Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Lawrence. Okay. Good evening and welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting of Chesig Beach, Maryland, April 22nd, 2026. I'm going to call the meeting to order. And I would like to have a roll call, please. We'll start down here at Commissioner Han. Ellie Han present. Christopher Smith present. Mary Sman here. And I'm Cindy Greenold. Oh, Larry Brown present.

And please note that Rachel uh Commissioner Rachel Larson Weaver is not here tonight. She's absent. And we are sadly missing Jan Rutk. She has retired from our commission. And I welcome anybody in the audience or at home who would like to who is of course a resident of Ches Beach to maybe think of and consider joining our commission. Okay. Uh, and if you need if you need to I think you can get an application online for this commission, can't you? You can probably go online to get an application for the commissions. Yeah. So, you can either get one online or come in and probably pick up an application. We're so much fun here. You'd love to join our commission. We don't have any.

Anyways, okay. So, um, next we're going to have pledge of allegiance, please. So, everybody stand.

I know. I'm sorry. bag here. Okay, ready? Begin. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Okay. Um, now we'd like to have the approval of the April 22nd, 2026 planning commission agenda. Do I have a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second from Commissioner Han. Uh, any questions, concerns, changes, deletions, etc. Everybody good with the agenda? Okay. All in favor of approval say I. I. No, no opposition to that. So then we go on to number four. Approval of the minutes of the March 25, 2026 planning commission meeting. Do I have a motion to approve? Motion to approve. We have a second. I'll second.

Any changes, deletions? Okay, I hear nothing. Uh, please uh vote. All in favor of approving. I any any uh Okay, nobody saying nay to that. Let's go on to number five, public comment. I see nobody in the audience. Let's continue to number six, old business. We're going to have the final review of the zoning map, land use stable and conditional uses. We'll start with the zoning map. Okay. Can we have a little bit of a review here from our planner, Miss Franklin? Sure. Um, so if you recall, we were looking at we started out looking at just the land use table and the conditions of uses and we determined that there was some confusion between the R RV1 and the RV2 zone and that those confusions would be best rectified not just with the text but by rectifying this in the map as well. Um, so we had the attorney come in and speak with us about how to create and establish where those boundaries would be. Um, after discussing the parking situation, uh, I did a drive around to evaluate all of the areas in town and the parking off streetet versus on street parking to try to draw the boundaries for RV1 and RV2 within that framework. Um, and so we that's what why we have some changes on the map with regard to RB1 and RB2 and RMD just refining how each of those are defined. Um, and then you'll also see that on the map we now have underlying zoning for the RPC areas and that is any area within HOA will have had a

development plan. Um, and so that development plan will be the zoning for any redevelopment in the area. But if someone wants to have a fence or a shed or put an addition on their house, they would now have underlying zoning that could guide their application for that. Um, and so there's three RPC areas on your map, and they're shown in the blue. Uh, it's not cross-hatching, it's just hatching. Um, and there is one change that I made. Um, I had had a parcel sort of in the south of town near Brownies. I had had it in RLD and then upon further review, it's actually 100% in the flood plane. Uh, highly susceptible to sea level rise and full of wetlands. So, I returned it back to RPC um as it would be a dangerous place to

You returned it to the RPC or the RC? Oh, sorry. This the RC. Okay. I misspoke. Thank you. Um does everybody see where she's referring to? It's a section right down here by the F in the right here. There's a little cutout. Okay. And if you uh you can't you don't if you don't have your last map, you can't, you know, distinguish which is which. But yeah, there's just a little cutout area that looks like a little rectangular area. And that's where we added it back in. And that's consistent with the comprehensive plan guidance with regard to areas susceptible to sea level rise. Is it possible at the next meeting to get uh an additional map because my zoning districts at the bottom are cut off? Yeah. Oh,

they are cut off actually. Uh we can't tell what the key is. The key is half cut off what you would say. Well, that is unfortunate. What's it? As I would say, use the key. We need the key to the map. Well, I will. Yes. And I I can also email it out so you have a Oh, digital version.

We can print it out right now. You probably want to make sure you know what we're talking about right now because I want to I don't think we need to look at this map. And you're not going to be changing anything more on this map, right, Miss Franklin? I mean, we're pretty set in the changes that have been made. I think it looks so much cleaner than the prior ones looked. Um, you've gotten all the uses together, combined them. You you've you I think it's a much cleaner map as far as the districts are concerned. Yeah, I I do.

So, I'm a lot happier with it. I think I like how the um RV2 goes along 261 going to the north. I like it on the on the on the west side of 261. I like it going up there. Um just I can't tell me what is that is that just the first block of homes that we've got RV2 because I can't tell exactly by the uh streets here. It is um that is one area that I have a little remaining concern about. Um we when we when I went out to establish which district was which based on whether there were driveways present um I actually had the RV2 coming further like closer to Chesapeake Beach Road. Um and then we had a discussion we moved it back um to where it is now. But I'm a little concerned because some of the area that's in RV1 doesn't, you know, is is no longer complying with that objective criteria we set out. And so I feel like it might need to come down to I think it's in the middle of 20 between 28th and 27th where that changes. It's like

Here's the key in case you guys are looking. Here's the last month's key. Take a look at the key. You're good. You're pretty good. And maybe you need another one for Kelly. Kelly, do you want I I know what your zones are myself. Brown is the RV1. The darker brown is the RV2. The orange is the RMD. And the yellow is the RLD. The pink is your town center. The purple is your uh neighborhood commercial. Uh the blue is your marina. And the red is your plaza commercial. little notch right here is the thing that she um she made you should change from last time

and you all kind of directed me there and I made a change but since then I've been thinking like it's no longer consistent with the criteria we set out and we might want to move that RV2 down further to move it south you talking about moving it south and yes to where so giving us more RV2 in that area and less RV1 right so that the RV2 is in all areas where there is off- streetet parking available and there and there's quite a bit of off- streetet parking in that whole area actually. Um I mean we could return the whole thing to RV.

They I mean they have all thought they were RV2 for many years. I mean they were all RV2 for a long time. I mean most of those people thought that's what they were. So to change them to RV1 could be a little confusing to them. Um, we can go either way, but if we're going to split it, we should split it on the line related to that criteria that we have set forth. So, you're saying it's around 20th Street, did you say? I think it's either between 29th and 28th or 28th and 27th. Um I had another for let me see if I can

uh and that particular criteria would be the s the amount of parking available off streetet parking available there's off street yes so I think so okay oh the other thing I was thinking about I know we talked about this briefly and I couldn't figure out where exactly the um American Legion is on this map,

but because they have I think they still have gaming in there, don't they? And don't we want to make sure that that corresponds to our use, right? Our use, our land use table in in this case because I believe they're in the RV1 or sorry, the RLD. That's what I'm thinking, too. Um, and they're currently in the RLD. That's not changing. I don't think we should zone just the one property. I think that that should be um in a non-conforming situation. Okay.

Uh, which does remind me about the BA question like BA is non-conforming. Um, so that's accept an acceptable way to address it for both of them. All right. Who has any questions, issues, concerns? Yes, Miss uh, Commissioner Gman. I just want to make sure I understand. So, if you're saying that BA and the American Legion or in areas where now they're going to be non-conforming, will there be something issued to them permitting that or do they have to now make application? They're currently non-conforming in the zones that they're in and so they'll continue to be non-conforming. So nothing so it's business

they're grandfathered.

It's why you saw some and and you still see there's like one stuck in here. I was sort of playing around with the um restaurant categories. Um in the RV2 um but I'm not sure about that because of the comprehensive plan and you could you see that I was me you between your Friday and your Monday I was kind of thinking through all that. Um, but it just means that that can be a restaurant cuz it's a restaurant, but you can't expand the restaurant. A different type of restaurant couldn't go in. Probably buy a could be

French, right? It could be French, but it couldn't be a McDonald's, right? So, it's got to be the right class of restaurant per the right definitions. Okay. Any other questions down there? So, it's non So, it's nonconforming. It stays the same. My only concern is we're making this decision now. 10 years down the road, we have a new commission. They have a different thought and they want to change it. What happens then? They do what we did.

Oh, in in six six years, five or I think it's six years. it may be five, you're going to be updating your comprehensive plan. Um, and so your comprehensive plan is what guides all this, what we have to be consistent with. And you know, there may be changes just in the next time that you update your comprehensive plan, but certainly in 10 years there would be a new comprehensive plan. And so there might be a new direction. And that's sort of, you know, communities do change. And that's why we update comprehensive plans. And that's why it's really important for the public to be part of the process and be here with us at the planning commission.

But my understanding is basically in 10 years anything can happen because it's a new comprehensive plan in a new commission.

Right. Well, your comprehensive plan guides you for 20 years, but you do have to update it every 10 years. Sometimes communities decide to do something different. Sometimes communities decide to continue along the same path with some modifications. Um, but a comprehensive plan is always a communitydriven public participation process of planning. You guys know that because you just did your um, and if you follow it along the way and you do everything that's in it, you'll get where you're going in 20 years. Um, and every 10 years you check in because you may have a whole new community who has a different vision that can happen. Um, and they may want to go somewhere different and you're you will have impacts of climate change that you're going to be able to see between now and then as well.

Okay. Thank you. So, we have included everything that is in the MC, the captain's quarters, all of the housing that's currently in there, including that one area that extends out uh past Abner's there. That is in the I'm trying to because I can't see the roads exactly. Is that in the um RMD? Where is that in the is that in the light brown or what are we what are we looking at here? So some of the I think the housing was all RH HD. Yeah. Um and so we changed HD to RV2 because they were functionally the same thing. RB2, right?

Um so it didn't make sense to have two categories. That's right. So that that so all of that housing is including the RV2 right there. So right here guys is where we were talking about the RV too that captain's quarters and a lot of that other little housing development right off of um mirror. Is it mirrors? It's not mirrors. It's St. Gordon St.

