Plan & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the uh Tuesday, October 7, 2025 meeting of the Orangetown Plan and Zoning Commission. I am Commissioner Azie Pari and with us this evening. Good evening. Owen Weaver, Town Council. Paul Kaplan, Jenny Bowser, Recording Secretary, Kevin Cornell, Jay Magcguire, Jack Emer, zoning administrator. All right, that's uh everybody except Commissioner Trenti who's couldn't make it this evening.

All right, first item on our agenda is a review of the minutes from the se September 16, 2025 meeting. Uh Jenny, just a a quickie. Uh uh Paul Kaplan is the vice chairman. Oh, I was just settling into my secretarial role. Really? You're out. I'm in. Yeah. Kevin is the secretary. Okay. So, Kevin is the secretary. Yes.

Okay. Sorry. on that uh first page, the first paragraph, town plan and zoning commission held a meeting on September 16, 2025 at 7:01 p.m. should be to be I know it's nitpicky, but 7 7 o'clock below. I don't know. I just Is that in the uh Maybe we opened like a minute late that night. Oh, is that is that what we do? I would think that's that's all right. I thought that Okay, fine. Yeah, fine. Yeah, I don't know what that was about. Okay. Yeah.

What's that? Over here. We had to think about again. I'm just making sure you guys are reading the minutes. Okay, that will be fixed. Um uh in the old business were we is that where we were discussing uh changing in the commercial district but oh the planning I mean new zoning text regarding housing I'm just trying to forget were we talking about the PC POCD or were we talking about

you know I think we were talking about the timeline of potential text amendments that we could do as preventative measures uh for any new state statutes. Right. But that was it that was uh with respect to the commercial districts. Correct. Okay. Oh, not regarding housing. Oh, the housing in the commercial district. Uh it was regarding it was and it was really considering uh changing the bulk uh area requirements in the commercial districts and it had to do with mixeduse type developments. Right.

Yeah. I if if the um you know if that uh housing ever got passed which I'm going to ask about was regarding the commercial lot size in order to prevent anyone from abusing new housing language that were to be passed right pass anyhow. Um uh I don't I don't think they've even started a special session yet. So you might have said the end of October. So it has certainly not passed. Yeah. Uh, but I'd leave out words like abuse. Okay. And I would just put in that we were, you know, discussing changing the bulk, you know, area requirements in the commercial districts. Okay. Noted. We're good.

All right. That was that was all I had. Um, do we have a motion to approve the minutes? So move. Well, so moved. We have a motion. Second and seconded. All those in favor? I I Okay. All right. Next item on our agenda is old business. Does anyone have any they like to bring up under that topic? Uh, no. Since Owen happened to mention while we're discussing this that the the state currently has hasn't moved forward on their affordable housing legislation. So, right. Thanks for the update.

All right. Uh if nothing under old business, we'll move to new business. And uh one of the things I intended that we talked that we talk about tonight is um uh the language, the amendment to the zoning regulations, which would prohibit short-term rentals in the residential zone in town. Um and that's why Owen's with us uh tonight. He's here to uh he drafted the revisions and he's here to answer any questions that any of us might have. Um yeah, I you know, I went ahead and and uh asked Owen to to uh work on on the amendment. Um and I I think I wanted to get going on that. I I didn't I didn't want to start before the the case was decided the pending case was had been decided by the zoning board of appeals. was concerned that uh that might be appealed and uh our action could somehow be evidence, you know, on amending the regulations could somehow be evidence uh that, you know, the the regulations were inadequate before to prevent that type of commercial use in the residential zone. But we're by the uh appeal period on that.

No, no appeal was taken. That's my understanding. No. So, u to the the extent I can make public comment, there was no appeal taken of the zoning board's decision. Um and then, uh last week or a week and a half ago, the town filed for an injunction which has a hearing date uh pending in November. With respect to that property that Yes. that cease and desist order. Yes. Okay. So,

yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, uh I I met with the chairman and Jack um maybe a month or so ago um to draft up some potential amendments to the um what I'll call the uh the rental provisions in in article three. Um, not knowing what this the consensus of what this board would want, I you know, we decided to go with an out an an outright ban of short-term rentals as defined by 30 days or less. Um, just as a starting point, not necessarily as where you have to end uh depending on what the the consensus of the board is. Um, so I'm happy to to walk through the regulation. And there not that many changes, but um what would need to be done if you wanted to ban short-term rentals is again we'd have to define what a short-term rental is. The current rags don't do that. State statute um under the taxing code or title uh defines short-term rental as 30 days or less. Um so that's that's kind of where um where other statutes and ordinances fall. um chapter 7-148QQ also uses that 30-day benchmark and that's the um the lensure by the selectman uh of short-term rentals. So that's what we picked 30 days um or less and that um required adding the term short-term rental to section 183-14 which is the definitions. We also made a change to the definition of dwelling unit to exclude hotels, motel, andor recreational campgrounds. Um the key uh I think the key one there is the recreational campgrounds because there was some concern by camp Cedar Crest, right Jack? That correct

if we regulated short-term rentals that would impact um their business because I understand it that they rent out the cabins there. Um, so that's that's one change and again that's to section 18 uh, excuse me 383-14. The next changes came in section 383-9. Um, section A has a list of prohibited uses which is not exhaustive. Um, but we added as um, a last or as a new one. Number seven, the letting of rooms and/or furnishing of board in a dwelling unit except in the accordance with the provisions of 180, excuse me, one, I keep saying one, 383-26B. Um, and that's what the next section for amendments that's in article 3. And we tweaked um section B. Section B originally provides that the letting of rooms and/or furnishing of board in a dwelling unit to a total of not more than four persons is is permitted subject to certain conditions. Um we what we did was we we kept the the opening preface that the letting of rooms andor furnishing of board in a dwelling unit to a total of not more than four persons is permitted. Uh but then we added which shall not include short-term rental which as we discussed earlier is now a defined term and prohibited by the regulations.

Uh and then in terms of the conditions we tweaked the conditions somewhat um in the course of this issue becoming into the public uh domain so to speak. you know, there was an issue as as to whether or not long-term rentals where somebody a snowbird is renting out their property and they're not actually occupying the home if that if that's permitted under the regs and arguably that scenario is not uh allowed under the current rags. So, we we got rid of the uh in B1 the term reside and we changed that to um that they have to be the owner of the dwelling unit or have a membership interest in the entity that owns the dwelling unit to cover LLC's or other legal entities other than a person that might own the home.

Um I just want to make sure I'm keeping up Owen. Sure. And feel free to interrupt anyone while Well, we I we'll let you get through it. In fact, I should shut up and let you get through it and then we'll go back.

