Regular Called Meeting

Speaker 1

0:01 Come on.

0:08 Okay. Roll call.

Speaker 2

0:12 Ruth, you're here. Yes.

Speaker 1

0:14 Jeremy's here. Jeremy's here. Steve's here. David's here. And I'm here. Approve the minutes.

0:24 Any objection to approving the four seven two twenty twenty six minutes? No objection. No objection. Approved. Okay. Thank you, Brian. Report from me.

0:38 At this point, think last meeting we covered the fact that the public hearings oh, here comes our secretary. The public hearings we have for, like, STRs and things like that. Hey, Vivian. Basically, they count as meetings of the Planning Commission. So many of the public hearings that we have at the Town Council meetings are relatively short things. There's almost no discussion. So I've talked to both the clerk and the mayor and suggested that for the typical STR CUP public hearing that we'll just do separate public hearings in our meeting so that we don't add probably six meetings a year that ends up requiring people to go.

1:24 I know alternatively as Steve mentioned earlier to me, the fact is when we have those public hearings at the Town Council that we need a quorum for, You can leave right after them. Don't have to stay for the whole meeting. So the question is would you rather still have the joint public hearing of the Town Council or would you rather have ours separately? It doesn't change the time it takes to approve something. The way we do it now is during public hearing there we then have a discussion and vote, make a recommendation to the Town Council and the next month they approve it.

1:58 All we're doing is moving a public hearing over to front of our meeting so it doesn't change the time of approval at all. The most it requires is the applicant would maybe come to our meeting also. That isn't required either. So what do you guys want to do?

Speaker 4

2:13 I would actually vote that if we're trying to encourage people to participate in town government, adding more meetings, I would argue that have a shorter notification of when you have to go to that meeting. Because we we know a Planning Commission meeting is the first Tuesday of every month, but may or may not have to go to a Town Council meeting that So if someone has, like, a work trip or something, it's harder to get around. So you'd rather I would rather it be with a non meeting.

2:37 You'd have separate public hearings. Yeah. Okay. I'd rather have it separate because it encourages

Speaker 1

2:42 more dialogue.

Speaker 2

2:43 Great. Good point. Agree.

Speaker 1

2:48 Steve? I agree. I object. Just to clarify there's not going be any merge. We're not going to have joint public hearings unless it's a major thing. Let's say someone was proposing a significant development in town and they were going have to make an extensive presentation. We would then make that a joint public hearing so they didn't have to do it twice. But for most simple things STRs or redeveloping the RPA or whatever like that we would just have a separate public hearing.

3:13 Got it. We're all good. Okay. We're doing that.

3:22 What was that? It was yours. Right? Yep. Sorry about that.

3:27 Okay.

3:30 What was that? Your public comment. Any public comment?

3:35 Would you like to say something, mister Cooper? I I I've come with three questions,

Speaker 5

3:41 and and they have to do with the how we govern ourselves and how we achieve what we say we what we say we want to achieve. Don't like the sound of this at all. I'm sorry. And I call it out of way. This may not be appropriate for which I request your indulgence, but the Reynolds Landing project, thanks guys, has stirred up some thought and that's dangerous. Thought one is if we have a development in the floodplain, which the Reynolds Landing is, who administers the criteria by which we have a safe building in the flood plain?

4:29 You do? Is it part of our ordinances? Because I didn't see it.

Speaker 1

4:34 Yes. I looked for it. And it defines safe as

Speaker 5

4:38 then won't wash away you mean? Won't wash away. People have an entry and exits that are reasonable that that the stuff that's that's gonna get flooded doesn't contaminate unduly the surrounding water and things like that. Just reasonable, reasonable behavior associated with it. Well, I'm pleased to have that question answered. Thank you very much. I think that's important. So so when you issue a cup, it's with that condition with the the So our ordinances deal with construction in the flood plain.

Speaker 3

5:11 Ultimately, though, of course, the building permits and and what is getting physically built is gonna be administered by Lancaster County. Okay.

Speaker 6

5:23 And my understanding is the cup only addresses the RPA changes. So the cup is really dealing with the impermeable surface area, and that's it. Not zoning, not setbacks, anything like that. Correct.

Speaker 1

5:40 We've got other questions. Let's get them all in the day. I have two more. One

Speaker 5

5:44 one has to do with the comprehensive plan, which says we also support redevelopment of a working waterfront. And this project does exactly the opposite. It's not the only project that does the opposite, but it's the current project, the most recent project. The question is, how do we follow through on what we say we want to do? What is it what is it we should be doing as a town to

Speaker 1

6:14 accomplish that? Well, I'll give it try to give an answer. With respect to the comprehensive plan, it's the duty of both the Planning Commission and the Town Council and the zoning administrator to keep in mind the comprehensive plan's guidance and consider it in all decisions where it has something like that. With this area my personal opinion is that there were no competing alternatives for keeping this as a working waterfront property. No one's made any offer to do that.

6:48 We actually put that in the comprehensive plan. We did have a detailed discussion of the issue and we said what what can we do to continue to develop working waterfront when most of it's closing down. In fact since we wrote that comprehensive plan Bruce Sanders Yard is gone. And you know there's just you know, it's it's they're they're private property and if the people want to sell it to someone, the only alternative really would be for the in my mind for the town to buy it and the town has no interest in that.