It's off of where you go back. Well, of course there's housing past on the right side of the water park. Housing on the left side right behind the library. Um there's all that housing in there by Abners. I just want to make sure we've accounted for that correctly in the um zoning of that RV2 area. So, I'm pretty certain that the uh marine commercial does not have any um housing in it, but if it does, it it may if it does, that again is just non-conforming. Okay. Uh that's why

Yeah, I think they're matching colors. They're not precise and it's confusing. It's dark. Not exactly, but I'm hoping to give you some help here. Thank you. But I mean, a lot good. I am right. Exactly. Commissioner Brown, what what would you think about this map? Good with him. Okay. Should we hold on this map one more month? What are you thinking about this map? Well, I will say that at the town council meeting there were some there was some public comment related to the map and related to this. Okay. Um and so hopefully those folks will come here. Okay.

Uh and provide that public comment to you all next month. Okay. during your public hearing. And then I think it would be either, you know, we can adjust that RV2 area tonight based on the conversation we just had or we can go to the and or and or right go to the public hearing, hear from the public. If you feel you want to make changes based on public input, then that's what we do and we will hold on it and uh see if there's anything at the public hearing that may want to you may want to tweak it a little bit more. Yeah. Are you able to kind of give us a summary of what the public comments were? I didn't watch. Give us a sense of where the public

So, there was one uh resident um who was talking about the RV2 and wanted it all returned to RV2. Okay. Um, I'm trying to there there was there just was a lot of general confusion, I think, around the home occupations because the council has the short-term home occupations and we're dealing with the long-term home occupations. And so there's sort of two different regulations that the public is seeing right now. And so there was some confusion about home occupations. I'm trying to remember if there was anything else. When you say short-term occupation, you don't mean minor versus minor. You're talking about minor,

right? So, what I mean is we sent them home occupations back in December. Okay. Um and they just adopted them last week and so there were like there were comments regarding home occupations. Um and sometimes those comments were getting confused with what we're looking at now, which is different from what we sent them in December. I'm I'm a little confused as to they didn't vote on what's in this draft. No. Okay. They voted on what we sent them in December, which supplanted with we once they adopt these, it will supplant that.

All right. Um and so people are understandably confused about that. Yes. So, okay. Thank you.

Okay. Um, now we still have a question on the floor and that really is, do we want to change back that RV 2 area that, you know, we've made into RV1. Um, I have been cons, you know, I've been concerned about it. I did write you a little email about it that um we're taking away some opportunities on one hand from some of the residents. Whereas on the other side, some people might say, "Oh, I like the idea of just keeping an entire area of just detached homes." So, and they don't want maybe perhaps town homes all over, you know, that down the road potentially uh in their area. But um I'm I've been a little concerned about taking the RV2 and making it into RV1 myself just because I know the people in there have always thought of themselves since I've been on this commission as RV2. Um and uh you say you've got you've gotten a comment from somebody uh a resident perhaps about that which you know it's intriguing to me. Uh what does everybody think about that? If you see the area that we're talking about, it's the area that is north of um 260. It's that light pink area that's right behind the antique store. And you can see where it uh goes almost over to 261, but there's a little ridge of of uh RV2, a little strip of RV2 that goes down there. Um, and we kept the RV2 there, I think. I'm just assuming because it gives that area along 260 uh 261 a little bit more flexibility in their um housing types. So, uh and and a little bit more opportunity in their business type as well. So, the question to all of you and we should talk about this right now. Actually, it's a good time to talk

about it. What do you guys think about bringing the entire area back to RV2? And we now know what RB2 allows. It allows um little um more variety in housing types. It allows for um the minor and the major business home business. Dwelling in combination too. And uh and say that again dwelling in combination. And the dwelling and the commercial combination, right? So it gives you a lot more flexibility if you have property in that area. Um and that was the area that I always made fun. You guys always teased me about it. I always said the the the cobbler was in there. The

I know you're trying to make fun of me again, but I mean that's where a lot of these little guys were, you know, so let's just go there. It's where a lot of these little home businesses were, and I think they're going to be a little confused if they're all of a sudden RV1. So, um, what do you think about that? Uh, Commissioner Gryman, what are your thoughts? And can you remind me why if if they thought they they were RV2, what was the reasoning for making them RV1? And I apologize. Well, the reason the reason why and I understand because I did my tour around the community about 10,000 times too, but you know, when Miss Franklin went out and you know, you you look at these housing, the driveways, everything that

you look at everything. You look at exactly what is going on right now, the uses right now, the the housing types right now, the the size of the lots, the the driveways, the parking offsite, on-site, you look at all those little characteristics that either fit into our RB2 category or fit into our RB1 category. And she thought, and I think, you know, I you know, I could see it that a lot of those homes that are now the light pink do fit into the RB1 category. Um, that's not pink. Okay. Okay. Well, I mean, it's it it's like beige. It's like taupe. It's like peach over here.

It looks almost whitish, but it really I think it's supposed to be pink, right? It's it's like a light brown. It's It's that light brown. I'm confused. Oh my gosh. We need to like get some I need to get some crayons or something here. Crayola. Yeah, we need the Crayas. Okay. Okay. But you know where we're talking, right? You're talking about this little this not really. You know, you know this peachy beige area. Yes, exactly. Anyway, it's between this one, right? Yes. Okay. Yeah, you know we're talking. Uh I do know now. Okay, fine. You know what we're talking about. You know, you know we're talking. So, Commissioner Brown, what are your thoughts about this?

Don't give me that look. That's about just asking a question. Well, that's that's where a lot of our businesses. RV1 doesn't allow that. That is my opinion. Exactly. Is that we're gonna valid valid very valid point. After all, it's where our cobbler is. No, I'm okay. So, why did that change RV1? So I I thought I just explained it, but I guess I didn't do it. Well, she asked it, but you want to do another explanation of this one?

What I did was sort of like a a blind assessment of what was RV1, what was RV2, not considering what was existing, but based on our criteria of driveway, whether there's off- streetet parking or not, what would qualify? That doesn't mean that that's what we have to adopt, but there are some areas where we're varying slightly from the map in the comprehensive plan. And when we do that, I want to make sure we have a clearly defined reason for altering the RV1 RV2. And so that's that's why that was done. Now, we have a clearly defined reason for putting this all back into RV2, which is there are businesses located in there. It is at the corner of 260 and 261 and it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. So we can put this back to RV2. But what I was providing you was here is without what's previously and as consistent with the comprehensive plan as possible. Here's how we do this. So I think it can go either way. Any of the RV1s or RV2s can be adjusted. We just have to have a logical reason why we're adjusting them. And I think our experience is that a lot of those little, you know, the cobblers over there. I'm sorry, I shouldn't be reving that one up again, but I do think that's where our little businesses are and they've always assumed that they can be in there. So to change that now would be extremely confusing

and unfair, I think. And probably unfair. Yeah, exactly. So, um, is everybody okay with the idea of, um, putting that back to RV2, that whole area? So, in other words, it would go up to where the it butts up to the yellow low uh um the yellow, okay, the yellow area on the west side and then all the way down to where the RV2 goes as a strip along 260 and then it goes all the way to the antique store where it's already, you know, we got the pink there, the fuchsia, the fuchsia, the town commercial, right? The town commercial, right?

So, does everybody uh is everybody in agreement that we should be doing that? I don't see anybody going no on that. Is we okay with that? Okay. So, I think without making a motion, let's just go ahead and have that changed and uh bring that back again next month for a a lookie again. I don't think there's any other area that we might want to reconsider RV1 to be RV2 because that was just historically always uh where the little businesses were. So, anyway, I'm good with that. If everybody can move on and we can go ahead. I'm gonna uh Madam Chair, can I ask a quick question? Yes.

On the old draft revision to zoning on 318 2026, there is the residential high density and it's marked out on in the key, but on our sheet here, I can't see if it's marked out. Can you refresh my memory on that? So, the residential high density and the RV2 were very, very similar. Uh, and so since we were simplifying, it made sense to just merge those two categories together. Thank you. And if you can see, we've taken it out of the zoning district for the land use classifications as well. So, uh,

okay. All right. Let's continue then. Uh, if there's nothing else on that item, we're going to go ahead and look at the land use. Oh, actually, do you want to quickly go to the ADUs and and go that way or which way do you want to go on this? I'm gonna let you decide. I mean, we can talk about ADUs.

Let's talk about ADUs. If you notice, ADU is number two, but I think in order to really do this table, we have to really understand ADUs as part of our our whole, you know, land use classification. So, let's uh go to the land use. If you want to look in your uh agenda, uh you could probably go to pageuh if you're in the paper agenda, it's over on page 12 on the draft and you probably have read it all in green and it's uh do you want to go ahead and give a little background on it then? So the the state adopted new accessory dwelling regulations last legislative cycle and they need to be in place by October of this year. The state was hadn't produced guidance they produced guidance last month. Um their guidance was different than what I was expecting it to be. Um, and so I did have a conversation with the town attorney to make sure that what we're putting in here is the correct legal interpretation. Um, and so that is a basis of where you see this legisl the what's drafted in front of you. So the first the biggest change is that the definition of an accessory dwelling unit is defined by the state and that definition is that it is not greater than 70% of the size and subordinate to the primary detached dwelling unit. The legal interpretation of the state and our attorney is that that means it can't be less than se we can't require it to be less than 75%. You're certainly

entitled to build it whatever size you want but we can't put a maximum size on an accessory dwelling unit anymore per the regulation. It says not greater than 75. It can't be greater than 75%. Which means it can be less. I thought we can't we can't say that it has to be less. Well, because it doesn't have to be, but it can't be more than 75%. It can't be more than 75%. But we can no longer like right now we say 650 ft. We can no longer say that. Okay. So, I thought I heard you say something other than that, but okay. Thank you. I might have because it feels like a convoluted way to say it, but

our previous version had 600 and some odd 7500 square feet. 75 the minimum size. Yeah. This is saying 75% of the size of the upper limit. Yeah. Yes.

