Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

All right, it's recording. Yay. All right, so we're calling to order the zoning board of appeals special meeting for Thursday, April 30th at 6:30 p.m. And present we have Nancy Hutchinson, Stephanie Belel, Russell Fog, Kathleen Tracy, Michaela Pearson, Nick Fton, Sylvia Riccoa, the DBA attorney. Okay. So, I guess we have all four members here. 1 2 3 4 five. So, one the only vote we're going to have today. You guys can vote on those. All right. So, today we going to have a vote today. Well, at least to adjourn.

Oh, [laughter] there's that. Speak up, people. Okay. [laughter] So, um, so anyway, so today the only thing is new business to discuss potential ZBA input into zoning commission updates to old lime zoning regulations part two. Anybody's car out there beeping? In the bath. Oh, it's in the bath. Mine doesn't do that. Okay. So, anyway, so um I did everybody get my email sort of like saying what we're trying to break it down in four chunks. Okay, we're going to start with the first chunk. I just got to make sure that's not my car. Okay, no problem. I'll pass this out. So anyway, so I made hard copies for people didn't have hard copies. You think it's one?

What's that? You just want copy of what we discussed? I actually have I have it. Okay. Okay. All right. I'll take one then. I don't have to log in.

Yes. What I did was yesterday I had some time to talk with Sylvia on just on mainly just get her high level view to make sure I'm not totally off base uh on what we're trying to discuss today and it was very helpful. So I I did made a few tweaks to section 22 draft suggestions here Russ. So that that's what this version is. Okay. So anyway, so just so we we wanted to start with section 22 because it's on the zoning board of appeals. Everything that's very relevant. Um and anyway, I just wanted to say also what page is that? Just chapter section 22, but what's the page? 180. 180.

Okay. Okay. So anyway, so I'll let everybody get set up and then we'll start. So is it 180 online cuz it's the print version is different. It says it's 178 in the book in the hard copy copy. The number on the bottom says 180. Yeah. Yeah. So it's not necessarily the same. It like there's this whole section in the book not in the book. I used to go by section heading. So I 1721 section 22

zoning board of appeals. Is everybody ready to start the discussion? Okay. So just to give an overview start at the high level before we get down in any details. So I think the purpose of section 22 is because every every town that has a zoning commission by law must have a zoning board of appeals to have some relief for hardship and stuff like that. So section 22 is not really so much regulating ZBA as discussed with Sylvia. It's more like letting people be aware of zoning board of appeals and what it does, its purpose and its procedures and that they can appeal decisions of the zoning board of appeals. So that's kind of what the focus of this section is. And so in the comments I make on that it's sort of in that context is this is more informative not so much regulating us.

But go ahead. Is this what you intend to give the to turn in like these comments? Well, on the side. No, no, I'm not discerning anything until we discuss it and decide what we want to do as a board. Well, I don't mean your comments. [laughter] I mean this type of setup. Is that what you intend to do? They will have whatever's written here. And we have our input over here. Oh. Oh. Not just your input. Oh, probably it would probably be some sort of overview writing like this like my email paragraphs, not section. But then if it's relevant, I would say comments, specific comments as well. So it's easier for them to understand.

Reviewing documents, it's a lot easier to say what your big picture thoughts are and then here's an example. Here's a specific comment. I would be both probably because these are your comments here. So, right. Yes. I mean, this is really helpful for us to see, you know, kind of where your train of thought is going on these things and what you're calling out. But I think that if we all added our own little editorial comments, it I mean it would be fine for us, but we couldn't submit that because the idea the idea would be Yeah. Once we get all of our thoughts together, yeah, Nancy makes the adjustments that we all agree on and then and then I would make updates just like I made updates based on talking with Sylvia. M

we'd have one things we thought were important, things we don't want to bother them with or things that we want to make more clear or more [clears throat] specific. So the idea is to just get an overview thought of what the ZBA might want to comment on and then what those comments might be. Mhm. That make sense? Okay. So starting on the zoning board appeals section, I think that was the most relevant. [laughter] Yeah.

Okay. So then so then um thinking about that so this is what was uh discussing with Sylvia is that there's the powers and duties which are pretty much straightforward but there was one thing here to hear and decide all matters including special permits in which it is required to pass by the specific terms of the regulations these regulations and I was saying to Sylvia I don't think the regulations give zoning board of appeals any special permit reviews though I did search through the regulations and find one thing that I thought was very interesting and I wanted to run this past Sylvia in the section on permitted and prohibited uses there is one thing on section number 17 says natural it's page eight on section six of the old I don't know if the new regulations or whatever but anyway I'll just read it to Natural propane or other gas manufactured by other than a public utility and natural propane or other gas storage as a principal use except that the storage for distributing purposes and the distribution of liqufied petroleum gas may be permitted as a permit by the zoning board of appeals provided that there is compliance with all requirements of Connecticut General Statutes Chapter 541 part two and any regulations adopted pursuant thereto as the same may be amended. did from time to time. Now, I don't find that use anywhere in the old regulations and the new regulations. I think this is some archaic hold over from some very past.

Do we think that maybe ZBA did grant special permits before and now because now special permits are granted by zoning, right? Yeah. So, the point is So, this section is literally verbatim with the general statute on what ZBA powers could be are. So, could be could be could be. Right. And this statute hasn't changed a whole lot since the very beginning when zoning was first starting.

Um so when the zoning was first starting, you know, it's it's a big thing to put on municipalities to have these things. So um initially there wasn't necessarily as much of a bifurcation. You may have had one body that did a lot of different things or you may not have had like some towns have planning zoning ZBA. Some towns have planning and zoning ZBA. Some have different configurations of of things. So it there's been an evolution since that process. So it gives the ZBA potentially the ability to to um to review special permits in the general statute. So this is literally this section is literally a cut and paste of the general statute in in old line. That's not what the EVA does, right?

So an option is just to remove it because it's not something that the that old line you're doing confusing makes my thought is that it's confusing. So I I ran this by S and she thought that was okay and deleted it. 22.1B B. Take it out. But I just want to make sure that unless the commission has an intention to have the ZBA do some special permits, which I would also have an opinion about. Um [laughter] well, let's take it out. Then we don't I think we already have a process where the special permits are done by zoning. Yes. Right. So Right. I This is going to be just our suggestion anyway. We would suggest that they just edit that out because zoning has been dealing with that right. So that would be two edits. One is the edit about the propane blah blah blah.

No, no, no. I haven't gotten to that yet. We're talking just about the edit B. So, but I'm clarifying with Sylvia because they have this archaic language here from in 17 under permitted and prohibited uses. So, you're saying including special permits should come out, but you're not saying that would come out also. I'm trying to say it. So, let me finish and then you can finish my question first. So, so the point is it doesn't say special permit. It just says permit. So, I don't even know what it means. I don't know why zoning board appeals would have any involvement with that. I've never seen anything like that. I don't understand it.

There's other um which I think is not a thing anymore if I recall. the gas station. Yes. Gas stations very so there that was an additional power that for whatever reason the legislature decided that the ZBAS would locate gas stations essentially um without any standards or anything for anybody to Well, there's no standards for here either. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So to me, occasionally they plop these additional ideas that someone who probably doesn't really understand how zoning works should do. So, I'm going to guess that that's one of those remnants that never got cleaned up. Yeah, because I think it used to be we would give permits for gas stations, but then that was taken out of the state statute.

Yeah. And that wasn't a special permit. It was just a permit. Yeah. Exactly. We didn't have a case with all over the grey bill down at the center of town where they wanted to do propane refill there and we said no. That was us. That was the zoning board of appeals voting on that. Oh, what? But did that did happen? Yeah. No, it was before Alpro even existed. Okay. The gas station down there. What's it now? The the new gas station up by Big Wise Road. The Hall's Road one. The one that used to be Texas. They applied to get permission from us. Yeah. To uh to refill propane there. And the board voted against it. A board of appeals.

But so that did go to the zoning board of appeals. Board of appeals. That literally did happen. I think was it like an appeal of their site plan maybe? Um, no. It was Jeff Greyville was just asked for it. He said, "Can we refill tanks there?" That's my memory of it. He was deeply disappointed. We ended up saying no to him and I voted for a yes. I guess the question is we got to go somewhere to get our propane. It's not a special permit, so it doesn't change the fact that we want to get rid of the special permit clause, but we should probably ask for clarification

on gas stations and propane or whatever that 17 clause is. Is that still is that still the intent? So, what I did was I basically searched electronically through the whole zoning regulation. Where else does it say zone board of appeals? And I found this and I was like, I don't even know what that means. Yeah, cuz [clears throat] we've never used the language of granting a special permit. Never. That I've never heard of. And nowhere in the regulations does it say we have the authority to grant a special permit. So I think taking out including special permits from line B is is appropriate appropriate totally and then we'll ask for clarification on this 17. I don't know what that means.

Okay. So then getting down to before they had a policy for granting of variances, but I was just but they also have a section on procedures and so steps um I think that this need could either be updated or edited for several reasons. So first of all and I talked about maybe it should be considerations for granting of variances. So it says basically what the criteria are a hardship align minimum required and in harmony with intent purpose regulations or an accommodation for ADA. Those are basically the reasons we can we need to but there's also we don't need to say make findings because later on in the section of the very same section it talks about we need to make the findings. So it's kind of like duplicate language and not clear. So Sylvia's suggesting we we make it one for considerations for variances and one for procedures. So this is 22.

Yeah, I'm just trying to to to understand the font formatting and Okay. Okay. So I just what are those edits representing? So first I was starting at the high level and I was going to go down into details just so people don't get lost. Yeah.

Okay. So I think the thing is so we've decided to change edit this to make it the considerations for granting of variances rather than make findings and then say so it would be the idea would be there'd be a b c and d a is that there so the zoning board of appeals when exercising the power determine and vary the application of these regulations as described in sections 22-1 C above the uh to shall consider the following. Yeah.

A that there exists conditions especially affecting the parcel of land for which a variance is sought as a result of which conditions a literal enforcement of these regulations would result in unusual hardship or this is added or that evidence has been provided that a legal alternative to unusual hardship exists. And and so that's basically what we do all the time. We say what is the hardship or what is your legal alternative to hardship? And I discussed with Sylvia even though these are the two that we work with now she suggests we don't put them in the regulations cuz it evolves with time.

We just say that uh or that the evidence has been fired that it would result oh sorry that illegal alternative to unusual hardship exists. Period. And then that would be based on our guidance with the ZBA attorney and any legal guidance that we have. So we don't have to say that line in there.

So we don't have to say evidence that the proposed increases in non- authority are offset by the proposed decrease in legal increases in non-formity and we don't have to say the uh proposed increase in the max minimum necessary to to meet FEMA requirements. So if I can give some context to because I think of um these two pieces a little differently from between them with respect to the nonconformities what you have in there is is the law today. Okay. But the the law with respect to nonconformities and reductions of nonconformities is admittingly evolving or has evolved over time and could potentially evolve. and to say it very specifically if if there's a case tomorrow from the Supreme Court that shifts it somehow

now you got to revise the regulations entirely and that is cumbersome right um so with respect to the first one then it decreases the non-conformity um for the time being unless unless we have a sustained period where something is codified or something like that I think that one should be a little bit more fluid um and subject to what the case law is today because I'm sure 10 years ago, if you have a memo for me, it might be slightly different than what it is today. Yeah. Um and I think I've tried to give you updates over the years as things have shifted, right? So that just accommodates for that rather than boxing you in. Right.

Um with respect to the um the FEMA non-conform the FEMA portion of it, what shows up there is a evidence that the proposed increase in non-conformity is the minimum necessary to allow a dwelling located in a flood zone to become FEMA compliant. That for me is is kind of a standalone reason. Yeah. So, which I think that is not something that I think is going to fluctuate. Um I think that's something that's pretty solid. Um and I think it's something that you see very frequently.

Yeah. um such that I think the zoning commission should consider just writing a regulation that says if someone is increasing a nonconformity and the minimum necessary to allow a dwelling, it should be outside of the ZBA section entirely and in the regulations. It's not a ZBA thing. You're just making a rule that tracks reality, right? Because ZBA is supposed to be for exceptions. And if you start seeing something all the time, it's notion. Um, so it's it's just eliminating it from the ZBA context and more of like just what the regulations allow. So we can suggest and that's in elsewhere in these comments. Okay.

So we're just focusing just on this right. I think that's a really big one, the FEMA piece that we really need to try and relinquish that because it will substantially smooth out the docket. [laughter] and get people quicker resolutions without having to come to CBA. Yeah. Sus out more of the instances where someone is clearly going more than the minimum necessary. Exactly. Right. And that's something that at the ZEO level. Right. At that point, Eric would be looking to see is this the minimum necessary or is this more than the minimum necessary. So that would be sused out earlier. That way, if you're here, the CEO has already made a decision that this is more than necessary, right?

