINE SO

Okay, so with that in mind, and we were talking about garages being converted, basements being converted. Let's talk about the basement situation. Yes. Why don't you talk about what you've discovered with the State of Maryland's decree YES.

AND I JUST GOT A RETURN ON MY QUESTION. SO THE ADUS, THE STATE DEFINES THEM AS It's no greater than 75% of the size of the principal dwelling. But we keep having this question come up, right? If you have a one-story house and a basement, and you want to finish your basement and make it into an ADU, then you have to leave 25% of it in dead space? So that feels like it doesn't make sense. And so I did just get a consultation. I believe that we can be less restrictive from the state in this case. and add to this ordinance that for a basement ADU, it can be up to 100% of the size of the primary structure. That would let you finish your entire basement as an ADU instead of having to like artificially leave 25% of it out of that. So if you all are amenable to adding that in, we can add that in.

I'm not trying to... Dan, because the basement is only one subfloor. If it's a one-story house.

If you have a one-story house. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, sometimes the basement can run, I mean, the whole...

In this that point if you had said the staircase coming down takes months another and then also the utilities So that would take some of this square footage, but it's close to probably being at least 90% Over 75% and we can let it just let it be a hundred percent if you have here to you in the floodplain I'm having at that point is that Okay, it would probably so then okay, so I So are we going to add that then to this ordinance then, the basement? Or it's just, what are we going to do with that?

Yeah, I'm suggesting, you know, you all in council have been adopting this with this October 1 deadline. And that means that it's all happening fast. And this question keeps coming up at the basement, but we really don't have time to address it. But we have time to address it now and say, let's allow a full basement space and a one-story house to be converted to an ADU, and we can add that language in here so that when we send it back to the council next month, then we're kind of fixing that thing we didn't really have time to work on now.

But it still needs an outside entrance. Yes, it's still going to need an outside entrance. So it would have to be an English basement, and then would it... Okay, so you'd have to have... Was that English based? Sorry, that's the term I call with walk out a walk out. Okay, now they're making fun of me. I'm not sure that's appropriate. We do with the chair. It's always appropriate. Okay, the next question I had. And so the eat so you are going to hook this up to the main house, right? Usually a basement is usually always hooked up to the main house as far as utilities.

Yes, it would really be considered an internal ADU, right?

Okay, so to the building code, you would be able to, if you're going to have a bedroom down there, you have to have the outside window. You have to conform to all the building codes.

Yeah, you're going to have to have a separate entrance.

Well, I'm talking about if you have a bedroom, I think to code you have to have a window that goes out to the exterior. Okay, but that would be in the building code somewhere. We wouldn't have to include that in our basement situation. No. I'm okay with allowing that as long as it's understood that it's just, if it's a one-story, it would be, but then if you had a two-story, then it would only, it wouldn't even be.

Yeah, that's my question.

No, like...

What you're saying is, yeah, if you have a two-story, then no problem. You can already do it.

If it's a one-story, that's a problem. Right.

But by saying, like, for a basement ADU, a basement ADU may be up to 100% of the square footage of the primary structures above grade living area.

If it's a one-story house. I mean, I guess you're not going to divide up a floor into two different spaces if it's a basement.

But it doesn't really matter because there are no such things as two-story basements. So it can be up to 100%. There's no way for them to get 100% on a two-story house. So that was already...

Correct. It just sounds silly when you think, okay, all the houses are two-story, blah, blah, but it doesn't matter. Going back to the parking waiver for a 650-square-foot ADU, I mean, I am concerned that 650 square feet would possibly have a one-bedroom. It could actually be a one-bedroom apartment at 650. I'm trying to figure out, so the person would have to park on the street then? I got a question. Potentially, park on the street. Because they have to have a car. Typically, you have a car, unless they're within walking distance of some transit bus.

And maybe that's...

I'm just worried about adding two lines. Let's just say on B Street, could we add one more car up there? Might turn their little garage into an ADU or something. I'm just wondering if we can handle that up on the hill. It's pretty tight up there.

Right. And as amended by the council, if someone's putting in a 650-square-foot ADU on B Street and they come to me and say, I want a waiver from the parking requirement, there's only one bedroom here, then I will... give them a waiver from the parking requirement because there's only one bedroom. That's the only current standard.

There's still going to be two drivers, two cars in that one bedroom.

Is it really more about the cars? Well, I'm worried about the parking in any of these situations because there's going to be a lot of... I would say the majority of ADUs are going to be probably about 650 square... I would bet. That's a lot of possible two-car households that... I mean, people are assuming this is going to be a one-person ADU. Yes. But why do they assume that if it's a couple... wanting affordable housing.

Or a single mother with a child. Right, but even so, even if it's just one, I mean, if there's four or five ADUs, I don't know the schematics of whether that's possible, but I guess, like, at what point is the tipping point for the current residents?

Amy, we did the parking study. We offered the parking recommendations based on the parking study. This is the direction that the council has moved in. And I guess what I'm asking for is your direction on the 650 square feet, because I think I think that we should do one of two things, right? One, we can say that you just are exempt from the parking requirement if your ADU is 650 square feet or less, because that's functionally what this is saying. Or we can suggest some other decision factors for me, because right now,

So they did not like the idea of measuring the width of a street as part of the reason why you don't add more cars to it. Is that what you're saying? They disregarded that parking study you did? Or what?

I can say I actually just sort of listened to the conversation. I think there's a feeling that the ADUs are going to have less Less cars. And this is actually sort of... ADUs tend to have people that have less cars in them. That's actually statistically true.

That's only because a lot of these ADUs are within walking distance to bus stations or bus areas. We don't have a lot of public transportation here. You are reliant on your car here. That's our problem is that you can't use those studies necessarily to to correlate to our little- But which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Do people who don't have cars not live here because there's also not affordable housing? You could live in this town and not have a car. You could work at a local restaurant. You have access to a grocery store, a pharmacy. That isn't outside of the realm of possibilities. European towns like this could be considered walkable. It's just not in our nature. Do you know what I mean? So I'm just saying which one comes first. Those people aren't here because we don't have a place for them to live. But if we had it...

But then do we have parking? That's what I'm saying.

Like...

I mean, I'm very fortunate. I'm in an HOA. I have my own driveway. I don't have to worry about that. But the smaller streets that are already crowded do have to worry about it.

Yeah, and the streets that don't have sidewalks. People are walking in the streets using them as their sidewalk. It's almost a safety issue to add more traffic and cars to some of those streets, some of our streets. Right.

I almost thought, like, I mean, I feel like we're looking at this as being like a rental for, like, adding these, like, ADUs to whatever property, where it's, I think the, it was more affordable housing for additional family members, for... Maybe, maybe.

You don't know if people assume anything. You have to assume the worst, though.

Well, I mean, to argue the parking, I mean, kids have, I mean, there's tons of teenagers in my neighborhood that are now driving. There's extra cars. Like, there's... Tons of cars. There's tons of extra cars.