Okay. We'll circle back. Right. Okay. So that was um that was the ch or proposed change to um the ownership condition I'll call it to uh renting. We kept the other uh conditions the 200 square foot size per room um that there'd be no cooking facilities attached and no accessory building can be used for leting of rooms or furnishing of board. Uh and then we added the uh no room shall be let for a period of 30 calendar days or less. Um, and then if you I probably should have did a dot dot dot and got rid of the rest of the section, but if you go to the last page of the proposed ordinance, um, I think it's J, right? J, subsection J deals with home occupation or home offices which meet the following criteria. Um and we added there subsection 15 the la very last section the following uses by their inherent nature and intensity shall not be considered a home occupation or home office dot dot dot. We added short-term rentals to the end of that list just as u an over precaution if someone were tried to argue that renting the home is a home occupation for um for whatever reason. So it's not a lot of changes though and I think it the intent was to clarify the existing regulations. Um the position of the town is that this is not permitted. The commercial rent excuse me renting is not permitted. Um but changes well I'll hold that thought. So um that was the purpose and I'm happy to answer any questions that any commissioner may have. So if we can start at the b beginning, we tied in 30 days because that's a legally accepted

standard in general. Yeah, it's what the legislature have used for t you know imposing a sales tax or an occupancy tax. Uh and it's in the selectman uh statute. So as long as we are considering it or is everyone okay with 30 days? Might as well start there. I'm okay with 30 days. And again, I I think we're we're trying to get to a point where we can uh have something that we could submit for for uh a hearing. Yeah. Public hearing. Public hearing. Okay. Jack, I'm curious as to

So, if somebody, you know, felt strongly about a different time period and explained why and it made sense to us, we could make the change at that time. A good starting point. Um, is this is that time kind of time frame going to affect your enforcement? All right. How do you I'm just curious as to what how you've been trying to enforce it now in terms of um you said you were going on websites from time to time. Yeah. I I mean mainly how we would find these is you know you find them online or if somebody were to complain. Um it's kind of like any other regulation.

It is. Yeah. I I think the 30 days is appropriate. you know, I think um our standard rental in my opinion, you know, in Orange, that is a reasonable, you know, time frame to have, you know, a renter in in a single family home here in town. Um, so I don't have any issues with with that time frame now. Okay. So, it's the it's the daily churning that causes most of the problem, right? I think so. Okay.

All right. So, we started there. Um, so we seem to use the word letting and leasing interchangeably uh throughout your the changes in the text here. Uh, can we pick one of them? I mean, do they or are they are they interchangeable? I think but I would prefer to go with one,

right? Yeah, I'm looking here. I mean, we use looks like we have chosen to use leasing in like the title of the section like the amendment to 38326B renting or leasing of rooms, but then you know we use letting so um 87 I yeah I I think we can we can use we should pick one and not not be interchanging between the two. So okay. And is there any substantive difference between renting and leasing? Meaning if I and there's a reason for the question. So

if I'm doing a six-month lease, there's a document that goes lease if I pop up on the Airbnb site because I I don't do that. What is that document? Is somebody Is it a rental agreement? Is it a leasing agreement? I or do we care? I've never understood those two terms to be anything other than synonymous. Yeah. Yeah, I think so, too. Okay. What? But I don't understand the question. I don't think Well, the question is just is there a difference? You know, are you know, are they different terms of art, so to speak,

or are they the same thing? So if you use the prohibition of leasing in here, will rental agreement get you around it? That's a question. That's by just calling it a rental agreement. I'm just asking. Well, so I mean you could have the same thing though. Just to go back to your first question. If we pick leasing, someone may say, "Well, I'm renting or I'm letting the property." That's what I mean. So I mean I don't I don't see how someone would get any calling what the act is, which is renting, you know, which is okay. for money. I just being in rooms for money

you know just want to make sure. So then uh the question is are there cases where people are furnishing board in these rentals? Um is it something we should care about? I mean, there's some things here about that these units can't have cooking independent cooking facilities, right? Uh do we care if the you know the somebody's providing board for a month to somebody

like operating a restaurant there or it's you know I mean if you if if some if you're paying if someone's paying you to be in your house or your your commercial you know your property that you're renting for this purpose saying but they're not they're not a tenant. They're not they're not they're not leasing. Well, I'm saying they're just going there to eat or bed and breakfast. No, I'm saying that there it's a bed and breakfast. Do we have any of those in in town? Well, that would be the wedding of rooms and the furnishing of board. And furnishing of book. I I I understand. But since now those people are going to be in for 30 days, have to be in for 30 days. Otherwise, it's in violation of the regulation.

You know, do we does does does the providing of board push this thing into a different category where the health department cares or that may be, but I mean from my standpoint, as long as they're in there for less than 30 days and renting, they're in violation whether they're getting bored or not getting bored. So, it's to me it's irrelevant that part of it. Are you you're you're asking if it's just boarding, does that make it okay? No, I'm I'm just asking do we care? I mean, do we want to leave language about boarding here? Is it is it serving any us any function for us? Should it even be in there? Should it be even be in there?

Yeah. Should we just be focusing on Are we trying to stop breakfast still? Well, that's I'm I'm I'm not per se to be. Yeah. So, I I think Jay's point though is uh I I I get I think the board language is irrelevant because let's say bed and breakfast. If you're not in there for 30 days, Yeah. you're prohibited. What you can call it whatever you want. And and what constitutes the 30 days? Do you have to be there 30 days or sign an agreement that says you'll be there for 30 days? No, you have access to the place for 30 days. Yeah. Whether you're there or not is irrelevant to me. Only people can have access,

right? I I would just so when I met with the chair and Jack the first thing I posed was, you know, what's the problem that the town or this board's trying to solve. So I think you guys started started to hit hit on that. It's it's it's complex. So yeah, and along those lines, the current language stopped what we wanted anyways, right? Yeah. Under 30 days. That's our position, but obviously someone challenged it. Well, and they I saw one of the cases that said that without an affirmative prohibition that it was not necessarily I mean there's an argument to be made right that it could be it could be what we're doing is worthwhile yeah I think we're closing a potential loophole

if what we intend is to you know ban short-term rentals but you're right the existing regulations prevailed I mean you know got us the result we would have expected to get right so what are we so what are we doing no I'm just asking if no one cares about board that happens If it's if it's not, you know, if it if it's and then do you want to shut down? I don't know how many bed and breakfasts there are in Orange. I mean, bed and breakfast are not I don't know how many short-term rentals. Shouldn't Yeah, there should be. Not not to my not, you know, there's nothing no grandfathered in,

you know, establishment to my knowledge. No, but I think we I think we're actually to to Jay's point, I think we're actually this is a a reasonable endeavor to do given the fact that even with our current regulations, they were starting to pop up Oh, absolutely. um uh issues with all of the rental options that today's day and age now offers you. I absolutely think this is a necessary That's a clear message as to what our position is. Yeah. I don't I don't want to open a can of worms, but there's people advertising their pools for rent. So, yeah. I mean, depends what you guys want to do. Yeah. There's also a camper thing, too, where you can sign up Yeah. and rent someone's backyard for your camper as well. I'm not surprised to hear that.

