Mar 22, 2023 Town of Bluffton Planning Commission

[I. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

I THINK TO ORDER THIS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TODAY MARCH THE 22ND AT 6:00 AND IT HAPPENS TO BE RICHARDSON'S BIRTHDAY SO EVERYONE OUT THERE AND IF YOU SEE THEM OH HAPPY BIRTHDAY MAN ROQUE ALWAYS HERE. WE'RE GOING TO BE IN THE JACKSON DEN MARKET VICE CHAIRMAN FOR PRESENT COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN DUNCAN HERE COMMISSIONER RICH DOE FOR YOUR COMMISSIONER JASON STEWART HERE COMMISSIONER JIM FLYNN IF COMMISSIONER LYDIA DEPAUL HERE IT IS REGARDING ADJOURNMENT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL NOT HEAR NEW ITEMS AFTER 930 UNLESS OTHER MEMBERS OF COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENT ITEMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD BEFORE 930 THEY CONTINUE FOR THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OR AN ADDITIONAL MEETING.

THEY EXPLAINED THAT THE COMMISSION THIS NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS EVERY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO IS RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK SHALL ADDRESS THE CHAIRMAN AND SPEAKING AVOID DISRESPECT TO THE COMMISSION'S DOWNTOWN STAFF AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE

[V. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA]

[VI. ADOPTION OF MINUTES]

[IX.1. Proposed Prioritization of Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program Projects: A request by the Town of Bluffton for recommendation of approval to Town Council of the FY2024 Capital Improvement Program. (Staff - Kim Washok-Jones)]

DURING THE BACKGROUND OF ALL OF THIS WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF ONGOING PROJECTS SO IN YOUR YOU'LL NOTICE THAT WE HAVE BROKEN OUT ATTACHMENT ONE BY THREE PAGES THAT EITHER THE FIRST PAGE SPANNING MULTIPLE YEARS THE PROJECTS THAT WILL BE COMPLETED DURING FY 23 OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE NEW ONES THAT ARE PROPOSED AND HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY AND ADOPTED BY COUNCIL FOR PRIORITIZATION. AND THEN WE HAVE SOME NEW ONES FOR YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT. YOU'LL ALSO SEE PAGE THREE GOES BEYOND NOT ONLY FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUT INTO FUTURE FISCAL YEARS FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT YOU MAY DESIGNATE AS A PRIORITY TO THAT MEANS THAT THEY WILL BE PUSHED IN FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR.

SO THAT IS WHY YOU'RE GETTING THAT FIVE YEAR FISCAL OVERVIEW AND WE JUST WENT THROUGH ALL OF THIS THEY ARE NOT IN RANK THEY SHOULD NOT BE PLACED IN RANK ORDER.

IT'S JUST THEY'RE ALL A PRIORITY AND DEPENDING UPON FUNDING IF WE GET GRANTS WILL ADDRESS THAT YOU HAVE AN APPROPRIATE GRANT COMES UP WITHIN TIME PERIOD SO SO HERE WE HAVE IT AND A SYNOPSIS OF THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY COMMITTED BE COMPLETED THIS YEAR OR WILL BE AND REMOVED FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM LIST AND THIS IS NOT GREAT FOR YOU ALL TO SEE BUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS IN THE PACKET AND EVERYBODY CAN SEE THAT ONLINE AS ALL OF THIS IS IS AVAILABLE INFORMATION. WHAT WE HAVE ARE THE ONGOING 3630 536 PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE A DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO NUMBER 33 AND NUMBER 34 PREVIOUSLY ALL OTHER PROJECTS HAVE BEEN PRIORITIZED. THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO NEW ONES THAT WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD FOR PRIORITIZING AND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING AND . THAT IS THE TOWN WIDE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE.

THIS IS ONE THAT HAS BEEN OUT THERE COMING FROM THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR A WHILE.

STAFF IS PROPOSING TO MAKE THAT A NUMBER TO AND ALSO THE NEW RIVERSIDE VILLAGE.

[00:05:03]

IT IS A NUMBER ONE PRIORITY WITHIN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR A REALLY COOL LOOKING PLAYGROUND TO WELL IS A DIFFERENT PLAYGROUND ANOTHER PLAYGROUND THIS IS THE PARCEL ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE NEW RIVERSIDE GARDEN. BUT THANK I APPRECIATE THAT.

I BELIEVE THE NEW RIVERSIDE BERM PROJECT IS GOING TO BE A REALLY COOL PLAYGROUND.

YOU KNOW, THIS ONE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE TRADITIONAL THAN THAN THE ONE WE'RE PROPOSING AT NEW RIVERSIDE FAR NORTH AS WE INDICATED EARLY ON AGAIN THIS IN THE PACKET FOR FOLKS THAT WANT TO SEE IT ONLINE MORE CLEARLY WE ARE SHOWING YOU THE FIVE YEARS OUT SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE BEING BUDGETED AS NEED BE IN AS A NUMBER TWO PRIORITY THEY MIGHT BE KICKED DOWN TO A FISCAL YEAR THAT'S A FUTURE ONE FOR US.

SO ALSO IF YOU DO WANT TO SEE GOING ON ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF THESE PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE TOWN, YOU CAN ALWAYS VISIT THE TOWN WEBSITE AND THE EMBEDDED HERE IS TO THE CITY DASHBOARD BUT THIS WILL SHOW YOU HOW WE HAVE DISTRIBUTED CAPITAL PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE TOWNS JURISDICTION AND YOU'LL NOTICE THE INSET MAP IS THE NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT WE DO HAVE THEM ALL THROUGH OUR OUR TOWN AND SO 34 WOULD BE THAT NEW PLAYGROUND THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. NOTE THAT NOT ALL PROJECTS DUE TO MAP CONSTRAINTS BE SEEN ON THIS MAP SO THAT NOTE IS ON THERE BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT OR SOMETHING SAY THAT'S MISSING FROM THIS OTHER LIST THAT'S WHY WE'RE WORKING WITH IN WHAT ALL WE CAN GET ON THE LIST HERE. SO THE ACTIONS THAT YOU TAKE THIS EVENING THERE ARE NO CRITERIA FOR YOU TO BASE YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THAT LEGALLY MANDATED HOWEVER FROM THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 1996 THESE ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR WHAT YOU SHOULD TAKE INTO YOUR CONSIDERATION OF PRIORITIZATION THESE TWO PROJECTS THEY ARE ALSO WHAT STAFF IS USED IN RECOMMENDATION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SO YOUR AUTHORITY THIS EVENING IS TO APPROVE THE ZIP FISCAL YEAR 2024 PRIORITIZATION AS SUBMITTED OR TO APPROVE IT WE NEED A POSITIVE APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO COUNCIL WITH SUCH REVISIONS AS YOU MAY MAKE ANY DISCUSSION SESSION COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE THAT SHOWS ALL 36 PLEASE BECAUSE THE THAT WE HAD NUMBER 15 WAS SOMETHING CALLED CODE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES KIDS.

YES SIR AND THERE WAS NO WRITE UP FOR THAT IN THE PACKAGE. THERE IS NO DATA SHEET FOR THIS ONE. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE TWO PRIORITY THIS IS FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THOSE SKIDS ARE IN IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ACROSS THE COVES THERE USED TO BE PEDESTRIAN FOOT BRIDGES THAT SPANNED ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER AND THAT'S SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY UP AND AROUND CLEARLY NO LONGER EXIST.

THERE HAD BEEN SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO FOR THE TOWN TO GO AHEAD AND INVESTIGATE RECONSTRUCTING THOSE HOWEVER THAT'S DEPENDENT UPON GHOST ROAD ACQUISITION WHERE WE HAVE UNCLEAR TITLE AND SO AS WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH ACQUISITIONS THAT HAS BEEN PUSHED OUT. THERE'S ALSO THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT THERE YET WE'RE STILL IN THE LEGAL PROCESS OF ACQUISITION.

VERY ASTUTE OBSERVATION BY THE WAY THAT I MEAN IT WAS A CALL THE WRONG WAY BUT THERE ARE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE SAYING NO THAT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE. I SOLD ON SO GOTCHA.

ONE OTHER QUESTION YOU SEEM THE TOP ITEM IT'S ITEM NUMBER 28 IS IT SO YOU CAN HAVE A CAMPGROUND ALL PORTABLE I'M SORRY WRONG NUMBER 21 THAT COULD YOU SEE A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT ONE I DIDN'T REALLY GET ENOUGH OUT OF THE DATA SHEET. ALL RIGHT.

SO FOR THE NEW RIVER LINEAR TRAIL AND YOU CAN SEE WE WERE WORKING ON THAT THAT'S BEEN PREVIOUSLY PRIORITIZED AND HAS RECEIVED FUNDING THAT THAT IS ESSENTIALLY A RAIL TRAILS PROGRAM, AN OLD RAIL BED THAT IS CURRENTLY ON AN APPROVED PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY LINEAR TRAIL LEADS DOWN TO THE NEW RIVER. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND I HAVE IN AND PROCESS RIGHT NOW ARE DESIGNS OF A RUSTIC BATHROOM OUT THERE AS WELL AS EVENTUALLY SOME TRAILHEAD PARKING

[00:10:01]

SEVERAL MILES. GREAT. THANK YOU.

THAT'S SOMETHING I HAD A QUESTION. YES, MA'AM FOR THE PROJECT NUMBER 87 IT WAS PAGE 30 IN THE PACKET. OKAY.

THE WORKFORCE HOUSING. OKAY I WAS JUST CURIOUS THERE WAS AN UPDATED PROJECT STATUS SINCE IT WAS SPEAKING ABOUT ANTICIPATING TO BEGIN IN 2021. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANYTHING SO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS AN INITIATIVE OBVIOUSLY COMING OUT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN THIS IS ALSO REFLECTIVE OF US ENTERING INTO THE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PIECE OF PROPERTY OFF MAY RIVER ROAD. THAT CONTRACT IS STILL BEING NEGOTIATED AND THAT SCOPE IS STILL BEING LAID OUT ON IN THE ROLE THAT THE TOWN WILL PLAY IN THAT DOES THAT HELP? YEAH, I'M NOT ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE CAMERAS.

I WAS CURIOUS IF WE HAD A MAP OF THAT AS PART OF OUR MAPPING AREA ON THE WEBSITE LIKE COUNTY HAS SO THESE ARE SECURITY CAMERAS THAT THE PD USES NOT NECESSARY FOR TRAFFIC INFORMATION. SO NO CERTAIN GOT IT I YOU I'M SORRY I DID HAVE ONE MORE I THINK A STAFF RECOMMENDATION ITEMS 3334 MAKES SENSE TO ME YEP PROBABLY NOT.

I'M NOT PREPARED TO MAKE MOTION OF YOU WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IS NOT THE FIRST TARGET COMING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I MOVED TO THE PRIORITIZE LIST OF THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION FOR A SECOND SECOND AND FURTHER DISCUSSION ON PAPER OKAY CAN I HOLD YOU UP YOUR CELEBRATION

[IX.2. Unified Development Ordinance Amendments (Public Hearing): Amendments to the Town of Bluffton’s Municipal Code of Ordinances, Chapter 23, Unified Development Ordinance, Relating to Contributing Resources and Development Standards in Old Town Bluffton Historic District, including Article 3 – Application Process, Sec. 3.18, Certificate of Appropriateness-Historic District; Sec. 3.19, Site Feature-Historic District Permit; and, Sec. 3.25, Designation of Contributing Resources; Article 5 – Design Standards, Sec. 5.15, Old Town Bluffton Historic District; and, Article 9 – Definitions and Interpretations, Sec. 9.2, Defined Terms and Sec. 9.3, Interpretation of Dimensional Standards. (Staff - Charlotte Moore)]

GOOD EVENING AND SO THE AMENDMENTS WE HAD BEFORE EACH RELATE TO PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR TOWN BLUFFTON HISTORIC DISTRICT AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO GO THROUGH THE POWERPOINT AND THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE THINGS THAT WE THAT YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF AND I'D BE GLAD TO GO THROUGH THE TEXT IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT IF YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON THAT.

BUT LET ME START SO AGAIN YOU SEEN THIS BEFORE I'M SORRY WE'VE SEEN THAT PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE NOT A STATE COMMISSION, A HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SO WE HAVE TAKEN IT BEFORE THEM JUST TO GET COMMENTS. THEY SEEM TO BE FINE WITH IT.

SO THERE A COUPLE OF PROCESS RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE WANT TO UPDATE INCLUDES CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE DESIGNATION OF A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE. BASICALLY THOSE ARE THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND TWO OF OUR COVES WITHIN OLD TOWN WE HAD 84 TOTAL AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS WITHIN OLDTOWN GO UP TO HISTORIC DISTRICT AND ARE SOME FORMATTING WE'RE CORRECTING SOME TYPOS AND WE ALSO WANTED TO CORRECT THE FRONT BUILT TO ZONE FOR A COUPLE OF ZONING DISTRICTS I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT AND THEN WE WANT TO CORRECT A SQUARE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN OUR SHEDS AND OUR CARRIAGE HOUSES SO THERE'S A GAP RIGHT NOW THE ORDINANCE AND WE'D LIKE TO FIX THAT AND THEN WE ALSO WANT TO INCLUDE SOME REVISIONS AND NEW DEFINITIONS.

