We get everybody's mics on. >> Okay. >> All right. We're ready whenever you are, Mr. >> Call the order. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Glennon, >> here. >> M. Mrs. Orwin >> here. >> Mr. Dockerty >> here. >> Vice Chairman Smith
>> here. >> Chairman Lions >> here. >> Also noted attending and present are town manager Dunham, assistant town man manager Trey Nazaro and myself. >> Uh any additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangements?
>> No sir. >> Thank you. Uh next meeting dates are um listed there. If you're not able to attend, would you alert Renee, please? >> Um any declaration expartain communication?
>> No. >> Um anyone speaking today, could you administer the oath, please? >> Red Hills truth, the whole truth. Nothing but the truth to help. >> Yes. Uh so we're going to be addressing the first application 2522
uh submitted by Brian Dudley, owner of the property located at 835 Canary War. Are you as representative? >> Uh I'm Dr. Robert. >> Okay. >> I need you to go to the podium. >> Thank you for coming.
>> Sure. Thank thank you for having me. Uh by way of introduction, I'm Dr. Robert Dudley. Um Brian Budley is my brother who submitted the application. Um I've lived in Plasoy for more than 20 years. Um I'm intimately familiar with the design manual. I previously have built a
um house in Plasy about 15 years ago. Um and so our really our goal here in um this request is to comply with the spirit of the manual to beautify the neighborhood and to obviously get a new roof that needs to be put on this house.
Um I I I spoke with Trey earlier this morning and I think um you you may be familiar with some of the um issues that have come up and uh that cow currently has a white roof on it. We wanted to stay in keeping with that aesthetic as
much as possible. Um the white through and through tiles are no longer available. Um they don't manufacture them anymore. The design manual was writen more than 25 years ago and I know there's some discussion about possibly updating that that code. We picked a
tile that would be as close as possible to white. Um it's a gray through and through tile which complies with this the design manual. And so our request today um is to get an approval for that um that tile which actually has been approved previously on another two
houses in the neighborhood. Um what's a beautiful tile. It complies with the design manual. It's a great through and through tile. Um whereas the other tile is just unfortunately not available to to use anymore. Um do you have are those samples down
here? >> There are some samples down here. Yes. >> So this is something that we're going to be discussing later on on the so everyone's kind of familiar with it. This is the tile that is currently not available. What we've always used. Yep. This is a sample of a tile that is
white. And then we have two sample tiles from the same run of the M modeled white blend which shows there is some color discrepancy between the two whereas that is sort of a wider and then this is sort
of a turn. >> So they could be laid next to one another. >> That's correct. Yes. >> And you said one is modeled. >> These two are from the same run. So it's called modeled white blend. And these are both the exact same modeled white
blend of that tile type. So, so it will be these tiles. There's a range that will be >> Oh, they just have the there's all however they come out. They Okay. >> So, I looked up models like you know what model? >> Please help me.
>> That's one thing I don't want to call my English class. Um, it it's patches of color. So, it's not one consistent color. And so that's what it is. And you can see the
clear distinction and and you see it on the roof. >> I I did take the opportunity >> and you can see that is >> somewhat patch-like. We had a house that was under construction during CO
um and um on the ocean and they weren't able to get this product. Right. >> So we approved something that what that was available. And I've seen the house and as the manager, town manager knows, I don't I don't care for
it at all. It's too patchy. It's not consistent. It looks like a checkerboard. >> Is that house on the ocean? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Do you want to in the golf? >> Oh. Oh, the the big the big home. Yeah, the developer home.
>> So, and and this is the coded. I can see the coding. Right. Right. >> Yeah. Okay, this is just a peak, but that but that's the through and through. That's what we used to always recommend. Okay, >> now >> so so we're here because staff doesn't have the power to um over
>> That's right. So, as the code reads, uh the flat white through and through is the only thing we can approve on the staff level uncoded, but it does not exist. So there's really no way to for for this applicant to get an approval at the staff level which we thought was absolutely unfair. We did wave the
application fee. So they're here today just because of this this issue with the uh with the availability of the white through and through uncoded. So that where we are transitioning we're going to have a discussion later
is to an alternative that would possibly this one which will be true and through be one consistent color. So really the decision I think we have to make right now is do we want to stick with
the definition we have today which is through and through white uh but it's not flat. this is more glossy or go with a variation tile. >> I I appreciate the um I think that is
like a discussion to have and um I I know the the meeting the future commission meeting is going to be discussion possibly changing the design manual for that today. I think really we just need a decision on can we be approved for for the request or not. Um,
our builder has told us that if we make a change request, he's going to charge us $10,000. We've already signed the contract with the understanding that this had previously been approved on our other house in the neighborhood and another house in the neighborhood that was a brand new house that was built.
The roofs look beautiful. Um, and I and I agree that the design manual needs to be looked at and updated. Um, but really we just need to to make the decision today on, you know, the the request that was >> Is that Yeah. Go ahead. Is it for the if
just a a consistent white roof? If we don't approve this kind of new gloss tile, does that mean that essentially there's not available >> white roofing materials in order to >> You're correct. Yeah, there's not there's not anything that meets the the requirements.
>> That's essentially said another way. The only way to keep the white roof optionality or the white roof kind of consistency. Are you willing to take the the white coated roof or you are you don't want to consider white? >> That's the problem is it will cost us $10,000 to change to do the
>> change more expensive or is he just being an ory? We don't know. >> It was in the contract that if we change you know the tile change after we sign the contract >> although that is you know something you can maybe discuss with them. I don't know if you have already but >> well I mean that would probably
legal expenses and stuff if if he doesn't just agree to it. I mean he's already told us that. He goes, "Yeah, we'll change it per $10,000." So, c >> can I have clarification? What was the tiles put on 2730 and 2750? >> So, those >> I looked at both of those.
>> Right. So, the the the homes, the the two tiles that you see in front of you are on those two homes and they were both done very recently. So, one is Sorry, let me pull the >> Let me I'm sorry. Let me pull the the memo. Those are the exact files that are
So, 2730 >> is the model white blend which is what they're seeking approval for today. So that >> 2750 was the coded >> that one that look directly west. >> Yeah. And 2750 was coded. That's correct. Yes, sir.
>> Okay. And you can see you drive by you can see a very a clear distinction. It's kind of patchy. Uh or is this just one? Um >> I believe the house at 945 Indigo Point
also has that exact tile that we're requesting, >> which is 945 Indigo Point. >> It's a different architectural style, sir. >> It is, but it's it's the exact same tile that's on that roof, >> but it's a different architectural style. >> So only one of them has that muddled and
the other one has this >> from from the memo. Yes. the on Cardinal Circle >> on Yeah, I because I looked at both. Okay. I didn't have the visceral reaction, Paul, that that you you did, although I I could picture it on that house on the ocean. I definitely noticed
it there, but I drove the 27 30 houses twice on two different days and it it didn't strike me terribly as, oh, this is horrendous or whatever. But I will say also I I do fear that these things
um cause issues with mold um having had to replace a home that was a painted tile and then we went to this and these are much better for some reason the mold sticks to this. >> So it it's an interesting discussion
and I spoke to roof tech and um they said to me uh that these are more resistant to bolts. >> Could be new technology. Mine was 20
years ago. >> Yeah. >> And um that was one of the advantages because people fail to maintain it, >> right? >> We have it'll take longer for >> it would make some sense because the mold can get inside this. This is but
>> but and this is coated so it tends to wick off I would assume. Yes, that would make sense. What happened to me and her with the painting, you would get up there and you you'd have your guy high pressure wash them and he would chip off parts of the paint and then the paint
and the exposed we get it was a real mess. That's how it used to be. >> Yeah. So, I asked that same question. >> Okay, good. >> I was afraid that people get on the roof and then >> uh you'd have patches of no paint. Yeah. >> And he said that does not happen.
>> Gotcha. That's >> new new technology. >> It's new technology. >> We went from this to that probably 25 years ago because this was inferior at that time and we went to the through and through, >> right? >> Um but I think they they've stopped the one on your hand because this technology
now is better than >> that would make some sense. >> Yeah, that's probably right. >> Why why why can't you do a whole house with that lighter color? >> Yes. I was saying why is it >> why why does it have to be muddled with two? Well, that's what >> that's how it comes from the manufacturer. That's >> you can't just say we just want all we
just want >> it's actually called white modeled. So, it's the closest possible to white and the builder just says that the white is, you know, gone out of style and so that's why they don't make that white. Keep in mind that that there's a lot of
different products when you go and Google >> um cement roof tiles and one of them is referred to as models and it's intended not >> style. Yeah. >> So the purpose is not to be one consistent color.