There is no lower limit and it has to be allowed on any lot that there's a single family home on. Um now you'll notice we discussed not saying single family anymore. So in our it says detached dwelling. Um, so that's why you see the lot minimum lot size removed. Um, I've left in the owner occupancy regulation, but I'm not certain that that will remain after legal review. Um, a little three.

Yes, little three. Um, there are a few additional things that I've seen other communities do because I think the biggest concern, well, one of the big concerns with a building that large in your backyard um is emergency access. And so, you know, we've added having your own ingress and egress, um, having vehicular access from the road, um, making them be set back from the principal structure, making sure that there's sufficient clearance from power lines and side lines for emergency access. Um, and we can probably put a amount on like a size on that, but it may be different in different places. Um, and so that's why you'll see some of that coming in there. And then of course, the state determined that ADUs cannot be considered for the calculation of density on the lot. So that is laid out in this version of the land use table. Um, I did see another jurisdiction more recently since I sent this to you that um adopted something that says if if you later subdivide your lot so that there's two lots then it becomes part of the density calculation. And so we could consider adding that in here as well.

Is that will that be acceptable to the state? We don't know yet. Yes, it will be because it would be two separate lots. And so they're main thing is that an ADU is not part of the density. So sort of it's it's implied that if you subdivide it, it's no longer an ADU. Um but spelling it out clearly, there's nothing wrong with that. What if you subdivide? If you have a large enough lot, you sub subdivide and it's a whole blank lot, then someone can put a house and an ADU.

If if you have an AD Well, yeah, if you subdivide, if you have the space to subdivide, then right now you could subdivide and someone could put a house and an ADU, right? Okay. Right. But yes, your so your ADU could become the primary structure ultimately like if you subdivide it then the ADU could become the primary structure and it could have an ADU and you could have an ADU if you have the lot coverage for that. Can I ask you what uh little five is? Accessory dwelling conversions of existing structures

must have vehicular access from a road not an alleyway. That is it's under f big five little five. It's actually what is it? I'm sorry. Am I wrong? I'm sorry. Six. Okay, there we go. Like five and then it's close. Six. Yeah. Okay. That's something in the state law. So if you have a shed and you want to convert it to an ADU, but the only way to get to it is an alleyway, then you're not you can't do that. You have to have vehicular access that isn't from an alleyway. Oh, how close does the does the access have to be to the ADU? It doesn't say that. Yeah.

No. So, if you have a driveway that's in the front of your house and you put an ADU in the back of like like in your backyard, do you have to have a like a driveway going up to that? Doesn't have to be separate. Is I think that's what you're asking. Does it have to be separate? I'm just Yeah, because I'm a little confused about that, too. as far as access to your vehicular a vehicular access from road, right? So, it's it's kind of interesting because you can't have a parking requirement unless you have a parking study, but you have to have vehicular access that isn't an alley. So, it's it it it's confused for good reason.

Access, what does that mean? Does that mean up next to the house or does it mean Yeah. out front of the main house? I and I think it is addressing this concern with regard to emergency access. Um because I mean you you know better than I do, Commissioner Smith is like how an emergency vehicle is can get through an alley. Can they get through an alley? There's an emergency. How are they accessing that house? And I think that's the biggest concern um with the size of them because they can become their own residences, right? Yeah. For a large family.

I I if I may, I think we understand about the alley part. I think the question is if you can access that ADU via the primary resident's driveway, you do not have to have a second drive. It just has to be a way to reach it. Yes. Now, what if do you have to have a driveway in order to have an ADU or could somebody where they park on the street? Can they have an ADU? If like you're uh you know there's not driveways. Does that make sense? It does.

So, your current code, and I've left this the way it is, your current code requires that there be two parking I I Yes, I did. Okay. Did I remove it? No, I didn't. Okay. The parking requirement of this chapter shall apply. Accessory dwellings will require two off- streetet parking spaces in addition to those required for the principal dwelling. So, if you have no driveway, if you park on the street, you cannot have an ADU unless you can provide it with off- streetet parking spaces. Now, this is this is something that's going to have to change because the state require says that if you have a parking requirement, you have to have conducted a parking study.

We have to do a parking study or does the homeowner have to do it? We have to do a parking study in order to keep this parking requirement in here. And we have to provide a waiver process from the parking requirement. Now, I have I have theories on what a parking study might say. I have ideas on what a waiver pro process could look like, but I would prefer to have the parking study complete before we touch this. So, so before October, we are going to have to touch this parking piece again. The question is, so even if the parking study mitigates against the ADU for a resident, you have to give a waiver. You have to have a waiver process. Oh,

okay. It doesn't say there's no there's a couple of things that the parking study has to cover, but it it doesn't give you a lot of direction as to what your parking study looks like or what your waiver process is. Um, and so in some areas there is off streetet or on street parking in adequate supply. In other areas there is not. And am I correct that and we may have touched on this before but this was to help with the housing crisis so that if people needed to live with relatives let's say in their own uh structure you know but wouldn't kill each other in the same house so they have a separate structure people can have habitable habitable habitable inhab

affordable inhabitable I can't decent places to live um where there is the ability to do so. So this is to address that. Is that right? I believe this is why they adopted these regulations. Okay. I just want to kind of understand. Thank you.

Okay. Um Okay. So when I go back to number six again that that Okay, I guess I should ask Commissioner Smith. You might be able to give me the answer here. Would you not think that this particular little addition is for fire safety or, you know, being able to get a firetruck to that accessory dwelling? Uh, don't you think if you were renting that out and you had a residence back there,

you would want to be able to get the fire truck close to it? What is the closest you you have to get a truck to that accessory dwelling? So when when calls come out like that where because there's there's lots of there's lots of places where I work here like in the city where um the apparatus can't reach. So

they have ladders that they can take off. They have hoses that are extended that like are 400 ft long that can reach those places. Oh, really? So there's there's there's uh there's ways that that that you can deal with those types of uh um occupancies that are uh that are not right up the street where you use your apparatus to put up a ladder or to put up you know. So when we talk about a structure that is the same height and just 75% of the size of the main structure and only 8 to 10 feet away.

Would you guys consider that a fire hazard to have a tall structure 8 feet away from another primary structure? I wouldn't say that's a fire hazard. I I'd say that's just another uh because we have I mean we have places here that are it's more business. No, it's just Yeah, right. I mean, we have different locations here that have like I mean, houses are right next to each other. So, putting up like putting up another occupancy on a lot, it would just be like a townhouse, but um yeah, I mean, being that close together, you have a greater risk that it's going to catch fire. The fire's going to jump.

But remember, in a town home, you've got you've got access right around the front. You don't have it right behind another house. I mean, it just seems like you're at you're you're risking a lot more. Take longer to get to it might create impediments. You're not going to get to the fire as fast. There's like there's more exposures now. So, if something happens then Yeah. But yeah. So, um the fire happens in the back of somebody's house, then you wait until it burns to the front so you can get to this guy, please. You've got He's got to be able to get around the back. Yeah.

Um, now on number uh uh let me see here one 51 little one. One accessory dwelling is permitted on any lot with already an existing detached dwelling unit provided it meets all other standards for accessory structures. So you theoretically can have two ADUs. No. Okay. It says one. One accessory dwelling is permitted on any lot with an existing detached primary dwelling is what you're talking about. Yes, that's right here on the page before dwelling unit detach. That's

So you're saying we don't need to have it again. Is that what you're saying? We don't need to write. I'm saying it look looked fine to me. And we don't really have the option to change this language, do we? There are things we can change and things we can't change. We cannot change the definition of an accessory dwelling unit. Okay? We cannot change that we have to allow them on any lot that has a single family dwelling

and we cannot change that they are not part of the density calculation. Um there are other things that if you're concerned about we can look at ways to address them. Um all of this, you know, is really sort of discussions and review with the lawyer because this again came out in March. So we all we all got it in March and um that is not a lot of time, right? So uh I have new thoughts about it daily. Um and I'm sure you guys have some thoughts that I haven't had. So if there's something you're concerned about, I think you should raise it and we should look into it.

Okay. Have you do you have a thought? Commissioner, you're trying to say something over there. I was thinking when when previously the regulations weren't such that when they built a multi-unit building that there was no like there's a firewall between the residents but not in the attic. Do we have anything? Because if the fire goes up and it spreads in the attic, then it'll go straight across, right? But if it's in the house and there's the barrier there, do we have anything that requires that they have a barrier in the attic as well as

Are you talking about an attached dwelling? Well, I'm looking at the like the dwelling town houses like a building containing four or more. They're not going to have ADUs. It can has to be a detached dwelling, right? Correct. Town houses cannot have an ADU. Town houses can't have an ADU. Okay. So, when they put an ADU in the back, could they make the ADU so that it's not just one? Like they split that ADU in half so there's two? No. Okay.

An accessory dwelling unit is still a unit which has Sorry, separate from the primary detached dwelling. Where does it say? Oh, it's because you know what? They also changed the definition of dwelling unit. I'm like, where is where is what I'm looking for? Um and you have to go into your definitions to see that. And um it is a single unit providing complete living facilities for at least one individual including at a minimum provisions for sanitation, cooking, eating, and sleeping. So it's a it's a single unit that your dwelling unit which is your accessory dwelling unit is only one that provides facilities for at least one person.

Uh anything else on that? Any other questions? So um the code in Maryland I think it's true that every new structure has to have sprinklers in the state of Maryland. Correct. I mean every I think after 2000 townhouse has 2017 isn't that right every new bill. So the question is do we want to extend that to an accessory dwelling that would contain residents that would house residents that but that may already be implicit. I don't well I don't know I don't think so. I think we have to we have to set the standards don't we

codes for that? So, there's a there's a couple of things because what with the fire walls and with the sprinklers, we're really talking about building code.