SO THE FIRST PROCESS ITEM THAT WANT TO CORRECT OR UPDATE WOULD BE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. ANY TIME THERE IS NEW CONSTRUCTION WITH AN OLD TOWN AN ALTERATION TO A BUILDING, A RELOCATION OF A STRUCTURE OR A DEMOLITION A COFA WOULD BE REQUIRED. SO THERE ARE SOME ITEMS HERE THAT WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'VE DONE. WE ARE MAKING DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN OUR NINE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND OUR CONTRIBUTING AND WE'RE ALSO PREPARING GUIDELINES TO SUPPORT OR

[00:15:01]

SO THIS GIVES THE PRESERVATION COMMISSION LITTLE BIT OF TEETH TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE'RE THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF OLD TOWN AND BEEN A LITTLE BIT PROBLEMATIC AND I THINK IN THE PAST FEW YEARS AND THEN WE ARE KEEPING THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICATION MANUALS THAT WOULD APPLY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION ALTERATIONS AND IN ADDITION TO THAT IF IT'S A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THEN THE CRITERIA SIX THROUGH NINE WOULD ALSO APPLY. WE WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT OUR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES HISTORIC FEATURES ARE PRESERVED IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONS THAT ANY NEW ADDITIONS WILL BE DISTINCT FROM THE THE OLDER BUILDING AND THAT IF IT HAD TO BE FOR SOME REASON TAKEN APART THAT IT COULD BE EASILY DONE SO WITHOUT DESTROYING THE HISTORIC FABRIC OF THE BUILDING FOR RELOCATION WE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE RELOCATION IS DONE VERY CLOSE BY TO THE ORIGINAL SITE IT MAY NOT BE BUT BEING ABLE TO HAVE THIS CRITERION IN THERE WOULD BE HELPFUL AND THAT ALSO THE PLACEMENT IN THE NEW LOCATION WE SIMILAR TO ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION SO WE THINK THESE WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL AND THEY ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU FIND IN OTHER COMMUNITIES RELOCATION STRUCTURES. WE'VE HAD A FEW OF THESE RECENTLY NOT A FEW AND A COUPLE RECENTLY AND WE HAVE AN INFORMAL PROCESS RIGHT NOW FOR RELOCATION AND I THINK IT'S CREATED A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION. WHAT CRITERIA APPLY AND HOW DO WE GO ABOUT THIS AND WE THINK ADDING THIS INTO THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO RELOCATE A BUILDING. THERE HAVE TO BE AN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE AND IT COULD BE ANYTHING BUT THAT THAT WOULD ALLOW THE PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE. IDEALLY THE BUILDING KNOW WE WANT TO SEE THAT BUILDING RELOCATED ON THE SAME SITE IF POSSIBLE OR VERY CLOSE BY.

WE ARE AN ENGINEERING REPORT TO DETERMINE IF THE BUILDING IS SAFE TO MOVE.

IDEALLY IT SHOULD BE MOVED FULLY INTACT OR IF IT CAN'T BE AND PARTIALLY INTACT AND THEN DISASSEMBLED. AND SO WE WANT AN ENGINEER TO BE TO TELL US WHAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR THAT RELOCATION SITE. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A COFA APPROVED FOR THAT SITE ALSO BEFORE THE BUILDINGS MOVED SO THE APPROVAL COULD BE CONDITIONED UPON GETTING THAT COFA FOR THE NEW SITE AND AGAIN DOCUMENTATION OF THE RESOURCE SO THAT IS NEW. THE GENERAL ASSURANCE STRUCTURE IS IT'S REALLY IS A LAST RESORT ITEM AND NOW CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES WOULD NOT GO THROUGH THE COFA PROCESS WOULD BE A SITE FEATURE EXCUSE ME IT WOULD BE A COFA BUT THE CRITERIA ARE NOT AS STRINGENT AS FOR A

[00:20:05]

WE'VE WE'VE HAD SOME DIFFICULTY THE PAST FEW YEARS WITH THOSE SO I WANT TO SWITCH OVER TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE JUST TO GET AWAY FROM THE PROCESS I DID MENTION EARLIER THAT WE ARE MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE CONTRIBUTING RESEARCH SECTIONS. WELL RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DELIST A STRUCTURE FROM BEING A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE AND KIND OF DONE THAT INFORMALLY SO WE WANT TO HAVE A PROCESS BASIC IT'S APPLYING THE SAME STANDARDS AS IF YOU WANT NOMINATE A STRUCTURE TO BE CONTRIBUTING.

WE'RE USING THAT SAME CRITERIA TO CONSIDER DE-LISTING SO WE HAVE THEN WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF EXPERIENCES SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE WHERE PEOPLE HAVE WANTED DO THAT AND WE'VE DONE IT INFORMALLY AND THAT WOULD BE A TOWN COUNCIL. IT'S GONE THROUGH TOWN COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY. SO LET ME SWITCH OVER TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

AS I MENTIONED WE HAVE A LITTLE GAP IN OUR SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT SO GARDEN STRUCTURES AND CARRIAGE HOUSE TYPES ARE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. GARDEN STRUCTURES RIGHT NOW ARE SMALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. THEY CAN BE SHEDS, THEY CAN BE WALLS AND FENCES.

SO IT'S ANYTHING LESS THAN 120 SQUARE FEET. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A BUILDING AND IT GOES THROUGH THE SITE FEATURE AND PERMIT NOT THE COFA AND THEN WE HAVE A CARRIAGE HOUSE BUILDING TYPE RANGE FROM ANYWHERE FROM 200 SQUARE FEET TO 1200 SQUARE FEET.

SO TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THAT GAP WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT THE SIZE RANGE FOR HOUSES BE 121 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM AND THAT EVERYTHING BENEATH THAT WOULD BECOME A SHED NOT A GARDEN STRUCTURE. AND I THINK THAT NOMENCLATURE HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING. THE GARDEN STRUCTURE, THE NEW DEFINITION FOR THAT WOULD BE ANYTHING THAT'S AN ENCLOSED THAT COULD BE A FENCE A WALL, A GAZEBO PERGOLA AND THEN THE SHED BE THE ENCLOSED STRUCTURE THAT COULD BE A FREEZER. IT BE A UTILITY SHED, IT COULD BE A SMALL BUILDING. SO THE CARRIAGE HOUSE BUILDING TYPE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ATTACHED TO THAT.

IT COULD BE A GARAGE BUT THEN IT WOULD BE AGAIN THE MINIMUM SIZE WOULD BE 121 SQUARE FEET AND TO GIVE YOU VISUALLY SO THAT YOU CAN GET A FEEL FOR WHAT THAT SIZE WOULD BE THE SHED AND 220 SQUARE FEET OR LESS ARE THE SMALL AND MEDIUM UTILITY SHEDS THAT YOU SEE THERE AND THEN THE LARGER SHED WOULD FALL UNDER THE HOUSE BUILDING TYPE.

AND JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE PICTURE ON THE LEFT, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WOULD BE A CARRIAGE HOUSE BUILDING AND THEN THE SHED WOULD BE A SHED.

SO JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AND OTHER CHANGES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING THAT MY TITLE IS INCORRECT THAT I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

WE ARE PROPOSING SOME CHANGES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COURT HISTORIC DISTRICT, THE FRONT BILL TO EXAMINE I'LL TALK ABOUT IN A MOMENT THE CARRIAGE HOUSE BUILDING TYPE AND FOR ALL OF OUR ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN OLD TOWN WE WANT TO CHANGE THE TEXT AND THE CARRIAGE HOUSE PORTION AT WHICH YOU MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE CARRIAGE HOUSE BUILDING TYPE THAT'S BACK IN THE UDL AND THEN WE WANT TO MAKE CHANGES THE SIZE RANGE AGAIN 121 SQUARE FEET WE ARE CHANGING NOTES TO THE WORD CHARACTERISTICS AND THEN CHANGING TO BETTER RELATED THINGS HERE FOR EXAMPLE IT STATES IT'S VERY SMALL HERE THAT CARRIAGE HAVE TO BE PLACED BEHIND A PRIMARY STRUCTURE. ONE OF OUR AMENDMENTS TO THIS SECTION IS THAT THE UDR ADMINISTRATOR CAN DETERMINE ANOTHER LOCATION IF IT'S A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE ON THAT PROPERTY AND IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO GET A CARRIAGE HOUSE BEHIND SO POTENTIALLY IT COULD BE IN FRONT OR IT COULD BE AT THE SIDE. WE'D LIKE TO GIVE THE

[00:25:04]

SO THERE'S THAT CHANGE AS WELL AND AND I'VE GONE THROUGH THAT KIND OF QUICKLY AND I CAN GO OVER ANY OF THE TEXT IF YOU'D LIKE AND I'D BE GLAD TO BRING THAT UP.

BUT THE REVIEW CRITERIA THAT IDENTIFIED IN UDL REALLY NONE OF THESE APPLIED AND SO THERE'S REALLY NO RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROJECT. YOU HAVE TO BRING THAT UP.

IT'S A REQUIREMENT SO THE ACTION TONIGHT YOU CAN IMPROVE AS PERCENTAGE AND MAKE AMENDMENTS TO WHAT'S SHOWN OR DENIED AND THEN THE NEXT STEPS TO THIS WOULD BE GOING TO COUNCIL AND I BELIEVE WE MADE AN ADJUSTMENT THIS AFTERNOON THAT THIS WILL GO TO TOWN COUNCIL IN JUNE FOR FIRST READING I THINK IT'S STILL A LITTLE BIT UP IN THE AIR RIGHT NOW BUT IT'S MAY OR JUNE THAT IT WILL HAVE ITS FIRST READING AND WITH THAT HERE IS THE PROPOSED MOTION WE HAD TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS QUESTIONS ID SO MANY QUESTIONS I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION ACTUALLY JUST A QUICK QUESTION YOU DON'T THEN IS IT STILL WHETHER IT'S OKAY AND I KNOW WE'RE FOCUSING IN ON HISTORIC DISTRICT ON THIS ONE BUT PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE AS SOON AS WE CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUE IN THE AREA THAT CREATED THAT APARTMENT BUILDING ON BUCK ISLAND, CAN YOU GET SOMETHING IN FRONT OF US NEXT FUN.

OKAY. PERFECT, PERFECT. I JUST YEAH, WE DON'T WE DON'T WANT TO IN THE INTERIM HAVE ANOTHER ONE THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH SO THAT'S ALL I HAD.

I KNOW KATHLEEN PROBABLY HAS A COUPLE OF THEM. OH YEAH.

THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE REALLY TO WHAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SO ONE OF THE REASONS I ASKED THAT QUESTION COULD BE BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY NOW.

OKAY BECAUSE ONE OF THE REASONS I ASKED THAT IS LIKE THEY WERE MONTESSORI THEY HAD AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE TRIP ON THE STREET THEY HAD A TREE BEHIND THE BUILDING WHICH IS PUSHING THEIR BUILDING CLOSER TO THE STREET SO IT BROUGHT THIS TUMBLE OF JUNGLE OF THOUGHT SO THEN SPILL OUT OF THAT IF WHAT IF THE TREE HAD BEEN UP FRONT WITH EVERYONE BACK BEHIND IT PUSHING AND PULLING AND THAT SET BACK BEING HAVING SOME FLEXIBLE CITY IN THAT SO THAT WE CAN PROTECT TREES WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO FOLD THAT LANGUAGE INTO OUR ACT AS IT PERTAINS TO OLD TOWN BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A LOT OF TREES AND MAYBE THAT'S IN THERE AND YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT AND IT MAY BE A NON-ISSUE. SO I THINK AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE IT'S THEY DO I KNOW IN MY EXPERIENCE THEY'RE VERY HELPFUL IF YOU HAVE EXISTING TREES THAT ARE MAKING YOU HAVE TO DO THINGS THAT AREN'T NORMAL THEN THERE ARE SOMETIMES CONCESSIONS SO IT'S PROJECT SPECIFIC WELL THAT CAN SEEING AS ALSO TREES COME OUT BECAUSE WHERE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND SO THERE'S JUST NO PROTECTION OF THE TREES THAT ARE EXISTING IN LARGE SO AND OUR TREE ORDINANCE I DON'T SEE NECESSARILY GOES ENOUGH TO PROTECT THOSE SO ONE OF THE THINGS I HAD THIS BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD LANGUAGE TO ADD MAKE THEM RESOURCE IT WOULD BE A CRITERIA THAT WOULD IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH I STARTED THINKING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THE CRITERIA THAT WE APPLY FOR A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE IN THAT CASE IT PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE CATEGORIZED CONTRIBUTING USUALLY IT IS SO A TREE WOULD MIGHT BE ASSOCIATED WITH AN EVENT LIKE THIS DISCUSSION.

OKAY SURE. I MEAN IN THAT CASE YEAH I THINK THAT WOULD QUALIFY TO BE CONTRIBUTING BUT TREE THAT IS NOT ON THAT IT MEAN THEY'RE CONSIDERED A RESOURCE CATEGORY IT WOULD JUST BE IN SOME OF THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT LANGUAGE AND MAY BE RELATED TO UPDATING THE TREE ORDINANCE SECTION THE LANDSCAPING SECTION AND WE DO KNOW THAT STILL NEED TO DO SOME FURTHER WORK WITH THE SETBACK CHANGES THAT ARE BEING RECOMMENDED IN HERE.