>> Right. I have Yeah. And >> so that's what we're trying to >> Okay. >> Do we inconsistent tiles or do we go with one consistent white tile? And and >> Right. We have a a rendering. Is there any way to bring up the the picture of
the rendering? They have >> it in our packet. Renderings. They're not they're kind of Yeah. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. >> So, okay. Wow. >> I mean, the two other houses that have this exact roof, I mean, I they're
beautiful. I, you know, we we No neighbors have, you know, had any issues. >> Well, one house has the model that that I drove by. One is this this new product, right? Correct. Okay. Yeah. >> Well, I'm sorry. Yeah, the one that she's talking about has a different architectural style, but it's exact same
tile, exact same model, white tile roof. >> Um, so you said you signed a contract. Had you spoken to the town and we said the model was okay? >> Well, we got approval. Yes. On on the previous house, it was it was
>> But for this one, >> no, no, no. For the one we're requesting today was approved and on on the house, >> Mr. Uh Dr. Dudley and his brother own multiple properties in place house ole. So one of their their other properties is 2730 Cardinal Circle which is a
five-star historically Gulfream Bermuda per our red book that we did from architectural design many years ago. Staff had approved that. I did not look at it. I don't know how that was approved, but it was approved for the modeled white blend. So they were just relying on that previous approval. And
when the tile came through and I saw it, I I flagged it as inconsistent because the architectural style requires a flat white. And then >> so just be I'm going to be putting this on this location. Did you approve that
model? So the town approved >> the town did approve at the staff level 2730 Cardinal Circle for the model white land. Yes. No, but this but that >> but for this for this house it was not it hasn't been previously approved.
>> Correct. For this house there >> I was just this house. No. Okay. >> Yeah. I was just bringing that up because he asked why did we move forward without prior getting the approval for this one is because it was approved previously on the other >> and you made the assumption let's do it again. You contract and the guy said no
if you go to that other thing it's 10 grand. >> Exactly. That approval the 2730 was during COVID. Is that right? Where like with inventory issues or >> No, I think it was put on maybe about a year. >> A year. Okay. So, not Okay. >> To be honest, we have no record of who
approved it. >> So, >> okay. You I'm sorry. You don't have a record? We have a when someone submits a building permit, it doesn't always result in a pre-application meeting or a zoning
review. So we have in the past requested tile samples and that is just sort of looked at and that you know that's the way Rita Taylor did it. You bring in a roof tile, she says okay great and it goes through permitting. So we now have developed you know an application for
level one. every time we get a roof tile and we make sure that we review it and document it to make sure that it's consistent. But there's a lot of things that you know when you're building a house that you know interior changes, things like that that you know we do not see from a staff level. It's just only
our building department. Um >> so what what are they doing on Bluewater Cove or is this on any of the homes in Blue Water? I don't believe we have any blue water ho blue water cove homes that are Gulfream Bermuda style architecture. >> Okay, that's the restriction that would
be also only maybe seen one tile when we've approved roofs and you know I actually if I redid my home I would probably want to do this because this is pain in the neck to take care of the white is but um I don't remember us ever seeing the
contrast here that that's what's that's what caused by surprise in you too Paul right? Yeah. >> Well, I mean that's >> I drove through a place off the lane and saw the roof and I'm with Bob. I'm not disagreeing with you because I didn't see your roof, but it I thought it looked good, you know. >> I actually did too and and but I do
notice that that home on the ocean because that's right across from my house has all splotchy. But I didn't I wasn't offended by the roofs at 2530 and 205. I really I was like I had a hard time almost distinguishing which was which. So >> I I mean it's
>> I I think that you know it's perspective um in my view um and this isn't necessarily an argument this white one but it clearly is not a consistent color. I don't there's no if
and you went back this morning I'm sure you would say to yourself yeah that's probably true. Would you agree with that it's not a consistent color? >> No. Absolutely. It is not. >> And again, it's defined as not being consistent. So, back to the application. Um,
we're going to have a further discussion as relates to future homes uh because of the absence of that original tile. Um, but I can understand how what your thought process was and I I think we
have to that into consideration and as you say, you know, I it's if you were just driving by and you weren't really studying it, you know, it's okay. Um, it's not terrible. I apologize for those terms,
>> right? But what I'm trying to find is the right balance here because I could see why you did what you did. I mean, would you agree with that? >> Yes. >> And >> and you're you're representing that you can't get rid of the molted and you you're stuck with it. Is that what
you're saying? >> Well, we're not we're we we are we are committed to using it, but we also at the same time think that it's a beautiful roof. There's several other houses have the exact same tile in the neighborhood. Multiple other houses that have cray roofs in the neighborhood that
all look beautiful. And so again, going back to the original spirit of the design manuals to to make the neighborhood look look beautiful. And that's what we'd like to to continue doing. And if and if the commission does want to change the the code in the future for to make it easier for the
future people that need to put roofs on, I'm I'm all in favor of that. Right now, I think we just need the decision today is, you know, can we move forward with this that the roof's leaking? We really want to get this fixed and and and updated as quickly as possible. So my
view I I'll give you my bottom line is I'm okay with going forward based on the fact that you made a decision to commit to this. Um but I want to be clear that I'm I'm
not in favor of it as a ongoing practice and again we're going to talk about it but I think for this just just the way it kind of evolved I don't think we should penalize it. I appreciate that. >> I agree.
>> All right. I'd like to make a motion to approve a level three architectural site plan to prevent replacing of the white roof on a Gulfream Bermuda style home with a flat modeled white blend smooth and coated title. >> Second, >> Mr. Glennon.
>> Yes. >> Mrs. Orwine. >> Yes. >> Mr. Doerty. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Smith. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lions. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> I want to thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Have a happy Thanksgiving. >> Same to you. Thank you. >> So, don't come back with any more houses.
>> And who's that roof contractor? Put him on the blacklist. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Trey, wait. Have we >> have we um set a precedent here that could come
back? >> No, because we're going to change the code on the record. situation. >> Yeah. Good. >> And I did talk to several roofing companies to find out if that was true that it's not Yeah. no longer made and
it isn't. The only thing they have is what's left in stock of what was made and they use it to repair roofs now. >> And the modeled there is no way for them to It just comes out of the batch that way. >> It comes out of a >> Yeah. Because I said it is noticeably different. It's the same
exact, you know, named modeled white and they both look gray and >> weird. Yeah. And he said there's no way for it's just the way it comes out of the batch. >> So the applicant's brother actually
requested from the contractor the lightest color that they had so we could see that contrast. So this is sort of the starkkest >> difference that you'll see. you know, it it is not going to be completely like a checkerboard. Um, but you can definitely
tell when you're driving by that house at Cardinal Circle that there is a lot of differentiation with the uh the different tiles. It's not as bad as I had thought when I, you know, went over there and looked at it. Um, I don't know if it's maybe because it's a white and
gray versus maybe what we saw at on A1A with like a like a colored I think wasn't it a what what color was the roof that we were talking about at the GU and A1A? Yeah. >> It was supposed to be white. >> Oh, it's real checkerboard. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, >> um, so >> well in defense of all of us, I don't think we've ever seen the two tiles next to each other. You know, we the architects they brought in tiles, but it's a tile. >> Yeah. >> And so I think we would have discussed it soon had we seen that.
>> I I wholeheartedly agree with that. >> So Trey, I think we should go to uh items by staff and we models and the next one is the available required flag blah blah blah. >> All right. Thank you, Chairman Lion. So I'll just draw your attention to the memo dated November oh wait hold on
November 14th. So we just discussed this issue to some length. The applicable section of the code is 7238 which requires a quote flat white through and through smooth uncoded tiles. You know Rita was a big u
a staunch reviewer of the tiles and whether they were coated or uncoded and she would uh reject without any discussion anything that had any coding on it. So we are looking at that. Um >> wait say that again. She didn't like
>> anything that had anything that was coded. Right. Right. >> Yeah. >> So, and that's under the code. So, I think that maybe we're looking at some some manufacturing processes that may make the coding more desirable. Um, you know, I won't speak as an expert
on that, but just based on the conversation that we just had regarding the application before us, maybe that is is the case. Uh either way it is now available and we are seeing it on a number of homes and other applications. We just had a application for a new roof
on County Road. They are using the coded tile. It is not prohibited elsewhere in the in the code. Uh co the specific coded tile is >> is it up on the house already? >> Uh it it is not. They just there was an approval on u on County Road
on the on the Little Club Golf Course side one of those houses. >> Um the one where they were >> removing a lot of the trees on the side. I don't know if you remember that. So it's it's that home. They've done a lot of lot of remodeling. Um so they're putting a new roof on and that was one
of the tiles that came through since we were just discussing this. Uh you know Dena flagged that and said is this something that's okay? I looked at the architectural style of the home. It's not a Gulfream Bermuda. You know, it is a white tile. It's it is coated, but that that's what they preferred. There's
no reason for us to deny it on the code. So, we were approved on the staff level. >> The one that was right here that we >> the the Yes, the the white coating. >> Um they're putting that on the St. Andrews tennis shed that they're building. They also came in with that for approval. And then of course the
house that we uh that we have in the memo on Cardinal Circle uh 2750. Now I'll say that during the process of working with Mr. Dudley and Dr. Dudley, I did tell them you know frankly that we had a house on County Road that I
reviewed a tile and it was coded and because it's not a Gulf from Bermuda, it's approved. So it is going on other places. um you know and and so there was a lot of frustration regarding this specific provision of the code and the inability to get it to get approval on the staff level. So what we'd want to do
is to adjust the code to allow staff level approval for what the ARPB and commission deems um adequate for our level of review keeping in mind the historical Gulfream Bermuda houses do
have white roofs. So, um, when I went and researched some of the roofs that had been approved when I was working with the Dudley's, one of the things that I did was had Dena pull recent Gulfream, Bermuda style homes
that had roofs and 2750 Cardinal Circle with the white through and through was was a white roof. So, I drove by, I told Mr. Mr. Dudley, Dr. Dudley's brother, um, that that had been approved recently. So obviously the tile is available and he, you know, he's a
member of the community over there. So he actually spoke to the neighbor and the neighbor said, "Actually, the town approved a coated tile and that's what I put on." So when I drove by, I did not I could not really tell the difference. I mean, I didn't walk right up to the door, but from the street view, it has a very nice white aesthetic that's in
keeping with with the Gulf from Bermuda requirements. And I, you know, I don't know if the if it's shiny or there's something else that that the board feels makes it maybe inappropriate that we should go to something else. Um, but I
think that staff would probably prefer given all the discussion that we've had uh allowing a coated tile that is white through and through to keep with that Gulfream Bermuda uh style aesthetic and allow that this to to be approved. I
think that when you look at a darker roof on a Gulfream Bermuda, it does detract a little bit uh from that that um that aesthetic that we're looking for, but I certainly defer to to what the board's thoughts are on that matter. Uh and we can continue to allow uh
approval through the level three review process for anything that is not white. So, with that, I put it out for discussion. >> And let me make one observation. You've done some research to confirm that there there was no availability of anything like plat through and through. Correct.