Mhm. Right. Um, and I think those things are important and the state thinks they're important, too, because it says that the dwelling has to meet any other standards for safe, fire safety, general safety, access, all of that. Um, but I'm I'm not certain the limits of what we can put here. So, we can ask about adding the sprinklers and the firewalls here. Um, and I think it's worth asking. I just don't want to be say, "Oh, yes, we can put them in here and find out we can't." uh because the ADU um the conditions for the ADU. So basically anything that would be pertain to a dwelling in the regular code would would pertain to the ADU is what you're thinking, but you're not sure.

Yes. Well, and we could also say that specifically in the zoning code is all building codes that requ that that apply. Okay. So we can include I think we if it's going to be for residential use spell it out I think we need to have all of the codes that pertain to residential housing pertain to those if it's for residential I mean not every ADU has to be for residential use right I mean it can be for storage whatever I think if it's used for residential use I think it has to have the well that would be an accessory you accessory structure so some accessory structures aren't going to be ADUs But any ADU is going to be an ADU. Oh, okay. Oh, okay.

So, you're assuming that all ADUs are residential because they're a dwelling unit. Okay. Because they are a dwelling unit. Okay. And do we want to determine exactly what the size of the uh primary detached dwelling unit would be considered as in order to make the 75% the maximum? In other words, do we include counting the garages and the basement? I mean, where do we start and stop on on determining what the size of the the primary detached dwelling is? It doesn't give us any any real direction on that.

No, that's Do you want to I mean, do we have any options on that? I mean, what's the final word? No, I think you're right. How how do you define the size of the primary dwelling? That is not dictated to you. Adding a threecar garage to you know to the original dwelling unit could be making it a large ADU. So do we want to specify exactly what are we are we allowed to do that? I mean you are allowed to def to define how the primary dwelling is measured. So potentially it would be up to 75% of the living space.

Well, that's what we could determine if it's um well the question is if the garage is turned into an ADU or into a living space and I guess that would be considered your ADU. The ADU um Oh, it would be even though it's attached to the house. You can have an attached ADU or a detached ADU. Yes. Okay. Yes. Yes. What happens if someone applies for

obtains and they and they build it a detached ADU, but they have an attached garage and then later they unofficially make a loft area in the garage for an in-law apartment or something. Is that a way to is that kind of going around the rules if if they don't come and get a permit, right? Then they are not compliant and that is an enforcement issue. If they have an ADU in the backyard and then they come for a permit to convert a loft above their garage, their permit will be denied because

they already have they already have an ADU. Right now, if they're in an area that allows them to do something different, like have multifamily or have a B&B or some such thing, then they might get the permit under those conditions, but two ADUs would not be permitted. Okay. So, I have a I have a question. Yes.

So, they have an ADU, they have their house, they have an an a detached twocar garage. They're not making it into bedrooms, but they're making it like a game room or something like that where they all can gather that it's not in the house because it's larger. Would that be considered an additional ADU? Because there's no bedrooms, no kitchen, it has to have complete living space, okay, for at least one individual. So they could just have a big room and a a bathroom and it's still not considered a a full ADU because there's not a bedroom, a kitchen, and everything else.

Correct. If you don't have a kitchen and a bathroom, you're not an ADU. Okay. All right. So let's discuss what we think the size how we can calculate the size of a primary residence dwelling to be in order to figure out what the 75% size would be. How what what do we want to use as a determination of the structure size? Do we want to use do we want to use everything from the street on up? Do we want to include any basement? Do we want to include basements that you don't use as livable space? I mean, what do we want to What are your thoughts, Commissioner Brown?

Home as defined as living space, at least in in Mundo County. Basement is configured to have a bedroom and a other areas than its living space. No, your garage is not it's not generally heated air condition. The living space is what uh what I understand it to be. Okay. What about down here? Uh Commissioner Graceman, what do you think?

I mean, I think you could also argue that if someone uses their basement as their exercise room, but they can go right upstairs when they need the heated. I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know. Um, but I mean, but you create your own heat when you exercise. So, maybe it doesn't if the basement is heated and and you've got it's it's living space. So, it has to be habit. Now, I can say it correctly. Habitable. Yeah. Okay. Inhabitable or habitable. Okay. All right. Commissioner Smith, what are your thoughts?

I agree with Commissioner Brown. um livable space I feel like is the is the definition you can go with and that's 75% of that. So then if your attic is just for storage, let's say just a crawl space or it's just old boxes, we're not counting that as part of right. I think that's probably a fair it's a fair definition that would apply to anyone. It's readily discernible. Commissioner Han, what are your thoughts? I agree with the consensus. Okay. So, if the basement is not already an ADU,

because the ADU because a basement could be turned into an ADU. Yes. So, if the basement is not already an ADU, then it would be considered Why would a basement be an ADU? It's part of the main house. But you can make it an ADU and you can make it completely separate with its own kitchen, its own bathrooms, its own livable space that's separate and an entirely separate part. You just do that by getting a permit to um a contractor to build out your basement as opposed to an ADU. I would think that would be, you know, um

I I can go both ways. Yeah. If you have an unfinished basement and you're using it in living space, then you finish it. Is that considered an ADU? because now you just finally got the funds to finish it, but it's for your family, not for renting it out. But you move your child down because they're now a teenager and they want the basement finished and get away from everybody else. But there's no kitchen down there, right?

Then it's not an So, yeah, this has to be a total complete independent living area. But let's just say so an area. So all the livable space that is not already considered an ADU um would be the um the structure size that we would use to determine what the 75% uh would be for the AD. So does that make any sense? Is that right? I mean

could you write that up to make it sound right? Yes. Okay. All right. So, is everybody in agreement that that you were going to say something, Commissioner Brown? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were, too. I did, too. Sorry. Okay. I just want to write that down.

I I did have one more question for you. Yes. as far as um when it and now this might have to do with um code or um whatever. I I'm just basing this off of a lot of the the previous in the previous administration of town hall when when a lot of the the topic of hooking up to water, hooking up to sewer, those tap fees, would those apply to these a like like would those apply to those ADUs as well? So, this is definitely going to be something that has to be considered in the water and sewer manual because, you know, 650 square foot ADU, maybe that doesn't need its own tap, but

I can I can build a 1,200 square foot ADU in my I can build a,200 foot ADU in my backyard and that certainly needs its own tap. Um, so I think that is a water and sewer manual issue that that needs to be discussed. Yeah. Um, but we're not the board that looks at that, but I have spoken with the administration about it. They are aware

of the concern. So, should we add that in there that if you get to a certain percentage, it will require adding a water tap and another permit? Well, so the water taps are managed by the water and sewer manual, not by the zoning ordinance. Um, I can do I need to have it in two places because what happens is if you update the water and sewer manual and you don't realize you have to update the zoning ordinance then you have two conflicting. So then maybe put a caveat, say note, refer to the water manual. So um so people are aware.

See, so that you're aware if you do a certain percentage of a house that you're going to now need a tap and those taps are how many thousands of dollars. I think that you need to I think you do need to make note of it at least. I I just think it was a hot topic last year and I know that question is going to come up. So right and that makes sense to add it in here. say all ADUs must comply with the town's water and sewer manual which which then you don't have to update right the zoning and then if anything happens we can say well at least I mean you don't have to update the water manual

okay and so you were also going to be checking about the building codes and if we should make a statement about all building codes apply to the ADU and it may make sense to kind of put these statements in here where we don't normally put them because a lot of times someone who is developing an ADU is someone who truly is trying to make a place for their kids or for their parents and sometimes they don't have right the a builder and this information right in front of them when they make the decision. So guiding them to that information right here in one place is it's probably worth the extra words and extra space I think so um to help people understand.

Okay. So, what do we want to include then if you're talking about building codes? I was just going to say that they have to refer to the building codes. Um, I would say that if it's within your within your home, you may have to I I don't know what the fire if the fire codes are going to be different, right, to set up an ADU inside your home versus outside your home. Um, but I can certainly I I would think we just say that that we comply with it so that we don't have to put it in in case it also changes because I'm sure it does change. I think just making people aware that

the zoning manual is not the only place they have to get their information and compliance issues. Yeah.

Okay. And is everybody okay with the height of the PR uh the the ADU being the same height as the principal structure? Um which which one is that? That was on number nine. A little nine. Little nine. Okay. Yeah. Or less. Yes. Of course. Not exceed not exceed. Yes. Of course. Um okay. Uh, I think I think we pretty much have covered everything. I is if if that's it, I think we're gonna move on. Is everybody okay with ADUs then? It's

a little bit of a a wrinkle in the sense that it's something new to us, but or you know that we don't have to talk about too much. Okay, let's go to um the land use table and uh let's let's go back to that. Um all right. So going back to the land use classifications table. Um are there any changes on um the residential uses that you want to talk about right now? I mean, I think we need to go over some of the definitions again, but um as far as the land use, do we want to talk about the table or do you want to go to the definitions of the of the zones? Which would you prefer doing right now?

I think, you know, maybe review independently the table, make sure it's still what everyone's looking for, and we should discuss that next month after the public hearing. But I think looking at the definitions, I did try to go through and remove words in some places. I know some of them are still pretty long. Um, I did add a whole bunch of Well, I I didn't necessarily add new definitions so much as if a definition exists in the land use table and it's not like a common something that's commonly understood. Um, I put it as a definition in our definition section. Um, I think that's useful to people who like to go in one place to read all the definitions. So the one thing I notice um that you did change is on the uh number to page two dwelling unit in combination with commercial use which is um okay so it's actually on page one on the new one on the on the old one is page two but anyway I was comparing both and just making sure that I understood the changes. So, I just want to make sure everybody sees that uh the dwelling use with commercial use. The dwelling unit with commercial use uh is not permitted in the um the three RVs. And then of course once you get to RV 2 going to TC, it's all permitted. And then it goes uh not permitted from PCMC RC. Um but you we had it as conditional in the TC last month. So, I just want make everybody aware that there was a change there.