IS THERE AN OPTION FOR VIDEO ADMINISTRATOR TO WAIVE SPECIFIC SET BACK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW

[00:30:03]

THEY COULD HAVE JUST TAKEN THEM OUT AND AND MITIGATED FOR SO INSTEAD OF FORCING THE DEVELOPER TO PUSH IT BACK CAN WE CAN WE CREATE AN ADMINISTRATOR OPTION TO GIVE THEM FLEXIBILITY ON THOSE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS? I BELIEVE THAT THERE COULD BE LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR THAT. AND THE OTHER THING I JUST REALIZED IS VERY EFFICIENT YOU BROUGHT UP A POWERPOINT I WAS WORKING ON MY POWERPOINT I DIDN'T REALIZE AND I MISSED THE SLIDE HERE. LET ME SEE IF I CAN BRING MINE BECAUSE KIND OF RELATES TO THE SETBACK THAT YOU WERE MENTIONING AND. LET ME LET ME BRING THAT UP BECAUSE I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION I DON'T SEE IT HERE BUT GO AHEAD.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER DUNCAN. I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE THE YOU CAN YOU CAN CRAFT LANGUAGE IN THE STUDIO TO PROTECT TO PROTECT THIS PROJECT SPECIMEN TREES IN THE EVENT THAT THAT SPECIMEN TREE CREATES AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK I KNOW IN THE PAST HAVING ATTENDED SOME OF THESE MEETINGS THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT YOU'LL HEAR STAFF RECOMMEND THAT A VARIANCE BE REQUESTED THAT THERE IS A SPECIMEN THAT IS CREATING A SETBACK COULD YEAH SO YOU CAN RELOCATE THAT STRUCTURE OR RECONFIGURE IT OBVIOUSLY IF IT'S A SITUATION THAT CAN USE TO PRESENT ITSELF THESE SPECIMEN TREES WHICH IS SOUNDS LIKE MAY BE THE CASE RATHER THAN REQUIRING APPLICANTS GO THROUGH THE MORE COSTLY PROCESS AND TIME CONSUMING PROCESS OF VARIANCE IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT STAFF SHOULD CONSIDER LOOKING INTO SO TAKING SOME NOTES I'LL BE SURE TO RELATE CHARLOTTE AND CARRIE WILL AS WELL.

THAT IS AN EXPENSIVE AND TIMELY PROCESS. THOSE VARIANCE REQUESTS ONE WAY AND ONE WAY MAKE A MOTION. WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND IT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THE STAFF LEVEL AND I THINK YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO BUT I THINK THAT STAFF THIS IS WHENEVER WE GET A DIRECTION FROM Y'ALL ALL LIKE THIS I HOPE I HOPE YOU'VE SEEN STAFF ACTING ON IT SO I THINK ANOTHER ONE DIRECT AND I'M AFRAID YOU'LL FORGET BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE THANKFULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SO THAT'S ONE OF THE BEAUTIES VARIABLES OF YOU KNOW WHAT OTHER YEAH I'M LOOKING AT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND I CAN SEE WHERE IT MAY BE USED AS GARAGE DWELLING UNIT SMALL SCALE SHOP STUDIO WORKSHOP ONE OF I'M I DON'T I APPARENTLY I DON'T ALL THE PARTS OF THE AUDIO MEMORIZED I DON'T KNOW WHY YET BUT ONE THERE FOR YOUR ROTATION I I'M WORKING ON IT BUT I WONDERED IF WE HAD THIS A NUISANCE LANGUAGE THAT WE COULD REFERENCE BECAUSE I THINK POTENTIALLY THINGS BEING USED AS A WORKSHOP POTENTIALLY THIS COULD BE OF THIS YOU KNOW YOU'RE LISTENING TO SOMEBODY 2:00 IN THE MORNING BECAUSE THEY DECIDED TO GO BUILD WHATEVER WOOD YOU COULD HAVE WITH YOUR FRIEND WHO HAS A GARAGE NEXT DOOR AND JUST LIKE TO DO WOODWORKING BUT WHEN IT STARTS BECOMING LIKE A WORK PLACE ALSO POTENTIALLY FOR THE SHED NOW FOR THE PROCESS THREE STRUCTURE IS BUT IT CAN BE SMALL SCALE SHOPS STUDIO WORKSHOP LIKE IT COULD POTENTIALLY CREATE NOISE NUISANCES OR VISUAL NUISANCES BEING STORED I JUST WANT TO MAKE I JUST WANT TO SEE IF WE CAN REFERENCE SO LONG AS IT DOESN'T LOOK YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING DOESN'T BECOME A NUISANCE TO NEIGHBORS OR IF IT'S ALREADY COVERED THERE'S A NUISANCE LANGUAGE THAT ALREADY COVERS IT. IT DOESN'T NEED BE REFERENCED THE NOISE ORDINANCE AND I HAVE SOME OTHER THINGS AND THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THERE PERMITTED AND OR CONDITIONAL USES PERMANENT USES SO THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT AS FAR AS WHAT YOU CAN PUT IN THEM SO A WOODWORKING SHOP COULDN'T BE EVERYWHERE OR WHATEVER. I MEAN I HAD A NEIGHBOR THAT WAS RUNNING A SMALL BUSINESS OUT OF HIS GARAGE REPAIRING MOTORCYCLES WHICH MEANT I LISTEN TO MOTORCYCLES ALL DAY LONG. THEN HE WOULD COME HAVE A BIG SMILE AND BLOW THEM UP AND TAKE THEM OUT. THIS WAS A NUISANCE TO ME NOT IT WAS DOWN DOWN SOMETHING I COULD DO SOMETHING MY NEIGHBORHOOD BUT IT'S PERFECTLY ALLOWED BUT IT'S STILL A NUISANCE THAT THAT'S WHAT'S IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY THAN NOT NOT THE BUILDING TYPE THOUGH SO WITHOUT GETTING INTO TOO DETAIL ON THIS IS MY FIRST QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE UDV ANY MONEY RICH QUICK SCHEME AND THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION I THINK SO BECAUSE

[00:35:01]

IF THAT'S THE CASE I THINK THE STAFF AND OUR COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD ACT ACCORDINGLY AND TO PREVENT THAT BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE BEST I CAN I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS JUST THIS CATCH ON NUISANCE PROVISION IN ORDER SO THERE ARE NUISANCE PROVISIONS AND AS YOU SAID IT WAS THE OFFICE'S MISSION WITH INTENT AND IN THERE AND ALSO AS COMMISSIONER GILMORE POINTED OUT THERE THAT THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING ACCESSORY USES CONDITIONAL USES AND MAINTAINING APPROPRIATE ACCESSORY USE TO A RESIDENT OF YOUR STRUCTURE. WELL AND AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT SO FOR EXAMPLE IN THE TOWN BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HERE THAT YOU DEALT WITH THAT WELL THAT'S RUNNING A BUSINESS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THAT'S RUNNING AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP AND THAT IS A FINANCIAL OFFENSE AND SOMETHING THAT CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO RUN AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP OUT OF A HOUSE. YEAH I MEAN PURE RESIDENTIAL AREA YOU KNOW THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY MEAN IT ENDS ON THE ZONING ZONING DISTRICT BUT FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE BEST MAJORITY TOWN IS WITHIN A FEW DAYS THESE HAVE THEIR OWN SET OF COVENANTS RULES THAT GOVERN IT. AS FOR THE UDA WHICH IS LARGELY TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND BEYOND YOU KNOW WE WE THERE IS A IT'S AN AUDIT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THAT BUT IT'S A MIXED USE DESIGN TO BE REALLY FLEXIBLE WITH COMPATIBLE USES AND TO ALLOW THAT REAL VIBRANCY TO THE THIS MIXED RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL AREA.

SO OBVIOUSLY THAT FLEXIBILITY CAN BE CAN BE ABUSED FROM TIME TO TIME.

SO WE WANT TO BRING THAT UP SO WE CAN POSSIBLY GET TO IT. ANOTHER QUESTION I OF THE SITUATION THAT I HAD FOUND THERE WAS A OUTDOOR RESTROOM I WAS ASKED TO DO ONCE AND OUTDOOR SHOWER AND IN CONTEXT OF THIS GARDEN STRUCTURE SHOULD IT SOMEWHAT HELPS GUIDE I'M NOT SURE I JUST WANT TO I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH AN OUTDOOR RESTROOM WHICH CAN AND CANNOT DO AND THAT THAT THAT REALLY DOES FULLY ADDRESS IT LIKE YOU CAN'T HAVE IT CONDITIONED OR YOU CAN'T HAVE CONDITIONED OR THE OUTDOOR SHOWER LIKE WHAT IS ENCLOSED MEAN LIKE DOES THAT MEAN AS LONG AS I'VE GOT IF I HAVE A FENCE STRUCTURE BUT THERE'S NO INSULATION BUT I'VE A ROOF OVER IT WHERE WHERE IS THE LINE GET DRAWN ABOUT WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT WHEN IT PERTAINS TO THOSE KINDS OF USES BECAUSE I CAN MAKE IT SQUARE CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE AND IF AS YOU KNOW I CAN MAKE A SMALL OUTDOOR RESTROOM AND I CAN INSULATE IT WITH AN INSTALL IT'S NOT IT'S MORE OF THE GARDEN STRUCTURE AND IT STILL MIGHT NOT MEET YOUR EVEN YOUR CHEF REQUIREMENTS IT COULD BECAUSE IT'S SMALL ENOUGH IT COULD STILL HAVE CLASSIFIED AS A GARDEN STRUCTURE AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S HOW WE WANT TO CLASSIFY IT. I JUST WANT TO ASSURE THE LANGUAGE THAT THAT IF YOU'RE DEALING WITH PLUMBING AND ALL THOSE THINGS I MEAN YOU HAVE TO GET PERMIT.

SO REALLY WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO GO THROUGH HISTORIC YOU WOULD NECESSARILY CODIFY IF IT WAS A GARDEN I THINK ANYWAY I JUST WANT TO I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT DOESN'T I'M JUST SAYING I KNOW THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE BEING ASKED FOR I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE LANGUAGE THE GARDEN STRUCTURE SAYS LIKE WHAT A FENCE HAS PROPOSED. YEAH WHATEVER IS NOT IT'S NOT A ROOF YEAH. NOT A ROOT STRUCTURE LIKE IT'S IT'S IT'S AN ENCLOSED COFFEE BAR WHICH CAN BE A ROOF STRUCTURE SO SO IT'S KIND OF SO THIS IS WHY I LIKE THE PLAN THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING BECAUSE. SO I NEED TO ADD LANGUAGE THAT IT IS NOT A WHILE EATING CLOSE TO DOES THAT FOR ME. WELL ARE WE SAYING THAT THE GARDEN A GARDEN STRUCTURE IS IF

[00:40:05]

DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? DO WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT? I MEAN LIKE IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE I WANT TO I'M NOT SAYING WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS OR IT DOESN'T COVER I'M JUST SAYING THINK OF THAT WINS AS YOUR CRAFTING IT DOES IT COVER IT DOES IT NOT COVER IS THERE OPPORTUNITY FOR CONFUSION SO WITH GARDEN STRUCTURE VERSUS SHARE I THINK THE WAY THAT STAFF CREATED THESE DEFINITIONS IS THE GUYS CLASSIFIED AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND WHAT IS PLUS ONE IS NOT AND THERE ARE IT'S 120 SQUARE FEET UNDER AND 11 ACRE LOT SO IT IS DIFFICULT DO MY HYPOTHETICAL BUT I SURE DON'T GET WITH THE PRESUMING AND ENCLOSE QUESTION FACILITY OR SHADOW FACILITY LIKELY TO BE ONE OF YOUR THREE SHEDS BECAUSE IT IS AN ENCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IT IS THE GAZEBO WHICH AGAIN A SHORT DISTANCE AWAY OR STRUCTURES CAN BE THEY DON'T HAVE THAT SORT OF LIMITATION STORIES BUT A GAZEBO THAT IS AN ENCLOSED WITH THE CLASSIFIED AS A GARDEN STRUCTURE IS THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THREE CATEGORIES THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CLOSELY GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE SHARED CARRIAGE HOUSE IS YOU HAVE THE SQUARE FOOT DIFFERENTIATING THE SHED AND CARRIAGE HOUSE 120 SQUARE FEET AND THEN WITH THE GARDEN STRUCTURE YOU HAVE VERSUS AN ENCLOSED IS WHAT DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM THE SHED AND THE REASON FOR THOSE WAS BECAUSE ALL ENCOMPASSING GARDEN STRUCTURE DEFINITION WOULD HAVE CREATED IT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF SHEDS THAT YOU COULD PUT ON THE PROPERTY AND SIX OF THOSE ARE CLASSIFIED AS GARDEN STRUCTURES BECAUSE IT WASN'T MAYBE SORT OF DESIRE TO PUT A NUMBER LIMIT THOSE LIKE FENCES BECAUSE OF THAT WHEREAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS TO PREVENT WAS TO PREVENT THAT ABILITY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CHANGE TO CREATE SOME SORT LINE AND THEN YOU COULD FOLLOW AT THE STAFF LEVEL AS TO WHEN SOMETHING WOULD BE A CARRIAGE HOUSE BUT SOMETHING THAT YOU SHARED AND IN CERTAIN ISSUES OR CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS APPLY RIGHT THAT I CAN I CAN GO OUT AND DESIGN OUTDOOR RESTROOM THAT'S SURROUNDED BY A FENCE THAT DOESN'T HAVE WALLS BUT DOES HAVE A ROOF CALL IT A PAVILION WITH A FENCE AND DETACH IT FROM THE BUILDING, MAKE IT TEN OR NINE BY 12 AND I EAT A TEN BY 12 AND I HAVE CHECKED ALL THOSE BOXES AND IT'S AN OUTDOOR NOW IT'S A GARDEN STRUCTURE SO LIKE AND THAT'S FINE MAYBE WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. I'M JUST MORONIC. YOU WANT TO PUT TEN TOILETS IN YOUR YARD THAT'S NOT SO IF I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, MAYBE AN ENCLOSED IS LITTLE BIT TOO VAGUE AND PERHAPS WE NEED TO WORK ON THAT WITH AN ENCLOSED AND ENCLOSED AND WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS I MEAN ROOF DOESN'T MEAN WALLS BOTH FROM THE KIND OF WALLS BUT IF YOU BUY A FENCE I THINK IT'S A FAIR POINT ON THE ROOF THOUGH LIKE DO WE REALLY WANT SOMEONE BE ABLE TO HAVE LIKE A CARDBOARD AND A PAVILION AND I MEAN LIKE DO WE WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE 25 RUINED STRUCTURES ON THERE A LOT? DO WE NOT CARE? I DON'T DOESN'T THE QUESTION IF THEY'RE REALLY STILL ALLOWED TO THAT TO IMPROVE SOMETHING YOU HAVE GAZEBOS THAT WOULD BE A SHED IF YOU TAKE THE ROOFS AND I CAN SEE WHAT I MEAN.