>> Yes, sir. >> Right. >> So, we've got to change it to that. Anyway, it's a question of do we say after through the smooth uncoded tile? We do smooth coated tiles. If we if we decide to stick with the white, you know, it says flat. This is now the
required flat white through and through smooth uncodated tile. But so there's no such thing anymore. We're saying right. So we need to at a minimum change that. But do we want to change it to coated? >> It has a >> we could just remove
>> I I I would agree with I don't want to change it to coded. But I I think the question is do we want to go with a molted white or gray? Um, are those the three options? >> Um, at this point it's been recommended
that the ARPB review it from the commission. So, it's whatever you know >> as a practical matter. It really comes down to >> Sure. Right. >> I guess it could you could throw Brown. I've looked at uh uh
Blue Water Cove >> and uh they they do have the first house to the right uh I don't know whether it's a Bermuda style but it has uh the old through and through white and then the rest are brown or or gray
>> and on the one-story houses and and Bermuda most of Bermuda tend to be one story it looks heavy on it sort of I don't know I mean, I like the impression you go down Gulf Stream of Polo and you you just see all white. I mean, you're not
studying it. Is that all is that true and true or But the general impression and I think it's what we're trying to get is the impression. Um do we do we want a white or do we and if it's white, it's going to be coated. Um,
it's going to be, you know, I rather have a flat, um, non- glossy, frankly, but that's not available. So, or do we go with the gray or or or >> We could go with both. We could go with the white coated and the gray. Do you
think we just going to have one? >> Well, I I I think there's more than one now. It allows for It allows for both now, doesn't it? So it allows for gray slate tile on homes that are predominantly Georgian or British colonial with Bermuda influences.
>> Right. So >> not a Gulf Stream, >> but it specifically says that that can be approved at the discretion of the ARPB and town commission through the level three review process. I may want to adjust that to uh level two so when
someone is replacing the roof, they don't have to go all the way to the town commission. I feel like the ARPB is capable of handling a roof tile color. Um, >> you know, I I I think that that's a good suggestion, Tom. Why not have this is
our I don't know we like to prefer it anymore, but this is our preferred, but we would have the discretion to allow for a gray. >> Is that what you think? >> Yeah. And I think since it's white, we almost have to allow the coated white. We have to use that word. Well, yeah.
That's that's that's the only real >> I still think we prefer that. It when it first goes on, it's a little shiny. Yeah, >> it it is. Uh but I think it tones itself down. The sun here beats the hell out of anything. >> And it must be new technology. The old is painted. It's terrible.
>> And and it feels like >> So maybe we would express our preference to say what white painted through and through painted coated. um and give the ARPB or staff >> um >> no ARB
>> maybe ARPB permission to um you know approve gray through and through >> but not muddled >> but not well yeah I don't know what that muddled word comes from >> is there anything gray did you Renee when you called is there anything gray
that doesn't have that >> model check that we just checked on Because >> because it was called white model. >> Yeah. >> Well, I mean, you can get a gray tile, >> right? Gray all the way. The whole house. Yes. >> I mean, it would be through and through.
You can get that. >> Okay. Okay. >> Because Blue Cove has gray roofs. >> Exactly. I would stick with the gray. The brown is It doesn't really compliment. >> It's not going to do well. >> So, currently it's prohibited to have uh tiles other than white, flat,
untextured, or gray slate. So those are the two that are anything else under the code for Gulf from Bermuda is prohibited. So that's really the we could expand that but that's based on the architectural design and the design manual the two that that are essentially
required. The question is whether or not um what review we would do for uh for gray tiles. >> And I think Mr. Smith recommended or you suggested and I think we're in
favor of we would have the discretion if somebody wanted that and we would vote on it >> we would the ARPB would have the discretion >> it would only the most we would allow would be gray but we would have the discretion of the gray
>> can you get something like that >> yeah so um so I mean I >> Mr. I've I've already here's my here's my red line of the code that I'm tracking right now. >> So I'm going to remove uncoded. So it'll be required flat white through and through smooth tile. So it won't say
coded or uncoded. It will just remove that reference to coded. So if there is in the future, >> right? Um, and then I'm removing um and town commission and we'll do a level two review process. Uh, but it will still
require making a determination that such alternatives are appropriate for the neighborhood. Um, I guess the question is do we allow a model? Do we require Right now it's flat gray through and through uncoded tile or tiles tiles of similar slateike color. So for me, you
know, that's appropriate. the the model that we have it was appropriate because it's it's a tile of similar slateike color. Uh it's just not that it's it's not consistent though is is the thing. So I don't know if we we want to think
about that or if we're okay with a modeled or we want it consistent, right? Strictly gray or or white. >> Yeah, you have too many variations. >> Your your blazer is modeled. >> I like I like
I like I like the white and gray and not not use the model. >> If she found that there's >> Well, we have a for you too later. >> You know, should we make sure that there is a gray just a pure gray through and through? That's I don't really prefer
the model if we could avoid it. >> You're saying what the code calls for now? What does the code call for on? Uh it it just says gray slate tile may be permitted on homes that are predominantly these specific styles. And then it says flat
gray through and through uncodated tile. And then it says or tiles of similar slateike color. So because it's it adds that sort of caveat, oh, you know, similar slateike color. It does not say that it needs to be gray through and through, right? Because that's that
those tiles are not gray through and through. They're inconsistent. you know there's color >> varies if somebody wants the alternative see who we like it >> okay sure >> so that language so we're saying it could be gray through and through or a
similar slate like color >> and by looking online >> decision >> it does look like there is a gray flat through and through but it also told me there was a white through and through when I ordered it they said oh this is discontinued but just on first look it does look like there was a flat
>> straight So that language is okay. Paul, Katie, Michael. >> Yeah. I mean, I think >> in other words, it would come to us if it was other than white >> and we could either argue that we want to limit it to gray or we could expand it to
gray model or as they describe here a a similar slate like color may be permitted. You want to leave that in there? >> Well, and just to be clear, um, we prefer white. >> Yeah. um they can make their argument for either of those two grays, but we still
may want to decide to keep it at white. That's >> that's true. Yeah, we could reject we could reject the gray or modeled or whatever, >> but then we're going to allow two variations of the gray and then we decide which one we like. If we like either
in place of the white, >> that's fine. Would we we don't want to veer into any other well slate like color. Some slates look green almost or gray or whatever. >> Try >> can I ask a stupid question? Do you have
people who come in and argue about the style of their home >> all the time? >> Yeah. Just had one. >> So like >> you know you could say like you get I don't know maybe like people will say well it's this is really a Georgian with Bermudian influence as opposed to like a
Bermudian home. So, I don't know whether that whether that influences our thinking on that. I mean, I like I agree with Tom like I I think we need to like I'm fine with just changing the the white,
you know, to to change it to update what's currently available and then leave essentially everything else as is. Yeah, we'll take it off of staff can do white and and if it goes beyond that, then it just has to >> because then we'd have to have to see what the house looks like and try to
determine. But these there's so many houses of these blends in town. We just had a big argument over what one was. >> Blended architecture. >> Blended architecture. >> Right. >> But I'm I'm even okay with the way it's described here. um flat gray through and
through uncoded or tiles of similar slate light color may be permitted at the discretion of the AFB. That okay or is that too broad? It's okay, isn't it? >> Does that get rid of the modeling? Because don't you want to get rid of that? Yeah. Okay. >> Well, we could we could just leave it
then at flat gray through and through and not >> Well, so I was I'm thinking about administering the code. >> Yeah. Um, and back to Michael's comment, you know, every time you give the homeowner, and I, and I don't want to be too
restrictive either, but you give them another platform to argue a point. Well, this is what I want. And it would be simpler, just say stick with the through and through gray tile as an alternative to the through and through white coated
tile. I I I think keeping it simple is a better way of going. Why why didn't we have the alternative of the grade? Do you know >> what do you think? I mean, you administer the code. Would it make it easier, worse? I mean, what's your thoughts? So, in in speaking with the
homeowner and and having conversations at length with them regarding the exact language that's within the code, I told them that I understand that the second part of what is required and glazed gray slate tile
may be permitted on homes that are predominantly these architectural styles. I said, you have to read that with the entire paragraph together. So I did not view that staff could make a decision about the architectural style of the home and regarding the the gray
slate tile and that that you had to read the second sentence that required level three review regardless of the architectural style. So I read flat white through and through is required staff level second part of that sentence and glaz gray slate tile. So, I would
maybe want to clean that up and push that into the the lower paragraph including um the staff the um the ARPB's review just so it's clear for the applicant so they understand you are required to have a flat white
through and through. You are you have an alternative to have a gray if your home is Georgian or British colonial with Bermuda influences subject to ARPB review. >> Okay. So, uh, you give the discretion to the ARPB.