This This wouldn't serve to prohibit that. The dwelling units. Yeah. No, we're This is geared or directed totally towards the dwelling unit. Well, we're going to get to the dwelling unit issue, I think. Yeah. I didn't mean to sidetrack the board. I just No, we do it all by ourselves. Okay. So for so the the the uh the the leasing of rooms and or furnishing of board the furnishing of board part's fine with everybody. I I think it's I'm okay either way. Yeah. I mean it's just so let's leave it.

See it is not an issue. Uh, so I'm just, so I'm looking at this and I think our intent is if somebody has a single family dwelling and they want to lease it out for for a month, three months, six months, a year, that should be okay. That's kind of our objective. But anything under 30 days, that's churning too much and it's an imposition on the neighbors. I think so. Exactly.

So my question is when we when we parse down this language and we start talking about uh the leasing of rooms. uh can it it seems like the lease can be a subset of the entire dwelling unit. So now we're back to the definition of the dwelling unit. Well, so the the dwelling unit to me in a single family residence should be one family in the home, right? So but when that's what that's what it says.

All right. or part of a building or part. So we can this could be applied if I understand this correctly to a part of a building that it's used not necessarily the entire building. I'm thinking a room. Yeah. Okay. Um and this would cover that. Right. So a rooming house would be prohibited under this. By the way, I I want to raise this now because I when it hit hit me when I'm gonna and I'm going to forget about it. You defined it as under 200 square. a dwelling unit is um under 200 square feet or it has to be at least No. So that that was one of the well that's one of the conditions that has been in the regulation that I that we did not touch. But

um that condition is when you're when just a room or rooms are being let the dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of floor area of 200 square feet times the number of persons to whom the room are let. Okay? So like if you're trying to cram in three people, you got to have 600 All right. So, that would take care of that. All right. Good. But the point I was kind of getting to is that we opted out of language that allowed people to have accessory dwelling units, right? You're thinking the um what either Jay or somebody was talking about a camper on the No, you're talking about the actual structure. Yeah. So let's say that

so the thing we do allow is when you have the uh the the the elder the elderly conversion the elderly conversion. Okay. Those are two separate you know uh dwelling units on the on the same property. Okay. So is you know the language here basically creating kind of a workaround where people will now be thinking they can have an accessory apartment that they can lease out on a yearly basis which currently we don't have. Right.

Does this open that door because that's prohibited right now. Right. Unless you're elderly or Well, correct me if I'm uh let's read 326A. A single for permitted uses single detached dwelling for one family and not more than one such dwelling per lot. Does that is that what you're getting? Then you go past that. So that's yes, that's where we want to be. And now we're letting out a subset of that as long as it's more than for more than 30 days. So if I come in right and it doesn't have a kitchen right uh there's something not an independent kitchen right right

so so I set up you know I'm an enterprising person and I convert my garage into an apartment to rent for periods not longer than 30 days and just tell them but there's no there's no uh kitchen, have I effectively created an accessory apartment that's otherwise prohibited under our rags? Well, absent this provision, that wouldn't be acceptable. Correct. Absent this provision, I don't think it is. When you say the you're talking about the the definition of dwelling unit. What? Well,

well, he posed a hypothetical about a particular a single family residence, right? Yes. Where you have a garage. Yeah. and you you're you know you make it nice nice and now you're starting to rent it out, right? I I my gut tells me that's not that's prohibited in town. Okay. I'm just asking Jack. I don't know about our code, but health code that would be health and building I think would be the more applicable departments in this scenario because you're now add you're adding a bedroom. Um well, you're renting it. You renting it, right? Well, yeah. And obviously if you're renting it then yes it's yeah but say you can say you have the capacity in your sewer system you know because you could make an addition

on your house with another extra bedroom if you meet physical criteria. But the thing is right now I I can't rent it to a third party. Right. The the garage. Yeah. Can I I didn't think so. So it had to be a separate unit or another way more than 30 days. Yeah. If it's less than 30 days, obviously it's

it's no but so so let's say because remember when the state was trying to push these accessory apartment uh you know every single family home can have an accessory apartment without coming before the board, right? And we opted out of that language. I'm just wondering if now this is you're giving people a workaround. Well, it's not to achieve it. What you describe or what Paul described is not a dwelling unit. The garage is not a dwelling unit. It wasn't before somebody got in there. No, it No, it but it would be leasing a room and renting a room. No, it a building or part of a building. Well, a building or part of a building, which would be the garage you're talking about,

right? part of a building designed for occupancy which is not applicable. It's not designed for occupancy. It would be after you put in a bathroom, right? Do we care? Hang on for a second. So, let's What's that? What's different than renting a room that's more than let's say it's more than 200? That that calculation is acceptable. And as long as it's more than 30 days, as long as it's been legally converted and meets our code, it's just another bedroom. Kevin's getting to is that a accessory unit that that this board declined to entertain previously?

We what separates adding an additional bedroom on a house to approving like an elderly conversion is that cooking facility. You can add entrance and such. Correct. Yeah. Right. But but you could always add a bedroom onto your house as long as you've gotten the approvals from the necessary departments and you meet the bulk uh standards. Right. Right. And as long as it meets our current regs, yeah, you you would be able to rent out a le but and I'm just saying that back when the state invited us to two dwelling units, I think. So I guess I guess the let me let me short circuit.

You're opening up you're opening up something we had canned before. Yes. But let me but I think that if we make it clear here with that if you're renting something in a single family uh zone, you're renting the whole house. Okay. So, not necessarily. Well, supposing Well, no. Go ahead. The way I read that definition, you could rent the first floor in a house. You could have a, you know, a short-term rental of the first floor. The second floor is closed off to you in some fashion. Right. Do we want that? Why do we, why would we care?

Well, why did we care when we decided we didn't want accessory? I didn't like it then. We didn't like it. We wanted It's not an accessory unit, though. The ADUs were detached structures, if I'm remembering right. They weren't. To me, it's two it it's two it's it's two families on one lot. That's what that's what the excess, you know, that's what this is contemplating. It's contemplating for a month that there'll be two families uh in one building. And I thought that what we were trying to do is that the rental was the entire structure, not a subset of the structure. and that we were making it clear that you couldn't do that on a daily basis, right?