WELL YOU CAN HAVE A SHED AND I CAN THIEBAUD IN ANOTHER SHOW MEAN YOU CAN LOOK THROUGH IT SO I THINK THERE ARE SOME HOUSES IN BOLTON BLOSSOM THAT HAVE TEN OR 15.

I'M GOING TO SAY THE QUESTION IF WE WANT IF THAT SOLVES THE ISSUE AT HAND ENTIRE DISTRICT ON WHICH THERE ARE SOME RECORD. YEAH MY QUESTION IS GOING OFF OF KATHLEEN'S IS ARE WE STILL OKAY SAYING THAT IT HAVE A ROOF AND IT'S STILL A GARDEN STRUCTURE AND YOU CAN HAVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF ROOT STRUCTURES WHETHER THEY AREN'T FULLY ENCLOSED WALLS AND LET ME ADDRESS I MEAN IT IS IT IS I ONE GARDEN STRUCTURE NEXT TO ANOTHER GARDEN STRUCTURE THAT'S

[00:45:03]

I'M NOT SAYING IT IS DOING IT OR HAS DONE IT. I WOULD SAY YES OR ROOF STRUCTURES AND THE GARDEN STRUCTURES WOULD HAVE BEEN EN ROUTE.

SO GAZEBO IS ONE OF THE THREE SHEDS I HAVE. WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF ROOFS FOR ROOF STRUCTURES SHEDS IN ONE CATEGORY AND THAT LIMIT SOME TO THREE INCHES RELATED BUT THEIR OUTDOOR KITCHEN AND THEIR FENCE AND UNLIMITED GARDEN STORE OTHER GARDEN CENTERS I JUST FEEL LIKE A GAZEBO IS A IS A STRUCTURE YOU KNOW INTUITIVELY ISN'T THERE AN EASIER TO JUST SAY YOU CAN ONLY HAVE THREE WHATEVERS THAT'S WHY I WAS AGAINST THE ROOF YEAH MAYBE THE ROOF THE DELINEATING FACTOR BETWEEN WHETHER YOU CAN ONLY HAVE THREE OR WHETHER YOU CAN HAVE UNLIMITED. SO IF THERE'S NO ROOF THEY CAN HAVE UNLIMITED AS. THAT'S SO WHY DON'T WE CHANGE THAT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING. OKAY, GOOD. YOU GOT TO KEEP THE STRUCTURE AS. THE GARDEN STRUCTURE SHOULD COULD BE A FENCE.

IT COULD BE AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN IT COULD BE YOU COULD HAVE 20 OF THOSE IN YOUR YARD LOOK PERFECTLY. IT'S THE IT'S A NUMBER WHAT I'M HEARING IF I'M SAYING IT WRONG PLEASE TELL ME WHAT I'M HEARING IS ONE TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ROOFS TO NO MORE THAN THREE AS OPPOSED TO HAVING 20 GAZEBOS BECAUSE YOU COULD BUT YOU COULD IN THEORY GET HOWEVER MANY GAZEBOS YOU WANT THAT ARE ALL LESS THAN 120 SQUARE FEET AND PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER SO THAT YOU HAVE THIS THOUSANDS SQUARE FOOT ROOF THING. BUT THERE YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I JUST IT SEEMS IT'S GREAT SO I JUST SEE LIKE THERE'S WAYS THAT THAT COULD BE ABUSED WHERE IF WE JUST MADE IT ROOFS THAT WOULD SOLVE ANY I WOULD HAVE SHOULD BE GOING THROUGH IT BECAUSE IT'S A VERTICAL IT IS A VERTICAL IMPROVEMENT THAT'S MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN A ROOF OR A PATIO OR A DECK OR OTHER KIND OF OUTDOOR YOU KNOW AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN ISN'T NECESSARILY BAD BUT WHEN YOU GO PUTTING A ROOF ON IT. YOUR NEIGHBOR SEES THAT AND IT MAY BE YOU KNOW, IT'S GOT CHARACTER. HOW ABOUT HOW ABOUT SOMETHING IN THE LANGUAGE ALONG THE LINES OF ROOFS STRUCTURES SUCH A SHED LIMITED TO THREE NO MORE THAN THREE AND THEN NON ROOF GARDEN NON ROOFED YEAH THEN YOU CAN STILL DO PERGOLA AND STUFF I MEAN THAT WOULDN'T BE A ROOF YOU COULD STILL MARTHA YEAH THAT'S TRUE.

SO HOW SHOULD THAT BE LISTED RIGHT NOW I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK IF IT WAS A 100 SQUARE FOOT GAZEBO AS A AND THEN THE ROOF IS SO WE'RE TRYING TO DISTINGUISH THEM BY SQUARE FOOTAGE BY THE SIZE AND NOW WE'RE DISTINGUISHED FROM THEM BY A ROOF OR NOT EVEN IF THEY'RE LESS 121 SQUARE FEET. SO I'M JUST DON'T GO BACK TO THE WORDS 1921 IS SUFFICIENT I CAN IT I'M SORRY THE GARDEN STRUCTURE ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER OR DON'T YOU AGREE BECAUSE I MEAN IT ON THE SIDE PROPERTIES THAT THEY ARE IT SEEMS SO THE ZERO FALL IN THE SHED CATEGORY EVEN A TWO SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE CHANGE WOULD BE CORRECT ARE WE LIMITED TO THREE SHOWS EVEN IF THEY'RE UNDER 121 SQUARE FEET ON THOSE.

CORRECT. THEY BE MORE IT'S NOT WHOLE SO INDIVIDUALLY AND ONE CONCERN IS WITH RESTAURANTS POTENTIALLY TO HAVE FREEZERS YOU KNOW WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TOO MANY YOU KNOW IT SHOULD PROBABLY BE ONES THAT ARE GETTING UP TO THREE. THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE PLANTED THAT AS PART OF THE BUILDING. THE KATHLEEN'S SAY THAT THEY BUILT A GAZEBO AND THEY PUT THE FREEZER ON IT. YEAH, YEAH I THINK YOU CAN SOLVE THE ISSUES BETWEEN THE SQUARE DISCREPANCY THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S YOUR SHOT VERSUS THE CARROT HOUSE BUT I THINK YOU CAN IN THAT SAME LANGUAGE ADDRESS HAVING AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF ACTUAL STRUCTURES JUST BECAUSE SMALL SO IF IT HAS A ROOF ON IT THEN IT'S IN THE SHARED CATEGORY REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S BEING USED AS A SHED OR A GAZEBO OR WHATEVER A FREEZER OR WHATEVER THEY WORK IN ZEBO OUT AND JUST SAY REFURBISHES YEAH CERTAIN STRUCTURES I'M CHAIR AGAIN MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS IT SOUNDS LIKE THE DEFINITION SHIFT IS FINE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DEAL WITH ENCLOSED ROOMS ANYTHING LIKE THAT IS THE PROPOSED DEFINITION FOR GARDEN STRUCTURE WHICH IS ANY UNDISCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BECAUSE THAT GIVES TOO MUCH FLEXIBILITY FOR CREATING THESE ROOF STRUCTURES THAT AREN'T FULLY ENCLOSED.

[00:50:01]

I'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE BUT MY ARGUMENT WOULD BE THAT SHED IS KIND OF A CATCH ALL FOR ANYTHING THAT IS A TRUCK AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IS UNDER 120 SQUARE FEET THAT IS NOT OTHERWISE A GARDEN STRUCTURE. SO IT'S THE ONLY THING I'M TRYING TO AVOID IS A YEAR FROM NOW A YEAR AND A HALF FROM NOW SOMEBODY WALKS IN THAT FRONT DOOR AND SAYS I'VE GOT A GAZEBO GARDEN STRUCTURE AND THEN THE ARGUMENTS ARE IT'S JUST CLEAR THE LANE IS GOING TO BE HERE. I DON'T HAVE IT. I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A ZERO AND THEN YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. CAN'T WE JUST SAY THAT I GET WHY WE CAN'T JUST SAY IF IT HAS A ROOF IT'S OKAY OR FIND ANOTHER WORD OTHER THAN SHED THAT WOULD CAPTURE ROOF STRUCTURE YOU KNOW SHED HAS A CERTAIN KIND OF STATION WE WANT TO CAPTURE A GAZEBO IN IT SHOULDN'T GAZEBO ARE NOT MUTUALLY COMPATIBLE IS THERE ANOTHER WORD WE CAN USE OTHER THAN SHED? ONE IS THAT CARPORT COULD BE DETACHED CAN BE A CARPORT YEAH CARPORT GAZEBO SHED A SHED IS ANOTHER OF SEARCHERS OR OTHER STRUCTURES WITH ROOFS THAT KEEPS COMING BACK BECAUSE THAT'S THE THAT'S THE ONE ELEMENT THE DESIGN PLANNING COMMISSION IS CONCERNED ABOUT IS NOT HAVING TOO MANY ROOFS. SO THE ROOF IS THE DEFINING FACTOR YEAH AND I THINK RICHARDSON'S RIGHT WAS IT'S REALLY AN UPDATE THE GARDEN STRUCTURE BECAUSE GARDEN STRUCTURE IS INCLUDED IN THE SHED UNDER THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IT'S JUST THAT THE A CLEAR DEFINITION THAT ONE YOU'RE RIGHT IT'S THE ROOF TOO THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THAT REMOVE THE GAZEBO WHICH WOULD HAVE A ROOF.

I MEAN I THINK IT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS SPOT ON BECAUSE BECAUSE AGAIN SHED IS A SHED AS AND IN ITS DEFINITION WHETHER ROOFED OR AN ENCLOSED ENCLOSED IT'S REALLY THAT CATCHALL ONE STOREY DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LESS THAN 200 SQUARE FEET.

OKAY. BUT BUT HERE'S THE THING. LET ME SAY ONE WORD QUEENS.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF FACIAL TISSUE? OKAY.

WHEN I SAY SHED YOU THINK OF A STRUCTURE WHERE THE FOUR WALLS OR A UNIT OR THE LUMBER THAT'S MIGRATING AND SERIOUSLY I'M THINKING OF IT FROM A PRACTICAL SENSE HOW DO WE MAKE IT EASIER ON WHOEVER IS DEALING WITH WHEN SOMEBODY MOVES HERE AND DECIDES NO IS EVIL IS NOT A YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK DEMOLISHED OR AND WE'RE FINE TO IT I MEAN WHATEVER CONDITIONS Y'ALL WOULD LIKE AND I HOPE YOU DON'T I HOPE YOU DON'T MIND ME JUST TRY TO THROUGH THIS WHEN YOU ARE IN THIS IS A FANTASTIC LGB WELL EVERYBODY KNOWS SINCE I'VE BEEN SO IN IN ONE WAY BECAUSE GARDEN

[00:55:09]

I DO THINK THAT AS COMMISSIONER DUNCAN KIND OF TOUCHED ON ADDING THAT ROOF COMPONENT ALONG AN ENCLOSED TO THE GARDEN STRUCTURE MAY MAY TAKE CARE OF THAT SO THAT IT HAS A ROOF SHARE IN IT AND THEN WE JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS GAZEBO WHICH MAY AS I THINK IT AS COMMISSIONER I'VE POINTED OUT KNOW JUST MAKE A NEW EFFICACY OF THIS.

I DON'T KNOW WHY IT CAN'T JUST BE OF THE SHED IT HAS A REAR ADDITION OR YOU KNOW SO THE THING WITH I THE ONLY REASON AND THIS IS FROM YEARS AGO YEARS AGO SO I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO ONE STORY AND WHETHER WE HAVE GAZEBOS INSTALLED I, I THINK AS A 20 SQUARE FOOT TWO STOREY IS GOING TO BE WAY OUT OF SCALE WITH THE REST OF THOSE DORIC DISTRICT SO I WOULD NOT WANT IT TO BE A DO I MEAN THAT SO JUST NOW WE'RE IN A TREE HOUSE AND SCHOOL ROOF STRUCTURE IS IT 120 SQUARE HERE'S THE PLAN SO HERE'S THE OTHER STRUGGLE I HAVE IS WE HAVE VARYING DIFFERENT LIKE THERE ARE LOT SILOS ARE SO DIFFERENT I KNOW SITE COVERAGE LIMITS ON THAT AS WELL BUT I MEAN YOU TALKED THREE SHEDS AN HOUR AND A CARRIAGE HOUSE AND I WAS LIKE FRIGHTENING A SMALL LOT WITH ALL OF THAT AND WHEN SAID I UNDERSTAND THERE'S IMPERVIOUS OR SITE COVERAGE THAT LIMITS BUT THAT CAN BE A LOT OF COVERAGE AND YOU CAN DO IT IN SMALL INCREMENTS WHERE IT DOESN'T WHERE YOU CAN GET A STORMWATER AFFIDAVIT SO YOU NEVER HAVE TO COME TO STORMWATER CALCULATION SO YOU CAN KEEP BUILDING UP OR YOU JUST DO THAT IN YOU KNOW YOU DON'T ASK PERMISSION KIND OF THING YOU KNOW JUST I START GETTING REALLY FRIGHTENED BY THE CONCEPT OF THE WAYS THAT THAT CAN GET ABUSED AND THEN LIKE LIKE YOU WERE JUST MENTIONING THE COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL IS SUCH A DIFFERENT THAN RESIDENTIAL AND WE TREAT THEM THE SAME IN THIS AND I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THAT AS WELL. AGAIN I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE OTHER THAT PERTAIN BUT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW THOSE HOLD TOGETHER AND HOW THAT IS IMPLEMENTED ON DIFFERENT LOCKS THROUGHOUT LIKE I JUST WANT TO

[01:00:01]

SO IN HER YOU KNOW WHAT MEAN FOR THE BUILDING TYPES AND ALL OF CHAPTER FIVE FOR LACK OF ANY WHEN I WAS TALKING THINK I THINK THERE'S CLEAR DIRECTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION YOU'RE PROBABLY ARE GOING TO END UP PUTTING IN A MOTION HEARING SOME MOTION UP HERE TO SEPARATE NO MORE THAN THREE STRUCTURES OR THROUGH JUST TO BE WORDED APPROPRIATELY RESTRUCTURED APPROVES AND THAT'S INCLUSIVE OF THE SHEDS THAT ARE UNDER ANY ROOF STRUCTURE UNDER AND THEN 20 SQUARE FEET AND INCLUSIVE OF CARRIAGE HOUSES MAY BE IN EXCESS OF 200 SQUARE FEET.