Uh, and on the gray, there's two options. Um, uh, it gives the homeowner a little more flexibility and we can decide whether we like it or not. So, you know, I think it's kind of a win-win. You don't have to deal with with it. We'll deal with it
if somebody wants We're gonna have to deal with it if they want gray anyway. So, might as well look another alternative. We might like it. Who knows? And you are going to stop it at this level, right? Because as it is, Mr. Dudley's got to now go to the commission. >> He does.
>> Mhm. >> Yeah. Because it was a level three >> per the code. >> Oh, wow. >> The spec, right, the specific language in the code says level three approval by ARPB and commission. So I I believe that
the ARPB is capable of reviewing, you know, it's a roof tile. >> This is a good example of why that would be a good case. Yes. through that. I I change it to level two. >> Why is white coded in gray uncoded? >> Interesting. I just thought none of us
know the answer, but why is that? >> Well, you know, maybe as roof tech reference, um it's easier to maintain the roof. >> Did they make a gray coated? >> I don't know. >> I did it. >> See, with gray it's dark already. So
yeah, >> the coating makes it too dark. >> Well, no, but the white because that that's porous and it seems to collect more of the mold which you know is in contrast to the white. So you can see it's getting dirty. I mean sometimes I
look at a white roof and I can't figure out whether it's >> white or gray or >> gray because it's got so dirty. >> Yeah. Yes. So there's some advantage because you know the reality is that's a whole another subject about enforcing the code and maintaining the
roof. >> So Trey, we can we can change this language to say it's a level two review. >> I recommend >> Yes, sir. So >> we'll recommend that to the Yeah. So, what I'll do is I'll I'll make these changes for the uh for the town commission and propose, you know, that
we >> we always have the right as an ARPB if we're really having a tough time with the gray or whatever, we can always kick it upstairs if >> correct. Yes. >> Okay. Well, yeah, that's fine. Let's leave it at two and then we can >> I like that.
>> Upstairs. Uh Trey, would you mind um proposing or giving us the language for or who's going to we need a resolution?
Um >> are you're talking about for the for the item that we're talking about right now? Okay. So, it will be um it will be an ordinance that's uh probably done on first reading before the commission uh in the December meeting. We will be
removing uncoded tile. >> We will be adjusting the architectural style to be included in the ARPB's review for gray tile. And we'll be adjusting the level of review from level three to the town commission to level
two to the ARPB. So staff will be able to approve a flat white through and through smooth tile >> and then flat gray through and through uncoded tile or tiles of similar slateike color may be permitted at the discretion of the ARPB through the level
two review process subject to the ARPB making determination that such alternatives are appropriate for the neighborhood and that the home's architectural style is predominantly Georgian or British colonial with Bermuda influences. Sounds right to me. >> Who's going to make a
>> So if I'll take your direction and I'll I'll okay >> bring that to the commission at our next meeting. >> Okay. So we debug on that. >> Uh we we can uh I think it was just a discussion. We don't need to because it's not a it's not a resolution or or anything like that.
>> Thank you everybody. Thank you Tina. I mean, is that is is that the consensus of the ARP? >> Send it to us. Not allowed. >> I mean, we can, but we we wouldn't want to do a um a vote out of >> Yeah.
Okay. Um so the last agenda item is uh the section 7073 of the town code as it relates to uh twotory
side setbacks. Um in your package or actually I guess you received a email >> with uh a couple of documents that I put together. one was sent to the U town commission regarding the Ellis home um
and uh my my take on on that particular home uh so you have that perspective from me um and then I try to uh uh create a a context in which we're
going to be looking at this um second story sideback setback Um so I I I think you can see that what we need to address is what it what do we want as
if any setback on the second floor from the first floor or definitely uh how much setback do we want from the for the second floor from the property line because I think that's really probably
it's it's a two-dimensional issue in my opinion. Um I I think it would be useful um first to go back to um in in in
2015 uh the commission charged an ad hoc committee of the ARPB to look at this issue. and um uh Marty Miner from urban design as well as architects um were part of
the process of that ar committee examining um the issue of aside setbacks. Um and um Marty Miner after looking at lots of different options recommendation was
made. Are you able to bring up that audio? >> Yes, sir. Would you like to play? >> Yeah. So, this is going to be Amardy Miner speaking uh to the commission in January of 2016.
Um basically u summarizing u recommendation. Um just for some context that as Mr. lines mentioned there was um an ad hoc committee that studied this issue and then there was a presentation of an ordinance. So this was I think first
reading. Um it's pretty interesting. You have a lot of people who have been around town for many years. Mr. Graciano, Paty Randolph, Bill Boardman, um you know, everyone's in the audience.
So Marty Miner is speaking on the three issues that were adopted. One was the second floor percentage of F that was reduced from 7 to 0.5 for north south core and place ole. Uh there was
discussion about the front facade uh not front facade necessarily but ones facing the street and then the specific um second floor side setback that we were discussing out. So I'll go ahead and and play that audio >> setbacks.
You reference second story presented on Mr. You've worked on it? >> Yes, I I've worked with the ad hoc committee on this issue and it largely deals with first of all Marty Miner for
urban design studios for the record and happy new year. Pleasure to be with you. Um, worked with the AOP committee. Uh, the concern largely dealt with small to mediumsiz lots and the impacts that a a larger second floor could have to your
neighbors. Uh, we we looked at uh with the committee various different options. Um, and the ordinance before you is the result of all those discussions that we've had during the fall. uh that applies to uh three districts
which have the traditionally the smaller lots. Um one of the first changes is the second floor size um area is reduced from 70% of the first floor area to 50%.
Please note with all these changes the overall area of the house and the limitations set by the F does not change these just will change the shape of the homes from the boxes but not the total area of the homes. It's not taking away
any area from uh someone's property rights. So that goes from 70 to 50. So you'll have a smaller area on the second floor. In addition um with your handout
uh something we work through with the committee that the se second floor is set back 15% of the width of the house. And if you for example uh a 100 foot
wide lot, you can build a 70 foot wide house and still meet all setbacks. That's currently in our code. This would require that second floor setback to be 15% and in this example a little over 10
ft from the outside walls to help bring that in. And so you don't necessarily have a 20ft wall next 15 ft from adjacent properties. And the last portion of this is if you are adding a
second floor or you're building a house with a second floor along that property line, uh we've uh ask that the trees be two feet higher at planting. Right now the code requires it at 10 ft. >> Okay. So that video ends and then they
started a new video. So >> planting this moves out to 12 ft. That's a standard size on a lot of larger developments that they put in for street trees and stuff. So there is quite a bit of availability in 12t high trees. And those are the three aspects of uh this
proposed ordinance. And the purpose of this will serve to reduce the concern that many residents have had over neighbors to these larger secondstory homes, particularly those that are being changed in decor and closets like uh where you have smaller
perhaps smaller lots. But the homes next door do not have those looming overwhelmingly sized second stories on them which you see in uh a number of other communities and wish to fear what you can see here.
Seems like a very reasonable approach to address this. Uh my only uh question is there any concern of the wedding cake type? That was quite a a bit of discussions and uh working and talking
with some of the local uh architects um saw that that can that is a concern but it can be worked around through architectural design. There is going to be some of that setback that you're going to see from especially the road
and you're going to have that kind of view that they don't necessarily some architects have no problem with that others like I like to work around it through other architectural features but um no that was a point of discussion through there but the benefits of not
impacting as much to your neighbor overrode most of the arguments having a huge second story flush wall, >> right? That could affect sunlight, you know, your your landscapings, things like that. >> Thank you. My questions.
Um, so, um, highlights, uh, there were probably three or four meetings with architects, Marty Miner, um, Ula Kent, uh, formerly chair of the ARPB, uh, very diligent. um he knew the code
better than probably anybody ever knew the code. I mean he was very thorough than you think. >> And he came up with this concept. I had a hard time sort of getting my hands around. Eventually I understood it clearly. Um so I I just
want to have this as background as relates to the interpretation of the code. Uh Marty Miner used the term the outside walls. Um, so when the code was applied on the
Alice, there was some some people thought it wasn't clear there wasn't necessarily the outside walls um but maybe some subsection um and so they ended up approving something that did not follow the full 15% of the
width of the house from the outside walls. So that's why we're having this discussion. Um um I I want to go uh address another subject related to this and and that is
there's I think a concern that um pushing the house in then interferes with the uh front elevation. Uh and and essentially I think that the commission
felt that they just didn't want uh the second story to be seen from the front elevation. Um so can you bring up this section building form? Can you can you read that? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um so drop down a little bit. You could read. So basically it's calling for billing forms with central massing. So they they want it more in the central part of the house. So there's nothing in the code
and some commissioners felt that the spare of the code was push it to the side but that's not the case. It's very clear that the form is supposed to be more central. Um so again just as background um
bear with me okay so then you know I asked myself the question though uh with this background what do we think is the appropriate setback you know knowing what what was done in the past we don't have to adhere to that going forward
and what filters should we use? Uh it's my suggestion that we need to respect architectural design of the building according to our code that's in place. But as important that we ensure that we protect the enjoyment of the enjoining
joining residents as provided in article 5 site plan section 66144. Um Trey, would you read that? I'm having a hard time seeing that. >> Which one do you want? Oh, that would be under uh C.