7:18 So it just, you know, that's we would like to keep working waterfront developed. At this point, that becomes basically John Friday's place. And I don't know what happens if John decided to sell that to the developer. I

Speaker 5

7:31 don't think there's much we can do. We also have the boat ramp. Don't forget that. The

Speaker 1

7:37 Fisher's Boat Ramp. Yes.

7:42 The question relates to

Speaker 5

7:43 that question because the BCA, which two of us are responsible to effect is charged with making sure that anything we do does not alter the character of the district and will not be changed The character of the district will not be changed by granting the variance. Who else worries about the character of various parts of our town and how is that affected in our governance? Yeah.

Speaker 1

8:19 And and it's an excellent question. I don't have a slide for that. Yeah. Basically, my sense of that is that the zoning ordinances are the things that keep that from changing. We have a historic district, but quite frankly there's nothing in our zoning code that allows us to affect what happens in the historic district. We just have one.

8:45 The zoning code is how that would be handled. Zoning code doesn't the zoning code only affects the character of the town in the sense that we have r one, r two, b one, b two, and and m one. So

Speaker 3

8:58 I I think that in the enforcement and or variance granting that the BZA has done prior to this has taken into account the character of the town. Specifically, I'll reference the Hunley Lane Home, acute shotgun shack. They wanted just a smidge more real estate or or square footage vis a vis a master bedroom. So we, as a town, have a choice there. We can say no, which would then encourage the owner of this very charming historical old home to flatten it and build some god awful monstrosity, or we could work with them to do a tasteful addition onto that charming home and let them keep the character of the neighborhood.

10:01 So I think we've I think we've done that before. And I think if you look down Steamboat Road, we have that's a different character than certainly Chesapeake Drive. You know, Chesapeake Drive is more modern, more Understood. The

Speaker 5

10:17 the the question then falls on the Town Council to also, before approval, maintain the atmosphere of the neighborhood that's done. And that presumably is taken into effect by what the neighbors have to say, the immediate neighbors and nearby neighbors have to say? Does it? I would think. Is our only way of protecting it?

Speaker 1

10:45 Probably, quite frankly. Our zoning code quite a number of years ago, someone you're familiar with, tried to get town architectural standards. Unfortunately we didn't do that so we wouldn't have arguments based on preference. Was an attempt to really control what could be built in the town.

11:09 When I drive through the town there is so much variation I think it's actually typical of any village that developed organically. Don't have a lot of ability to control those things. Like what Justin said on that one example was you know, you kind of cajoled with the people and made some minor variances in in the BZA area. Would it be appropriate to ask the Planning Commission to think about ordinances that might address that more directly than the ones that you cite as being the only one you have?

11:40 It's appropriate to ask that. Thank you. So be it. We will we will take that up for con discussion at a future meeting. Thank

Speaker 5

11:48 you very much. Appreciate your time. Hopefully And more your indulgence. Hopefully, we don't

Speaker 1

11:53 get an architectural plan board out of it.

11:57 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Any other public comment?

12:05 Okay. Done. Public comment is is completed.

Speaker 3

12:12 Justin, report from the town administrator. I do not have one, sir. No

Speaker 1

12:16 report. Okay. C u p two zero six rentals, redeveloping the RPA. Let

Speaker 3

12:26 me just go through it quickly. Yes. So you guys have seen you've gotten your so if anybody needs a copy We had the public hearing at the last Yeah. Council meeting. And we're this is a proposed redevelopment in the RPA. What we have now is approximately 8,500 square feet of impervious surface. What I think was either an old crab or horse's your house. I'm not too sure which it was. But Both. It was both. Mhmm. When we are done as proposed, we will be at 7,098 square foot of impervious surface.

13:03 So under our ordinances, they have the ability to do that. They are in a floodplain, which our ordinances do address, and their proposal shows that the 1st Floor, which or or would I call that the 1st Floor or basement level? Level. Level. We call that the ground level. That is designed and built to be flooded. So Is that

Speaker 1

13:31 is is that still actually I know I know the map says in floodplain, but they don't have to update those maps very often. I mean, if I look at the yacht club's property compared to theirs, their their property is well above that. Right? There's a break wall in there? Mhmm. Was that floodplain map developed after the break wall was put in, you know? I don't. Yeah. I don't. My opinion is I'm not sure it actually isn't a floodplain. That's what I was just wondering.

13:54 The yacht club is not in a floodplain? Well, the yacht club is definitely in a floodplain.

14:02 Plane. We get water in a storm in the fall that goes up to the swimming pool. Yeah. This I don't I don't know that that place would. But it still it still might be in a it still might be in a floodplain but I'm not sure the map's that accurate. So but they're doing they're gonna do it anyway. I wouldn't put a lot of money that see, it's not in a floodplain. Well, it's a hurricane. It probably is. I think the owners are planning on dealing with that.

14:28 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's Yeah. I would if I was building there. Yes. So, also,

Speaker 3

14:35 what included in your conditional use permit is redevelopment of the RPA. Presently, it is zoned M 1. And in their application, they would ask to go back to R 1, which is very much supported by the neighbors as you can imagine. Do you want me to get them I can go two seconds to get the map and show you where it is. You see the map? The large map? Mhmm. Sure. Yeah. Let me get that real quick.

