this meeting to order. ULDC June 8th, 2026. Uh, pledge allegiance. Sorry. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Is that our problem for? >> No. Still there. Are ready for the roll call? Yes. >> Chair Joyceiano >> present. >> Vice Chair Karen Plant. >> Committee member Christine Betts
>> here. >> Committee member Robert Austin >> here. >> Committee member Laura Denowski >> here. >> Community standards director Karen Gardner Young. >> Assistant to the town clerk Gabriella Crosdale is present. And then we also have Jeff Curts, town attorney with us as well.
>> Say >> okay. At this point, I guess um additions, deletions, and or modifications to the agenda is probably are we going to pick up from what council had asked us to look at first? >> Actually, I would prefer if we looked at
the RV program first because council wants to bring that back to their next meeting. So unless we hear it here, we won't make that. That's exactly what I meant. Okay, perfect. >> Yeah. Do you think the agendas? >> No, that's being added now. >> Everybody up to speed on that.
>> Wait, I got a bunch of notes. >> So, we should probably have a motion to um amend the agenda to include as >> um number two the discussion on the recreational
vehicle program. Um and then move discussion of uh regarding the pillars of strategic planning to number three. >> Okay. So start with minutes then number two be RV and number three be
pillars. >> Pillars. >> Mhm. >> Do I have a motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> Second it. >> All in favor. I
motion passes. >> Aaron, did you vote? Sorry. Okay, motion still passes. Okay, let me find my notes. Anybody want to jump in?
The first item is approval of the minutes. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. I have a raging I have a raging headache. Um, do I have a motion for approval of minutes? There anything we need to
make a motion to approve the minutes? Second. All in favor? >> I I don't everything. >> So that's I five. Yes. >> Okay. Motion passes 5 Z.
Now we're on to the RVs. >> Perfect. >> Here we go. >> Here we go. Good evening everyone. Karen Gardner Young, community standards director. Before we get started, I just want to introduce you to Erica uh leading. She is um right here. She will be helping us in the future regarding
the committee um duties. She'd be assisting me to help. She'll be here at night to do the meetings. She'll do the minutes. So, we're kind of transferring a little bit of the responsibilities around internally. So, I just wanted to introduce you to her tonight so you see a face in the future. Not a surprise.
All right. So, um thank you for moving this. Um I brought forward uh the recreational vehicle program. This actually came up during discussion uh with the town council and the town council actually held a workshop and at the workshop they actually provided some
notes for staff to consider and uh from those notes and some additional um suggestions from staff. Um we brought this for first reading. Is it an ordinance? An ordinance requires two readings. So it was only uh it wasn't
adoption. It was only a recommendation of approval. And during their discussion on first reading, they asked that staff bring this back to the uldc for any comments from the uldc. Uh in addition, at the last meeting that we had, there were some additional changes that uh the
town attorney incorporated into this document. So the document before you contains the original notes from the workshop, suggestions from staff which were incorporated in the last version that the town council considered and
then the new comments that we received at the last meeting. So, um, I'm going to kind of leave it open to you, but I know there was one item that came up that this coun that this committee may want to consider, and I think it went in regards to the definition of what a
recreational vehicle is because there's so many different types that are within our jurisdiction and I apologize because I don't know all of them. Uh, so I wanted to make sure that we had the opportunity in which to discuss that. Now, I did make a copy, which I'm happy
to hand out, um, of the Florida State statute definition, the town's definition, and I also had, uh, Palm Beach County's definition. So, if the committee would like, I'm happy to send that out. And in addition, I made a copy
of the Florida uh, statutes uh, that was referenced. So, that way, you know, I know sometimes you you're like, well, where did this come from? Well, here's the statute. So, let me if you're okay. >> Again, receipt and file. >> Do I need a motion for that? >> Not really.
>> No, it's part of the It'll be part of the presentation. >> This is the state statute. >> I'm so careful. >> This is actually going to be subject of the discussion that you have. can I'm so sorry I can't find my RV
notes. Um I must have left that pack at home. Is there >> the actual RV stuff >> if you whatever. Yeah, >> I know. >> I had there >> Karen. >> No, I'm missing my notes. >> Oh my. And this is the uh definitions of
Florida state statute and then also of if you go to the front part the front page has the Florida statutes and then in the back it has the towns and then the Palm Beach counties of what a recreational vehicle is. But let's wait but to be clear
this is a great guideline but Luxahhatche Groves can be more strict in their definition than state. Is that correct? >> Yes. With respect to respect to this. Yes. >> Okay.
>> And I guess it would depend on your definition of strict, >> right? You're going to have a different definition. >> Meaning we could disallow some of these if we would if we've chose to as a town. >> Yes. And I just
>> I mean I haven't even looked at them yet. I'm just >> there's I'm just going to pull up the the code on my computer for a second because >> 0.1. So the uh town has vehicle personal
recreation, any operable motor vehicle or trailer designed and used for general recreation purposes or temporary living quarters for recreational camping or travel use including but not limited to camping trailers, travel trailers, truck
campers, motor homes but excluding mo mobile homes which are considered housing watercraft and trailers designed or used for transporting watercraft or other recreational vehicles, but excluding any trailer classified as a
commercial vehicle or which is pulled or designed to be pulled specifically by a commercial vehicle. So that is the town's definition of a recreational vehicle. And again, I'm not saying that it has to
change. It was just it was brought up and I thought it made sense for this committee to take a look at it and make sure we're covering uh you know because again equestrian may have a certain type that may not be covered in this. I don't know. Uh you guys are the experts, so
you have an idea of something that may not be listed in here um that you may consider. Well, there are truck trailers with living quarters. >> What's a commercial vehicle >> for pulling? >> Do you have Oh, I'm sorry. >> 18 wheeler.
>> Yeah, >> I can pull an RV with my 3/4 ton truck. >> Other towns like big commercial semi-trailers and stuff like that because they do have RVs that are semi-trailers. >> True. regarding so a CDL
>> the town the town has a definition of vehicle uh commercial um any operable vehicle designed intended or used for the transportation of people goods or things other than a private passenger vehicles agricultural equipment and personal recreational
vehicles provided that any vehicle with commercial sign placed on it shall be considered a commercial vehicle. The term commercial vehicle shall include but is not limited to the following. A semi-tra
um and semi-trail is all two or more axle vehicles designed to be coupled to and drawn by a motor vehicle. Um B, truck, a motor vehicle designed with or modified to contain a bed, platform, cabinet, rack, or other equipment for
the purpose of carrying items or things or performing commercial activities and weighing 8,000 pounds or more. This term includes but is not limited to wreckers, tow trucks, dump trucks, utility or service vehicles, and moving vans. C.
truck tractor, a motor vehicle having four or more wheels designed to draw a se to draw a semi-tra and often equipped with a fifth wheel for this purpose. Um, and by draw, I think they mean pull, not
make a picture. >> Yeah. Um D bus any vehicle or um any vehicle designed or modified for transportation of 15 or more people in seats permanently placed in the vehicle.
Um e business vehicle any vehicle upon which a business name is displayed. This term includes but is not limited to taxis, limousines, ambulances, and vans, but excludes security vehicles which are providing security services to the area
where the vehicle is parked. Um, and that's in our uh uldc definitions. >> Where is that? What? >> It's in the under the definition section and it's under vehicles, commercial. Okay.
>> And and there is There is another uh definition in the uldc um that is vehicle comma recreational um and it shall mean one of the
following and I I won't I try to get this printed out for you rather than read it again because I think it is relevant to your discussion but A is a camping trailer. Um B is a truck camper. C is a motor home. D is an off-road
vehicle. Um, and E is a travel trainer. Uh, travel a travel trailer, including fifth wheel. Um, let me see if I can get a copy of that for you.
>> Okay. Yes. I'm sorry. Actually, our uldc definition right now covers generically any operable motor vehicle or trailer designed and used for general recreation purposes, temporary living or recreational camping or travel useful, >> but not limited to camping trailer,
travel trailers. So, that general just statement there covers like the horse trailers that have living quarters in them or any other camping design. >> Okay. >> Without going into all the details like the A, B, and C and all the other stuff like he's describing. We have it all goes under that umbrella right there
because if you can pull it and people can live in it, then it's a camper. It's a recreational vehicle >> other than a boat, >> right? Well, you shouldn't be pulling a house boat under somebody's property and live. That would be >> people would do that, right?
>> Specifically say no house votes, but >> okay. >> Understand why it's eliminating commercial vehicles. Well, I imagine >> it excludes >> trailers in a commercial.
>> Well, who are not supposed anyway, >> right? Period. But I suppose that does raise a question for me anyway. Okay, what if the commercial vehicle pulls it there because they don't have a way to pull it and then it's just sitting there?
Because not all the time are RVs hooked to whatever brought them there, right? So >> generally the question is whether it can be hooked. Um, so >> I see >> if it was a modular home or something
along those lines and it's popped down, >> um, it might have come on the back of a trailer, but then it is not intended to be moved again versus >> your recreational vehicle um, which is
either pulled or driven and then you can lock the wheels in place. you can actually take off the tires and put it on um you know blocks or something like that, but there's always the possibility that you can put the tires back on um
and drive it out of there. >> Okay. So that so I'm sorry guys, but that just raises another question in that if there's a mobile home on a tractor trailer that
has wheels, it's now a movable feast. Where does that >> That's a whole different classification. >> They're not allowed. But now it's on wheels. >> No, a mod that what I think we're talking about then is a modular home. Okay. >> And that's excluded
>> that. Okay. >> But that is permitted within the town. The subject to building permits. >> Recreational vehicle you don't have to get a building permit for, which is why we have these RV regulations. >> But the modular homes you do. >> Yes. >> That requires
>> and subject to tie downs and all those kind of things that are >> brilliant. Thank you. So 20261 replaces whatever the former ordinance was
202407. Is this rewritten exhibit A with the yellow >> the yellow are are coming out of comments from first reading and the yellow also um illustrate some typos that I found when I went back over it.
>> So like this paragraph on this first page we have some struck out and some left in >> that that is explicitly from my understanding of the direction of council. All right. So good.
>> So Laura, on that one, what happened was when they brought it up, when we first brought it up and created the ordinance, it had the language that was crossed out in it, and then we went to council and council said, "No, we don't want that language." So we showed the history by crossing it out and putting in the language they wanted. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Because I believe Jeb 2026-01 is meant to replace Yes. 202407. So it's not a strike out and cross out. It's a delete and brand new one on the 202601.
