Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

at the Canyon Community Center for the January 7th meeting at the Springdale of the Springdale Planning Commission. From the town, we have Kendall Sagers, Tom Dancy, and Robin Romero. On the dis we have Susan McPartland, Zion Park representative, Melissa Labour, myself, Jennifer McCulla, Tom Kenston, and Kosh Bati, Terry Kruski, Paul Zimmerman, and Rich Swanson are out tonight. I would like to ask Kosh and Melissa if you could please vote in tonight's proceedings. Yes. And I'd like to ask for a motion to approve tonight's agenda.

A motion to approve A second. A second. Motion by Melissa, second by Tom. All in favor? Melissa I. Jennifer I. Hashai. Motion [clears throat] passes. Are there any general announcements from the town? Yes. On January 30th at 2 PM here at the community center, we're going to have a presentation on the history of Zion Canyon. and all are welcome to come. Go ahead.

Yes. And following on the heels of the history presentation on January 31st, we will be having a community service project um the you may be aware of a um Russian olive and tamarisk removal project that's been going on throughout the community. um in areas where those invasive species have been removed, we will be doing some reveation with native willows. And so the community is invited to come and help with that reveation project. That will be on Saturday, January 31st at 1 p.m. And we're meeting at the River Department.

Anything else? Does anyone have any potential conflicts they'd like to disclose? Okay. Okay, for tonight's agenda, we have two discussion non-action items. The first agenda item is a discussion to revise chapter 10-21 of the town code relating to repair and refurbishment of non-complying buildings. Uh the staff contact for this is Tom Dansancy. Tom, do you have a presentation?

Thank you. Yes. Um, as as you mentioned, this is a um item that the council has asked the planning commission to um take a look at the definitions of removal and ordinary maintenance of more ordinary maintenance and repair as they relate to non-compliant buildings. The commission has been working on this for a couple of months. Um, and so I thought I would just do a really quick refresher so that uh so that we're all familiar where where where we stand and and how we got to this point. Um, and then we can go with a with a discussion. Um, so as as a reminder, non-complying buildings are those buildings which were legal at the time they were constructed, but subsequent changes to the code have um made them not conform or not comply with the current iteration of the code. So maybe the setback changed or the building height regulation changed and now a structure that was legal when it was built no longer complies. That's legal non-complying. Those structures can can stay. They can continue. Um however um and and you can even add to or alter a non-compliant building as long as you don't increase the amount of non-compliance or create any new non-compliant features. Um however if a building if a non-compliant building is voluntarily removed every future building on the property needs to comply with the current ordinance. Um similar simil so so that's one item is is what does that mean to remove the building? What what how much of a building needs to be removed before it we it's deemed removed? Is it all of the building? Is it some of the building? Is it portions of the building? So that's one issue that the commission has been um struggling with. Um the other is the a concept of ordinary maintenance and repair. The current code allows a property owner to do what is called ordinary maintenance and repair to keep

the structure safe and sanitary and habitable habitable um and and that's allowed on a non-compliant building. So the second question is well what does what is what is the scope of ordinary maintenance and repair? How much does that allow? Does that essentially allow reconstruction of the building? you know, re if if the entire building is is in a state of disrepair, does that allow you to go in and rebuild the entire building? Does that allow you to go in and replace a few studs? Um, does that allow you to do some cosmetic work? That's the other issue that the commission has been struggling with is what does ordinary maintenance and repair mean? Um, in your last meeting, you requested some hypothetical scenarios that we could discuss that might help guide or lead the discussion on on this topic to help you to help you get a better idea of what removal and ordinary maintenance and repair could mean. Um, so we've created some some hypothetical scenarios and we can go through those. So, what I would suggest is that um those are in the staff report. So hopefully you've all had a chance to review those and make some initial thoughts about your response to each of those scenarios. What I would recommend is that we go through each of those um and the commission can just discuss your response to each of those scenarios, seek for a consensus on the appropriate response to each of those consensus. But where there is no consensus, try to form a majority opinion. Um and then based on those responses, staff can then go back and draft some ordinance strategies that will help um implement those majority positions or consensus positions uh to each of these scenarios. Does that make sense? Okay. So, if it's okay with the commission, what I'd like to do is just present each of those six scenarios and then we can have a discussion on each one. Does that work?

Yeah. Do you want questions right now or just as we go then? Whatever. We can do it either way. whatever the commission wants to do. If you have questions, you want to talk about some um before we jump into them, questions that would be about all of them. So, my understanding is exactly what you just said, come to some consensus on each scenario. And I'm wondering if you want just the like A, B, C, or D answer or an answer that's potentially revised.

Yeah. So if if if there's an ABC, B, C, or D answer that everybody agrees on, that's great. If there's a revised answer that can can generate a consensus or a majority opinion, that's awesome as well. Okay? Because the reason I'm asking that is because I can see, for instance, some will have this the you know scenario in A, B, or C. Um but in some scenarios it'll say but all other ordinances have to be complied with but then it's not on the other scenarios. Does that make sense? Yes. Absolutely.

Yeah. So like I could see like being like well that makes sense as long as the all the other scenarios are met but it's not on there. All the other standards are met. Good point. Okay. Absolutely. We we want the commission to be super comfortable with whatever position you come to. So if if it's like, "Well, yeah, I like how you've worded that." I mean, this is just me and Nile throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what what fits. Yeah. So if you say, "Well, yeah, that's kind of good, but let's tweak it this way or let's tweak it that way." Absolutely. Yeah. Okay.

Um and then the other question I have for my own understanding is I noticed in some of these scenarios it mentions completely removing everything including the framing and the slab. Is that laid out that way, explained that way as a potential it not being completely removed as long as it's in the same footprint. So, sorry, that was a very um complicated way of trying to ask what I'm getting at. So if a mo so the building is is it possible for the building to not be considered completely removed if something is rebuilt in the same footprint even if the foundation is gone.

That's the that's the question for the commission. Okay. And that's what I was thought I I hadn't considered that before and I saw that in these questions which were really made me think of a few things in a in different ways. So we included that because in in previous meetings there has been some comments from commissioners that they felt like well hey as long as as long as same footprint we don't care what happens. So we to to honor that um sentiment that's been expressed by commissioners in previous meetings, we put that in there as as a potential as a potential meaning that it just because the foundation is gone, it doesn't necessarily mean complete removal as long as it's in the same footprint.

