testing. should not be long. I said that my ready to go. That's fine. I don't think we'll have a problem with it. Okay. Okay. Ready to go, guys?
Ready, Karen? Okay. Evening everybody. Kate May City Planning Board is now in session and in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided. Should any member of this board have reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of that act they associate
this time hearing? None. We will start with the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation with liberty and justice for all.
Roll call. Karen. Yes. Mr. Bizair here. Mr. Jones here. Mr. Riggs, Mr. Crowley here, Mr. Gorgon here, Mayor Mullik, Deputy Mayor McDade here, Mrs. Reed here,
Mr. Lhome here, Mr. Badus, Mr. Krippen here. Thank you. Okay, we have resolution 92325 413415 Washington Street LLC, block 1043, lot one. Any corrections of that
resolution? Motion to approve. I was not here for this. Paragraph 17. I didn't I wasn't here and I didn't write it, but I just had a question. Paragraph 17, the third line. It It says commitment to longerterm
parking has pretented a hardship. It is that what it means to say? I thought it was long-term rental. And then later on it talks about Um, up top the paragraph before it says
there was a great need for long-term residential. So, I I thought that that was referring to the long-term renting and not so much long-term parking, which I don't know what that what that is. Well, potential for long-term parking is not there. Is that what that's talking about? You
knew that. There was no discussion about long-term parking. It was more about I think that's a typo. It was whether it was going to be a long-term rental. Right. So, I think that that word I think you guys mean that to be rental. I wasn't here. I don't know. But I think that's what that's supposed to be. So,
if you guys want to just look at it and think about it. Everybody agree with that. Yeah. The intent was to make sure they didn't short-term rental it. Right. Okay. So, will that would that change? Get a motion to approve. All motions approved.
Morning. Second. Second. Yes. Oh, thank you. Sorry, I didn't hear it. Motion by Mr. Lenholm. Seconded by Deputy Mayor McDade. Mr. Gorgon. Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Mrs. Reid. Yes. Mr. Crowley. Yes. Mr. Lenholm. Yes.
Mr. Krippen. Yes. Mr. Jones. Abstain. Mr. Bizair. Yes. Thank you. Okay. We have the minutes. Excuse me. minutes of August 26th for approval. Motion to approve. I'll make the motion. Second. Second.
Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Gorgone seconds. Mr. Gorgone. Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Mrs. Reed. Yes. Mr. Crowley. Yes. Mr. Lenholm. Yes. Mr. Krippen. Yes. Mr. Jones. Abstain. Mr. Bizair. Yes. Thank you.
Okay. We have the application of the evening. Ocean Club Hotel CM LLC. 1035 Beach Avenue, block 1101, lots 2, three, and four. Site plan, preliminary and final site plan with
variance relief. Evening, Mr. Chairman. Board members, uh John Amanhouser of the Dwis Law Firm here this evening on behalf of the applicant Ocean Club Hotel Cape or CM LLC. Uh as indicated, this property is at 1035 Beach Avenue uh
located in your C3 zoning district. Uh through the application that is uh been filed, the applicant seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval as well as variance relief under the uh C2 criteria related to maximum permitted lot coverage, minimum required sideyard
setbacks, and minimum required uh building setback to Ocean Avenue. uh in order to construct a canopy over an already existing deck terrace seating area uh located on top of the sea salt restaurant uh at the subject property. The restaurant currently has seating u
permitted for 176 or 176 seats. There is no additional seating proposed through this application. Uh the applicant is solely seeking installation of the canopy as an amenity that will allow for more frequent seating in that area as will be further testified to u by Mr.
Murphy this evening. Um there are also certain checklist items that were requested as identified in Mr. Herurles's review letter. Um Brian will testify as to justification of those checklist waiverss today as well. Um so we have Mr. Brian Murphy. Brian's a professional engineer and planner with
the firm of Penoni Associates uh here to provide professional testimony on behalf of the applicant this evening. Uh we also have uh Mr. Neil Burgerer, the manager of the Ocean Club Hotel here. I don't intend to elicit testimony from Neil, but he's here should the board have questions related to the application.
Yep. I also swear in our board engineer, do each of you, Sir, raise your hand just in. Please raise your right hand just in case, sir. Okay. And our board engineer is also going to be sworn in. Do each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth. The whole truth of the truth shall be God. I do. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, do you need credentials from
Mr. Murphy or accept them? All right. So Brian, can you give the board a general overview of the subject property as it presently situated? Sure. As with the site plan, you already stated is the Ocean Drive. Take the microphone up. Take the microphone up with the drive.
It's the Ocean Club located on uh uh Beach Drive and it goes all the way back to New Jersey Avenue. Um there are some photographs on the right hand side of the site plan and the key maps are up above. It's an an existing structure and
all we're proposing in lower right hand corner my fingers tracing the area is there is an existing deck and we want to put a canopy over the existing deck and on uh sheet two there is a uh
a detail showing the precise location of the deck and how the canopy will extend over top of the deck. And then there's the uh detail of the structural members of the uh canopy. It will be a fixed canopy
with a canvas uh top. Brian, can you give some some detail related to the height of the proposed canopy over that seating area? Sure. It's it's all uh the dimensions are on the plan, but it'll be 8 ft above the deck. Will be the bottom. Well,
it'll be seven feet to the bottom rung, 8 feet to the top. Okay. Now, Brian, can you confirm as well that um through installation of this canopy, there's no additional lighting that's proposed on the plan? No, the lighting there is a wall lighting that exists for the benefit of
the people who currently utilize the deck. In addition to that, there are uh battery operated candles on all the uh uh tables that are out there. So, between the uh candles and existing lighting um there'll be no additional lighting. And what this canopy will do
is will shield all those lights from any of the neighbors to to to the extent they currently uh uh see those lights, it'll be diminished or be no change as a result of this canopy. Okay. Now, Brian, based on the application plans that you filed, would
you agree that the variance relief that we need pertains to uh maximum permitted lock coverage, uh minimum required sideyard setback, and minimum required building setback? Correct. And in the order you stated we're at 99.9% coverage without the canopy and we'll be
at 99.9% coverage with the canopy. Albeit there will be about a I think about a 55 60 square foot increase if you include the how the canopy leans a little bit over top is a little bit larger than the deck just about a
foot. So the as it rains the water will drop down onto the landscaped area in the front and not onto the deck. Um the front yard set back currently the uh uh deck is about 5.7 feet from the front
yard setback. The canopy will extend out a little bit over a foot beyond that. So it'll be um about a foot to a foot and a half closer to the street than the the deck currently would is. And then also
on the sideyard it gets to 0.8 feet where there's 2.2 feet right now um for the sideyard. So that's the coverage the front yard and the sideyard setback and if the canopy is raised as I stated earlier it's about 8 feet higher than
the deck and the deck is elevated. So I don't see there will be any visual obstruction to the uh pedestrian traffic walking along Beach Avenue. Okay. So none of those encroachments are on ground level. are all elevated. Correct. Correct. Okay. Got it. Uh and Brian, for any of the uh other
pre-existing non-conforming conditions that may already exist at the site, we're not exacerbating those in any way through this application. We're not we're not changing any grades. We're not changing any lighting other than putting a canopy over top of the existing lighting. We're not changing
the need for any parking. We're not changing any landscaping. So there are no other changes other than simply adding a canopy over top of an existing deck. Okay. Now, in relation to the variances that we're asking for under the the C2 criteria, is it your professional
opinion that if the board were inclined to grant this relief, certain purposes of zoning would be enhanced or promoted? Yes, I do believe that. What the purposes of those? Um I believe I is the one that jumps out at me and um
that is to promote promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangements and I believe that this will uh enhance the visual aspect in a positive way to this
existing structure. Okay. Any other purposes you want to place on the record at this time or That's the the key one. I believe that's your key. Okay. Yes. And then is it also your professional opinion that in addition to that there would be no negative uh substantial detriment to the public good or the zone plan if the board weren't inclined to
grant this relief? I don't believe there'll be any um significant detriment to the Kate May city zone plan and zoning ordinance should this application be approved. Okay. Um, Brian, there was one thing I wanted to cover. When we looked at some
of the uh approvals from the outside agencies that were received, there was a comment on the environmental commission's um recommendation of approval pertaining to uh potential runoff into the surrounding landscaping. Can you weigh in as to whether you believe that this would have any negative uh impact on the the
landscaping surrounding the canopy if approved? It will be a dimminimous my opinion. take the mic the microphone sorry [Music] as shown in the uh photographs that are on the right hand side that's already
landscaped in that area so what'll happen is that the um the runoff that currently runs off from the deck it'll be from the canopy it'll run down it'll drop onto that landscaped area and so they're established uh vegetation
there are not worried about them washing out onto the sidewalk and it is professionally maintained to the extent that after rainfall there is some mulch or something that goes out into the sidewalk. It's a very simple matter of just sweeping it back up again. So, I don't think it'll be any significant detriment.