But as long as it was for more than a month, it was going to be okay. That's the way I I read this. That's true. What section you are you reading? Well, I'm just I'm just using the uh se the definition of dwelling unit. Okay. Yeah. Which is a part of a building, in this case, a single family home. And if you rent it out for more than 30 days, it meets this criteria, right, as as not a short-term rental. And I don't know of any prohibition in town that stops it other than if we get into health and welfare, you know, health issues. And no, but wait a minute,

with no with no kitchen. I should say it a dwelling unit is either a building or part of a building. Mhm. Designed for occupancy. I'm thinking still single family, right? With a with a garage or so occupied by one family. Mhm. Right. So one family could occupy the garage, right? And I'm saying take out and just have it a building designed for occupancy or so occupied by one family. Then when you rent it,

your neighbor isn't doubling the amount of people who are next door to them by living next to two families. If you wanted to live in a two family, you know, you'd be simply that's how the current regulations read because I understand what are we doing? We're changing the current regulation.

And to Kevin's point, it would be kind of difficult. I mean, of course, it would be complaint driven. Then I would have to get into proving, hey, you're renting to four people, but you don't have 200 square feet per person. I think it would, the way it's written right now is a bit of an enforcement nightmare. You know, Kevin might be right just to changing it instead of where it just says a single or a d a building, not part of a building. Why why is the part of a building in there though?

Because then you could have the, for example, the the person who owns it in the primary structure and the renter in a subset of the structure. Doesn't Isn't that to cover Isn't that to cover uh two family houses because there's a couple of those in town, right? Well, they can be existing non-conforming. We're we're this is this is looking to the future,

okay? In a commercial uh marketplace where people are looking to make some extra money or they want it as a primary business. So if they want it as a primary business, I buy a single family house in town. I create two dwelling units in that single family house that shares a common kitchen and I rent it out for no less than 30 days. You've effectively made a duplex. I've effectively made a duplex.

What are you change are you are you thinking about changing some of the language here in terms of the definition of dwelling unit? Well, just that get the or part of a building and if we take that out now renting the whole building and that I thought was the idea. If you're going, you know, on VBO, I'm renting a house and if I'm going to stay somewhere for 30 days, I get a whole house. So, we take that out that or part of a building out. How does that affect renting out the garage? Now

you don't you rent out the whole building. It's still a single family zone and we and a and a single family. So that's where back if I rented out my garage right now. Mhm. for more than 30 days, which would ordinarily fit into this. I would I would not be in violation I would be in violation of the current um uh regs that prohib prohibit me from making it a two family, a commercial activity. Well, that's interesting. I thought it was a commercial activity.

I thought I could. So, you couldn't have a border. You couldn't take in somebody to rent. Well, supposing it was like a situation where we had an elderly person who had inhome health care 24/7, right? And it was a, you know, a bedroom and a bathroom assigned to her in the building. The rest of the building was occupied by the by the elderly person. Right. So again, you're paying that person. They're not paying you to be there. So So So that situation would occur. Wouldn't be covered by this. Well, it wouldn't be covered because

you're not charging them. Yeah. It's the exact opposite. So, yeah, but it's a good I mean, it's a good point. You don't want to prohibit that, right? I think the main difference was the cooking facility is it can't really be a true multi-unit house because only one side can cook. You know, the other side might have their own bathroom, but how long are you going to last in a place with without a cooking facility? Is that really a dwelling? All right. So, maybe maybe that was the idea. So, if I wanted to rent out, I could rent out my my garage right now on more for more than 30 days and it wouldn't be a violation of the the current or even the proposed change.

Correct. What if you you rented it out to a not for for to a band that uses it for practice? Yeah. Third party, whoever it is. Yeah. But I'm saying it doesn't have to necess you don't have to necessarily live in it. Yeah. Mhm. I you you wouldn't want to you wouldn't want to regulate against that. I I I'm right now I'm trying to get my head around exactly what where we stood and now where we we're gonna what we're going to do with this for for my you know if I own a house and I want to rent my second bedroom to a buddy of mine right now we we do allow that because it's owner occupied I have the 200 f feet for this other person they don't have a separate cooking facility

but what about the by one family though the the definition includes a reference to the occupancy being by one family. Let's look up the definition for family. He adopted his friend. I mean family. I mean I I I think the one family can be applied to the two options, a building or part of a building. Yeah. So I mean I I agree with Jack. I read the current regs as if I have a room and I meet the square footage and I and I live in the house and I can rent, you know, my finished attic, that's that's legal for occupancy as long as there's no kitchen attached to it for more than 30 days. As the currently stands, I could rent it for 24 hours and

Yeah. Right. But that that I mean, listen, I I I think we're all trying to get to this 30-day, but what are we getting? We're trying. Yeah. Under the proposal, it has to be more for 30 days. So I mean so my my focus is is not on the expectation of the property owner that we're regulating here. My my focus is on the expectations of the neighbors adjoining those properties and they live in a single family neighborhood

and I think it's a reasonable expectation there's not going to be more than one family in that personally in in the house next to them. So, no, it's nice. I I think it's a nice expectation, but if there's room in there and there's less than I mean, I'm thinking about one person who owns the house and they have the room to do it, why should we prohibit them from renting it out? Well, that's why we're having the discussion. I'm just saying what what my my comments are based on, right?

No, no. I I get that and I and I think below 30 days in the churning is something that that at least I'm I'm concerned about too. Um I just don't want to I want to be as least restrictive as possible. Is that what we want to do? In other words, I want to I want to target what we're trying to get to and not be overly broad. Right. Um and you've raised an issue that now concerns me that we're we're trying to get to that. So if we take out the or part of a building, does that get us where we want to go? That's

or or is it too restrictive? And that's the discussion we might want to chew on language wise, but you know, again, not trying to tote out the old parade of imaginary horribles. But I own a uh a McMansion that has 4,000 ft. My kids are all gone. Okay.