Even piling onto that.

Sure, yeah.

I mean, that's the thing. Really, you hope for the best but plan for the worst.

You know, I think that's... Is there any way that you can restrict it to one car per ADU or a 650 or less? Because what happens in other coastal communities, they end up having parking permits and, you know, you have to go to that route and then everybody else has to park... But I almost think if everybody's thinking it's just one driver per ADU that's 650 or less, then let's put that in there. I don't know how you enforce that, of course. How do you enforce that? And then they have guests and all that other stuff that goes with, you know.

So we could add to this. So there's a paragraph that talks about the lease for an ADU for which parking waiver has been granted. must include the restriction of this subsection. So we could say paragraph A and B, because B is the 650 square feet. I guess my question was, you know, should we just not have a parking requirement for 650? But if we want to have the parking requirement and people.

But hasn't town council already said they don't want that parking requirement? But I don't.

I guess maybe we should wait and see what they pass. If they say, let's take out this requirement for 650, then that's just what we'll pass. I just think the way it's written right now is... Challenging right because if you don't ask me then you don't get the waiver and then there's this like question of fairness Means the person that went through the proper administrative route versus the person who had self-help.

Is that what you're saying?

If you have someone applies for an ADU and Doesn't request the waiver because maybe they didn't Read all of this. Am I obligated to tell them they can request a waiver? right And then if somebody does read this and does request the waiver, then I give them the waiver, but it feels inequitable, right? With you get the waiver if you ask for it and you don't get the waiver if you don't ask for it. And so I think that, you know, maybe the council will strike it in September, but I wanted to talk about it because we need to decide too. And I feel like it, And maybe it stays and it's just because it's one bedroom and maybe you do get two bedrooms in a 650 square feet. They're small bedrooms, right? And that's how the waiver works in anyone who is doing a 650 square foot or less ADU program. with only one bedroom, like it just feels more fair to say if your ADU is 650 square feet or less and only has one bedroom, then you are exempt from the parking requirement as opposed to then you ask for a waiver for the parking requirement.

You're still possibly allowing two cars in that one 20, possibly 25 foot or 50 foot lot area you know, with an ADU in the back. Like, my neighbor's got a 25-foot wide lot, but she's got a hundred, you know, you could put an ADU back there, and that would completely jam up that street, and we have no sidewalks, no, I mean, it would just be a nightmare to try and negotiate that street, in my opinion. And then without sidewalks or streetlights, then people are having to walk from someplace further. It's really the fact that you don't have any sidewalks or curbs or any of that stuff. Lights at night, do you have to navigate that? We actually are fortunate to have lights. We do.

I know. I guess I'm just asking administratively based on the decision that's been made. I would advise that this be changed, right? I would advise that we change B of this section because I think it has the potential to be seen as unfair or unequitable. And we can still tie it to the one bedroom, but I think it should just be exempt.

650 come up. I mean, why couldn't it be 550 or 450 or, you know, or I mean, I'm just saying you're saying unequitable. Well, where does the equity come into it when it's kind of just a number that kind of a random number anyway of the square footage?

The inequity comes in because this requires you to ask for the waiver.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

So it's the administrative piece that I'm asking about is you have to ask for the waiver to get it. And if you don't ask for the waiver, you don't get it. And that puts me in a very awkward situation.

What are other towns doing?

Everyone's kind of in the same boat you are. A lot of places aren't requiring parking. I mean, I think you guys have a situation where you need to require parking, right? Or I would have... You mean off-road parking, on-site parking? Right. Or I would have recommended something different initially. But anywhere that can accommodate the additional parking on their streets or don't have a lot of pressure for ADUs is just not requiring parking.

I think we also have it somewhere where you can't even actually enlarge your driveway. Don't we have that somewhere? It seems like we have you can't even enlarge the driveway to accommodate or is that not something? Maybe I'm dreaming that.

No. So you can enlarge the driveway. We just had somebody in Richfield Station enlarge the driveway.

Width-wise, they enlarge it width-wise? Well, obviously width-wise. I think we've said we can't take away the front yard. to allow a driveway, didn't we, somewhere? Yes, we did. Yes, there is something. Something about taking away the front yard.

You mean for the ADUs? Yes. Or you mean in your current code? ADUs.

It's like something we did.

We did. Because it was reworded, though. We did. Yes, it was reworded.

It's here. You mean in what you have? what you're proposing, not what's happening.

On-site parking for these situations. I'm just trying to think of a way to make it a safe neighborhood where people can, you know, have visitors occasionally. Because if everybody's parking there who live there, then you can't even have visitors and, oh, what a mess. Or they have visitors and you can't get home.

But I think that, like, I think the situation is, like, that decision has been made. Can we not have zones?

There's some areas where it's not going to be a problem. But there's some areas that are more congested Smaller streets, curved streets. Are we not able to at least take the current residents into consideration?

That's what we had as far as the width of the street, but apparently the town council didn't go along with that.

That's how the waiver was initially drafted. It was based on...

Well, your point is you want us to take out B because you don't want the bureaucratic nightmare.

Not either take it out, right, and just allow everything under 650 square feet not to need parking or a parking waiver. So it's not a parking waiver. It's for an accessory dwelling unit that is 600 square feet or less and contains only one bedroom. no parking spaces shall be required.

This seems ridiculous in my book, but, you know, we're planning, I guess, is what I would call it. But, you know, you don't have to smile.

It's okay. So working with this ordinance, what I'm really asking for is a way to administer letter B that doesn't create an appearance of unfair treatment.

So if we required everyone to have a parking spot, that would eliminate that, correct?

Freebie, yeah. No, I think you mean on site.

Yeah, if everyone, including the 650 people, yeah, 650 square feet or less, require them to have... You mean just...

delete the and then you're saying blanketly blanket every adu is required to provide one off street parking parking space i think that's fair because because would that make it that's not what they want they're i mean we we structured it like this so you could say hey we're recommending that since you made this change to one that you I mean, without going... Make this other change. They may want to change it back, but I will also have the time, because we won't be on a deadline, to say to them, hey, when we change this back, administratively, we should change it back this way. See what I'm saying? But we didn't have before...

that each ADU, irrespective of size, is required to have one on-site and a new, you know.

Yes. And then we set up our waiver to create two different waivers.

But I just think, I think maybe then we're maybe saying we don't need a waiver if it's just everyone has the requirement. Right, to have one. To have one. Right.

You have to have a waiver process. If you're going to require parking, you have to have a waiver. That is a state requirement.

Can I say something? Yes, please. Anything. So the reason we're having this ADU situation is because there's a housing shortage, right? So we're trying to make it that there's more housing. If we put a required parking that every ADU has to be able to do a parking spot on that property, what is the percentages we're reducing the availability of potential ADUs?

You mean... Places that can't provide the parking space for the ADU.

Yes.

Right. Those are going to be the places where the roads are narrowest, right?