And uh would you agree that the existing landscaping will be preserved through this application? We're not affecting that in any way. Correct. Not in not in any way. Correct. Um Brian, we did ask for a couple of additional um checklist waivers related to um submission of an environmental impact statement for one. Um, do you
believe that waiver would be justified here? I do. And and for the fact that as there's no reasonable environmental detriment to this, all it is is just a covering over an existing deck. Okay. Um, you've already touched on
lighting, but we also asked for a waiver from the requirement to submit a a grading plan. You believe that's also justified here? Correct. Because there will be no change in any grades um as a part of this application. So to the extent how the water runs off today and is handled, it'
be the same way tomorrow. Okay. Uh and lastly, we're not proposing any new signage through this application. Is that right? No, there's no new signage associated with this and there's no signage uh proposed on the canopy itself. Okay. Um Brian, in in addition to uh those items, are you agreeable to
accepting the board engineers general review comments as condition of approval of this application? Yes. Okay. Anything else you'd like to add at this time, Brian? No, I think that it's a a relatively straightforward application. It's a a covering of an existing deck. I think
it'll be a visual enhancement. And more than that, it will allow um in talking to Mr. Burgerer, um this area to be better utilized. You have people out there, they're eating, enjoying a good meal, and it starts to rain. What do you do with them? You
can't bring them inside. There's already people eating inside. So it creates a stressful situation for the restaurant and for the patrons in the the mornings that the sun rises up. It's a beautiful sun uh sunrise but then it gets hot and having a canopy you get to enjoy the the
the the view of the the sunrise but without all that intense heat that comes with it. So I think it's all uh um from my perspective it's all beneficial. Okay. U Mr. Chair, that's all I have of Mr. Murphy. Just one question of Mr. Burger while we're here too. Um, you know, you you received conceptual
approval from the Historic Preservation Commission already. Turn your Neil. There you go. Yes. Okay. Uh, in your presentation to them, did you present them with the color and fabric that you'd be proposing for this canopy? Yes. Okay. And what color is proposed for the canopy? Uh, it's an orange color. It's the same
as the existing uh awnings that we have on all of the rooms on the first and part of second floor. So, it'll remain consistent with the awnings that are presently on the property, right? Yes. Okay. And then as a further condition of that approval, um is it accurate to state that you also
agreed that any aluminum um post related to the canopy would be painted white? Yeah, they asked that the framework of it be white instead of bare aluminum and I agreed to that. Okay, that's all I have at this time, Mr. Chair. Any questions? We're happy to answer.
I I have a few questions. Is that okay? Um so the existing umbrellas will be removed. Yes. Okay. And you mentioned that this is a canvas. We have one swatch. Don't have many, but we have this umbrella fabric with history.
Is it pl Are you planning to keep it up all year round or will you remove that? You would remove that. That would that was asked at the HBC. Okay. It'll be removed in just like our other canopies. Okay. Um the you mentioned that you won't be adding any additional electric.
Will you install ceiling fans? No. Okay. And how about any gas lamps outside for heating purposes for year- round use or you know No. Okay. Um and this will be removed and the drainage that you mentioned sir is there any drainage currently French
drains in that landscape area or is it just natural? I believe it's just landscaping. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? There's no public. Don't have to worry about that. Greg, go for your comments.
I'd like to summarize my August 27th, 2025 review memorandum for this application. This is an application in the C3 Hotel Motel District. Um, you've heard testimony from the applicants indicating they're proposing to remove
the existing umbrellas that that shade the seating out there and replace it with this awning that they're proposing. uh they've requested completeness checklist waiverss from the CND variance checklist items number 19 and 33. I
supported those under the required site plan. So they're asking for a site plan preliminary and final approval tonight under that checklist item number three P VW and Y. I supported all of those
waivers. There were two that I asked for additional information. Um, and they kind of went a little different direction than what I was asking. Kind of my concern with regards to the lighting. Uh, we don't have an an elevation of the canopy in relationship
to the existing lighting that that services that front deck. I wanted to make sure that that installation of that awning was not going to um blot out those black out those lights so that there was no lighting for those seats.
Um so we want to make sure that that is done. Sure. So um that should be a condition of approval that the lighting shall remain on the facade of that building and be you know functional after the installation of the awning.
The other item was R, which was this the sign. Um, there is a sign on that facade. Um, and I think it sits higher than the awning. Um, I'm guesstimating, but because we didn't have um any facade of that, I just want to make sure that
the top of that awning was not going to require the relocation of that signage. So th those were my two concerns. Um, those those items should be addressed as condition of approval. And based on that recommendation, I did support deeming deeming this application complete.
I agreed with the applicant's testimony. There are three variances required. Um they relate two of them relate to the structure or actually all three of them do relate to the installation of the structure. U there is a 20 foot setback requirement for Beach Avenue. Um we now
have an existing non-conforming situation with that relates to the pool and deck terrace. Um there's a zero foot setback measured to the pool deck. Uh the deck terrace is set back six feet. Uh those are both existing non-conformities. This proposed canopy
will be set back 4 and 1/2 ft. Um so there's a variance necessary for that. The sideyard setback. So, the portion of this on the if you're looking at it from Beach Avenue on the left side, uh there is an existing nonconformity on that
side of 0.35 ft measured to the nearest face of the structure. The canopy will actually be 0.8T. So, it'll encroach into the 10-ft required sideyard setback. So, that's another variance that's required. And then finally, you
have about 60 square feet of additional imperous coverage that's proposed over top of that landscaping that's right in front of that. Um, it really doesn't tick up the number that much because the site is so large, but there is an additional increase of lot coverage
there. So, you're at 99.9% where 75% is the maximum permitted. So those are the three variances that the board has to address. Uh my general review comments are very standard. There's no real um these are
all should be conditions of approval. Um they're all standard conditions of any site plan variance approval that we grant. So all of those should be uh conditions of approval. I will talk about the reports that we
received. We rei received an environmental commission recommendation of approval with a condition that they address the potential adverse impacts from runoff into that front landscaping.
Uh Mr. Murphy has testified that that is mature landscaping and that he doesn't foresee any negative impacts. I found it this I didn't have I had a similar response to that comment. So um I didn't take issue with it. Uh we will review
that after the one of the conditions is they have to address as a condition of approval is number two. Um they have to comply with the minimum stormwater management and gradient requirements both during and after construction. If that becomes problematic, we have the ability to have recourse to go back and
have them address that situation. They did receive uh notice of conceptual approval from the HPC dated March 17, 2025. Um the conditions are listed in there. The police department recommended approval with no comments dated 828
2025. Public works department recommended approval with no comments dated 9225. Shade tree commission recommended approval with the following conditions. If no trees will be removed, we approve
of the dining canopy. If any planting is to be removed, we recommend a twoforone replacement of plantings. They've indicated that they're going to preserve all the landscaping, so I believe they can comply with that. That recommendation was dated 9:15.
Um, so that is a summary of my review memo and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. We have any questions? I got nothing. I have just one comment. A lot of you guys weren't on this board when it
happened, but this property has been through a couple iterations over the years. And at one point, there was six or seven parking spaces where this front deck is, which they agreed to remove years ago because it was it was an issue backing it out of each drive. And in the
back, the back parking lot used to empty directly into New Jersey Avenue when it came in. And they didn't receive any more units. There was no addition to the building, but they voluntarily landscaped that area that faced New Jersey Avenue so that people now are
having to pull out of there and drive down one exit instead of 35 cars backing into New Jersey Avenue. So, these guys have been good neighbors for a long time. I saw it through through some long meetings. They also upgraded the vent
exhaust fans that were the bane of the neighborhood. Oh, yeah. That is a monstrous expense and and it isn't adequate. Yeah. So it has issues. So I can echo that sentiment. I was also eating there when it started raining. Uh as a matter of fact I
watched that happen what do you do anyway? Okay. So no other comments we'll just approve everything you want. Do you want to give the uh or deny it? That's your discretion. Uh the application I recommend being made
by how you vote is up to you is a motion to grant site plan preliminary and final approval and with the associated variances subject to the waiverss and conditions outlined by the board engineer on pages two and three and
six engineering report dated August 27, 2025. Motion to that effect. I will make the motion. I'll second. Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Crippen seconds. Mr. Gorgone. Yes.
Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Mrs. Reid. Yes. Is that a yes? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Crowley. Yes. Mr. Lenhome. Yes. Mr. Krippen. Yes. Mr. Jones? Yes. Mr. Bizair? Yes.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. We won't be we won't be doing putting that up this season now because the season's over. So it'll be in the spring. Yep. Very good. Thanks again. You got you can take two years from now if you want.
20 years. Two two years. Okay guys. Um next on the agenda is a master plan review ordinance. uh don't have but this is the um workforce housing
ordinance which we started to discuss at last meeting and we've had some time to look at the ordinance. Um I believe this ordinance has been basically narrowed down to the Washington Street Mall properties and
not anything beyond that. Uh the time limitations I believe that it has to be a minimum of 90-day rentals. We've agreed I believe that's that's the sentiment. Um
it it also gave a definition to what workforce housing constitutes. I do have one question on the page two the very bottom it says that two person shall have a minimum of 100
square feet of space below that then then it says 150 square feet of habitable area for the first occupant and 100 square feet after that I'm not I mean I'm not sure why we have to further define that as is if it's 100 square
feet for two people that I think be sufficient to say that's what you for for sleeping accommodations, right? I'm not sure why we're mudding the waters in St. Louis. What if there's four people? Then you have to have 400 square feet. Well, you have to have feet. 200 square feet.
You'd have to have 450 square feet, wouldn't you? No, 150 for the first. No, it's 100 square feet for two for two people. That's the first That's the first qualification. Wait, let me go through this with you. I want to make sure I understand what
you're saying. I don't know why we have all this in there. We should just stop it right there. My opinion. Why does your version look different than mine? Oh, I'm in Craig's report. Okay. You're just looking at something. What are you looking at? Oh, okay. That's report. I'm looking at Craig's. I think it says the
same thing. All right. So, let's make sure we understand this. You need 150 for the first person. You need 100 square feet for two people. That's what it says to begin with. There's a minimum of 100 square feet. I think there's I think there's two I think there's one for a bedroom and one for the size of the unit.