You reminded me what I what I did. Okay. You were you were trying to get me to say this, which is that we had this discussion of why do we have conditional uses? Why do we have special exceptions with conditions? What is the point of that when the regulations or the standards are the standards? So, they're conditions anyway. And so everything that was a conditional use is now a permitted use, but it's still subject to the standards that are provided there. And everything that was special exception with condition is now just a special exception. So okay. Uh yeah. Okay. Does everybody understand what she just said?

Yeah. Can I just before I forget um on page three there's one remaining SC. I think someone just I probably just missed it. Huh? I see. Yeah. Yep. I missed it. That'll be an SE, right? Yes. Okay, great. So, Commissioner Han, you may not be aware, maybe you're seeing it for the first time. Um, there are no SC S's, just S if you notice. So in last month or the month before uh our our um use table had a lot of SC's in it and you removed them

for CL I guess for clarity is pretty much removed them all any anything that had conditions we just removed it and made it without because there are conditions the standards go to schools on page did I miss one yes I just said that yeah he he just said that Yeah, mistake. It's a typo. If there's one there, let me know because it is a typo. And then the other thing you asked me to do with this was to find areas where people might not need a permit. And so you'll see there's an asterric in some places. And that just you still need to follow the standards, but you don't need to have a permit. So for a school, you need a permit.

Yes. Chesapeake Beach uh elementary school has a permit. Yes. Um they're in RV1. Yeah. Is that correct? They are in RV1. We talked about that last month, too. So, they been in they were in RMD, right? Is that right? Um I think they went into Let me see here. where schools wherever they are currently are not permitted there either. They're they're a nonconforming use in the zone that they're in. So I have a question.

Yes. Are there any other schools in Cheschools? Yeah, maybe large schools like that. I don't know any other school, right? Yeah, there preschools. Yes. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. So, we're saying that it's permitted in the RPC, but it's not permitted in RV1 where the school actually is. You right. You can't build a new school in the RV1. Correct. Commissioner, are you have any more questions? I'm sorry, Commissioner Han.

Okay. So, I I need your uh help with the map. I'm looking at the map and I'm wondering so if I understood Beach Elementary is an RV1. There's also child care. Mhm. In the RV1, but I don't know if it was be considered a dwelling with commercial use, but it would be in the RV1. Correct. It's a daycare center. Um, and it already wasn't permitted where it is. The same thing. Um, I mean, because there's a lot of daycarees in houses around that school

that I'm thinking are in the not permitted. Well, home daycare is permitted. Okay. But a daycare center isn't permitted. Now, we I think we so we talked about this before we were asked to do this project. Okay.

Um and so this right now any daycare center is pretty much a non-conforming use because unless it's in the town center, it's not permitted. And so if I think that there was a conversation about permitting them and as long as they had access on one of the main arterial roads. So that's something we can put in as a condition in whichever districts you wish. Well, a standard, right? Not conditions anymore. um in whatever districts you want to, but that's for I didn't want to touch that because you all were discussing it before we went into this process.

And I know we did talk about that. Um yeah, remember the Yeah, the discussion about uh if they were an institution daycare where nobody uh the owner was not living on site. Um, could you have them like anywhere in any any zone or would it be in any zone but it has to be along 260 or 261 like the current ones are? That was a discussion you guys were having. Yeah, that's what we were having and I don't know. Yeah, I know we talked about that. Do we grandfather them in?

Well, there Yeah, they're grandfa those. So, everyone who's nonconforming, like we can add a sort of blanket grandfathering clause for non-conforming uses, but non-conforming uses have their own regulations in the zoning code that allow them to continue as non-conforming uses. So that's where American Legion bio we talked about them the school the daycare centers is whether something new can go in that is that same use is the question that's that you should be thinking about um I am because if I think uh commissioner red talked about she used to have a store which is now the commercial daycare right and so if that changes again

and it's another non-conforming that people buying it might not realize realize that, oh, I buy this and now I can't do it because it doesn't match the regulations. So, yes, a lot of people um who are buying do contact the town and ask questions and I answer those questions and that guides their decision. But you're right, there's certainly people who buy things without that. And then there's disclosures that are not required. Um, not required or now required. Not required. There's a lot of things that do not get disclosed in a housing sale that we don't have control. But does that include a change of ownership as far as like there if there was a change in ownership with the daycare?

It'd still be a non-conform as long as it's still a daycare. It's still a daycare. It's a non-conforming use. Can we put it in the regulations that the non-conforming use that have been grandfathered in are required to disclose it when they sell it

or I don't know that we have any authority o over real estate disclosures if we don't even we don't have authority is isn't there a way because I had thought about this with like the tree removal that when people buy in the city. One of the disclosures could be, I understand that if I remove trees without a permit, blah blah blah. I understand that if I'm going to change the use of this property, I may not be able to. I mean, I just think that there's I don't know if we can prepare. I don't know if it's appropriate, but it seems to me that at least it would inform people's decisions hopefully before mega money obligations have been contracted. I mean, part of our title is planning, right? So,

yeah. I mean, it is it's hard to tell someone who has purchased a house that, you know, like their their deck is not compliant and the person who built it before them knew it needed to be removed and didn't remove it. And it's still it's really unfortunate. Um, I wish there were better disclosures. Well, but what but can there be better disclosures? Is that something that that can be I mean if I were buying you want to get

Well, no, but I would like to know that if I had trees and I wasn't allowed to, you know, and they were blocking my view, let's say, and I knocked them down and I didn't know beforehand and now I'm being charged what is it 500 a day or whatever it was. I think that's pretty important to know when you're purchasing. I think there there should be at least the realator should perhaps be given copies of some type of document or settlement companies so that people know playing gotcha isn't fair. I love gotcha. People know what? Well, people should know if there are rules and regulations that apply to their property in this town. Building codes, trees, tearing down a tree

critically. Yeah. Um, you can't, you know, I think you were saying like if someone bought the old Bay View Accents and um, it's now a daycare and they wanted to turn it back cuz they thought it was a lovely shop, they wanted to turn it back. You know, I I just think maybe some some of these things should be made easily digestible for people when they're looking at properties. Or maybe there should be a meeting with realtors or is just kind of like giving them an update so that they know locally building a codes change

but you don't have to disclose that to a new buyer that your build your building isn't up to the current codes because it's probably isn't. Yeah. Um, that's a little different than you buy a property that you think you can run your business and then you can't, let's say, or if you don't mind, I'm going to bring it back to our Sorry, I hate to cut it, but it's an interesting uh session. I have a question about the garageard estate sale that we were talking about. I'm assuming that under 29011H, you're going to have the standards that doesn't allow somebody to have

a garage sale every every week. I think you can only do it 90 is it? It is articles for sale are consistent are consist of personal possession of the seller. Such sales are not conducted at the same location and more than four times a year. Sales are conducted between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Okay, perfect. What are the hours? 8 to 6. Yeah. Is that a good hour? Yep. Wait, what? What's just threw that in there? What time? Because like sometimes they're out there at 7 a.m. But that's what they're setting up. Oh, and people are waiting. Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is new. I don't think this is current.

I think we added it. So, it's like currently they're allowed to do that, though. They currently need a permit. Need a permit for a garage sale? Yes, technically. While she's looking that up, is there any other concerns, issues on this um Thank you. zoning districts. Sorry.

There is an out of time again. There's currently no time regulation. Oh, for the garage for the garage sales, right? Yeah. in your So, you just made that up. 8 to 6. You made that up. I mean, I think we made it up together, but yes. All right, let's come up with the time. Let's just come up with the time and add it to our garage sale. Um, I think that was a request by the planning commission. I feel like we discussed it, but it might have been that we discussed it on something else and I added it on that. I mean, do we really need a time and who's going to enforce it? Well, garage sale, please.

I mean, I don't know. Do we need a time? I don't know. I mean, if it's just four times a year, I think is it really a big deal? I think nobody really violates that, you know, oat of ethics about not being before 7 o'clock in the morning. I think it's probably okay that we leave it. Uh, okay. So, it to me it's looking pretty good. And I just want to make sure that with you guys uh there's not anything else we want to discuss, anything more on this chart. And if not, we're going to go over to the uh the actual draft, this lovely draft we have that's like 70 pages or something.

66 pages. And we're going to uh now the purpose and intent of districts. Um that really hasn't changed much, has it? That's pretty much uh you've had that in there for a little while. So, uh I think we're pretty much the same as we've been. Well, um, right. Commissioner Gman sent me some new language. So, I combined When did I send you? Well, actually, you handed it to me at the last meeting. Oh, okay. Um, and so I I incorporated that language, but then I also felt that um, one of the things that I've been trying to do as we revise language is break sentences out into separate

okay lines so that you don't it's a little easier for people to read. bullet point combined what I was handed with that new process and I did make a few changes or additions to the sections um to match up with the comprehensive plan.

Okay. All right. So now then we get into um so are there any questions about section one? Is section one okay with everybody? To me that looks pretty good, right? Now, section two, RLD, I'm a little concerned about um not really being specific enough, having a little bit of redundancy with the um the actual um little blurb that says, you know, it's characterized by an unattached. It should be detached, actually. So, unattached should be changed anyway. But do we even need the little blurb that says the district's charact or can we just go right to the bullet points?