Or is it that the roads are narrowest or is it that your lot's not that big but you could get an ADU on it but you couldn't get a parking spot on it too?

Right, because even if the road is narrow and your lot is very small and you have a house that is taking up a good portion of it, you can still convert part of your house into an ADU. But you might not be able to add parking. That's correct. Because you're not actually changing anything on the outside.

For my thing, if we want additional housing, then we've got to do the ADU. And if we're putting a require that each house, each ADU has a parking spot, I think we're limiting the number of ADUs that potentially happens in the future. I understand that parking is going to become an issue. It's going to be an issue one way or the other. whether we make it mandatory that each property has an ADU, has a parking space on it or not. Because even if you have one parking space on that property with that ADU, they're going to have visitors, they're going to have deliveries, they're going to have additional things.

It still is diminished overall, right? because of that one spot multiplied by how many ADUs, it still, I think, would rise to a mass that would reduce overcrowding on streets.

We've got people putting cones out to try and save a parking space for themselves. We already have that. I just can't, I mean, I hate to... Restrict ad use if that's what we need to accommodate for the the housing shortage but on the other hand I Don't want to create problems in the meantime of trying to find parking for everybody But your point is the council already made a decision on this we can't change their mind on it they're already going to go that direction it sounds like from what you're telling us and

I mean, certainly you can speak with them about your opinion. I'm just saying, administratively, the way this is set up, it needs to be revised in order to be...

fair so can i suggest because i feel like we're really like digging in on this and there's more to do my thought is should we kind of go to a vote if which way we would like to change it either we're saying let's say if it's under 650 feet no parking thing is required or it is required waiver doesn't matter and then move that back to town council how we want it and they can do what they want, but at least we've gotten rid of the waiver thing either way. Does that seem reasonable?

No. Sounds reasonable, I guess. I'm not sure I know which ways we're going to go with it. Okay, so the question would be, who would want to... Well, I'm not sure that it's up to us actually. But your point is just get rid of the requirement to have one car at a 650 or less. That's what you're saying.

Just get rid of that. I think your two options are one on a 650-square-foot or less one-bedroom ADU. there would be no parking requirement. Yes, that's one. Or you require, you go back up to A and just say for an accessory dwelling unit, a waiver from the parking requirement.

What does less work on you?

Either one is the same. It's a question. If you think it's important and you want to say to the council, we think it's important you do this, you can do that. You can draft a memo that explains why you think one is needed. You're saying we could go back to A.

And have the 28 feet wide.

That was another option that you all presented was just saying every 80, instead of creating this 650 square feet division, which we created for the purpose of allowing people to have one parking space instead of two parking spaces. But now that everyone needs one parking space, is this needed? that that is a you know you guys can decide between those two things and advise me what you want to do and then when we send this back over to them which it will probably be like october then they you know it's going to take them a long time to go through this whole thing but eventually it will clean out this weird administrative situation um with the waiver either way so can we take a vote on which way we're leaning

Okay, let's just go person by person and just, okay, let's just start with Kelly. What are your thoughts about it? Because I think we'll get a feeling if we just say which way we're going to go on this.

So I would just go that they don't need to request anything because it's one less thing on them, it's one less thing on the staff at Town Hall, and they get it. They just get the automatic. They don't have to do any paperwork.

So anything under $650 and there's no need for a waiver, they can just be allowed to have one or two or, you know, however many cars they want.

Wherever they want. No, that's not. This still is a requirement. The thing we're changing is only that for under 650 foot, for things over 650 square feet, we're not messing with that. We're saying this one thing that 650 square feet or less. Do they need a waiver?

Do they need a waiver or not? To have a space. And I said no, because then they don't have to do the paperwork, and town hall doesn't have that extra paper burden.

There's still requirements on the over 650 and having spots, and it doesn't mean you can have a 675 square foot.

But you're still saying that under that scenario, a couple with two cars, we're not doing anything about them. They just park wherever they want.

I believe to get a rental license, you have to provide parking. So if they want to rent it out to a couple with two guys, if they want to put their kid in it,

It's an in-law suite if it's you're moving in your parents, which these are historically how these things are being used.

I mean, it's funny, but I mean, if you have a couple that are like an in-law suite, as you say, you guys can vote and say no to that, but I think we just need to see where we all stand. We've got Kelly's point where it's, yeah, anything as far as get rid of the waiver, they are allowed to have the one car. More than one car, right? It's whatever they have. Well, whatever they have. Okay, let's just go with whatever they have, yes. We can assume that it's going to be one or two or it could be more than two. Yeah, it could be two cars, three cars. Chris, what are your thoughts about it?

I think removing the waiver and making the 650 square feet or below the same as the rest. So there is a requirement, correct?

And it would be a one-space requirement.

Yes, I think a one-space requirement, regardless of the size.

I'm thinking, so if I understood the way that you're saying it, you're saying that no matter what the size is, you must provide on-site at least one parking space.

If you're adding occupancy, because if every...

I'm with you.

If every house in a neighborhood adds an occupancy, it would be a...

So that's what you're saying too. I mean, I like there have to be two parking spaces, but I know that's not reasonable So I'm gonna I mean, I know that's gonna get shot down I think under 650 feet does not need a waiver and does not need a parking spot So I would be the tie the tie break here I

I think there should be at least one car per ADU if there's a bedroom.

So what would... All ADUs would have a bedroom. Yeah. It's not an ADU.

Well, you could have, no, you can have a, you can just have a big open space and that could still be an ADU. But that's a studio bedroom. That's a studio bedroom. It could be a studio bedroom, but it could still be an ADU.

So I would consider that a one-bedroom ADU. So right now, if someone brought me a studio, which I reviewed a studio, then I would require the parking unless they asked me for a waiver. And then if they asked me for a waiver, I would not require the parking.

Well, then if we just say under $650, forget the one-bedroom language.

I don't know if you could get, I don't see how you would get two in there, but I have seen some pretty small ADUs. I'm not going to say you couldn't get two bedrooms in there. Yeah.

Okay, so if you heard what we just said, how would you write this to make sense of it for the town council?

Based on the fact that Commissioner Hahn and Commissioner Weaver wanted no parking requirement for 650 square feet, and Chair Greengold, Commissioner Smith, and Vice Chair Graisman wanted... one parking space required. What I will send back over is we'll delete B and then an A. We'll just remove the language that says that is larger than 650 square feet. So it will read, for an accessory dwelling unit, a waiver from the parking requirement may be granted if the property owner establishes that. And that is the 28 feet width and the half mile from the two bus stops. That's how y'all shared your opinions.

All right, very good. It'll probably be sent back and changed, but okay. Okay. We came up to something, I guess. Okay, and C, if a parking waiver has been granted, any recreational vehicles associated with any occupant of the property must be parked on site. Does that imply that they can live in it, though?

So this is language that you all... We did, but I'm just saying...

But as it's written, does it sound like, okay, we can live in that RV as well?