Mhm. there. You know, you know, with these numbers, if four people take up 800 square feet, I could have four people renting in there as long as four groups of people renting in there as long as they were there for more than 30 days. We're not trying to regulate that, are we? Well, I I think it's Do we want to? Right. I mean

what why I don't I don't know why and we would impose that restriction if we because because we want there to be uh just one family, one group of related people in that house and not anybody else. Well, it the that's sort of where I'm starting from. other people could start from somewhere else where it's not a big deal. Well, I'm just curious where we are right now. Um it in that scenario that you just posed,

if we had if I had four bedroomedroom house and I I occupy one of the bedrooms and three were available and I rented out to three other guys for more than 30 days a piece. I mean under the even right now for 24 hours, but let's assume it's longer than that. Is that any is that objectionable under the current statute under the current reg? I I think what's important here objection well if they create a breach you peace or whatever yeah but other that's not a zoning issue I mean it's right I think an important distinction here is our definition of family yes which is how many unrelated people

so a group of not more than six persons who need not be related who are living in a single housekeeping unit maintaining a common household but I think this is where it it applies to us a rumor or border to whom rooms are let and or board is furnished as permitted by these regulations shall not be considered a member of a family for the purpose of this definition. I'm not sure I understand. So, a rumor or border who is being let the room or or board is furnished as permitted shall not be considered a member of a family, right? But they don't have to be a member of the family, right?

No. Of a not not the family that's living there. Just a family period. So, it's not turning a one family into a multifamily unit based on this definition of what a family is. And based on that definition, if I had three other people, would that be prohibitive of that violative of that uh definition? A person or group unrelated? Yeah. Uh of related persons plus guest or Yeah. So, it doesn't matter if you're related or not. Or a group of not more than six persons who need not be related, right? Who are living in a single housekeeping unit maintaining a common household. so far. So was it like a stu like students?

That's yeah, I would think this is more geared towards a student. A rumor or border to whom the rooms are let or board is furnished as permitted shall not be considered a member of a family for the purpose of this definition. So I think the idea was hey if I have if I live in my home and I have two extra bedrooms right I can rent it to two unrelated people and they are not it's not considered a three family house at that point because they are not each considered a family themselves, right? So I think this definition is important and there's they're not three stoves.

Correct. There's no cooking facility. There's no they meet all the other provisions. So, tying it into the conversation we were having, I think that right now it's under the current regulations, we could have that kind of a situation where we're renting out the three other four people um up to I guess six is what I'm hearing and not be in violation as long and even under this right I don't know if it was four four pe I where where's the four people come in the four that's 38326 B so we may want to make that more consistent with this definition of family and with the number of people. One says six, one says four, you mean?

Yeah. A person or group of related persons plus guests and domestic servants thereof or a group of not more than six persons who need not be related who are living as a single housekeeping unit. Yeah. So, I think we need to make that a little more consistent. Right. But just just don't forget that's not like renting for compensation. that somebody you own the house and you have six people who are unrelated and I will just caution this board that the case law on what is a family is very very difficult and there are people who play games with with that. So like once you start getting into the family unit that I understand. Yeah.

All right. So, I don't know where that leaves us relative to I don't I don't necessarily think I I we need to regulate any more than what we're doing if um there are more people in the house. Um as long as they fit into the regulations, I you know, yes, there will be more people than just the one family. Assuming that we make one family is the guy who owns the house. Does it doesn't have to be, right? You could be you could own the house and rent the house. Yeah.

But you're renting it to a family. I I I just, you know, and you know, there just so many practical ways to get around the prohibition against, you know, you know, a kitchen. You know, somebody's going to put in a fridge in an air fryer that doesn't trip a 20 amp circuit. you know that most people can eat, you know, but but but that's that's not really a zoning. No, but the zoning issue is why are we creating the problem by allowing more than just rent the whole house or not? No, but I think what Paul's saying is why not have two, three or four?

Okay. I mean, why why would why is that objectionable? I I don't just because I don't like it doesn't mean the other rhetorical question. Yeah. I don't I mean I I think it's really restrictive to if Well, listen, we're going to short-term rentals here and we're trying to prohibit the short-term rentals, right? So, I I I think that fits in if um if right now under the current regulations, we could rent a house in three bedrooms. Um if I if assuming that I had the bedrooms um and that wouldn't be violative of of the current regulations, even if even if it were for less than 50 uh 30 days. Well, yeah. And we're that we're hopefully going to close that loophole. But yes,

and as long as that's the case, then I don't see why we um But if if four college students want to all sign a lease for the same single family house, happens all the time. I don't that that's okay with me. What I'm saying is someone wants to create a money-making, you know, enterprise and turn it into a de facto room, you know, rooming house, youth hostel, whatever word you want to use. I, you know, my largest investment on living next door, right next door, you know, I I don't think

we're balancing the rights of one and the other. Exactly. So is four people, if it was if it was a a max of four people, would that change your your opinion? Well, yeah. I mean, that's a standard family, I would say. You But uh, you know, I listen, I I'm I'm just talking it out. I mean, if I'm crazy, I'm happy to I'm happy to be heard say no, you're crazy. Does the square footage problem sol the square footage solve that problem? I think yeah, you can't have that many people. Yeah, right. And then second of all, I agree with you. No one would want a boarding house next to them, right?

But the reality of the matter is if there were people living in the house next to you and they're abiding all the other laws. Yep. Does it really matter that they're renting the house or family? Right. as long as they're quiet, good neighbors, right? And I'm um um so what you're what what we're talking about is just restricting my use of my property. Like you say that now, but you don't know what your future future financial situation's going to be and someday you may need to rent a room out, right? Yeah.

And and you're not going to be able to because we said no, there's none of that. Even if they're good people in there or whatever. So that's just my opinion. No, no. And and I understand that opinion, but I'll answer the question, which is if my situation changes and I can't follow the rules here, I get the blank out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. you know, but that's that's me, you know,

you know, but so it's it it it's reasonable for whoever owns the property to have beneficial use of it. Okay. And but since they bought a house in a single family zone, why isn't the beneficial use they're entitled to it being occupied by a single family,

right? You see that and where we differ is you see that use of the single family as prohibitive of getting anybody else in there. not anybody else but splitting it up into legally definable, you know, subsets in our rags. I mean, if listen, if if uh you know, uh a lot of these situations are just never going to come to your attention based on your definition because yeah, you know, if some unrelated college student is looking for a job and you know, we put him up for six months in our house, you know, nobody's going to complain

and he's not throwing parties. Yeah. Yeah. Right. No, you know, but they that's not the people we're talking about regulating. We're talking about regulating people who are investors buying taking single family homes off the market all over West End in order to create commercial enterprises to generate money. Well, not we're not changing the language regarding or the or the the prohibition against commercial use in the residential zone. That still applies. No. when by by letting them rent this and not having to be owner occupied, you are, you know, well, did we take the owner occupied?

That's what I was wondering in that. Yeah. In uh Yeah, that 326 they took out shall reside in Yes. 3 326. Yeah. I don't I I was going to say I don't think that that should be changed. Well, but you know I Let's take the Snowberg example. Okay. I 26 Um, a B1 B1. Okay. Person and the intent was that to target the snowbird who leaves for 6 months, right? Or even is gone for the whole year.