IT'S WRITTEN AS ONE CARRIAGE HOUSE, THREE SETS GARDENS, ONE CARRIAGE HOUSE AND THREE CARRIAGE THREE TREES OR TWO STRUCTURES UNDER 120 SQUARE FEET.

YES, WE OKAY. UNLESS THERE'S ANOTHER WORD THAT CHARLOTTE YOU FIND YOU'RE ATTRACTED TO. I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION AND IT REALLY ADDS TO THE DEFINITION OF ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION RECENTLY IS THE THAT I THINK THE HISTORIC BUILDING DOWN BY RIGHT FAMILY PARK AND CHURCH TO THE CROSS AND WHERE IT IS THOUGHT THEY'VE JUST REMOVED ALL THE SIDING OFF OF IT AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WENT THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION AS A SIDE FEATURE BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST REPLACING SO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DOESN'T DO THAT BUT THAT'S STAFF LEVEL REVIEW THEY THERE IS STAFF THAT HAS REVIEWED IT AND SAID IS SO THIS DO THEY LOOK AT COLOR WITH THAT YEAH READING OUR HOW SO THEY COULD CHANGE THE COLOR CAN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO THAT BUT THEY COULD YEAH WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO THEY HAD TO CHANGE THE ENTIRELY CAN THEY NOT WITHOUT APPROVAL THROUGH LIKE GWEN'S HANDLING ALL THAT HE'S OKAY THAT'S PRESERVATION OF THAT FROM FROM EVEN FOR A SITE FEATURE YEAH OKAY ANYTHING ANYTHING TO IMPROVE YOUR CLIENTS TAKING A LOOK AT BECAUSE THAT ONE'S A CONTRIBUTING RESERVE OKAY IT WAS NOT A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE IT WOULD STILL BE A SITE FEATURE APPLICATION BUT GLEN WOULDN'T BE INVOLVED NOT NECESSARILY NOT I MEAN NOT AS FORMALLY AS HE IS CONVERTING STRUCTURES.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE HIS LINES ARE DRAWN BUT I KNOW THAT THAT HISTORIC PRESERVATION HE'S EYE ON IT. SO DO WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF ALTERATION? WE DO NOT LOOK ARE WE USING THE NATIONAL WHAT SEEMED LIKE SOME OF THE THINGS COMING INTO ALIGNMENT WITH THE NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION ARE WE USING THEIR DEFINITION FOR ALTERATION? WE DO RELY ON THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR GUIDANCE. YES REFERENCING AND THEY DO THEY HAVE THERE IS A SPECIFIC DEFINITION FROM THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION BUT IT WOULDN'T BE FOR NOT HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION OF HISTORIC DISTRICT.

YEAH YEAH SO IT MIGHT BE PERTINENT TO ACTUALLY ADD A DEFINITION FOR ALTERATION ALTERATION INTO OUR STUDIO OR AND JUST MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T CONFLICT THAT SECRETARY INTERIORS I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO DO THAT. LET ME GO BACK TO OKAY.

WHEN REFERRING TO THAT IT DEFAULTS TO THAT IF THERE ISN'T A DEFINITION EXPERT OKAY I'M IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOU AS SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION SO WE USE THAT DOCUMENT FOR GUIDANCE SO MEANS REMAIN FOR A DEFINITION OF PRETTY MUCH ANYWHERE IS IN HERE THAT'S NOT CLEARLY DEFINED SO WHAT'S THEIR DEFINITION OF SHED ANOTHER SO I'M SURE THIS SURE I MEAN THOSE OH OH SHOOT PROVIDE REPORT CRITERIA AND THERE WAS AN ENGINEER REPORT THAT YOU MADE REFERENCE TO AND FOR THE ENGINEERING THAT'S PROVIDING THE REPORT DO THEY NEED TO BE A LICENSED INDIVIDUAL FOR THAT I MEAN I KNOW IT'S A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SO YEAH REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA OKAY OKAY GREAT AND ALL RIGHT THAT'S IT.

I DO WANT TO BRING UP ONE THING I MENTIONED BEFORE AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO LET ME DO

[01:05:04]

SO FIVE FEET IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL. I THINK THEY'RE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT WE HAVE. CHARLOTTE OR I MEAN IS DUMB QUESTION I'M GLAD YOU'RE INCREASING THEM. WHY DO YOU HAVE AN UPPER LIMIT? DOES ANYBODY USE THE UPPER LIMIT? YES.

YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE FAR BACK. OKAY YEAH.

SO SO SO THEY THEY'RE NOT JUST GOING RIGHT TO TEN ALL THE TIME THEY WILL SOMETIMES GO TO GO TO 24 AND IT'S AN AREA WHERE PEOPLE CAN CONGREGATE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING OR IF YOU HAVE A RESTAURANT YOU CAN PUT CHAIRS AND TABLES. I HAVE I HAVE A LITTLE CHALLENGE WITH THIS AND I DEFER TO STAFF ON IT BUT PART OF WHAT WE DID WAY BACK IN THE DAY WAS TO TRY AND MAKE SO THAT SOMEBODY COULD BUILD ON CALHOUN STREET UP TO THE ROAD LIKE THE STORE WAS IN LINE WITH WHAT IS NOW AS PEARL IT GOT BUILT UNDER THOSE GUIDELINES.

AND IF WE DO THIS WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY MORE OF THAT CLOSE IN OLD TOWN.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE BECAUSE PORCHES THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE KINDS.

SO THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT CHALLENGING WITH THE BUILT LINE BEING SO CLOSE BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN'T PUT A PORCH BECAUSE YOU'RE OUTSIDE ARE OVER THERE. THAT ADDRESS IS RIGHT THERE BECAUSE. YOU'VE GOT THIS FRONT PORCH IS ON THE TWO EXAMPLES I GAVE YOU CAN DO IT'S STILL VERY INVITING THAT WAY. I DO HAVE A QUESTION TO WHEN WE ARE JUST ALWAYS KIND OF BEEN CURIOUS ABOUT WE GOT HERE WITH THE SETBACKS BUT IT SEEMS LIKE ALL OF OUR SETBACKS ARE BASED ON A LOT WITH WITH NO REGARD FOR LOT DEPTH AND SO I'M ONLY WORRIED ON SOME OF THE LOTS WE'VE ALLOWED YOU KNOW THE SUBDIVISIONS TO BE AS SMALL AS 50 FEET WIDE BUT I DON'T I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT MY PREGNANT I'M WRONG IF THERE'S A DEPTH REQUIRED WHEN WE'RE DOING SUBDIVISION SO IF WE'RE INCREASING THE FRONT SETBACK BY A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET I'M JUST IF WE'VE LOOKED AT WHAT THAT MEANS FOR CERTAIN LOTS GIVEN THAT ALL OF OUR GUIDELINES ARE WRITTEN ABOUT WIDTH AND DEPTH AND THERE'S ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT SHAPED LOTS AND WHAT THE IMPACT OF THAT MIGHT BE MAYBE THAT'S JUST A CASE BY CASE THING BUT WHAT'S KIND OF CURIOUS A LOT OF TIMES YOU KNOW DEPENDING ON WHERE THE LOT IS AND IF IT'S REALLY LARGE AND VERY NARROW AND THAT A LOT OF THESE SETBACKS ARE SUPER RESTRICTIVE. SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT WOULD BE A CASE BY CASE CORRECT.

AND THAT'S GOING TO BE MORE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO VIDEO THAT'S HANDLING MOSTLY. YEAH, BUT THINKING ABOUT LIKE EARLIER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TREES I MEAN IT'S A GOOD SHOULD THERE BE LANGUAGE OVER THAT STAFF LEVEL VERSUS THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE IN A HARDSHIP LIKE THAT A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY FOR SOMEBODY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BID ON THEIR LOT NOW RIGHT BASICALLY YEAH JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE WE KNOW THAT EVERY LOT IS AT LEAST 50 FEET DEEP OR A HUNDRED FEET DEEP OR WHATEVER.

AND SO WE'RE THE SETBACKS KIND OF BASED ON WIDTH AND ZONING BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY RELATE TO THE ACTUAL LOT. SO SINCE DON'T HAVE ANY CRITERIA BASED ON DEPTH BUT THE REAR SETBACK IS THE SAME EVERYWHERE REGARDLESS OF HOW DEEP THE LOT IS.

SO I JUST THINK IT MAY THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT ON CERTAIN LOTS TO ALMOST RESTRICT JUST THE USE OF THE BUILDABLE AREA FOR THEM TO A POINT THAT THEY MAY NEED TO STILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE COULD BE A HUNDRED FOOT WIDE AND 40 FOOT DEEP AND ALL A SUDDEN THEY CAN'T AND YOU HAVE A TINY LITTLE STRIP THAT YOU CAN BUILD A WELL A FOOT WIDE IT CLASSIFIES AT A DIFFERENT LOT TYPE ACRES BUT THOSE ARE STILL VERY RESTRICTIVE ON THE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LOOK AT THE DEPTH WHATSOEVER IT DOES LOOK AT THE AREA THE PROPERTY AREA THOUGH. SO INSIDE OF THAT IT IS SPEAKING THAT YOU DID A SMALL LOT AND I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NOMENCLATURE THAT THEY USE AND IT HAS TO BE A 50 FOOT WIDE.

IT ALSO HAS TO BE LIKE A QUARTER ACRE AND SO THAT THAT RIGHT ON GUESS THAT DRIVES THE

[01:10:01]

BUT THERE'S BEEN LANGUAGE IN I DON'T KNOW LEGALLY SPEAKING BECAUSE IT'S ZONING OR THE VARIANCE OF LIKE WITH THE TREE SITUATION IF IT WAS STACKED SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE OF THE HARDSHIP THAT THE TOWN HAS PUT ON THEM.

SO WHY WOULD IT BE FAIR FOR THEM TO? I'M PLAYING DOUBLES.

OKAY. WHY WOULD IT BE FAIR FOR THEM TO HAVE TO PAY TO THROUGH A WHOLE VARIANCE PROCESS JUST BECAUSE THE TOWN CHANGED THERE ? SO IF SOMETHING THE STAFF IS INTERESTED IN SO CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE WE COULD LOOK INTO DRAFTING LANGUAGE THE ISSUE OF THE SPECIMEN TREE MAY BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER IT'S TERM IT'S A CLEARLY DEFINED TRIGGERING EVENT THAT CAN OCCUR THAT CAN BE GIVE YOU THE ABILITY TO GIVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ABILITY THAT VERSUS TRYING TO CREATE A DEFINED LOT TYPE MAY TRIGGER IT OR YOU WANT TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT FLEXIBILITY IN THE ADMINISTRATOR SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE A DEFINED SET OF GUIDELINES THAT THEY CAN FOLLOW. I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU COULD PUT WE CAN MAYBE PUT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT IF THERE'S A LOT DEPTH ISSUE THAT THE UDR ADMINISTRATOR COULD MAKE A DECISION AND THAT WAY THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ZBA ALL THAT WE'RE GOING TO ABSOLUTELY YOU KNOW THEY NEED TO REVISIT SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE I JUST DON'T KNOW LEGALLY CAN YOU DO THAT THROUGH WITHOUT THE VARIANCE KIND OF SITUATION OR DOES THE THE UDR ADMINISTRATOR GRANT THE VARIANCE SO THEY WILL GRANT A TRADITIONAL VARIANCE AROUND THE USE OF ADMINISTRATOR WE CAN DO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY LIKE WITH BUILDING MATERIALS.

SO THERE WAS A SET BACK MONTHS SO THAT'S WHY YEAH THERE'S NOTHING DIFFERENT I MEAN NOTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT UNDER THE LAW EXPLICITLY PROHIBIT THAT OKAY THAT'S OUR ARGUMENT FOR WHEN WE WEREN'T GOING DOWN THE PATH WE COULDN'T THEORETICALLY YOU COULD PUT IT IN THERE THAT IF THERE THERE'S A LOT AS YOU WERE I DON'T KNOW THE BEST WAY TO WORD IT THAT IT'S A THE DISCRETION OF THE U.S. ADMINISTRATOR. I THINK THE I THINK YOU SOUNDED IN THE WEEDS HERE THE ISSUE IS REALLY GOING TO GET DOWN INTO A SERIES OF DECISIONS IN THE WITH THE LEGAL ISSUES THAT WILL RESULT FROM DENIALS, APPROVAL DENIAL AND APPROVALS MAKING SURE THAT YOU'RE NOT RENDERING AND CAPRICIOUS DECISIONS BUT YOU DO ADMINISTRATOR AND THAT'S WHY YOU THESE REALLY SPECIFIC ZONING LAWS BECAUSE THESE ARE THEIR LAWS I THINK YOU JUST NEED TO GO TO BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE ESSENTIALLY BUT I THINK I THINK YOU'RE THAT'S THE PREFERRED METHOD BUT CERTAINLY LOOK INTO IT TO SEE IF WE CAN GRAB LANGUAGE AND ALSO LOOK INTO THE PROPERTIES TO SEE WHETHER IT'S REALLY AT THIS POINT.