So, you could treat that as almost determined and you're moving past the point to get to the meat of it. So, I think it streamlines things. Yeah. In a variety of different ways. So, that one I think the language stays just it's not a ZBA language, it's a regulation. So, what about like increasing bulk in the setback? Well, can just raising it up and can I suggest that we don't discuss FEMA changes now? Let's get through this section and come back to FEMA. You just mean like the vertical expansions? Yeah. Like is that a ZEO thing or would they have to come to us still? So, right. You mean for not for FEMA? We're talking about Yeah, for FEMA. Oh, for FEMA related things. Um,

so I I think this is a more complicated discussion. I think we're going to have a whole don't think that's a place to put it here. Well, I mean, regardless of what the increase in the nonconformity is, whether it's the height nonconformity or whether it's the bulk nut, regardless of what the nonconformity is, if it is the minimum necessary, it's still a judgment call, but that's what Eric's going to do for us is make that call. So, if a commission wants it because it's so much of your business that may not need to be, right? So they can decide what

I think the thing too is is that for sometimes if the height is one thing, but I I feel like it's a little bit of a struggle sometimes because most of the houses that go up are also non-conforming structures on non-conforming lots and older and they need other changes to them. So it's not just height or even bulk, it's also setbacks. Set it I think. So I think we can make suggestions to the zoning commission and say these are things that come before us and you can decide whether you want them to be variances or exceptions to the zoning regulations but share with them some of the complexities that we face.

Not give them specific language on what they want their zoning female requirements to be but say these are some things to consider. Do you know what I'm saying? Not completely. I mean I I do I think but I think I'm being more strict with it that I would still want them to come to us I think because Eric is a great CEO but we have not always had great CEOs so who knows in five or 10 years that's a good point who the heck is going to be there it does it does give much more power to the CEO to avoid us if he says listen I don't want to get in a fight we'll say that's the minimum that's the minimum yeah that's the minimum and we might not agree the minimum though is is actually statuto So then yeah, but it's subjective. Subjective.

Well, I mean it is, but there there are also like, you know, there you can only go up so far. You know what I mean? Like you can't Well, one footless, right? Exactly. Like there's a formula there, but the the variations are everything can be great at certain like even the things that you think are straightforward can be great. Yeah. So, so anyway, I think there's a whole discussion on the FEMA itself. I would like to get to that section before we go into details. So, okay. But I think we're starting to

in context. We're going to talk about some more FEMA stuff in this section as well that probably belongs in that section. So, let's just get through this and then we can talk about that FEMA a whole discussion. So, you just want to talk about our our powers in this section.

Well, well, yes. this is what what does applicants need to know about the zoning board of appeals because then once they know that much we have guidance documents we have applications we have all these sort of things procedures but we need we should say what we're trying to convey here is what is the zone board of appeals what are the con considerations for variances what are the procedures that we have and then what are and recognize that you can appeal our decisions that's like the streamline online version cuz the other thing too is there's a lot of stuff in here on FEMA as well

which gets confusing because you have a FEMA flood zone protection section and then you have FEMA stuff in ZVA section. Who's going to know to look in the ZBA section to get that information on flood zones? So I think let's just keep it this is sort of a generic this is our logic we use the entire process. Right. Right. So anyway so then so again so that was 22.2A to a the and then we discussed that no one uses the term exceptional difficulty anymore. So, we just edited that. Yeah. And the ones that are crossed out online, those are edits from one of you two.

It was suggested originally and now edited out. And the stuff that's underlined and the stuff that's bold, that's still not gray print. This is good. And this is good. If it's underlined, it's still good. If it's crossed out, it's not good. Cross out the part. So, this is crossed out. Even the electronic version. Yes. I didn't realize. I don't have a color printer. I don't I have a color printer, but I I guess Craig just made black and white printers.

Yeah. Anyway, but the idea is so then A, you need to show hardship there. B was redundant with what it says in A because as a result, you know, affecting this part of land and variance is saw it. So that's kind of redundant. So they can take out B. Yeah. Then then the new B would be that and then you don't need to say findings. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the I should we should take out exceptional. It says just so you know it says it says relive hardship. It should be relieved and allow your limitation use of the typo there. Typo. Oh, that's I didn't that was the original. No, I know. I know. I realize that.

Okay. That's a good catch. That is to relieve rather relive. [laughter] Relieve and we don't need to say exceptional difficulty unusual hardship and is the minimum necessary to accomplish that said such purpose and allow reason. Oh, no. That's basically cross that out.

Yeah, let's cross it out. It's hard to see my own my own property and allow reason use of the property which is basically the question we ask after the end of every case. We say the hardship or legal alternative hardship is the minimum necessary and then the next one is that the variance is in harmony with the purpose intent of the these regulations and the comprehensive plan of zoning and will conserve the public health safety convenience welfare and property values. Yeah, that's

and those are the main ones that we do all the time. And then the other one that we do sometimes and I still you can tell if I got the text the type of wording correct and whether the variance constitutes a reasonable accommodation for needs of a disabled person as a term is defined in the American Disabilities Act and that gives you some leeway when Yeah. basically those are basically the four things. Yeah. Make it simple. Yeah. Streamline. Help people understand. Right. So that's what conditions that generally affect the other parcels in the district is just removed. Is it? Yeah. Somewhere just removed. It's already in this first one.

Yeah. Especially affecting the parcel. See, it's kind of duplicate. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So people are okay with that. Now the next section 22-3. This whole section I think needs to come out. It can be moved around to different places in the regulations because basically this is all specific to appeals and variances in the flood plane district and basically it's basically covering the things that probably should be elsewhere. So is there a section in here and I can't find it? I'm sorry. What? What? Go ahead.

On FEMA and the flood related. Yes. I mean, and this where this should go also. Yes. What section is that? 13. Well, it says 13.1 of Okay, it does say that, but 13.1. So, the thing is, so I think that um especially considerations for variance. So, for example, if these are the things that they want to achieve with the flood zone regulations. Okay. But 13.1 is aqua for protection zone. What? Oh, no. I'm sorry. 3. I'm sorry. Baseway 13.15 base flood elevation and you [laughter] know so yeah 13 is the flood. That's right. No problem. It's very confusing. There's a lot of pages here. Yeah. The flood zone thing. That's a big one.

13 is a big section. So the thing is in the flood and we'll get to the flood zone regulations themselves. But here it's telling you all these things that need to be considered related to the flood zone or the coastal site management, the coastal site review. And I think the thing is these things need to be if this is the purpose of what they want to achieve with the zoning regulations for flood zone, it should say that in the flood zone regulations, not under the I think that's a really good question to raise. I think we're going to have to leave it up to the consultants to decide what they want to do with that. But I think it's well I think what some of these things some of these things are in 13 some of these are in 12

which is I mean the idea is to have everything in the same zone if you want to go flood zone you should go to chapter 13 right so the the other fundamental problem that I have with with this is a variance is a loaded word a variance means hardship and so forth if they're looking to give you like we have with nonconformities is like an alternative to hardship if they're looking to do something that's an alternative to the traditional definition of what a variance means. Okay, they can give you more power if they want. Um, but it's it's inconsistent because it uses verbiage and I think somewhere in here it says in addition to the standards that are for variance, but

they're not likely going to coexist at the same time because if you're looking at it from a hardship lens, it's a very different thing than if you're looking at it from some of the things that are in here. Exactly. confuses what the intention is. So, and it's also potential inconsistencies between chapter 13 and this chapter or if it's all in one place. [clears throat] There's no inconsistencies between two different sections. So, you want 22.3.2 to be maybe substantially subtracted or totally subtracted and just say I think I think 22-.3 in total. We're going to go over the different parts.

Yep. It either needs to go in it either is need to be removed because it's duplicate with section 13 or it needs to be added to section 13 or it needs to be some of these things are more consistent with coastal site plan reviews. And so and then also there's a whole section here on what the zoning enforcement officer should be doing which should go in the zoning enforcement section. And then there's a whole section here on residential floodproof basement. The problem with that is if they want to make an exception to having, you know, some homes have floodproof basement that are raising, then they need to put that in the flood zone regulations, not under ZBA. And also it's confusing because the definition of basement in the zoning regulations is different than the definition of basement in the FEMA regulations. So it just makes it

how does that work? How how [clears throat] can because they have the zoning definition and then in section 13 they have their own definitions just like they have their own definitions on. Shouldn't we be copacetic and all have the same definition of basement? I mean does that that's a possibility. That's what I would recommend. I mean that makes sense. But it's FEMA is only dealing with basements in the flood zone, right? And there's basement all over town. But isn't a basement a basement? A basement versus a seller. A seller. Well, seller is a different word. A seller is just a hole in the ground. Right. But the thing is there are there

What' you say? I missed it. I said a seller is a seller. a hole in the ground. A basement is a walk out in six feet. But in FEMA, it's a it's a portion of the house where all four sides are below grade. So, it's more like a sellar than a basement. Yeah. But we should reconcile those terms, you know, using the same we might want to but we want to point out that they are different and they can decide and they can figure out what if they [laughter] want to do it. Exactly. Like they could change our definition to seller. Sure. I mean, whatever you do, as long people there, well, when we get there, your focus is is we want to stay focused as much as we can because there's all on ZBA stuff in this chapter.

If it's a zoning thing, just say, "Hey, make sure that stays in the zoning packet. Let's not repeat the language in our section. Our section has the specific and then there's differences between the flood zone regulations and the ZBA section." And I think that just causes confusion. So anyway, so that but and I think S you're okay with this just taking that whole section out and if there's key parts of it and I think there are some parts that are helpful have them added to the other sections. I I think one way of dealing with it is to take it out and reconcile it and figure out is there something left for the ZBA to do,

right? Um, so is their intention to treat flood plane districts differently from a purpose of a variance perspective? So is it like an exclusion to the traditional standards of variances is what what are they intending it to do? Yeah. What's the origin of that whole piece of text there? Where did that come from? But the thing is but if they notice that they say conditions for variance and if you listen to those conditions it's like okay no variance issue in the flood way but

but it also doesn't say that so I think it's so it says conditions for a varian specified in 2232 so it cites to within itself conditions but but there's nothing that says 22.2 doesn't apply right to variances and flood plane districts. So that would imply that all of this section like it doesn't modify it saying this is the rule for this kind of situation, this is the rule for that kind of situation. It says this is the rule for everything and these are additional rules which means the first rule goes to and that's where that in reality sounds good but in reality that doesn't they butt up against each other

but because I feel like the quintessential part of ZBA invariance is you have hardship or legal alternative to hardship it's the necessary to alleviate the hardship and it's in line with 10 purposes only regulations now if you have these additional things that you want to achieve with the flood zone regulations, put them in the flood zone regulations and then we will look when we make a variances. Is is it consistent with the intent and purpose of the flood zone regulations? Why make a whole another section with these considerations in the ZBA? That seems so righteous. Well, is that similar to B historic homes, historic structures?

In the zone, flooded zone regulations, which is where they define historic structures, not in where they say they do,

they talk about they talk about this is a mess the the the e the exceptions that historic structures can achieve. So the point is you don't I don't again you don't think you need a separate section here about historic structures when there's a section in the flood zone regulations that talks about historic structures not having to become FEMA compliant even if they exceed 50% substantial improvement because they're historic structures and they they give things about that in the flood zone regulations. So why do we need to have another set of regulations? It is weird cuz I mean they've got regulations. The regulations should have all the regulations. If there's additional considerations specific to the ZBA task around these things,

put them here. But these don't seem specific about our task. They just regulate if they want to prevent the danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage, put that in the flood zone regul. The purpose and the purpose of the flood zone rage is to do these things and I don't know if they are in there already but to duplicate it. Let's just get them in one place so we can slim down the document and not have it here and here and here. One place and stop shopping. Exactly. And it's so much easier for the applicant and anyone reading it to say if I want to know about flood zone, I go here, right?

I don't have to search all over the document. And [clears throat] a bunch of these are worded to my mind as if they're saying, "Well, here's why we have these regulations. Here's the intent." So, the intent being attached in the regulations, home run for me, cuz I can go back and look at the regulations, the stated intent of the regulations, and then apply the logic we all agree we're supposed to be.

Exactly. If that's the intent of the regulations, we're going to consider it if it's there. Okay. And then there's a whole section here on what the zone enforcement officer supposed to do. I think that belongs in either, you know, the there's the flood zone regulations where they talk about flood zone permits which he's responsible for or in into um what section are you on? Yeah. 223.4. It certainly doesn't belong in residential floodproof basement. Yeah. Right.

Right. It's just things just got thrown in here. So I think the blue points the zoning enforcements will give each applicant a variance written specifying the difference in the base flood expectation elevation. These are all things that they're going to talk about when they get the zoning permit. And the thing is and it's talks about the costs are higher if you're not compliant with uh the flood zone regulations. And then they the notice that the zoning enforcement officer needs to maintain records again. But should that be under residential flood approved replacement? It doesn't need to be in ZVA either. Well, um H okay. Not at all.

Is there a section for zoning enforcement officer by themselves? So that's Well, that's where that should go. Yeah, that's that's what I'm saying. So like so stuff that's flood zone should go in flood zone regulations. stuff that's enforcement or record keeping of the zoning enforcement go enforcement section and then we come down to things that are helpful procedures CBA procedures.

Okay. So then then we talk about the board. So, for example, the board shall hold a public hearing on all applications and appeals and shall publish a notice of said hearing as prescribed by I put the Connecticut general statutes because nowhere in the regulations would say anything about the timing of our our hearing. So, where procedures 24- 22-4 this seems like something that should be here though. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. The procedures, we need those. That's that's in the ZBA.

I think there's four sections. the the purpose, the considerations, the procedures and that they would can be appealed. Those are the four sections that should be here. So not not um cons uh considerations and then conditions conditions for variance. Should not that be there? I should No, no. We're in We're in I know, but she just said those four, but she eliminated. Yeah, but that's because we're what you're talking about is within That's within 22.3. 22.4. 22. No, what you're talking about considerations and conditions. That's part of 22.3, which is in a flood plane district. So, oh, so that should all be gone.