Yeah. No, that that's what it's saying. Essentially, what what I'd encourage you to do is is rather than get hung up on removal and ordinary maintenance and repair at this point, just look at these scenarios and say, does what what makes sense in this scenario, what do we want to accomplish? Okay. Because obviously, if you remove everything in the slab, [snorts] we're going to have to call it something different than Right. that well, [clears throat] that's not being removed because obviously it is, right? Exactly. So, so don't don't get hung up on on on that at this point. um just get caught up on what's the appropriate response in each of these scenarios and and then we can go back and make whatever ordinance changes are necessary. Okay.

Other questions or clarifications before we jump into these scenarios.

Okay. Um so let's let's go with the first one. And um as as Jennifer indicated as we put these together, each of these kind of has um you you'll see the same the same um potential responses over and over again. One is like do nothing. One is well maybe you can take out a few studs or something. One is take everything down to the foundation but you can't touch the foundation. And one is oh yeah take it all out. Right? Those are kind of the recurring situations. But anyway, here's here's here's scenario number one. So Lucy has a house that is legally non-compliant. There is nothing wrong with the house. It's perfectly habitable. There's no mold. It's in great condition. Um but she just doesn't uh like it and she wants to she she wants to to start over. So what what are her options? So option A is um well if she wants to If she wants to start over on the property, that's great. But she's going to have to comply with all of the current standards, including the setback standards, which the current house is non-complying with. So that's a B is well, um, her current house is non-complying and and it's in the setbacks, and so why do we really care if she takes it out and builds a new house that's non-complying in the setbacks? So that's a B. Um, so this this one is a little bit less nuanced than some of the some of the other ones. There's basically just two answers um or two two pos possible responses and then either you don't know or you have another idea. Okay, so discussion on this one. What does the commission think about this scenario? Went into this exercise. I was under the impression that we wanted to basically

discuss what the current rules are and then possibly whether we want to change them. Is that where we're headed with this?

That that's exactly correct. Yep. And these scenarios are are are intended to help get get us to that point. So based on your responses these to these scenarios, if if so, for example, under the current under the current rules, uh A is the correct answer, right? if if she's going to take everything out, she needs to put everything back in according to the standards. So So this but if if if you if you think, well, maybe that's not the case, then we'll need to change the current ordinance, right? So So this exercise is just to kind of help us as staff understand where your position is relative to to the current ordinance.

So I lean towards uh B due to the fact that not building it in the same footprint could lead to all other kinds of issues. So depending on where the current footprint is, potential parking, driveways, where it's placed in um proximity to other surrounding buildings and properties and the fact that at the time it was built and other structures that are built in uh adjacent properties had to take that into account in consideration when potentially other buildings were built after that one.

Yeah, this this is actually a tough one for me because [clears throat] it'd be a big change to the land use rules to allow somebody to rebuild in the same place. Uh non-compliance setbacks and it had also have implement uh uh have repercussions on the commercial area too you know commercial buildings so um I'm sort of at a d other but I don't really have you know um ready language you know in place for for what to do

and in this scenario as as well as the others as long as all other standards are met. I do see that as an incentive in progress towards you know moving towards updating you know getting in compliance with updated standards um in terms of what landscaping. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. parking setback and that's

and at the same time potentially filling a need for it to stay in the same location for whatever those reasons might be. So that was sort of indicate like a a slower [cough and clears throat] It would just be update. It would just be updating on that piece of property. It would just be coming in for warrant [clears throat] into compliance. Yeah.

I mean, that's a pretty huge piece though of having it something rebuilt again. I mean, that's very long term. Um, but like I said, I it seems like there would be a lot of casebycase situations and other issues that could arise by trying to find another location on the same property. And it might it might not be rebuildable in some cases, right? And [clears throat] particularly in a neighborhood was all built to the same time and they all have a small a shorter setback from the street. That may the only way that they can build without some sort of variance.

Jumping into this new but when we say footprint say if part of the non-compliance was taller than our current ordinance would allow under B is it footprint as in you know as the crow flies or would they also be allowed to do the same height? That's a good question, too, because there's an upcoming scenario that um says exactly that.

And I'm thinking that that could be one of the criteria is that it can't be taller because under current current ordinances, it could be. And I would lean towards not like it would have to be the same airspace print, you know, the footprint, height, and everything just because I think that's all of a was a consideration too of whatever came after that original structure. That's exactly where my mind went to with that. Yeah.

Yep. Yeah. Exactly. This is difficult for me, too, because I'm leaning towards a if if she wants to build something totally different because she doesn't like what she has. Um, we don't know what she wants to build. Is it going to be that same that she had before? Just a different look, different height, you know, different landscape. So,

we don't know. And that's another reason why I lean towards B is because it still would have to go through, you know, all of the processes of and all of the approvals of, you know, through the, you know, normal processes, right, to to meet all of those requirements. And you wouldn't have to go through all that. She would have to just do that. Is that right, Tom? still be an approval process of all of the plans and everything in either scenario.

That's correct. Yeah. I mean there there the normal design development review and building processes would be would be enforced. It's just what standards do we enforce during that process? Are they the current standards or are they the current standards as modified by the extent of the existing non-compliant nature of the building? What's that? Somebody's coming in in a lot next to her and they have to go and follow A, but she followed B. So, I'm looking at it as be basically like the structure could stay as is and with nothing being done in this case. Um, but I think that there's an opportunity all the way around for the town, for the homeowner, um, in scenario B. I mean, there's pluses and minuses for both. I see that, but I I see opportunity all the way around in in B.

Can I can I throw a a scenario one point 1.5 in here? So, does it matter the degree of the non-compliance? Like, what if what if the house is right built right up to the property line and it's and it's, you know, kind of been a an impact on the adjacent property owner, are they allowed to then replace that versus if the side setback is 10 feet and they happen to be eight feet out of compliance? Does does that make a difference? The degree of non-compliance,

I think it makes a difference. I'm wondering how what kind of language that would be in the ordinance like is it c can we put that amount of detail in because then I feel like it comes a by a case by case which to me actually makes sense.

So it could be a case by case I guess depending on how it's written. Yeah. So, so you're asking could we we write that into the into the code? Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, we we'd come we'd we'd figure out what kind of language we would be in the code. I don't know that you would want to to ever create something that is a case by case. I mean, that that's um because then one of the one of the things that you need to ensure with land use regulations is that they are predictable and consistent so that a property owner knows what the rules are when they come to develop their property. and it's not well I'm going to find out when I go to the planning commission and they're going to tell me on a case by case basis right so you would have to have the ordinance written in such a way that it is is predictable and consistent however you could do that in such a way that that is is um accomplishes what you're saying right if you're if you have this amount of setback then you can re set back non-compliance then maybe you can rebuild within the set existing non-compliance but if it's more than that amount of non-compliance then you You could do that, but again, it would just have to be predictable and consistent.