>> That's number A right there saying RV location. RV should be not be shall be located within a required setback. But a lot of people have their storage RVs and especially smaller properties are what you might consider a setback. I
don't think anybody should be an occupied RV and set especially for seasonal occupied. But if you just have your personal RV and it's alongside your property line by the bushes, I don't think that we should go after that. There are current
code enforcement actions out there specifically with respect to that issue under the current ordinance. >> Occupied RVs or people's personal RVs? >> Personal RVs. Unoccupied >> that are in the setbacks.
>> Correct. >> Yep. And that's complained of by neighbors or they drove around looking for them. >> Typically, it's complaint based, but if we see it, we're also going to obviously cite it.
How are we dealing with vacant land? >> I think I ask only because in the strike through it says recreational recreational vehicles are not permitted on vacant land. Okay. But then in the
next following four lines vacant is not addressed at all. So does that need to be left in? Well, I think it's where we get into that murky ag res a bonafide a and nursery can have a caretaker's RV,
>> but but it's not vacant. the the proposed the proposed language is >> what do you mean? >> Um that they're only permitted in AR and absent >> a bonafide agricultural use on the property, the property on which the RV
is located must have homesteaded principal residential dwelling on the property. >> That's for res. Because so you you're in the AR in order to have a recreational vehicle, you would either have to have a bonafideed agricultural use on the
property, >> right? >> Or you would have to have a residential structure and not just a residential structure, a residential structure that is homesteaded. So it's a >> So somebody purchases 20 acres of vacant
land in LG. There's not a cow on it. There's not a horse on it. There's not a house. They cannot have an RV. No, they can have an RV because that's >> under under the circumstances under the circumstances you described. What they would first have to to do with that
vacant property um is establish an agricultural use on the property. And if they established an agricultural use on the property, you would go down to the propos and I'm talking about the proposed ordinance obviously. Um you
would go down to section E um property possessing bonafide agricultural use. Um then you can have it as a a caretaker's quarter or something along those lines, >> which makes sense. But vacant is vacant. That is correct. vacant with no use
>> is cannot have that's the sentence I'm looking for in here >> no use >> right >> so I think it's it I do see what you're saying it's not clear there and you have to continue reading and really quite honestly it's murky waters just with our
nomenclature agrees everybody you know >> for me I like still 13 years later it's like are we a we rez we're both >> we're not bonafide and then there's you can have a chicken. So, >> when we brought the the previous
language um to the council, uh there was some discussion about recreational vehicles are not permitted on vacant land. Um and they there was a feeling and not necessarily a vote or anything like that, but there was a feeling on
the council that that language was either redundant or confusing. and therefore um better to leave it out. >> Well, that's the door for the Trojan horse.
>> Well, there yeah it I can I can live with redundancies so long um you know from my perspective. Um but uh as as the town attorney, but um I don't think they're necessary. I'm
I'm good with this language, you know, and that vacant would be um a uh would not allow um for the RV. Um on the other hand, if the committee felt that redundancy was a good thing, um I'm okay
with that as well. >> Okay. Also, vacant land isn't going to always be vacant. People can put RV while they're building. There is that separate provision with the within the building. >> Okay. >> But then they would have a permit. They would have a permit for sure.
>> And it would be limited to the duration of the >> the construction >> the construction permit. >> Okay. >> We see it. >> We don't see yet. >> We can be on feet. You want to be on feet? >> Yeah. Because this is a big problem here
that I've been pointing out constantly is that this whole program was started for the equestrians equestrian season and needs to be tailored to that with the exception of course for like the barn worker and stuff like that who does not pay a rental because they're there helping they're a worker but these
seasonalist should be here from whatever it is October to April or whatever the season is but after that there's no rentals on the properties because during the summertime it's not equestrian season and I think it should be strict because we should know who they are and what they're there for. And it should be tied to the equestrian season, not just
somebody coming down from Michigan who wants to spend this somewhere in a cheap lot grows. It needs to be tied to the equestrian season equestrian people and you know and you do a six-month lease because you're making money. So they get a six-month minimum lease and if they leave after three or four months, you
don't put somebody else in that spot. We're not rotating. This isn't a KOA. >> I like >> that's what a lot of these people do. They rotate them in every few weeks. Somebody else is coming in and going. We don't know who they are and they're not. A lot of them aren't tied to equestrian. You have a house right down the street here. They have three of them on their lot that they're renting out. One of
them has a dump truck parked in front of them. I can guarantee the other two probably aren't equestrians, but they're just living here in Los Groves in trailers and their houses making money. And that's what this program has gotten out of control with. And that's what I warned about when we first started doing it. It needs to be tied to the
equestrian season for equestrian people. out >> you and I would argue that there are plenty of barns that are operating year round. >> Well, that's where you have the help. You can have the one who's there for your help >> or well maybe they can make an exception for that so we know who they are. Okay, you're a trainer. You're here. Okay, we
know so and so trainer is coming here in the summer, right? We can have those exceptions, >> but generally it needs to be tailored to that main season with a few exceptions because I'm okay with that. But we have to still know who they are and why they're here and not just somebody who's driving a dump truck who's going to live
here for a few months and be gone or whatever because that's the problem we're having. That's why we're also getting this coming in that they're encouraging people out here to build extra houses on their property >> so they can rent them out. That's not in-laws quarters. It's saying here rent buy another house in your property in Lockachi Groves and you can rent it out
for income. Here. You want to see it? Jeff came in the mail. >> Um, no. I think that's exactly the goal of this is to make it as clear as possible for permitting sake identification and then code
enforcement. >> Yes. So, are you okay with this language and see or is there something you want to >> It should be to the equestrian season with a few exceptions like what you mentioned and those few exceptions would
be documented as it's a trainer or it's a rider or somebody will come into this farm and they're going to be there for a summer because we're going to be with a certain trainer. That's fine. We know who they are. >> No, so I'm sorry. Let me let me see if I get you right because this is saying 6 months,
right? That's it is what it says. Um, a lot of seasons, and I can tell you this from personal experience, they don't all start and end at the same time. They don't. I've had people come in in November. I've had them come in in January, then come in February, stay till July, come leave on April. So, there's not really a spec I mean,
there's a general season, >> but that's still not tying to the equestrian season. That's not stopping somebody coming down here from Michigan or Canada that finds a cheap lot and walks at you groves and wants to stay here for a few months and because somebody's only charging 1,000 bucks for a whole month full hookup. They have
nothing to do with equestrian season. They're just driving up and down our roads and you know who knows who they are. Like our neighbor on the street had all kinds of Lake Worth people that lived on his property and you know I have to keep my doors my garage doors closed. I don't know who these people are driving by my house staring at my stuff.
>> Both of your points are valid. How do we cook it? >> Exactly. My how how do we fix it? >> The equestrian season has to be tied to the equestrians. >> We'll put that in words. >> Just what I said. Has to be tied to the equestrian. >> That's too vague and ambiguous. >> What's the mechanism? Piece of string or
a you know a balloon over your yard. It's and I'm not trying to belittle it's sincere. >> Have to be riders have to be trainers. It have to be, you know, the groomers, you know, people, not just somebody who's coming to hang out. >> Okay. So,
>> not a bunk house trailer either. >> No, not a bunk house. >> A bunk house trailer has what, five or six stores where somebody can spend the night in there. >> That That's another >> It's like a carnival trailer. >> Well, I think they have they have language in there that says you can only
occupy what the RV calls for. So, if it says sleep six, you're not allowed more than that. But I think what you're aiming at p is kind of is a good point and that is how do we know and it regardless of whether it's the equestrian season
related or not. How do we know who's in these RVs? >> We don't. >> So that's probably where the language needs to go. If you is there somebody has to be responsible for vetting these people. Is it the owner of the land has to ask for a driver's license or do do
you see like that's that's where I think the broader >> we would hold the owner of the land the accountable one and if they're lying then there should be some kind of fines for that but I mean right now I understand the council's reasoning to put it down to like only 50 bucks because they're trying to get people to
comply but the problem is the town's losing money. It cost the town what like $60,000 to implement the program. They only collected like 20. So no one's going to do >> they don't do it at all. >> They don't do it at all. >> They're not allowed to do it all. That's why they're all here. >> Yeah.
>> That's my another thing. Actually, my last comment is and if the RV program turns out to be too much of a burden for town, we just can discontinue it, >> right? >> Because we're the only town that does this. Nobody else does it. And we're finding out why. Well, at the last town
meeting, it was brought up that there would probably be like 1,900 RVs um if they if they went by the way it was. And the comment was kind of laughed off of that's about how Hey, they're already here. That's the problem.
They're already here. It's not that they're going to be people that are going to be moving in. When I I was in one of my previous jobs down on either F or E road, there was there was a place
that 20 20 RVs, I mean, pulled either by a an SUV or a truck or whatever would come in and like you said, they they'd stay six, eight months and they just had a good old time. >> Okay. So, how so we've identified that
there's a problem. How do we rectifi? How do we as a council of a committee and then as a town but us first for for SL fans give us some words we already know that there's problem >> over and over and over again. >> Okay. >> So give us a solution. Give us give us
words that help us give code teeth counsel some alternatives or ideas that's that can help keep this from becoming burdensome burden >> that we're trying to
>> there's one thing to definitely do no RVs >> okay >> if you feel if you feel that there's a reason why you need to have an RV on your property come and apply, come and talk. >> But they've tried to do that and they
don't. That's the problem. That's why they're trying to get this, you know, they knock it down to one and less than two and two only. You got 10 acre only have two, which is a great step forward from what it used to be in my opinion. >> Okay. But um they I think they need to
have more of a permit feeds to make it worthwhile for the town to actually check and make sure the owner is telling the property owner is telling the truth of who these people are. >> Okay. >> That they're not just renting to any Joe Schmo coming who down who who's not, you
know, something groomer or whatever. Just >> some people are just sing >> right. Exactly. fours, three of them, >> and I doubt they're both with the equestrian season. They're just here paying rent and living on the property in the groves, >> which is were not a trailer park. And
that my whole complaint when this program started >> because as you seen it got abused and they're getting abused, they're trying to limit it. Like I say, they're trying to take baby steps to limit it. It's a good direction, but I think it needs to be more strict. >> Okay. How? Give us give us >> know who's in the trailers. >> How how give us
>> people that come in, they need to do the uh the permit. You need to >> they need to show ID. >> The property owner needs a permit and say so and so is coming to be on my property. >> Okay. So So what does this sound like in in >> what it what it sounds what it sounds >> what it sounds like is a rental
registration program. >> There we go. >> Um and the rental registration program typically would not just apply to um RVs. It would apply to anybody who was renting any sort of property within uh
the town. Um, so if you rent out your house, you would list it, uh, you know, you would go through the rental registration process and say, I am renting this property. Um, and there are jurisdictions
including I can't say for sure that it whether it still does it, but the place next door had a rental registration um, ordinance in place. Well, how does that coincide with BTR? Because I have a feeling there's going to be some people
reluctant if that >> you're supposed to have >> equals a room and now you're renting a room and you have to list a room, right? Like >> and you are supposed you are supposed in order to rent property um in town, you are supposed to have a VTR
>> for your okay >> for your rental activity. So, if I rent a room, one room, >> or if I rent a house, or I rent five houses, or I rent 20 stalls, I'm
supposed to have a BTR for that activity because that is a business activity. My My question though is is is each room in the RV considered a room and now they're paying a room tax for the BTR? That's how it reads.