15:03 The

Speaker 1

15:03 Planning Commission, has everyone visited that property? Mhmm. Mhmm. Before

Speaker 6

15:07 this. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Well, far enough. Just looked at it from the water. Did

Speaker 1

15:12 you drive your boat up on the kayak

Speaker 6

15:15 by.

Speaker 1

15:18 Austin, do you have any idea when that was that was last actually operated as a crab place? I don't know. It hasn't been anything. It was probably before Merritt's father bought it. Okay. You know, and Merritt was there for Excuse me. Gosh. Come on. He was there at least ten years, maybe more. I've I've been here for fifteen years, and it it was not operating with anything in the fifteen year family. Long time. Yeah. I I could ask No. It doesn't Joyce Manifly.

15:44 She would know. I was just curious. Because her dad was

Speaker 3

15:47 Okay. So this is the property in question. It's fairly small piece of property. And just to recap, anything allowable in R 1, R 2, B 1, or B 2 is by right allowed in M 1. M 1. So in theory, someone could put one heck of a Cinco de Mayo taco bar right there, which the neighbors Great idea. Would find

Speaker 2

16:15 less than enjoyable for one day. I was hoping for the swim up bar. Less. Yeah. Exactly.

Speaker 3

16:20 So, graciously, our applicants are gonna ask that or within the conditional use permit application to go back to an R 1, which would prevent any time in the future what they're proposing to be built turned into a Cinco de Mayo taco bar That's a buy ride. Remember?

Speaker 1

16:42 And the only reason that little tiny island is there is because of the historical Long, long

Speaker 4

16:49 time ago. But but to George's point, if, you know, let's say in twenty years it gets sold and someone wants to open an oyster venue of some sort there, we've just taken that away. Correct. And and all the all the r one neighbors are thrilled with Which I'm sure that'd be super easy to do. Well, but I would also argue the neighbors bought those houses knowing that Sure. That is a Sure. More commercial property. Now as small as that one is,

Speaker 3

17:19 this is all m one. So in twenty years from now, someone can turn Russ Harper's house into one whale of a nightclub if that's what they so choose. And with the parking lot. Yep. With Botox

Speaker 4

17:35 and swim up bars and all sorts of fun things. Or in a more moderate, just to be devil's advocate, to George's point on protecting the working part of town, if it ever were small businesses, like, pick on those small businesses in some towns and cities that operate in a in a house. They're not an additional build. It's just say like a small restaurant and what was the house? Well, you could always take it back. You all could approve it going back to to on a conditional use permit for a specific use Mhmm.

18:12 Only.

Speaker 1

18:13 We we could approve it rezoning it. Yeah. Right. If the person that wanted to buy it and have it rezoned and then all the neighbors would get to input on whether or not they wanted it rezoned which given that property probably unlikely.

Speaker 4

18:27 Yes. I'm just picking on the fact that you look at the property maps

Speaker 3

18:32 and that gray is rapidly shrinking away. True. But I I I I would agree with what we talked about earlier. If the town lacks the will and the funds to financially support working waterfront, then like it or not, the economics are that if it's on the water, it's going to be more valuable as a private Yeah. Home than it will be renting a boat slip for a $100 a month. I think you want boat slips a $100 a month. Not

Speaker 1

19:03 that I know of. Indian Creek? The okay. The well, there used to be, like, 30 or 40 crab and oyster houses on the creek. There's just kellums now. So that business has changed considerably. A lot of pictures of the old building before they burned down.

Speaker 2

19:21 It's not like we're going out seeking development for these areas that we have for that. We haven't been out economic development Oh,

Speaker 4

19:31 I agree. Or anything. I'm just calling out the No. No. You're We're talking out both ends. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. No. I

Speaker 2

19:38 think if I think if we were, you know, actively, you know, wanting to build that up as an economic zone or something, we would our our behavior would show that. So Yeah. And, you know, larger cities, obviously, in larger counties have and Lancaster has economic development authorities

Speaker 3

19:56 where they

Speaker 1

19:58 so we like to They can get grants to do that sort of thing. Exactly. Yeah. We can't. Our

Speaker 2

20:03 Town Council doesn't seem to be doing that. Their behavior seems to more I mean, the behavior of the town, the residents themselves seems to be more about residential development. Mhmm. Well,

Speaker 1

20:17 they they let the private property owners do what they wanna do with their property. Mhmm. Amounts to. Right? And what what most private property owners wanna do at this point is develop residential buildings. Okay. So commercial use is not likely to be pressured. The pressure would be from increased density. Yeah. If there is any at all. Yeah. The one issue that's not addressed in the CUP is the Board of Zoning Appeals dealing with the setbacks.

20:48 Right? The application wants to get a variance for the current 25 foot setbacks. Correct? Correct. So just under

Speaker 3

20:57 state code the only authority to grant a variance resides solely with the Board of Zoning Appeals? We don't

Speaker 1

21:09 deal with that. That's the Board of Zoning Appeals issue. So we're we're we're looking to approve the redevelopment in the RPA and, the zoning change from m one to r one. So do we have a motion? Yeah.

Speaker 6

21:22 Can I do that? Sure. I move we I'm gonna have two motions. Okay. One, I move we approve cup 26 2026 Reynolds for redevelopment in the RPA. Recommend approval. Recommend approval of that cup. And the second one is going to be recommend rezoning from m one to r one.