So... I mean, certainly you can... Would you say non-occupied? So I would go to the definition of dwelling unit because that's kind of like, that's a second accessory dwelling unit. You're asking, you can't have two.

Right, right.

Right. And can that be an accessory dwelling unit? And my, I'm just pulling up the definition. For a dwelling unit, we have... But shall not include mobile homes, habitable travel trailers, or rooming, boarding, or lodging houses, or hotels, motels, tourist homes, or other similar places offering temporary overnight accommodations. So when you ask if they can live in it, it's not a dwelling unit, right? And so they can't live in it. But again, it's also... you already have one accessory dwelling unit. Okay. You could say an accessory dwelling unit shall not be or a mobile home, habitable, all those things shall not be an accessory dwelling unit if you want to reiterate the point. But the point is already there.

It's already been made. Okay. It just seems it's a question as to whether or not they're going to assume you can use it as another dwelling unit if it's on site. But, okay. And then D, the lease for which a parking waiver has been granted must include the restrictions set forth in paragraph A. Subject to redaction of bona fide confidential information unrelated to parking requirements. Wow. The form of the lease must be submitted to the town together with any application for a rental lease. Now, is this different than what you were just telling us about a rental ADU?

So this is legal language. It must be submitted to town together with any application. So when they apply for a rental license for their ADU, they have to submit proof that the... of the ADU has been advised that they only have, or there is nowhere to park their car. Okay.

There is no place to park their car. That they can't have a car functionally, right? Or that they can't have a car because there's no place to park it, is what you're saying. Right.

So when you apply for a rental license and you've been granted a waiver for your ADU, so you have no parking on your ADU because it either is on a street that's more than 28 feet in width or within a half mile of the transit.

You mean less than 28 feet?

No, you get the waiver if the street is more than 28 feet or more wide. Then you have to disclose that in the lease. And then you have to submit that lease with your application for the rental license.

But if one parking on site manages to be approved, then a person still will have some option you know, to park on site. They won't be totally out of parking. An occupant wouldn't be totally out of it.

So what it says in paragraph A, like D is referring back to paragraph A. It's saying, did your lease include this information? And what it's saying is on your wide street, You can't, you got a one car waiver, you can park one car on that wide street, but you can't park more than one car on that street. And the lease is telling, that's part of your lease. And so same with the transit stop, you got a waiver, you got a waiver for one car, and you can't park that car within a quarter mile, of the lot, right? If you have a car, you're storing it somewhere else because you're using transit. You got the waiver for the reason of using transit.

You're still thinking. It's starting to get mishmash in my mind. Before we leave page 15, don't forget to change that EDU to .75. I already did. Okay, very good. I see that. All right, we're going to move forward if indeed you guys are ready to go on. Dwelling with commercial use, I don't think there's any changes there. Let's go to bed and breakfast. There are some changes, but not really.

Okay. The only thing I want to call out on that is that you created a new parking requirement that conflicts with the parking requirement in 290-20. And you've done this in a couple of places. So you created a new parking requirement in the standards. when the parking requirements are in 290.20 and this parking requirement you added conflicts with the parking requirement in 290.20. So I would recommend removing the parking requirement from your standards here and reverting to 290.20. Because otherwise we have to amend 290.20 and if we're going to amend 290.20, We should amend 29020 at some point, but really a parking study should be done to evaluate whether these parking requirements are the best parking requirements today. So I wouldn't change the parking without an evaluation.

So you would just take out the parking requirement entirely?

Yeah, well, the parking requirement still exists in 29020, which is one parking space per unit.

unit or per Guest room unit or would write a guest room is a unit Bedroom so actually yes per bedroom per bedroom because the So number three, I'm a little confused by how it's worded here No employees who are not otherwise eligible to be a member of the same household With the owner of the B&B may live on-site so You're saying that employees who are not members of the same household.

Right. And we could just say that, employees.

Can we just say that instead of doing the two no's? So you want to say employees. Yeah. Who are not members of the same household. Employees who are not members. Yeah. Not members of the same household. with the owner of the B&B or same household as the owner, or no, I guess. I'd say as. As the owner, okay, may live on site. No more than two non-resident employees of the bed and breakfast shall be working on site during any one shift. So we're looking at a potential, like there could be eight cars or nine cars for this one bed and breakfast, right?

I mean... Intentionally?

Yeah. That's a lot of employees. Well, it says two non-resident, and then you can have two people who live there. Right, but there's a... Was there not a bedroom limitation?

No more than five guest rooms, right? So you've got the five guest rooms, and you're saying, like, how many employees do you need to clean five guest rooms? Yes.

Well, I know, but potentially, if they did have two non-residents, you could have two, you know, two plus five plus the owner is six.

Do you want to change it to one non-resident employee rather than two?

I thought they were going to take this out so that it matched to 90-20.

Oh, this is about how people are on-site, not the parking.

Well, theoretically, if you lower the number of people, you're going to have fewer cars needed. That's what we're thinking, right? Right. I mean, I can easily move it down to one non-resident employee. Yeah, I can't imagine you needing more than one employee.

If you have two resident employees, right?

Yeah, you can still have the resident employees, of course. Right. But how many bedrooms can somebody have in a house around here? So I would go down to one if everybody is in agreement with that. Or do we care? What does everybody think about that? Anybody care? Kelly, do you care? Chris, you don't care? Nobody cares? No care? Okay, well.

We're going to go to 29020's regulations.

Yes? Yeah, I mean, yeah, I guess my disadvantage is that I know where some of the B&Bs are, and they're really in congested areas, but, you know, that's what I can say. Okay, and then we move down. Occupancy by any one guest shall not exceed 21. Okay, we've already done that. The owner shall maintain a guest book. Okay, that's all part of their licensing requirement probably. Anybody have any issues they need to change with the B&B? Okay, I hear none. Going down to dwelling for resident caretaker, group homes, nothing's...

I just have a question on the resident caretaker. That almost sounds like a definition. And is there nothing else that's there, just the definition of...

Just seemed kind of lonely without any it doesn't have any standards. So it's just it's a dwelling for okay.

Okay, you know Group homes. I don't see anything except for the seven which is the one parking spot per individual should be acquired and

addition to one spot per employee now is this and i think that we might need to just align this but you you do have the waiver provision here so i think we need to make sure that it's aligned and i may have checked this one just why i don't like it um with the 290 20 um I think you might actually, what it is is that you don't have a parking requirement for group homes. It's actually determined by you. So if someone comes in with a group home, they actually have to come to the planning commission to determine their parking requirement. So you can keep this in there or take it out because you could ultimately give them a waiver when they come to you. Or yeah, it might be better to just take this out. It simplifies it by leaving it in, right? Because...

It does simplify it by leaving it in.

If they don't need the waiver, they don't have to come to you.