And we could put a number to it. Like it maybe Lucy's house is like you said, right on the property line, but in order to rebuild, well, then you're moving the footprint, right? Yeah. Oh, then you would have to be in complete compliance. Yeah. Yeah. So if it's say for instance it has to be if it's like closer than five feet for instance then they can't re completely rebuild on the same footprint it has to then go into the current ordinance something like that

a setbacks I'm thinking depending on the lot size if you're out of compliance on setbacks but there's enough room on that lot that you could have the same square footage of that footprint moved and be compliant. That seems like that would be optimal. But say the lot size is small enough that actually in order for you to be in compliance, you go from being able to build an 800 foot house to a 600 foot house. Well, then that doesn't seem reasonable that you would. So I almost wonder if it's if it's not plausible to meet those standards and retain the same original footprint, then we would potentially allow some non-compliant setbacks to continue. I feel like it's a little bit of a if I think of a future homeowner of wanting to improve a home and then being told actually in order to do that you're going to lose a huge amount of your square footage or something like that. That that's where my brain went. It would be hard. That's originally why not. Yeah, I I I guess that probably I should have I should have clarified in each of these scenarios that that going into this the assumption is that you could redevelop in complant on on the property compiance with with the current land use standards. If not then um you know if if the property is such that the current land use standards prevent you from um developing and enjoying a substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same area then that's

a prime candidate for a variance right um so so I I I guess I should have clarified that going in that the assumption is that yes if you redevelop on the property in compli um compliant with the current standards you you can still get a structure on the property. That makes sense. new house footprint, but then they wanted to add on to the back because the the variance they had space in the backyard to expand the building to add a game room or something. Would we allow would we want to allow that as well for them to expand the size of the house?

I say if the setbacks are out of compliance and they're adding then they're they have to update everything to current ordinances. So I still lean towards B.

I think I think I do too. as long as is the the neighborhood is sort of a consistent um a neighborhood with other homes that are out of compliance because of the change in rules through the years, right? Uh an old neighborhood that would we would allow them because it's it's in keeping with the neighborhood to have the home that way and and to build something different would be a different look. It would change the the look and feel of the neighborhood. Kosh, what do you think?

I have a question. Um, as long as all other zoning standards are met, does that mean the current standards, right? Not when the house was originally built or correct. The the intention there was that that's the current standards. So, is everybody else leaning towards B? Yeah, I'm leaning towards B.

[laughter] Final notes really quick. Sorry. So many what ifs. Yeah, there's just so many scenarios.

Okay. Can I before we move to to scenario two, can I throw something out at you just as an initial response that initial idea for a a a way to address or or to accommodate what you've said? What I'm what I'm hearing is that you don't want to penalize a property owner who's in a neighborhood with generally non-compliant nature of development. You want that property owner to be able to develop something that is consistent with the look and feel of the existing neighborhood and maybe coming into compliance with the with the current standards would be a hardship because they have to comply but all their neighbors are are still out of compliance and it's something out of character with the neighborhood. Is that is that the general consensus?

That's that's the feeling. Okay, awesome. If that is the case, then maybe what is most appropriate is then to go back in into that whole neighborhood and say, "Look, let's just change the zoning standards so that you're not non-complying so that you do comply and so and so we don't have to deal with this whole issue of being non-compliant in this in the in the first place, right? If all of the if all the structures in that neighborhood say we require a 30- foot front setback and all the structures have a 20 foot front setback, let's just go into that neighborhood and change the front setback from 30 feet to 20 feet. How how would you feel about a strategy like that? I like that.

Okay, good. So, that's that. We'll we'll think about that and and and put some language together along those lines for for you to review next time. Okay. have like a subscription to Chad GPT. I'm wondering if that could be applied. [laughter]

Uh yeah, [laughter] we've we've got a very good AI policy that we just we just crafted. So our AI policy is that um just just this is an aside, our AI policy in our department is that AI is a an assist to the creative process, not the creative process itself. So we don't want to replace uh human knowledge, human uh intuition and and and the the reasoning of the planning commission with AI, but we want to use AI to make that to augment that and make it better. Okay. Um let's go into scenario two. Okay. So, um this is I think we've kind of already addressed this because this is this is Lucy again with her house and um she she decides I don't want to take away I don't want to demolish my entire house. I just want to make some make some limited changes. and and the scenarios A, B, and C are are different extents of the ch of the changes wants to make. However, if we decide that in this neighborhood we're going to change the zoning standards anyway so that so that it's more consistent, then maybe this scenario is addressed with what we discussed with scenario one. Is is is that a does that make sense or do you as a commission want to discuss this one a little bit more in depth? scenario.

Okay, good. Is that so is that everybody comfortable moving on to scenario three then? So which so it would be uh so you're talking about B, right? Or I guess they're kind of combined. Yeah. So, I think I think it's covered, but it not one of these is exactly what we were saying.

Exactly. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Correct. Yeah. What we're saying is, hey, we we want Lucy to be able to to stay with the character of the neighborhood and develop her property consistent with the with the character of the neighborhood. And if the current zoning standards don't allow her to do that, let's change the zoning standards. Okay. Okay. Are we crafting this for the current? In other words, most of the lots are have been built upon, but the subzones, the small parcels that we have in town, would we want to address those as well as part of this?

Yes. Yeah. And and you know, just kind of I'm sorry to do a couple of aides there, but as another aside, the town has already been moving in this direction for some time. in in when the current zoning was was um adopted in 1992, there were two residential zones, FR and VR. Well, there was two subzones in the FR, FR2 and FR5, but essentially two zones, FR and VR. Um, as as we started looking at a and the majority of the Valley residential property, the Valley residential zone requires a 3/4 acre minimum lot size. the majority of the properties in Valley Residential didn't meet that 3/4 acre minimum lot size. And so we had these situations all the time where somebody came in to develop, but the existing zoning for them. So we created um subzones in the valley residential zone, the the VR and the VRB that said, okay, you we're going to recognize that there are smaller lot sizes in these zones, so we're going to reduce setbacks and alter landscape percentages, that kind of thing. So, we've already started moving that direction and I think the next step is just to kind of go in and get a little bit more finer grained and look at individual neighborhoods and do that same analysis on individual neighborhoods.