Speaker 1

21:44 Great. And that's approving it. Correct? Recommending approval of the rezoning. I don't know if we approve that. We just We're just recommending that. Right. We don't decide anything. Right. Make recommendations. So I so

Speaker 6

21:55 the first we decide what motion meeting it. First motion is to approve. But

Speaker 1

22:05 there's only been one time when the Town Council didn't do what we recommended. We obviously have great influence with them. Because we're brilliant. Terrible. Brilliant. Okay. Was there a second? Second. Second. Okay.

Speaker 2

22:18 I'll recommend second. Yep.

Speaker 5

22:22 Okay.

Speaker 1

22:24 Steve made both of them. Who seconded the first one? Vivian. Okay. And Jeremy recommended seconded the other one. Sure. Why not? Okay. I think we should vote on both of them at the same time. Ruth? I

Speaker 4

22:42 think we should vote on them separately. Yep. Let's do that then. Which one are we voting on first? What? We're voting number one first. Cup. Which is cup. Cup. Recommend for approval. Okay. Which is just specify redevelopment

Speaker 3

22:53 in RPA. Yes. Mhmm. Jeremy? Recommend approval. Recommend

Speaker 2

22:58 approval. Approval. Aye.

Speaker 1

22:59 Me too. Okay. That's unanimous. Six o.

23:05 Number two. I do not recommend. K. You're a no. I recommend. K. I

Speaker 2

23:15 recommend. I

Speaker 6

23:17 recommend. Yes. On rezoning.

Speaker 1

23:19 Yeah. So so it's five one on rezoning. Great. Thank you, everybody. Thank you for coming in. Feel free to leave if you all your present Run away. Oh, stay for the action. It's only

Speaker 7

23:36 the first half.

Speaker 2

23:39 David and Ruth

Speaker 1

23:42 Apartments in V1.

23:46 Very intense

Speaker 4

23:47 language.

Speaker 7

23:49 I like the conciseness. Everybody has the yeah. It's all David. Yeah. Think we're good. Have you seen it? We've all seen it. George doesn't have. Here. George, you can't.

24:02 I passed along. It's my great school training.

24:08 So Ruth and I were, asked to propose some language to allow apartments in B-one and, which was covering something that we already knew existed but was not in the zoning ordinance. And so Ruth and I talked about it and we had a little bit of trouble figuring out what to do about Waterfront. So, we basically have shelved that at this point and so that's why this language says landed. I'm not thrilled with the language but I don't know what else to write so does anybody have any recommendations on the language Oh, more than listen to

Speaker 4

24:50 that's what we got. Inland building structures. Right. Okay. Well I think also to follow-up on what you talked about before because we don't have decisions on other ordinances which would touch this ordinance, it's purposely very big. Yeah. What's it? I

Speaker 1

25:04 think it's actually pretty clear. Yeah. I think it's good. I think very clear.

25:10 The only thing I would say I looked up that section of the code in the version I have of it there's only 19 pieces. I

Speaker 7

25:23 was using the website so I don't

Speaker 1

25:26 I don't keep up with it. But the website had 20 and my my version has 19 but I didn't look at the website. So so the website had 20? We still have to send it to the attorney anyway in the config. Yeah.

Speaker 3

25:36 Okay. I think, give me just a second and I'd like to add something which would be just making this also under 21. An apartment above or connected to the rear of the inland building structure may be, semicolon, subject to our short term rental. So so so that apartment, it is if they're going to attempt to short term rental it, they're they now fall under all ordinances. Yeah. You

Speaker 1

26:11 could say you could have in there that that it's you know, the the the rental rental has to be for thirty days or more, which takes about short term rental. Or you could just merely say that it's, subject

Speaker 3

26:24 to one five four one eight two, which is which is your short term rental rules, which is the cap on short term rentals, which shall not exceed 35. So that that would allow that would allow short term rentals at this I say we're under the cap. They would have to they would have an apartment would would have to apply just like every other short term rental. If they wish to go long term, they're

Speaker 1

26:50 not subject to any of that. The concept here was to allow someone that had a business, build a business on the downstairs or on the front to have a business where an employee or an owner can live. Right? So to me I would say that the you know rentals have to be for more than thirty days and that gets it out of short term totally. Are

Speaker 7

27:09 apartments allowed in short term rental? Short

Speaker 1

27:12 term rentals are in residential.

Speaker 3

27:17 We've got them in B1s. In B Ones. Yes. We've got them in We do have B 1. Okay. So Randall Kipp has an apartment attached to his building, which is exactly so he's filed well, he's grandfather, but he he He he did get an s t r. He was an s t r. Yeah. But he's always been. So that's why I'm like, you know, let's make sure that this like, Randall Kipps, if if you want a short term rental, that's fine, but you have you're subject to all of those. All

Speaker 1

27:48 filings. What do we do? Do we want to restrict them from short term rentals or just allow them to get it if they want? Yeah. It's up to you guys. I don't have a strong feeling about it. What do think about it? And is there a preference for the owner of the business downstairs living upstairs? Anybody else? The idea of it was that allowed the owner employees to live there to make it an economic and start with a small business. That was the concept.