>> No, on the and Karen will correct me when I'm when I'm wrong on this. If if I am uh renting um a property, it doesn't go with the property. It goes with the fact
that I am renting that property. So, I can have 10 properties that I am renting, but I only need one BTR for that activity. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. So,
I guess then we're back to a rental registration, but that means that they're gathering information from renters. >> Yes, >> it is. It is not uncommon.
>> No, I'm sure not. >> In North Palm, they have one. So basically you had to provide a copy of your lease, you know, so we could see it. They were required to have notification like hurricane roots and things like that where the nearest hospital was because people who rent
don't know the area. >> So required that here doesn't really apply but in that area they had like parking be only on the driveway and not on the street. So there's different things that you can regulate. Don't prohibit but you regulate the uses. And I agree with Jeff that if we're going to
do it to RVs, we have to do it to to a home or room that's being rented. >> If you rent a room in your homesteaded property, you lose your homestead, >> right? >> That is correct. So, no one's going to come forward with
that. But desperate times, look at all those Facebook sites. I have a room for rent at my house. I have a suite for rent at my house. I have dream rooms for rent at my house. Those people are playing roulette, >> right? You can't rent out a part of your house and still have homestead live in it.
>> Just like this guy. If this was homesteaded and he built that and rent it out, he lose his homestead >> forever. >> I haven't looked into the issue recently. Um, and so I I I can't comment
with certainty. I I do know of situations in which in the past um you would structure a lease um to say that you were occupying you the owner was occupying as of January 1st and December
31st um and that allowed you to maintain your homestead if you wanted to rent it out for a portion of the year. >> But that's in the past. I have not looked at that in about five years. Well, I have a good question. How does 1032 keep his homestead if he's right
behind his house? He should have lost his homestead a long time ago. >> I'm not going to comment on a specific case at this point in time. And >> and the town is not the one the town is not the um entity that grants or denies homestead
>> exemptions. So, is there some wording we want to include at this particular juncture about a registration for the tenants of RVs? Is that I mean, does that does that help
with your concerns? >> We know who they are. I mean still with the town. I don't know if they can put under a different thing in a BTR if you're saying it's going to include people who might have a room in their house they run out or something.
>> Well, let's go back to the the beginning of the mole built. Mhm. >> I can think of four properties north of Okachchobee that have four to six RVs that come in
seasonally. You cannot see them from the road and you cannot see them on on aerials because they park under enormous boulevards. But by God, there's cars and trucks that go out of there.
all day long. All in all, so again, what is the honor system? What's the incentive? >> Well, for someone to come forward, >> I mean, let's put let's turn it around. If this were in place as is without any
language at this moment or with language regarding registering your tenants and you saw that kind of traffic as a code enforcement officer, would you be able to do anything about it given this code
>> gain access this new what we're looking at? I don't think it would actually I don't think it makes any difference whether they be able to build one. Again, if a code officer observes a violation of a code, they have the right in order to initiate
communication. So, we try to get courtesy. We try to get voluntary compliance to see if they would comply to begin with. But again, if we ever have to take it to the special magistrate, we have to be able to testify that we have proof of the fact
that they're renting or it's on that property, which I think goes back to council member Lura's position, which is if we can't see it, I can't site it. Now, I can ask to come onto the property, but if it's a smart property owner, they will go no. So, now I could
try to look from a neighbor's property, which we've done in some instances. the neighbor next door has allowed us and it's close enough that we can see from the neighbor's yard. You know, sometimes we, you know, on certain things we do, we don't have the manpower, but sometimes we we do put somebody out there and let them sit for a while to
see if it comes in it or goes out kind of thing. But um it's very difficult uh to find these type of violations. >> Yeah. And that goes back to how much money it's costing the town to implement this program because the town wastes
tons of manh hours and for this one >> it's hard to enforce a lot of it >> right now. Um Council Austin, one of the things they did here is we actually had two permitting. So we had an affidavit if it was unoccupied
and then we had a permit if it was occupied. This new ordinance takes out the affidavit. So if you have personal use of your vehicle, we're not tracking them. We're only tracking those that are permitted.
And again, the thought was the honor system that if you know you have your personal, we shouldn't infringe. But if you are having a permit because it could be life health safety making sure the electrical is hooked up correctly or you're getting rid of your garbage or you have the health department whatever
you're doing they want to make sure that occurs versus an unoccupied one which is basically storage. So the affidavit only applied to those unoccupied parked >> but to council council member Austin's point you know we had 91 of these
affidavit so the next year we had to go out try to you know try to communicate back with those 91 property owners to see if it's still there you know and it's again you can't see it from the road you got to try to communicate with them we've noticed
there you know they're not in over the weekend is when they may be in So, you know, even on the permits, we've had to call four or five times in order to get an inspection out there. >> Forgive me for this horrible phrase that's going to fall from my lips.
Doesn't the town have bigger fish to fry as far as code violations are concerned? >> That's the problem. This is eating up a lot of money. This program is eating up a lot of money and time from the town. And then you also have the problem with the ones that aren't occupied, but you have people that use their property for storage for RV trails that aren't theirs
that they charge people 100 bucks a month store on their property. >> I'm not saying this is not a problem, but I am thinking of the grander long-term offenders that have just sat
back and coasted for years. it it it's almost and I don't want to sit up here and name names because that's dangerous, but you guys have got way bigger problems going on than this.
>> Well, I maybe it's a matter like like you said earlier, the honor system for those who are compelled to, you know, do it right. Exactly. And then maybe the direction that this
should move is or or we should figure out how to move it in the direction of of is when how to get health department on those properties because those are the most egregious
that is the most egregious um problem that we have is them dumping illegally. number one and I think secondly would be like the one over here on collecting canal that caught fire the other day. Clearly it was not up to code in some regard. So if there is a way to get
those parties involved taking it a little bit off of your plate. I mean it'll eventually swing back to code but health department, fire department. I mean like >> here here's an idea simple and this is
almost going to be truth or dare. Your farm or your property has an agricultural classification on it. Not not just the regular egg res.
>> Exactly. So go through the tax role, send out a certified letter. Very simple question. Yes or no. Do you rent RVs on your property? Tick box yes. If yes, please schedule a courtesy visit
with the town. If no, check it out. Then if code happens to sit outside somebody's driveway at 5:00 in the morning and witness 12 vehicles going out and vehicles coming in and that property tick the box, no,
then pursue them. to shoot. >> Still, she can't she can't she can't if they can't see it, they can't sight it. >> But what? >> True. >> What did she say about suspicion? >> I mean, we we could, you know, you could
have somebody sit on the roadway to watch it come. Again, it goes back to manpower. I mean, we just I mean, realistically, we have one officer and two part-time. So, there's just not enough hours to do everything they need to do and still do this.
>> Do the part-time officers also have the burden of the paperwork that goes with it? Awesome. >> Okay, back to the beginning. I try. >> So, so the health department, fire department,
they they can't be somehow >> the the health department will not is not going to routinely get involved. um on these things unless you have a property um that has five or more um if
you have five or more occupied um RVs on your property, then you're considered an RV park and those are regulated by the the state. Um but in this town, they are
an RV park is not permitted. Um, and so, uh, to the point, nobody's going to come in and tell us when they have five or more. And there are allegations out there that there are properties with
five or more. And we have been not very successful in discovering and prosecuting those over the years because we're not allowed to use drones.
Um and and people can have uh plants and fences that are taller than our code officers. >> Yes, those Kuzia fences are popping up everywhere, aren't they? >> Everywhere. Um but but so if you have a suspect
suspicion >> that there's five or more then you can call the health department to go out and inspect it. uh if if if there were five if if there were five or more and we had some good evidence, we could work with the health
department um to see if they could get on to to the site. Um and where the health department will come up is where they have some sort of verified complaint >> of um waste material being deposited on
the on the property. Um, and then if if they have evidence of of that, um, they will come in, do an inspection, um, and they have the right to go on to the to the property for that purpose,
but they have to they have to have pretty good evidence of of that being the case. And then the remedy is uh, clean it up and put lie down. How about this? Shoot me. Um, in the non-advelor tax,
anyone who has a bonafideed egg classification gets to pay $100 more in taxes a year. That takes care of extra trash, extra road travel, extra people in and out over culvert bridges. And then that
eliminates part of the problem of excessive use of our infrastructure. That's a double-edged sword, ain't it? >> Especially for ones that aren't doing it. >> Exactly. >> No, no, no. You have to have the
bonafide egg use on your property, >> right? But if you don't don't have RVs on it, then you're paying extra money. >> Well, then you just say you allow it onto my property and I'll show you I don't have one. >> There you go. >> That's tick box X or yes or no.
>> I think there is um we should do one thing for those people that have an RV and nobody lives in it. It's on their property. It's just like a boat. It's their personal item that they have on
the property. I I think there's some way we need to put their mind at ease that we're not coming after them. >> She already talked about that. >> That's already in this. >> It's already in there. >> Well, I've heard a couple people talking about it. I wanted to make sure. >> Yep.