That was what your fellow commissioner provided was this little blurb that that was me kind of a little descriptor and so you had done it for a few of them and so I added it to them. Okay. Well, if we keep it, we need to change the word unattached to detached. So you need to make that change and I would like to add to that and after uh residential dwelling units, I would like to indicate that it has larger lot sizes because that's really what the RLD is all about and low residential density. And if you want to keep I think number one should be going

one to five. I think number one needs to change because we all agreed that pleasant is not measurable. Um, so it should I think we can make it quiet if you want to put another word in besides pleasant. Um, because that is one thing about a low density area. It's quieter than the other parts of town. Um, we can keep safe living because you can uh measure that with uh crime stats. But do you want to insert another word instead of pleasant? You want to insert quiet? What does everybody think about quiet as a as a characteristic of the RLD? And if you all know where that is, it's pretty quiet neighbor. It's a really quiet neighborhood up there. It's quite lovely. Um, so if anybody doesn't if nobody cares, we'll just insert quiet instead of pleasant. How about that?

We could do pastoral. Pastoral. Well, we could do pastoral. We could do pastoral. Okay. Um, who is going to know what pastoral means versus quiet? I I do.

Great reading. Let's just go ahead with the quiet and then number two. Um, number two. Okay, so number two is kind of confusing. Allow for growth that provides green spaces and connects with nature and is responsive to the environmental features. And I think we need to rewrite that one to make it more um characteristic of more something that we can understand. Actually, I'm not sure we understand what that means. Um, what do you not want to read? What?

Yeah. So, what I have said in here is number two, uh, basically just protects the scenic na, uh, the scenic natural landscape within the zone. I mean, basically that's what we want to do is protect the scenic landscape. So, I does anybody care that we have what it is currently there? Can we switch it over to protects the scenic natural landscape within the zone? I think that makes more sense, you guys. Okay. Okay. Simple, better. Okay, can you put that in there? Okay, good. And then the next one, allow for growth that provides green spaces and connects with na nature and is responsive to the environmental features to me is like a national one you were switching. I thought it was for this.

Sorry, it's that one. Number three, I'm sorry, we're switching for that one. Preserve and maintain um the detach residential character. Could we ch and then the number four is keep let's see here number four is keep these areas free from land uses that are incompatible with neighborhoods and the natural environment and then five to conserve the physical qualities of the landscape. So, I think we've been a little redundant with some of those. And I just I wanted to maybe change those three, combine it into this preserves and maintains the characteristics of low density by the way of detached residential housing on larger lots.

Yes. So, I just think it combines all of that into that. Is that okay? I mean, it kind of is reiterating what it says up in the top, but so uh do you you have that on the uh email I sent you, right? I do. The only one I'm thinking about is keep free from land uses that are incompatible. Um you want to you want to keep number four, keep these areas free from land uses that are incompatible with neighborhoods and the natural environment. Um I want to consider its value if that's okay. You're thinking delete it.

No, she says keep it. I'm on the fence about deleting it because it is a So these are describing what the area does. Not just for so we understand but for like establishing legally what happens in the district and so this one is specifically saying like keeping out things that are incompatible and so I want to think about that more. So well I'm okay with just keeping it just so we don't have any confusion if you think it's legally something we need to have. The only thing I would say is that it should be better compatible with these neighborhoods, not the neighborhoods because these are the specific

with these neighborhoods. So that we're talking about these specific ones ones in the RLD. I guess that makes more sense. Do you see what she's saying? Keep these areas free from land uses that are incompatible with these neighborhoods. And oh, by the way, the natural environment. Well, I don't know. That's kind of clunky to me. It does. That doesn't really flow. I have to admit neighborhoods because if the if if it's compat if we keep these areas free from land uses that are incompatible with these neighborhoods, wouldn't that include the the No. No. The natural environment. You don't think so?

No. Well, does it not go back to the second one that I said protects the scenic natural landscape within the zone? Wouldn't that be the same? So, so there there's like a a very small difference between what these two different clauses are doing. One is saying what it's there to protect and the other is saying what it's excluding. And the reason I want to, you know, hold on to the ability to leave it in there is that that may that exclusion may be strength strengthen the description. Right. Okay.

And there was a lawsuit. I think keeping it in there stronger versus removing it. Anything to make it uh stronger. Um, do we need to keep number five then to conserve the physical qualities of the landscape? I don't think so.

Okay. All right, then let's let's just try and Yeah, I think we can eliminate that. So, eliminate five. Delete five. Um, keep this one. Okay, keep Okay. All right. So, RLD looks pretty good. Um, number three, RMD, residential medium density district, um, is characterized by their small lots that use public water and sewer. These areas benefit from compatible infield development and vital public spaces. Um, now I have a question about small. I'm not so sure we would call them necessarily small lots.

If you would call them anything, it would be average size lots. But do we need to call them a size at all? Just by their Yeah. Their use of public Yes, we do. Or you No, we don't. No, you're correct. So, let's eliminate, if you don't mind, everybody, if you want to keep it in, let me know. But, uh, I would just eliminate by their use of public water and sewer. How about that? Just leave that in. Okay. And so we'll eliminate small lots that you that I'm sorry, small lots. We'll just take out small lots basically.

Um then don't we also have to take out that the RMD district is characterized by their that use public water and sewer. I I took it out. Well, she will take that out. Yeah. Yeah. So, number one, promote a pleasant and safe. Okay. Now, again, can we change out? Let me see here. What did I put in there? Um, I just what I thought we could do and maybe you don't want to because it doesn't sound like you want to combine things. I was thinking of just saying provides a safe living environment which allows for various housing types. I was just combining things. Do you not want to do that or is that

No, I'm okay with I'm generally okay with combining. It was just that in the previous one that that sentence was there for a purpose, right? No. No. Okay. So, you don't mind taking out pleasant taking the safe living environment and uh which allows for various housing types. Put that at the end of the sentence. Okay. Is everybody okay with that? Yes. Then take out number two. Right. Because it's already listed.

It's already listed. Number three. Um, oh, I I added this uh to just make it a little bit more precise on the characteristic. Promotes pedestrian activity, offering more community involvement via connected sidewalks, trails, and other outdoor facilities because I'm thinking about all the, you know, that makes it special than anything else. So, does anybody have an issue with that? I'm saying promotes pedestrian activity, offering more community involvement via connected sidewalks, trails, and other outdoor facilities. I'm thinking of Richville Station. I'm thinking of um

well, you know, maybe you'll I'm thinking of some of the HOAs. Um the word more should be deleted. Offering community Okay, take out more. So, okay. Promotes pedestrian activity. offering community involvement via connected sidewalks, trails, and other outdoor facilities. Okay, sounds okay. Um, and then I also included characterized by a variety of lot sizes that benefit from public Okay, this is where I added the water and sewer. Characterized by a variety of lot sizes that benefit from wa public water and sewer. And the reason why I did that is because then it allows us to realize we've got town homes mixed in with You've already got it though.

Well, is it redundant? That's my question. Is it redundant? Do we not need it now? I think it's redundant. Yeah. Okay. If we don't need C, that's good for me. And um Oh. Oh, if I could real quick, how much of a pain would it be? When we were reviewing this, you would have to say one one in PNS. Oh, the number. You're right. The numbering is incorrect through. Can we put in the letters letters instead of the numbers numbering is you're correct. This whole I I have to look at the numbering scheme that's in the but yes they should be different but also that instead of having in the parentheses numbers yes it should be letters

um so that it's more easily um referenceable. It's actually that the numbers the first set of numbers that aren't in parens are actually supposed to be letters. Ah, that's that's my error. Okay. Okay, that makes more sense to us. Okay, great. Yeah. Except for the top numbers. So now our MD is C instead of three. Okay. All right. Okay. Oh, I see. Yes, I see what you're saying. You see C. Yeah, I see. See? Okay.

Okay. So, then three, does everybody want to keep ensure that new infield development or redevelopment is compatible and harmonious with existing residential activities? Um, I made a little change, but I don't think it's I don't know. I think uses what was it? Well, mine I said infill and redevelopment should be compatible in size, impact, and appearance with its adjacent neighbors. But I think this is fine. I think what three is is fine when I see it. So, let's just leave it as unless anybody has a real big issue about changing it. Let's just leave three. Okay. Turn the page. And we've got four. Integrate new development with the character and function of the town.

Through the preservation and the use of natural features to provide pedestrian and visual linkages. What is that saying? I thought that's what you removed. No. Oh, removed when you when you're number two. Is that right? Well, we could. I mean that's the question. Do we want to like So number two was promotes pedestrian activity offering community involvement via connected sidewalks, trails, and other outdoor facilities. I think that was the better writing of that. That's probably what I I was thinking of getting rid of four as well. So is everybody okay with omitting four if we have the other one? You go with it? Okay.

Okay. Okay. So then the RV1 uh is characterized by its I'd like to add if we're going to keep this detached cottage scale. I would like to put in there detached cottage scale residential dwellings, narrow streets and frequent intersections. Can we add the word detached cottage scale residential? And then one let me see here. So one you have promote a pleasant and safe living environment that's in all of the res.

Yeah, I know it was just a copy and paste. I I wanted to make it a little bit more uh precise and I said provides and protects a coastal living environment with detached housing units with public water and sewer situated on more compact lots. Can we call it a safe coastal living environment? Okay, fine. protects a safe provides protects a safe coastal living environment. Okay. The word safe is there for a reason. Oh, so okay. No, it's your your police power.

Oh, okay. So, provides So, provides and and wait a minute. provides and protects a safe coastal living environment with detached housing units with you have detached and above. Yeah, you have to say detached again because it's in the definition, right? With housing units uh with public water and sewer situated on more compact lots. Is that too many words? Wait a minute. Are you saying that that should be one of the U numbers in parenthesis? Yes,

because it already says in the explanation that it's characterized by its detached cottage scale residential dwellings. So, I don't know. I think it could just say that I don't It sounds like it's repetitive. Okay. Okay, then let's Okay, we have to put that one in then. So you don't I don't uh I mean the only thing that I want to make sure is that we do include that it's detached housing which it's up there in the definition. We've now put it up in the definition. Yes, we've now put it up there. So now if we put it up there, right? Um we can put you know um has access to public water and sewer. If you want that in there,

we can if you want to put that in there, you probably want to put that in there too. That' be number two, I guess. Um, oh, protects. You could actually put on the other ones, we've put the water and sewer in the little characterized by statement. So, we could say um the RV1 district is characterized by its detached cottage scale residential dwelling, connection to public water and sewer, narrow streets, and frequent intersections. Sounds good to me. You guys feel like I'm like a dead read that again. Read that out again, please.