I would say leave it in. Don't worry about it. We'll just leave it in. Okay. And if they need to come for some adjustment, we can make the adjustment. Forum, hotel, hotel, nothing really different there. Private park, there is a significant amount of change in the private park. We've turned this into now campgrounds, real campgrounds. Now my question is, you have down here about having a manager, a property manager, But you don't really specify what the manager is all about. Is it a 24-7 manager? Is it an adult person? You have to have it over 21. What are the requirements of the property manager, I guess is my question.

Which number is that?

We're on page 20, and it's number 5-2 is indicating a property manager, which you should have if you're going to have camping.

Right, right, right.

But we need to specify what kind of property manager we're talking about, on-site, off-site. What?

You know, we've got to... Yeah. Right? I mean, if you want it to be an on-site property manager, I would say that we just add on-site in front of the phrase property manager. I think we need to have an on-site property manager.

If you're going to have camping with kids and probably that... Campfires. Yes. Well, not about the campfires. Yeah, well...

But if campfires within town limits, unless you're actively cooking food, that's like covered by other unless you're actively cooking actively cooking.

So people can be making some more is that's food.

Well, why would that be different for if you were camping versus on your backyard?

I think I just think you're monitored, you have insurance, you you know, you there's just a little bit more protection of not having forest fires, etc. But I think having an on-site property manager when you're having campgrounds is important from what I know about campgrounds. And you just want to have a little more control over the situation for safety issues.

I mean, what if it's been a very dry, dry...

Well, I mean, I'm thinking more about people's safety, you know.

It does add a little more element of...

We don't want the town to be responsible for people on the campgrounds. You want to have, if it's a private park and they're making money off of it, they should then be responsible for having a property manager so that these people who are camping aren't going to come back and need our police protection or whatever else. They still might need the police protection. Well, they still might, but a property manager could possibly take care of some of the issues. So I would like to see it include an on-site property manager. I've added on-site. Does anybody have any problems with that?

Anybody have any problems with that? I just want to clarify something. On the first paragraph, it says, the second to the last line says a caretaker residence, but then we have a property manager.

Right, so we should change that to be a property manager residence.

Up on number four, it says 1,000 feet from any residence district or residential district? Do you see where the 1,000 is, 1,000 feet? You want it residential or residence? I should just say residential. Residential, okay.

Do we have any properties in town? Like, I just, I know this is like the thing to, like, is there a single plot?

I'm having a hard time visualizing it too.

Also, a parcel containing 100 acres, that alone, what are we talking about?

Are you able to say? It doesn't look like you're able to say.

Any properties.

I believe there are some resource conservation areas that could have this in it okay i just was curious if there was literally a spot that we're like are making any kind of regulations how many acres is the fids in richfield station this wouldn't be allowed in the fids in richfield station because the fids is protected otherwise though there are resource conservation areas near there that are not fits are they privately owned or town owned privately owned But I believe those spaces may also be covenant protected, but I would have to check So on the property management requirements, what are you going to indicate full-time? What I mean is there any requirement on that property inside a designated full-time on-site On-site property manager, okay

Yes. I'm curious, though, when you say full-time on-site, because sometimes when you go to a campground and they do have a property manager, they aren't required to be there all the time because they have to go the grocery store and do other things like it's a, that's how like they, so, so are we, are we saying that somebody has to be there or is it that there's a full time person who, or is there a number that you can call after a certain time?

sometimes are. And so when there's not a definition, I don't think we need a definition of this, right? It refers to the common understanding of the definition and a full-time onsite property manager. Property manager is a job. So being a full-time property manager is tied to the job and property managers are allowed to go to the grocery store and take a vacation. Yeah. All of that. Okay. Yes.

Because there did seem to be like a requirement that felt like somebody had to be at the park at all times. And I was just making sure that what we were saying.

But if they have a residence there, then they're probably going to tend to be there, right? Because we are talking. They're going to be there, but I just like. Not 24-7.

You know, like Rollins is never opened without a manager there, but that is different than a park.

private park where people are making money off of all this, and it's a, you know, they do, they do, but, you know, you know, you hope they do. You hope they do. Okay, for the residential care facility, again, we have three parking spaces. If you have three parking spaces, two of which are handicapped spaces, if we're looking on page 22, number 6, That only gives you one visitor parking space for a residential care facility. If they're not handicapped.

It says one additional spot is required for each employee.

290.20 is one space for every five bed plus one per staff member. The more we put parking regulations in here, the more we complicate things over in 290.20. And ADUs is sort of a special circumstance, but now it actually matches 290.20. So I think it's best to match 290.20 and then kind of queue up 290.20 for after we're done with coastal resiliency.

Okay, then we have short-term rentals, which I want to hold on because that's going to be a bigger discussion. Let's skip over short-term rentals, page 22. Let's go to page 23, and assembly, institutional recreational education uses. I don't think anything changed. Nothing was really changed there. Cultural facility on page 24, 20 daycare centers. Pretty much nothing's changed there. Daycare home, environmental science. And then, of course, you started adding on page 26 the addition of impervious services, et cetera. So you did add that to some other. We talked about that last time. Yeah. OK, we've got government facility. We have nature preserves, parks and playgrounds, which are public parks and playgrounds, not private. Do we need to include public on that so we have a difference between private parks and public parks, or is that a big deal?

A number eight. I mean, the thing is, HOA parks are private, right? There's I believe there is private park space. So I don't think that we want to differentiate.

Nine, private club, schools, water-oriented recreation, office and commercial uses.

Alcohol sales. I just have one question on water-oriented recreation. It starts out with means shore dependent recreation. I just think sentence could be a little more peaceful.

And then there's a comma after activities and a capital this. Is that supposed to be the end of a sentence?

I think this is not supposed to be capitalized. So shore dependent recreation facilities or activities. And it probably should just say including.

Yeah. There you go. So cross out this. Means, shore, dependent. Well, do we just want to take out the word means? Or do you just say shore-dependent recreation facilities or activities include sailing schools, et cetera? Okay, good. Then we go down to office and commercial uses. Alcohol sales. THAT SEEMS ODD UNDER OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES, DOESN'T IT? CAN YOU REMEMBER WE ALPHABETIZED THEM? YEAH, I KNOW. JUST SEEMS VERY ODD, VERY AWKWARD. CANNABIS DISPENSARY.

I HAVE A QUESTION. NUMBER TWO CANNABIS DISPENSARY. Boundaries of the property in which the cannabis dispensary should be located is at least 100 feet from the shortest straight line distance. Are we going to run into a problem with it being equal to alcohol sales? Is that going to be an issue? Are there any alcohol places around here that are within 100 feet?

Do you have 100? You mean 500?

No, that's right here.

It says right here, 100. Right.

The boundaries, yeah.

So these regulations do not have to match the alcohol sales regulation. Gotcha, gotcha.

I just wanted to make sure.

Oh, alcohol.

Right. Because I know that those two were kind of when...

Yes, it's if you're going to do the hours, then you need to match it to the alcohol sales.

Remind me when you talked about this, when this was like fresh, the possibility of selling alcohol and selling... Cannabis could be sold at the same. You can get the license to sell at the same.