>> I have my own RV who had it for years. And actually, the town's cited me twice even after I filled out the aid. I'm one of the first ones to fill out the aid. a long way there's a gate hanger like >> we were just showing how much we love you >> okay
>> I mean I guess the question I mean in this one we can even address one thing which is you know the owner the tenant information because we do have a permit requirement for those that are occupied >> right >> we haven't put in that requirement we only said the property owner's
information but we could obviously put in tenant information as well So we could take care of that without a registration program. If you don't want to do a registration program, you want to just state to the RV. >> Put it put it put it on the >> We could put that >> on the permit, the year, the make. It is
here's name. So it talks about the property owner, the property information including the property use classification, how many acres, number of trailers being occupied, dates the recreational vehicle will be on site, model make, color of the recreational vehicle, the tag number, documentation
that electric has been permitted, documentation that wastewater disposal, affidavit stating information provided is true and correct, and then a filing fee of no more than 50 bucks. I think there should be um a photo ID in there, too, because I could say I'm
Sam Smith. Without the photo ID, you wouldn't know, >> right? So, I think we're talking about putting in a line that says renters's >> the occupants. >> Occupants, right? Identification state
>> the name, but you're not >> you're not verifying that is the actual person. ID verification. Okay, >> I get it. Makes sense. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Sure. ID. >> So, I have ID verification and I have
occupants information. >> Yeah. >> So, the other issue that I heard had to deal with the time frame. And I guess what I heard um was that there really isn't we can't there's no set sixmonth period. I don't know, but that's what I
heard. There's no six-month set period that the equestrian season is in session, I guess. So, you know, because normally you would say, like you said, which is, you know, from, you know, October to April, but I'm hearing that
somebody could be there with the equestrian because they could be training during the summer. It could be January to October, >> right? the main season, the Wellington season generally like what you stayed but understand these people have riders and other who come in the summer train.
So that's the problem. >> Well, they just reup every six months. >> They should, >> right? Is that doesn't >> It's not supposed to be occupied year long. >> It would be limited to six months during a calendar year.
>> During a calendar year. So if you have one person leave who's here for season and another one comes for training in the summer then it would be a different vehicle and be different permit. You have to come and spend me $50 they want to charge an hour. I think it should be more but >> well that's not true money then you're
making money on it anyway. >> That would only be true if they're bringing their own RV. Some of these people have an RV and they rent it out. >> Yeah, that's another sticky point. >> Right. So that could
>> right. We don't like we don't have enforcement. The town doesn't have enough money to send these people out. I mean, >> it's probably why Wellington said, "No, we're not even going to mess with it." >> I don't hate No. How was this all handled back in the day
under the special um in our comprehensive plan those special sections in section one >> that gave exclusion to Sunsport trying to trying to remember what those paragraphs >> the special policies you're talking
about? >> Yes. I don't think any of them I don't think the address back in the day before the word horse came into play was he >> don't they own their lots? >> No
thanks so >> owns it and and they >> they rent out >> I know they have rental spots in there but I mean there is some people that been there for years. I thought they actually owned >> their >> trailer site. It's a great
>> I don't I do not think so. On the property appraisers website that comes up as one one parcel. Um and I know that in their literature you can you you can you can rent
um you can rent out individual um RVs and things like that that they have in there. They do offer them for rent. Okay. So, so I guess I think maybe the first question could
that we may need to answer is you have an existing ordinance that it's been indicated isn't working. So, they're trying to amend it to make it better. So the question from this
committee is are they making it better or is it you don't want any right? I think that might be the first question. What is your recommendation to council? >> I mean because if we don't adopt anything the existing ordinance stays in place
and I don't think that is what everybody's looking for. >> Yeah. So that means we need to amend it in some way. Whether is to amend existing language or whether to eliminate it completely and do the recommendation of no RVs. Not that I'm
recommending that. Don't misunderstand. I'm just >> and and I think I think we got to be cautious because people may be coming in. >> Nobody is saying that you should get rid of your personal RV. Um, it is the
occupation of the vehicles, the the RVs in town that is the issue as to whether or not you should be able to occupy one or more on your property. >> Can I mention the elephant in the room? >> Sure. Go ahead.
>> Here we go. >> So, I think the $50 fee is more than reasonable. Mhm. I 100% agree that this excess influx of traffic and resource
consumption is valid. Uh I I 100% agree that it brings in a certain derelict persona because that's when equipment goes missing and people kind of seem to end up in the canal and personal
property gets run over, damaged, run into. I speaking truths. Nobody in locks wants to let code on their property because in the past historically and I have two people, friends, neighbors, whatever
code came on their property to investigate X. And then on the little clipboard, they're making notes about other things that are not compliant. And then all of a sudden they get a letter that says, "Oh,
did did you ever pull a permit to put in no or gosh gee whiz, your shed is too close to your name there." If there was some or any assurance that it wasn't a fishing expedition of, "Oh,
you have mosquitoes in your pot. I have to investigate that." I think there would be a whole lot more honor system coming forward and I'm not saying that of current. I am saying that in the past there was a code officer who said um
gosh gee well you know you always write a check to the uh certain vendor and make sure it can unhaul this will go away >> and that's in writing. >> Wow. You know, Laura, I agree with you, but I think what is I agree 100%. But
it's the people who are already on the honor system that aren't worried about code coming onto their property at all. >> Yeah. >> Right. Because they're trying to do everything by code. And I think then it sort of falls back on town and and
the code itself being being clear and concise and and able to, you know, people willing and able to get be in compliance. And like you said, I
don't think the $50 is egregious. I don't um and then you you know hopefully um it'll it'll prove to raise the bar right a high tide raises all ships right
>> I understand your position and um some people may may have thought that they've done everything above board and then like you said uh a code officer goes out for a particular reason and they find these various things, you know, and and
people may not be aware that they've done something wrong. I had a barn built on my property. I mean, 30 35 years ago, okay? And the guy came out and I said, "I want a permit on that. I
want you to draw it out. Go down and get a permit. I'll pay for the permit. I want to make sure that there's no problems with this." The guy came out and he had the concrete slab already poured. Oh yeah. Oh. And I said, 'Well,
where's the permit? And he said, "Well, we didn't get one." I said, "Well, you're going to stop right now. You're going to go get a permit." He says, "It might be a couple weeks before we get back." I said, "I don't care. I want the permit." So then he comes out to me and he says, "I can't
get a permit because it has to be so many people for me property line." >> And now you're left holding that. >> No, no, not at all. Because what he was assuming was my property line was not my property line. What's what I have is I
have um a canal all the way around three sides of my property >> and my property goes five more feet beyond that canal. So I told him, I said, "Give me the idiot end of this thing." And I
walked through the canal up to the other side of the bank. And I went back five feet. And I said, "Okay, now I'm standing on my property line. Where is my slab?" He says, "Oh, it's 115 ft from
your property line." I said, "So then you can go down and get the permit that I'm supposed to have." because he was showing it on his plans of being like 95 feet and it could only be it had to be 100 feet or more
>> and I mean somebody may think that they're in the right >> really >> and an upstanding person and they just kind of get caught in the crack. >> Okay. A historic profile or say Joe who was first. >> Well, I was going to say actually this is a step in the right direction.
Limited to two RVs no matter the size of your property. You could have 20 acre and only a few RVs according to. So, >> no, I think it steps up depending on the >> No, it does not. >> Do I look like that? This one is two >> period. Period. I like that.
>> Two. Period. And if we add this and then we add the uh ID of who is actually staying in them when they're here, >> then that would be a good start to see if this flies and it just flops again and we might have to push for just getting rid of it because it's we're
burned in the town. It's a burden of the town fiscally because we're wasting tons of hours of manpower on it and it's a burden to neighbors who don't take advantage of this or they're not making you know they're not used to it. You know, these people driving around on our on town, like Laura said, they scoping
out our stuff. They're running stuff over. They're They don't care. >> Half of them aren't even equestrians. Half of them are just people coming here and living in the groves in the camper. >> Well, right. And I think you're the the reason they're waste what you're calling wasting time is because, you know, one
or two RVs really isn't so devastating, but 10 or 12 hidden in the back really is. And we're still not giving them We're still not I mean I think like you said the two >> well this will be a provision for a set of big actors they can go after them
first that have multiples and then pair it down to like hey you're not following rules either because you have three limit so >> it's a good start >> I think it's a good start too >> with ID >> so we let exception do check >> thank you
>> so it sounds what I'm hearing um right direction like I said every code is document, you know, as you learn more about it, you change it as it, you know, in order to meet its goals or change conditions. So, if I'm hearing correctly, I think you're suggesting at
this point that what is here you can you feel comfortable in recommending with two modifications. One, that there's a photo ID verification and two that the occupants information should be provided. >> Yes. Also for um the storage of the ones
that are aren't occupied, is there any verbiage we can put in there to make sure that somebody's not renting out like they do down the street and have multiple food trucks and trailers and everything that they're renting out spots on their property? Would that go under this also? >> Would that be a different code?
>> That's great. Well, >> you're next. >> Unoccupied. Well, I think what what Robert's suggesting is that the ones that are listed as unoccupied are occupied or are you talking about
>> they're unoccupied, but people are just renting out their spots at $100 a month for other people who live around who can't their property to stick them on. So, they have five or six campers that aren't theirs. your on your property. It should be your camper. If you have a like my camper is my camper. I don't have three other ones
on there next to mine that I'm renting out spots to storage like some people do out here. >> So, he's >> Well, this would storage yard, right? >> Yeah. Well, this >> if you went to >> if you look at this and under the proposed ordinance, you would be in a
situation in which you could have one of your own and then you could rent out the other one spot if you had more than two acres, less than >> unoccupied. unoccupied >> for for for us to
once again if you're >> if you're going to if you're going to make the determination that um somebody has to be the owner of the property in order to have their RV
there. Um, you then get into, well, what about the person who rents the property? Do they count? Is it okay for them to have it? If I if I rented out your entire five acres for an entire year,
>> then I should be able to bring my my RV. Yes. Okay. So, I've got That's So, you're asking for for proof of things. Um, and once again, if you had
under this program, if you had two RVs and they were unoccupied and that's all we knew about, we said, "Oh, that property's got two or more RVs. It's, you know, a 5 acre piece. We're not going to do anything."
But now what you're asking to do, and this goes to your enforcement issue and the time and expense. If I if I as a code officer see two RVs, they're unoccupied. Now, I've got to ask the question or if I even see one RV, I've
got to go and ask the question, is that your RV? I'm not saying it's occupied, but is it yours property owner or is it yours uh rental? >> And can I have a copy of the rental
agreement? Can I have a copy of this? All these kind of things. And oh, by the way, if you were renting that spot out, technically you needed a BTR, so I'm going to get you for that. Um, more headache for staff. I can
>> Well, and and and more hassles for the people who you think are basically doing the right thing or trying to do the right thing. >> Okay, Karen, let her rip. Okay. So, I'm I'm really not sure where I fall on this, but I was trying to
think of what Robert was trying to say with the equestrians. And since Wellington doesn't do it at all, and we do it, why don't we put in a time frame that it's allowed? I I understand some people want to do it all year, but they can't be in it all
year anyway. So why don't we put a time frame in that is more conducive to the equestrians coming and going and that it supports what Robert was saying. No, not six months. I'm saying like from October to April or something like that so that
you know they're not supposed to be there. The other parts will be here. You won't see them. >> That's way more than generous. October one to April 30. >> I'm just making up a date. I'm just saying since Wellington doesn't do it at all and we do it a little bit, maybe put in the months that they're allowed.