>> You know which section I mean? >> Yes. So, it's within 66144 standards. Subsection 12. Proposed site structural and improvement plan shall not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of on-site or off-site occupants and and shall provide the following protection.
Subsection C. Protection of use and enjoyment. All elements of the proposed plan shall be designed and arranged to have a minimal negative impact on the use and enjoyment of adjoining properties. So that is um a criteria that when we administer the code in
general, we're supposed to honor that. So again, so I would say the two filters is impact on the neighbor um and architectural design. And architectural design is is you I'll let you site reader her view on how we
looked at homes and this is I mean there's history here. >> No, sure. um anytime that there was um proposed lush landscaping that blocked out, you know, uh perhaps um
something that she did not prefer or did not like. Um she would just remind us all staff uh that landscaping can be removed, it can die. We're really looking at the building itself, you know, without any sort of filter. So as
another sort of observation um okay so uh those are the two filters. Um there's no perfect solution. It's all give and take and pros and cons and all kinds of different options. Um
so I I thought that we um go back to the Ellis House just see >> that's it there isn't it? >> What what we Yes. what we ended up approve of what the commission approved. >> Um and so yeah, so we could see that. So
um the upper one was the original >> um and the final approval is the second one. Um >> so that's and this is the >> north elevation now. >> Yeah, correct. Thank you. Thank you. Um,
and you'll see it's it's it's a pretty pretty big structure. Um, lying to to the north. Uh, and um, >> so how much did they actually approve the set the step back? >> So, uh, there's another slide if you can
bring that up. >> That's with, you know, keep you. So, I'll I'll show you. This is with the uh, landscaping, but you can see that uh, the roof line still is pretty high above. Um we could drop down
further. There's another slide that shows the statistics. We'll go back to that, but let's go to the statistics. >> Just one more. >> There you go. Okay. Um so the way it ended up I can't see that clearly. Well,
yeah. Yes. Um so the first floor is back by 18 ft. So not 15. So that we we got the benefit of an extra three feet >> and then the second floor set back by four feet or thereabout. >> What's that percentage? Did that meet
the >> No. Um so that's okay. >> It should have been around 25 feet. >> Okay. >> It should have been 50 in first 10. Um >> approximately 10 in the second. Approximately 10.
>> So this was ended up as 22. Um and >> um >> Oh. So it the good news was I I I thought it was only going to be uh like 19 but after we looked at the plans again for whatever reason they actually
had the setback of the house back u >> more than 15 right and what drove that is mechanics machines uh they have to be also 15 correct >> correct yes
>> so that and so they had three um but that may not always be the case. Um, so this is what we ended up with. Um, and if you could go back up, Trey. Um,
okay. Um, so it's hard to have a discussion about the side without the discussion of placing it in the front or placing the front and not liking pushing to the side. another way of expressing
it. Um, and so when the first AOPB meeting, we uh cited the code as I understand it and I'm by the way I went back to all the ad hoc committee meetings and it was always
intended to be the outside walls not any subsection. The architect, by the way, argued that the way you applied the code was on that component or subsection of of the house, which is the garage, that you would take the the walls of the
garage as the width as opposed to the full outer walls. And that's how we argued that place it um over the garage to the back of the house. We um turned it down. This is what this
was. They never presented this to the commission, but it was an initial um attempt to say, "Okay, if we were to do it on the second floor, that's what it looked like." Um, and that didn't that wasn't really a
terrible outcome, uh, in my opinion. They subsequently put all kinds of other stuff that you know that that was rejected by the commission. Um, so what I'm really
trying to uh put in context, if we do have these kind of setbacks and the house uh has a second story in the front elevation, it can work and it's worked for years in the town and uh it it's a
sort of a standard um way of placing a second story. um and you can use and we require architectural um features uh to sort of dampen any kind of walllike effect. The
other thing I would observe is that um the combination of going from 70% to 50% and in the overlay the 30% of the second floor on the first that component of the second story on a house is going to be
much smaller. And um with the the side setbacks um in a 100 foot um lot you could have the seconds story outer walls being a total about 50 ft on 100
foot wall. So it's half of which is a lot less than some of the buildings we have now. Um, so and again I I think it's hard to look at the side elevations without thinking of what the implications are if the house is going
to have a second story so on on this on the um front. Okay. Um let me see here. So um I'm going to open up this for discussion. Um but I like to make a
recommendation and again it's just so we start someplace. Um what we did was in that ad hoc committee we the typical property as Marty Miner cited was 100 feet wide
>> which allowed based on the 15 there would be 70 foot wide and we said all at 15% that meant that the minimum setback would be 25 ft of the second
story to the sidelot. Um, and Ullet felt that as you got as property got wider, we could push the second story back even further. Uh, I I don't think that's necessary. Um, I mean,
again, to give a little more flexibility uh to the homeowner. I I think to me the the most important thing is having a minimum um setback um from u the neighbor on the second
story. So and and why am I preoccupied with that? Um, one thing very clearly is, um, light. Um, and I know in my home, um, we have a new house to our south.
Uh, and if the Ellis house was built adjacent to my property, um, any light that I have in my bedroom or bedroom, it would be gone. I mean, it'd be totally dark. >> And the other thing, what happens is that vegetation shades out. the grass
doesn't grow. Um, and you know, quite frankly, looking out the window and seeing the sky is kind of nice as opposed to looking at a wall. Um, so I mean that's why I'm preoccupied with uh a minimum amount of distance between second story and and the
neighbor. Um, so I would recommend that it be a minimum of 15 feet because that's sort of a typical lot. Um, I I don't think that we necessarily need that extra um
setback on wider lots. Um I mean we can keep it. I'm fine with that too. But um and the the other thing I would say is that architecturally um we would want for the second story to
be set back by a minimum from the first floor of 5T. So we don't have the house stacking. So from architectural forgetting side setback we've established it 25 feet but um it when
you build your house you have to push it back so so far from the first floor and I I think um the Ellis house it kind of accomplishes it but it's still it's pretty steep. If you look at the cat lady house, uh it's not pushed back that
far and it's it's it looks it looks like a wall. Um and in order to eliminate the wall architecturally speaking, um so um those are my thoughts. Um
and by the way uh the one thing I also like for us to address and we can do this later is um that we need to look at that the we are elevation some discussion was had well wait a minute the code that we have on the side set
deck this is the architect on the Ellis property he argues well you're really pushing to the back of the house and there's no setback on the second story from the rear which we don't have so we probably should have I don't think you know, we'll need to apply it because I don't think anybody's going to build a
house in the back, but um just and then the question on the front um if the reality is that some houses will most houses probably will have the second story more central. Um, Trey,
remind me. Um, on a twostory home, uh, the first floor elevation, we have to go back 30 feet, correct, from the street. >> 40, >> right? Under the um, under subsection B,
there is a requirement. One of the options is to have an additional 5ft setback. So, with your 25 foot front setback, an additional 5T, that would be 30 feet from the front property. Is that a requirement or that extra thought? >> It's it's it's one of a number of
options that you can do to provide some architectural variation. So, it's not a hard and fast. >> So, we probably don't need to address the front because it's already 25 back. And if we want, we can ask for another five foot architectural. Paul,
>> sorry to interrupt you, but when I read this the setback on the second floor, it says from each first floor side building elevation. So, so the setback we're talking about here is only on like a the sides only. And then what's the setback?
There's no So, we can do a twotory flat wall in the back of the house, >> correct? >> And twotory flat in the front like the picture we had here. you can >> so for the front there are specific requirements that you either have a minimum of five feet a front porch a
balcony or an arcade so so there's that architectural variation so it is not just a front wall >> or a flat wall >> maybe five feet >> so in the back and the rear >> there is nothing for the rear
>> so I those are um my thoughts um so again just the highlights you know the two filters one is um protecting the neighborhood second is architectural integrity and um
so the address the first is really more of an absolute um how far do you think it needs to be back uh you know it's not a science um uh but the the collective views of talking architects Marty Miner
and the committee was you know this 10 feet from first floor which really converted to 25 ft off the second story. So um is there do we want to consider something different more or less and then the
other thing as I said the architectural we don't want the house stacked in other words second story sitting on stop on top of the first story i.e some kind of setback of the second to the first. So I I didn't watch the commission
meeting, but they thought they were they thought that they interpreted it differently than we did or they thought that the reading it didn't read too clearly. I mean we're talking about the side on the rea side of the house, right? The north side. So they was 15
feet which we found out it's more than that actually and it would have been another 10 point something after that. So it should have been 25 ft. When we met with the architects they said they couldn't poss we suggested they moved the the second floor edition south >> and they said they just couldn't
architecturally do it and coach on the pool area something was and then they then they then they moved it to the front and did the ARPV approve we did approve and send to the commission with a second story on the front. Right. So proceed at >> the meeting I don't think.