I think there's two different standards there. Yeah, one's a bedroom. So, the first one, the way that I read this is the first one, the specific standards applicable to workforce housing are as follows. Consistent with the international
property maintenance code IPMC 404-4 I mean4.1 each bedroom for one person shall be a minimum of 70 feet square feet and any bedroom proposing two persons shall be a minimum of 100 square feet.
Then it says there shall be no more than two persons per bedroom regardless of size. Overall, a workforce housing dwelling unit shall not be occupied by more occupants than permitted under the following formula. So I believe that
this is more of a zoning formula in addition to No. Am I saying I think one is about bedrooms, one is about the whole unit. Okay, that's the first sentence you have to have bedrooms of a certain size. The second part is about her habitable floor area the whole That's why you're an attorney and I'm an engineer.
No, well that's okay. I mean that's what I think it is. I think the first No, that that makes sense. That made more sense. So, just read it again and see if that does it for everybody. I think that's the difference. Well, here's here's because you're going to send more space than just the bedroom. But here's what happens. Take that second take that secondary. If
you've got if you're saying two persons for for 100 square feet that's the first in a bedroom, right? You take the next position and now it's 150 square feet for the first occupancy. Not in a bedroom. In the whole building in the whole space. In the whole unit. For the whole space. Not just a bedroom. And then it can be a living room, bathroom
and then 100 square ft of additional habitable area should required for each additional. So now you're now you're now now it's not two people per bedroom. Now it's after you hit forget bedrooms and bedrooms. This is nothing to do with the bedrooms. It's just apartments. That's the total habitable space is the
total area. It's for each but for each additional person is now it's now 100 square feet. Well, let's say it's five people. Bill, hold on. Okay, go ahead. Let's say it's five people. Okay, if there's five people, you need a apartment.
All aspects of it, the laundry room, the bedroom, the bathrooms, the kitchenet, and the that would be 550 have to be 550 square feet. The bedrooms within that unit small would have to be um that's I read it two two would have to be two 100 foot
ones, right? And then a 70, right? Correct. But it doesn't say that you could have two people in the additional 100 foot 100 foot bedroom. That's my But there's no this isn't talking about bedroom. This is this is the whole thing. Yeah.
Follow follow follow the example. So it'd be a 550 square with five people. You need 550 square feet of an apartment and then the bedrooms in that would have to be 100 70. No, that's 270. That would mean though
that you would need 230 square ft of living area, bathrooms, bathrooms, whatever else. You can't have a You can't just have like a little You can't just have a bedroom. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. If you had two people in the Well, what what about
over the mall? You're not going to have a big issue with that sort of thing. When we start getting beyond this, you might have an area where you're going to have a building that's got common space and then and then a bunch and then and then a lot of bedrooms. You could have studio apartments that but you're not
going to put two or three people in those. You could have common spaces for, you know, um this is going to work for the mall because there's nothing big on the mall, which is what we're addressing at this point. I I'm just I just know that down if if you get something that's going to be larger and you're talking about a
building that can have 30 bedrooms in it, you don't need then now you're going to have to have all the extra space. So you're talking more like a dormatory style. Exactly. Okay. I think when we get to that then we have to define that part. Exactly. Right now this is the minimum threshold that is being recommended.
You would have want five people in an apartment less than 1150. I think that number is a little light. I think that was sort of the goal not to allow that. All right. Everybody okay with that? Yeah. Yeah. I just have a question when you get when you're done with where did this originate this ordinance
proposal? It Well, I'll give you the background. And it was before I was on the planning board um for the application that was presented um by the gentleman from the Queen May. Um and there was a feeling that the um what had been approved at
this board had not necessarily um been held up for lack of a better word. It originated before that. It originated it originated master plan re-examination. We all discussed this and it ended up as a recommendation in the master plan
recommend and master plan re-examination. We address workforce housing at some point but it didn't come from the mall people. It came from the city. It came from discussions during our master plan re-examination where we felt that we recognized that
this was a a problem in 2018 and that we were going to try and come up with a solution and the problem was there was no workforce housing. No, my my recollection I can't speak to the master plan. I wasn't as involved in that. My recollection of it coming out for the
first time from me and discussing it with the board was an application over um it was the people who own the fudge thing and it's next to what used to be Stewart's somewhere over in that area and they were doing something upstairs and I remember saying to everyone that
they were approving it based on it being workforce housing and I said understand that's not in the resolution and if anybody thinks that they're going to put workforce housing up there they're not paying attention it's going to be an Airbnb because no one is going to put workforce housing where they can get $5,000 a night. And
it was around the time that Peter Shields was putting in a luxury uh hotel in the mall. And so now you're going to start doing Airbnbs with people with no parking. And I was like, you talking about the um above the Willow Willow thing. Yeah.
Above Oh, the application I'm talking about Peter Shields was not No, the Peter Shields one is on the corner of No, across the street from F. The guy who owns Peter Shields has above Willowing Stone or whatever that thing is above that is Peter Shields hotels.
So, you know, you're going to put work for you're expecting people work for put workforce housing above on the mall when in that area there's high-end hotel rentals. So, they're all going to be Airbnbs. So, now you're agreeing to put the object of the exercise was we're
going to do workforce housing because they don't drive much. But if you're going to put a five- bedroomedroom apartment above a mall unit, which they were doing, that is going to be two or three families with six cars doing an Airbnb above the mall. And that's okay
if that's what you want to do. But the the no parking aspect of it was thrown off offkilter. I said that way back when. And now it's kind of I'm not even sure Airbnbs were there when I always said Airbnb, but now that's what's happened is it doesn't make any sense to have no parking requirement if it's
going to be residential rental units. It doesn't make my opinion sense to have a parking requirement on the mall to be given. It should have. No, it does. So does the code does anywhere and Craig, this will be a question for you. Anywhere in the code that define rentals define how long you
rent them? Say it again. When you in the code when it defines a residential rental does it define how long you rent them the term short-term rental rentals are a form like it's a form of
ownership. So in dealing with zoning we only create we only approve the uses a residential rental is on the in this case we are defining how these workforce housing units are to be rented. So we're creating this
definition. this is a brand new use that we're implementing into that zone. Um, you know, so it's defined and it's been revised to address a lot of your concerns with the fact that we didn't have a lot of
controls with the size, with the term. So all of those things have been incorporated into this new definition. So now that that is all part of the use, I I agree with that, but I view it a little bit different. Okay. I view it as putting a condition
on not having a parking requirement. So basically, you're saying you're not going to you're not going to need to demonstrate a variance for parking if you're using it for a uh a workforce something that looks like workforce housing because generally
that the benefit of that is so great. and the odds of those people actually driving cars so low that it justifies not having the same parking requirements that you would have if it was an ordinary weekly rental moving in and out every week or every night with families
parking. So to me has a totally different parking analysis and and workforce your workforce conjures up a certain use but it's it's not that it's anything work force is anything more than 90day it got to be a minimum of 90day rent
whether an owner uses it or whether it's employees it's it's it's not it doesn't mean that an owner can't use it just means that it has to be given to a 90-day or more rental that's and and one of the reasons for that also is that we want to see, you know, people
who want to live here coming back into the city and affordable. So, from that perspective, to me, it's sort of like making sure that we we've got a new generation of people who are wanting to come here, live here, and contribute. But this is this is not going to go anywhere near far enough to to
making it affordable is totally different than how I mean, you can't tell somebody this is not put a rate on what they can charge, right? Not no. So, we're not dictating rates. were dictating the use. If the intent is to create a circum or a special circumstance for people that
want to create workforce housing, why does it have to say no short-term rental? Why can that why can't you have a stipulation for someone that wants to create workforce housing and just leave it at that? Workforce doesn't stay for three days. No, but I'm just saying why
why can't you have a stipulation that says if you create workforce housing, no parking, blah blah blah. Why does it have to say no short-term rental? Because what if someone wants to do that? The the fact that we're not having a parking requirement, that analysis changes drastically if you
have short-term turnovers in the mall that doesn't have any parking. And that is an adverse impact. And I think that the board is pretty much, you know, the supposition is workforce has workforce people are are going to have bikes and not cars. That's that's that's
the Yeah. But in in reality, what you're saying is that the minimum rental is 90 days, right? Okay. Whether it be workforce or whatever whatever reason, 90 days is is the minimum rental that you can have.
Oh, by the way, that fits in with what workforce housing would be. And you don't and you don't and as a result, the incentive the incentive of doing that is you don't have to experiment. It's going to be an ordinance. Well, but a workforce housing person parks her
car back on back on Bank Street in a street with no meter and leaves it there all summer and rides her bike around. Well, right. That's it's so It just seems like it's more intent to eliminate the short-term rentals than it is to create work. It is. It is in reality.
Or the mall. Yes. Or the mall. Only the mall. Only the mall. Or the mall people complain. I think we were we were concerned complaining about us having a parking variance all the time. Yes. And this eliminates that if you're also contributing the possibility of
workforce housing instead of an Airbnb above your unit. So, so you can always come in and ask for a variance. It's probably not going to encourage somebody has a one-story building to put up two more floors and put the cost cost benefit is is not there. It's not happening. to repurpose currently existing space
and to encourage people to allow that to be rented by what we're defining as workforce housing and discourage those units being converted into short-term rentals with people coming in and out of parking spots, cleaners, everything else. So, you know, um
but there there still will be uh short-term rentals in the mall space. Correct. It doesn't affect it doesn't affect existing and does anybody know how many currently short-term rental operations are in that unless you go to the merkantale license
office and find out I could I could estimate I I'm there every day for 45 years I can tell you. Yeah, but some there may be some that I don't you know that don't have permits. I don't know. I was going you know that's was my going to be my comment. That doesn't mean just because they're
putting it out on Airbnb or some other means that they have a permit. I mean, so it's it's not a ton. It's not that's not a whole lot of Well, since we're grandfathering it, are we? That's what the language says here.