ONE MORE QUESTION I HAVE ON THAT TOO THOUGH IS IS THERE AND IF SOMEBODY HAS A LARGER LOT

[01:15:05]

HAVING THOSE BUILDINGS CLOSER CREATES A MORE URBAN RATHER THAN I THINK I MEAN I THINK WHAT WE'VE LEARNED FROM THE PAST YEARS IN DEVELOPMENT SINCE THE INITIATION OF THE ORDINANCE I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT FULLY REPRESENTATIVE OF WHERE WE WANT TO BE THAT'S WHY WE'RE PUSHING THIS BACK FIVE FEET ANYWAY. I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD NEED TO FORCE THEM TO BE UP ON THE STREET. THERE'S PLENTY OF ACTIVITY ON THE STREET I'M NOT LIKE I'M JUST NOT EVEN WORRIED ABOUT WORRYING ABOUT THAT OUR OLD TOWN AREA SO I GUESS YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK THE CORNER OF CALHOUN AND THE BRIDGE WITH THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE RIGHT UP ON THE STREET YOU KNOW I COULD SEE WHERE PUSHING IT BACK MAKES A LOT OF SENSE BUT THESE LOFTS AREN'T THAT DEEP AND THE BUILDINGS AREN'T THAT SMALL WHY WHY IS THERE AN UPPER LIMIT? THE ONLY THING I DON'T WANT TO SEE IS PARKING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING LIKE I WANT I WANT THAT IN FRONT OF IT TO BE PEDESTRIAN. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I CAN SEE HAVING THAT UPPER LIMIT. I'M SORRY I WASN'T THERE ANYWAY SO THE PARKING HERE COULD BE IN ,RIGHT? YEAH. SO AGAIN THAT GOES BACK TO THEN WHY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THE UPPER LIMIT I THINK WAS THAT NOT A HUGE PART OF THE ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN? I MEAN I FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY CHANGING SOME OF THE VISION DOCUMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. YEAH, ALL THE CHARADE SOME OF IT NAILED IT ON THE HEAD FROM WHAT I, I MEAN THERE WAS SUCH A BACKLASH WITH WITH THAT THE THREE LOFTS AT THE OLD ECCENTRICITIES THEY I MEAN I JUST DON'T SEE THE TOWN LIKE THE TOWN PEOPLE SAYING WE WANT ALL THESE BUILDINGS RIGHT UP ON THE STREET.

I THEM SAYING THEY LIKE A LITTLE RELIEF FROM THE STREET BETWEEN THEM AND THE BUILDINGS HAVE ROOM FOR TREES AND HAVE ROOM FOR GATHERING SPACES I THINK THESE NEW PROPOSED ZONES GIVE YOU THAT FLEXIBILITY THOUGH BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT FROM 5 TO 25 FEET BUT IT PROHIBITS ABILITY TO DEVELOP THE WAY THAT WE'VE TRADITIONALLY DEVELOPED OLD TOWN WHERE THESE BUILDINGS WERE SET BACK FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. THAT'S WHAT IT ACTUALLY PROHIBITS BY DOING THIS IS BUILDING THE CHARACTER OF THE OLD TOWN HALL.

A LOT OF THE BUILDINGS SET BACK TEND TO BE SINGLE FAMILY FROM WHAT I'M THINKING AND THEY'RE NOT AMONG THE BUILDING TYPES FOR EXAMPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CORE THEY TEND TO BE MORE COMMERCIAL OR MULTIFAMILY AND THOSE ARE TYPICALLY CLOSER TO THE STREET.

SO SOME OF THE ONES THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN THAT ARE SET BACK THEY WERE ORIGINALLY SO BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL IF WE LOOKED SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT BUILT THAT HOUSE WITH THEIR ELEMENT WHERE THEY ALLOWED SOME FLEXIBILITY ELEMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR LEVEL OFFICIAL TO PROVIDE A 50% REDUCTION OR A

[01:20:05]

THAT COULD BE IF WE CAN FIGURE THAT THAT OUT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY GET A LITTLE BIT MORE WHICH IS KIND OF IN LINE WITH WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING OUT LOOKING FOR.

SO TO REDUCE THE FRONT FRONT SETBACK OR MILITARY ZONE BUT WHATEVER PERCENTAGE INCREASE THE MAXIMUM OF WHATEVER PERCENTAGE AGAIN THAT TO ALLOW THAT FOR SPECIAL SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WE CAN LOOK AND IF STAFF EVERYBODY THINKS IT'S RIGHT THEY CAN BRING IT BACK TO 40 MORE COMMENT QUESTIONS AND I WANT TO MAKE I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS I'M SORRY GO THE LAST MEETING WE HAD I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT PARKING AS THAT WASN'T GOING TO BE CHANGED IN A DIFFERENT ITERATION OR WE NOT ADDRESSING PARKING NOT AS PART OF THIS WILL BRING PARKING NEXT MONTH OTHER IS THERE SOMETHING SPECIFIC NO I JUST WASN'T SURE IF THIS IS GOING TO BE LIKE THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE REVIEWING OR IF IT'S COMING IN MULTIPLE YOU ARE NOT IS IT AN ALL THE I'M JUST MAKING SURE YEAH I WAS CURIOUS WHY THE WE'RE GETTING RID OF THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR LISTING THE LISTING CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES IS THAT TIME OR OCCASION MAYBE IS IT STILL BUT MIGHT HAVE CHANGED WHERE IT IS I THINK IT IS STILL THE APPLICATION FROM THE ANNUAL LOOKS ACTUALLY THE APPLICATION IF YOU GO UP TO 325 TO THE PART OF YOU'RE STARTING OUT. THAT WAS JUST A QUICK QUICK QUESTION.

YEAH. I'LL TELL YOU THE HARDSHIP ON THAT ONE BECAUSE OUR OWNERS ARE HERE ALL THE TIME. IT'S HARD TO GET A SIGNATURE. WELL, OKAY SO WHAT THEY ARE THEIR APPROVAL REQUIRED AT SOME POINT IT IS IT WILL BE ON THE APPLICATION.

WE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY TO HAVE TO HAVE THAT STATEMENT SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WASN'T IT WOULD BE REQUIRED BUT SOME MINOR THE TOWN CAN DECIDE TO LIST OR DELIST THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT WHEN YOU CROSS OKAY I KNOW THAT.

YEAH BUT BEAR WITH ME ONCE AGAIN. SO THE WAY IT IS THE WAY THAT IT READS NOW IS THAT IF A TOWN COUNCIL DECIDES THAT THAT SORT OF CLASSIFICATION OR AN HBC THEY CAN CERTAINLY COMPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE PROPERTY.

UNDERSTAND. SO IT'S CORRECT AND SO THE TOWN COUNCIL COULD PROCESS AN APPLICATION TO HAVE A STRUCTURE DESIGNATED AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE FOR THE TOWN OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THAT WOULD BE PART OF IT TO BE CONSIDERED BUT THAT'S THAT'S THE WAY THAT THEY CAN DO IT OVER THE OBJECTION OF A PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S THE WAY THAT I READ THIS WITH THIS SECTION NOW. WE DID THAT IN THE MID 2000 WHEN WE DID THE INITIAL INTERPRETING SECTION WE DIDN'T HAVE PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S A THAT HAVE GOALS ZONING CHANGES HAPPENED WAS OBJECTION TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND SO DESIGNATING AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES EFFECTIVELY ZONING CHANGES IT CREATES THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THAT COMMUNITY RESOURCE IT WAS A HIGH STANDARD YOU KNOW WHY ARE WE TAKING IT OUT NOW OR IS IT JUST SIMPLY THE THE SIGNATURE ON THE APPLICATION THAT'S BEING CHANGED? I THIS IS THIS IS ABOUT THE SIGNATURE WHICH IS AGAIN REQUIRED BUT WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE PROPERTY OWNERS ACTUAL RIGHTS IN REGARD TO THAT PROCESS. IT'S JUST A ADMINISTRATIVE THING ON AN APPLICATION CORRECT I'M GOING TO DEFER TO STAFF ON THAT. OKAY.

I'M IN LOOKING AT WHAT THE VIDEO SAYS HERE. OBVIOUSLY TAKING OUT THAT LANGUAGE PROVIDES NO FLEXIBILITY AND YOU KNOW, AMENDING THE APPLICATIONS CAN BE DONE AS WELL. SO AGAIN, THE ZONING IT'S THE ZONING CODE HAVING THE TOWN COUNCIL HAVE THAT ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THE AND MAINTAIN THAT POWER TO DESIGNATE SOMETHING AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE I TOWN IS PUTTING THESE PROTECTIVE BARRIERS ON IT LIKE THEY CAN DO

[01:25:06]

WELL, I'M SURPRISED SHE'S IN HERE BECAUSE INITIAL 80 STRUCTURES WE DEEMED IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO THE TOWN IN THE HISTORY A WHOLE TO HAVE THOSE STAY BECAUSE WERE WE WERE LOSING WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT WERE NEGLECTING THEM AND THEY WERE GETTING LOST.

SO WE CAME UP WITH THAT INITIAL LIST OF 82 OR 83 STRUCTURES AND YOU KNOW SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WEREN'T HAPPY, WERE LIKE OKAY OR YOU KNOW IT WAS AND I THINK THAT'S THE POINT IS THAT THERE NEEDS AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I TRIED TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION WAS THAT ABILITY OF THE TOWN TO BE ABLE TO DESIGNATE A RESOURCE AS CONTRIBUTING OVER THE OBJECTION THE PROPERTY OWNER IS WHAT IS BEING CREATED BY THE REVISIONS TO 25 TO NOW WHETHER COUNCIL CHANGES THE APPLICATION APPLICATION CHANGE TO ACTUALLY REMOVE THAT SIGNATURE SECTION AND THAT'S THAT'S UP TO COUNCIL AND STAFF WHETHER WHEN THEY GET TO THAT PROCESS.

BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW THE WAY THAT THE LAW WAS WRITTEN IS THAT GETS APPROVED THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON HAVING IT DESIGNATED AS CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE.

OKAY I JUST FEEL LIKE IF WE'RE ACTUALLY TAKING AWAY PROPERTY RIGHTS I'D LIKE TO THINK ABOUT THAT HARDER THAN IF IT'S JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETAIL. I MEAN I HATE TO FIND OUT AS A PROPERTY OWNER THAT MY PROPERTY IS SOMETHING THAT WAS CHANGING ABOUT MY PROPERTY WITHOUT MY CONSENT BUT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CHANGE LIKE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO IT NOW AND WE'RE GIVING THEM THAT ABILITY RIGHT NOW. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND IF THE TOWN COUNCIL ALREADY HAS THIS ABILITY AND THIS IS LITERALLY A SIGNATURE OR THEY DON'T HAVE THIS ABILITY AND WE'RE GIVING IT TO THEM AND WHY THAT'S CHANGE THE TOWN COUNCIL DID. I'M I'M SURPRISED THAT THIS IS ENDING HERE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU BECAUSE IN 2000 WHENEVER IT WAS 2007 ISH GIVE OR TAKE THAT WAS NOT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO OUT AND GET EVERYBODY'S SIGNATURE TO DO IT IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE TOWN COUNCIL PUT THINGS ON THE LIST. IT WAS PURVIEW THEIR DECISION LIKE IT WOULD SEEM LIKE IT'S THEIR DECISION RIGHT TO TAKE THEM OFF AND WE JUST HAD THIS STRAIGHT COMMENT IN THERE I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT GOT PUT IN BUT MAYBE THAT THE MISTAKE FOR THAT BUT AGAIN PUT IN A DECISION WRITERS TOWN COUNCIL THAT ARE COMFORTABLE TAKING IT OUT IF TRULY WHAT IT HAS ALWAYS DID IS IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN TREATED THAT WAY IT'S IT'S BEEN ON THE APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER YOU KNOW ADMINISTRATOR FOR TOWN COUNCIL TO NAME FOR THESE APPLICATIONS I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH HOW MANY PROPERTIES IF ANY HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE DESIGNATION WITH OR ON APPLICATION OF THE PROPERTY OR THE MAJORITY OF IT AS COMMISSIONER WELL WHEN WE'RE DONE THROUGH THE YOU KNOW THIS PROCESS 325 BUT IT WAS THE TOWN COUNCIL'S PART OF THE ON THE SURVEY THAT WAS DONE OF THE PROPERTIES THE HISTORIC DISTRICT SO IT'S NOT IT'S IT'S SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL FOR A ZONING COMMISSION TO REQUIRE THAT WRITTEN CONSENT PRIOR TO A ZONING CHANGE THAT COULD BE INITIATED AT THE TOWN LEVEL BECAUSE A LEGISLATIVE ACTION OKAY IT'S JUST INTERESTING THAT AND I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING TODAY OR IN THIS REVISION IT'S THE HISTORY OF KIND OF WHERE WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE BUT IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO DO THEN THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

I HATE TO SAY THIS BUT WE MAY HAVE TO STICK A PIN IN THIS AND GET THE HISTORY OF THAT HOW IT WAS HOW IT WAS PUT IN BECAUSE I'M IN AND I MEAN THERE'S A UP HERE BUT IF SOMEBODY IS THAT UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT AND WE DON'T THE ANSWER TO IT I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO IT. AS MUCH AS I HATE THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO PUSH IT BACK A MONTH TO FIND OUT SURE WE CAN DO THAT. EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TONIGHT THE THINGS THAT YOU'D

[01:30:07]

I DON'T KNOW THAT COULD CHANGE . I JUST DIDN'T KNOW.