>> That's what I've tried to do at the very beginning of this program and all this got shut down. >> Okay. Well, I was just an idea. >> Yeah. >> But we I mean, >> we have a lot of people that do rentals all year long. I know that people stay there all year long. I don't know how to stop them. I
>> I mean, I I think we should send that up the flag pole. I really do because I don't hate it, but I feel like it's going to be tricky to define those months. Although, like I said, I don't I think usually mid November is good start time. >> We know when the shows start, don't we?
>> Not jumpers start earlier. Very early. They're still doing shows now >> in in the Hunter Jumper World year end finals start the beginning of October. There's the Capital Challenge show. From there you go to the Washington International Show. You're now
midocctober. Then you go to Harrisburg which is endish October November. And then you go to Lexington and that is the final of finals. That's that's the beginning. >> But when are the shows here? >> The fairgrounds not fairs the Wellington show.
>> January election. And then they have >> I mean we have an idea of when the shows are going about the month before and the month after for people that need time to move but they tend to move quickly once it's over. >> Yeah. >> From my experience in seeing them go. It's a gypsy life.
>> And so the people that are still here are the ones that are here year round >> probably. >> Yes. >> That's my point. That's always a tailored to the season. >> Yeah. October one to April. >> So I was just trying to think of something that would help Robert's idea.
Um, so we could maybe go after the people that do it all year by having those months listed on. Why not? What engineers? >> Yeah, we'll let them decide what months they want. >> Yeah. I don't know. I like I said, I
don't I'm not familiar with the horse community, so I don't know what those months would be. Um, but that might help narrow it down. Instead of instead of a six-month time frame, >> instead of a six month time frame, saying from October to April or whatever, December to April, whatever
the show circuit is, >> well, what happens is kind of a a filtration. You have to qualify for the year end finals. So, if horse makes it to capital challenge but didn't have enough points for the following three,
then they start shipping those horses down and then the people come with them. the burns, the barriers, the best. >> Well, they can't come in earlier. They stay where they're at >> um >> until time is up. I just I just took a look at the I'm taking a look at the
Wellington um code um and at least in what is currently published in the equestrian overlay zoning district
um recreational vehicles as temporary residences um the use of recreational vehicles as temporary overnight residents on residential lots in the EO EOD is allowed with an approval an approved
equestrian permit between the months of November and April in accordance with the following. Um lots less than 5 acres are not eligible for temporary overnight RV usage. Um, the lots 5 acres to 9 and
9/10 acre in size shall be permitted to have one RV for temporary overnight um, usage. Lots 10 acres or greater shall be permitted to have two acres for temporary overnight usage.
>> But Wellington has the money and the resources to enforce that. I I I just I I >> I was just following up on the conversation of them not being permitted at all. Um and checking that out uh because it's been a number of years
since I've looked at their code. >> November to April. >> Yes. that you know you could make the argument of suggestion or include as part of your saying that's what Wellington who does the shows are indicating and you know that we could follow their their months that they're
requesting instead of the six months >> even technically that is six months >> if you think about it that is six months you got two months in this year and then you got four in the next so that is six months >> so if you have less than five you're not allowed to have any
>> over there over there. >> Over there. >> That's something else that should be changed. Less than two acres shouldn't be one RV. It should be >> unless it's your personal RV. >> Well, that's a non >> that's a nonoccupy. >> This only again this one only refers to
a number of occupied and rented RVs. >> If only if it's only two acres, I think we will catch a lot more people because you can see two acres pretty clearly most of the time from everywhere. >> Okay. So, so we've said two period
occupied or or otherwise, right? Two period because I think that solves the problem. You can have your own and then you only get to rent one side out. You can and park your own, right? Is that what is that where we're at? Or we're or it's two plus one.
>> I thought it was two plus one. >> Yeah, that's the way I'm reading it. number of occupied and rented >> and it's two acres or more two RVs >> occupied. So >> yeah, occupied and rented. So then your personal one
>> is not >> would not be included in there. So that would be three. >> So >> okay, >> I >> I don't >> I thought it was I thought it was one >> when I read it. >> Less than two acres is one RV.
>> One RV period. Whether it's occupied or unoccupied. >> No. >> One one rented. >> Read it. It says number of occupied. >> This is occupied vehicles. >> Section D. >> I don't think we have a limitation on >> unoccupied. >> No, because we talked about that because
some people own a horse trailer that can um house people. They own their own trailer with their toys and they can have other things and you know, you can't limit people what they want to keep on their property for their own personal use. That's their own stuff >> if they take it on travel trips.
>> But D clearly says number of occupied and rented RVs 2 acres or more to RVs. So that wouldn't include their personal >> no >> parked. It wouldn't include a parked RV. >> You think less than two acres should be
zero occupied? I don't think that's fair to an individual because I can remember years ago when I had I had three boats that we used and we had um an RV 25 foot RV.
>> No occupied. He's talking about rentals. >> I'm talking about renting less than two acres. You can't rent out a spot for an RV. >> I think we should do like Wellington. >> Yeah. >> Well, if you have two acres and you're bonafideed a you're running an A. I don't know. Is there such a thing? I
don't I don't know if there is because usually they take away an anchor for the house to >> Well, the way that this reads, unless I'm wrong, Jeff, is that if it's a bonafideed ad, the the size is irrelevant, >> right? >> They're allowed one RV as long as they got bonafideed
agricultural, not vacant, bonafide agricultural. They can have one because the intent should be to be a caretaker. You got plants out there and somebody needs to monitor it and all you're allowed is >> So, no matter what size the property is, You're bonafideed egg, you get one. Okay,
>> you you get one based. Okay, they can uh exceed the >> can exceed >> the six month limitation. >> It's less than two acres, it's one. If it's greater than two acres, it's two. But in either instance, you can go one more if your egg bonafide ad get that
additional one trailer >> caretaker >> for the caretaker. typical with the criteria that's down here 80% of the more of the property designated as bonafide and these other criteria. So it's not just if you have bonafide it's automatic. You got to meet these other conditions that the council bid. >> Okay.
>> So all of these are bonafide plus one. >> Okay. So I think that's probably >> let's talk about So if I have if I have six of my own personal RVs and I have a 5 acre parcel.
>> I don't like that. I'm allowed to park them there. >> Do you have that many kids? >> I mean, you know, no wonder why is it >> I'm I'm not I'm not asking for I'm I'm >> It's not occupied. >> Well, I'm I'm I'm going to
>> devil's advocate. >> I'm I'm just pointing out the situation that if you're saying that personal ones are not regulated at all, that's okay. Just I think we do need to I after listening to this discussion my note is
clarify we got to clarify this. >> So if Jeff Kurts lives on a 2 acre bonafide egg parcel and you have your toy hauler you have your Mac Daddy luxury RV. You have your
>> RVs rented. >> No no I'm not renting any of these. This is just his personal stuff. Put a horse trailer in there >> cuz he could have he could have a horse on two acres. >> Okay. But none of that >> and I'm sto and I'm storing my six kids.
I have six kids. Um their RVs on my property. >> When your six kids live with you? >> Yeah. >> Are they in your name? >> Your kids? Not not whether I they live there,
>> but your name >> or or they they put my name on the title >> then stay there because it's yours. >> I just you know >> it's just hypothe I'm hypothetical I don't have an RV >> and hypothetically you could also have two rented RVs
>> on top of all of that. On top of that >> correct? >> Yeah. Really? So yeah, that >> and and no property because you think of all that stuff being out there. >> Oh yeah, >> 80% of your property has to be bonafideed a if you have a house on it, they will not give that to you. You will
not get that with two acres. >> Wow. There's some math for you. >> No, they've changed that actually. It's a half acre for your home, for your house. >> It's a half acre now, not an acre. I have to call them >> in in municipality or your taxes. But
the the only thing I would say to you, Jeff, is they still need to meet certain requirements like they can't be in the setback. So in a 2 acre lot, it's probably going to be a lot tougher to put six personal RVs on the property. I'm not saying it's impossible, >> but I'm just saying there are other
things than just the number that we're looking at. >> Yes. But the the point is if I had if I had six RVs, if I even had a couple RVs, I would probably have at least five acres. >> Yeah. Yeah, we have that kind of money because it's a lot of
>> But your point is well taken. We're not regulating unoccupied RVs under this. >> We're not saying there's a particular number that you're entitled to have. >> Well, yeah, he just said two because uh you're leaving the door open for people
to rent spots on their property for their neighbors trailers or their friends who lives >> unoccupied. >> Unoccupied. So you can have one yours and your friends. >> Robert, I think what Robert is suggesting is that we do put a limit on the
>> Yes. >> because people are abusing it. >> But the way that it reads here, it doesn't reference unoccupied number limitation. If you want to recommend it, we should have put it in place because
number D says number of occupied and rented RVs. >> You put unoccupied too because I mean the hypothetical he's given is really extreme because trailers are expensive and you might have one camper trailer and if you're a horse person, you might have one that also is a has a camping
front and horse in the back. But >> right, >> you're really not going to have a big driver and all this other stuff if you already have campers. It's extremely unlikely, >> right? >> Is it too unoccupied? >> I don't know. I mean, like I personally
I feel like that isn't really an an RV at that point. It it's a it's it it falls along same lines as food trucks and you know commercial vehicles being parked and trailers that come off of you know big commercial trailers that are
being parked for you know there's more of >> right so I mean you're allowed to have some stuff I just don't know where we draw the line as to what it is kind of like content on a sign right feel like
It almost comes down to neighbor relationships. If you're gonna have, right, if you're gonna have a something parked there, it's >> Yeah. >> I mean, we all >> It doesn't really matter what it is. >> We probably know people that have 10 or
15 cars. Somewhere in your rolodex is somebody that collects cars and they got they got a whole bunch of them. Luckily, they have them in their barn or something, but usually they're >> usually they will because if they're collecting them, they are.