28:11 I think to the point of short term rental or not, we have such various criteria

Speaker 4

28:17 to the CUP that, honestly, if it met all of that, what would stop it? Because you have to assume that it has parking that wouldn't take away from the patrons. Like, I mean, thinking about let's just pick on Irvington right now. If there was other apartments above the other storefronts, where would they park? How would it interact with the businesses? Like,

Speaker 1

28:40 almost feel like the design of it restricts it enough that it would have to be a very specific build to make it work in our current, like short term. That doesn't say about there being a parking either actually should should that be included or this when we we approve That should fall within When we approve a business we look for the parking if they pro propose it with an apartment. We would consider that part of the parking requirements. Well how do you do parking requirements by square foot?

29:06 Done by if it's a restaurant it's by seats in the restaurant or something. It's a number of different variables. And But your question is would you add one more space because there's a park or two more space? Yeah. The other thing is our park. Well, parking. Well, if you treat it like a single dwelling unit, do we have

Speaker 4

29:22 requirements right now? If someone built a house, they have to have, say, off street parking. We do

Speaker 1

29:28 we do allow for businesses to use parking within 600 feet of their store. Private parking. Private No public parking. No public parking. Says private. Are you sure? So it doesn't cut the streets down. Right? Really? You got to rent something private. You got to rent it from somebody. I thought it I thought it allowed it was the street. So we did with Dear Neighbor.

Speaker 4

29:50 Well, had one. It was for the second one. I think we said it was allowed with them because they had one one or two technically one or two. They have three spaces. Yeah. Okay. Well,

Speaker 1

29:59 so we don't want we don't wanna deal with parking language at all. We don't wanna deal with the SDR. So do do we wanna say if if they want SDR, they have to apply

Speaker 3

30:07 I mean, that that's they don't have say it. Yeah. It's just true. I am not an attorney, but if you look at our SDR ordinance, it specifically references r one and r two zoning in Mhmm. Districts. So

Speaker 1

30:20 because you can have it in in b one. Right. So in theory, if

Speaker 3

30:25 I wanted to be devil's advocate and I wanted to build my business with my apartment above it, I would tell you I'm not subject to the SDR cap. I'm not subject to Jack about your SDR ordinance because it specifically mentions R 1 and R 2, and I'm in B 2 or B 1. Yeah. So I I don't owe you anything other than occupancy taxes. And that's kind of what I wanna say. Well, actually, if it's an apartment, you

Speaker 1

30:50 don't own an you know, we don't pay much equity tax on apartments. If you rent as a short term rental less than thirty days, you're supposed to pay occupancy tax. Yeah. But again, if it's yeah. If it's more than thirty days, they don't do that.

Speaker 7

31:03 Yeah. Well, I think the object was not to have a short term rental, so why don't we just say it has to be leased for longer than Perfect. You can't have it. Just to say it's thirty days long. That's the object of the journal here. So how would you change language in here? You're the authors.

Speaker 3

31:18 Just 30 Yeah. An apartment above or connected to the rear of the inland building structure structure. Minimal

Speaker 1

31:24 thirty days. Lease term lease term should be more than thirty days or more. Yep. Thirty one. Not a limit on that. Actually, the state code has thirty. Yeah. Because not all months end in 31. True. That's why they did that. But if you're It doesn't count February. It doesn't. Four

Speaker 4

31:42 leap years. But we had someone

Speaker 3

31:44 that took their in from short term rentals to long term rentals, rolled their leases over exactly on the thirtieth day, and argued to me that they didn't owe occupancy taxes. Would

Speaker 1

31:58 anyone do that? No. So I just clarified did.

Speaker 2

32:02 Yeah. So

Speaker 3

32:04 So if it's thirty one days, you don't owe owe occupancy taxes is my point. Right.

Speaker 6

32:10 Okay. David and Ruth, would you like to make a motion based on this language? Can I ask a question? Oh, yes. Sure. Was it your intent that it'd be a single apartment that's why it's singular, not plural? Yes. Okay.

Speaker 4

32:22 The a's and the n's were different. Right. I think, yeah, it's just due to the building structures currently.

Speaker 7

32:28 Yeah. We don't want it to be able to separate Apartment house. No. A five story apartment on top of a one story Or split the top floor into two apartments. Right. That's the the object was to allow servants or people to work there or whatever. Maybe they just had an apartment. It

Speaker 4

32:41 wasn't made to make money. Right. Could be multiple bedrooms just about one apartment. Right. To David's point you could like split down the middle duplex style but it only takes up the space of the building underneath it. Okay. And

Speaker 7

32:55 so when I add to the rear that comes into zoning and sit backs and all the other stuff.

33:02 Motion? I'll make a motion. Second.

Speaker 1

33:06 We just to clarify are we The motion will be what they handed out that says now an apartment above are connected to the rear of an inland building structure for lease for thirty one days or more. Is

Speaker 3

33:17 that what that's what you're Okay. Okay. Nice. Okay.

Speaker 1

33:23 Let's have a vote. We'll start this way. Steve? Aye.

Speaker 2

33:28 Aye. If I.

Speaker 1

33:34 Aye. Genenemus, 7060. Okay. Excellent work. Yeah. You have that. Thank you.