Where is Where is that language? Any Yeah, you you can't make this much rap. I understand. I'm I'm looking I'm looking ahead. It's in my report on page five of seven, section three at the towards the bottom
of the page. Effect on existing users. Oh, I admit I didn't see that that was changing. Okay. And that was discussed when this was initially presented at this board as well as when we discussed this last time. Um
the the uh the sense I got was that grandfathering is already in effect. Correct. Why then do we have to put new language? It's section section three effect of on existing uses is the grandfather that is not language that goes into the
ordinance. It's more of a I don't know what's what's the terminology rich. It's going into the draft ordinance, but section three is just it's justification language. Something like that. Something like that. Right. It doesn't
end up in our ordinance. Our ordinance already has the grandfathering clause or whatever. So, you're just referencing it. The ordinance is referencing its or clarifying its effect on existing uses. Okay. I had another question.
Okay. Hold on. I'm not done with that. I'm sorry. I want to understand that an application for certificate of pre-existing non-confirming use may be made to the zoning office within one year of the adoption of this ordinance or at any time to the zoning board. So if someone has a short-term rental, they
have a year to go and get a certificate of non-conform certificate of non-conformity or at any time they can come here. The ordinance doesn't The ordinance doesn't say that. No, it does. It does. The new ordinance doesn't say it, but I'm being told the existing ordinance says it. No, this section three, is that going to be
in an ordinance or not? It's in It's in the It's already It's in the draft ordinance. Yes, it's right here. But but this that section doesn't end up in our zoning code is what I was saying. It's not It's not Oh, it's in a different part of the code.
Correct. Okay. So, it is it's it's in part of the municipal code, but not necessarily the section on zoning. Correct. It's it's part of the draft ordinance that gets adopted. And I think that the reason Mr. Gillan Schwarz did this to make sure it was very clear that we were not sort of
resetting this the clock here that anyone Yeah. No, I I don't I have which was discussed at council. I just want to make sure that so my so then that that how can that not be in the zoning section. I don't know. Maybe that's
recommendation we should make that it's put in the zoning. It it it should be it should be Hold on. Let me see if it's maybe in there because it there probably should be something 525. If you notice section two is f is is a revision to section 525-22
which is part of our zoning code. Section three is part of the ordinance document but it's not an addition of that language into our zoning code.
at least the way it's proposed here. Can I just ask all of this is just for the three blocks of the mall or does it extend a little bit? So they listen so the recommendation was made at the last planning board meeting that this would only be a test case or
not a test case this would only apply for the three blocks to the blocks wholly within the Washington Street Mall. So the surrounding C1 block and lots are not included in this. That's my question. Thank you. I I would ask that we just ask Mr.
Gillan Schwarz to consider whether any reference to the section three should be in the zoning ordinance because that is clearly a zoning so this doesn't provision this thing about grandfathering in one year and I don't and I don't know that we have that provision anywhere else in that
zoning thing. We can't because it references the Wash Street Mall workforce housing overlay and that's only right being created now. So I guess I just you know that's have them think about that because this is going to this is going to come
up because whenever you declare something a non-conforming use remember the question is whether it's being expanded right so when is that use being expanded? So if someone is an area that's storage and is becoming part of the apartment,
thus expansion of a non-conform. So let me ask this question then. If if if somebody has to make an application with a one year of the adoption of this to establish the fact that it's a pre-existing use, right? That's what this says. Well, it also says or any time to the zoning board.
Yeah, but but but five years from now, zoning board is not going to know what what what this was all about. My my suggestion would be you notify people who have an apartment now. Make an application, cover your behind now, so there's a record of the fact that you've got a pre-existing use.
Otherwise, just take it out. Otherwise, we don't need it because the the the records, construction office records show what's there and anytime somebody comes in to make a a change in a property in the mall that the the
zoning officers, construction officials, they're going to go back to the Mike. They they they go back through all the records that are on file at city hall to find out if that was actually there. Why are we even doing this if it's there? And grandfathering, we all we all agree grandfathering exists and something
that's there when a new ordinance is is put on the books is is exempted from those new regulations. I think the water unless you don't want them anymore, then you would slowly get rid of them. No, I think what Mr. Gillanor was trying to do, and I would say Mr. King to to reach out to him and ask him and I'll
make sure he's aware was that there seemed to be um a a lot of push back immediately when this was just introduced um with people thinking that we were taking away if they had if they had currently an Airbnb or other uh
other a shorter term rental the Airbnb things become a dirty word. Okay, short-term rental short-term rentals whatever word you want to use. I don't but at any rate I think he thought that it was clarifying for the public who were listening to this discussion at this meeting or at the council meeting that we were not
coming in and taking away something that they had already been using as a permitted use. So I think that was his intent. Um that was what he presented at the council meeting when this was originally um introduced. So I think it's a matter of going back and clarifying with him. Is it needed in
here? Is it not needed in here or or does it require you know some I think I know what he I I I think Thank you for that explanation and as I read this I think I know what he's doing. He's trying to help the people because it can be hard to come in much later and
establish what you were doing five or six years ago. Mhm. This gives them the opportunity to apply for it now while they have their leases from the last year and establish themselves. They don't have to worry about doing it years from now. So, he's trying to help them.
They don't have to. But if you don't, but if you don't give them that opportunity, then they Bill, I think we also recognize come in here and apply for a certificate of non-conformity. Yeah. I think also it's recognized that we we don't know who has these uses
right now. There's not an inventory. We that we just discussed that a few minutes ago. We're not sure what everything's being used for currently. Whether it's a short-term rental get a letter from city saying if you have apartments that are currently being rented, please make application to city. We we can that would go back to Mr.
Gillan Schwarz if that's a method of communication. Um I I just know that he brought this up specifically saying I think you're both saying the same thing. Yeah, it's the method by which it happens. Either you put it publicly within an ordinance or you send a letter. Either one. So, so the two recommendations as I
understand it would be as follows to kind of clarify the record so when people look back they know where we ended is one just ask Mr. Mr. Gill Stewarts to consider whether any part of this section three should be referenced in the zoning ordinance as well. And two, when this ordinance is passed,
a copy of it should be sent to everyone on the tax list on the Washington Street Mall so that they know what it is and they can avail themselves of the opportunities that are in it if they wish to. Not as an obligation, but as a courtesy. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Good idea. Is that where we're at?
Yeah. I had I had another question. Uh the uh proposed language creates what it's called a Washington Street Mall workforce housing overlay in that uh in that district.
Um so it's clearly focusing just on the lot and block on the mall for these people. The the problem I have is that the definition which is created in the new draft uh doesn't doesn't create any
linkage between the concept of workforce housing and the use in the overlay. And because for example it says apartments located above commercial uses uh above commercial uses means that
there are rate there are commercial ratables in every zone that may or may not have these these kinds of capacities. This strictly applies to C1. It's to them all. Forget the other zones. It doesn't it the these are revisions to the C1 ordinance.
That's correct. But you're but you're when you make that revision, you're using a term which doesn't only apply to that C1. It applies to every place in town. Sure does. Well, specific very specific. That's very
All right, let's all read the workforce housing definition. Where is there a restricted usage between that and the C1 change? Right here. We define we define uses all through our
definitions, but they don't refer that they're only applicable in this or the specific zone bulk and area and use requirements dictate what you're allowed to do in each one and and that's being revised on
in section 52522. Well, what but wouldn't it be? Well, listen, Dennis, and Moren just pointed this out. If you look at Parent A number one. A one, right? Yeah.
It defines which blocks. I understand that. So, I know that. Okay. I And it creates what we call this this overlay. I got that. My point is if this is an experimental operation and we we're trying to see if it works in the
mall, why don't we use the definition for workforce housing which links that to this experiment overlay instead of it's right there. It is one whole section. Yeah. But see when you go over here you're looking at the What if you want to do the same thing in
a different zone later? Why wouldn't you? But what if you want to? Yeah, exactly. You may. You you may. So then you don't there's a recommendation in the re-exam but you would have to change the uses for those other too also you have to change the uses for those other what Craig is pointing out is in the definition section of our zoning
ordinance we we define the term hotel it's in the definition section but that doesn't mean that it has to say you can only in the definition section in the beginning of the ordinance that say you can and you can only do this in the C3 zone. No I I I understand that. What? Well, then what's the but the same question
would be is why wouldn't you link the definition of hotel with the zone it could be used in in the definition section? That's not where you do it. So, so you're at some future time if this experiment works out, we're going to have to go in and change all the other uses for the other zones. No to let workforce housing in there.
You want to do it in the C2 zone. You say in C2 workforce housing. That's why you you have to change that. Or maybe you call it something different if it's that definition doesn't work for the C2. The only place this is going to apply when this is adopted is the mall.