Yeah. So, the same thing with consideration for variance, that's gone, too. Yeah. Anything that's a 22.3 blank should be all of that the whole section the whole 22.3 is move. All right. Got it. Got it. And then procedures. I was got a little more specific here. Um then uh so these these regulations don't don't give notice about prescribed or hearing. So I just it's by Connecticut statute. Yeah.

I thought I may see a separate bullet. The public shall hold public hearings. This talks about the public hearings. D is now in granting a variance. The board shall describe the following findings. This is where we talk about finding findings specifically. And then no. Did you add the following findings? Is that you took out specifically? It's just hard for me to Yeah. I'm sorry. No, it's okay. Yeah. Yeah. So in granting any variance the board shall and this is where we talk about finding records or reasons for granting variances and Sylvia suggest we enumerate them instead of just living in one big long sentence.

Yeah. shall follow the shall describe the following. The the unusual hardship on which the decision is based and two why the granting of the variance is in harmony with intent and per the purpose and intents of these regulations and three when the variance constitutes a reasonable accommodation for the needs of a disabled person. So in here the regulations the word regulations right before and three should be uh per Harmony purpose. Harmony with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan of zoning. Oh, be consistent with the other. Yeah. Yeah. And the comprehensive plan of zoning. Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. To be consistent. Good point. I did notice several places that just says with the purposes of these regulations and we always use that term intents and purposes. I wrote it like two or three times. Intense. Intense. Intense. Do we want to do that? I mean, is that something we want to add? Intents and purposes because I definitely found at least two just purposes. Well, here's one. I mean, like just here, um, shall be in harmony with the purposes of these regulations. Well, I have it. If you look, I have it a couple times. She added in. So, okay. Yeah. One, not across.

So, instead of saying intent and purpose, it says purpose and intent. I wasn't going to try to make them change the order of words. um and comprehensive plan of zoning. And then and then the next one was okay. And then these were just comments on this like they took out the uh timing on one of this and they moved it from a different old section which is good. So they consolidated here and then and then so you're talking about F F and G. So those are those have been changed since the old regulations but they've been changed in a good way. I'm just pointing out that that that's good. Yay. [laughter] Just quickly going back to 224D.

Yeah. When I talk about what we're what we're doing to justify it, we don't and and this I think is intentional. We don't have the FEMA piece there or the offsetting nonconformity reductions. No, because that's one that's fluid. How do you want to put that there? they would say it's unusual hardship or legal alternative to unusual hardship. You okay with that? Because that's sort of fluid. Um, I think we can say u the specific basis for the legal alternative to unusual hardship

because we're we're in the in the considerations piece we're talking about or that evidence has been provided that a legal alternative to unusual hardship exists. So sort of just generally. Yeah. So I think we can just say generally what the basis for the finding that it is a legal alternative to the unusual hardship is it I'm muddling my terminology but okay basis is this is paragraph B in that so so because when we spoke on the phone like I said this doesn't need to be that specific because we're just reminding ourselves to make the findings but we can be more specific. I think it should be more specific.

Okay. Yeah. So in granting any variance, the board shall describe the following. One, the exceptional the excuse me, the unusual hardship on which the decision is. So exactly what do you want me to add there to talk about or the illegal alternative like we or the legal alternative to unusual hardship. Yeah. On which the basis for a legal alternative. Say a whole sentence cuz I'm not sure where you are. where you put it in is going to make it as I start saying it. I I start questioning myself. [laughter] Okay. Well, we'll just I'm not going to write anything down for a few minutes.

Okay. So, C is this big paragraph and then D down here goes into this sound recording which is the new D, but the the new C that you have is a brand new thing. It wasn't in here at all. Am I right? No, it was there. It's just it was one big paragraph. So, you just took it out. Broke it out because I thought All right. I I was looking for it but I didn't see it but it was too much. So I Okay, thank you. So the point is one is to say so B is to say we can decide issues on the zoning enforcement officer

and we do it before we do variance. That's one thing. The other thing is about holding the public hearing which is a separate point entirely. And then the next thing is finding find recording findings or making findings. So I thought they were separate bullets. Yeah, it's it's all mushed together. Be confusing. I agree. What's the final thing right now? That's why she's here. Exactly. Or we can just I'm just going to say what I wrote down and you guys can have at [laughter] it. Um I put for the basis for a legal alternative to unusual hardship.

Your bullet point four. So you've got one is the unusual hardship on which the decision is based. There's a fourth one. Two, why the granting of the variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the regulations and the comprehensive plan zoning. Right. And three, when the variance constitutes a reasonable accommodation for the needs of a disabled person. Yeah. So I don't know if it's or semicolon for Yeah. the basis for a legal. So I I don't know if you want to keep the same cadence like so to me to me to me I think I think it goes before it it's it's either it's part of one I think so too.

It's either either you shadow legal unusual hardship or you have a legal alternative to unusual hardship. I think you put that as four cuz the thing is like an alternative. Well no but I don't think you put it as four just grammatically. one or the other because it goes with the unusual hardship or you show this other thing, right? And then you have your other and then you have your exceptional conditions.

But if we if we just go back to the the first page, it says the consideration is that there exists conditions especially affecting the parcel and [snorts] for the variance of sought as of which conditions little enforcement zoning relations would result in unusual hardship. Yeah, that's your number one. Or the evidence has been provided that an illegal alternative to unusual hardship exists. Yes. Okay. So in that context to keep the [snorts] same kind of key. So I'll just make it the same thing. I'll just make one will be one will be A and two will be C and then three will be the D which is the um

disability disability thing. Right. Okay. I I can do that. All right. Is everybody agree? Everybody agree with that. Yeah. So I guess my only hesitation is you can have an application that has legal hardship and a legal alternative to usual hardship. So it's not necessarily an or. Andor. What do you mean? And andor. Yeah. So andor in both spots or just one? Andor. So the thing the thing that has to happen with all applications is the in harmony with the purpose and intent the regulation. Yeah, I think that should be the ending clause

that has to happen regardless of Yeah, I would like that to be clause number four in that paragraph cuz that's a sort of a summary. They all have to fit that somehow. So I mean I think you get the point and it's just a matter of which how the how you structure. See to me as like the mo I think of as there two basic things we do all the time. it's hardship or legal alternative to hardship andor and the harmony with the 10 purpose of regulations. Yes. Right. Now, we don't always have ADA stuff. So, that's kind of a little tack on at the end. That's why I thought I thought okay that's why but anyway. Okay. I will make it word that again four pieces are there. We're okay. Yes. Can be a little

their own about how it's structured and something. You know what they're going to edit it anyway. I don't know. I don't know. If you grant a variance because of a an alternative to legal hardship, you should say what it is. Yes. And that you found. Yeah. So there's an alternative to legal hardship and that alternative is

So I just want to clarify though except um alternative to legal hardship to make that part of what is what your minutes do. Like your question I ask every Every case I ask the first thing I ask is what's the unusual hardship or the legal alternative to unusual hardship that is the first question we ask we ask is it the minimum we also ask if there's any reduction non-conforming but that's not as an optional thing and then it's intent for the question I have I just might ask one question so then when we're talking about 282.2A 2 A is it will result in unusual hardship and or that evidence has been provided that a legal alternal hardship exists. I put it and or

oh that earlier one and both of them. Yeah. To be both. It seems like you be consistently you should do that andor. I think so. I think andor makes sense. Okay. So do it in both places and or. So when you say both places, where's the second place? The four or 22 224. Yeah. 22-4. Uh the second one. Uh D 224D and 22 22.2 A. And yeah. Okay. Cuz we do that

consistently, right? I do that and just to get that logic down on me. The fact that we even do that and have a discussion means that our chance of being overturned in any court case is like the language is catching [laughter] up. Sorry. Yeah. Catching up the language to Okay. Yeah. Okay. So then the board then so we said we did D E hasn't changed. F. Oh, these are just comments that they changed. The word was good.

And then it was H. Any variance granted by the board shall not, and this I discussed with uh Sylvia, shall not become effective until placed on the land use records blah blah blah blah. And that's consistent with the statute that says, okay, the variance is effective upon

and then I for now this is a little confusing for me. So it's it said for any variances where filing of final plans um is a condition of such variance final plans shall be submitted for signing by the chair of the board no more than 65 it's time but the point is I don't sign myars I sign paper copies so [snorts] if I thought I would be comfortable with this if we took out myars H old H new eye. Is that old text that survived or is that like

that was old text and I I think we should take it out because I don't sign myars. Do they still do myars? Yes, they do. Okay. Sometimes Eric asked for, you know, especially as built. Okay. Um but I leave that up to him to decide whether he wants my or not. I just want to sign. What's a myar? It's a kind of paper that it's like they they put on the land use records in the town specific like a parchment type. Yes. It looks like parchment paper but it's hard or not. It's not as squishable as plastic. They like because you can trace your drawing. You could mark up drawings below and

the question I have is uh do we do we need this timing thing the 90 days 65 already in state statute somehow we're just repeating it something that's our procedural just but the point is but that's why it's in court to the next sense say no varants shall become effective until such plans are submitted or filed as provided stress it That's why I can't see it. Yeah. So, the question is, do we need the timing? Cuz who's going to keep track of this timing? And yeah, my question is, what is the purpose of the timing? Like, usually when there's something in there, it's because something bad happened. [laughter] Why?

That's a lawyer. Well, no, I mean, sounds like basically it that's an insight I wouldn't have thought of, and it's just straight out got to be true. Well, if somebody goes through and they put up something on that property that was not what was approved and you haven't signed off on the they haven't submitted their final plans to you, their variances are not good. Well, they don't get I think those are two separate thoughts like the last sentence that no variance will become effective until such plans is a separate thought from the rest of I

because that's just saying it's a condition precedent to the to you having a variance. The first part of it of the timing I think goes to somewhere down the line there must have been a chair that never signed the plans and then they never got filed and what do you make of that when the error is on the town side. But I think the thing is it says well I know that when I first started the prayer chair didn't sign or stamp any plans. We just said as plan as per plan submitted and that's that. And it was pretty damn loose. And we had one episode down by the beach where the person built something that was so different than what we thought we had.

Well, so the reason the reason that a chair signs plans is for the public notice because I can file a map of whatever I want. But if it's not signed by a chairman that it's a whatever else okay you know it's not an owner of you should not rely on it that it is actually something that you can do unless it is something that was approved. So it makes it official. It makes it something that a member of the public can rely on is something that they have the ability to do. Isn't that official? Like so I guess so I think if you take out myars because that's clearly not the stage of the process that you're at. Just say the final plans

and we can ask the ZV zoning commissions like is there a reason for the timing? We're not telling you to include it or not include it. We just we didn't understand. So so my my my So I don't necessarily have a problem with timing because it may be for the It's more of making sure that the board and the chairman is acting appropriately so that things end up on the land records like they're supposed to. Yeah. So for the benefit of the public so they know when things are done and they give a check for recording fees and that would be they would the check would be you know but imagine that you signed them or and they never filed

or imagine they paid the check they did everything they were supposed to do but you never signed and they're sitting in Eric's office somewhere. They don't actually go to the town clerk to for filing because that's happened a bunch of times. It hasn't not Well, I'm on this on the future. It's legendary like say like 10 years ago or so. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, we'll just Are people okay with the changes that I've suggested the final plans? Because sometimes we make a condition that they've made modification. We want to submit final plans that I stamp and sign that we want to happen. Yes.

We don't care about the timing, but we'll say that no variance shall become affected such plans are submitted and filed. So I would [snorts] sure I'm I'm wondering whether that no variance shall become should just be a separate thought because that is a it seems like a separate that is something that the applicant does and the other part of it is something that the chair does, right? Okay. Well, that's a good distinction. So make this like I think it's separate. Yeah, separate

new new bullet. Okay, that as it say has. So when they say as provided herein, they're clear that they're talking about I above or you can say as provided in I above if there's provided in I above and I section I above [laughter] that's a lot I mean I think Well, so you guys have the the concept of a final plan needs to be submitted and signed by a chair. Period. Right.

Yeah. And that final plan, you're granting the variance based on that final plan. Yes. Not every ZVA does that. Sometimes they just grant a variance without saying pursuant to the plans. Like we're very specific for for reasons. Not everyone does that. And then the problem is problems have happened. Which plan is the right plan? Which plan is the applicable one? There's been multiple plans. Which one do like? So that's part of the reason why you signed the one that is the one. That's why we made that change cuz I mentioned this.

So we could make just a standing, right? Cuz your standing conditions are this. But in theory, if there's a lazier ZBA that goes out, they might not say it, but make sort of a standing condition, right? That the which is sort of what you're doing here, right? So maybe not break it into two parts. Not for not for any variance where filing of a final plan is a condition of such a variance because that's going to be a condition every variance, right? That's your standing okay condition. Um so yeah yeah yeah

okay yeah that's an interesting catch. Yeah. So for any variance the final plans are shall be submitted and signed by the chair of the board sign board appeals period that's one bullet and then say that then they need also to be filed with the land use within a certain time frame and no thing and that you can say that no variant shall become effective until such plans are filed by adherence. So it's like you're splitting it splitting it after chair of the board. Yeah. Yeah. The applicant submits. So the last sentence is the reporting and then the uh

so it's like the the the plans are the final plans are submitted. I sign them. Period. That's it. And then they also then need to be then they need to be filed as a separate bullet and they're not effective until they become filed. Right. So that yeah bullet splits into two. Yeah. this the signing but my job and their job right and my job as a stamp that next question I have though it says no varian shall be uh shall become effective until such plans are submitted or filed the submitt is done by the applicant the filing on the land records is done by who the town clerk so it's is it an or which what is the thing I applicant submit the

or has submitted or filed the filing is like you recorded file a map. The verb is different depending on what it is that you're doing. So who is doing the submitt is done by the applicant. The filing is done by the town in this in old line is done by the town. Right. It's says or right no shall be affected until the plans are submitted or filed. Should be ants. Yeah. Well, but see the thing is they don't always file them on the land. Both of those have to happen, right? Let me just clarify recording. Who's recording? Let me just say something.