I JUST DON'T WANT TO UNKNOWINGLY CHANGE SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY RIGHT.

BECAUSE IT'S ALL JUST KIND OF LUMPED INTO THE THING I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT THERE BUT I ADD TO YOUR CONCERN AS WELL I KNOW SHE WAS SAYING I WAS GOING TO GO IN APRIL OR MAY ANYWAY SO IF WE PUSH BACK A MONTH IT JUST WILL GO ON. RIGHT.

BUT SHE SAID IT WAS GOING TO JUNE OR OH YEAH YOU KNOW I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHANGES WERE BUT I KNOW THAT 322 THAT'S ACTUALLY WAS AMENDED BACK IN JANUARY OF 2022 IS PROBABLY AMENDED AT OTHER POINTS PRIOR TO THAT AS WELL. SO WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT WE CAN GET MORE THAT I HAD BUT SO THERE'S AN ITEM IS THIS IS IT IS IT A TABLE KIND OF THING OR IS A RECOMMENDATION EXCLUDING THESE ITEMS WE HAVE ALL OF THAT WORK I DON'T KNOW LOOKING AT THE RICHARDSON I THINK IT WOULD BE BEST TO TAKE ONE SALES TAX. IT'S NOT ABOUT TO ME IT'S NOT ABOUT CAUSING AN ISSUE IT'S BEING COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE PASS ON TO COUNCIL AND IF WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT WE ANOTHER QUESTION IF WE HAD TWO QUESTIONS THAT THEY SHOULD EXPLORE YEAH THE ONLY REASON I'M HESITATING AND TRYING TO THINK FOR OF THE PROCESS IS BECAUSE THIS IS A THIS WAS A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE PUBLIC NOTICES EVERYTHING OUT AND I'LL NEVER DO THAT AGAIN IN TIME FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND WE WOULD THEN BE DELAYING IT FOR MORE THAN WE CHANGE THAT THEN WE CHANGE THAT PUBLIC SO THAT WE CAN DO A SHORTER NOTICE 15 DAYS YEAH SO WE HAVE BUT THEY HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT WELL PUBLICLY NOTICE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THAT THAT I WON'T HAVE TO PUT THE INFORMATION. THAT WAS A QUESTION I KNOW AND AGAIN I'M SORRY I'M TRYING TO DO TOO MANY THINGS FULL TIME. HOLD ON.

I'M TAKING NOTES OF WHAT THOSE ORDINANCE TWO ORDINANCES WERE THAT AMENDMENT 325 TO SO THAT WE CAN I CAN PUT UP RIGHT NOW ON AN ORDINANCE QUESTION THE WE WE COULD TABLE IT Y'ALL COULD ALSO RECESS FOR 5 MINUTES TO SEE IF I CAN'T PULL THOSE TWO ORDINANCES AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTION FOR YOU IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE OTHER ISSUES.

I DO HAVE ANOTHER POINT AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S GOING TO INVOLVE YOU SO YOU MIGHT IT MIGHT BE A MINUTE. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD WAS LOOKING AT 3.25.24 WHERE IT SAYS ANY CONTRIBUTE CAN CREATE A RESOURCE IT SEES TO MEET THE CRITERIA WHICH IS BACK HERE AND 320 5AI WAS WONDERING HOW YOU INTERPRET THAT BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THOSE CRITERIA THE DIMINISHED CONDITION OF THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE FALLING INTO DISREPAIR WAS NOT A REASON ACTUALLY TO DO LIST BECAUSE IT'S NOT BASED OFF OF LIMITS. THE CRITERIA IS IT BASED OFF OF ITS CURRENT CONDITION IT'S BASED OFF OF ITS HISTORICAL TO EVENTS OR PERSONS DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER QUALITY TYPES.

SO DIMINISHING CONDITION WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE GIVEN THE MEANS TO DO LISTED IS THE WAY I THAT I'M READING THAT SO THAT'S WHY I'M THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING ABOUT IF IT NEEDS TO MEETS THE CRITERIA IT SAYS THAT I MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR DE-LISTING BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CRITERIA THAT DIMINISHED CONDITION INTO DISREPAIR DOES NOT THAT WOULDN'T BE BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T ASSOCIATION WITH HISTORICAL EVENTS OR PERSONS THE ISSUE I THINK WHAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO IS THAT SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE SO BAD OFF THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN USE ANY OF THE MATERIALS LEFT TO MAKE IT A HABITABLE SPACE AND IT'S UNFAIR AND A HARDSHIP FOR OWNERS TO BRING IT UP BRING IT UP TO TODAY'S STANDARDS SO THEREFORE THEY'RE NOT DOING BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO DO IT IT'S JUST TOO MUCH EFFORT. SO I THIS IS TRYING TO GIVE THEM A WAY OF BEING ABLE TO ASSESS THE STRUCTURES TO MAKE SURE LIKE YEAH IT COULD BE BUT THIS MAY NOT BE BECAUSE STRUCTURALLY OR THE MATERIALS ARE ROTTEN LIKE THERE ARE A LOT

[01:35:03]

THIS IS MY COMMENT BY THE WAY, WHEN WE BACK WHEN WE WERE AT THE CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES I WAS SAYING THE SAME THING AS IF PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE THEY DON'T HAVE THE MEANS AND THE RESOURCES TO BRING THESE UP TO SPEED STANDARDS ON THIS TIME IS BASICALLY WELL WE CAN HAVE THEM THEM IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND I'M LIKE BUT YOU ARE BUT THIS IS ONEROUS FOR THEM TO HAVE TO BE OBLIGED TO DO. SO IT'S NOT THAT I'M NOT SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE IT'S THE WAY THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN IS WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH.

WHAT ARE THEY ADVOCATE REQUIREMENTS IN THE APPLICATION PLANNING YOUR LETTER REFERS TO YOUR COMING OUT WITH REQUIREMENTS 3.3 A RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS THAT HAVE MADE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE BROAD PATTERN OF HISTORY SO THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING WOULDN'T RELATE TO THAT THE RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE AND PERSONS SIGNIFICANT OR PAST NOT RELATED CONDITION OF THE BUILDING THE RESOURCE THE DISTINCT SO NONE OF THESE ARE CHANGING BASED ON THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING THE RESOURCE EMBODIES A DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER THIS IS THE ELEMENT OF CLOSE ENOUGH AND I STILL THINK IT'S ARGUABLE THE RESOURCE EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TIME PERIOD THAT WE'RE METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION OR REPRESENTS THE WORK OF THE MASTER OR POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES OR REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE COMPONENTS LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION OR THE RESOURCES YIELDED OR IS LIKELY TO YIELD INFORMATION IMPORTANT PREHISTORY OR HISTORY. SO 3.25.3.8.3 MAY BE THE ONLY PLACE WHERE WE'RE MIGHT NEED AND I'M STILL NOT SURE THAT THAT LANGUAGE IS SUPPORTIVE OF IT JUST BECAUSE IT FALLS INTO A DIMINISHED CONDITION BECAUSE IT STILL MAY HAVE ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE IN TERMS OF HOW IT WAS DESIGNED IT'S JUST ROTTING BUT IF YOU COULD BRING IT UP TO SPEED THEN ,YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF RECONSTRUCT IT IN THE SAME WAY IT WAS BEFORE WITH A NEW PIECE OF WOOD YOU DON'T NEED I'M JUST NOT SURE THAT IS NO LONGER MEETING THAT CRITERIA.

IT DOES SAY IN MY OPENING PIECE OF THAT IT NEEDS TO RETAIN THE INTEGRITY OF LOCATION DESIGN SETTING MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, FEELING AND ASSOCIATION SO IF IT'S ROTTING AND FALLING APART I WOULD ARGUE IT DOES NOT MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE MATERIALS OR WORKMANSHIP.

THERE ARE NO THAT'S THAT'S THE PART YOU'RE LOOKING TO HANG ON WHERE THAT THAT IS 3 TO 5 THREE A SUBSECTION I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S LISTED ANYWHERE AND I KNOW WE WELL I'VE TALKED WITH STAFF ABOUT DOCUMENTING THE STRUCTURES BEFORE THEY'RE SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THEM THAT LANGUAGE REALLY PERTAINS TO ADDING IT TO THE CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES THAN THE DE-LISTING WHICH IS AN INTERESTING ARGUMENT. YOU TAKE IT EITHER WAY IT SAYS 3 TO 5 3A4D LISTING AND IT'S IN THAT SECTION, RIGHT? YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT AND A LOT OF RICHARDSON FAMILY. YES, GO AHEAD. I WAS WAITING FOR YOUR FINISH.

GO AHEAD. SO IT WAS BAD LANGUAGE. NOW THAT LANGUAGE WAS AS PART OF AN AMENDMENT THAT WAS APPROVED IN JANUARY 2020. SO PRIOR TO THAT IT WAS NEVER INCLUDED WE SCREWED UP THE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT CATCH IT WHEN IT FIRST WENT SO GOOD. I MEAN I KNOW WELL MAYBE I CAN THAT MAYBE IF IT GIVES ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM COMFORT WHICH PROBABLY DOESN'T IS COMING UP FOR ME HAVING BETTER COUNSEL WHEN WAS FIRST IT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF THAT THAT HELPED THAT YES THAT'S GOOD SO I GLAD TO

[01:40:06]

AND SO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS KEEP THE PROCESS THE EXACT SAME BUT LEAVE OUT THAT LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD SEEMINGLY TAKE THAT POWER ON SOMEHOW. SO THE COUNCIL COUNCIL HAS TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SELL TO BRING IT FROM A DIFFERENT POINT .

HOWEVER OUR INTENT IS TO KEEP IT COMING THROUGH. IT HAS TO BE SO A DESIGNATION APPLICATION STILL GO TO HPC. HPC WOULD MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE NOT COUNCIL AND TOWN COUNCIL WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE DECISION MAKER .

GOT THAT ONE MARK OKAY SORRY LET ME MAKE IT A GOOD ONE. OKAY.

I MIGHT HAVE TO ADD A COUPLE FOR 515 5CI PERSONALLY I DON'T THINK THAT THAT CLEARS UP THE CONFUSION BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT BEING ABOUT BUILDING FORM AND SCALE VERSUS USE. I GUESS THE WAY I'VE ALWAYS INTERPRETED THIS AND PLEASE CORRECT IF I'M WRONG WAS THAT WHILE YOU COULD DO COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IN THIS DISTRICT THAT ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT FRONTING 46 AND BRUIN HAS TO MEET THE 36 INCH FOUNDATION REQUIREMENT IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET BASICALLY IT HAS TO LOOK EXACTLY LIKE A HOUSE VERSUS IF IT'S ON THOSE FRONTAGES IT STILL HAS TO BE RESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER HOWEVER IT CAN BE A GRADE AND IT CAN BE HAVE STOREFRONT WINDOWS IS THAT CORRECT AND HOW I'M INTERPRETING THAT CORRECT I JUST STILL DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS CLARIFIED IN THE NEW LANGUAGE PRESENTED. I'M JUST KIND OF COMBINING THE TWO PARAGRAPHS.

YEAH, I'M SORRY I'M TAKING A MOMENT HERE. I HAD THIS DISCUSSION WITH KATIE AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT. SHE WAS FINE WITH WHAT'S PROPOSED IF SHE'S GOOD WITH THAT SHE'S THE WHO NEEDS TO KIND OF SUPPORT ANYWAY YOU'RE PROBABLY JUST THE REASON THAT WE'RE DOING THIS LANGUAGE REVISION IS TO BE MORE CLEAR THAT IT'S ABOUT BUILDING FORM AND SCALE AND NOT USE AND I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW COMBINING TWO PARAGRAPHS SOLVES THAT CLARIFICATION CLARIFICATION. SO I'M SORRY I'M TRYING THINK BACK HERE IN IN ONE THERE'S A MENTION HERE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S RESIDENTIAL IN

[01:45:02]

OKAY SO CHANGING THE WORD TO CHARACTER CORRECT ANSWER THE I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT FOR THE FIVE 1568 THE THAT WE IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW METALS FORECASTERS AND THINGS THAT THE MASONRY FEATURE THAT'S SCREENING IT NEEDS TO SCREEN IT FROM THE STREET VIEW OKAY SO THAT YOU DON'T END UP HAVING A BISHOP'S CAP THAT'S OPEN TO THE STREET AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SPARK THE OR IT WOULD BE THAT WAS PROBABLY ONE OF MY CRAZY NOTES I HAD MY THING I GAVE YOU MY RIGHT THAT WAS WHAT I THINK I DREW A PICTURE OF IT SAYING THIS NOT THAT YOU TAKE A REAL LIFE EXAMPLE I DREW ONE ON MY SCRATCH PAD AND LAST THING I WANT TO GO TO THAT ARE WHERE DID THE SIXTH FOOT CART GARAGE COMPONENT DIMENSION COME FROM SO THAT WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT LIMITING THE NUMBER OF BEADS TO 2 TO 4 VEHICLES BUT THEN POTENTIALLY SOMEONE MAY HAVE A GOLF CART. AND SO THERE WAS THE ADDITION. LET ME FIND HERE.

YEAH, THERE'S A LOT THAT ARE NOT GOING TO FIT WITH SIX FEET THAT'S KIND OF A SMALL GOVERNMENT WITH A DOOR SIX SO THAT'S THE WIDTH OF THE DOOR SIX FOOT WIDE.

YOU CAN'T FIT THAT IN A SIX FOOT WALL WITH SIX. SO WHAT I DO OR WHAT I WOULD SAY CORRECT AND THAT'S WHAT WAS MEANT FOR ME FIND OUT DO THAT SIX FOOT SORRY TAKE ME A DAY WITH THAT I MIGHT JUST CHANGE THE WORDING OF BAY'S BEING OVER 12 FEET IF THE INTENT IS ACTUALLY FOR THE DOOR TO BE ALLOWED AT 12 FEET AND THE DOOR TO BE ALLOWED AT SIX FEET I WOULDN'T DESCRIBE THAT AS A BAY. I DON'T THINK THAT LARGE.