Uh, the RV1 district is characterized by its detached cottage scale residential dwellings, connection to public water and sewer, narrow streets, and frequent intersections. I think we also need to include, I know this sounds weird, but I'd like to say preserves and maintains the historic cottage type housing, which is comprised of narrow streets, alleys, limited pedestrian walkways, and minimal off- streetet parking. But which it does all of that. So you want all of that in like the descriptive. I don't know. I mean that's what I'm trying to figure out is what we include from that into there. I think that actually strengthens it as a definition and basis for decision making. Yeah. Okay.

Oh. Um yeah. So then um we all so read what what it says then again read what you have.

The RV1 district is characterized by its detached cottagecale residential dwellings, connection to public water and sewer, narrow streets, alleys, minimal pedestrian walkways and limited off- streetet parking frequent ex sorry remove the and walkways limited off- streetet parking frequent inter and frequent intersections the end around there. The other thing I want to include here, and maybe we shouldn't, but I think we should do something. Due to its proximity to the Chesig Bay, more diligence and responsibility is required to reduce the negative impact of improper land uses.

Oh, I think that's good. I think we need it for that area for the RB1. So I have so due to its proximity to the Chesapeake Bay, more diligence and responsibility is required to reduce the negative impact of improper land uses. What does everybody think? Okay with that. Our side over here is

is you're okay you're okay with that, Mr. uh Commissioner Brown? Um then do we have uh let me see here. RV1, are we going to keep um do we want to keep anything about encourages careful infill and redevelopment of detach housing to avoid overcrowding and congestion? Do we want to keep something like that in there? That would be C. That would replace the minimize congestion on historic road network. Okay. Okay. I think either one is fine. You read yours again. It encourages careful infill and redevelopment of detached housing to avoid overcrowding and congestion.

I think that's good. I mean, wouldn't the permit like wouldn't that be stopped right away in the permitting? What this is setting up is is how your permitting is allowed. This is justifying the denial of permits. not justifying the denial of permits, but justifying the regulations you have in the zoning district. Okay. Um, it's explaining why why each zoning district has the regulations it does. And in this case,

it's just a rewarding of minimize congestion on the historic road network. And I think it is a clearer rewarding. Pass that down. I just let you see what I'm reading because we were today. Oh, and then R. Okay. So, RB2, if we want to go down to residential village district, is characterized by its unattached residential dwellings, dwelling types or dwellings with private I've kind of crossed some of this out with private driveways, narrow streets, and frequent intersections. The district is intended to um promote a PL. Okay. Again, number one, let's see. Inactive and more intense. I think we should use

I have promotes an active and more intense residential living environment. I'll show you what I have. Promotes an active and more intense residential living environment. What do you think about that? Still going to ask that we put the word safe somewhere. I'm sorry. We didn't put So, do we put safe in there? I'm sorry. We add the word safe. Okay. What do you want to put safe at? Um, let's maybe promotes a safe active and. So, it's three active safe comma active and more intense. And we got it in the RV one. We put it up there as well, did you? I think she did. I put it as I I put it as provides and protects a safe coastal living environment.

Oh, you wanted to keep that one. Okay, fine. She said we have kind of have to. Safe is important and it should be in all of your residential very good descriptions. Okay, that makes sense. Um, okay. So, we're going to take out the one that's in here and we're going to put in provides and protects a I'm sorry, promotes a safe, active, and more intense residential living environment. Does that make sense to everybody? That's more intense. Yes.

Yeah. Okay. Number two, uh, allow for a variety. Let's see. What do I have for number two? I have for number two allows for a variety of housing types that is compatible in use, scale, and appearance and impact to the surrounding neighborhood with public water and sewer. I'm not sure I like mine after that. We don't need public water and isn't it going to be up there? It needs to be added to there, but I will add it up there. The beginning. Okay. So, you can take out water and sewer down below. So basically it's somewhat similar I think

allows for a variety of housing types that is compatible in use scale and appearance and an impact to this neighborhood period right or something like that it's pretty much what you have in here I guess I think the exist I I do think this one was already there and I went back and forth with this and I kind of felt that it's possible existing pattern of building streets and blocks is there for a reason and adds to it. Um, then we can add that to it. I mean, just it's already Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. I'm hesitant to remove that if you're okay with leaving it in.

You want to put a historic pattern of buildings, streets. Do you want to put historic in there somewhere? Works. Yeah. I think it's that pattern that's important. Okay. Okay. And then three, preserve the character of the historic, we got a historic again. Preserve the character of the historic residential development of the town and the resulting existing cottage village pattern of development. Uh what do I have then? Shouldn't that also be it?

Oh yeah, we got we've got it up here. preserves, maintains a historic cottage type housing. Uh, you want cottage type pattern. Is that what you want? Uh, Commissioner Brown, what part of that do you want up there? Um, yeah, it is up there. Preserve the character of the historic residential development of the town and the resulting existing cottage village pattern of the development. It sounds like you want to keep number three as as it was originally, but read your C. I mean, I wonder if Okay. Well, the what what I did was your E, I'm sorry,

was um preserved the character of the historic residential development of the town and the existing cottage type pattern of development. I don't know. I I'm I'm good with either, you know. It doesn't matter. It's about the same, I think, cuz you're talking about your encourage careful infill. Yeah. I thought that was replacing minimize congestion, not preserve the character, but maybe Oh, you were trying to combine the two, weren't you? Well, where is minimize congestion in RV2? Oh, I'm in RV2 right now. I'm sorry. Okay. Sorry. Yes. No, that's not in RV2. Okay. I thought

there's really not that much congestion in RV2. That's what makes it so great for for the for the business community. Um, so on number three, I mean on U RV2, number three or E, I don't know. I think can you just, you know, figure out what you want there? It has to be something to the effect of character preserves the character of historic. I I don't know. I residential de. you want pattern instead of development for your purposes. Yeah, it sounds like you do.

So, this pattern of building streets and blocks is kind of what establishes if you're going to if you're going to actually buy a number of these lots and you're going to ask to redevelop them. Yeah. You want to keep the pattern then we are asking you to maintain the pattern of building streets and blocks and we have these design regulations later in the code that kind of come back to that. So that's why I'm hesitant to remove it.

Okay. Well, if if there's a planning reason for it as opposed to just syntax, I think planning trumps I'm not opposed to changing things around, but I do I I do think there's value in identifying that there's a pattern that we want to maintain. Right. So, and it's in two places. It's in it's in well all my numbers are messed up because I'm typing in it, but I I have it in

Okay. So, um I also included the provides more inhome business options. Do we want to put that in there? you can um because that's what's the difference between RV1 and RV2 is it has more and that's why I want to make it more precise provides more inhome business options. Okay. And I also have offers more on-site parking and is considered a walkable community due to its numerous sidewalks and wider streets. I thought that was another characteristic that identified it different than RV one. Yes, like that one.

Okay. Did everybody hear what I just read or did you see it? So, offers more on-site parking and is considered a walkable community due to its numerous sidewalks and wider streets. I like it. We like it. We all like it. Okay. So far, it sounds pretty good. What do you think planning Franklin? Okay. Yes. Okay. So, we've got I think the residential areas taken care of, the zones taken care of. How about uh number six, uh resource conservation district. To me, when I looked over it, it looked like you didn't we haven't made any changes for a while. Um it looked pretty okay good to me. So, I think RC is good. I Yes, I think

RPC looked good to me as well, too. Anybody have any issues with RPC? Now we have the NC neighborhood commercial district. Now there's there's one issue. It says this district is intended to and then number one is all compact centers for small. It kind of doesn't flow. You might want to say provides or you know something like that. Give me a verb. Yeah. provide small scale and low impact commercial uses. And then number two,

you've already said the to. Yeah. So just put reduce with a capital R. Okay. I think the TC was good. PC. I didn't have any issues with PC or MC. Any issues or questions about um all of those? No. Looks like everybody's okay with it. All right. 29010 land use classifications table. Um okay. So the SC is gone and uh you have asterisk indicates that a permit is not required. Okay. 2911 standards of use. We have a um principal uses must comply with the standard of of this section. I think everybody has read over overlay and floating districts.

How many floating districts are there? Now there's just the one. So it could say district instead of district. I think you were really being specific here. You could put the s in parentheses. Yeah. But I mean with you say there's only one. There's one now. But with a comprehensive plan and influx of water in the future. Is it possible there could be another?

You mean water and floating? Haha. I get it. the the way we're dealing with coastal resiliency. I that may fall under critical area, but yeah, I I think parenthesis might be a good solution to that. Yeah. Okay. And then we have prohibited uses. Uh does anybody want these in the uh I'd love a drive-in movie theater. Wouldn't that be cool? I I was kind of uh partial to the landfill myself.

Okay. Um a permanent non-residential parking in a residential district. Okay. Confused about repair garage. Well, we do have a repair garage actually and that's the is it Denali or the one over here on two where is it at at the help thrift store you've got on the right hand side we have an automotive repair place right there it's a non-conforming use I mean you do have non-conforming uses and I was I did pull up the time period for them so

um when a non-conforming use has been discontinued for a period of one year, such use shall not thereafter be reestablished and any future use shall be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. So, what happens if you have a personal residential unit and you run a repair shop out of your garage for small tractors and things like that, he would be non-conforming. Correct. I mean, he's been doing it for years. You're saying there's a commercial in accommodation with a dwelling unit that is a repair shop. I'm more formal. You're thinking

I don't know what to classify it as.