33:46 Election of officers. We're doing that again every May. Do I have any nominations for chairman? I nominate Tom. No leaving the room, Tom. Are there any other nominations for chairman? Don't have a dime. Think about it for a minute. Seconds of a whole minute? I I could get drunk with power but

Speaker 2

34:11 I don't have any. I'll risk it. Looks like you only recommend. I

Speaker 1

34:16 get to do the agendas though. Okay. Let's have a vote. Bruce. Oh, sorry. I'm

Speaker 4

34:24 so eager. Let him go first. Hey, Steve. Hi.

Speaker 6

34:28 Before

Speaker 7

34:28 he deny Refuse excipient. I'm gonna run before he runs out of the building. Hi. Well,

Speaker 1

34:34 thank you. I appreciate your support. Ruth?

Speaker 4

34:37 Nay. No. Aye. Doesn't

Speaker 1

34:41 have to be unanimous. Okay. Keeping it spicy. Do we have any nominations for vice chairman? It's

Speaker 7

34:48 currently Ruth, isn't it? This

Speaker 1

34:50 is actually I'll recommend Ruth. Yes. You nominate Ruth? Yes. Okay. Second. Second. Do we have any other nomination for vice chairman? Congratulations. Haven't voted yet. We haven't had a vote yet. We do not like chains on this debate. We'll let Ruth vote first. You know we're rolling along. Sure. Ruth supports herself. Jeremy? Aye. Aye. Aye. We can always switch it up Okay. By And now we have the most coveted role in the Planning Commission, the secretary.

35:22 Would like to fights for. I would like to say that Vivian has done a great job. So I would take great honor in nominating her for this position. Do I

Speaker 2

35:33 have a say in this? No.

Speaker 1

35:36 You can't

Speaker 4

35:37 refuse the nomination. Let me take the duct tape off of my mouth. You

Speaker 3

35:41 can Lyndon Johnson the nomination. You

Speaker 1

35:44 refuse the nomination. No.

Speaker 2

35:49 Ruth. Aye.

Speaker 4

35:52 Four. Alright.

Speaker 1

35:54 You didn't vote for yourself yet. Oh

Speaker 4

35:57 I need to vote for myself on top of it. You can abstain.

Speaker 1

36:00 Aye. Great thank you. I appreciate you taking on the role again. Absolutely. Alternative, by the way, was if if no one would take that role, which was I saw as a possibility it was gonna be rotating, everyone was gonna have to do it. So

Speaker 4

36:16 you saved them all. I think it's a great anyway. Too late, we voted. I'm glad you made that motion. I'll second it. You didn't nominate. Already elected you. Didn't nominate. Which That's alright. Now you have have the scandal step in Okay. The

Speaker 2

36:31 Everybody likes my grok minutes then fine. They're getting

Speaker 1

36:35 a little detailed though.

Speaker 2

36:36 Talk to grok. Who's Talk to grok. Elon Musk's AI. Oh. Has everyone

Speaker 1

36:45 I think I said I connected the SB five thirty one, a new Virginia code. Oh. Passed by the Senate. Yes. It's a significant change. This has been talked about for years having accessory dwelling units. We actually proposed them recommended proposing to the code change to the Town Council of 700 square foot units and

Speaker 3

37:10 the Town Council didn't want to have anything to do with There was one particular member that said we wouldn't end up in this situation and therefore we failed to pass legislation before 01/01/2026. Here we are in this situation. The fact is we would have been in the same place anyway. Yeah. No. No. If we had passed legislation, we wouldn't be in this situation. Our legislation had

Speaker 1

37:33 to be something that permitted them, not something that didn't. Didn't pass. Correct. So so we're we would not be subject to this. Right. But, you know, we would have had it anyway. Yeah. And we would have had it sooner. Yeah. But we could have had

Speaker 3

37:46 Anyway. Different setbacks. We

Speaker 1

37:48 could have had all sorts of Setback is probably the only thing. That's the only thing we can do. I think all no. Can control the We can control the size of it too. We have a minimum size, but the maximum is up to us. So Correct. What

Speaker 3

38:00 we're gonna do The is setbacks is set by the state. Yeah. Set yeah. We we we we

Speaker 1

38:04 proposed that we used the 25 foot setback that we have for the primary dwelling. This this thing as written makes us use whatever the minimum setback accessory structure we have. And for accessory structures, we use 10 feet. So that's probably the only thing we could have done had we done sooner. Tom, can I Yeah? Comment? Yeah. Absolutely. I I read it that f

Speaker 6

38:25 two rear or side setbacks for ADUs cannot

Speaker 1

38:29 be more than five feet. Where do you wait. No. I where is that one again? What F two. It's near the bottom of the first page. Let's see. That's right. I read that. I thought I agree with you. I thought it didn't really apply that way. F two. It's

Speaker 6

38:41 confusing because three Wait a minute. Kinda conflicts, but two is more restrictive than three.

38:49 Not

Speaker 1

38:52 the same one I have. Anyway,

Speaker 3

39:02 so, yes, your Town Council will be asking you next Town Council meeting. They're gonna pass a

Speaker 1

39:08 resolution to ask us to come up with a language for the few things we can do. And we don't this thing only takes it has to be in place by July of of twenty twenty seven. We can do it sooner if we like but we don't have to. But I think it's important to do it right. The other thing I think is that all counties and towns in the state will be dealing with this. This stuff was driven by the metro areas to affordable housing. That's why it exists. There's going to be a lot of more rural and small towns dealing with this issue so hopefully the town attorney can provide us ongoing guidance as to what they're actually doing.