The way it works now from my understanding is the notice of decision always gets filed with the land use department land use [applause] land use files and town clerk's office, but they don't always submit and file myars. I think so. But who who does the recording of the notice of decision? the Craig does. Okay. So, the town does the recording. So, the the applicant pays the check. He holds on to it until the the decision is made. And then he submits he cashes the check and submits the the um decision

decision. And if it's one page, it's $70. If it's more than one page, then it's 77 $75. But if you want to submit Yeah. If you want to submit and on the land use records myarsars that's even more costly. So we don't usually make them submit my because we have so myers aren't always necessary. Not no which I remove myars entirely right.

But then what Eric does my understanding is what ER but again this is different for every CEO. What Eric does is so he has the plans that I've stamped and signed. They're in the land use department. when he goes back to inspect the house, he makes them do an asbuilt survey and show what was actually built and he compares it to what was supposed to be built and if it was they match up then he he signs off the certificate of occupancy or whatever he signs. Um so but the as filed in the town clerk's office probably not. It's just in the land use office. Yeah.

Right. Um, so I guess I guess the the point I'm trying to make is um when do you have an effective variance? Is it the does the notice of decision getting recorded make it effective? Does being filed? Is it the signing? Which at which point is it effective?

So I think the fact that the who and the when are different. I think the confusion here is that this is specifically written as if it's a condition of the variance. So they're saying if you take out if you take out the condition of variance that they that they're going to make some submit some myar then they that would be the condition but we don't usually make them submit a mile. So, so the filing of final plans is a standard condition, but not necessarily the filing of the final plans on the land records, right? So, we put on the land record. So, I guess that's the part that's pivotal here.

Isn't the decision like it's on the record, we say we vote passed, they go off and start acting on it. They they can't act on it immediately. It has to be filed. It has to so they can't act in. So the way it works is so we make a decision. Then there's a published notice that goes out to the public. They have to wait 15 days after it's published to see if anybody appeals a decision. And then if they don't appeal a decision, then they can submit the decision onto the land use records. And they've already paid for that ahead of time. Well, it's not that they can. The notice of decision gets recorded on the land record.

So when they walk out of here, they got 15 days before they can take any action. Yeah. And then and then they also have to get a building permit and a zoning permit. So that we just gave them the variance. We didn't say that they've got a permit. We didn't say they've got a building permit. They still have to go through the whole process. They have to wait for the appeal. That variance is going to take them 15 days at least. Because it has 15 days after it's published. So is there any

so has made some decisions about its procedure that isn't necessarily so a in theory a notice of decision can be recorded immediately and be effective immediately. It's dumb to do that because if someone appeals you're wasting your money and your whatever. Yeah. So because it might be taken away, right? So it's not that it can't be reported within 15 days. It's just just doesn't make any sense to. So that's a that's a statutory requirement or statutory time frame. It just is a logistical, right? That can be our policy though.

Yeah. No. Yes. Yes, it can. So but what is happening can happen. I just want to make sure it's clear that that's not statutoily required at the time of so so we're making decisions about when um like there is a statute that says a variance is not effective unless it's recorded on land records. So whether you like it or not, that's that's that's a general statute like an instant that night. So in theor in some other towns a notice of decision can be given and they can report it and we always tell people you can report it but I wouldn't cuz why if you wait the time period or so the thing is this is our time frame. So it says

we have it in our guidance document. This is what we have. So we we wait. So within 15 days, but you also record in other towns they make the person record, right? So there's some like procedural decisions that were made, policy decisions in town, which I I think are appropriate. Um but that just I just want to be clear as to what's driving the bus. The distinction is like who's in control, right? So if such that right, for example, let me give you another analogy where the thing that comes into my mind that you've heard me say before we talk about the context of like the board giving a continuence. The board doesn't give a continuence. Okay. The applicant asks for continuance and the board just

says yes because the time frame, the statutory time frame isn't a restriction on the applicant. It's a restriction on you. Yeah. So that it can't like they have the right to apply and you have to act otherwise you can't just let it die on the you know on the chopping block or whatever else. So, some of these things are to give um to make sure that the town, the municipalities are acting appropriately and and they're not like, "Yeah, you got your variance and it was granted, but I'm just never going to require it." Right. Yeah. Then, as a property owner, I got it. I went through all my motions. I legally can do it, but now

it right. So, it So, it there's not a right or a wrong per se. say it just I want to make sure we're following the ball of the things that are intended to protect who and to mandate things on the clarity. The zoning rags though are for us to be able to say, okay, there's the statutes which but the things that we do that are specific to our town and how we is what the zoning rags are about. This is what we do. Right. Right. And it makes clear who's doing what when. Right. Right. For everybody's benefit. Right. Right. There's a new CEO, they need to know what to do. a new chairman or whatever, they need to know what to do. This should be a place where everybody knows clear blueprint right here. Am I reporting? Are you recording? Who's when does it have to happen? Who, you know, that kind of thing.

But again, a lot of that information is also on the application form. It's in our guidance documents. So, there's a lot of places to find that out, but legally, we got to have it in our zoning. ation that we're having to change that H G H what the conversation we're having now about that G and H G followed by H

cross it seems like as it's written it's answering the exact questions that talking about there's a time frame given I could understand the who is doing what but the time frame was given if you don't do it it's going to be void nonvoid we're going It can't be null and void. Um, so it's effective. It's just not effective. You don't have So you have to remove the null and void. That's gone. That's if you notice that's crossed out. Yeah. So I I think part of the construct or what's what's hitting me now, and I apologize, Nancy, this didn't occur to me before when when you crossed out on the land records. That was a is a pivotal clause in this um because

I didn't cross out on a land record. Yeah, it is. for every variance filing of final plans is on the land records has been deleted. Not on my copy. Okay. On my land. Yeah, it's not. Oh. Oh, down the next next bullet. The next Okay. I thought you're looking at the Yeah. H it says place in the land record. So So that has to bounce back in. Well, when make sure we're talking about the same thing. Yeah. Yeah. So when I was talking about that you require that final plans are always required standing condition that means filed with the land use office.

It I think this provision was intended to not about the land use office because that's your what I'm calling your standing condition. This is if you decide that final plans have to be reported on the land records. That's the concept. Like you said not not every case requires a myar. Yeah. when you do require a myar meaning on the land. Oh, that's what that is. Okay, that's the construct. So, I think it's I think it's doing okay based on what you guys do, it's this is doing too many things in one paragraph. So, I think so. [laughter] Yeah, we decided we were talking about the final plans that are required in every single case. Those shall be submit like final plan. So let's say um

so they may have submitted final plans before the hearing. They didn't change anything but sometimes they change after the hearing. This is a special case on the land records and myar were sort of married to each other in this circumstance. Right. Yeah. So maybe we need to add that back in and then separate out. Well add it back in but then but then break it up. Break it up. Break it up. Have you ever asked for those? Have we ever had it? Yes. Because sometimes people come in and there's like a last minute thing where we'll say, "Okay, we'll approve this." But you say, "I'm not going to sign the plans until I see the updated." Right. But it's not a myar. No, it's not a But they're not getting filed in the land records. It's just in It's in the land use office.

I can't think of a time where I've heard you say filed on the land records. You say filed in the land use office. Different office. So there's a land use office and there's town land records. Yeah. Okay. Where land is in both, but they're different. Land use office, land records, upstairs and downstairs. Not not related.

So, right now, the only thing that we usually file on the land records that I'm aware of is the notice of decision. It says what's the variances, the reasons for the variances. And now it says, it used to have a time limit on when they had to get the construction completed, but that's been mixed by law. And so now it just says it reminds people that they need to, you know, still have to get permits. They still they just can't go off and do it now. And I think there's one other thing that um so it's more clarifying the next steps like we have here.

Well, if we're going to divide this into more than one section, are we clear about what those two sections are? But I think one thought is that um final plans shall be filed in the land use office and signed by the chair of the board within whatever time frame. Yeah. Okay. One thought I usually do it the next day. Okay. Yeah. But you're very efficient. What if you know and then no variance will become effective until those plans are submitted is another thought. And then separate and apart from that I think you can sort of seal from the original language for any variance where a filing of final plans on the land records is a condition of such variance.

Okay. Okay. Except then in that context now we're switching gears and talking about the responsibilities of the CEO or land use office. Okay. Right. Because my my thought one was that final plans need that are final plans to be submitted to the land use office is a responsibility of the applicant. Yeah. The the chair signs them within a certain time frame is a responsibility of the chair.

Yeah. The if we have um for any variance where filing of the final plans on the land records is a condition of such variance that requirement is done by the the land records report with filing part is done by the staff land staff right right now. But we just say the town like if we're going to say by the applicant and by the town as opposed to which or staff I guess is good. I so right now it just says such plans shall be filed with the town no later. I think the commission should decide whether they want to make that the permanent or not. Um from I mean that's something we can question

the consultants. That's what I'm thinking about is like what what do we want? What do we want to have in the regulations or what's a procedure versus a regulation? Like right now, we have a procedure for them notifying neighbors. It's not a regulation. So last month when they didn't have a certified mailing, but they had all the documentation that they did everything, we were able to say, "Okay, we weren't we weren't right. We weren't stickyrained. We weren't constrained legally and said we had to wait a month till they do it all again with a certificate of note mailing." So the point is what of this really needs to be in the regulations versus just procedural was our procedure. Yeah. Well, this is the procedural section,

right? But but not everything we don't say about notifying neighbors in here. Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We don't everything doesn't have to be a regulation. I was saying so like I think the important thing is the final plans need to be submitted to the land use office so they can be stand signed by the ZBA chair and that nothing's affected until that happens. That is absolutely process. You got that you can write that. Now, if there's requests for milers, which doesn't always happen, then I think we can sort of keep out the myer part entirely. Yeah.

Um I think you So, is it the is it the submitt of the final plans to you for signing that makes it effective or able to be effective? I think so. or is so then I'm just looking at the last sentence that says no varian shall become effective until such plans are submitted or filed the submitted and the filing happen at different times. So we say submitted period or submitted just but they're also not effective when they're submitted. They're they're effective when effective it's it's it's you want to have one effective date. It's when because that's legal impact,

right? Because look at the the bullet before that any variance granted by the board shall not become effective until placed in land use. So it's the decision when the decision is placed in the land use records. That's when it's filed and usually we don't file a decision until we have final plans stamped and submitted. So the question is do we need this whole thing about myars and myars being filed on millennial records as a regulation because it doesn't happen all the time and makes it very confusing. Yeah.

If a myar was requested could that be a condition of approval just our own thing. with that final plan. When we ask for a final plan, they have to give her that's a condition of our approval, we say you've got to hand Nancy a final plan that she's going to stamp and seal the amended one. Right. So, when it's a condition of approval, but I stamp and sign the final plans whether it's a condition of approval or not. Right. Right. Because they could submit plans that we don't change. Yeah. But but you're making it a regulation that says that they have to submit a final plan for signing. They do, but it doesn't have to be after the application. It could the hearing could be before the hearing. Yeah.

There needs to be something that I stamp and sign for the record as to what we agreed on. Right. Right. What I'm saying is though that the the filing the the submitt of the final plans neither makes the variance effective or the lack of a submitt makes the variance null and void. Yeah, those are inappropriate terminologies. Right? It's not effective because the only effective date is the reporting of the notice and it's not null and void because it doesn't exist. It like isn't born until you satisfy the condition. So it's like a condition precedent. Like you don't have it until you have it. So it's not null and void. You never had it to begin with.

So we take out this whole thing. We just say any variance. So H is what it says. Any variance granted by the board shall not become effective until placed on the land use records for the town of line by recording a copy of the variance or exception with the town. We don't need or exception u with the town clerk as or as otherwise provided by the Connecticut general statute as amended. Yes. And then the next bullet says for any variance where the f say the final plans must be on the land. Yeah. Final plans must be submitted for signing by the chair of the board

and filed plans must be submitted for signing by the chairman of the board. Period. Period. Yeah. The whole timing thing comes out. KS keep it simple. Yep. I like that saying because it's it's just a condition press. Mhm. It's the submitt that's a condition precedent. So it doesn't put a burden on you to sign it in the certain time frame. It doesn't mean that they don't have an accept effective variance until you sign it. It just means that they have to submit it for you to sign right

now. Now the question is I usually do that before [snorts] the recording. So maybe the order of this needs to change. Well, what if they submit it for you to sign and you can't sign it because it's not accurate. So they submit it. That's sufficient, but it's not the final plans. So the point is what I'm saying is I don't think they should file the notice of decision until after this step because I they need to submit the final plan threshold and it's [snorts] and then I stamp and sign them and then the variance the variance is filed on a land use records and that's when it becomes effective because

so but then that's more of like your that policy that guidel Right. Yeah. Procedural. So I I think so I think the thing is we say we we first we say uh final plans must be submitted uh for the signing stamp by the stamp and signed by the ZBA chair. Any variance granted by the board shall not become effective until placed in land use records. This the the stamp and signing is before the land use records and again they can modify it

say so. Can we write that l when we say so? I think we could write that. It's an upgrade.