This could extend over to the commercial area as well

potentially. Yeah. Yeah. We'll talk about that in in agenda item number two. Okay. Um this is scenario three and um This this so scenarios one and two were mainly trying to get at this idea of what does it mean to remove a building. Scenario three is is now looking more at like what is ordinary maintenance and repair. So unlike scenarios one and two where the house is in perfectly good condition. Scenario three is well the house may have some problems. Maybe there's some mold, maybe there's some termite damage. Um and and Mark, the poor property owner, has has been struggling with that for a long time and he wants to fix it. What are his options? So A says, "Well, you know what? You can you can do whatever you can do without really changing the structure at all. You know, maybe you call pest control and you and you become really good friends with bleach and and that's that's about all you can do." Um, scenario two or exc or or or or response B um says, "Well, no, if if there are damaged structural elements, maybe maybe there's some studs that are rotted or maybe there's some sheeting that's that's got mold on it, you can replace those. That's fine. Um, but only if such said replacements are less than the majority of the of the house, right? So it's it's it's a it's a minor part of the of the structure structural elements that you are replacing. Um answer B or response B says well well no you can do some pretty extensive repairs potentially even potentially even even removing the slab or portions of the slab um to make it safe.

Um but but again this is just to make it safe. you're not making any alterations or additions or or changing it at all. You're just making it safe. And if you're going to be doing these major major changes, you've got to have an expert document that yes, these are truly necessary. Right? So it's not just you coming in and saying, "Oh, my my I I I've got some mold and so I want to rebuild my house." You've got to have somebody come in and document that and verify that. So that's answer C. And then we have the don't know and other answers. Okay. So, what are the commission's thoughts on this scenario?

I'll start. Um, so I went into this scenario on the of course on the heels of one and two and thinking, okay, well, I lean towards allowing complete rebuilding of the the house on the same footprint without damage. And I know if we take the zoning factor out of it that this makes my question irrelevant, but um so shouldn't matter what wouldn't Mark be able to just rebuild without t taking the zoning piece out of it? Yeah. So so if if we do the zoning changes that we talked about in scenarios one and two

potentially. But again, let's talk about let's think about the degree of non-conforming. um in in scenarios one and two, I think the commission was generally thinking, well, these these aren't significant non-compliant nature, non non-compliant aspects of the of the structure, right? They're generally in keeping with the neighborhood and we're okay with that. In scenario three, what if Mark's house is right on the property line? Um should, you know, and and and the zoning changes that we're contemplating in scenarios one and two wouldn't allow him to rebuild where he wants where his non complain falling apart structure is shouldn't he be allowed to rebuild there to make his his house safe or should should we say no sorry you've got to come into compliance with these uh zoning standards

but what if his his house isn't in the same zone so that's what I was getting at like it could be completely different area it it could be yeah so and then and then those zoning that zoning wouldn't apply to Mark's house. Um, so, so yeah, so it's really just a whole new scenario. I guess

I I I think what we're trying to get the commission's response on this is what there there's a house that or a structure that really is in disrepair. To what extent can it be repaired before we exceed the scope of ordinary maintenance and repair? Is it just cosmetic stuff? That's what A is talking about. Is it some structural changes to the building? That's what B is is suggesting. Is it major uh reconstruction or potentially even complete reconstruction? That's what scenario C is talking about. Again, this is contemplating putting it back. exactly like it was like it existing now.

And in in that case I lean towards Caveat and see that you can't just say oh just trust me I need to replace everything but having the like show that something is unsafe. I don't think we'd want to preclude anyone from increasing safety in a home. thoughts on on this? Jennifer is is leaning towards C and it sounds like Susan, you're you're kind of there as well. What

uh the rest of the commission, how do you how do you feel?

Ash, do you have an opinion? Okay. Let's um let's let's stick with C here. We can come back to this one because scenario four builds on scenario three. And so if we want to come back um Kosh, if you after we talk about scenario four and we want to revisit this, we can. Um could we go over the three items again? I'm a little confused or or at least give me time to look at them. Yeah. Yeah.

So, number one is to work on the molded with bleach and the old toothbrush and call pest control. If he gets into the framing sheathing and anything else, he needs to bring the house into compliance. So, this is more of a minimal [snorts] um anything you have to be in compliance.

B is to make more significant repairs must retain foundation or slab as well as majority of studs and roof joists. Um and in this case he needs to the house needs to come into compliance. And the third one is Mark has the flexibility makes significant repairs including replacement of the slab. However, if he wants to remove any structural elements such as roof joist, studs or slab foundation, he must first obtain a written opinion from an expert. Gosh, what are you thinking? The reason I didn't lean, one of the reasons I didn't lean towards B is Um just that if you know the damage whatever it is could be out of his control and impacting

um some of the things that must be maintained. And in that case because he had no control over it he would still have to come into compliance. So I leaned more towards see because of that. So when I think about the word significant repairs, right? Um I remember reading somewhere that I can't remember exactly if it said renovation or if it included both renovation and repairs. If the cost exceeds 50% or greater than 50% then that's considered significant. Does that apply here?

Yeah. So, in our um flood hazard regulations, we we have something called um substantial improvements. And a substantial improvement is one that increases the the market value of the home by 50% or more. Um and that's that's that that's a specific um scenar specific case relative related to compliance with flood hazard regulations. So we had originally proposed a similar methodology for non-compliance structures as as one of in in a previous meeting in one of the early meetings saying well you could you could use a similar technique saying if you're going to um uh do something that is equal to or or greater than 50% of the value of the home well that's a that's a a substantial improvement and you need to come into compliance with the current code. So that is a that is something that that you could um a strategy that you could use. Um but it's not it's not a current ordinance. It's not a current um current regulation. In my mind, I'm just comparing scenario one um option B where the all other zoning standards are met and and this one option C and scenario three. It's it just seems to be inconsistent because the one makes says that the other standards have to be met. This one is sort of a standalone. If the if your building has failed for whatever reason, you can rebuild it in place regardless of what the other standards are.

Yeah, that's the question. Should you be allowed to do that or not? Should if if if your building deteriorate deteriorates to the point that it uh it really needs to be replaced, should you be allowed to put it back right where where it was or should you be required to put it where the current code uh zoning standards say that it should go? Well, I think you could still add as long as um all other standards are met, right? you as in scenario one.