Period. That's it. So the the normal course of action for our defining uses in our zone. For instance, single family dwellings, it's defined in the definition section of the we in the
residential districts. We the the city has decided that it's appropriate in the R1, the R2, the R3, the R4, RS, R5. It's all listed in there. Each one of those
districts has specific uses that have been considered and evaluated and made sure that's how it's linked to the definitions. Okay? So you'll find your use under the zone you're in and then you go back to the definition to see to make sure that that you know understand what
that use is permitted as defined or and so if somebody in another zone a commercial or a residential which contains a commercial ratable they the city will have to go back and change the use sections of each of those zones. But Dennis we do I mean that's all
revisions are done all the time. That's all I'm asking. That's how you're supposed to do it. Yes. Okay, that's all all I wanted to know. Incorporate this into another zone, that's how you do it. I thought the term workforce housing was used elsewhere in the ordinance and you were concerned that if we do it in the general definitions, everywhere it says
in there workforce housing, it now has a new definition, but I assume workforce housing doesn't appear anywhere else in the ordinance. No, no, it does not. It's a it's a the only time we could confuse it is if you're talking about affordable housing because the affordable housing
stuff talks about workforce housing but not as part of our ordinance. I did want to ask you about that. Do you think that when you're doing your affordable housing analysis, whenever it is they make you do it in round 27 or whatever, that having this overlay will be helpful in that conversation at least?
Doesn't No. No. Doesn't meet the income. It does not meet their requirements. It was it's not that's why it we need to call it something we had to call it something different. It's not affordable housing in any sense of the word. Well, in the sense of the word it is,
but yeah. No, no, it's not in any sense of word. Yeah. The limitations of the word. Yeah. So, affordable housing is based on income. This is not based on income because this is free will for whoever owns that
property to be able to rent it at any rate. And if there's someone in the market that can afford that rate and wants to live there, they'll pay it. Affordable housing is totally different. I understand what I'm pointing out. I thought uh and I am not nearly an affordable housing expert. In fact, I admit that I
know very little about it, but I keep hearing conversations about it. And I thought like there's those things where when we created cottages in the back, okay, and you can start pointing out these things as opportunities where there might be affordable housing and you kind of get some play on that in
your reports. Even if it's never rented for that purpose, you get some you get to show you're making an effort to um you have an opportunity. We have to provide this reasonable opportunity for to for the housing to be provided and and that's why I saying I wasn't
saying it'll qualify as affordable unit. I'm saying that when you have this conversation about things you're trying to do, I was wondering if this might be something that might be in that conversation. No, they they do not care. I mean, they would say yes, they pat you on the back, but it doesn't count in their in their
calculation methodology. And that's why do the cottages count? Because they're new. You're building new. it. It's a program that the city proposed to them in a town full of really expensive
housing where that is a more of a realistic opportunity for someone to pro to convert one of those units into something that could be a deed restricted for affordable hous.
The distinction is not as clear to me as it is to you. Okay. But I mean, we're taking stuff off a short-term rental market and putting it on a long-term rental market. Well, yes, there may be a developer that needs affordable units
and can convince homeowners to convert their unit into deed restricted for whatever. Well, you you can build a new financial financial benefit to each party. Um, and that unit could be deed restricted and would count towards the
city's affordable housing obligation. So, if you have an employee who makes $35,000 a year and you want to provide housing for them, isn't this creating that opportunity? And isn't that affordable housing? It has to be restricted. I understand that,
but it has to be it has to create the opportunity to restrict. I am just pointing out that if I owned one of these with a bunch of stuff in it and I had to put employees in it anyway, you you would the putting employees. So, one of the one of the difficulties in
getting people to change over, say they're going to convert their garage into one of these affordable housing cottages, as you said, they lose control of who they get to rent to. You can't just pick and choose, hey, I'm going to I want this person in here. It goes it
has to be marketed in accordance with the the whole marketability um of and it goes into actually a count a live a lottery that's that's done through and and your the states the state's involved too.
No, it's actually third party. Do we have any cottages that succeeded in? We have two units on Lafayette Street which are still vacant by the way that that are part of the D which are still vacant. Nobody one is occupied, but they weren't they were they must have been the electrician.
No, we have not had any cottage conversions yet. Aren't you Aren't you also will able like let's say an R1 zone where it's all single family. Aren't you able to build one and and as a affordable housing use it? Yeah, we can't tell. We can't tell anyone. No, they cannot do that. Yeah, they can. And they can do it, but
they have to take they're permitted uses in in throughout the city. For 30 years, you're you're stuck with But what we did, they're not getting it. I'm not saying it's going to happen. what we did as part of things that that seek to show you're making the effort and even if they never actually happen you credit for making
the effort. The cottages are winning by but what the city did we recognize that hey none of these cottage units are coming on board so we have allocated more resources financial resources to convert these units. So now it's more
financially palatable. Um, we've upped the amount of money that we could that the city would contribute out of the affordable housing trust fund to contribute towards these. I'm applying evil lawyer minded policies. I It's okay. Guess what? We get reviewed and
scrutinized by evil lawyer minds in reviewing our affordable housing plans. So, um, that's what we have to do in order to create a realistic opportunity to provide the units. We did we didn't veer off too far from
the topic here tonight. Not too far. No, you're not. We went down the rabbit hole. Can I just clarify one thing that that discussion we were having a minute ago? For workforce housing to be offered in any other place in town, the council will have to change the ordinance on
use. Is that is that right? Correct. For that zone. Correct. And you would have a opportunity to review it as a planning board. All right. Okay. that that's not why not just offer it to everybody now to anybody that wants to create an apartment for workforce housing. Maybe
somebody has a garage apartment that can't do it because of parking that would if they had a stipulation. Why limit it to the that area? I mean other than that is a policy decision but as far as this board had recommended so far in the
master plan is we recommended it be considered for both the C1 and C2 districts. Now there was some push back with regards to outside of the mall versus in the mall. Um and that was a discussion that this board had. Um so
that is why it became not the whole entire C1 district, it became them all. So maybe in the future a trial was the governing body will decide to maybe incorporate this into the C1 or C2 district
and I and I believe that it would be consistent with the master plan re-examination. There was discussions when this was presented at the uh council table and there was not an interest in in having it at least at this point in time through the entire C1. So
and and the C2 was also we did not even touch the C2. We were just trying to move forward on this the C1 and now we've scaled it back to be just the overlay on the mall. We'll go back to the application. Yeah. Yeah. I get I understand. I understand it. But we're starting a ball rolling
here and we're not quite sure how where that ball is going to go. Well, we don't. That's why we're leaving it to this point. Well, I'm just I just want to clarify as a clarify what's going to happen. Yeah, you can the if the consensus is from the planning board is to recommend that both the C1 and C2 be considered.
That can be forwarded to the governing body, but ultimately they have they they have to make that policy decision. How about a commercial ratable in a residential zone? Right now, right now, we're we're we're not hyp hypothe before we push this along, can we get a
list of all the registered rentals on the mall? We as I asked for that last time. Which way? The ones that have mercantile license. Okay. Yeah. But we just I just want to be clear. We can't we cannot confirm potentially that that is all inclusive
of what is being rented. Well, if you have a residential rental, you need a merkantile. Some people don't get licensed. I'm just saying the ones we have the ones that are unlisted because it appears there's like a lot of short-term rentals down there. So, can we just see how many there are?
Well, that's that's we should know by the room tax they collect, right? They're clear that they're illegal. You don't know who pays room tax and who doesn't. If you rent on your own, there's no room tax. I'm talking about the ones that are registered.
No. If you if if an individual rents on their own, they do not there's no room tax paid. Okay. It's only if it's done um basically through an online booking system. That's it. And if they're renting there and to be legal, they have to get a merkantale
license. So we we do know how many merkante licenses are in that. Unless unless unless somebody's doing it without a license. Exactly. But that's not what we're asking for. We want to see the ones that are doing it with a license. Is that that much? Is that a big deal? It would have to go to the city manager
to determine if the clerk can provide that information. I I can't It's the city clerk's office. I mean, we could get that Ricky. I'm not sure what fill out an open. Can I know what the point? Yeah. What would be the point to justify it in the light of this or sending this back to
council? It could be one or a hundred if there Yeah, it's it Well, there's a perception that there's a million short-term rentals down there and I don't know that there are anybody I don't know that I agree with that premise, right? The perception isn't that there's a
million going on. The perception is that the last two or three times people have come to this board to convert the upstairs above the mall, right? it appeared that they were converting them to rental units. So that the object of this isn't to capture ones
that already exist. It's to try to prevent them from all becoming that. So it may be that we pass this and it never happens again. And that might mean that it worked and what's there is there and what's it doesn't matter. So it's not a matter of trying to get rid of
what's there. It's a matter of seeing that this seems to be what's happening up there. And the idea of it was that these would be units that would have low impact on parking, but no one foresaw that they would all become Airbnbs. And if that's what they're going to be, then the concept of low impact parking is out
the window because they're high impact parking. Yeah. You and you may find you may find that there are there are 30 units on these blocks in this overlay. And um I can tell you there's not Well, I'm just I'm just making up a
number to to make a point. You could find out if there, let's say there's 30 units and and then you find out that 28 of them are already on the rental market. You're you're passing an ordinance which and they're grandfathered. You're passing an ordinance which has an effect on No, we don't grandfather that
automatically. When you pass a new ordinance, everything Yeah, I get that. They're going to be grandfathered. We didn't we didn't All right. They're going to be grandfathered. All right. So, so the effect the effect of of what you do is you're applying a new ordinance to a
handful of units, maybe one or two and with with with the with the provis proviso that there's no parking required for the new for those one or two units. That's that's about it. But the argument could also be that there are maybe empty spaces up there that a property owner
who has a shop down on the first floor would look at it and say, "Hey, you know, I can, you know, get this, put it, you know, on the market for workforce housing and don't have to get meet the parking variance." We should we should probably go further and say they would they wouldn't need
they would zoning. Exactly. Believe me, they'll get a parking building. Well, just for the sake of preserving a couple things there were said that were just wrong. Plus, they don't have a year to be grandfathered. You are grandfathered. This is prospective only.