Let's see. Then we also have J. Any variance shall be deemed to incorporate the contents of any site or building plans or other documentation submitted in connection with the variance application such that there'll be no change in such plans or documents with consent of the board. But then we need to know have the stamp and signed version to know what we're comparing with should that be combined with the submitting of the stamp and signed ver final version. I think that makes more sense. So, it's one bullet. The the final plans need to be submitted. Yeah. That's a complicated sentence.

No, but it's two sentences in one bullet. The final plans must be submitted for signing by the ZBA chair of the board or the chair of the board. any various style deemed to be incorporate the contents of the site plans etc. [clears throat] And then I think you should just repeat the final plans the final plans. Yeah. Final plans. So there's no question. Mhm.

Are the other documentation shall be consmitted in connection with parents says that there should be no alteration without consent of the board. Then then it's then it's uh any variance granted by the board shall not become effective until such until until what's shall not become effective until placed upon the land records. Iran records, right? So, let's change the order. So, we get rid of I and we don't have to mention anything about the 15 days in this. No. So, no, that's that's part of our that's the appeal per theory.

Yeah. So, like right now we have our our process that's covered somewhere in the reg. So, yeah, that's a logistical thing. Yeah. That you guys have decided for logical purposes. Yeah. Cuz right now it says the ZBA renders a decision within 65 days of the close of the public hearing. We usually do it the same day. Within 15 days of the ZBA decision, a legal [clears throat] notice of decision is published and certified copies sent to the applicant for their authorized representative. And then 15 a 15-day appeal period follows publication of the notice of any decision during which time any agreed person may appeal the decision and decision is not if the decision is not appealed a notice of variance grant is land will record in the land use records. Is that sort of a legal document too or not?

It's not binding on you. And well, you can change that every meeting if you wanted to. Okay. It's not a regular, but the point is it's clear. But that's really nice the way it's sort of structured. Well, that's a lot more readable than reg. [laughter] That's what I'm saying. I'm wondering why. Okay. We could just Okay. So, we're just going to say we're just tweak this a little bit. Change the order. So, the last thing is uh what is that last virtual adopt procedures? Yeah, that's that's maybe necessary to carry out. Okay, I'm okay with that. I'll I'll try to take it from the recording and yeah, type it out and then get it out to everybody. You want to add a S there. Procedures. Procedures. Okay. Yeah, you mark.

Yeah, I think you added the S. Just get cut off a little bit. Yeah. Oh, yeah, it is there. Okay, good. All right. Good suggestion. All right. Now, the last thing on here is the appeal to court, which you don't have in there. I just didn't copy it. Again, it's a whole page. We're just going to leave that as is. As is. Okay, good. So, we're done the ZPA section. Okay. But I think that was helpful. It was really, uh, thank you so your input, uh, Sylvia. All right. So now the next thing is now do we want to go through definitions or we want to jump to FEMA compliance. Um

the boss well it's 8:00 so priorities I'm okay and and definition the FEMA is going to be huge. I think we need to have another meeting for that because I mean our brains have to be sharp. We can't be like 20. We are going to get worn down no matter what we think and you know this take and this doesn't have to happen overnight. I mean we have time. Yeah. Yeah. I think so. We can have another special meeting, you know. Yeah. I mean rather than But I this will give me time now that we've agreed on taking some stuff out of the zoning compliance. I can see where we can put it in the FEMA and come back with an updated FEMA. Yeah.

Yeah. Cuz a bunch of that stuff, right? I when those couldn't figure out where to put it back and put it in all agree that we're taking out of ZVA. Yeah. Jump out at 22 and clarifying here. Are we changing regulations? No. Say we're suggesting we're making suggestions to the zoning commission. Oh, I mean um we're making suggestions, but I mean as far as legalities go right now, these regulations are they different than what we have right now? Like what do we what is legal? What do we have to abide by? This is effective as vehicle. Okay. On the assumption that what's on the front cover is true.

Yes. They have adopted the structure. Then this is what we these are effective. So so that affects any progress. So that affects any application that was submitted after April 1st. So there were some applications that were submitted before April 1st and we still use the old regulations for but we're still considering this part of an ongoing process where this is our first new version but we're going for alter for additionally amending it based on suggestions from people like us. Right. That was phase one to try to make some basic legal changes because of state statute. And now phase two is broader input.

Okay. To say what we can make difference. And phase two is going to take a long time. Yes. All right. So then everyone's got um everyone's got definitions. Where's my copy? Oh. Oh. Did you not get a copy? No, everybody got a copy. But he did not get a copy and he's not coming. So maybe we'll share this with him later. Oh, okay. Because he's not going to come. So I don't want to leave that here. I'll just put it. Yeah, we'll put it back in the box. All right. Back in the box. So Oh, this is this is what I'm definitions. Okay. Oh, look what you did last year.

Okay. So the way the definitions are broken up is there's like an a overarching page which is this. And then there's section 25 which is the zoning terminology and there's section 26 which is the um use uh accessory use definitions but some of the definitions are spread throughout the zoning district standards. So did you see my face? Oh my god. which is why I just printed out the pages you need to look at because otherwise you get lost. Oh my goodness. All right. Okay. So, let's everybody start with this

first page. First page. Did you have your 241 and what and this is um what page in the Anybody know what the page is in the uh 184? 184. Thank you. Okay. So basically I I just noticed a couple things on the first page. Section 24 word use and abbreviations. They say the words zone, zoning district and district shall have the same meaning throughout. That is not that is confusing and I don't think it's correct because they talk about zoning districts and overlay zones and I think that they should keep them distinct and I don't know if they just messed this up here or they really meant to say that. I I think that's a really good point to raise. Yeah.

Okay. So, just suggesting that they maybe edit that out completely. It's not true. Yeah. Yeah. And then just the DP they just it's the Department of Energy Environmental Protection just typos.

Okay. So then we move on to section 25. Now, um the I just sort of we're just going to go through this in alphabetical order just because that's the only way I could think to do it. Um so accessories building or structure they talk about accessory use I think they're two separate things and they have accessory farm buildings that doesn't belong in zoning termin. So the way they have the the definition is broken up is zoning terms and use terms. So accessory farm buildings is really a use term. It's what's allowed in the district and not beside the primary use. So some of these things they just accessory accessory what accessory building or structure because they talk about later in the definition of accessory building and structures and they have accessory uses.

Nancy can I just go back one? Yeah. So it's interesting that you just it's interesting you said that because at the right underneath the word section 25. Yeah. It says the section provides definitions of terms found in these regulations. See section 21 use definitions for definition of use is listed in so it is it referring you to jump around already. Yeah sentence. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Awesome. [laughter] Um and use definitions are section 21 and section 26. The definitions but they have so are use definitions in section 21 or are they section 26?

Oh yeah that's wrong. That's wrong. I missed that. Yeah, but the thing is I actually have some suggestions on how they do the use definitions and but I thought that was not that's just my own personal preference, but I didn't think that it was something that we have zoning board of appeals experience on. It's just I think it's confusing. Well, that that I think that's basic. I mean, if it's confusing, that's why we want to clean it up. Okay. Well, I would s at the risk of sounding very pedestrian. Um, to the extent there's a reason why there's some definitions in in a section called cloning terminology in the

there are and another and a reason for their why not state the reason. Okay,

I think it's because this is at the end of the section. So, you probably should have already gone through sections five and six which talk about primary uses and secondary uses. not secondary uses um accessory uses but they have so what they did is they used to have section five which said all the different districts that they had in the town and what was allowed and not allowed in each town. So then they what they wanted to do is they said instead of having this page after page after page of repeated uses in different districts they they wanted to make a table. So if you look, they have a table now that says primary uses and accessory uses. It's very confusing though. So they're trying to separate the definitions of things that are in the zoning regulations versus things that are in the these tables. But the problem is they say they call the tables accessory uses and and the point is it's not just accessory uses, it's accessory t uh structures, accessory buildings and accessory uses. So it's very confusing and I think that uh they could make it better. That's why I've tried to separate accessory buildings or structure from accessory uses. But um

is there a way to do it so it won't be confusing? I mean are they trying I guess I'm still not following why all definitions can't just be in one place. Yeah, that's a question. I I think I think there might be a reason. just I think that's just something we should ask. Yeah. I think to to avoid confusion, right? Yeah. Like cuz you could throw accessory farm buildings either way on that. You could say that's really a use because you're talking about farm has a use, but it's also a structure. So this is one of the main things that the consultant did. So anyway, so they separating uses from terminology basically. Oh,

and making these two tables accessory. So, what what I'm what I'm So, so if you look at page 20, but Nancy, you you you are far more advanced than a regular person. Yeah. Reading these, right? Yeah, you are. [laughter] So, I'm just a regular Joe. Never heard the words land use or anything else before. Right. How do like in the same way that it's confusing is it a zone or is it a district or those different things the word use is a loaded word in the zoning context. Yeah.

It would I don't know it might be helpful for someone to understand that just that concept that a use is a loaded thing. a specific or why there's two different things like I I think for the average person to understand why there's two sections of definitions we also need to go five and six let's look at myself you're using it like a glossery right exactly here's here's what it we we mean when we use that word and putting them all into one glossery and I think it's because sometimes they have things in one spot versus the other like they have decks and accessory uses and they have accessory farm structures on zoning regulations. It's we should minimum ask them what's the motivation for dividing two

things. and make it clear to a lay person what do so frame that it's like when when people look at this they they're not lawyers they're just ordinary people trying to figure out what what what this means and how to you know have an a glossery sort of at the back say here's what each of those terms legally means yeah like page 16 that's crazy to me again like I love but I think this is their intention their intention is to say these are principal uses and these are what's allowed in various districts 16 page 16 it's a table

and it says what you need to get approval in that district and it's either a zoning permit a site development plan or special permit so they used to have page after page after page just saying okay RU80 these are the things that are allowed in RU80 as a zoning permit these are what's allowed by a special permit this is what a site development plan this makes it nice and clear it does this is a This is a big improvement. Yeah. But I guess but the point is that the separation of the the definitions is probably what's confusing everybody. Why is that in section five? You know, shouldn't this a table of some be in the back? You know, as you know, I don't know.

No, I think it's they're just they they it's the way they want to organize the regulation. This is this is the uses. If you want to know what the definition is, you just look at the chapter 25 or 26. But the other thing that was a little confusing to me is then they talk about accessory uses. They say accessory use, but it's a building structure or an actual use. So uses, it's not really uses, it's accessory, building structures, and uses. And so it's it's confusing to me. And some of these things, like a deck, a deck's an extension of a primary structure. So, does it need to be an accessory used? I don't know. I think they just took it from wherever it was in the in the old chapter, it slapped it in this table.

But as far as one glossery goes, if I was just a person, I would look up that term special permit, and it's not here. I'm like, "Oh, well, what is a special permit?" I think it should have a one I can see just having one main glossery. Yeah. Yeah. or as much as we can consider we can imagine but there are special special let's see special permit uh it's a whole section instead of I think it's a some of the definitions are not in the definition like even zoning regulations like I was going to say

the definition of deck or floor area they say what floor area is but then they say how you calculate it is in the zoning regulations not in the definition because otherwise the definitions get too long yeah I don't think that's our perview as the zone appeals report to be talking about what might confuse applicants. They're looking in here. It's like I don't get this. I you know, anything we could do to that might have clarity to wait. That's what our job is. I think that's what that's what they're looking for. Okay. Well, if we want to do it, I was I was going to make some comments myself, but if we would like to do it as a board, we can do that as a board. I think so. I'm fine with that. We agree. We agree with you. So, a deck is a is a is in 25 and 26. I know. I pointed that out.

[clears throat] But the point is some things are in one place or another. Some places are in both places. They not do it by having one glossery. And if something is a use meaning more loaded than just a ter like Mhm. a definition, it could be their abstract or something, right? That this thing is more than just this or something like that rather than splitting them up, right? Well, it can be like if they make sure that if they ever amend the definition of death that they do it all throughout. It just it just allows for potential inconsistenc. Yeah, that's a great point cuz like making amendments, you got to figure out what six chapters it's in instead of just saying here's the definition. I think we should all different places.

Well, we get a lot of complaints from the legal representation for the the applicants to say, well, in this section it says that, you know, play us against making it well and there's more opportunity for that when everything is scattered in different sections. looking to make a distinction that uses are loaded. Yeah, fair. Yeah,

fair point. But I think you can do that by a plus an aster or some kind of indication that this is also a use in the loaded sense. But I think they have that also because they say if you look at their table of contents I get back there or let me see if I do permitted uses permitted and permitted. So the uses are in section three. That's right up front. Let's see what this says. Page seven variances.