Yeah. Yeah. You you could again this is this is trying to get a at a different aspect of non-complian the first two were about what does it mean to remove a building this one is what does it mean what what does what does ordinary maintenance and repair mean

and and so if we say no we're we're just going to we're just going to go by the same thing that we decided in scenario uh scenarios one and two that if you remove it you you've got to come into compliance with these zoning standards and maybe we'll tweak the zoning standards to make them more consistent for the neighborhood. But but you've got to put it right back in there. That's that is a that's a that's fine. That's essentially what um what what option A says in under this scenario, right? Um so if that's if that's the way that you you want to go as a commission, then that's that's good. That's fine. Um but if you want to do something different, that that's what options B and C are. Would these be strictly residential or could they have commercial uses?

Yeah. So the so scenario three right now is looking at residential. The the next two scenarios that we're going to look at are commercial. And so the the next two the next two things are essentially a repeat of scenarios one and two and three and four but just with commercial buildings. I think the second part of C, removing any structural elements such as roof joist, joist, um, studs or slab foundation, getting that written opinion for an expert, um, I think is an important requirement in this scenario that to me makes it make more sense because if an expert is saying that these things need to be replaced because of damage, then he should be able to replace them.

I I guess at the heart of this is um there in in some of the material that the background material that was in the staff report, there's there's kind of an underlying assumption that over time non-compliant buildings are are are brought are are phased out and and are brought into compliance. So option C says, well, we're we're we're essentially perpetuating this non-complian nature of this building or property in perpetuity, right? As as soon as the as soon as the building starts to fail, as long as the as long as you get an expert that says, "Oh gosh, that needs to be replaced," you can go in and fix that and and essentially perpetuate the non-compliant nature of that property forever. That's that's fine, right? if but but I want to make sure that that's that the commission understands that's the that would be the policy direction that that you would be going which is somewhat different than what the what this what the status quo is

seems like this would be a big change to the status quo

not that I'm I'm against it but just an observation I just look at it from the perspective of the homeowner and uh in that in something that was out of their control and you know had there not been some kind of catastrophic damage then the it would stay as is anyways. So what are the main differences between B and C?

Uh B is B is removing less than half of the structure. C is removing all of the structure which has that caveat of the and and you could add that caveat to C to B as well, right? You can say that's true. you know, if yeah, we'll let you move some of it up to half of it, but again, we we want we want a professional to sign off on it first.

To me, the percentage part um it I think if there's 100% of it is damaged, then I don't see the difference of removing 50% or 100% really. And I I very much understand the direction uh and going forward and uh you know everything coming into compliance, but I also see um you know ordinances are going to change. So many things will be out of compliance at some time. In a case where somebody has experienced this kind of damage, I I just lean on the side of, you know, not putting any hardship more hardship on a property owner unless it were absolutely necessary. going to see does give them more flexibility to be able to do things the way they want to get them done.

So, so just well, yes and no. So, just just again to to clarify this this under this scenario, the replacement of that structure would be the same as what exists right now. So, so this scenario is saying, "Yeah, you can take it out, but what you put back in has to be the same as what you take out." Scenario four, let's let's let's jump over to scenario four. Is that okay? Yeah.

So, scenario four is essentially the same thing as scenario three. The house is in disrepair. It's it's in um it's non-complying. Um and Mark is saying, "Well, hey, my house is in disrepair. It's non-complying." And um I want to I want to make it safe and I want to make it sanitary and I want to be able to live there. But as long as I'm as long as I'm doing that, boy, there are a lot of other things about this house that I want to change at the same time and and so I'd like to raise the ceilings and I'd like to to put on a a big addition and and all this kind of stuff. Um so so that's gosh that that's when you say this adds more flexibility. Scenario three is just saying, "No, you put it back exactly how it existed." Scenario four is saying, "Well, is he allowed to put it back differently than what it was before?"

So, in scenario three though, you could change the like the floor plan. So, I I mean, this is all up for discussion, right? You can craft it however you want. I would I I I think the the the idea was the the shell of the building stays the same. Okay. Yes, that's how I took it because people can come in and make interior remodels all the time. It doesn't really impact the Right. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that part.

Yeah. And so for me, this was the scenario for 3D thing in my mind, like is this the one where he was building the theater upstairs? Yeah. So to me, I think no add-on. And if that's the case, then I think it needs to come into compliance even if it's going up. So that way is out of compliance. He can rebuild what he has, but he can't add he can't increase the height of the ceiling. Yeah. Or add a a game room or a TV room.

Could but it would have to be in compliance, right? The new thing would have to be completely the new new rules, I think. Okay. So that that that would be option A is you you can't make these you can't make these changes because they're more than ordinary maintenance repair. Going back to scenario three, you can rebuild the same thing you got, but if you want to do something different, you you can't you got to come into compliance. Is that Yeah. Is that what I'm hearing?

Yeah. Everybody And and does that make people more comfortable with uh scenario or excuse me response C of scenario three? That is you can essentially rebuild the entire house pending verification from a from a professional, but you got to rebuild it the same way it existed, right? And then scenario four is well if you want to make changes you've got to come into compliance. Everybody's on everybody's okay with that?

Okay. So now these these last two scenarios um are essentially a repeat. Scenario five is a repeat of scenarios one and two and scenario six is a repeat of scenarios three and four but just with commercial buildings. So, um, in scenario five, Caroline owns a commercial property on SR9. It's got some setback non-compliance, parking, landscape non-compliance. Um, there's nothing wrong with the building. It's it's perfectly functional, but Caroline just wants to to renovate it and and kind of make it look a little bit nicer. Um, so what what should we what should she be allowed to do? So scenario or excuse me response A is well you can make cosmetic improvements um but nothing nothing structural. Response B is well you can you can make um more significant changes but you you've got to keep the foundation um and you've got to keep most of the vertical elements. So again, you keep keep 50% or more of the structure and and then you can make changes and scenario or me response C is well as long as you keep the footprint of what existed there previously, you can essentially re build and do whatever you want there as long again assuming compliance with all other all their zoning standards. So, commission's thoughts on on this one. And I will say this bleeds in these next two bleed into our next agenda item a little bit that talks about revi revitalization of of commercial properties.