That's it. Remember when we talked about Rollins being able to sell? That was a... Was that not... No, that's a question of state licensing, right? I'm not sure if the state issues licenses to sell cannabis at stores that are already selling alcohol.

I thought you said that in a previous meeting when this was all new and fresh.

Maybe when I said it, I had that at the top of my brain. I got you. But I would like to double check it.

I mean, from what I'm seeing, that in Maryland, they are separate licenses and they cannot come together. They cannot come together.

You cannot get a cannabis. I probably misheard you then. But I do remember talking about Roland's.

Yeah, I may have said that because that may be true. It's just like... It's not fresh in my brain right now, and I don't want to say for sure.

Contractor's shop. When I think of a shop, I don't think of it as having, like, the storage of construction vehicles and heavy equipment. I think of a construction shop as just being their place where they bring you in for designs and that kind of thing. So it's a little confusing here, but... I guess maybe I wouldn't think contractors workshop instead of shop, but I found that a little bit interesting. Why couldn't you have a contractor's shop in the RV too? Well, it's because you've got the storage of heavy equipment is why. But when I originally thought of it, I thought, well, a contractor's shop could eat. There is a contractor's shop in the RV too currently, and he has small trucks, but it's not heavy equipment, but it would still be considered a contractor's shop. So I guess the distinction is you've got heavy equipment, but it doesn't have to be heavy. That it includes heavy equipment.

If you have an office, if you're contracting and you have just an office without any storage, then you would be an office, not a contractor shop.

You're definitely storing some stuff there, too. You're definitely storing some wood and that kind of thing, too. Right.

He would be a contractor's shop, not up at the top. So if we're saying that's not allowed in that zone, then he would be nonconforming. Okay.

I mean, I'm not going to make a to-do over it because nobody seems to care in the neighborhood, but it's just a little bit... Confusing is where the contractors shop and a real contractor's facility where you include storage. Like a yard. Like a yard, a contractor's yard, I guess is what I'm thinking of.

I think for this, it sees them as the same. Yeah, I can see that.

But there would be a lot of contractors, I would think, who would want to have that home, that major home business situation. I would think. But you don't want to store. I get it.

Well, then you're taking up more than 30%, right? Because you have that outright storage, which I'm not even sure you're allowed to do. No visible display of products may be shown from outside dwelling. No advertising visible outside the premises.

Yeah, I guess what you're doing is you're including the storage with the administrative offices with the, I mean, it's confusing if you're just a contractor who just wants to do simple planning and, you know, as guys come over here, you're doing this, you're doing that, whatever. I don't know.

I think then you're an office, right? Are you an office or are you a shop?

Yeah, right, I guess.

And that's the difference between the two. This is a special exception use in the commercial zones and not permitted in other places. Any existing contractor shops would be non-conforming uses, so they would be allowed to continue to operate. Okay. Actually, sorry, it's not permitted. It's only permitted in the marine. I was looking at the wrong thing So anything that's not in the marine Commercial district would become a non-conforming use and I think may already actually be a non-conforming And I'm wondering why it's even allowed in the marine district if it's got large Equipment down there.

I mean, I know we already have some larger equipment down there, but I I'm not even sure we want the MC used as, you know, storing cranes and storing whatever, you know, diggers and whatnot. So that's allowed in the MC. Is that correct? I don't remember that being. Let me see here.

It could be something. Just give me. It's so hard to find stuff in the one the way it is.

Sun tractor. Sun tractor. is permitted in the MC, which to me is interesting.

You mean in the... Oh, yes.

Currently, it's actually permitted in the TCPC and MC. Right. I think you probably, because I carried stuff over, you probably shifted to only permitting it in the MC, and that was... I don't remember the discussion, but I'm sure you all had it.

Right. And because of the fact that you can keep large equipment there, I mean, you can't, there's no place in any of the other commercial zones, but do we even want to take up the MC with some of the potential large equipment? I don't know. Maybe it's not a big deal. Does anybody care one way or the other? I don't see anybody saying, no, we don't care. Okay, then it's just my thing.

I mean, the only thing, I mean, there is heavy equipment in a lot of the MC for, like, removal.

Yeah, and dread, you have to dread.

Yeah, and I think it's just part of the nature of some of the industry.

Well, the commercial marine, yeah, that's true, probably. I guess we're not going to nitpick on that one. Okay, so then if we go back quickly, entertainment and recreation indoor. There's no real changes there. Game and establishment, home occupation minor. We did have some issues with our home occupation last time. You have changed no on-site sales, put an S after the sale, are permitted in a minor home occupation. Right. And then, you know, I guess the question is, when they violate these laws, what do you do? Just revoke what? Nothing to revoke.

Yes, your permit to have a home occupation.

But we're not giving the minor home occupation a permit.

Oh, well, yes, that's correct. So we're not, you're right, we're not revoking anything, but we're... Because it says... We're saying that you're... You shall not generate a nuisance or violate any other law or what? Or what? Or, right, then we come to you and say you cannot operate. this home occupation out of here right you didn't need a permit but you still needed to comply with these rules and so you can either bring your home occupation into compliance with the rules or you can cease your home occupation okay okay all right fine um okay and then we go into a home occupation major and i think there were some people that had questions about that um and i guess again um

There's really not much change from what we talked about. And in this case, we don't put anything about having your license revoked. Do we want to indicate that you're going to have your license revoked if you violate any of these rules?

So that's kind of where I was confused with the use and occupancy. So in 290.27 enforcement, it says if you have a permit, that permit is specifically for what you said you were going to do on the permit. If you do anything different, if you build differently, if you operate differently, then we can revoke your permit and we will. So we don't need to say it because we've said it. You don't need to say it. It's implied that you're going to have it revoked. It's said. It's just said in a different section.

Does anybody have any questions about the occupational micropatients? Because I thought we had had some issues about it because we, I don't know. I know we made some changes about the times that it's going to be conducted. All right. If not, then the nightclub, the...

Nightclub outdoor dining and entertainment is not permitted That what a nightclub is all about is having entertainment though, I'm under outdoor entertainment so outdoor dining and entertainment oh And outdoor entertainment I have one question and it's just maybe just for my notification when it says carry out food may constitute Constitute no more than 10% of the business. How's that count? Is it on profits? Is it on? Roses, how do you determine 10% of what piece of the business?

It would be set on your overall sales. Okay. Right? Okay. And that would be pulled if it seems like it's becoming a restaurant rather than a nightclub. Okay. I don't know why you do that because it's probably easier to get a restaurant than a nightclub. Okay. But...

NURSERIES, TREES AND PLANTS, PLANTS, WHATEVER. DO YOU WANT TO PUT NURSERIES, TREES AND PLANTS OR DO YOU WANT TO JUST LEAVE IT TREE AND PLANT?

NEW SPEAKER SO THE WAY THIS IS, IS THAT IT'S TREE AND PLANT NURSERIES.