Oh, it doesn't say that. But somehow all of article two is all use regulations. Yes. Says article two is use reg but it says promitted and prohibited uses. It just says pro prohibited uses. That's all it has is prohibited uses. Oh, this is and my favorite number 25 t- rooms. T-rooms. What does that mean? T- room. Well, I think the thing is they're saying that that's the kind of stuff they want to do in part two. Mhm. There's no requirement to change that by the law. But okay. Anyway, so okay. So

I think we can make the comment that we should think there should be one glossery like there used to be section three. everything within more clarity and like Sylvia said for amendments and more details is going to make it much more and more details can be found in the zoning regulations themselves. So for something like the the term permitted use so the term permitted use is not either 25 or 26. You have to know to just go to 20 or to three to figure out what a permitted use is. Yeah. So my the combination is just put the word permit in use and say C section three, right? Yeah. So again their own way sometimes or get

completed glossery. I think the idea of the table for lawyers, right, is for other people to figure out their way around. Yeah. GQ municipality less in expensive and less in attorney's fees because something should be tableish, right? And I think the idea of a table is good, but then you don't have to change everything else because you made a table. Yeah, that's a good standalone thing, right? I don't I think that's a good thing to have in Yeah, I agree. All right. So So, but anyway, getting back to permitting is not glossery. So you want to have two accessories and add make that first accessory just the building not the word accessory but accessory building and take out the

uses because no there is they have accessory use and they have accessory but they didn't say anything else accessory building or structure I think they should separate accessory uses from accessory buildings and structures as well in the table but anyway so I made some thoughts here um But accessory use is in 25 even though it's a use but accessory building is in the use definition. Yes. Yeah. So I mean that kind of like change make a change could be avoided by just having Wallace do the same thing.

I found it very confusing and I was going back and forth related to it because you had to look if you didn't find it here you had to find it there. All of us are saying the same thing and I think we need to make very clear to this group. Yeah, that this needs to change. We recommend that it changes. We can make a very a very clear recommendation. Maybe something where you put a little symbol and say that is a new whatever your intention of making 26 25 whatever that is and the brilliance that is better than me accommodate for it in a different way that doesn't make it harder to navigate the regulations. Right.

I am totally fine with that. Okay. But then getting back to some some of the things um like for example they they talk about some confusion of attic and a story. the attic. They said this has come up before. Mhm. They say roof rafters and then they people put cross beams at 5' 11 in, right? And so that's no floria. But the point is roof rafters to me is the structure directly underneath the roof. So you can't get away with cross beams. Cross beams. So that's one suggestion. And then um

but what is that I mean what is that like anatomical term for the roof rafter? I mean cuz they say ceiling beams but is that I don't know is a roof rafter what's holding up the roof? Yes that and is it if it's a 12 in beam is it the bottom of the beam or the bottom of the roof? Okay. You know what I'm trying to say is I'm not going to actually words smmith the exact word. I'm telling them that the way they have it now people get around it because it's ambiguous. People can put

and I've had two different zeos look at it differently. Some look at roof rafters as the actual structural holding up the roof. So and it makes sense because it's the volume of the attic or the second floor half story that matters. And if somebody puts a cross beam in a ceiling, you know, one inch below that, it doesn't mean that your volume of your house is any less. So they need to make come up with a better definition that avoids that workound. Yeah. And then um and then the other thing about basement, we've had people come to us and say, I won't say who that

we know [clears throat] [laughter] that if you have a basement and it talks about the has floor level at or above grade. They said that it has to be the entrance. So if they grade the front the around the door so it's less than six feet then that doesn't count as a basement even though they have a walk out. And I'm like no it's six feet in any direction. So if you have six feet back from the door

and you can't just change it by grading. It's what you you have a structure that you can walk out. And then the question is also comes up before is that somebody has a basement and they put a wall up the middle of their basement and they say, "Well, now this doesn't count as floor area because you can't have external access from your from your basin because you now put a wall up." But how does you could put a door in that wall, you know, and you could take the wall down. So to me, it's like all these little things that we've seen over the years where people will do workarounds. You want to explain it to them and then they can decide how they want to terminate it. We're not going to rewrite their regulations for them but say these are things that we've seen

which may not be your intent but this is what you need to be clarify it needs to be clarified and then um so that was just a couple examples. Um I have something on buffer. Yeah. Um the area required within a required yard which contains landscaping and may include screening with primary the primary function of providing effective visual and noise insulation from adjacent property and roadways. Well, we know other uses for buffer either drainage controls or coastal protections. Well, that's what if you look at the edited version.

No, your version. Sorry. Well, I did it all myself because I couldn't really Oh, no. That's good. You can you can All right. or providing protection for environmental sensitive and other protected areas. I'll be quiet. No, we'll read before I talk with the same ide. No, no. You're just verifying that that's what you wanted. But we all agreed that would be a good suggestion to make. Yes. Yeah. I agree. All right. And we agree. Zooming along here, seller. So, There it is. Basement and cellar. So I think the point is then it comes up with some of the same challenges we had. What about the same portion access to grade currently? Oh, this is it. When people put up a wall,

is it does it turn that part of the basement into a cellar? I don't think so. I don't think so. Nice try though. And then commercial greenhouse. If you're separating uses from zoning districts, why is this here and not in 2026? But if we put all together, it's not a problem. Can I say something about bulk then? Up to bulk. The last line um includes regulations with floor area floor area building minimum dimension square or similar regulations of volume dimension. I mean should it be andor? Does that matter or just which definition are we looking at? Bulk bulk.

Bulk the last sentence. Does andor in that bottom sentence matter? B concludes regulations dealing with floor area ratio, floor area, building height, lot area, lot coverage, lot lines, minimum dimension, square, or other similar regulations of volume, dimensions, special relationships, or location. And what was your question? Should that or be andor? I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's necessary cuz you're saying it's it's these things or you're you're giving a list of things inclusive list of allies, right? Yeah. Because and means they have to have both or is this one, this one, this one or this one. Any of these criteria make it a both regulation,

right? Exactly. And not necessarily has to be do two because an makes it uh plural too. Uh do you have this one? So on coastal jurisdiction line um talking about new regulations or new somethings that right now we're using the highest predicted line from 83 to 2011 based on most recent blah blah blah. I mean what if there's a new Well, I can actually I can actually speak to that. Go ahead.

Cool. Not happening anytime soon. Um they've been it was supposed to be uh 2019 or 2018 and it happened like right in the middle of COVID 2019 I guess it was and they just sheld it. So we're still using NAVDI 1988 and there is absolutely no interest um or plan to move forward with the new mapping data. So which is terrible because it's the tide has shifted so much since 1988. Are they doing that purposefully?

I think it's one of the reasons we come to like we come to zoning regulations on flood zone. It's like right now we say that the the flood the construction has to be one foot above the the high not the high tide but the base flood elevation. But, you know, maybe we should make it two feet, you know, because it's the the tides are rising and if you're not changing the thing,

we need to um this is just un unfortunately. I mean, I know it looks ridiculous that we're still using NAVD 1988, but that's what's in effect. And um I asked one of the guys that came in here at some point, maybe Joe Ren, and I said, "Do you know anything about this? Like, have you heard anything?" And he said, "Not a word." So yeah, I think it was Joe. I'm not sure who it was, though. But like I say, are they doing this purposefully? I have no idea. I just don't think they're putting any money into You need to have some criteria. Until they change the criteria, that's what we're stuck with. Well, so we're stuck with this 1988. Nothing's going to change, it seems. But otherwise, would it be or the newest reg most recent regulations or something along those lines? Oh, you're saying or as or as updated

as amended. Oh, yeah. I think I think we can as as elevation is a term that you just used. It's not in the definitions. No, it is in the flood zone definitions. Okay. [laughter] No, but I'm saying but I'm saying but again again again. So the point is there's definitions of zoning definitions. Now they've broken up into zoning and accessory and accessory uses and primary uses. But then they also have definitions within the flood zone regulations and they also have definitions in the gateway river gateway.

All those different sections live in the zoning regulation. I know right which is why we should have one unified glossy unless reason right in a specific instance reason why in this context it means this in that context it means this and then even then I would say this word means in the definition section mean two different things in this context I think the reason it is because the flood zone regulations they take and cut and paste I think

and they don't compare it to our own whatever same connect river gateway they just update and they just cut and paste So they'd have to go back and then change all the regulations and then if the Connecticut River Gateway changes their regulations then you have to change all the regulations again. I think it's because or you can say base what elevation C-section whatever well what I think it is one of my suggestions is to say it's like if you have height this is a zoning definition of height also see you know connect gateway definitions or basement also see favorite flood zone regulation because then it makes you aware that there's more than one definition right yeah right

because that's going to help the the planners that are absolutely generating It's misleading, right? You think you're you think you understand the definition. You're not even not currently not even on the right page, right? [laughter] Yeah. And on that one, the coastal jurisdiction, I think you can just take out mo add most recent North American vertical data and cross out of 88. I think you can say or as revised. Yeah. After that, just because that's been in effect for so long that it is the standard. I I most recently But is that what it means? This is based on the most recent national title datam published by NOA and described in terms of feet elevation above north.

Yeah. So I think after 1988 you just can say or as revised in case they get their act together. Okay. Come up with or as revised. That's a good point Stephanie. Or as revised. Revised or amended. Amended. Amended. Yeah. amended or is it revised? It's it's actually revised. It's not amended. It's not a regulation. It's a This is standard. It's a newer version. Okay. And then Yep. on that one. Um so the last sentence says this replaces high tide line and line jurisdiction blah blah blah. Um they might want to do the same thing under high tide.

I have that in my notes. I said why do we why do we use high tide line at all? I have to stay close. It matters for certain. Really? Yeah. Okay. Well, who like law enforcement like who who enforces where? Like on the water in the lural. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. Sound view commission in the one question I had [laughter] on the same page is do we need a definition of courtyard? Cuz we had that at 125 Shore Road. It's like, yeah,

they built a wall and filled it with several feet of fill in the middle of the property and they said it doesn't count as coverage. Doesn't count as um for area doesn't count. It cuz it's outside. It's outside but it it's a structure. Well, it's a garden or it's a such a patio like a patio. It's like on the surface patio landscaping, right? filled with dirt, though it's surrounded by a wall up things. Yep. Okay. It's surrounded by a wall enclosure with several feet of fill. It It seemed to me like it was like a structure. Maybe it's considered a deck because

garden. I thought it was a garden. What is it? A garden. Garden. It was a garden like a raised bed. That was a question. Never mind. I If no one No, I I see your point. I definitely see your point. Probably that it's a solid structure. But and I think it could get just confusing though trying to segregate out all the different labels you could give to a garden, a courtyard, all those things and just make sure that our regulations regulate. But then I think then I think it should count as a deck. I think you can show them that example and say what is this? Yes, that's great. Yeah,

because to me to me it's like you can build a retaining wall and if it's next to your house and you put up a few feet and you can make a patio on top of it. If it's more than 12 in high, it's considered a deck. If it's less than 12 in high, it's considered a terrace. So the point is if it's on the ground, it's a patio. Well, patio is a terrace basically. Oh, but the point is but the thing is what is what is this structure? The courtyard was neither neither a deck nor a It was not when we when we reviewed it. It was not. This is 125 Shore Road or something. Yeah. Yeah. The one we They just said it's a garden. Oh, the recent one. Yeah. Oh. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Right. And they were calling it a garden.

Yeah. But they were calling it a courtyard. They did call it courtyard garden. What was the surface of it? Was it grass? Some of it was grass. Some of it was patio walkways. It was all permeable, but the point is it was more than 12 inches off above natural grade. Okay. And it's But they talked about her being a gardener and this is her space. He has the pool. She's got the garden. Right. Right. Right. I understand the why. What I'm just saying is like is that is that is it not any sort of structure? Yeah.

Yeah. That's a that's an interesting question. But when I think of courtyards, I mean, it's just sort of like a semi-encclosed space that could be just surrounded by, you know, if your if your house goes in a U or, you know, it's just a courtyard. It's just a But the point is, it wasn't just a courtyard. It was like, it's a raised garden, a raised platform garden. Instead of using wood, they're probably using concrete or wood. I mean, um, rock or something. I don't remember really what the material was, but it's a raised

patio buildings. It was like a garage on one side and the house on two cord sides and there the pool on the other side. It was completely surrounded by structures and it was raised several feet and it was you had to go up steps to get to it. So the point is to me to me I thought it was a structure but it didn't fall under any definition of structure. It seemed like a raised garden bed to me. Raised raised garden is

like it didn't seem like they were going to like be putting chairs there or anything like it just seems like it didn't seem big enough for structure generalized. They don't have garden, they don't have patio. They might not have next to anything that would fit what we're looking at. Anything which is constructed or erected with the use and [clears throat] the use of which requires more or less permanent location on ground or water areas or attachment to something having a permanent location on ground or water areas. Not, however, including wheels, as an edifice or building of any kind, any production or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts or joined together in some definite manner, including signs, vending machines, fences, walls over 6 ft in height, a warf or dock or above ground tank, detached solar panel or satellite dish. This definition includes manufactured homes and structure. It shall not include a flag pole or ornamental well. That is just a weird menu. That was my question. Why no ornamental wells? But

but interesting. It did talk about uh that needs revision. Yeah, [laughter] that was not actually. So what is this? Are you going to ask them? Are you going to give them a description and say what is this? I was just going to say maybe give an example. This is what is just as cart courtyard. It wasn't counted as a structure. Didn't count as coverage or deck or terrace or it was just surrounded by all structures and a lot of field. What do we call it? Yeah. It does it need a definition or is it a structure that needs to be regulated? But it required steps to get to. So were there not retaining walls? Yeah. The whole thing side there was the house was in the other two and built.

Yeah. It was the the garage on one side and the house on two and a half sides and the pool on the third the last side four side. So it's except for steps going into it. It was surrounded by walls and structure. It was it really was kind of a courtyard because it was surrounded that's what they called it a courtyard. Yes they did. And a courtyard and it was garden courtyard. It was built up several feet. So it's to me it was moreard raised should have been a deck or a not a deck because there's no you know deck is not a wood deck that can be anything that's more than 12 in above the ground but it's dirt it's like filled with dirt but what does above the ground mean?