Um, I lean towards C on this. Um, again, the percentage piece to me doesn't weigh too heavily in my mind. Um, if you're going to be building such a large portion of it anyways and, um, knowing that there's the whole design process and everything just that still needs to go through, I I feel comfortable with that. um and then staying within the original, you know, footprint of the building um with the same non-complying area. So that's C. And again, it kind of comes back to number one, it building where the building is on the property, if it's moved, other issues that that could cause when it was built, the consideration of what was already surrounding or when it was already built, other structures around taking consideration where that building is placed. I went with C also because I think that that falls with some of the scenarios in the next action item that we're going to discuss. What about other um other zoning standards? Are we going to allow the

same non-compliance with other standards to continue into the future with parking or with the [clears throat] rebuild of the structure? So I would I would add all other standards need to be met

because this is kind of a this um tricky because we don't want to step on the the standard of of slowly having the town transform into you know what what the setbacks what the rules are regarding land use and we're talking about slowing down that process um but not stopping it um you know so that we're set in place. So along those lines, some of the things I took into consideration is I was thinking, okay, what if um they are so they're the setbacks are not compliant. So the the building or the parking. So if we say they can build in the same non-compliant footprint, but then we say all other standards need to be met, that could impact the their where their their parking is. And then I thought, well, maybe that's that's okay to require that the the parking setbacks then change even if it isn't the most the ideal parking situation anymore.

But then maybe that's an opportunity to move more in direction of overall compliance. So I was kind of looking at the tradeoff of it and the benefit all the way around over time. Exactly. Yeah.

So still trying to move forward in you know in the direction of everything becoming compliant but at the same time recognizing um what seems I'm always I use the word fair too much, but um you know reasonable and and fair, you know, to to what makes sense right now. Jennifer and and Melissa have have said, "Well, C is is good as long as other zoning standards are met." Uh, how do other commissioners feel about that?

It's hard to visualize in my m my mind. I know I went through the the U. what the town prepared in the next agenda item, but what the effect would be on each business to see, you know, if it might be ownorous on the majority of them or not. You know, whether parking is the main thing or whether uh height or what the variance would be, but I I think that that'd be a good direction to go in. So I have a question under C. Is she allowed to replace the complete foundation if she wants to?

She will be. This is essentially a a brand new building that is going back in the same location. It could and it can be a completely different design too, right? It could be it can be an updated design, new foundation, new everything as long as it's within the the uh same non-compliant area as the first building and all other zoning standards are met. But then she's not really just freshening up the building though in that case, right? if she's building an entirely new structure in the exact same location.

And that that's the that's the question for the commission to to consider. And that's that's the point that Tom was making, right? So the the general the general idea with non-compliant buildings is that over time they are replaced. understanding that that could be over time could mean 10 20 30 years or more but gradually they they are replaced with buildings that comply with the town's land use ordinances right so this C option C was would be saying well that's that's actually not the policy that we want to to continue with our our policy is actually that what is on the ground now we're generally okay with and we're okay with somebody changing the design, the look as long as they're within that same general area.

Are we stipulating that it must be within the same footprint? Could it be smaller to accommodate for landscaping or for parking?

Yeah. So, you you can do whatever you want. So, and that's a that's a good point, right? In this in this instance, the building is non-compliant with setbacks and parking and landscaping. So So you could say, well, we're okay maybe with with non-compliant setbacks, but not non-compliant landscape, or maybe we're okay with some non-compliant landscape. So just just the this also gets back to the discussion that we started to have in scenario one about the degree of non-compliance. Like what if a property is has zero landscape on it? Well, and you say, well, yeah, you you can re redevelop that property in to the extent of your existing landscape non-compliance. They can come back and essentially cover the entire property again and not provide any landscape. Are you okay with that? Or would you like to get some landscape? Or would you like to say, well, no, we're okay if you build within the non-compliant setbacks, but we really need you to comply with with landscape. All these are different options that you can consider given this scenario that the parking and the landscape are also non-compliant. That was kind of the tradeoff I was talking about. So you can go ahead and build on the same footprint, but everything else has to be compliant. moving in the direction of compliance but also taking into consideration, you know, not knowing the placement of a specific property in relationship with everything else. There's still that opportunity to stay where it's at, which to me could be the best the best

spot for it to be. There's that possibility. But this is a tricky one because it's rebuilding. This would be more forgiving than what we have now. Yeah.

And if you read her suggestions on the top. There's nothing wrong with the building, but it's still useful, but the design is outdated, building a little bit tired. She would like to refreshen up the building and give a new lease on life. You would think she would want nice landscaping. Building would be nice and all that. You would think,

but but you you you can't assume, right? And to me, this is another opportunity that and see that um could be an improvement contributing. So Jennifer, you're just to to clarify, you you are saying it's okay to redevelop within the non-compliant setbacks, but not within the non-compliant landscape or parking, right?

Perfect. How do how does the what if it was a building height non-compliance? No, just setbacks. Yes, sir. Okay. So, how does the how does the rest rest of the commission feel about that? that non-compliant setbacks are okay, but but not other non-compliant aspects of a of a building. How hard and fast would this rule be? Would there be could someone come and request a variance for say parking or something? Um, [snorts] or would that be something that would not be permitted?

Again, you want your land use ordinances to be consistent and predictable and and so that they they've got to be fairly evenly applied. A variance is really only justified when um the land use ordinance in combination with some unique character of the property creates a hardship. Right? So if somebody comes and says, you know what, it's going to be really hard for me to to get as many parking spots in here as I need um and and so give me a variance to allow me to get more parking. Well, as long as they can get some parking and and develop the the the property um with an with an economically viable use, that's probably not a legitimate candidate for a variance.

So, so setbacks were okay. Everything else for a non-compliant compliant building needs to come into compliance. Is everybody good with that?

Okay. Okay. So then scenario six is um similar um except for in this case the commercial building is in in a state of disrepair and it it really needs to be um renovated or or repaired to make it safe to occupy. So again, scenario five was was really thinking about what does it mean to remove a building in the commercial zones. Scenario six is what does it mean to do ordinary maintenance and repair on a building in the commercial zones? Um so similar to Mark in his house, Doug is is struggling. Should he be only allowed to do cosmetic repairs? That's a um should he be allowed to make some structural changes but um retaining the majority of the of the original building. That's B. C is well he can he can essentially rebuild the building but it's got to and with with all the non-compliant nature not non-compliant um aspects as existed previously. Um, but it's got to be the exact same building as what existed previously. That's response C. And the response D is, well, no, he can he can rebuild it. Um, but he can also make changes to the design and do something different than existed there previously. Again, as long as it's done within the um extent of the non-complian non-compliance of the original building. Thoughts on this one? You all probably know I lean towards D

at this point. Um kind of consistent with the others. Um again seeing the benefit and allowing for new structure, new design. To clarify, Jennifer, similar to scenario five where you were um limiting that only to setbacks, would that be the same with this scenario six that he can re uh rebuild within the non-compliant setbacks but has to comply with parking, landscape, height, all the other things?