NEW SPEAKER NURSERIES.

Oh, the trees is the last name tree and plan is the first and middle name. Right.

But when you alphabetize it, like if you want to put in a nursery, are you going to go looking under P for tree? No, you're going to go looking under N for nursery. So I tried to make it make sense for people to find things.

Okay.

Offices and clinics, um, I mean, that's the one I'm a little concerned about, parking and having a lot of, you know, but I guess we again have to wait for the parking studies, what you're telling us.

I mean, you do have parking requirements. You do. Yes, you do, but... So, no, you have parking requirements in your code in 29020. It is going to be, you know, I'm going to have to fit them together because they're based on the previous categories, but I feel comfortable that I'll be able to do that.

I just want to clarify, six in the RV2, the use shall only, it should be a small T, shall only be permitted as an integral part of a preexisting otherwise permitted mixed-use commercial and multifamily development. Was this in response, Horizons on the Bay? Yes. Okay, but, okay, I just don't. What's your question? Well, because pre-existing otherwise permitted, the mixed use, because there was a physical therapist or something who had been in the place. And now the person was kind of adjacent to that, but not exactly the same thing. But the permitted, I'm not sure what exactly that's saying. way that it's worded because it sounds like it's talking about a permitted use and then it also talks about permitted mixed use commercial multifamily development. I'm not exactly sure what it's saying.

What it's saying is you can only do this in Horizons, right? To Horizons. It's targeted specifically to Horizons. And I went through all the different ways we said it because there's a bunch of different ways we said you can do this thing at Horizons. And this was the one that I felt... most comfortable with. Now, I will say when we get it over to the town attorney, her and I can discuss better phrasing for it. I just want to make sure.

I think it's the multifamily development that's getting me.

I understand it's about the use, but what's the multi... Because it's a mixed-use building. So there are pre-existing, permitted, mixed-use buildings buildings that aren't multi-family buildings. Okay. All right. Okay.

Okay. On that one, after in the RV2, it's the, it's capital, unless you changed it on yours.

Yeah. No, I haven't, but I'll get that.

13 Restaurant Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Retail Neighborhood. include these listed, those listed in the table of neighborhood retail uses below. In the RV2, the use shall be permitted as an integral part of the pre-existing non-conforming otherwise permitted mixed-use commercial and multi-family. So we've got it again under. Yes. Okay, there you go. And then number 17, retail general. You just added compounding pharmacy. Services personal. You didn't add tattoos.

You didn't add any of that. The tattoos, I think I actually put them, did I put them under retail?

They're on the general services.

Yeah, they're a service.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Oh, yeah, at the end. Oh, and you have psychic readings there as well. Okay, I see that's where you put them. I'm very concerned about those two. Boy, I tell you, you've got to have them in there. Tasting rooms, tavern, light industrial utility and related uses, automotive service. Gas stations are limited to a maximum of four individual filling pumps. Now does this, of course, are we talking about any particular station? We're not talking about any particular site or anything. But would this include repairing tires and, you know, doing all the noise making with putting tires on and all that kind of thing? Yes, that would be automotive service. But that would be only located in what zones? Only located in any zones? Do we have them in any zones? Automotive services. I don't think we have them in any zones, do we?

Is a special exception in the TC.

I don't think in the TC you would be distributing residents with any noises or anything like that. Number three, craft artisan assembly and manufacturing limited to cabinet making.

Let's see, where is that one?

I might want to move that to a standard rather than in the definition. I may do some adjustment.

You're going to take number three and put it into definition?

I might move the phrase limited to into this, make it a standard rather than part of the definition because it really is a standard more than a definition.

Okay. Now, number three, let's see. So that would be allowed in the MC only at this point. Okay. Then the bus transit stop, Marina. I have, if I may. Yes.

So under little two, the sentence, Proposed design shall include adequate safety features for the location of fueling points. That's fine. Fuel storage, the effect on navigation, the possibilities of water pollution. I think that needs to be reworded. Does that? You're smiling. No, it can be reworded. Maybe mitigate the possibility of water pollution. It doesn't really connect. They don't say mitigate the effect on navigation or what? The proposed design shall include safety features. It just says the possibility for water pollution when what you want to do is that it should have sign features to mitigate or to lessen the possibilities and should... The effect on navigation, I'm not sure, and service by fire hydrants, I just think it's a lot of ideas there that it's not worded connectively. Would you like to rewrite it? No.

But you would like me to rewrite it, which I absolutely can do. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we'll rewrite that one. Anything else you want to redo on the marina? Oh, yes, groins, levees, what are groins? We know what they are.

It has to do with adult parlors. No, they are a shoreline management feature. We're getting goofy.

I wonder, five. Adequate sanitary facilities shall be provided and that the planning commission may specify the number.

So when are we doing that? So Marina is going to be a Category 1 site plan. So that means when it comes in for review, you can specify the number of sanitary facilities that need to be provided based on what you're presented with.

OK, any other questions about marina? Nope. Marine storage, seafood processing and fishing, water dependent. Under marine storage?

I didn't know what you meant. Well, under one, under marine storage, or a contiguous property where there's a direct and functionally connected relationship. I didn't know... Huh? So... You're... Something... Some linkage is missing, but why don't you explain it to me? That may resolve that.

Well, it could be reworded to be more plain language, likely, but the point is that... it's a marine commercial activity is located on that property, or maybe there's another parcel that isn't technically that property, but it's right next to it. And so it appears to be the same, but I can do some plain language work on that. Okay. Thank you.

Then we have seafood processing, solar energy systems, and commercial. Anybody have questions about the solar energy systems?

I just wanted to know what interconnection equipment meant. I just don't know what it means. Where are we?

Under D. Except for necessary. So... I'm going to go, a lot of this is like literally what did the state say. I will double check. Okay. But, I mean, I'm going to say what we would do is...

If it's state rules and regulations, then that's fine. If it's word for word what the state requires, I'm fine with it. I just don't understand where that would apply. Okay.

It's a little silly because these things aren't going to go in Chesapeake Beach, but if they did come, then you have this.

All right. Then we have utilities, temporary uses, building incidental to construction, Carnival and Transient Enterprise, garage yard estate sales. Then we have the non-residential parking.

temporary sales and we have the definitions which are I've reduced the definitions because the more I'm like going back and forth and updating both of them I'm like this could be problematic later right because when you update one you have to remember to update the other and While I'm doing that now, in the future, if you make changes and you forget to make them in both places, then you have problems.

Well, we haven't ever really talked about electronic instant bingo machines, but yet they're in the definition. Do we need them in the definition?

yes because we prohibit them i don't remember did we prohibit them no so it was just gambling we prohibited so you have a sort of unique situation which is that you have facilities that were licensed to have these in them when the state was licensing you to have these in them so you need to have them allowed in your zoning ordinance you need to handle them in your zoning ordinance

Okay. Then the rest of it is pretty much stuff we've already looked at a couple times, unless anybody sees anything different.