>> Yeah. In the cover. >> Um, and there are >> along with RV >> there are garages that have RVs in them. >> Yeah. And that's that's one of the things to think about if you have that many RVs. >> Um, you know,
>> you're a saleserson. Are we talking collecting har >> are we talking about um outside do you want to limit them being parked outside? In other words, if you want to
have six RVs, that's fine. If you have six RVs for personal use, you can probably afford a storage area for them. A big garage. I don't know. Those are >> those are things that you have to think about because
>> whatever you have in the garage, >> the code doesn't really code enforcement officers don't care or see about, >> right? >> Police officers might, but not >> exactly say or after they explode. You talk
about that circles back what Laura said about the one who have the big awnings out there and they have five RVs parked under them because they put those big awnings up and you can't see them from the air. >> Big pole barns. >> Big pole barns. >> Yeah, >> they're rented out all season and they have people coming and going and trucks coming and going.
>> But that would be against this because it would only be two occupied. So I mean like I said this is a good start. >> Limiting the number from a code enforcement perspective is easier, right? Because if we see five or six trailers on a property, my code officer
should stop and ask. >> I mean, we're not we're not trying to be unfriendly, but it does question when you have one or two typically maybe one on top of that. So to have five or six or more should be questioned. So, I think that's something we should bring
up pass for me, pass to the council because it would be if that code officer sees five RVs on a property and he could pull over and stop and he goes up to the owner and the owner says, "Well, those are all my personal ones. Nobody's in them. It's >> the end of the case. >> It's the end of the case. >> It's over." Right. >> That's correct.
>> So, that's got to somewhere that in my opinion should be addressed, right? Five RVs, they have to be physically un unhooked. There has to be no RV site. What if it's sites instead of I don't
know. I don't know. See, >> this is a good start. We can read just re address or revisit. >> This is second reading, right? This is second reading. >> It will go after this meeting to second reading which would be then be adopted. >> Yeah. And and depending on the the
number of modifications and the things that we talk about it, it might end up being another first reading. Can can we address the next >> item? >> E, go to the second page, please.
Number four. The property must have a septic tank approved by the health department specifically allowing the RV to deposit its waste water. Okay. >> And how are we going to get the health department out there if they won't even come if there's a bunch that aren't legal? So,
>> this this had to do with allowing a um yearround year round usage of um a uh an RV on a >> Jagger.
>> Yeah. On a uh a bonafide agricultural uh property that was specifically brought up by uh the council. the the language makes sense. And then Joe's point about how are we going to get the health department out
there as a bell ringer, but it and someone needs to explain to me. Go to the next page where it says permit and then go down to the next yellow highlighted area. I
>> what where are you? >> Yeah. It says documentation that wastewater disposal is through a mechanism that has been permitted by the health department. >> So is a mechanism a pump out? >> Yes. >> Yes. For for most most situations.
>> So you don't need to put it in a septic tank. If you're in if you are year round on an if you're in the um egg property, the bonafideed egg property um that doesn't have a homesteaded property on it, then you do
>> because there what they're saying is that I I think the concept is >> there's nothing else out there. So, we should have a septic system rather than rely on pumpout. >> In the in the other words in there,
>> in the other circumstance um in the other circumstance where you're talking about a property that has homesteaded um residential structure on it, uh then a pumpout mechanism might be fine for
the ERV. >> All right. So under >> okay add language that says um because yeah I understand you can have a bonafide agricultural use nursery um but
it doesn't have a structure on it. So you're saying that would need to have septic system. That's the that's what everybody should All right. I'm with you. really I don't see how you're going to get everybody to do that. button.
>> So clarification that um if there is a existing structure with septic does the RV have to hook up to that septic >> I think in the agricultural
>> property. I think that the as I understood the logic of the the the request from the uh the council, it was the idea that these are vacant properties. As you said, on the vacant property, if it's bonafideed a you can
have um an RV, but if that means somebody is there for 365 days a year and you can have more than one person in the RV, um then we don't want them relying on a pumpout. We want them to
install a septic >> um that handles the waste. >> Thanks. >> Um that's my understanding of where they were they were coming from on that request. But >> in the alternative, if you had a residential or um a business structure
that already had a septic associated with it, um the necessity of having the RV hook up into it is um a little is is lessened because you have alternative
means. And this issue comes up and you're saying, why are we worried about that? Um what we found in the previous ordinance in enforcing the previous ordinance >> here they are >> or the existing ordinance is there was a septic requirement
um but the ability of individual RV to hook up into that septic system not really >> can't >> doesn't doesn't really exist the the health department for on a house to say,
"Okay, I've got a house and I've also got two RVs." They don't in their calculations and stuff, they don't factor in the RV and address that. So, um, it became difficult. And so from an operational standpoint
where people could show that they had a pumpout contract um that was deemed sufficient rather than requiring um a uh a mandatory
uh septic system uh or that the um there was verification that the RV was hooked up to a septic system. Now, that's slightly different than the situation that we're talking about with vacant property um and saying if you've got an RV and a
vacant property, then get a septic system for that'll handle that. >> I have a quick question though. If you're going to build a septic so are we talking are you talking about building a septic putting a septic tank in the ground and then we have to build a leech
field. So now now does this person have to get FDA because they're putting in a septic field? >> That's what that's >> but they pro but they probably had to do but they probably had >> they probably had to have a they
probably had to have a an FDA to establish their agricultural use as well. >> They too >> a nursery. No. >> Yes. If you clear somebody cleared that new build for Okay, wait. I'm sorry. I'm guess I'm
>> somebody cleared that property. >> You had to take trees out or something that would have affected the elevation somehow. >> Okay. So, so my neighbor 10,000 years ago bought his palm property.
He had an FDA because I'm sure that those zones have changed. Well, >> the FDA the town the town's FDA only started in 2018 time period. >> Okay. for that there were things that were built without an FDA. So when you
go back in history, but you're looking at a lot uh today and somebody was going to establish this on vacant property um this agricultural use and they wanted to clear the property and they wanted to
for their agricultural use put up a barn or a storage shed or something along those lines, they're going to require an FDA. >> Right. I get that. But I'm talking about someone who has a
who who's who's got a nursery. They want to put an RV because they're tired of their tractors getting stolen and you're requiring them to to put in a septic system. This is a building permit now. This is FDA. Like I mean how many hoops are they
jumping through for an RV that everybody else is paying 50 bucks for? We're all playing hypothetical spec speculative uh games, but I think in in the situation you described an existing use and all those kind of things, >> did they have a building on the site and
did they already have a septic? >> I don't know. Like I'm just >> you know what kind of operation have they been running with their nursery that they weren't providing um any services for their employees or their customers?
Oh, most nurseries don't have office buildings for customers because we're wholesale, not retail, right? >> Supposedly, just checking. >> Well, there's that, too. I'm like,
>> I also have equipment rights. Okay. >> See, >> but equipment doesn't really need a subject. No, but if you're putting a cover over your equipment, potentially those will see it. >> Okay. Wow. All right.
>> And that just a lot of >> and that office and that office structure that you have at the nursery >> the what >> you very often somebody will have some sort of office structure even if it's a it's like a trail.
>> Mhm. >> But she had horrified. that you guys pumped through that. >> It's a lot of layers. It's a lot of >> You're basically just wanting the waste to behave properly that it is just
dumped on the ground. >> Correct. >> I understand that. >> Yeah. And I'm I'm not sure with respect to a commercial structure whether or not you can have a port of permanent. I'm not saying one way or another. I'm not sure.
Okay, everybody exhausted on that. Uh, we are we are are we okay with this? Have we >> is about all we can do? >> Have we numbed everybody out? >> Throwing a couple ideas to look at. So,
>> yeah, I think so, too. I think we're good. >> Yeah. and create with their notes. So, >> so I have uh verification of the photo ID. I have the um renters's information
to be included in the permit application and then whether you want to say specifically the months of November to April or for the council to consider monthly time period. >> Wait, is it Oh, sorry. Oh, I'm sorry.
before we taking a poll. >> Again, just that's the three things that I heard. >> I agree. November, April. >> Yeah, I think we named the month. >> I agree with November equestrian season like I've been asking for for five years. >> Well, I think they can name the months,
but that they're named and not just a >> Yeah. >> Right. >> The main equestrian season runs pretty much from different with a few stragglers, I don't think hassle a straggler as long as they're leaving. And and we will
>> I've been known to hassle a strangler to >> and we will share Wellington's ordinance with them. >> Yes, >> because that's highly restrictive and I like it. >> That's why you're on this. >> I think with that, if someone wants to make a motion with the three items that
I talked about, >> I'll make a motion to support those items that you're listed. >> I'll second it. So we have a motion and a second. All in favor?
I. Motion passes five to nothing. >> Wow. >> Discussion. Everybody. Oh my god. I'm so proud of you. the bacon. >> Oh boy.
>> I thought we >> just I'm just questioning. >> Jeeoff, did you >> We were talking about putting vacant about the vacant back in instead of leaving it out to clarify it like Laura was saying.
>> I said maintain a principal dwelling. I said I said I was okay either way. Um and you all could >> No, but he didn't hear you. I didn't mention him, but you're right. He said we could go either way. Whichever way the the you know committee would like us to
>> what redund red >> you want to be redundant with respect to the vacant >> to clarify regarding the vacant or did we want to just leave it the way it was and Jeff felt it could go either way. So it's up to this committee to make a decision on what they want to do. Put it
in. I mean, that's my two beds. Very good. >> Do we have a third? >> Want to wait for Christine to show up, >> right? So, >> that's okay. >> You know what? >> You miss it one spot. You see it?
>> Yeah, that's that's true. >> I'm three. >> Robert's three. >> Oh, I'll be four. I mean, I'm just again, we I think we talked about vacant land and then we gave it the the definition of not bonafideed a so right because we have
bonafideed a lands that are vacant that could have an RV. >> No. >> Yes. Nurseries are vacant. The grass place is vacant. >> Is not vacant.
>> Doesn't have a house on it, >> right? But it has its bonafide act. So it's not vacant. It It has the >> It has a business. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. That's when Karen When Kieran and I say vacant, we're talking about a property that doesn't have any established use on it. A
>> I gotcha. >> Um >> that's my >> pasture is not vacant. It's being used, you know, >> somebody's growing grass, you know, and they or they've got their crag soil or whatever. That's not vacant.