>> Right. So procedurally we had our initial review where we rejected the ARPV rejected the concept of the north side twotory. >> They went to the town commission. The town commission did not like the Oh, I'm sorry. So then we had a special meeting
with the ARPB with the elevation twotory on the front elevation. >> That was recommended for approval. That was sent to the commission. The commission reviewed that and during the application, the architect walked up and showed a copy of the original application without the twotory front
elevation and the commission said, "Well, that actually looks really nice. Why don't we talk a little bit about that?" The the resident, the homeowner was in the audience. There was a lot of discussion about maybe trying to accommodate this design that he preferred. Uh we met uh between meetings
and tried to adjust that setback on the twotory as much as as we could. Uh and then the town commission had a special meeting where they approve what was on the slide which is the the 20 yes the
229 second floor and 183 first floor. Um just maybe by way of discussion c can you go into presentation view? >> Okay. Can you go down to um the the first slide is 3420 Gulfream Road. So I
dove into some of the houses that I used for the overlay district samples. Can can you just kind of No, that's perfect. So 3420 Gulfream Road, which I think we have one of the neighbors here on the
Deis. So it is a 100 foot lot, 100 foot wide lot. If you look at the second floor F, it's 43, which is no longer allowed in the overlay district. So, it's 1,600 square feet on the second floor. You can see the first floor setback. So, they took the minimum,
essentially the minimum setback, 15 feet on either side. So, 30% of the lot width. And the second floor setbacks, you've got 25 feet 6 in on the left hand side and 26 feet 3 in on the right hand side. So, that is your wedding cake. This is like your your very typical what
Marty Miner and Mr. lines were talking about in 2016 about what the homes would look like in town if if that's what we were doing. So that but that is again the sort of the maximum size you can get. They have their special exception for additional F. Their setbacks are
minimum. There's you know 43% is on the second story. >> Can I go ahead? Uh can you Thank you. Um in my view that house looms over the
house to the north. Um and that has 26. We're only proposing 25. >> Yeah. >> So something less. Uh and now I don't know whether that first floor elevation is and that's the other thing I failed to mention.
Keep in mind every time we look at this these kinds of examples the newer houses particularly in the north end of the core uh in the Ellis house it's 9 ft above first street I >> I want to say that they this resident
has maybe a three or four foot tall retaining wall on the north side. So they they are sitting much higher than that the property next door to them. So in addition to >> you know >> so by definition the house is going to
>> certainly bloom more over correct >> and you know in terms of light the sunlight I mean you know you're going to you know so it it's a real issue uh the FEMA's compounding the
problem. Absolutely. So, uh, but that one meets all of our codes >> and it right and it does meet it meets the codes in place at the time >> at the time. >> At the time. So, this is that house is in the overlay district. So, it would not be allowed to have 43% on the second
floor. It'd be only allowed 30%. Right? So, it was 50% previously, so they could have had more. >> That's a third smaller in round numbers. 43 to 30. One third smaller. >> Yep. uh and and they did take the
minimum setbacks essentially on the second floor because again you're looking at the width of the house. If you have a 100 foot wide watt 15t on one side, 153 on the other, it's 70 ft wide. 15% of that is 10 1/2 ft. So you're you're required to have a minimum of 15
plus 10. So 256 on the north side, I'm sorry, on the south the left has the the minimum under the code as it is administered 256. and then a hair more on the uh on the right side of 263. So again, just by way of example, what what
our code does. Can you go to the next slide now, Renee? So now we have 530 Old School Road, which is uh uh again, these are just homes that we were talking about when we were looking at the overlay district. So these are just newer construction in town. So the second floor area was 36%, but again,
they did allow a special exception at that time. Uh they it's a 100 foot wide again watt 100 foot wide lot again. So you are looking at your typical core lot size 15t on either side 282
on the left side which is the uh ocean side >> and then 256 which is again the minimum uh on the south side. So >> what house is this again? This is on Old School Road. >> Dr. Lewis.
>> Yes. Um, by the way, just as a >> footnote, could I see that? Yep. Thank you. Um, when we approved that house, we didn't, uh, I looked at the file. >> There were no color renderings. Is that
>> No color renderings. And so we approved the house based on sort of looking at that. But the problem was it it really didn't give you the detail and now you look at it. >> I won't say anymore >> again. We you know >> was also one of the early homes that
really began to be stepped up you know on the correct so it's up off the road too that is >> um that's happening all the time now but that was one of the early ones that had happened too. So, you can see based on this this image that I took from, you know, someone mentioned it was for sale.
This is what I thought was um was a really good idea of what you're looking at with the minimum setback of 256 on that right hand side. Uh but you see how there's, you know, the second story portion is isn't just like a flat wall.
It kind of juts in and out. Um you know, so the reduction of that second floor is obviously making some sort of an of an impact. And again, this is uh typical of what you will see based on the lot size, lot width in the core, although they
were granted a special exception for a little bit of of additional square footage, which again would not be permanent. >> What's the f on the second floor, please? >> 36%. Which is which is uh just under 1,400 square feet. >> Okay. But not allowed currently.
>> It would not be. Now, that is not in the overlay, but but okay. But but if in the overlay, it would be reduced. >> Um >> and then if you could just go to the next one, Renee. And I've I've um
I had previously at a meeting said that Rita Taylor had applied the twotory the the code section that we're looking at consistent with how staff has applied it. And that is incorrect. Um the the
the reading that Mr. Lions has advocated for is how uh this code was administered previously. Uh this is an example of a small percentage on the second floor, not necessarily centrally located on a
typical 100 foot wide lot. I believe the Ellis property is larger. So that's why we're dealing with some issues where they have a very large property. Um the building width uh was not it's not 70 feet wide. It was because in part due to the fact that they are on a street which
is an increased side setback of 20 feet. So even though they have a 100 foot wide lot they've got 15 feet minimum on one side 20 minimum on the other side. So with a 63 foot 10-inch wide lot, uh the minimum setback uh is achieved at uh 24
feet 7 in which is um the um 15 ft plus your 15% of 6310. Um so it is so it it is a little bit closer than the other homes that we've looked at, but it based on the width of the home, uh this is
permitted. So again, it is not centrally located. It does allow some for some variation in architectural design just based on where you're putting that massing on the property. Um and and and meets uh other than you know the the new
overlay district not allowing 32%. I mean it's essentially kind of right there. Um and it did get a special exception for an extra about 200 square feet. Um so I I just wanted to sort of correct my my misstatement. You know, I cited
earlier that house. Um, and I I was talking about the second story to the first story setback. I'm not sure it's 10 feet or 5t. Maybe it is. But I I think that example is a good one that this is what we would be
approving. And I think it's okay. But it's still, you know, if you raise that up by another >> right >> five, six, seven feet for the female. >> Um, and you know, when you walk down u road, it's it's there. I mean, you can
and I mean that's the other thing I my son was visiting and sitting in the back lawn looking around and all you see is sky. You don't see uh concrete roof tiles. Um, and a lot of places as you walk through uh the core district. Um,
and by the way, I know I get us off subject, but one commissioner suggested that maybe we should have one story in the overlay. And you know, let's just let's not discuss it now, but you know, I when we looked at the overlay, we
decided not to do that, but you know, if we're going to be fighting this second story all the time, u you know, I'm not sure that we really want to limit it to one stories, but because it seems to be on the part of the commission, uh, and I
agree that we created this overlay and we want to treat that maybe differently. And if we were ever to consider just one-story homes in a in a specific area, maybe we could, but I only mentioned it because one of
the commissioners suggested that. So, >> anything else? No, I just wanted to go through um how that provision >> with the requirement of side setbacks has applied recently to uh to homes that
you can actually drive by and see and see how that um how how the the FEMA regulations for some of the homes are are impacting and you know with respect to what Mr. Lines was saying earlier with the code sections that he read about the use and enjoyment of the
neighboring properties uh and how that impacts it and and whether we want to make adjustments into the code u if it's not working or something like that. >> So I say this is somebody mathematically minded but it seems like less of a math
problem and more of an impact problem to a certain extent. And one of those houses is neighboring me, but the elevation starts at 8 n feet and I'm at three feet. So even the first floor looms over us almost I mean it's almost a second floor if you were looking at two elevations that were similar.
>> That's the 3420 house. Y got you. >> Um and so I wonder if there's more we could do around landscaping window placement to kind of buffer and create more privacy for, you know, neighboring properties um and less sighteline issues.