I just had a question on the compounding pharmacy. Maybe it was really for back, but there are rules and regulations for how they dispose of or, you know, what kind of compounds they use.

They're going to be regulated by their license.

Oh, one minute. Okay, is there any other questions of all this that we've done tonight, which is quite a bit? Okay, now the Airbnb, we're going to obviously come back next time and review it, but if everybody can do some homework on it and see what you guys all think about it, we have to do a little bit of... Do you want to share the printouts from New Orleans? Yes, we're going to send these out to you so you can... So you want to discuss the New Orleans thing so they have an idea of what the New Orleans thing is all about? Sure.

So after I sent this all to you, I opened up my professional magazine, and it was on short-term rentals. And it was talking about specifically what New Orleans has been doing. They've had some lawsuits, and they did a really intensive study. And so what you have in front of you are their zoning regulations around short-term rentals. They're pretty consistent with what we have. But I think we could, and you should have a piece of paper there that adds sort of a commercial short-term rental regulation to, in addition to what you see here, which you'll see it next time. Your short-term rentals are only permitted in your commercial zones right now, and you do have residences in your commercial zones, so you could have short-term rentals there. I mean, I think that having those regulations, because as you convert residences, which the residents in your part of your community live in, to... basically transient rental housing with different people living in it, you really impact your community cohesiveness. And so I think the regulations are important for the people who live in and adjacent to those commercial zones. Certainly losing your neighbors and having vacationers instead is not... It's not good for community building. So I think we should have these regulations to monitor that.

What did you say we're getting next week? Is something commercial? Next month?

There should be another piece of paper up there that has it in it. And basically with the short-term rentals, I wanted to add one more condition, which is a commercial short-term rental. It's on the back side, I think is what you're saying. It's on the back of that. Yes, you have both on there and so based on that same one I added another condition to your Short-term rentals, which is a commercial short-term rental shall provide a management plan addressing noise abatement security operations and sanitation Because it's really the when it's not the owner Renting it out that you you know, they're they're there. They're making money and Is it noisy? Do they care if it's noisy, right? Is it secure? Are there security problems? Are there sanitary problems? They're not there. They don't know. And they're not monitoring that. And so when it's not, hey, I'm renting out my upstairs while I live here, you start to have more concerns. And I may tweak this for next time a little bit, but I wanted to address that.

I'm beginning to think that we need to have a public discussion on this, I think.

Do you want to do another public hearing in September?

It was such a big deal the last time we brought it up.

You mean short-term rentals or you mean... Short-term rentals, yeah.

I think if we do anything and we don't have at least one public hearing, if not two because the town council might have one, I don't know. But I think we need to have it for this particular issue.

What do you think? I think... you're not actually changing which zones they're in.

However, I always, as a planner... You never know what the group might... I mean, they may. Yes.

As a planner, I'm always for more public engagement. So if you want to have a public hearing in September for this whole document again, because you have made changes since the last public hearing...

The only problem with the next month is that we haven't really talked about Airbnbs yet. We haven't discussed it, so I hate to have a public hearing when we haven't really discussed it ourselves yet. Now, I know Kelly's going to be gone next month, so we're down to just the rest of us. So we're going to be challenged to come to any agreement on any, you know, as far as making a decision here on all this. We'll have to wait till October. Well, you're not going to be here in October either? No.

Giving me that look like it's work Well, we do need some new blood Yeah, we do need to try and get this over to the town council because it's gonna take them some time.

Oh, yes to go through it Is it possible to Discuss this next month and then in October Make a decision. Did you say we can have one more month or did you say what did you say about that?

So they said for you to tell them how much time you needed. You told them you thought you could be ready by October.

Yes, if we'd had a full commission, I would have said yes, but things changed. let's let me speak with the town administrator and see um because i do think we should have a public hearing after after we've discussed the airbnbs which would mean possibly october i'd also like to have kelly here um so if we could have a public hearing in october and then send it over at the end of that day

I was going to say, could you have a public hearing in September, hear what the feedback is on what's drafted, and then discuss it and make the changes, potentially approve it in October?

Except that we haven't yet discussed the Airbnbs ourselves. We should have a little discussion before we have the public hearing, don't you think? I don't want to have public hearing just coming in and we're cold to, you know, we're just new to the whole discussion on Airbnbs.

Or to answer questions.

Yeah. Well, it's not like we can really answer questions or talk to people coming in, but. I don't think it's the worst thing to have them come in because it isn't like we're.

They come in and that is going to then influence how we have a discussion. Okay. Like we haven't cemented our own ideas without actually having them.

Okay. We could do it that way. We can do it that way. Kelly, if you don't mind us having this without you here, let's go ahead and schedule a public hearing for September because we've got to have that posted. And then we'll try and make the decision in October and send it off in October.

Is it possible for you to do the notes like you did the last time?

Yeah, for the public hearing.

From the public hearing, you gave us notes afterwards with that chart.

Oh, with people's comments on each section? Yeah, definitely when there's public comment, I want to be incorporating that and then also putting that out for the public to see how their comments are being addressed.

Right. Because we got through pretty much everything tonight, would be just the Airbnbs. But you're right, Rachel. I think we can probably get through the questions and then have our discussion after that. I think we probably can do it that way.

Yeah. It's not a lot that you can do in the zoning ordinance, right? Short-term rentals are have rental licenses. And a lot of the regulations around short-term rentals is happening in that part of the code, the licensing part, as opposed to the land use part from the zoning. And so I think that Your piece is to say, like, here's where it is. And I think you can look at it on a bigger scale. But I also think that the council is looking at it as well. And so coordination for the larger scale would probably be better than looking at it separately.

So we're limited in what we can recommend.

I mean, you can recommend licensing pieces. I just know that there's other... Coordination is always better than everyone just sort of producing a bunch of reports that don't necessarily work together. So I think... for what you're trying to do right now, it would be good to focus on the zoning land use piece of it. And then we're kind of setting up for ourselves a list of what our agenda is going to be. We want to deal with coastal resiliency. Maybe we want to talk to town council about taking a bigger look about short-term rentals and doing a real public engagement plan planning process around them. And then looking also at the parking, I know that they really are interested in doing a parking study. And I know our parking regulations haven't been updated. I don't think you updated them when you did the comprehensive rezoning. I think they're worth looking at again. And there's other regulations in the code that are going to be impacted by what we're doing, that it's like, okay, it works, but it's going to have to ultimately be changed.

Okay.

And so we're kind of queuing that up.

Okay. Any more questions before we move to adjourn? Anything you want to say? Any council comments by anybody? No, no, no, no, no. Okay, so everybody wants to get home. I know we're late. I'm sorry, but I wanted to get this completed so we can move forward. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Oh, fast. Okay. All in favor? No discussion. We're adjourned. There we go. You guys are quick on that draw. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you guys for coming. Appreciate it. Thank you all for being here.

I will finish my text message, and I will get that to you.