They will become a non-conforming use. Okay. Now, they can confirm that if they ever need to or want to. They can confirm it within a year by going to the zoning officer and demonstrating that they have been using it as a short-term
rental in the in the recent past. And if they failed to do that, then they come to the zoning board after the year and demonstrate that they have they are a non-conforming use. Does that that's what section 3 says. The zoning board has to acknowledge it.
No, it doesn't. If the proofs are there, you have to. So, if they come in and they show their their their rentals, then you have to. It's just just like when someone comes in and says, um, I've been using this rear apartment as a residence for 37 years before there was a zoning ordinance. And we say, really?
How do you prove that? They have a picture or they have kids sleeping in the bed from the rentals, what, whatever. They they prove it. And they prove it then you got to say, "Yes, okay, you were there." So, it's just like everything else. So, it's not true that after a year you you don't have a grandfather. Now, if you already have a
unit up there, okay, and um you you have it on the second floor and the third floor is storage, right? And now you want to make that third floor another unit, which by the way, we had that application. Okay. No, we didn't. What's that?
No, we didn't. It was already a well part part of it. It was all It was already What are we talking about? This most recent thing. I'm going back to the one before it. It was like abandoned and they made into a f there was like a section that was storage. Two stories in that building. All right. Whatever. There's only two stories in that
building. Which building you talking about? Talk about where these beef jerky places. No. Beef jerky. Is that my recollection was that there was part of it that was a stairway and they were getting rid of it and they were making another bedroom and they were adding a bedroom. But okay. They were making whatever they had
before bigger. Okay. Whatever that is. All right. That may be an expansion of a non-conforming use. So you'd be limiting that. That's all. That's what it's doing. So, what you have now, you continue to use. You can prove it to the zoning officer within a year or you can prove it before the zoning board later
if you have to. Okay? And what you can't do now is you can't expand it just like you can't expand any other non-conforming use. And you can't create a new one. That's all this does. So you want to make sure that if you go to the city that something gets put in
that property file showing that you got acknowledgement that that it's existing use. Yeah. Plus the city the city does have a mechanism a new mechanism now to excuse me if people are um you know advertising
for a b&Bs VBOS's or whatever to go after them to make sure they have a mercantile license. So that's one way. The other thing I thought one of the intents here there are um units on the mall that are used for storage on the second or third floor and or third
floor. And the intent here was to be able to create workforce housing by taking advantage of those spaces. This gives them an incentive to do that because um if they do that they go to the construction office. They don't have to come before planning or zoning.
This doesn't say that. This just says that they don't need a parking variance. I'm not sure. It says they don't have to. Does that mean they don't have to come in front of the board? They're permitted use, but that's the v that's the variant. That's the only variance they have to go after. As long as they don't trigger site plan approve, right? That's the only thing it would, wouldn't it?
I think I I'm thinking that it probably would because you're mixed commercial. It's going to trigger a site plan. But why is it going to trigger site plan? It's a commercial building. Not sure. I I I haven't reviewed that part. Yes.
So then you do your site plan review. I mean our ordinance is written so that everyone needs site plan approval in town and it and then it starts exempting uses out exempting things out. Single family and dup and twounit residential
dwellings are out. They don't need they don't give they don't need they don't do any notice either, right? No. Well, they don't need a site plan to begin with, right? And then it and then there's other exemptions, but I'm not sure that this No, I'm saying even this one, if you need a site plan approval, you don't have to give you don't give notice for
No, there's no notice. There's no notice requirement. So long as there's no our discretion is virtually zero, right? It's very different than a parking variance. Yes. Still has to go through the process. Yeah. Well, perhaps we could ask Mr. Gillan Schwarz also about that. I mean, is it
something that we can that the council could take a look at and say, you know, we don't think it it meets the threshold just to have someone come for an application, go for a site plan. Yeah. I mean, I I'm just asking I have just get a building permit to go. I'm just asking if that's, you know, a condition that we want to um Yeah, that's a fair question. That's that's the carrot that that's part of
the carrot. Exactly. You don't have to go through all that nonsense, Bill. I think we did talk about that at one point early on in the discussions. Yeah. But then maybe it got, you know, fleshed out, but so now let's do it before we move forward. Bill, if you don't need a site plan review and you just need a a building permit, uh, at
that level of the process, you would have to be swearing that you're that it's going to be residential housing or you you would have to do that at that point. If there's no other you're only you're only getting the building permit because
because you're saying you're going to do that and there's no parking required. If you start, they the city can come back and say it's now short-term rental. You got to tear out what you did. Yeah. So, the applicant for the construction uh permit would have to
attest that it's going to be a residential housing unit under the terms of this this stuff we're talking about. He has to meet all of these things. And it says that in here, right? And it's at this point, it's only in the overlay in C1, right? If the board doesn't No, overlay of them all. the three
blocks. Well, that that is that is the overlay. I know. No, it's an overlay within C1. Is that a recommendation from the board that they want to see these things exempt from site plan review or do they want to see them back here? I thought we I thought the consensus was
to be uh inquire whether it needs site plan approval. Okay. Well, I mean, we we should give the governing body some direction. Do you think there you got to give them as much incentive as you can, right? So, so the incentives here are no parking, no parking variance and no site plan review.
Well, and the other one was no merkantile license also. The recommendation should be that that this workforce housing be added as an exemption as part of our site plan as part of the site plan ordinance
so that it's crystal clear. No. Okay. No, I I would just I would leave in here that one of the things in this overlay is if you meet the requirements, you don't need site plan approval. Right. Leave it at that. Have it in this overlay. Okay. Yeah. Yes. But the only reason for a site plan
would be if they were coming after if they needed a variance. Correct. Or or if if it actually constructed the second and third, right? Oh, constru that second. Yeah. So that's important. But that could be something in the future if we expand this to the rest of the C1.
So, right. Right. What I think we need is a vote uh determining that this is consistent with the master plan re-exam. And I included all that language in there, and I went over that last time when we talked about this uh the revisions last
time, but um I believe that it is consistent with the master plan re-examination. The language that recommends this is directly included in there as a recommendation. So, um, they you should vote on that as well as any other recommendations. And I know that
Rich mentioned two already. Um, I have three three section three perhaps should be referenced in the zoning ordinance. We are going to we suggest they send notice to owners within the district of the new regulation as a courtesy, not an
obligation. and we inquire whether they intended site plan to be required because we think it should not be. Those are my three things. So I mean traditionally when we do these things I'll do a resolution that says for each one what? No, there's three.
I just said three three recommendations. Okay. Yep. I had a minor editorial on on the on the first preamble. Um, just the way it reads, it sounds like the C1 district is the Washington Street Mall, which it
isn't. And just suggesting maybe um have it read uh located in the center of the city of Cape May, which includes uh the area of the Washington Street Mall. So it's because we are limiting this to the Yeah, I agree. Washington Street Mall. I agree with that.
Compasses to me means it's the whole thing, right? my encompass because includes is a better word. Includes. Yeah. What are we looking for? Is that what you're saying? Includes instead of that's better language because the C1 district does go way
beyond that. Include. This is the wording of the ordinance. Uh yeah, the first line. First line. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. The first section. All right. All right. So, is that a fourth thing?
Be a fourth thing. Y change one word. Change one word from encompasses to includes. Includes. To include. Okay. Thanks. Everybody comfortable with that now? The motion to send us to council.
I I'll make a motion. Second. Mrs. Reid motions. Mr. Gorgone seconds. Mr. Gorgone. Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Mrs. Reed. Yes. Mr. Crowley. Yes. Mr. Lhome.
Stain. Mr. Krippen. Yes. Mr. Jones. Yes. Mr. Bizair. Yes. Thank you. I I'd like to say just one. Can I Can I say uh I think we worked very hard
tonight. It I think a lot of good work was done here and I like the ordinance, but it's only going to be a success if it's enforced and I hope that um the enforcement of this will be what it should be.
I agree. Duly. Okay. The next item is the um R4 zone district that we've Craig has made some uh work here. So the you take your answer facilities for a second.
Sure. Go ahead. The last meeting uh the board asked me to uh focus on the quad section of the R4 district. Um, and I prepared a new memorandum dated September 17, 2025.
Um, and if you take a look on page the bottom of page three of 13, there is a photo showing a fence that's right up against the common walkways. Um, on the page four of 13 at the top of that, there is an image very similar, a fence
up against that. And it was identified that those are problematic. And we want to make sure that the ordinance is clear, crystal clear, that we don't want to see any fences or structures or anything up against those common
walkways. Um, so I made some recommendations for ordinance changes. Um if you the top of page five of 13 um we're t looking at section 52517R4
modified medium density residential district and if you look you start going through this um under page six of 13 subsection C it has accessory uses applying to four units quad only. So
that's the section I focused on. Um there is a pro there is a provision in there or I I recommended a provision be added that said all blocks containing and this is the top of page seven. All blocks containing four unit quads
contain common use walkways extending from street to street and from parking to the rear walkway. No structures including fences shall be located within 2 feet of any common use walkway. So, I recommended a two-foot setback be the
minimum required setback from those common walkways. I did receive some feedback from the zoning officer who pointed out that I should not really include the language that says, quote,
including fences. Fences are not permitted in the R4 quad district. They're not at all. In 2020, there was an ordinance change that says there's no fences permitted in R4 quads. Okay? So, they're not permitted anymore.