So what does that mean? Right. If you have a braided lawn is that a structure and what about a garden? What is a garden a structure? I mean, it seems like a raised garden about to That's what I think. A raised garden in a courtyard shape, but how high in maybe doesn't need to be defined. I just asked the question because and that was the least of the problems with that application. So, slipped slipped through. Okay. But anyway, so but anyway, I I just that was a question. Did they want to define it there? I think that's a good question because um since it has come up I think we should ask them how we define that in future. Okay. And if it needs to be regulated.

I think what would be helpful for them is to understand why it matters. Um so in that context I think you got to give a little more than just what is it. If I would give an example of like you only care to name it because if it's this then it then something else happens right otherwise it triggers a regular yellow doesn't matter. The point is does it count as coverage? Is it is it coverage or structure right? But if it's just ground it's just filled like just dirt with grass on it. You wouldn't be saying does it count as structure or cover enclosed wall. Yeah. I guess not. So, I think you got to get to the purpose of why you're asking because there's something that's making you think about this. Yeah. Why does it matter?

I think is why you want to bring up the example. Hope it's not keeping up. [laughter] Like just fell with grass on our garden. It's not ground cover. It is permeable. Perable. Yeah. Right. So, okay. So, maybe not. In this case, it sounded like it happened to have papers in certain sections or Yeah. Whatever. notes or pavers that might be coming. They needed stairs to get to it. So, it's kind of like Yeah, it's a little bit more than just a raised garden. Stairs in case. They could have just had a hill, right? No. No, but you could have, right? You need stairs to get to it, but you could put stairs just for ease of stairs are easier to go up than a steep hill,

right? So, that's just a navigating the terrain kind of situation. It's not worth arguing. We have too many more big fish to fry. Yeah. There you go. Okay. So then um just a maybe a quick question on decks. Why can't a deck have an awning when an awning is a that counts as floor area? But it's a temporary and collapsible in nature. So Oh, an awning. Awning you know. I think they mean the permanent awning. I think then that should stay. I think that should be fair. Permanent awning versus cuz here it's the definition is temporary and collapsible in nature.

A roof light cover that is temporary and collaps nature that projects that's conflicting with the definition of bonding which is temporary and deck. Yeah. Yep. deck. An accessory structure consisting of one or more horizontal surface attached to and extending from the dwelling and used for accessory residential uses and which exceeds the height of one foot above the adjacent grade of land at any point such grade to be measured. So that last sentence prior to sight grading deck may not be covered by any roof, awning or other surface and awning is a temporary thing.

Well, I think yeah, it's it's interesting. And I know exactly what they mean because in a lot of the beaches you see them, they're permanent structures. They're not sure retractable. So maybe maybe some kind of specific a cover. It's not. So you're saying because on the definition of awning is temporary. So that you could have a temporary awning over your deck, but you can't have a permanent a mean. Well, that's the but the if we're questioning everybody because this says for the purpose of shielding a deck in under the definition of awning, but see it says it might be might be covered by Well, how about that? Um, so no per So I think we should just question

permanent covering. Let's just circle both of those and just say can you or can't you and but I think you're right because if it's a fixed then it comes under floor area. But then I think it should say fixed fixed or permanent. Right. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. And under awnings. So they define fixed and permanent and temporary.

But let's look to the next. This brings me to the floor area and coverage. Measurement of floor area which is the next page. Measurement of gross floor area. The following shall apply and determine gross floor area of buildings and other structures. And it's also consider how definition have been circumvented. this comes to attic cross beams, lowered ceilings and closets, walled off portions of basement. Um, and you know, and it talks about how measures with pigment. So, I I guess the thing is this this gets more specific into how you measure floor area though there is a definition of floor area. And I don't think I have your version. Do I? Is it the 9.2.1?

9.2.1. Yeah. No, she doesn't have any more of that. You only have one page. I only went to uh Oh, really? Letter D, detached dwelling. Yeah. Interesting. I thought I scanned everything. The one I got has it. Sure. This Yeah, I can't read that. [laughter] You have the new one. That email stopped at D. Okay. Okay. Okay. Oh, yeah. The email stopped at D. Detached dwelling. Okay. we just go to page 187 188 and you can share with us what you what you talked about. I just thought that they need to I didn't want to write it for them but I just said they need to consider some of the ways that people are getting around floor area.

Mhm. Which is the six foot less than six foot cross beams. addicts. Uh people I've seen people come to us and they say that something's only half story instead of a full story because it's less than 50% because they lowered the ceiling in all the closets, right? You know, so it's got to be tightened up basically. Yeah. This is tightened up. Yeah. And walling off a portion of a basement so it's not external exit. So is this their intent to allow this or do they want to make it more clear that that's not okay? Right. We already talked about some of those. Okay. And then the other question I always had about is pool. They don't seem to take count pool as coverage. Is that cuz of that water?

Where are you digging that out of? There's no definition of pool. Nope. Where's pool? You're saying it's not included anywhere. The ground coverage of a building or structure is measured from the footprint occupied the outermost edge of the building or structure, but excluding any architectural projections. Blah blah blah. What are you reading, Blue? Uh 9.2.1B. 2.1B 2.1. Oh, no. Sorry. C actually. It's one I want to look at. Buildings and structures. It seems to me that is like this one here. Yard. Yes. This one. Okay.

Yes. But I think the thing is I've seen in the past that pools don't count they don't count that as coverage because it's not above ground ground level but has a huge impact on yes it has a they say because it doesn't impact permeability because rain water go this I've had this discussion with one of our professionals is that it doesn't shouldn't count it does go into the pool that's it goes into the pool but then it comes they drain it out of the pool and so it doesn't it water doesn't accumulate. I don't know. It just seems to me pool should count as coverage.

That is an interesting point about permeability because it does it's just caught there. Yeah, [laughter] it doesn't. So, so that was the question. Does this include pools whose surface is below finished grade? Because you can say the it just to me I've seen it so many times like do you want to count a pool or not? Mhm. It's not my job to say one way or the other, but you should be specific, right? Whatever they want to do, put it, make it clear so that we can you don't have to question anymore.

Oh, and then this 9.4, it was just it's not just height, it's building height. And they act they still have the 8.2.2 from the old zoning regulations there. They need to remove that.

So, they need to um that's just a typo. And then height exceptions. Now this is where I thought maybe they could come up with an exception on uh FEMA suggest adding something a following exception. Existing residential something like this. Existing residential dwellings located in a flood zone that do not currently comply with FEMA zone requirements and may exceed building height to the minimum height necessary to become FEMA compliant. So basically you don't need a variance for height. You're just going up to be FEMA compliant. Right. Yeah. minimum fe compliance, right? And I don't know if they want to have some maximum up to 35 ft or something like that. Yeah. But

it's 33 in most places, isn't it? 35. Is it 35? 35. Yeah. At least if I recall, it's 35. Yeah. So, I think that was one place you could potentially put in the height exception. And then I thought this example was really helpful about the 35 is commercial, isn't it? No, I think it's in the other zones besides uh I think so. Got it. I just find things better in my own in the old regulations. I could find things much easier.

Yeah. Let's see. Like this. Let's see. Oh, yeah. There it is. Um height. I should know. height. Yeah. 35 35 35 all the way across except for Where are you looking? Okay. I know how to find things. So, it's 35 across except for the R10s. Li Oh, and all the residential ones. I'm looking. Yeah, I'm wondering about res. I know commercial is 35. Um, it's 35 except for Yeah, 24 are 10. Everyone's 35. Everybody else is

35. So like SVB dude is 35 too. That's what it says. I think that's usually the last thing on the table. Oh, it wasn't on that table. That they added that to the table cuz it wasn't on the table before. Let me see if I can. It's not that important. Okay. Whatever. [laughter] All right. So, where are we? Oh, definition is 24. Anything else is 35.

Okay. Thank you. All right. So, then um this example, but a 30 foot in height building with a 860 square footprint with the current definitions is a singlestory structure with 560 square ft of floor area. I think this is the perfect example to say why they need to change their definitions. Where'd you get that? 125 Shore Road. Oh. Oh. Oh. So that's that's okay. All right. Yeah. And this is where they did everything like 4T 5' 11 in. Right. Right. Right up to the

Yeah. Okay. And then let's see what else. Uh sorry. Sorry. Your hands are big and people will always like that though. This is the short road. I see. And now we're getting on to section 26, definition of uses. I found that the affordable housing definition. Oh, I'm sorry. Floor area you were just mentioning. Yeah. Um, it doesn't I don't see anything about where the height is over so many the ceiling height is over so many feet and that would be say it there. It says it in the um but not in the definitions. So go to the regulations.

Go to regulations. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But again um again they have a typo. They said the the definitions are in section 20, but they're 25. That's that's just a typo. And where are we now? We're on youth definitions section 26. 26 flipped. Yeah. And then uh affordable housing. It wasn't clear to me whether because they got rid of the capitalization of all definitions. So when they talk about affordable housing, it used to be affordable housing capitalized

meant the legal requirement that speed restricted. But now they talk about affordable housing allowed in certain uh districts, but they they don't clarify always. Do they mean the state definition of affordable housing or just general affordable housing? I think they need to be clear. So potential confusion between a defined term and general term without capitalization for example affordable housing as defined in state statute and general term. According to section seven use charts affordable housing the date the state defined term per section 26 definition is that listed is only being allowed the state SBVD in multifamily housing description but is unclear if the use term as under oh god I can't read my eyes are getting tired is unclear if the use of the words affordable housing in a general term under accessory apartments in section 8.3.2 to also means the need to be deed restricted for state statute since this is not referred to state statute in description. Please clarify whether the deed restriction term is meant in both instances.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um and then yes 8.2.5 they talk about fences, walls and terraces. I think they're specifically talking about retaining walls and they should specifically say retaining walls. Mhm. Mhm.

And then um and it's I think the other thing that's really important to clarify is that if you need a stairways un unroof stairways aren't they can be in the setbacks and you don't need a variance for that. So if you're raising a house you need to add a stairway to get to the first floor. You don't need a variance for that. No. Right. It's And that's already clear, right? We've already Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I just want to make sure that stays clear. Yeah.

And oh, this is it. An alteration of historic structure is defined in section 25. It's not defined in section 25. It's defined defined in section 13 because it's the only place it's defined is in those are some of the highlights of the definitions I thought we want to highlight to them. But uh I don't know if anyone Stephanie you seem to gone through a lot of more detail. Any other questions you want to bring up them? I want to define T- rooms. [laughter] I I didn't get into you. I skipped with the zoning stuff. I was I didn't get into the use stuff.

There was enough stuff to go through. I'm going right to the end. The yard minimum required side. There's just a typo in the second line. both sides of the lot. From the front lot sign, it says it should be line, I assume, to the rear lot line. What page is that? 192. Page 192. Yard minimum required sign. Yard minimum side typo sign line. Okay. Oh, yeah. Um, okay. Line. Let's see. Okay. Um, let's see what's next. It's just the word sign. It should be line.

And as far as yard, a minimum unoccupied space open to the sky is the same as subject. Building lots minimum dimensions. You know, it's a open unoccupied space, but it can have a well, septic, propane tank, a yard. It says unoccupied. Where is it? unoccupied space open to the sky, but it can have things on it and be a yard. Oh, but they're saying required yard that usually requires the primary structure. I think if you look into the definitions on where is that? Uh,

so occupy is defined to take possession or enter the purposes of using applied to the dwelling unit. See the definition from the other thing I I didn't I didn't print it out here. So, a yard can have all that stuff. I mean, yeah. Yeah. All the little houses. Not everything needs a required yard. I'm I'm trying to find the yard minimum required. Where's What page? 192. The second one. No, no, no, no. In the zoning regulations, there's a That's okay. We don't have to do it as long everybody. Well, it says zoning terminology definition. That was more of a curiosity.

Then they actually in the zoning regulations themselves they usually define it more say what needs to have a required yard versus not. I just see if I can find anyway and you talked about stories already regulations requirements high exception. Oh my god. Well, [clears throat] this says yard, minimum required rear, minimum required front yard. I mean, that's not what you're looking for. What? I'm looking for the table. Oh, the table. And there's a definition in that. It used to be section eight. Oh my god.

Yeah. Again, they have to really clean where things are up. Oh, that's right. We only went to D. But general design application time. I got to spend more time with these things. I'm just going to pull today. Well, I went over there for the 9.5 required yards. Oh, 9.5. Well, then it doesn't give me much. Just says it does say required yards. So, but that doesn't mean what you're looking for. 9.5 nine nine. Oh.

Oh, and then 9.8's another one with required yards, but yeah, I guess that's just a generic term. See, but like here it says setbacks and yard required. 9.5 set certain things are exempt. Plasters, coms, sills, cornises, mares, canopies, awnings, eaves, similar architectural features. Let's see what else. Oh, so that that's giving you what are allowed exceptions when you said yeah. Yeah.

Record reductions in required yards. So certain things are reduced like for example but the other thing I I felt like the I didn't print it out but the so many residential districts like for example they talk about property line setback but they talk about street line setback they talk about other side sideyard setback versus other side I think they need to be consistent throughout you know do you think it would be helpful if they had you maybe your glossy your an index where they had all of these terms and then the pages where they occur and that way even if they are in different

they used to say that they used to say C section 8.2 two or eight point. So I think we should suggest that they put that back there once it's all done. Once it's all done because you know sometimes maybe you want everything in one place but you know maybe it does belong in two places but an index would give you all right so sideyard page and then you have all the places that you can read about sideyard or in the definition also see where it's more detailed. I think that's what they did before, but I think they But I mean, shouldn't the detail be in the definition? Not because sometimes the detail takes like a half a page. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

But but I still think an index would be helpful to avoid this. Where else is it? But I think that's getting to Sylvia's point is like if it's one glossery, then you look in one place and if there's more detail you need to get to that tells you where to go, section. Exactly.