So I don't think they can complement each other. Um but the proximity of the building by itself I mean you can use landscaping. Um the
problem is when you start using landscaping um you can look at two houses that were built by seaside. one of Green lives in and both of them have this vegetation. It goes up God knows how high
>> and they're lit literally living in a box. I don't want to live in a box. Um so landscaping to me is my wife always tells me not to use this, but I'll do it anyway. Putting lipstick
on a pig. I mean, I I I think that um you know, you you're you're creating a different problem and and I I do think that um shading, light,
um just having the house open. Um, and that's what I think uh makes the core district unique is that you don't drive through and get a sense of just concrete all. So, um, but I don't disagree. Um
maybe I think we have right now pretty good landscaping requirements certainly would address the first floor and they we did increase back in 2016 up to 12 feet on the side
>> landscaping. >> Yeah. the the height at planning, right, would need to be at least 12 feet at planning and buffer a minimum of 40 ft of the side elevation. >> And and as relates to the placement of
windows, um I think that's some an architectural thing that we when we're looking at plans, we think it's something that would be appropriate in in terms of privacy. I know that uh the
house uh south of me uh the former owner uh was going to build a house a twotory and um he was very conscious of where he put the windows >> and um so Patrick came over and showed
me the plans. This is a courtesy. So I I think you know we should be sensitive to that but I don't think we need to necessarily put it into the code. So I am I addressing you or am I ignoring I I don't mean to I I certainly don't want to >> No, I think you're touching on it. I
think we're we're playing with two different The first task that we looked at um for the Ellis residents um with it on the side I think was challenging for the neighbors, but then when they moved it to the front that's challenging for the neighborhood. And so you're trying to weigh where we're masking in a way
that it works best for as many people as possible. And and so that's exactly right. That's right. that the right balance that um and so I I would make the argument that
if it's in the front um the fact that we reduced it um the 50% from 70 and in the um the overlay to 30% the second floor um and with the side setbacks the
profile on the street is less and I thought that example of what Ella showed initially was okay. Um, I I would rather not have I'd rather not see the second story in
the front of the house, but I don't have a a solution except without pushing to the side. And so, the only alternative is just don't want one-story houses. But I think it, you know, the example of that house
uh on Old School Road, I think it was a good example of how you reduce the second story and and you do a variation on the walls. You know, it it's so I I I will give you my bias. Uh, first and foremost, I think the
enjoyment of the property by owner, um, I I'd be extremely unhappy with the Ella's house next to me. I mean, more than unhappy because I like light, you know. >> Well, they chose to do more of an, pardon me, an L-shaped house than a than
a rectangular house. And that made the problem because, you know, they they have that north wing in the front of the house. I think if they had just put a normal house in the front and it was two stories, it looked something like this. Probably would have been more acceptable. But what happened, Paul, is that, you know, they wrap it around a
pool with a pool house back there, too. >> Well, they could have pushed it, you know, the front profile could have come, everything could have come in. >> I mean, and that's the other thing I said in one of these memorandums, you know, that there's all kinds of options that we could have suggested to the
homeowner. Well, yes, you still have to have the side back as as it was written. >> And well, we can't do that. Uh um well, then put it on the first floor. No, I don't want to lose my grass. Okay. I want to throw the my baseball with my
grandson. I mean, which I appreciate. Um then make the house smaller. Um, you know, this h that house went to 6,000 square feet or 5997 >> from 36 the Mel's house and it's again
we want to allow the resident to have the the enjoyment but it has to be in respect to the existing neighbors. So I mean that's I won't say anymore. You know what my view was. So, do we
want to we want to make some sort of proposal to more clearly define what we're thinking or is is the commission charged us to look at this D? >> Yeah, we're going to be making a recommendation. Um, so let me be before
we go to some recommendation, is there any other additional work that you would like for us to do as staff or uh I mean I think in my mind I've looked at this so many
times over the years. It's I I I can't get there's no there's no more additional data that would help me. But you know, do we know enough about the subject that we would be prepared?
>> Right. And now, you know, obviously I've been working with the chairman on this for for a few weeks now, not just with Ellis House, but also the conversations that were going before the town commission regarding section 7073C
regarding that second floor setback. So, I didn't want to just dump it on the rest of the board without maybe some time to think about it. Like Mr. line said if you want staff to look at other applications or provide examples, make proposals if you need feel like you need
more information. um given the town commission's charge that they wanted some flexibility in architectural design but also um respecting the the side setbacks and looking at the um the
Kazaro house, the cat lady house and how that is designed sort of differently but does meet the code regarding the percentage setbacks as it was originally intended. Um I I don't know if I have a a solution that works better than the
code as it exists now if if it's applied to the entire width of the house. Um that's kind of where I'm landing having looked at a lot of this information. I was originally going to propose a minimum twotory setback of of 25 ft which would be sort of based on those mathematical figures that Miss Orthwin
was mentioning. Um about you know your 15 foot front uh side setback minimum and then plus another 10 and a half feet for if you have a 70 foot wide house. So, you know, average that to 25. And then if they want to have a 20 foot
setback and a and a 5-ft difference between those walls, that that would be okay and allow some different architectural design, but would still adhere to that minimum uh setback for the second story portion. So, these are all things that I'm um that are are
potential and I think that would would serve the community well, but I I just don't know what the consensus is from the from the board. There's one other alternative. Um there's really at the end of the day, the elephant in the room is the size of the house.
>> And if you want to build a house of that lot of well, including the pool is 6,200 square feet, uh you really have to put on the second story, otherwise you wouldn't have any lawn, right? Um
and I've cited this at commission meetings in the past. um in the village of Southampton where I live I we have a core district they don't call it that and uh under that code um the F would be
about 25% less or 30 >> so in other words this house uh it could do maybe 5,000 square feet or 48 >> and I know there's been opposition part
the um commission. Um and you know, I understand the legal issues and all that. Um but I I want to be sure we're comprehensive. That's one option to deal with this problem, but I I'm not recommending we do that. Um so, we're
going to live with um frankly oversized houses for on these lots in my opinion. Then we got to figure out how it works for the front elevation and the neighbors. And I think this is the best solution. >> Why Why can't we reduce why why don't let's I mean it's a bold thing to do,
but why why couldn't we slightly reduce the F for the whole building? >> Well, you you raised an excellent point that otherwise we're >> well and maybe um we >> do you think there's some legal issues? I mean >> well I'm refus
the legal >> all over me. >> Yeah. The legal issues are when you in an exact zoning regulations that reduce the market value of the property, you're responsible for the reduction in value and any attorney's fees to sort of get there. So, you know, if you're looking
at someone that can build good answer >> Okay. All right. All right. I won't go into any more. >> No. And with the the prices and the prop the vacant land so much it's just >> that's a very good example I just said. So, I mean, you we sort of have to live
with the circumstances we have. And um but Katie, I'm not sure that I really understood or or I want to be sure that whatever we're doing, we're incorporating what you were thinking.
And I'm not sure that is there some would you tweak it differently? I guess is my question. It seems like the commission is asking us for more leniency with this section of the code. And I'm wondering if there's a way to balance that with also
building in enough for us that we can say, well, we could do this on a case- by case basis, but what does your landscaping look like? What do your windows look like? What do all of these other things look like as a part of the bigger hole? >> Well, I hear you, but I again, my response to
that, and this is only my opinion, I'm just one person here. um is that it doesn't address the absolute requirement that you're going to ensure sufficient light. Um
the proximity of a house is going to be a problem. Um, and losing light is is really a I I had dinner with somebody from Vale, Colorado last night and we were talk I had a house that had a western exposure.
We had great light but there were long days because the sun wasn't up that long and people living in in Eastale was always dark and the value of the properties were significantly less because it was always dark, right? And
um I I just I I don't want to lose the light in my house. So I I I there's just no other way to solve that problem because if you put very high landscaping, Yeah. it it it gives you a barrier
from looking at this this the house adjacent, but now you're looking a wall of of vegetation as opposed to light. So, it that's just my preference. Um, >> but I like Trey's idea of if it was an
absolute number, and I think the town should have stuck with the absolute number, which they didn't do. They got close with the 22 point whatever, but if it was absolute and and they stood by it, which I think they could have quite frankly, because it clearly clearly is less than it should have been in the new
30% rule. This is a little bit odd. It's a corner lot. But if we flip this house down to Maryland Mayor's Lot and the second story we're facing the golf course maintenance building, >> we probably would say, "Okay, yeah, but where it is, that's that's to Katie's point. Aesthetically, we do need to
consider where is it?" And there's a neighbor to the north in a one-story house >> and he's going to see this thing no matter what, no matter how much landscaping. By the way, the the the commission I I know has as much of a concern of that elevation on the south
on a corner lot. They don't >> they there's no way they would have approved it corner either on on Banyan, do you think? >> Or if they flip Yeah. What if they flipped it flipped it just completely flipped it over and it was next to Cody and Ross, so to speak, then No, they
wouldn't have approved it at No, because they don't want it on the street. >> They want to put it on the side of the property to the neighbor. >> No, >> but won't tra the 25 ft or whatever plus the 30% limitation on the second floor
pretty well solve it? This is a a bit of an unusual. This would only happen, Paul, pretty much on a corner lot. This this would I don't think you could fit that. That lot's wider than 100 feet on on on Polo, isn't it? >> Correct. >> And that's most every other lot on Polo
is 100 feet wide, isn't it? I think. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And um Yes. And and by the way, I I I would say, correct me, Trey, if I'm wrong, there's more of a preoccupation of
uh the front elevation in the overlay. So the houses on Polo looking west and the houses on Gulfream looking east, those all the way down the golf up the whole school.