So, there's some existing animals out there. I don't know how whether they're legal, not legal. I didn't do that analysis, but so there's no fences permitted in the quads right now. That's a was a 2020 ordinance. So, that
that's clear. So by putting including fences there makes someone think that they're they're get a fence. You could it was okay at two feet. So the fact so his recommendation was to
say just quite simply no structure shall be located within two feet of any common use walkways. Um, I also received feedback that said there were some there are structures being put between the
common walkways that run from street end to street end. Um, which is a common area on the tax map. It's called there's a declaration of conditions that said there was not supposed to be anything in there because there's a bunch of
utilities and walkways in there. Um, I don't know how things are appearing in there, but um, it was recommended to me that to make it clear that there's no structures that are permitted within that rear yard area between each common
walkway behind the quad units. That make sense? Mhm. Okay. But there's structures that are popping up there and there's nothing to regulate that now. No, because I think there's been interpretations
over the years that they allow for certain structures so long as you're meeting the required setbacks. And if you look in the earlier part of that section, um, we have structures must be attached to the main structure legally on premises. Uh, uh, I'm sorry, accessory uses
applying to four-unit quads only for trash enclosure, shower enclosures, and sheds. So, it says structures must be attached to the main structure legally on premises. Um, that's not happening with sheds because they're being put all over the place. Um, shower enclosure
shall not be exceed sheds shall not exceed um the sizes. Um, no structure shall be located within four feet of the side yard property line or five feet of the rear yard property
line. that is subsection F. So those are the setback requirements for those accessory structures. They give the impression that those rear unit quads have a rear yard that falls in between those two sidewalks, the
common sidewalks. So people think that their setback is measured to their rear yard that falls into that common open space. And they're requesting that sheds and structures be put out there. Well, I don't know.
What's that? I don't know that they're requesting. They're just they're appearing. But that Well, how does how does that work then in practice? Suppose we adopt this or the council adopts it. What? And suppose a homeowner in there can show a zoning
board variance that they can have that shed there. I don't know that the zoning board has ever considered a variance for putting something in that common area. So not in my personally in my 20 years here I can't remember any
or offense the offenses too. No, we've never granted any. So basically everything out there fences and structures is is illegal. Right. Typically, we only see applications for quad modifications that deal with the
front porch area, and it's typically a lot usage ratio variance or a front yard setback variant, right? We had one of those a couple weeks ago, right? Months ago. That's a trigger. So, but so the idea here is to clarify
and make sure that the language is clear that nothing is permitted in that common area. Right. I missed a couple of seconds or anything. Where where is the common area in the courtyard? The the sidewalk
running from street end to street end right in between those two sidewalks at the rear of the quads. So my question is if you look at the tax map I have a tax map right in front of me. You see you see the delineation of the lots.
Yes. Those sidewalks run across all those lots back there. Correct. There's not an easement that I'm aware of. There's not not a recorded easement against any of those properties. Right. There's nothing legally that says those sidewalks have to be given to people to cross over them.
If there maybe a prescriptive easement because it's been done for so long, but there's nothing that on that title that says you have to let somebody use that sidewalk. So, it may be a courtesy. It's been extended for years and years and years,
but it is not set in stone. Probably not even legal. I I I would just point out that a tax map isn't where you would look to find that out. I've I've looked at and I've and I've sold plenty of quads and there's there's no there's no easy There's no recorded map. There's no recorded subdivision map, but that's the foret.
Yeah. The early ones don't the later ones the later ones have the later ones being Vermont and uh but the early ones don't have so so Bill I'm not I'm not clear on what that statement means to be honest with you it means if you have a piece of property and somebody's allowed to walk across
your property yeah there has to be a recorded restriction inside your deed that says that public is allowed to walk upon my property okay so I think what we were talking about is one uh fences aren't permitted in the quads and that's not I'm talking about title and use.
Okay. But that was the first discussion and the second discussion was the common areas. There is no common area. So what's in the middle between the middle is property that everybody owns that somehow has just become well you can you can cross my property. There's nothing on
record on title anything that says so someone could put a shed in the middle of those areas a gazebo they could. Okay. Well that's what's been happening. So that's that was why. Who's responsible for the care and cutting of the grass in those common areas? According to this, any structure has to
be attached to the house accessory structures. So, you can't put a shed in the courtyard. Yeah. Or a gazebo or or or fire pit, right? Or I mean patios are up back there. Craig, you're saying in the back from
sidewalk to sidewalk. You called that common area. They're not per they haven't I I'm calling it a common area because the way that this that that those whole quads were designed was more of a campus thing. The way that the way that they were approved never ended up with easements,
right? So it was never done correctly. So now you have this mess out there where setback. So yeah, the property I mean I'm looking at a tax map right here. I mean the tax map actually calls
out the common walkways as common walkways both in between the the for the quad units from going from the the parking are actually delineated like the those spaces and that's a mess too because those what the the rear unit was supposed to have
one of those parking spaces that falls on the front unit's part property line who pays taxes on the area the guy who who in the front front owner they pay taxes the people in the back have a parking spot which until the last ones were done, which was was the last group of them were prior to
that. That's why we've had all these cases was the back person in the back says he blocked my spot. I can't park there. The person front says he's on my property. I pay taxes. I got to worry about the maintenance and the the liability, but he still he still wants to use it. So, it's it was just kind of
an unwritten law much like that sidewalk in the back that that's how they were it was just done in very haphazard. And look, I'm I'm ashamed to say I was on the board when that was done. I just didn't. Yeah, there should have been easements filed for all and the parking space, too. Should should spell out that this space is for
the units use in the back. So, it's it's a cluster. The common say the common area we're talking about who's responsible for the cutting and landscaping of that each property owner, right? So, that's why they feel they could put something on.
Well, it's their property, but it's just it can't put a shed in the front yard, right? you own it. I know. I understand. So the ordinance says that the those type of structures have to be attached to the principal structure. So like none of those things should be out there,
right? So like my reading of this was there is enough protection here and those things have happened, but they shouldn't have if this ordinance was the existing ordinance was enforced. So my goal was to put
something in here that said makes it clear clearer. I think it tends to legitimize illegitimate things. Exactly. That's right. I mean, you you The other thing is you've made an attempt to correct it,
but the lot sizes are are not even in the ordinance. Well, I it's a for a four-unit building it is, but not for individual. So, I did make that I already made that recommendation in here, too. Yeah. I I haven't gotten to that part. Okay. Because I know that was your baby. Well,
no, but I but I was trying to when I looked at this, I thought, "What the hell? There's no there's no easement there and that sidewalk has just been people." Yeah. So, the the mailman uses he delivers the mail down that sidewalk. So, there may not there may not need need to be a change
to this section if this if we just enforce it as the way that it is or maybe the board wants a clarification put in there. I don't know. Um I'm looking for direction from the board with regards to that. Are the fences that you have pictures of legal or illegal as it stands now? What's that?
The fences you have pictures of in there, are they legal or illegal as the ordinance is now? As the ordinance is there, it says no fences are permitted for the R4 quads. And that's section. Why are we passing legislation to move fences that aren't supposed to be
there? No. No. Here you said he took that out. We took that reference out. We took fences out. Yeah. I I made the recommendation. What is it that we're trying to stop with this new section that isn't already illegal? Well, making it clear
that there are no structures shall be located within 2 feet of any common use walkways. All right. But if there's already sideyard setbacks and every every structure is supposed to be attached to the building, why would we need to see? Because you could attach a structure to the building and it could still fall
within a zero foot of a sidewalk. There's zero setbacks it on the common sidewalks that run in between the structures. You could you could get a structure there, but it says how big they have to be, right? Oh, you got you got lot coverage. You
got lot coverage. No, but it gives you a maximum size. It can be four feet wide and six feet 4 by six and 8t high. That already exists, right? So you're you're so you can't So you can't hit the sidewalk with a building that big with something that's 4 by six.
Okay. if you file. I mean, I think that's pretty clear what it says. I don't have a survey of all of the structure. So, Bill, I got one right here from um Virginia Avenue. That's a corner lot. So, like corner lot. Well, but you still got you still got
you still have the the walkway going across it, which does not show on the survey. Why isn't this walkway shown on the survey? Well, I don't know. So, that's not a very good example. Say it's lousy survey. Avenue. Craig, you're comfortable that the thing that they're passing is not
surplusage. It's not just I'm sorry. It's not just language that's never going to have any meaning. It's not something just redundant. It's not redundant. It's not redundant. Okay. This is a setback. It's going to prevent it may prevent things that are already not prevented. Right. This is a setback. This No, this
is a setback from the common walkways. Okay. Right. Which is not anywhere in the ordinance. How are you going to define common walkway when it's not even allowed? Right. It's an imaginary line. It's been everybody's been living by, but you're not. It's not in the order.
It's actually on somebody's property. Telling you. Yeah, I know. But my point is the it's a mythical thing. This Well, it's physical. It's there. Once again, we're back to square one. Like this this I know it's mythical, not came full circle. It's a myth. And what happens down there
happens down there because, you know, as a as as a property owner in that area and and people don't have clarity, they don't understand it. They they see what their neighbor does. They say, "Well, they can do it. It's been out there. The shed's 10 feet tall and four feet wide
and it's sitting in the middle of, you know, what should be somewhat of an open space because they don't understand there's no right. And what Bruce what Mr. Britain has said is look I really need to be able to point to something that's very clear and what this is quite frankly is
not clear. No, it's not. So, I I would encourage that, you know, in order for there to be something very clearly to be pointed to for a resident or a property owner that you make it as explicit as possible because they're not, you know, why don't you just start over, reverse
everything and just say no structures are permitted except as follows and then list the things that says that. Well, they have to be attached to the building. Yeah. Who repairs the sidewalk in the back? I you can owners. Do is that the practice?