39:45 I

Speaker 4

39:46 think it also makes us relook at something we didn't really have consensus on before in, you know, we're looking at a hard number versus like a percentage of the lot, and this makes us look back at that to your point. There's a minimum, but we have some flexibility around. Okay. An ADU can't be 50% of the remaining land a lot. Know, like we can do some of that. There's a

Speaker 1

40:11 lot of that fact right now our code says that we don't limit the number of accessory structures someone can build, but it says that it can't be more than 30 some percent of the back area of the lot. Well,

Speaker 4

40:22 and yeah, and I think the part where it's gonna, I would argue it'll take us longer is we can't do anything that you wouldn't allow in a single dwelling unit, and we don't have a lot of restrictions on that. Mhmm. And

Speaker 3

40:34 I don't know that we want to put a lot of restrictions on that. I think we're gonna get a the late story. I fear we're gonna get a quagmire over septic. And what I mean by that is This is a pirate. This is a really nice You have presently a three bedroom septic and a three bedroom house. That's no septic. Well, I

Speaker 7

40:56 took

Speaker 3

40:56 it. So But you're And now you wanna put your ADU and attach to your three bedroom septic. Yeah. Well, the only way you can do that is you can go to the health department and lie and say, I'm turning one of my bedrooms and my house into an office, so I don't have a three bedroom house. I have a two bedroom house. And

Speaker 1

41:16 I don't have any guidance what the health department would say to that. BDH has to deal with the with the permit. It has to get some timber occupancy,

Speaker 3

41:24 which means VDH has to do it. Like, one of the questions will be Right. But if they're gonna allow crap like that, we can stop stuff like that. Crap like what? I'm I missed that part. Sorry. So if someone says if someone has a three bedroom house and a three bedroom septic, they cannot build an ADU. Right? Correct. Correct. Unless The VDH rerates their septic system. Or or they tell the VDH, hey. I'm taking out one of my bedrooms in the main house.

41:48 I'm turning it into an office, and now I want my bedroom

Speaker 1

41:52 over there. If VDH approves that Then that's approved. Yeah. Then it's approved. I I think it's unlikely the VDH would allow that. Yeah. I don't have any guidance for a while. I don't but it's like we have to find out about that stuff. Stuff. The other thing is wherever your septic field is you're going to have to be far away from it before you put this Right. Oh yeah. Right. Absolutely. One of the issues though is is what's the order of approval of things like if someone applies for for building an ADU, before we issue a zoning permit for it, we require that they get VDH approval?

42:23 That usually happens as part of the building permit process, right? Understanding the process for adding an ADU is something that's we're going to have to make sure we understand.

Speaker 4

42:32 Yeah. Well, I would hope like, I mean, as someone who would go through that, you would hope they get all that clearance before Irvington would be the final step. That's not the way it works. That's what we got to think about how that's what I'm saying is, like, that's how it should be structured. Like, this is more of to the point of earlier of, let's customize it a little bit here to allow for that. Like, we're the final finessing part, not a you can do it or not, because you can we don't have to do it within these parameters.

42:57 So, yeah,

Speaker 6

42:59 I had stated in there that it needs to be five up to five feet from the line, but it appears that line was withdrawn from

Speaker 1

43:10 The latest version, they took that out. Yeah. So Now it's it uses the basically, whatever your, least restrictive, site setback is. So for us, it's 10 feet. 10 feet. 10 feet for accessory structures. So ours

Speaker 6

43:23 ours would be 10 feet. I wanna remind everybody that this applies to attached and detached. Mhmm. ADUs. So it it may

Speaker 4

43:33 be attached to the the It is an important distinction to make, though, because I know when we when someone decided to start building a chicken coop a month after newborn twins came home, they accidentally built to five feet. And our neighbors finally were like, hey. You can't do that. Yeah. So we had to move the structure additional five feet in. Yep. Mhmm. And it was I mean, Michael's not an idiot. It was a honest mistake that isn't always very clear.

44:00 So I think that might be something we have to overly highlight in our own I think when we do we couple the navy ordinance, quite a few things we have to deal with. Any accessory structure that

Speaker 3

44:10 is attached to the primary dwelling is considered part of the primary dwelling. So you can build an ADU now as long as you wrote a covered walkway over to it. Yeah that's that covered walkway crap. Yeah that was a different one. I mean that's what the ordinance says. What

Speaker 1

44:28 it says is connected. It doesn't say covered walkway though does it? What is connected? Well no no. My mind if you a We've shared roof on talked about that before and when we talked about it we want to consider improving the code in that way to say that the connection has to be an enclosed space.

Speaker 4

44:52 But to play Advocate the Go don't you wonder that maybe people would push utilization of that because there wasn't a clarity on the ability to do an ADU. Now there is clarity and can do that. You might not necessarily want to work around the system. I think the connected thing goes away now that we have ADUs. Yeah. Well, but to that point, the connected structure has

Speaker 6

45:12 a 25 foot setback. Mhmm. Yes. So it's actually better for the neighbors to have a connected structure. Right. 25 instead of 10. So then we'd have to almost if we were more concerned about that, encourage

Speaker 1

45:25 people to want to do that versus the media. The other thing that this this thing was this thing is is was developed for rentals and for for or or granny flats. Yep. Rentals or something. It was developed it wasn't developed to have a separate dwelling on your property for your grandkids coming. Mean it was it's really it's really a temporary so it has to address rental issues. Right? And but I think it ought to you know it ought to have the same thirty days or more rental properties too.