THANK YOU. I'M SORRY IT'S A CARRIAGE HOUSE OR THE LAST SHEET OF THE PACKET PAGE 27 I'M ACTUALLY A 60. OKAY, HERE WE GO. SORRY WHEN IT IS SHALL BE NOT EXCEEDING SIX FEET IN WIDTH SO IT SHOULD SAY DOOR WITH OR NOT EXCEEDING 12 FEET.

NOT EXCEEDING SIX FEET. OKAY. YES BECAUSE THOSE DO YOU GET THE RIGHT IS LEGISLADORES. YEAH I WOULDN'T SAY YOU COULDN'T GET ONE SORRY YOU COULD PUT A BIKE IN THERE BUT YOU GET OUT ONE SIDE. YEAH COMMISSIONER BETTER QUESTION FOR YOU WHEN I WORK WHEN THE CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES WERE ADDED WHEN I WENT THROUGH THOSE 80 STRUCTURES WAS A CONDITION OF THE STRUCTURE A COMPONENT FOR THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS BY WHICH THEY USED TO DECIDE. SO IF THEY WERE IN LOT OF DISREPAIR THEY WOULD NEED CONSIDERED IT FOR AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE BECAUSE ITS CONDITION OKAY LET ME QUALIFY I'M GOING MEMORY HERE I CORRECT I UNDERSTAND I'M OLD AND MY MEMORY IS FAILING ABSOLUTELY BUT KNOW THAT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION THE PROCESS WAS THAT STAFF DETERMINED THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE BUILDINGS BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE STATE OF REPAIR OF THE BUILDING OR DISREPAIR OF THE BUILDING.

WE WERE IN A HURRY AND AGAIN BY MY MEMORY WE WERE IN A HURRY TO GET THIS DONE BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE DESTROYING STRUCTURES THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DESTROY. AND SO STAFF GOT TOGETHER QUICKLY, WENT TO HPC, GOT US WITH THE RECOMMENDATION. WE PASSED IT SO THAT WE COULD KIND OF STEM WHAT WE SAW THE BLEEDING AND WE HAD THE INTENT ON GOING AND WE WANTED TO FIRM IT UP WITH WITH RULES TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM DEMOLITION NEGLECT AND SOME OTHER THINGS THAT I JUST DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF SINCE THEN IF IT HAD BEEN DONE BUT WE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS ISSUES LIKE WE MAY HAVE INCLUDED SOME SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ALLOW THEM OUT

[01:50:01]

YOU DO YOU DO YOUR BEST TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE TAKING CARE OF THEM SO THEY DON'T LOSE THEM BUT. IT COMES BACK TO PROPERTY RIGHTS AS WELL AND IT'S TOUGH AND THE REASON I PART THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS IF THE CRITERIA UNLESS WE CHANGE THE VERBIAGE OF THE CRITERIA 3.25.3. A IF THAT CRITERIA HAS CHANGED THE INSEMINATION AND I KNOW IT LAPSED AND WE BROUGHT THIS BACK AND I THINK BROUGHT BACK WITH ALMOST IDENTICAL LANGUAGE OF WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY IF THAT WAS NOT A REASON FOR SOMETHING WAS OR WAS NOT LISTED AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE, I DON'T THINK IT CAN BE USED AS A REASON WHY WE'RE ABLE TO DO LIST IT WELL I DO THINK CONDITION COULD BE A REASON WHY WE DID LIST IT.

I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN REFER TO THE CRITERIA AND THAT 3.25.3. A AS YOUR REASONING FOR WHY IT SHOULD ABLE TO BE DELISTED. THE INTENT WAS WE WERE WAITING FELT THAT PEOPLE WERE GOING TO END UP HAVING TO BE DELISTED OF THE CONDITION.

BUT THE OTHER THING TO THROW INTO THE MIX HERE IS THE YOUDO DIDN'T EXIST WHEN WE DID THIS SO DID THIS UNDER THE OLD STRUCTURE. SO THIS VERBIAGE WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE FACT AND WASN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL AND. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET OUR HANDS ON THE ORIGINAL BUT I BET YOU IT'S AND THERE WAS LOT OF ARBITRARY THINGS ORIGINALLY LIKE 50 OR WHATEVER. YEAH THE 50 YEAR WAS A DELINEATED AND I'M NOT BY THE WAY I'M NOT TRYING TO ARGUE WE DON'T HAVE A PROCESS FOR DELISTING RIGHT I DON'T TO MAKE IT NECESSARILY EASY TO JUST SAY NO LONGER BECAUSE I THINK IT CAN LEAD TO COMPROMISING THE INTEGRITY OF THE CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES YOU HAVE TO ALSO THINK TO JUST TO HELP DEFEND THE TOWN A LITTLE BIT THEY DIDN'T ALWAYS HAVE A HISTORIC PRESERVATIONIST THAT'S DOING ALL OF THIS. THAT'S A JOB. YES HE'S IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE EACH PROPERTY IF SOMEONE COMES IN WITH SOMETHING TO VALIDATE AND SO WE DIDN'T WE'VE NEVER HAD THAT LIKE TRULY AND SO WE NEED TO CATCH OURSELVES BACK UP IN THE LANGUAGE OF TODAY YEAH I JUST WANT MAKE SURE THE LAND BECAUSE IT DIDN'T EXIST AND NOW LIKE WE'RE ACTUALLY IN A PLACE THAT CAN EXIST I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE LANGUAGE HAS TEETH IS LAWFUL AND CAN BE USED AND NOT ABUSED AND AS BEST AS POSSIBLE AS CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT SHOULD BE.

THAT'S MY GOAL AND THERE'S ALSO JUST AS A SIDE ON THAT TOO YOU KNOW THEIR NEW GRANT PROGRAM THERE ARE A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS THAT KIND OF HELPS.

IT KIND OF IS IN THE SAME REALM AS THIS SO THAT PROPERTY OWNERS CAN'T JUST DO ANYTHING THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE INVOLVED OR NOT DO ANYTHING OR DO ANYTHING THAT WAS TALISMAN WASN'T THERE TO HELP PEOPLE BE ABLE TO FIX THEIR THINGS. SURE.

WHAT HAVE WE SEEN SINCE WE RE BACK IN THIS AND SINCE WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT GRANT HAVE A PROGRAM HAVE WE SEEN PEOPLE I KNOW I KNOW THERE WAS A HAYWARD OUT IS THE FIRST ONE TO RECEIVE THE GRANT OKAY WE WE HAVE DONE IT SUCCESSFULLY AND MET ALL THE CRITERIA AND GLEN HAS BEEN COMPLETELY INVOLVED. HAVE WE SEEN IT BECAUSE I KNOW WE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE LAST LAST YEAR HAVE WE SEEN OTHER PEOPLE START RECONSIDER THE CONDITION OF THEIR PROPERTY AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO NOT LET IT FAIL OR SURE TO SINCE WE BROUGHT THIS LANGUAGE BACK INTO THE AREA WE DID CONTACT EVERY PROPERTY OWNER, LET THEM BE THAT BECAUSE THEY HAD CONTRIBUTED STATUS FOR THEIR PROPERTY THAT THAT THERE WERE GRANTS AND OTHER INCENTIVES AVAILABLE AND SO WE HAVE MADE AN EFFORT TO REACH OUT TO LET THEM KNOW AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH GLEN ABOUT THAT . OKAY AND COMES DOWN TO BUT EVEN WITH THE GRANT LIKE YES 30,000 IS A GOOD NUMBER BUT FOR SOME OF THESE THAT'S NOTHING FOR WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. SO THEN IT MAKES THE OWNERS YOU KNOW IT PUTS THEM IN THIS

[01:55:04]

YOU WANT TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION OF SOME REDUCTION TREES IN THE LANDSCAPE KIND OF THING PLUS RICHARDSON, DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR US? SO I DIDN'T TRANSLATE TAKE NOTES ON THE MODIFICATIONS WHICH I HAVE TO RECOMMEND.

THE FIRST ONE IS THAT AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU DON'T WANT TO ADD THIS TO YOUR MOTION OR WHETHER YOU'RE JUST WANTING DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK INTO IT. BUT THE ISSUE WITH THE SPECIMEN TREES SETBACKS OF THE ONE OR THE TWO THAT I THINK YOU HAVE MADE CLEAR THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ADDRESSED IS ONE FROM THE COMMISSION ON ONE ADDITIONAL DAY WITH OR EXCEEDING SIX FEET FOR THAT CHANGE TO BE MADE SUBSECTION F CARRIAGE HOUSE AND THE MAIN DOORS AT 12 FEET BECAUSE IT SAYS THE BAYS FOR CARS ARE 12 FEET SO YEAH AND THE SECOND ONE IS THE ROOF STRUCTURES UNDER 150 SQUARE FEET EVEN AMENITIES IN PERSON IS LIMITED TO THREE PERSONS IN THAT WAY AND THAT GIVES THEM THE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUES OR CHANGED DEFINITIONS. SO SAY THAT LAST ONE YOU SAID AGAIN THAT A ROOF STRUCTURE UNDER 121 SQUARE FEET INCLUDES THAT YOU GUYS GET THREE AND THAT'S I WANT TO JUMP INTO THE ENCLOSED SLIDES AT THAT POINT JUST TO GIVE INFORMATION TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT SO THEY WOULD BE LOOKING AT THAT GARDEN ACCESS STRUCTURE AS A PART OF THAT I THINK THAT OKAY WE JUST NOTE THE CHIMNEY TOO. THAT'S RIGHT.

THANK YOU. YOU DON'T THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW SPARK OR YOU KNOW, THE METAL CAPS AND STUFF FOR CHIMNEYS IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE HOUSED IN A MASONRY SHROUD, IT SHOULD BE CONCEALED THE ROAD INSTEAD OF FROM THE SIDES.

THEN A GOOD OKAY WHO WANTS TO MAKE THAT MOTION OR RECOMMENDATION EXCUSE ME TO TALK ABOUT CAN I MAKE THE MOTION WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT RICHARDSON READ OFF FOR US OR DO YOU WANT TO MAKE IT PART OF THIS? WELL JUST I'LL JUST REPEAT MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. THE THERE'S 33 PROPOSED REVISIONS SO IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT COUNCIL ADOPT A NEED TO APPROVE OR BE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSAL.

MR. TURNBULL CHAPTER 23 YOU DEMONSTRATE THE STAFF TO AMEND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BEING AS FOLLOWS IN REGARDS TO THE CHIMNEY CAM TO ENSURE THAT IF THE LANGUAGE STAYS THAT IT WILL BE CONCEALED FROM THE THIRD THAT CERTAIN RESTROOM BE CONCEALED SPARK REST OR WILL BE ONE ADDITIONAL IN WHICH THE CARRIAGE HOUSE IS LOWER THAN THE 12 FEET THE OVERSIZE BASE OF SIX FEET TO THE ADDITIONAL DOORS IS NOT BASED ON COMPILING THAT READING STRUCTURE STRUCTURES OTHER 121 SQUARE FEET IS GOING TO BE TO THREE PER WHILE SOME OF THE AND THE OTHER POTENTIAL YOUTUBE ADMINISTRATION REVIEW OF TRUE BACK VARIANT WHICH WE DON'T LIKE THAT AS A PARTNER IN THIS MOTION THAT THE STAFF DIRECTION TO KIND OF LOOK INTO IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE FRANK I DON'T KNOW WHETHER STAFF WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT BEFORE IT GOES TO TEN SO YOU CAN PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR PORTION OF WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING AND WELL I THINK I'D BE YEAH IT'S UP TO YOU TO DO THE WORK AND HONESTLY YOU NEED TO GET GET OUT OF THIS MOTION. WELL I WOULD SAY ON THE MOTION OKAY THERE WE GO WE'LL MAKE IT EASY JUST IN CASE SO QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU WANT TO APPROVE

[02:00:05]

YES I WOULD MAKE LIKE A MOTION WE APPROVE WITH AMENDMENTS THE AMENDMENTS THAT RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL TO TOWN COUNCIL THE AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON CODE AND OF ORDINANCE CHAPTER 23 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AS RECOMMENDED BY TOWN WHAT THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS IN MY VOICE WILL CHANGE SLIGHTLY SO THE FIRST MODIFICATION IS WHAT WOULD BE THE ONE ADDITIONAL DAY WITH NOT EXCEEDING SIX FEET BUT ALSO FOR THE CHURCH HOUSES THAT THESE REFERENCES TO BE COMPLETED AS WELL THE ORDINARY STRUCTURE SECOND CONDITIONS THAT ROOF STRUCTURES AND OTHER 21 SQUARE FEET ALTHOUGH SECOND WHOLE LOT OF SECOND LITTER CATCHER YEAH WHAT IS WHAT'S AROUND 12 FEET OR SO I MAY NOT BE GETTING THIS EXACTLY YOU NOT KATIE KATIE YOU CAN WHIP THROUGH THIS QUICKLY JUST WRITE THIS ONE CORRECT AND 12 FEET ON THE MAIN DOORS IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S NOT READING CORRECTLY IT MIGHT BE EASIER JUST TO SAY REPLACE THE WORD BAY WITH OR FRIDAY FOR THIS CAN BE THAT FIT FOREVER THAT RELIGIOUS YEAH THAT'S THAT'S EASIER SO SHOWING ROBERT'S RULES RIGHT HERE SO WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE OKAY I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO THAT MOTION AGAIN LET'S GET IT HAMMERED OUT AND THEN WE CAN DO

[02:05:03]