That I do see as, you know, one of the big changes that does need to happen. I would say one out of every five houses in Orange right now are rental units where the owner does not reside there. And I don't think that as long as they play by every other rule and they're not nuisance neighbors, that should be allowed, right? You know, and again, it's a use of your it's a use of your house, single family house. Mhm. Yeah. So, so my question is to me that's perfectly reasonable. Why is that? It's nice for it to be legal, right?

Now, the question is, well, what if it's more than one family leasing that house? And I'm just saying why not just stop at what the zone is? Well, I don't understand what you mean. I What I'm saying is we have five people. Let me just make sure we that I understand. It's a single family house. The owner is down in Florida. What for whatever reason, and he or she rents out the four bedrooms to four different people. That's what we're talking about, right? Right. Okay. Go ahead. But if they're all on one lease, you know, that would fit the context of the uh uh the exchange students. the uh the people at UNH all over the place, you know, things like that,

right? You said that that happens in Orange right now. I I have not had any enforcement issues running into that situation, but I have heard that there are one or two houses in town that get rented to students and it's not violative of our current code. Currently, they do it does have to be owner occupied. Change owner occupied. Could you solve that? Instead of saying owner occupied, it has to be the the the primary residence of the person letting the room. So now you can't have what you said where there's a company coming in trying to do it all. That has to be your primary residence you do this with. That protects even though you're even though you're in Florida x amount of time that doesn't I don't know if that's going to fly. You're dumb. Who owns it? I don't know if who owns

I mean currently actually the regs don't require to be the owner. It's the person who uh shall reside in the dwelling unit. Yeah. So they're not even the owner. I mean the intent of the current regs was to require you know the person letting to be there presumably for the emergency contact information or whatever or be the responsible party. So you know we we know that that's not happening around town right now that people are not residing in the home and are renting it for a long duration. Right. So for years at a time. Yeah. So not objectionable. I mean that's No, I think renting your house is something that happens all the time. Yeah. Right. So,

so, so that language, we're not questioning that language then in B1, are we? Well, I I mean there is a prop I prop the draft amendment is to get rid of the word reside and make it shall be the owner of the dwelling unit andor have a membership interest in the entity that owns. And I'm saying I think that's a good change. Yes. because it allows for the the snowbird, right? Yeah. Or I I decide to move to North Carolina, but I want to keep my house as an investment. So, we're really just But I just rent it to one family. Yeah.

Right. But the as as Owen said, the the difference is what what is considered to be a family. Okay. It's a hard it's a hard thing to enforce, right? People are slippery. So, I mean, our definition right now is is six. it. So, yeah, you don't have to be related. It's up to six people, right? Which I think this language does restrict the six. I mean, if if this language, if you are renting or leasing rooms in the residential zone, you go by 38326B, that says four people. I'm fine with that. So, I would say, listen, you're you're restricted by this code. Four is the max. Yeah. I mean, I had six people in my house and they were very objectionable.

So, so four is not bad. I mean, not to put words in Kevin's mouth, but I think what you're just Look, your suggestion is you you can only rent out the whole house. Yes. Not not room by room. Yes. So, it you would get around you would you would be comfortable if they rented all those the four unrelated people were on one lease and rented it out together. Yeah. For as long as it was for more than 30 days. So, so that they're not transient. One comes in, one leaves. Yeah. You want them all there for the time. Well, I mean, well, that's you can't regulate that, but there's one lease for the time with four names on it. Yeah, it's good when you put words in Kevin's mouth. Yeah. Yeah. I don't articulate. Well,

fine. I I don't know. Um, listen, you know, like I said, if people are fine with basically becoming a duplex, I'm not sure. I I I see I mean, there's a difference. They're more than four people. Say it again. Not more than four people. Yeah. I Again, just an opinion. I would be comfortable with an owner living there or not living there, right? As long as you do not exceed four people and you meet the 200 square feet per person, no extra cooking facility. I think it's reasonable for me to be in the house and then if I have an extra bedroom, if my buddy wanted to come there, you know, pay rent, he's there for and he meets all the other. If somebody else wants to come in, you have another right whether I live there or not. I I'm there. I mean, if you let the if you keep the residing in, then then you

I think the residing definitely you have to keep reference to letting of rooms. I think if it's owner if it's owner occupied, you could never have a complete but just an opinion. I I don't think we should require people to get out of the house to rent it. I think as long as you are meeting the rest of the provisions, not more than four people, no extra cooking facility, you have the 200 square feet, I should be able to live in that house if I own it, right? with whether I rent it out or whether I don't rent it out. Right. But is there I don't think is

No, right now we're not. But Kevin is making making that suggestion. Do we want to prohibit the renting of rooms if I if I live in the house? He's saying that, you know, we should only rent rooms to if they're going to take the whole house, you know, not a subset of the house. Yeah. Not a subset, right? Yeah. I would think the property would be more under control if the owner Well, clearly. Yeah. So, I mean, but that's Yeah. So, I I listen, I'm I'm with your working definition. Yeah. None of this is great, but I think it's as good as we're going to get.

And I think the main thing here is we want to definitely prohibit the short-term rentals, meaning anything under 30 days. I don't want to I don't want to stop that train. No, I mean, let's circle back to the Yeah. the reason why we're having this discussion. That's what we're trying to in the reside in is is big because we have so many people out of compliance right now it's sort of unreasonable to so are are we

are we making a change to the definition of dwelling unit or or not let me see I think it's more important to to limit the amount of people that can be in the house I And again, I don't know. I don't the other eightbedroom. I mean, who knows? Four four people still.

I mean, again, I don't and I don't know where the you know what else you uh may you have an effect when you change the definition of dwelling unit. Dwelling units probably used throughout the the regs. No. Does it affect anything else? Does it affect anything else? if we make that change we were talking about was a or or part of a building. Uh Owen, where did you get the um the dwelling unit was there before that the definition? Well, all but what what he's got underlined there, right? Yeah. I I only added um Oh, the including

the carving out of a hotel, motel, or recreational campground. So, I look that this board uh could choose not to touch um subsection B other than to just do the 30 days and we could address that problem. Yep. And kind of leave the rest on the books and just not enforce the residing. Um that's one option. But I don't love the idea of having language in here. That's what we're doing now. And it does not comes up often, but it does come up. Oh, I read the regulations. You know, the owner is supposed to be on the property. This guy next to me has rented for two years. Yeah, I don't need that. It's not my recommendation, but yeah, I think getting rid of residing is important. I'm good for that. Okay.