>> I thought you said the pastor the pastor's not vacant. I was like, so >> let me ask you from a legal perspective, do we need to revote on this? Do you want because they voted on it without the vacant? >> I I think
>> I think we're we're clear that I've got redundant to say this. >> Yep. This is a little bit. >> So the next item is this document, the pillars. I've got my
>> suggestion would be to start with section four which talks about the four priorities in request to the town council because I know that the town council is looking for the committees to recommend to them what you think the
town should be looking at >> and I know they want the board chairs to present this at the town council. >> So it's up to you as a committee. You can go in any order you want. >> They want us they want each chair of
committee to present at a meeting, not the next meeting. >> It's the June 16th meeting, the workshop meeting. >> June 16th. Thank you. Thanks. >> Okay. And that's present not just this, but isn't that also to
present the pillars and this this whole sort of package, right? >> 20 minutes. >> That's why I'm just saying >> I'm going to talk really fast like the person on the radio. I'm >> smiling when she said that.
>> Read the fine print. Okay. Well, how do you guys feel about starting at four? I think it skips all the fun parts of one and two. >> One and two. >> Karen, how do you feel about that?
>> You're next. >> What did I tell you? >> Okay, Karen, how do you feel about that? >> Christine, where do you want to start? >> I don't know. >> Oh, I've got statements right now. or lead to start.
>> He's ready to run 50%. >> Do Okay, let's Laura, let's start at one. You go first. >> To me, it's not about trees and grass and animals. It's about a live and let live approach that supports my neighbors
uniqueness. Our fences aren't the same. Our mailboxes aren't the same. Our houses aren't the same. Our landscaping isn't the same. And to try and make us a Steepford community is
it's it's insulting. We're we're we're different. Um, and it's a lifestyle that's based on thrift, reuse, repurpose.
>> And it's a lifestyle that's based on a productive land use, however you want to make it productive. >> Any productive Yeah. land use. >> Yeah. Much better. Um, and it's almost a solitary
kind of a compound existence. >> These are your thoughts, right? >> Yeah. Okay. >> You know, just >> solid solitary combine. Can you I'm sorry, I'm taking notes. So, >> yeah, you can you can have this at the end. >> I kind of look at our farm as a compound. It is forever, forever,
forever unending work. We never go out. We don't go to movies. We don't go out for dinner cuz we're always busy and we're always dog tired at the end of the day. But by God, if any one of my neighbors called and said, "Holy cow, I
need help with X. Can you and Mark come over and help?" We would drop everything. Oh yeah. And go, >> "Oh yeah." >> And then we'd, you know, fix the problem and then go back to our feudal slave existence on our farm. Um, maybe feudal slate is better than a
>> family compound, but that's that's what rural is to me. >> Yeah, you're helping your neighbors. I know when we first moved out here, we didn't know too much of anything. We didn't leave neighbors and all of a sudden we got a call from our neighbor.
Hey, so and so's cows are out on the road and I'm getting people together and we just joined right in. Some were hurting the cows while somebody else was fixing the fence and you know it was just working with your neighbors.
>> Yeah. >> So that's your definition. I'm kind of taking notes on everyone's definition. I'm going to present this hope if I don't fall apart. >> So your definition of rural >> rural was just um being in a community
to where I could do my own thing. I could I could, you know, have animals. I could raise my uh vegetables, uh my fruits, you know, um it's quiet. I mean, it it's
definitely different than living in the city. >> It's it's quiet the majority of the time. Um you could yell and scream on your property and I can doubt that a neighbor would be calling anybody. Um,
>> you can do your own thing. It's pluses and minuses, you know. You can do your own thing. >> Do your own thing. I like that. Take care. Uh well, I just gave it a not a very
personal definition, but I said it was like a low density, residential community that supports our farming, ranching, livestock activities, and uh incorporates native plants and a lot of green space and wildlife.
more generic than that. >> So, the community of large lots maintain our five acre minimum for larger ones that want to split. They can go down to five. They have 10 or 20 with a strong equestrian presence while trying to preserve our tree canopy with common sense but not overly restrictive
policies toward new development. because we're going to grow no matter what. But we have to have common sense and smart policies and not strangle people. We're trying to do something good. Well, and
>> Joe's definition of rural is um is a is a more of a stewardship in my opinion um because we for this town in my opinion locks Hatche Groves is a sort of one of the last bastions of you know
large lots. Five acres is pretty big. It's not big anymore, but it's big for the area. And um so rural to me means to be a good steward of of
our land of our land of the green spaces and the water and the and and and the canopies, the ecosystems and each other. You know, we're talking about neighbors. I feel like too, it's also knowing that
what you do, no matter what it is you do on your own property, affects your neighbor one way or another. And that hopefully we this rural community can be sort of hopefully move in a direction
where we're we're helping to create one space and not 1500 individual spaces. While that's great individual spaces, the I think our rural character is has to have its little boundaries and then work
here to to to be good stewards of conservation of of green and outdoor and birds and plants and all the things that each one of the properties can have on it. That make sense?
Good. Because I didn't write that one down. your number. You can go back to the tape. >> There we go. Yeah, you're on tape. >> Yes. >> All right. >> So, what? Wait, first I want to let everybody know if I'm going to present this, I would I will put something
together and then at our the next meeting before the Oh, we don't have one. >> There is no next meeting. >> Okay. >> Before your presentation. Can I Can I put something together and get it to you and have everybody look at it? >> No. >> Okay. Does that right
>> I don't want to speak for everybody. But >> I know but the problem is I believe it's sunshine lock. You can >> Can we have a short meeting sometime? >> We're not voting on it. Oh, we might vote on some stuff >> a week from Tuesday. >> Karen, I have a question. We're not a
committee that actually makes rules. We only make suggestions. Are are we still held to that as sunshine law? >> Yes. >> Regrettably, >> you are >> because it may be something we would we would vote on to put before council.
>> So, what you can what we what we can do is we can uh Joe can uh create whatever she's going to present. we can send that out to um to you all and you all can
come to the meeting and echo her sentiment or say >> or throw tomatoes at me. Not not a lot. There is there's very much a difference between lying and and misstating and making a mistake
>> or or not that that doesn't represent >> my thoughts or >> well I mean if Joe wants to do a um an encapsulation of all of these just provided as backup in the meeting agenda then that way
>> council members can you know >> if they wish or whatever Oh, that's a date. >> Yeah, if you all want to fill those out and give them to the clerk, the clerk can prov present your individual um items to the uh council as as part of
the backup. And Joe would probably be appreciative in um >> having those notes while she comes up with her consensus uh document. I really don't, you know, when I heard you all
speak, um, I I felt there was more similarity than disagreement. I didn't really see any disagreement on on what it constitutes. Now, putting the verbiage together, I'm glad it's >> your responsibility, John.
the thesaurus weekend the pillars to to try and figure out what I wanted to call the pillar. And basically to me it it almost sounds like a sales pitch of somebody, you know, on the outside
looking and listening to why I like this area. And that's the way I looked at pillars. To me, I consider the history. I consider the various um differences
that we all have. We have the uh aviaries. We have the apiaries. We have um the uh plant nurseries. Um we have horses. We have a variety of
animals out here. Uh some that I don't think you would see in other places. Um, I can remember at night when we first moved in, there was a pair of painters. Every night at 5:00, they would walk between my neighbors 5 acres
and the edge starting of my five acres. And this pair would just walk along and as long as you didn't make a noise, they would be there a good five minutes. If they heard a noise, they were gone. I have otter that in the canal out in
front of me >> and what they would do is four months of the year. >> Okay, I'm so sorry, but I'm going to push you along a little bit. I think it's lovely. I first I want to know if the if the cats were the panthers were they wearing panthers or no pants?
Panther, no pan. But but so that's you have two pillars historic like historically speaking different uses of land and do you have a couple more? >> Um just that we need to keep the area as
much as it used to be to to keep the drainage and the um agriculture and the equestrian support. I mean, I know we've gotten away from the equestrian support because you no
longer have your horses there walking on the roads. I I remember, you know, having having to pull over because I was scared to death that you'd have this 1500 lb animal that I'm like scare with my car. >> The equestrian support has blossomed
into a whole another vein of course and we're still walking. So this is Christine. Um Karen, do you have pillars? >> Uh to preserve our rural character,
>> to preserve the growth of native plants and wildlife areas. >> Go slow. >> Writing >> and sorry >> preservation >> support local a farms and businesses.
Okay. >> Okay. Well, I wrote some stuff because as you know, I'm all for having a strong commercial base along Southern so that we don't get killed with taxes in our future because our town needs money to operate and our employees need to be
paid. So, I put a smart growth in our commercial corridor with buffers for nearby homes. No hightraic businesses within the local neighborhoods. Example, businesses with more than four or five employees and a large amount of traffic that disturb the tranquility and safety
of our neighbors because we know we have businesses that are in our little streets and 20 trucks drive by with four employees in each one. there's 50 cars parked on their part property when they should be in the industrial park and not on our little a residential
neighborhood. Um, and a forward thinking planning towards growth because we're going to grow so we need to be smart. You're basically saying the same thing about trying to preserve what we can preserve, but you can't be overly restricted to new people moving in.
>> You know, they got to be able to do stuff with their property that they want to do. But we got to be helpful with that and not too restrictive. >> Okay. Uh is that is are those your pillars? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Laura, not quite sure if you'd call it a pillar, but here goes. Um that supports the town's overall vision. I jumped on the word protection.
And protection comes from within. Meaning staff, vendors, and other leadership needs to defend our way of life, our charter, our comprehensive plan, and our uldc instead of modifying
it to support these nonconforming uses and outsiders who have totally decimated it and just kind of thumbmed their nose at stuff. Um, we need to be conservative in our
spending because that is a rural way of life. >> Hold on. >> Yeah, I'm good. >> And we need to stop the redundancy in the hiring of vendors and consultants
who keep performing duplicate and unnecessary reports and assessments. We also need to stop hiring friends and family members who need jobs. >> How do I make that a pillar though? How do I How do you want How do >> the pillar is a large thing? A monetary
pillar. >> So, what do you want? Fiscal conservative. >> There you go. >> Yeah, that's a great way to put it. fiscal >> um I will >> conservative or responsibility how do you want to fiscal >> fiscal conservancy
um I can tell you that a warmer town manager moons back many moons back hired a consultant to look at our audit and then that was his son
and then after that consultant whose primary job was a piano tuner brought in a second consultant to doublech checkck the first consultant's work. And the first consultant, I don't know that whether it was good or bad, but the second consultant said, "Oh, there's
some some questions and discrepancies here. Let me bring in my friend to doublech checkck my work." So, we had three consultants come in and look at a fiscal document that then got passed to our auditor.