Yeah. And I the reason I believe that that's important is again just moving in the direction of um consistent you know some consistency in moving forward. So these cases we would want them to build within the original um uh footprint of the structure but We would give them the option to increase setbacks. Um, say if they were violating the front setback, they could move it back. Or are we going to say they need to build in the the same footprint?

Same same location. Yeah. Within the limits of the original non-comp. The same footprint. Okay. Tom, Thomas, your question is saying the the building has a five foot front setback where the requirement is 30 and they come in and say, "Well, I actually don't want to do five feet. I want to do 15 feet." Would they be allowed to do that? Is that your question? Yeah, that's what I'm trying to ask. Yeah. So, it' be the the the same or uh the you could come into greater compliance, but you couldn't go into more non-compliance. That's that's your question, right?

Yes. Yeah, that's my question. Like if they had ample real estate where they could make the building more compliant but not fully compliant, they could say, "Well, I'll move it back 20 feet so that I'm I'm less out of compliance now with the new structure." Um, and then I still need to come into compliance with the other, you know, with parking and landscape and that that sort of thing. How would you create language to like in an ordinance for that?

Talk to Tom. [laughter] I'm just wondering what what could what kind of clear language would convey that or and what what the limitations would be? That one's hard for me to wrap my head around because I can see so many different situations and needing to tie, you know, some numbers requirements or something to make it really clear.

I like the idea of it. And again at this point I I think the commission should focus on on ideas and concepts and then we can worry about the the technical mechanic mechanics of the code language later. So if it's an idea that has merit then and I think we should discuss that and then we can worry about how to implement that later.

I do like that idea like in some of these other cases too actually. Um because some progress is better than none and complete compliance might be too restrictive or not open up to some other opportunities. If if you are saying, well, you have to come into compliance with you you you can keep your setbacks, but you've got to come into compliance with landscape parking, um, all these other things. Chances are that they're going to have to reduce setbacks anyway to get the landscape percentage or the parking or that kind of stuff. Is that enough for you to go by with

Yeah. If everybody likes that idea of saying you can redevelop within the setbacks or greater compliance setbacks as long as you meet all other standards. Yeah. We we that's that's okay. Very good direction. We can we can work with that. Okay. Yeah. other um I guess just along those lines my mind is now backtracking if that makes sense in other scenarios that we've already gone over that you can come into greater compliance. Yeah. Yeah. I I think that should be Yeah. Can we just give give you that piece of information to to run with in other scenarios too?

Yep. Absolutely. Okay. Is everybody good with that?

So, everything you need, Tom? Yeah, this has been super helpful and and I think we've I think we've got a really good direction moving forward now and and so we'll we'll go back and and start working on some ordinance language that tries to implement these um these positions that you've uh articulated tonight.

Great. Thank you. Um and then moving on to number two agenda item. The last item is a discussion of renovation of non-complying buildings in the commercial zones. Uh Tom Dancy is contact and you have an introduction likely a refresh.

Yeah. So, and actually this is I I I think this is is just kind of a really good segue from where we just were in the last in the previous agenda item. um our our commercial zones have a lot of non-compliant buildings because they they have properties that were developed a long time ago before the adoption of the code. So there are a lot of properties in the commercial zones that are not compliant with the current code. So the discussion in previous meetings has been well what what do we do about that? Um, again, the the town's status quo policy is we just wait until these properties redevelop and then as they redevelop, they have to come into compliance with current standards. Recognizing that that could take 10, 20, 30, 40 years for all of the properties in the town to come into compliance with current standards. So, the discussion was, is that okay, or do we want to try to accelerate that somehow? Do we want to do something that to be a little bit more proactive in bringing properties into compliance? Um, and there there there's a couple ways to do that. One is to come up with some kind of um incentive or or some kind of of method that would allow properties to come into incremental compliance or incentivize these properties to come to compliance. Um, the other is just to change the zoning standards. Um, in the last meeting you you kind of indicated, well, yeah, this we this is a this is an issue, but maybe it's not that big of an issue. Um, but you wanted to maybe do a field trip and look at at the properties in the commercial zones before making a final decision. So recognizing that uh it would be difficult to get the commission all together for an actual field trip, I put together a virtual field trip um and encourage you to go and do your own kind of reconnaissance of the commercial zones and based on that we can have a discussion about what where we want to go with non-compliant commercial buildings. Now you you've

just actually taken a step towards the second option which is develop a strategy to incentivize incremental compliance by essentially saying well yes uh non-complying commercial properties you can redevelop and redevelop within the existing footprint or setbacks but you've got to comply with these other standards. Um, so I guess the discussion is do you do you wanna is that is that a good first step? Do you want to do you want to roll with that? Do you want to investigate other options? Do you want to do you want to do nothing? Th those those are those those are the questions for you tonight. And if you want to look at any of the pictures, we can look at those, too. It was a cloudy day when the pictures were taky day and I thought the perfect day to go out and to be able to move around the town really freely is going to be the day after Christmas. Nobody's going to be here.

Oh wow. Okay, that was a bad idea. It was full. Holy cow. I got stuck in traffic. So So yes, it was cloudy and a traffic full day. Well, it's a it's a nice town, so it's it's it's easy to take nice pictures.

I like to developing a strategy that allows or encourages incremental progress towards compliance. Uh I just kind of go back to our last discussions when we were considering how many are out of compliance and how a lot of it almost adds to our town character just in how it's, you know, we kind of looked up and down the pictures of the the street and then in looking at all of these different um photos, you know, I can see why we were talking about really not doing much right now, but I I do like having something that helps move forward towards our goals. So, I guess I would I would I don't know exactly what those incentives would be and and the way that I I understand this is that that would be when they do want to redevelop. Correct.

Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Like I said, you've already if if we if we adopt the strategies that you um recommended previously agenda item, you're already taking that step of essentially giving them an an incentive. Yeah. I I guess I should say there there's currently a disincentive for many of these properties to redevelop. Yeah.