Yeah, if the city doesn't if those are the options it would be. If you want to preserve there's no association that opens that open space at the rear of the quad units, we could increase the rear yard setback so that you could never put a structure anywhere in there.
I mean, we could we could figure out what that distance. How are you calling that a rear yard? Isn't that their front yard? How are you calling that a rear yard if they're in the back quad? I think it's defined in the ordinance because it's opposite of the street. You've got, you know, in the middle of
the block, you got on both sides. I I we refer to, you know, that people say the rear courtyards. You know much more about this than I do. I am simply saying that it would seem to me that in an area where is designed not
to have structures, it shouldn't be that hard to say no structures are permitted except the following and then say what they are. It just seems to me like we're we're trying to fix a big problem with like there's obviously a big problem and
we're peacemealing it. I mean I just I don't know. I mean you say it's a good idea. I I I agree with that approach. make it as clear as possible and if it's easier to say explicitly this is not permitted then you know well we already know one thing we know
don't we that fences are not permitted in that so if we if we're saying that there's no structures permitted in that area we have to define that area because there's no definition of that area they're only peritted isn't it between certain streets or something or like like say the only structures I
there's only three structures that are allowed fences to shower Well, no. No. Shower shed, shower, trash, and a shed. And they all have to as long as up to the structure. I think that that section takes care of it. If it has to touch the the principal clear,
then nothing can be out in that area. Yeah. Ever. That's it. There's only three structures and you can't have a fence. No fences are not even permitted in that. Right. Right. I I don't see what this that's already. So I well I guess
I prefer that they just enforce what's already here to the letter of the law and I think all of those situations go away. Well was did you talk with um Mr. Britain about that about what would be the plan to enforce? I would table and revisit this
win situation. I will have another conversation with him and get back to you. want is a is a is a is another happen across what we put those folks through so they didn't have to come yes that's yeah no I agree with you I agree
we already I think we fixed that already we did okay no that's we already passed that that's ordinance has already been adopted exception Craig when was the fence uh restriction put in you forever was that quads and the quads you just said
2020 2020 there was an ordinance adopted that says there's no fences in the R4. I mean the R4 quats. So somebody who had a fence prior to that would be grandfathered. Was it if they legally put it in before that? Yes. Yes. Okay. So this is going forward. No
fences in the quad. Right. We don't have to worry about fences in in the quads. Okay. Those sidewalks in between structures. They've never moved, right? They've always stayed there. They were constructed. They were built as I I guess. I don't know. I I
I mean, they've been there for 40 years, 50 years. I mean, it's not a it's not a somebody continuous and hostile. Somebody could protest it. The people walking across the property and the the two front guys could put a fence up and not let the back guy back there. Anybody in middle block could do that,
but I'm saying you could block them. Can't put a fence up. The fences will Well, you could block you could take that sidewalk out if you had the front two units. What's just strange because the tax maps identify them as if they were almost easements. It says I mean they say common walkway
in parenthesis typical and they're all located on the tax. I remember putting that together one of our last emails. It was it was god awful. And Kevin Zalinsky from Remington, God bless him. He's the one that that really really researched this.
And I'll tell you if we ever have to re go back to that, Kevin still is with Remington. I think Kevin would still be a good source of what happened here. So it he just he put nomenclature to to an existing situation without without creating a legal
I don't know if he did. You would have to do deed research on all of these lots in order to figure out what's going on there. I I can't tell you whether there's easements or no easements. You can do you can do you could do I I could get your T reports on five of them and that would be what they
all had. None none of them ever had that. I I just question whether there's a map. Not everything is in a deed. You know, I recorded maps that can create. There was there was no map to be honest. We looked we looked everything. We looked. We could not find anything to
justify. It's there. There's even a I have no idea. There's even a declaration of conditions that's listed on the tax map that says Kate May Green Incorporated, Village Green Townous.
Yeah. And shall be subject to easements for common sewer, water, gas, electric lines running from adjacent streets to the buildings. But there's nothing says anything about the sidewalks. That's goog. Yeah, I know it's but
there's for utilities and that's it. Yeah, but it says there's it refers to utility easements, but there's probably never been recorded, right? So, I like I said, I'm sorry. How did they create the lots if they
didn't record a map? I think the maps were the the lots were recorded, but but the actual They just don't have a picture of the sidewalk. No, none of that stuff is there. What if the sidewalk falls into disrepair? Who has to fix it? That's why I asked. I think it's
property always. I think we table this for right now. Yeah, I I copied and pasted the all of the Yes. So, not only just it. So, let me just before I before we table
If you take a look at page eight of 13, if you notice, we have a bulkan area. So, Kate May is very consistent with this. We always have a specific bulkan area table for each use that's permitted
in the zone. So, table one has single family detached. If you notice, lot size per family. So we have a lot size per family mechanism. That's for single family detached. For semi- detached, which is the two units, we have a lot
size per family requirement. For quads, we don't. So my recommendation was to incorporate a lot size per unit because each of these quad units has the common party wall uh property line on the common party wall and our separate lots.
Um, so in reality, none of those are conforming lots based on the way that this it's always been interpreted that there's four that sits on the 11,250 ft, but we should fix that. Um, that is something we should do. Um, the lot size
per unit should be changed to 2812. Lot width should be an each unit. Lot width. Lot frontage, same thing. those things should be changed consistent with the way that we do with single family attached and semi- detached. So, um
I I I look through I look through a couple of those quads. You got 700 ft for the minimum of floor area, which which works. Most of them are 750 ft, right? Yeah. So, that works. The um the 45 ft the
lots are basically 47 by 61. Yeah, I there are some 47 by 61s is the smallest one that I could find. Right. They are tiny, but you still there's still 600. Something missing about each individual
lot being having its own requirements. I I just you're not you're you're defining it per family, not per not per lot, I guess. I mean, um, this is a this is a perlot methodology
just the way that we did in for the other ones, right? The single family detach. They're 6250. They're they're they're easy. Those are the twins. No, single family single single semi single family detach or single instead of single detach. Those are the
twins. They're they're easy to figure out. Yeah. The quad or the or the It's based on where the quads are. They're all Yeah. You don't I mean even the front ones don't have don't have a lot size requirement per per unit. It's just the whole building has a lot size requirement. Whole
Well, and and it should because more and more people are expanding on those quads. Um No, I'm saying to begin with each individual one doesn't have it. No, I understand that. But I think if if you're submitting a zoning application or a construction application, it's
easier for the homeowner if it's defined as understanding what their lot size is. I I that's right. And and so that's what I'm saying. We we should, you know, uh address that because people want to do expansion and if you have something that says 11,200, they don't they don't understanding how they're supposed to
usage lot coverage and any of those things and then and then go to the next table. Quads floor ratio 36%. Is that the entire building? You have to add them all together. Can't no 36%. So that's one it's per lot. Well, it doesn't say that. The definition says per lot. So you read
that and you go to the definition of those specific our four district has more restrictions than just floor area ratio. They have a lot usage ratio there. There's there's it's very dynamic. Um but that still
doesn't fix our we're trying to fix a problem that should should have never happened. Those easements should have been filed and right. So and you might get into property owner issues. So, um, we're going to table the
rest of that discussion. I don't think those were ever recorded. I know. But that's the problem. The So, how do we deal with it? I all I don't know. I don't know. It's late.
It's like before those last set of tax maps, before that last revail, those maps for the quads were awful. I mean, they weren't there was no there wasn't any differentiation. There was just nothing there. We tried to best put on
that tax map, even though it's not a a legal legal per se document, but it's pretty much what's there now. That's pretty much what's there. Never was on there before. You check the old maps, it was just like a a a wasteland really. And with no justification, you're right.
It is the Wild West there. Yeah. What I mean, what happens, you have an owner saying, "Hey, don't get off my sidewalk." And you can't even get to your unit. Well, if you're inside quad unit, right? What ends up happening is eventually somebody goes to court and then that that decision gets recorded and that then applies to everybody else, right?
But there up till now, some of those parking spaces, they settled them before before it became a decision. So it it was never recorded and so it's it's still hanging out there. I mean, yeah, I think there's been like nine lawsuits.
Yeah. Just on parking spots, have they really? Yeah. Oh, yeah. And you would think that after those lawsuits, they would have had some justification for They did. They weren't They weren't recorded. I know. You think they came to the
internal, you know, uh they settled them. They settled them. Uh, even Bruce talks to people now. I mean, he's shared with me. He's like, "Look, you know, they're out there. Somebody's buying a unit thinks they get a parking spot and he said the neighbors saying to him, "No, those I have two. That's not yours." And, you know, then
I guess way back when the city accepted that stuff without without it did without that stuff. I don't know the answer to that one. I mean, if you look I guess we looked on the subdivision and at the meeting they were saying, "Well, that that unit gets this space, that unit gets that space."
It was one of those. Yeah. You just take the word for it. Well, and it just looked like if you were taking Brutus' word for it, division parking space. You You never knew. It was a great plan if the easements were filed. Yes. Yeah. All right. So, I think what I've heard
is two or three motions to adjourn. No, we have to pay the bills. Pay the bills. Pay the bill. Uh, don't pay the bills. Motion to pay the bills. I already signed it. Motion to pay it. Make the motion. Second. All in favor? I. Final motion.
Good night, everyone. All right. Good night, everybody. No. So, maybe we'll get together one time. What's that? Maybe we'll get together one