>> And and I don't disagree because the houses across the street tend to be bigger lots and they're on coes and you know >> and they just don't want all big big buildings on both sides, right? And um
and so that's part of the reason why we reduced the size. We just did this in the last two couple years. >> Didn't we go from 50% to 30% just in the last year or two? >> No, it was only >> just yeah 50 to 30 was this this area
for the overlay. >> So um >> you know Paul, even to your point about lighting, I think that changes based on whether it's an east west house, is it north south? Every lot is going to be a little because I think light is also very important too. I mean, you want to go have a garden or whatever you want to do and you should be able to do that in
your backyard. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> but it's going to be different in different places. But yeah, every house now in that entire block will have to adjust to this house's design for every other redevelopment because once you put in
one for like the redevelopment, I know we talked about this at the ARPB when it came up, but like you have to like every the house next to it will then once it gets re sold and redeveloped will have to adapt to the design and like throw
massing on the other side to move away from >> the house that just got built, Dallas's house that this got built. >> Yeah. >> The not to what is the not to switch topics, but >> that's a very good point. By the way,
I'm glad you >> one one paragraph in Paul's memo from September 18th talks about like the neighbor like neighbor objecting uh theme. What is is there any like mandated requirement for neighborly feedback?
>> We I mean just because we provide notice as required under the code. So, you know, it's relevant to for someone to have an opportunity to be heard. So, I'm not I don't I don't like that as well. I I agree with Paul. I don't want there
the fact that there's no comment from the neighbors I I don't think should necessarily weigh at all. Um because it it you know >> is there a proactive like are we reaching out were each of these neighbors reached out to proactively or did we say here's the information like
you are welcome to comment it >> it's so it's just under our code we didn't actually call them and say hey this application's coming out you know because what >> but but but you know we're the fiduciaries and you out that's what we are we're we're supposed to be protecting it
>> but I no sure I also think like and I don't know like on like legal if they can get like anonymous like if in other words like if you put if you said on the ARPV like rotating everyone was responsible for a proactive reach out to the neighbor on the north south east and
west for a you know a new development house to get you know anonymized feedback that they can then bring back so that you're not like calling out one specific neighbor. >> Well, a lot of times we do get response from the notices. >> Yeah, we do. And sometimes they're not
shy at all about it. >> Exactly. They'll come in, they'll come meet and look at the plans and Yeah. So they do, but you're right. Somebody could be saying, "I don't want to upset a new neighbor by making him think I'm >> and when we do get comments from the public." So the nature of, you know,
it's a quasa judicial >> meeting in about the house the first time. >> But can I ask a question? Had we improved this the Ellis house would it have been 25 ft instead of 229? >> Yeah. >> And so is is 2 feet and a quarter is
that a a significant change? You mean >> I No, I mean I seem like >> I mean actually you know with the illustrations that Trey presented >> you know houses uh the one I refer to as the cat lady book.
>> Um you know uh that's tolerable but allow that second soy to come even further in when it it's that much higher. I mean I just think that that's a a mistake. Yeah. Um
um I mean you know that's my view. So um why don't we do this? Um Trey, why don't you put together um something a draft of what we can look at
the next meeting and that gives us time to think further on the subject um because I don't want to rush the decision. Um, and you know, maybe somebody will in the interim maybe will come up with some
other approach. Uh, >> here's an idea. Maybe a field trip >> of four or five of us in golf carts and let's go three. >> So, I I've wanted to do that. We can't do it because the code of
ethics. >> Oh, right. Right. law. You could go with Trey could take you one at a time. >> One at a time, right? That's >> But I I mean, I've done it. Yeah. >> Since we're talking about
>> I can I can figure out how to make this work. >> We're talking about we're not talking about an actual application that's before us. >> Uh we are talking about a general concept of the neighborhood. >> So maybe if that and we're not the final
decision maker. So let me let me look at you know some ethics opinions and see if we can do something just because it's not you know it's not like as I was gonna mention to Mr. Glennon we're you know when we sit as the ARPB with an application we're quasi judicial so
there are certain protections uh that are part of that. So, the fact that if we were all riding around together and looking at a specific application, that's obviously like right that's outside the sunshine. But if we're talking about something that's maybe amorphice and we're making a recommendation to the town commission,
the town commission is the one that's making that final decision. Um, there may be some leeway. So, let me look and see if if that's something we'd be immunable to. Renee, do we have any applications for our December meeting? >> We do not. >> Okay. So, I don't know if we want to,
you know, it if anyone has any feedback after this meeting, email me. We'll put something together. If if if we don't meet in in December, meet in meet in January or you want to meet anyway just to talk about this topic. I don't want to kick it down the road
either. Two months from now. >> Yeah. >> I was thinking about Katie's thought about location. Um and again uh my reference point is how I I would be
how I see it. How would I be impacted? So if if that house Ellis house was on the north um obviously the the north side is less light. Um but Susie was an artist and
she always painted in the north light. She wouldn't have had any light. Um, so I mean every time I think about is there a way that we can deal with it even in location I I'm not sure that that's
addresses the the issue. Um so um you put together some language and um if anybody has some thoughts in the interim share with with Trey and Trey can send out a
>> an overall memo that anything that we can you know want to talk about because at this point everything is on the table to try to manage these impacts. Obviously, we're we we created an overlay district to address some of this to some extent just as it relates to the
core. Um, you know, but I'm I'm talking to, you know, a resident who is upset that she needs to put her generator on a 4ft pad because her elevation is such that new FEMA maps have increased her
finish increased her finished floor by two feet. So whereas maybe last year she had to put it on a 24 inch pad, now she's got a 48 inch pad just to build a generator and she's saying and then I have to screen this with landscaping. I mean this is it's just crazy. It's going to be, you know, a mountain out there.
So these are the kinds of things that we're dealing with with new development. So I don't know if that's something that we want to consider. Maybe I don't know. I was just thinking that um it what sort of relevance is the neighboring property and I don't know if
we could even codify that the the finished floor of the neighboring property as it relates to the proposed pro uh approval and should that increase the effective setback for the twotory. Right? So if it's going to be three feet versus nine feet there's a six foot
difference. Do we require them to have an additional, you know, a foot set back on the twotory for every two feet of difference? Right? So then they go from minimum of 25 and we push it back a few more feet. So maybe they'd be more inclined to build toward the side that's
that's more, you know, on their level. Um, but you know, like I said, anything's kind of on the table. And it's just these are the things that that, you know, we think about when we're trying to go to sleep at night. We'll we will hear it when the Lewis house is built. We all heard heard about
it a lot. Yes, we will with this one too because even that first floor goes in. It's even difficult to get the driveway up to it and then they got steps from that up. It's it's we're going to hear because it's going to look look huge. I mean, it's going to be nine feet and then another 25 ft. It's
>> and that's you know unfortunately >> that's what the town I guess decided they didn't want. They didn't want the as much heavy massing on, you know, over the first floor, so they stuck it in the back. >> Right. I mean, that was and and I understood that motivation. Um, you know, and and one dimension. I agree.
I'd rather not have it on the front elevation, >> but I don't want to do it the expense of the second the side. And and you know, then maybe just to decision, no second storage. We can't do
that. I think that's a mistake. So, um we're trying to >> Oh, no. You go ahead. >> What are other people What are other, you know, cities, counties doing because other places >> they're doing the things that we have already done. So, that that's where we are
>> with with the with the F the two I mean these are things that like they are looking at our code to try to address right these things. So, which I'm another reason to be super proud of our code that we're way ahead of the curve
as just as it relates to um to those those um those issues about privacy impact on the neighbors. Um you know, we already have our F. So, that obviously artificially restricts what or restricts what you can build. Um, so when we were
looking at this from an overlay perspective, the all the things that they were going to suggest that we do, we've already done. F two story setbacks, you know, things like that. >> Has anywhere done more around elevation than we've done yet?
>> Because this is evolving. I'll try to look at some um some other communities and see what they've done maybe within the last year or two. >> What do you mean elevation? like the difference between right is Ocean Ridge addressed already. They >> I I don't know. I mean I can
>> too late to the party to ride through Delray and see that. >> Look at Vista Delmare. Yeah. Oh goodness. >> Destroy the town. >> And then the white boxes. Fortunately, we don't allow >> right now in the village Southampton what they do is they have a um basically
as you go up you have to come in. >> Yeah. So we may we may talk about that because of this >> it really became like so it's got a triangle. Our roof line was very long and steep but in order to have a second
story we had to do it based on the size of the line and that outcome frankly architecturally I don't like at all. U I mean it worked for our house but I certainly wouldn't recommend it here. Uh but the concept was the same is you got
hired and we had to come in. So, we just decide to come in on second floor and you got to >> Well, this is this is more extreme than most because it's nearly the low lowest point in the in the town, like just a little bit further north of that. And
that's going to make it really when when your uncle and Jimmy built the house west of this house, he he he built it way up way up then, but he but he but he landscaped the heck out of it, so he couldn't >> he was the first to go up. >> He was the first to really think about that. Yeah, he was.
>> And that was that was at six feet. So >> So you're saying how that seemed like it was on a mountain and now it's >> you know. >> Okay. Um no other business. Uh thank you >> Renee. Happy Thanksgiving. The meeting
is closed. Thank you. >> All right. Let me actually at seven but still >> Oh, he's at seven. >> So, two more feet early on.