Because doing so if they if they said, "Well, gosh, many of these properties have like a 100% coverage of the property, no landscape at all." And if you say, "Okay, yeah, you can redevelop, but you've got to provide 30% of your property in landscape area." Well, there's a strong dis disincentive for them [clears throat] to because they're going to have 30% less productive area on their property. So, when I when I say incentivize, maybe what I mean is remove some of the disincentive you've already started to do in Right. Yeah, [clears throat]

I like that. What is it about the non-compliance that we we don't like? I mean, is there something that that we feel needs to be corrected? I mean, is it is it the front setback or the side setback or the height of the building? Maybe a building blocks the Monavi sandstone or maybe a zero lot lines. I mean, is there something that we would want to try to correct, you know, in addition to the things that we've done previously?

Yeah. So, that's a question for the commission and and that's kind of the purpose of the of the of the field trip is is to give you an idea of what what exists in the town and do you like it? Do you not like it? What what what if on these non-compliant buildings if if they were in compliance, would that add to the town? Would that add to the character of the town? Would it benefit the town? Would it not? Um, if I can just kind of speak speak freely for a second and and uh share a personal opinion. Part of what I think gives the town a lot of character is the diversity of design and and kind of the eclectic nature of development in the town while still having a general overriding um design aesthetic, right? And and so o o overall we really encourage architecture and we encourage low buildings, low building heights and we encourage open space and all these things and that's what our ordinances are trying to promote, right? and and and so a lot of the new development that we've had does a really really great job of promoting those those elements and it looks fantastic and it's awesome and a lot of our older development doesn't comply with any of that and also adds variety and character to the to the community and having that mix and that kind of that eclectic is what adds some vibrancy and some unique character and and authenticity to the town and and so How do you how do you say yes, as we move forward, we want to continue to promote these design guidelines that we've spent a lot of time coming up with in terms of building height and open cities and and setbacks. And we also want to kind of preserve this authenticity of the town um that that is displayed by some of our non-compliant buildings. That's I think that's the the the hard thing to do. How

how do you do that as a commission is? Well, I agree with that 100% and that's why I was saying when you look at all of these pictures, like that's what makes our town our town and gives it that character. And and to Tom's point, you know, I was going through these thinking, you know, well, what what's the drawbacks of this or what's the problem with this or would it make a difference if the setback was different on this property? And um trying to figure out where the balance lies of you know, moving forward with trying to get everything into full compliance or kind of back to what we were talking about before, just waiting for properties to redevelop. It kind of seems like number two is similar to that, like you would still be waiting for them to be redeveloped, but it's just adding and it's just encouraging that, I guess, right?

Yeah. It's again, it's kind of removing some of the current disincentive to redevelop.

Yeah. which I don't see the harm in that because they could I mean they're in disincentivizing. I just have a question. I was looking through some of the photos here and um some are new developments that are in compliance and some are new developments that are non-compliance. And there's a development that's owned by the same owner. One's in compliance, one's not in compliance. So, I'm But it makes the town look beautiful. So, I'm a little confused on how one was compliance, one was non-compliance. Why was it okay? And you know, I that's just me. I mean, there's a two new developments. One was by a disaster which was the flood and it was the campground and that's is newly built I'm assuming but it's in non-compliance. And then one is a new development that they just wanted to take down the hotel. I don't know if there was any damage or anything to it and it's beautiful but it's in non-compliance. So I'm just a little confused.

Yeah. And and this this would great questions. So So let's go through through these kind of one by one. So I think this is the one that you referenced earlier, correct? Same same property, same same very similar type of development. One is in compliance, that's this one, and one is not in compliance, that's this one.

They were both in compliance at the time they were built. Um but since that time, the town adopted a standard in the village commercial zone that regulated the building height relative to setback from SR9. And it just so happens that this development is located closer to the SR9 rideway than is this development. Thus, when that when that ordinance was changed, one became non-compliant and the other did not. Um changed after it was built. Yes. Yep. Yeah. And then so some of your other questions um I think you referenced the campground.

Yeah. And so this one's a little bit confusing. Not confusing but but tricky because the development itself is actually in compliance. It's the use of the property that's not compliant. The use as a campground. Oh, I see. So, so this one here, this this building is in compliance with all of our zoning standards, but because the use of the property is not allowed, we don't allow campgrounds in the town anymore. So, the campground itself is a non-conforming use. And then you also reference I think you referenced this one here. Uh, no, it's uh Montlair.

Montlair. Oh, okay. Yes. So, the Montlair the again the um the buildings themselves There we go. The buildings themselves are in compliance with all the town's zoning standards. Um, but there are more transient lodging units on this property than what the code allows and that was allowed through a development agreement where a property owner said, "Hey, I could build my lodging units here. I don't want to put them there. The town doesn't want me to put them there. Allow me to put them somewhere else." And this is one of the properties where where the that additional transient lodging unit uh density was allowed. So the buildings themselves are compliant. It's just that there are more transient lodging units on that property than what the code allows. I know through the years I've heard a couple complaints from people about properties that are not being used. You know, they're they're not necessarily boarded up, but they need like they need some light and activity. Is there any way that we can um regulate the nonuse of the property?

Yeah, that that's a complaint that we Yes. has has been a a consistent complaint for a long time. Um, and unfortunately our options to require the use of the property are pretty limited. So we can require that the property is maintained and it's and it's it's kept up. So that you know if if there are broken windows or or something like that, then we can require them to be fixed and repaired. Um, but we can't require the property owner to to use or occupy the property. Um again we can incent this this is this is part of this discussion is well are there things that we could do to remove obstacles to development redevelopment or or use of that property that would maybe encourage a productive use of the property. Yeah maybe that but we unfortunately we we don't have the ability to go in and and tell a property owner hey you must you must make productive use of your property. that it could be an incentive for them to develop because now they can develop in the footprint of the the current property.

Correct. Exactly. So I again I think what the what the commission has already done in the previous agenda item is is maybe a really good first step

because you're you're saying look you can keep this non these these non-complying buildings and what adds character to the town and and and those are great but we want to honor the fact that we've put a lot of time and effort into our land use ordinances and we do it for a reason because it's driven by our general plan and there's a there's a certain look and feel to the town that we're trying to promote. And so, let's allow you to redevelop within those setbacks, but everything else has to come into compliance. I think that's a good first step to um to both honor the the authenticity of the non-compliant structures and also work towards more full compliance with our land use standards that promote the general plan. So, if that's the case, then then I don't think we need to do anything else with this particular agenda item because that will all be implemented by the the first item on tonight's agenda.

Absolutely. Excellent discussion tonight. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. Motion by Melissa, second by Kash. All in favor? Melissa I. Jennifer I. Hashi. Motion passes. Adjourns. Thank you. Uh, Jennifer, great job chairing your first meeting tonight. Thank you so much. Nice work.