I I think and and this is a a question is like do they have a permit? Right. if I'm not co-compliant. Um, if they have a permit for the use and it was permitted when the use was allowed, right? Then that use can continue as long as they don't stop with that use for a year. Once you stop, if you shut down your daycare for a year now, I imagine in a situation like COVID, there's going to be emergency declarations and whatnot that accept things, but you then you come back to your use in 366 days, your use is is gone. It's you're no longer allowed to do that in that district. So, if you have an automotive and you decide you're not going to do automotive anymore, that doesn't mean it can be an automotive two years later. It might not be able to be

if there's been that one year lapse, right? If it's been nine months, you can still have you can come back first. If yeah, if you don't have a permit to do it in the first place, um that's why you shouldn't do things without a permit. Okay. Um, so continuing on down to um, let me see here. So, I guess with the prohibited uses, I guess we're all good with the prohibited uses. Um, smoke and vape shops. Um,

going back to dwelling multi-unit, is that two or more? Previous one is three or more. So, the multi-unit dwelling is different because it's on the same lot. Where isn't that a duplex? A duplex is actually two separate lots. Huh? A duplex in your definition is each unit is on a separate lot. That's what your current definition says. Um.

Mhm. Yes. My my patriot compatriate over here said it's like a Gordon style apartment would be right or like a a multi-unit dwelling. Yeah. Would that could you give us examples just to make sure that we Why would there be two? Right. I think it's just two or or more. But yes, if you had a if you had a duplex that was all on the same lot. So your house has two units in it. Okay. Right. Right. Right. Okay. Right. Yeah. Um

so I mean you can absolutely change this definition. So two units, they don't have to have separate lots, right? or and then you would say your multi-unit dwelling is I would still say it's three or more because it's different from a townhouse because a townhouse has separate lots as well. Um, but I think that would distinguish it from a duplex or triplex, which is what you know, I think you brought up a good point about the fact that if we have an ADU on a property and they subdivide

and we should be able to count that density. Yes. Um, are you going to be able to write up language about that and put it in here?

Is everybody okay with that idea? I think we should get credit for the density if we're going to have more lots. Um, okay. So, we've got residential uses. We've got the dwelling uh accessory. We've already gone through that. The ADUs, I think we've covered that pretty well. Um, with commercial use, uh, any issues with that? um accommodations and group living. We've got the um I assume the bed and breakfast uh regulations allow for two meals per day. Looks like that's what happened there, right? So, it's Yes. Um I'm behind you, but yes, they

Yeah. allow it was just one meal at one time. Why is it said meals may be provided and you guys asked that it be reduced? Oh, I see. Okay. So you could provide breakfast like a lot of bed and breakfasts provide breakfast and then they'll give you a picnic lunch. Yeah, they'll give you Okay. Okay. Okay. Um All right. Uh we just got a few more minutes here to to like Where do you want to stop? We want to stop and then finish this up like how do we do before the next uh before your

Yeah. Well, we won't be able to finish this. So, I I before a public hearing, so I think that we should ask for a little more time, maybe a month or two.

Read. Um, I think that given that I I don't I can't identify all the sources I keep hearing this from, but I keep hearing this idea that the town council has adopted this already. And and so I think there's stuff happening out in the public that they have opinions about this. And so I think it would be good to keep your public hearing, right? and and encourage the public to come here and tell you what they're thinking

and then work on it sort of based on that and your thoughts rather than trying to get it where you get it and then the public comes and it's different. It looks like and and then it it will and it allows us to be responsive also to the comments and doesn't look as though it's a done deal irrespective of the comments. I think that's I like that. I personally love that, Kelly. All right. So, um the rest of this we will try and keep working on for a month or two, right? We're going to be able to extend it. You think?

I'm going to request that we have a little more time. Um particularly based on the fact that there we anticipate more public comments as the public hearing approaches and wanting to be able to incorporate those. and just make sure this is where it needs to be. Okay. I just have one question. So, do you think people will in fact come to the meeting if they think that it's already been adopted by the town council? I think people are confused and I think if we give them a place to come and and make them aware of it, then thanks Cindy.

They will come and tell us about it. Um I do have you know the hopeful planner public engagement heart we will try. I will not be here next month. So we have our second chair in which I don't want to be you won't be here either. Okay. Hold the phone. Well we even have we will not have a quorum. Okay. You definitely need a little more. We have to have a quorum. So, we can't have a publication. Okay. She won't be here either. So, let's um let's try and change the date.

When will we will you be here? Uh week ahead or week after or you won't? Sure. I have to look at the Have to We have to change the date then. No, I got my calendar. Thank you. Okay.

Stuff on it. Um, so, uh, we're looking at, um, everybody get your calendars out and let's just take a look on a Wednesday. Um, it's it's originally going to be on May the 27th. We could either do the 20th or June 3rd. I'm assuming we're going to keep on a Wednesday. Don't we have to have so much notice before we do it? Yeah, I think we'd have just enough notice that we did the 20th, couldn't we? Uh Sharon,

if we do June 3rd, it gives us a little more time to make sure it's seems the public notice could go. Yeah, if we did the 3rd, we get a little more activity maybe to the meeting. Oh, he can't be there. Which which June 3rd? I can't be there. I can be there on the 20th. Would that be enough? Um are you going to be there on the 20th? Yeah, I would be there on the 20th. Yes. Oh, I like the 20th. Be there on the May. Oh, you're not going to be there on the 20th either.

Middle of May to the middle of June. Oh, well, even though I went to the early part of June because we've got two people gone over here. We'd be so be We just have to have four people. So, I have to make sure that Commissioner Smith is here. You were here on the 20th. Can you notice it by the 20th for the public hearing? Probably. I I think I can make that. I think I'm pretty sure. Okay. This calendar. Okay. So, let's try and u make it the 20th of May if uh everybody can be here.

Please. The public hearing 20th of May. No, we're not going to have the 27th of May. We would just have Oh, you're saying the public hearing only? No.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. If that's okay with everybody. If that's okay with our planner over here. She's the busy girl over there. I am I'm moving you all to the 20th. Okay, everybody put in your calendar May 20th. Um sorry that we have Commissioner Brown here. Okay. So, you weren't going to be here anyway, so that's okay. So, we've gonna have one. Okay. Yeah. Unless we can get an a volunteer in here to apply and become a commissioner and get up to Spain all in three weeks.

They have to go through a town council meeting to get approved.

Yeah. Okay. All right. So, um May 20th it will be. And um I guess that's it. The only thing left to do now, unless uh our planner has anything more to add, I was just going to go for council uh commissioner comments and that will be it. I am just going to incorporate the comments from this evening, update the map and get them over to the clerk and town as quickly as possible so that they can be published and we can try to work on getting more engagement.

Yes, indeed. Absolutely. I'll talk if it's okay. I'll maybe talk with staff in the administration about potentially having like an easy way for them to provide online comments too. Um Oh, if they can't come in person. Yeah. Like maybe like a button on the page. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. If there is anybody watching tonight who wants to send in a comment via email either to the town or to our planner. Um you want to send it through the town. Send it through the town. Okay. Yes, there we go. Um, then we can incorporate them for next meeting. Okay. I ask one question on page 17.

Yes. What under the top of the page double I number one. What does that mean? In the 1% or 0.2%. Yes.

Annual chance of flooding. Um, so you call that the 100redyear and 500year flood plane, but those aren't their official names and they try to move away from that. I can put them in pens if that's helpful. Um, but I mean, we've seen what happens when there's camps and flood planes and it's just advisable not to have them there and so that's why that's there. Um, but I understand when you say hundred-year flood plane, people think, "Oh, it only floods every hundred years." But what it actually is is that every year there's a 1% chance that it will flood. So, it could flood. Mean cumulative or no, every single year there is a 1% chance that it will flood. 500year flood plane, every year there is a 2% chance that it will flood. So, these things could flood every year. It's just a very small chance every year. Um, you do have because they used to call them hundred-year storms, right? But you have a lot more of them happening. Um, they're not happening

once every hundred years. If you want to be meaningful, so yeah, the uninitiated can understand that you need to explain. Yeah, I think that's a very good point. Like by a footnote or something maybe so it doesn't clutter up the well, you know, or or you can just use the 100. I mean, we all know it from the 100red-year flood type, you know, terminology, actually. Um, okay. So, now that we have uh kind of figured out where we're going to start on the 20th, let's go ahead and uh this uh anybody have a council uh commissioner comment.

No, no, no. And no. What? Very vocal tonight. Okay. All right. Well, I thank you all for never going to get to resilience. So, sense bringing it up. We are going to get to resiliency and that is what um I was hoping to add resiliency to our next month and maybe we do just set aside 30 minutes. Yes, you won't be here next month, but we'll talk about it. Um and maybe what we do even while we're doing all of this is just it's 30 minutes. it's going to take us longer, but at least we're moving somewhere on it. Um, that was something to

I mean, there were there were a couple specific recommendations in the resiliency plan, right? We could vote on those. Well, let's uh start it at least an introduction. Yeah. For a reintroduction. I mean, he's Oh, he already knows it, so he won't miss an introduction. So, let's just start on the introduction next month if we can. Okay. Okay. And uh other than that, uh we're going to have May 20th as our public hearing and I will go ahead and uh adjourn the meeting. It's also it's also the public hearing and our meeting. Yes. Correct. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.

Motion. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I forgot about the motion. I'm so eager to leave. Do I have a Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second? Second. Any complaints or desires to not want to leave here for the night? Okay. All in favor? I you some things we just forget to do. Have a good trip. Whatever you do, I hope it's a nice safe trip. Yeah. You need a strap.