Why do we need all that? You know, and again, I'm not the financial in the room, but again, it's the redundancy of stuff. I Joe, whatever you want to sum that up. >> Well, I sort of looked for me the pillars I looked at it as as far as this
committee could approach Oh, I went out of the box. >> Well, no. I mean, that was just how I did it. Otherwise, I would probably still be working on it. Like, is there's a I feel like there's a lot that this town needs to do. But, so it's as far as what I feel like this committee could approach as far as a pillar,
it follows along with what everybody's saying. um is first of all, yeah, I think we need to do some housekeeping because we need cohesiveness between the uldc, the comp plan, the charter and and every other body of of literature that we work from town c you
know, and I feel like I don't know if that is I don't know if that's a special committee and but but we clearly if somebody comes in and asks how to build something and they look here, there other place they They're they're likely to get three different
answers. >> Yes. >> Um and I and I think as that would help preserve our community if we were clear, you know, um first of all, we have to figure out what that is, but then we have to be clear about putting it into action and into words and then making
sure it it it it goes into all proper channels. Um I think far as ULDC goes, infrastructure is really important. I think I don't know. I don't know. Uh land land use and and
I I think I think we should be able to have perhaps a meeting with RhettGak and figure out how we can make our roads safer and less but and at the same time less desirable for all these other
people to drive through them. And I think the way to do that is to define our borders better. I think some of the words that came out of that um commercial that commercial corridor uh study were incredibly helpful and also
it was because it was mostly from input from the town. It was town people like checking boxes and putting their input in. And whether you like commercial on the corridor idea or not, I'm not talking about that. What I'm talking about is when she said, "You need better
signage to define your town. We need better landscape codes. We need better so that these these commercial places don't look like everywhere else." We want people to know that they're coming into Lock Agiroves, a community of agricultural people who grow plants and
horses and are are stewards and conservators of our own green space. Got to start somewhere, right? Um, and that to me would would also fall in line with taking care of our canals. And
it's not not just using them as catching storm water, but but turn this that whole easement canal system into a scenic corridor and a and a linear park that connects things that we could then,
you know, have some I'd love to be able to walk down B-roll and not think I'm going to get smashed by someone's mirror or, you know, it's dangerous walking into my mailbox. it. You know,
>> you know, the linear park idea has been out there for a decade. >> I know I I brought it up when I sat on Redkak in 2013. >> But what has been in our way to get that done?
>> Ourselves. I believe that is truly we that's the because we just need to have a clear conversation about it and not just leave it to red and then they go to sleep for a year and a half and then you know
the ch the ever changing tides of council members keeps it sitting in that's the word >> okay so those were that was my three pillars I
Do I have another one? Oh, and also I don't know. I don't know. I some you did you say something about neighbors or was it Christine? Wait going and helping your neighbors and and we don't all want to look alike but we have to have some
sort of cohesion, right? I feel I don't want to live in a HOA. I don't want anybody telling me what you know that my they don't like my my fence but but and I and the cohesion being maybe not
neighbor to neighbor to neighbor but but that it's a that there is some identity as a town itself right we like I don't know entry points that are beautiful and welcoming and then really really skinny roads with a
with a million speed boats. I don't know >> be faltered with the businesses not making them look like he wanted >> even westlight do a good job on their >> beautiful they did beautiful >> we should have done here
>> so yeah stronger right getting the code together we realize this is SP 180 special but doesn't mean we can't all agree that it needs to be addressed in my opinion. All right, next one. Or
should we close? Where are we? >> Community concepts and initiatives for those strategic um pillars to encourage them, promote them. >> Right. So, >> what is it about? All bra. >> Yeah.
>> What you're going to do to >> thing I put down is finish the trail system. We keep talking about that along with that linear park. >> There you go. Hit that finish. >> Okay. Says trails. >> Yeah, that's right. For number three.
Yeah, that's why I put two. Christina, did you have something for number three? >> You look at that, Karen. >> Yes. above preserving rural character of our town. Um we should keep commercial on southern south of Tangerine and
remove non-conforming businesses on Okchobee. That would be a start. >> Yeah. >> For the other pillar, preserve and encourage the growth of native plants and wildlife areas. Uh we should add conservation areas. Maybe start a fund to buy property to preserve for
wildlife. Um apply for grants to buy native plants plant around town. Maybe there are other grants that we can also apply for for residents to have plants on their properties. Maybe lining up near the um roadways and stuff that look nice and cohesive.
>> Um but there are grants out there. >> Okay. >> Um and then for supporting our local a businesses, I think we should have a green market, something local that anybody and everybody that has some kind of um a business can sell their things
at a green market. Other towns have them. I think u we should do something like that. >> I like it. I like it. Town school spirit. >> Laura, >> are we on three?
>> We are. >> Um I think we should have an annual town fair during the winter season. High baking, roll in the hoop. >> Um a Dunkin Booth, face painting, cotton candy.
Um, and then our other adventure could be the Veterans Day parade. And for me, I'm trying to focus bees around weather. Um, >> smart. >> And
um, for the annual fair, the population density, because that's when our town has the most people in it. So, how much fun is that going to be for, you know, visiting people be like, "Hey, they're having their fair this weekend." >> What What What month did you want? Did you suggest?
>> Didn't >> Oh, >> in the fall after hurricane season and before the locusts and puns leave us. >> Well, then it would have to be February. Yeah. Okay.
>> Okay. All right. Oh. Mine wasn't so community oriented. I'm I feel bad now, but mine mine mine was mine was more like
community concepts and initiatives. Well, I thought that maybe there should be better identification for what land uses. Again, I put it towards ULDC big, beautiful color-coded maps so that
when somebody comes in, new, old, resident wants to do something or that it's pretty easy for them to determine where they are, what they're next to. This is going to be a conservation area. We're going to this is going to be one day this will be the linear park trail head. Um,
mostly be again to go back to that part where everybody's reading from the same sheet of music. Um, I feel like we're g we're you know, we're always constantly getting new people in and out of town. And it might help if all the parties were sort of on um up to speed
with how to get things done in this town with with regards to building and especially on the commercial end of things for ULDC. really think we should dig into the site plan and making sure that there's a landscape plan and that there's teeth for us to
to make sure that those get done and not end up where we were with this other group over here. The Waw Wa hideousness that is uncontroversial. I
>> want to ask Karen a question. um the roadway out here on Southern Boulevard, who determined that we have the the swale and the drainage and everything there. And anytime you're
turning into a business, you're turning in off of Southern. Who determined that? Was that FDOT that did it or was that our town? >> No, it would be FDOT. Southern is owned by FDOT and they have a full ride of way. So again, the swells would be to
take care of the that's coming off of the roadway. >> Mhm. >> And they would then have control. If you want access immediately on Southern, you would have to get permission from the F. >> Okay. The reason why I'm asking that is it's something that I've been kind of
sitting back and watching when back in the late 1990s 2000 I went to a group a workshop that was talking about how the community
community needed to develop various things and I thought that they had it in a plan whether it was in the Vista plan or whether it was in the Wakahhatchee neighborhood rose plan or whatever that we knew that Southern Boulevard was
going to develop, but we were trying to control a bit of it. And instead of coming off of Southern Boulevard and turning into businesses, you would turn into more or less a service road like
they have um along Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard. And that way you'd pull off, you'd have plenty of turning room for anybody coming onto a business, getting off a business or whatever, and then getting back out in traffic. And we
don't have that. And somebody mentioned developing the the pieces between Southern Outdoor and E- Road. There is a patch there that I'm sure somebody's going to buy and develop. They're going to run into the same problem that
Southern Outdoor is running into now if they have 18 wheelers that come in to provide them their items. And I understand the people that live on Bachi Avenue,
you know, and live behind there, whatever road that is, Tangerine or whatever, that have children, grandchildren, and so on. They don't want to see the 18-wheelers on the road for many reasons, but safetywise, if an
18-wheeler pulls out of there onto Southern Boulevard and needs to go east instead of west, they're taking a big chance in trying to make a U-turn at D. Whereas if we had this service road, and that was the
reason why I was asking, if we had the service road, it would give them a safer option to get back out in the traffic, you know, and and I would say that that little road that's in front of them
at this point, which I think is a walkway maybe or a golf cart drive, you can't open that up because it's in front of the house that's there that's beside the vets's office. Okay. So, I can understand you
can't really open that up because then you would be putting them in the same position that the people that live on that other road are in. But we've got to find some better way of doing it. And if it's a matter of having FDOT come out
and look and and design something different or us, you know, throw it at them. Well, >> do something different. >> Let me just interrupt you really quickly. We sat at the ULDC um several before before Publix went in and we
tried to have them put a road to the back, making parking in the back and not in the front and have beautiful plants out front and have um big BMS and lovely trees and parking in the back. The buildings were hidden. >> Parking in back where?
>> Parking behind, not on Southern Boulevard. So it didn't look like every other commercial corridor throughout Florida. But the problem is this is what our this is what I believe one of our priorities should be is that code wasn't
written strong enough well enough to enforce that. So they kept asking for variances and they kept saying oh I'm sorry they did whatever they wanted. They moved the ponds. they cut down the trees blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah with no real uh so that's that
that's one of the things I have on my priorities is that we SB180 aside we need we need language in here that keeps us from going down that slippery slope with these other developers who have no who who have everything to gain by being
here and that we should make bigger stronger demands on So there you go. That's >> we need my understanding is any business that's built is supposed to be kind of like a countryl looking business and we
have some that don't have that. >> Again that's in the past. we got to go forward and that all has to do with the rural vista guidelines being up to date and current and then being able to be codified and put into and that is exactly what we've been doing for the
last what two years now we're just waiting on SB 180 at this point in there for new development that just hasn't been pushed through yet. >> What about the hotel that's going in behind Culver? Did I >> SB 180?
>> Because it's going to be a threetory. I thought we were only going two stories. >> Already passed. >> I don't know. >> It went what? It went under the rug without us knowing it or >> Okay. Okay. We're We're digressing. I We're digressing. You I'm sorry. We need to But we have a six o'clock, right?
I'm sorry, but let's just kind of stay focused. You guys should have that conversation town hall. Talk to those guys. staff's supposed to go home at 6 and 8 and they're still here. So, have has everybody had a chance to
everybody said >> enough with what I said. So, >> yeah. Okay. Do I have a motion to adjurnn then? Thank you. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I thank you. >> Karen, did you want us to turn these in?
>> Yes. Would you if you don't mind? >> Thank you, Karen. We take instead of gone to