All right. So then besides moving the stuff from zoning ZBA chapter 22 into zone to uh to the to 13, I thought there was a couple things that we want to maybe suggest is that one is right now the the elevations say they want it to be 1 ft above base flood elevation. With the sea level rising and it's been so long since they've been up here, they might want to consider making it 2 feet above

base flood elevation. And the other thing I think that we've had a lot of people come to us and want to put enclose the part of the house that's under base foot elevation with breakaway walls. But I've seen I have seen this too is that if you put the breakaway walls there, they tend to finish off inside where nobody can see. So, I think that and I I looked it up a while ago that if you want to get a reduction in the price of your homeowners insurance for flood insurance for a town, you can do certain things to make it lower. And one of the things is to prevent them from finishing off underneath their house. I thought that one thing that would suggest they had it somewhere else in the zoning regulations is say move from section 22.3.4 before which was in the ZBA section and say

there shall be no enclosure of the space below the lowest floor unless breakaway walls are used and the enclosure shall be designed to preclude finished living space. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Good. Good. Yeah. You can get a lot accomplished with just putting that one sentence in there. Right. Yeah. [clears throat] Right. But then, you know, you have to go back and isn't that No, no, no. But the point is anyway, but the point is a lot of it is not a full breakaway wall. It's like lattice, right? Or make it so that the only part that's enclosed is like where you have an elevator shaft or like an entrance way, but the rest of it needs to be empty. That not a solid wall. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, definitely. So, preclude

Right. Right. being able to convert into, you know, had to check it up, make it so that they can't really convert it to living space. I think that would be helpful cuz I've seen so many houses. There's a lot of that. Yeah. Oh my gosh. And it sort of flies in the face of the whole idea of the regulations, right? The reason we're letting you take your house and superersize it, right, is because you're not supposed to be living on the ground floor.

Exactly. Exactly. So, what do we do to it's simple terms to make that? And the other thing is now they have section 13.1.9 variance procedures. What is this doing there? Why is this needed? It simply reates the other requirements. I think that should come out of there. And also talks about video responsibility. And then the other thing that we talk about section 12 is that for 10 years or more we've gotten emails or notices from Marcy Balant of Connecticut D saying please re prevent a significant expansive living space in a flood zone especially in the R10 district. I think that we should add the criteria for reviewing a special uh proposal site plan review application to add reduce threats to life and property per Connecticut D memo September 9th 2021 referring to section 22A-92V2F that um you know one of the criteria should be limit the expansion of living space in a flood zone to pre prevent reduce threats of life and property

goes against the FEMA regulations though because the living space is expanded when you let people like go up that high. They usually put in an they're usually asking to put in an extra floor. So, no, but I'm saying the the floor the part that's below base for their license doesn't count as a floor because it's not supposed to be living space, right? But what I'm saying is usually when people come in with those applications, they are expanding their living space and as long as they keep it within the FEMA height, we haven't really been able to do anything about it. So I think that that would be right. So I think like for example like

for in in the past when we'd get KGA D comments, they would say we don't like the fact that they're expending so much living space. Try to reduce that. and we would try to negotiate it down. But now we have a new D reviewer who never says that. And so if they don't say it, it's hard for us to consider it. So I think it should be if we think it's important, which should be put in the regulations that that is one of the considerations for a coastal site plan review application is to reduce risk to threats to life and property by by limiting the expansion of living space in a flood zone. Yeah, I think that would be good. That makes sense

actually. And it is a safety health, you know. I mean, right. There's so much that there's so much that has just I mean, if you just see what the beachfront looks like, oh my god, it's crazy. But the thing is, and I know people want to bail the bigger house if they're going to spend the money to raise it. But the point is, but that that makes it difficult for everybody. It makes difficult for the the town. It makes difficult people. It has more debris that flies into the house next door if something falls down, right? It's just it's and not saying you don't have any, but you should limit. It looks like a city with these big tall buildings on the beachfront and it's it's also unsightly in my mind.

And the thing is you had a small you had a small summer cottage before. You still have a small summer cottage. It's just elevated, right? You don't need to make a mansion into it because you made it elevated. So anyway, that was the few limited things besides what we're going to talk about putting into FEMA compliance. And then the last thing is if you still have any more. No. No. Okay. We're done. Okay. All [laughter] right. Okay. He was done 15 minutes ago. Can I say one one more thing cuz we have Silia here. One of the things that I noticed before is that in section 4.1.3 the non-conforming displacement of non-conforming use. Oops. Sorry. 9:00. Okay. Wait. section what four

4.1.3 if any site it's basically saying that if you don't use your non-conforming use for at least the year and the zoning commission steps it can take to prevent you from continuing with it and I think that it goes against the regulation the new state statute which was changed in 2017 it says such regulations shall not provide for the termination of any non-conforming use solely as a result non-use for a specified period of time without regard to intent [snorts] and property honor to maintain that use. And those are lawsuits right away, right? Somebody

So, I think that I think that this if I'm reading this right, I think they may have missed something that they needed to update because of changes of state statute. So, so they you looked at that and you saw they agreed. Yeah. I mean, and I'll just add an extra layer that the state statute was codified like the law was for a long time. So, yeah. So we won't go and the rest of it is just I think was a confusing mess section. [laughter] Yes. All right. We have a lot of comments on four. Good. Good. Next time we Yeah. Let's just set another meeting because two and a half hours of this is better than But can I just make one one comment just so

Yes. 26 and 25 thing a little bit more. So, I'm trying to think of like in in what I do dayto-day when it comes up and why it needs to be a separate section. Like why would they put uses as a separate thing? So, I I I I think in theory there's a basis to have it separate. I think they should just be clear as to why my thought process is the reason why they have 26 separate is because these are distinct uses that should be regulated differently and you don't have the ability to do those things unless you have a distinct permit for it. Um because sometimes things come up with it's not listed you have like the log and it takes it away and every you're going to get whiplash through the whole thing. [clears throat]

um you've got sections in your regulations that most regulations have that says unless it's permitted, you can't do it. It's not permissible, right?

Um [clears throat] so sometimes you have activities that aren't listed. So there the option is either that means it's not permissible or that means it's accessory and sort of within the context of something else. So as as time changes the what what distinct uses are has broadened and broaden broaden. So you know the use is probably only like three to start with and then what about this is this a distinct use. So, it's almost like the word distinct comes along with it um for the purposes of knowing, you know, so I know that if I have um an animal shelter, that's a distinct thing that I need to see se separate permitting for that I know I need to have as opposed to just generically defining it. So, it I think the intention behind the use definitions and why they're separate definitions would be helpful for someone to follow along. So either combine it or make it clear why they're separate.

I mean I'm almost leaning towards make it clear why they're separate because the use definitions. They are definitions but it's intended for more than that, right? It's too cumbersome. It's too big. It's loaded, right? Use is loaded. So let's just say use is loaded and you may need to do other things with these things. So give like the a sentence or so at the top as to why these things are distinct, right? Um but even still with that I think it's still confusing because some things are in both places or one or the other. Yes. I I think they need to reconcile the confusion generally. Okay. Um and think from the concept of you know I think from an enforcement side is what's making sense to me as to why is that still working? Yeah.

But again I think if you're starting at like minute one or you're a new property owner or whatever else it's it's going to be helping this to figure out why and what do these things all mean. So generally when that happens the advice is just say what you mean. Exactly. Make it clear. Okay. Well thank you. Oh wait wait wait wait. Now we have to say so the next steps is so I will try to consolidate some of our thoughts here today. Okay.

And send it back out. And then maybe we want to have one more meeting to just finalize our thoughts. And if anyone has any more thoughts that they come and you you had some more thoughts, I think that we didn't capture all your thoughts because we just got tired. Well, we have more sections. I mean, do we need to have another meeting? We need to have another part two. Yeah. But I'm saying, but so part two, but what are we going to accomplish at that meeting? Just what other sections do we want to look at? because well we had section four that we wanted to do more. Oh yeah, but that was a little bit and then we're going to update the FEMA and uh so basically 13 13 and that's going to be big. 13 could be a meeting. Could be a whole meeting. 13 could be a whole meeting.

Okay. So then we'll do but I think there's no other spec uh I think there was some suggestions I had on the table for the zoning regulations because the inconsistencies of street versus front versus side versus other little tweaks like that. Um but other than that I don't there's any other particular section anyone wants to review let me know before the meeting so we can review well let's just do this can we let's just say next meeting let's do 13 which is big and will take us and then at that meeting we can say okay do we want to meet one more time I mean we have time we have a year well I don't know a year because they're going to start they're going to have meetings but we want to be able to have

I think it's going to be like six months the fall basically. Yes. So, but but there's going to be there's going to be meetings happening before they make the changes. So, there could be a meeting where the ZBA is invited to go. I think we should get our thoughts together before we go to that meeting. Yeah. Agreed. So, so why don't we meet do 13 if we have any more energy we'll look at four or anything else and we'll decide after that meeting if we and at least we'll have that much together and and we can that's ready to go and then if we want to do anything else we can. Okay. What day do we want to meet Sylvia? What do you Yeah, we need you. You're asking me what day you tell me what day.

Well, are we talking May? Right. too much. The thing is, um, let's see. May is a bad month. Okay. Yeah. And I might be going to Washington State for a funeral for a week. So, I'm I don't know what week yet. So, so the only time I'm available in May is the first week in May. No, too soon. That's just That's next week. That's next week. I know. cuz too soon. That's too No, too soon. And then let's go to the first week in June. How about that? I could do the very end of very end of May, but that's going to be Memorial Day weekend. No one's going to want to

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Forget that. June. I'm pretty open actually. Yeah. Except for the second half. Uh so like first or second the first or second week of June. Well, not the second week cuz we have Sherine Gateway on that Thursday. Okay. Right. It doesn't have to be on a Thursday cuz we won't get the room anyway. We probably Oh. Um Thursday after the June meeting. When's the June meeting? Is that the 18th? Uh 18th. So then So then the 25th. No, I I still I may not I can only do it the first half of the month.

You know what? I think we might have to do this by email because Well, it's just so many people. But what about um the 12th? Friday. June. Let's not do Friday. I know. But you know what? Oh, I won't be around. You won't be. How about How about Monday the 8th or the 9th? Um I can do that. I have something on the ETH. I probably won't be here. Oh, I do. I just committed to something on the eth. Okay. What about How about June 3rd? That's possible. That's possible. June 3rd doesn't sound it's a Wednesday. I think that's a Tuesday.

Okay. I'll be coming in from Lichfield. So like we're talking I'll 6:30 I'll be barely. Well any of the How about Monday to Wednesday June 1st to 3rd. Can't do the first. Can't do the first. Can do I can do the first, second or third. Well, let's knock out the first anyway. Yeah. Between the second and third. Tuesday, Wednesday. What do people think? The third is a problem. The second you can do the second Tuesday. Tuesday the second Tuesday. That's I'm not sure. All right. So we'll we'll we'll so possible 6:30 again. Why not? That gives people a chance to eat beforehand. Tends to

Well, won't give me a chance, but Oh, yeah. on that. But you can bring your dinner if you don't mind because So Sylvia said the second but not the third. Right. I can do that or I can do the following week. I won't be around. Okay. Yeah. Let's go to the second. Second seems pretty good for most people. Yeah. Nick, are you good? All right. And I'll I'll talk to Frank [clears throat] about getting a meeting room. We don't need a meeting big giant meeting room. Well, this is good right here. I like this. But I'm saying if this room is we can use Yeah. Yeah. We can use the magic. That was really crowded. All right. In that room. Just it is. I love meeting.

Okay. So, just to summarize, I will try to revise what we have already so far the best I can and I'll try to put stuff into the section 13 flood zone that we took out of ZVA. And then uh any tweaks that we talked about today, I'll try to remember most of them. and have something back to you before that meeting and then we can discuss 134 and anything else. Thank you. All right. So that's June 2nd, Tuesday at 6:30. Okay. And for the next meeting, you're going to have all the forms for Kip and I. Yes. Okay. Yes. Reason not to have the meeting before then.

So am who's seated for that? Do we did we already talk about that? So, I think we talked about that it was it was Nick's turn next and Richard's turn next cuz uh Stephanie and I are both going to be gone. So, this is the 21st. When? 21st of May. May. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Cuz we need it cuz then it's like you, Kip, Nick, Michaela, and Richard. And if Richard doesn't make it, then you're up. Okay. And if anybody else drops out, then we're really in trouble. Screwed. [laughter] Screw Luten tattooed.

Okay. And I will provide the template for you. Yeah. Great. Okay. And did everybody's email works now? Yes. Yes. Okay. Awesome. Okay. Yeah, I got your stuff. Did you make changes or uh I just All I changed today was Kip's address and he's got it. be too. I think it was just the spam thing last time because I forwarded the email, right? Yeah. All right. So then anyway, would anybody like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting? So moved. Michael Kip. Kip. All those in favor? I.

All those opposed? None abstaining? None. The motion pass 500. And the meeting is adjourned at what time is it? 9:12. And I'm going to turn off the recording now. Thank you. Stop.