Getting rid of residing in, right? And I do think we should coordinate six and four and make it consistent or maybe the number of bedrooms or Yeah, I think like how Owen said, family is really tough to define and I'm not sure how much we want to get into the weeds of that. I think and again this is just my opinion. We have an attorney here who could probably say better. I think restricting we're littered with attorneys. Yeah, true. We have many of them. I think the fact that we restrict the renting and leasing of rooms or furnishing of board to not more than four persons in the stat in the section that they are applying under or saying, "Hey, I can do this as of right."

I think that's clear enough to say, "Hey, it's four, not not six." But so not to be who I am. Not more than four unrelated people, but if if you're a family of six, you're a family of six. It doesn't say unrelated. It just says No, I know what it doesn't say. I'm just saying that if I go to rent a house in Orange and I have six people in my family and we change it to a maximum of four, I can't rent the house. I see your point,

right? Which is not, you know, somebody's built like my best friend, they built the house, they had to rent for a year. They didn't have six, but that that does have that scenario happen. Yeah. And and I think that's a reasonable thing. If there's seven people in my family and and we're building our own house, we need to rent somewhere for I agree. I don't think they should be I think you can limit the number of unrelated people, but not Okay, I think that's fair. Okay. Yeah. And I think that's what that still gets us to not getting a rooming house. Yes. Okay. Four people is a number. It's unrelated so that we don't uh you know uh uh somehow come down on larger families. Yeah. All right. I've got that. So So the snowbirds rent only rooms in their house, you're saying currently, or they rent these? No, but they can. They could they could do either.

They could. Yeah. That's a building or part of a building designed for occupancy. But in in a practical world, a snowbird's going to want a lease with with people's names on it. Yeah. Now, are they're not going to care if it's your son, my daughter, you know, Jack and Jill, you know, it's but they're going to want to lease the whole All right. So I don't think I don't think we're changing the definition of dwelling unit, which is good. Um, well, go ahead. Do you want to keep what I proposed in terms of take it out? Yep. That exempt out. Okay. So we don't have to close down those things. That's nice.

And everyone's okay. Just to make sure we're all on the same page. Everyone's okay with the definition of short-term rental. Less than 30 days. That's good. Okay. And then um adding new 7 to um 38319A which is the enumeration of prohibited uses for leting of rooms or furnishing of board but we'll change that to leasing of of rooms if that makes it consistent. Yeah, that would make sense. Where's that four limitation? Uh 38326B. That's the second page.

Yeah, that's the next one. So yeah. So that so the is that B1? No, B. Uh it's B and then um the the numbers are for the conditions. So I'll change the header to just leasing instead of renting or leasing. Leasing rooms. Is that what we're gonna say? Unrelated. Yeah. So instead of more not more than four persons, we'll put not more than four unrelated persons, right? Otherwise, areas that we don't. All right. What section is that, Ellen? Uh 38326. It's the bottom of page two. They're on the same page. Go back on the bottom.

Yeah. And so are we at 38 326? Yep. B. Okay. Okay. So there we might suggest going to a total of not more than four unrelated persons. Yes. Okay. And it's still a little bit inconsistent with I don't know what you were reading but six definition of a family. Oh, and

a person or group of related persons plus guests and domestic servants thereof or a group of not more than six persons who need not be so related. So our definition of a family doesn't make these people be related either, but I I don't think that prevents us from make from doing what we want in 38326. Yeah. Yeah. Hey, who are we covering with uh interest in the entity that owns the dwelling unit? Who's that cover or something like that? It's not owned by a separate business organization, you know, LLC. I don't the J Properties LLC. We're okay with that. Yeah. Yeah.

That's that's language we're we're proposing to add, right? Yes. So, I got to ask and I'm sorry you didn't look at it. Oh. Oh, well, you didn't change it. 38 38326F conversion of a dwelling existing that one. Yeah. Okay. What the heck is this? That is to become a two family home. These are the only criteria. There's no application process. If you meet these provisions here, that that is what it is. Or uh F or one, two, three, four. And has that had one or two one or two people do it? I've never had any complaints or issues come of it. No.

Okay. So, so this is something that's been in the code forever. For as certainly as long as 1937. We didn't adopt the code until I don't think. Yeah. Yeah. It was a little Yeah, it was 40s. 30s 40s. Yep. Right. Um but I I can't say I've had any issues with it as of yet. It's not been amended. Okay. attorneys. If there's a dwelling on a property that was built before 1937 and it burns down, yes, and you build a new one, yes. Does this still apply? So, um the question is

the question is does the current um zoning regulations apply or is it somehow grandfathered into when it was built? And therefore the only thing that would cause it to be that way is that but but for the fire it would have been um okay beforehand. Does it run with the land or the building? Yeah. So I'm I'm not sure this is analogous yet. Yeah. Right. I I have a I have a non-conforming building in New Haven. If it had burnt down, we do have a casualty clause in our non-conforming.

And what does it say? Six months or something. It's 75% of the assessed value. So if a if a house or a building is destroyed beyond 75% Uhhuh. shall be reconstructed and repaired in such use uh the ter Yeah. If it's before if it's uh more than 75% it says you have to build it and come into today's code. Really? If it's under 75%, you get to resume and continue whatever non-conformity was there. Today's today's zoning regulations. Correct. That's that's casual 38313. That's not exactly what you were asking. No, because you could have a No, no, no. I get it. Yeah.

Yeah. No, no, I Sorry, I don't want to take up an interesting question. It's a fairly long provision, so I'm not going to like dive into it, but definitely a good good thing to look at. could have been on the bar exam last couple and there is you know you have to start repair within a six-month period. Yeah. Yep. There's a lot of things that you have to meet but ultimately it comes down to the extent of the destruction of the place if it had been fully destroyed today's you have to that's the way I'm reading it. Yeah. Right. So, moving on to if we make these a few changes, then we start the public hearing process.