45:52 I mean to to be blunt if this existed three years ago, we would have been able to have an au pair. We

Speaker 4

45:57 had nowhere to put anybody. Mhmm. And this kind of thing would fix that. Yeah. We'd have more affordable jobs.

Speaker 1

46:03 Twins will be too old by the time this gets done. It's okay. The next seven twins. So we drive

Speaker 4

46:08 Yeah. It's what? One in twelve chance? It's fine. Well, if

Speaker 1

46:11 they're if they're fraternal, it's fine. Yeah. We have fraternal twins. That's why we're Russian roulette. Yeah. My wife said we're not having any more kids after that. By

Speaker 3

46:19 the way, our SDR ordinance prohibits any accessory dwelling unit from being rented as a short term rental. So that is already yes. Good. So that's already in place. Okay.

Speaker 1

46:30 But even if you build your ADU, you can't short term rental. Okay. So I just wanted to get that out there, people get from there because we're we're gonna have to appoint a couple people to work. Do I have any volunteers to be on the two people to volunteer for the ADU? What's the timeline on it? Well, we don't have one. Okay. Then, yeah. We have to have But right. We have to have it implemented July 2027, which gives us a lot of time. Well and I would volunteer, Steve?

46:58 You do wanna volunteer? Okay. And I would one questions of is since since

Speaker 3

47:03 this is coming, whether you like it or not, it's coming in July. Once our ordinance is written to accommodate it, do you want to just go ahead and do it or are we going to arbitrarily wait until We'll let the two people working on it think about that and make recommendations That's on that a

Speaker 4

47:19 question. Would like to Right. I would argue wait because you don't know what the final final I agree. I you wanna I think you wanna wait to

Speaker 1

47:25 see what develops in other communities. I mean, the the state passed it and finalized it as some law. I'm rescinding it. It's probably not one of the things that's gonna happen. No,

Speaker 7

47:36 you never know. There will be some lawsuits. The last

Speaker 4

47:39 thing

Speaker 1

47:46 I'll mention is, and Steve brought this to my attention, there's an article in the paper about it. The state passed a law passed an ordinance state law that says that you can't restrict that any place that you can build a stick built home you can put in a manufactured home as long as it's basically no more than five years old and it has to be they called it converted to real estate which is a A big term. What? Is that like meant to be like long term livable versus It has be yeah.

48:18 Oh, what it means is it has to be connected to a septic system or sewer. It has to be foundation wise. It can't be on wheels and things like that. It's vague language that probably made sense to some real estate attorneys but it's not clear to me. It's a different building code right? What? It's a different building code. Double wise facing your house. Double wise. That's an FHA standard not a In any event, we don't allow them in town. And this would change.

48:50 The state law when they passed it moved back to a working group so it's not totally finalized yet.

48:57 Phil and I talked about it. We're going to recommend the town attorney start following what other people are doing with us because this one affects a lot of communities. Mhmm. So we'll see what we at some point, we're gonna have to deal with it. But I don't think in Irvington it's gonna be a big problem because of the, you know, the land cost and things like that. But it's yeah.

Speaker 6

49:15 And and hopefully we can keep our 1,200 square minimum. Yeah. Now if if our

Speaker 1

49:19 we have in our code a 1,200 square foot minimum which is in there now. And to get a a double wide can be getting to 1,200 fair feet, but a single wide can't get there anyway. Yeah. That's fair. Yeah. Well, 14 feet by how many gets to that? Unless you add add an ADU to it. Just just The stick covered walkway? Yeah. Covered walkway. The stick filled ADU are connected The barrage. Anyway. So that was also coming. The state has passed a number of things that were meant for allowing cheaper home development.

49:50 Okay. To increase density. That's a theme we're going to see for the It's next increased density. Yeah. Thank you state. Yeah. Well and every the other thing is There's more people. Irvington is a very unique place. It's small. It's rural, but it's, you know, it it's it doesn't have a lot of land. I mean Right. Like Lancaster County, even Kilmarnock. There's a lot of land in Kilmarnock relative. We don't have that. Okay. Next meeting oh, round table.

50:13 Anything on the round table? Okay. Next next meeting is the May fourteenth Town Council meeting. I'm not gonna be available for that. I have to go to my granddaughter's last place going. So I'm gonna write up my report. Would you like to do that, Ruth? Or I could have Charles do it or someone else can do it because we don't necessarily wanna drag you out of the house for that. I can do your report. Okay. With You're this? Yeah. Okay. He'll deliver my report.

50:39 I might be solo parenting at that point. So Well, then you can just tie them up and then leave. I'll just bring them. That'll make the meeting short. Okay. Our next meeting is June 2 at 06:30. Thank you, everybody. Motion to adjourn. Town Council on the seventh. Second. Town Council's on the fourteenth. So the one on the seventh has been moved to the fourteenth.