Uh, if unless we need to see it again, I I think probably not. Probably not because we can check it and we can make changes after the public hearing also. Yeah. I mean, so Owen can get us a, you know, an amended version from our comments tonight. I'll send it out to the board. There could be uh you know the public may possibly suggest exceptions to the no short-term rental rule. What are you saying public? No, I mean because I I can envision at least one or two. Yeah. Where where it it makes uh it doesn't make sense to me to prohibit

the short-term rental. What do you got in your head? Well, as someone coming to uh to town, you know, takes a short-term rental for two weeks while their child has a surgery at Yale and recovers someplace else. Well, they go to Yale because it's, you know, it's the procedure is available only there. No, no, no. I meant I meant under under the current regulations, it it seems to make sense what you're saying. It would be prohibited. And my response would be there are places that you can go for less than 30 days for those kinds of things and that are near Yale as well,

right? Because if we open the door to those kinds of exceptions, I think we're opening a door that's going to um I'm just going I'm going by I mean I didn't I didn't think that up myself, but but uh I think someone said that at the uh Yeah, that was Yeah. No, I think it's a fair point. At the board of selectman meeting, one of them. Yeah. Wedding. Somebody mentioned coming. Yeah. Yeah. We had one with a wedding. You know, she booked a house and then Yeah, but you don't have to come to Orange, I guess, is your answer, right? All right. So, let's do that. Let's uh make these few changes and get it all set up for a public hearing. Sure. Uh for our next uh meeting,

probably later into November at this point. We have to give 35 days notice and as long as we get all of our referrals back in time, I can get it two weeks into the paper. So, I would say late November, probably not early December, but potentially. All right. I mean, I think we're close enough where we don't need to look at it again before we hold the public hearing. Right. So, okay. Next item on our agenda is uh report of the zoning enforcement officer, Jack.

All right. I will do my best to fly through it. Um, regarding our POCCD, I was going over some coastal management uh statutes and I noticed that uh referral for potential new PCDs need to be made to D. Now, that was not done during our referral period and I had even brought it up with BFJ who was of the opinion that it didn't need to be done. Maybe they weren't aware that, you know, we do have small areas in Orange that are under the under the Coastal Management Act. um 34 right off the Hatonic in a in a small sliver down at the end of Conair Road towards Milford. Only a few properties there. Okay.

So when I noticed that, I called Owen. I said, "Listen, I think we need to do this before we do any voting." He agreed. Um so that is why we are not having the PC vote tonight. Um that referral has already been made to D. Hopefully they will get back to us before that 35day period is over and we can do it before our November 18th meeting, but as of right now, that is when we're going to be planning on having a new public hearing opened because we have to get all these referrals in 35 days prior to the public hearing and then we can reopen it. So, because we had a public hearing open, we realized, hey, we don't have this referral yet. We should start from scratch and then go from there. All right.

I'll just add you have to if the commissioner makes any comments, you got to read it into the record. If not, so be it. But you have to afford the commissioner 35 days. Did anybody get a look at the uh revisions? We Yeah, they sent us to I know we have them. Did anybody look at them yet? You guys tell me. I mean, I I saw them. They all looked good like what we had discussed at our last meeting, but All right. So, we'll take a look at those before the next meeting. Yep. Are they going to be here? Uh they are planning on being here at the November 18th meeting, but if for any reason we can be before that, we'll let them know when they can get here. All right. Well, we we should all take a look at the uh revisions.

Mhm.

Okay. Um next is a little bit of scheduling. October 21st is our next regularly scheduled meeting. Uh we have been made aware that early voting is going to be commandeering this room. So, I'm letting everybody know that as long as we obviously have uh items for our agenda, our next meeting will be at High Plains. So, everybody has been noticed. Um, November 4th, which is our next regularly scheduled meeting. That is election night. So, that won't work. Wednesday, November 5th seems to be a free day. If everybody can confirm, doesn't have to happen right now, but can confirm to me sometime within the next week or two that they are free that date or if they're not.

Well, I'm good for that date. Yeah. Wednesday night specifically to get out of I know in November at the beginning we're going away. Okay. And if it doesn't work then yeah, we can we can uh November 5th is going away after the election. Yes. Yes. Right. I'm on a I'm on a uh I don't think I'm on a uh I think it's Aussie Aussie J. I didn't see your name. Yeah, I'm on a deferred something. Well, you got you're staggered. Yeah. Right. So, you did it two years ago. So, now you're good until the next election. Yeah. Um what's the the date we're going to have the the public hearing on uh the PC? November 18th.

Oh, okay. So, that meeting we should be all set. Everything's buttoned up by then. No, no, no. The PCD meeting for November 18th will be here. Okay. Our next regularly scheduled meeting, October 21st, will be at High Plains. Oh, okay. I will be away on the 18th. Okay. So, November 18th, that shouldn't be a problem. Okay. As long as you have four people to Right. November 4th was our regularly scheduled Tuesday meeting in November. We are hoping to just do November 5th, which is the Wednesday. If for any reason that doesn't work, please just let me know. I'm sure we can figure something out. I don't know at this point if we'd have anything on our agenda, but let's assume we will.

Um, so we'll do that. Uh, Seven Brew had a soft opening earlier. They got their CO place. That's the coffee place. Y So, uh, just wanted to let everybody know that. How bright How bright is the sun? I I drove by I drove by in the dark. Yeah. To wear your sunglasses. No act. Well, in my opinion, the sh the shielded achieved the brightness objective we had. Good. Good. It it is obvious that the entire side of the building is a sign, right? But it's it's not a distraction as you're driving by. Okay. Good.

Um and they're not open full-time. That was a soft opening. They're still training people, getting some stuff squared away over there. Um last item is commissioner training. Um Yeah. Yeah. Scrog has made it clear that them and Yukon Clear are not going to have new curriculum this time around. So, we're sort of left with re-watching the old stuff that we did or looking and paying attention to Yukon Clear. Kevin, I think you had said something about Yeah, always monitor that site. That's that's a great way to do it. They have uh at least uh three hours of of stuff um which is what what's required. Yeah. There's a of affordable housing.

I didn't get to the one hour of affordable housing yet, but I did the other two and you can actually get through them. Can we do it? Can we do it together one evening? Uh Oh, yeah. You You could It's a It's um It's basically a YouTube video. Oh. Oh, okay. Yeah. It's okay. It's It's made to You do it at your leisure. It's not a live the Yukon Clear. Yeah. You go there and you just click on a link and they have three choices. I think Kevin sent an email within maybe the last two weeks. Yeah. So, we have that and if anybody I know I've sent the link out to the training that has already been out that's everybody looked at. If anybody wants that again and for some reason is struggling to get their hours twice, right?

Yeah. Okay. Gotcha. And by the way, I want to borrow that book. Yeah. Oh, if you want, I'd be happy to give it to you before we go tonight. Yeah, that'd be nice. For sure. Um, and I am for picking up a couple more copies of that and just having it for commission members. Do we have to authorize him to spend $35 a couple times? I've got money in the budget for Yeah, we're not big spenders here or I'm not. Um the book

the only last thing I guess is uh Jay you didn't because you weren't here the four hours of training that SCROG does provide for us that would be great for you because again you're not watching it for the second or third time already. Yeah. Um but other than that just try to please get that done before January one of next year. That's it. And that's all I got. Yes. All right. Any questions for Jack? All right. Anybody prepared to move that we adjourn? So moved. We have a second. You stay here all night. Second. All right. It's been seconded. All those in favor? I. Thank you all.