I think that we will call this >> um session to order. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Sorry. Yeah, we can do the pledge of allegiance >> and then we'll do the pledge of allegiance. Jeff, feel free to to guide and and >> Yep. All right.
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 and liberty with justice for all. >> All right. And then I'll do the roll
call. Jacqueline Clifton, chair, >> present. >> Uh, for the record, seat one is Jennifer Stevens. So, board member Jennifer Stevens, present. Board member Cassie Sitchi, >> present. Board member Arlene White >> and board member Antonio Santiago
present. >> Town manager Ramalia, Karen Gardner Young, community standards director >> here. >> And then assistant to the town clerk Gabriela Crossdale is here. >> All right. And then we can move over to the approval of the minutes. Um there's
three minutes that are here for approval. I just need a motion to approve from you guys. Did anyone need a minute? Motion to approve? >> Um, do you want to do them all at one time or does that matter? >> You can do them all at one time.
>> Motion to I I have a like I said in the last meeting I have problem approving minutes. I wasn't on the board and I know at other committees they found some mistakes in minutes. I was on the board on the 19th. So I feel comfortable
proving the one I was on the board. >> May 19th, 2024. What about February 12th? How can I >> February 12th, 2025? Were you here for that one? >> Nope. >> After the May 19th, 2020, >> just May 19th.
>> That's 2024, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's the only one I was on the board. >> You weren't on for 2025 February. No, I was on the board on the 19th. >> Um, >> unless you make the motion that we're
just approving them just because they're written or something, but >> Yeah, it's just to receive and file them. >> Mistake. I don't want to be held accountable for a mistake. >> Mhm. Uh, it's just so that if anyone ever asks for the minutes of the meeting, we the these are the minutes that we would provide them. Um, but also
just for likeformational purposes, I guess between the old person who had my position and my position, there's just some things we're trying to catch up, including some of the minutes. That's why some of the minutes are like a little bit old. Um, but yeah, it's up to you guys.
>> So, um, again, I'll make a motion to approve them for purposes of having them on the record. The these are all, um, recorded, correct? There's a recording. >> Yes, all the meetings are recorded. And then the minutes are just attached alongside the meeting on the website.
>> Um, is there a way that we can recognize that the recording would be if there's a discrepancy between the written minutes and what's on the recording, the recording is rules. Is that okay with you? >> Yep. >> You can make that as part of the motion if you want.
>> So based on that representation, um, is I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. You can >> I'll second the motion. >> Okay. >> I don't think I can make I can't. >> Nope. Chair can't. I'll make the motion.
Thank you. >> And then we need a second. I can't second. It's fine. >> All right. So, you second. >> Okay. >> Approved. >> All in favor? >> Favor. >> Any opposed?
>> Thank you guys. We got it based on the representation that the the recording um m if there's an inconsistency the recording. >> All right. >> All right. Adopted. >> And then there's no public comments. So you guys can just move on to the regular
agenda. So for that um oh I also have sorry an modification to the agenda. The only modification I have is Jennifer Stevens. I hadn't put her on the original agenda. My apologies. So, when I swear in Arlene, I'm also gonna swear in Jennifer Stevens at the same time, if
that's okay. All right. So, if you guys would just raise your right hand and then repeat after me. It's the same thing that's on your guys' papers. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and government of the
United States and of the state. >> States of State. I know. and the charter of the town of Lockahhatche Groves. >> That I am duly qualified to hold office under the constitution of the state and the charter of the town of Lockachi
Groves. >> To hold office under the constitution of the state and the charter of the town of Los Grove. >> And that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of committee member upon which I am now about to enter. and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of committee member of which
I now >> all right and then you guys can just sign and then I'll collect them. >> Welcome. >> Um okay, next on the agenda is the appointment of a planning and zoning board vice chairperson. I believe right now we only have the chair Jacqueline
Clifton. We don't have a vice chair. >> Make a motion for Jennifer Stevens. Is there a second? Is there Does anyone second the motion? >> I'll second. Okay. >> Um favor.
>> Yeah. All in favor. >> Any opposed? >> All right. >> Congratulations that end of the table. >> I joined it. I noticed how quickly you jumped. You did it.
Um, all right. Thank you. And then next on the agenda is the meeting schedule. Karen, if you want to Yeah. go over that. >> So, I provided a memo uh outlining the dates. It's the second Tuesday of the month. So, I just wanted to check because these dates have gone back and
forth. I think we originally were like the third Tuesday and then the council added on an additional meeting during the month. So, it conflicted. So, I'm not saying this is what it has to be. If you want to change it to a different date, different time, I just have to
check to see if the room is available. That would be the only thing. We do know that this date and time is available. And the committees, they're all over the place. Some meet at 4, some meet at 4:30, some meet at 6:00, some meet at So, it's really up to you. I've left it
at the 6:00 on these dates, but again, this is up to you guys. It's your convenience. I come whenever you want me to meet you >> and we only meet if there's an something on the agenda. So >> that is correct. Although I will tell you as indicated by the next item which
is the equestrian estates that the council has asked that we bring forward to all the committees uh possible consideration changes to our zoning code. Uh and so typically we would not hold the meeting if there wasn't if
there wasn't a petition a development petition coming to you. But it looks more likely that you are going to meet because we're going to have what I kind of call these workshops um that you will have to deal. But there are circumstances, Jacqueline, that that we may not meet. We will notify you at least a week, typically a week in
advance to let you know. But in the meantime, you keep it on your calendar because it's harder to get you together than it is just to cancel when that can. >> Absolutely. >> So the only date that I moved was just the Labor Day. Uh well, I left it. It's the day after Labor Day. So I don't know
if people are going away and you know you may not have a chance to look at the packet so you may not want to meet or you want to change. Just a heads up again we can always do it at a later date too. You don't have to do it now but that was the only one that I really saw on a conflict of kind of a date
coming in. So it's up to you as a board to decide is this a good calendar schedule is it the time you want it? Do you want it 5:35 6 4:35 whatever you guys want. Yeah, I barely got here at 6. >> I like 6.
>> I will say on on February 10th, I'll be out of town, but I can call in on the Zoom. >> Yes, you can. Okay. >> I don't know whether it's count as an as an attendance. That's the only thing I I'll find out from the from legal counsel, but you're absolutely entitled
to come in on Zoom and participate. >> My mother's 80th birthday. So good with the schedule >> um as far as Yes. >> Okay. Great. All right. So the next item is the actual topic for tonight which is um discussion and recommendations
regarding equestrian estates. I'm not saying we're going to have an answer today. I just want to start off. Basically it's to get the communication started. So, um, the mayor was the one who actually brought up the idea of is the, uh, is a possibility of an
equestrian estates really a viable option for us? Uh, and in my memo, I kind of outlined why I kind of thought equestrian estates um, would be appropriate. Um, again, it deals when we talk about equestrian states, we're
talking about like large >> Can you ref I'm sorry for interrupting. Can you reference your page number where your memo is? Please >> start on page 165. >> Yep. >> Yep.
>> Everybody got it in the bottom. >> And the block you say? Okay. Got it. >> Thank you. Thank you. We only have to note one page >> there in the blog. >> Yeah. So, good everybody. Good. >> One moment.
>> Sure. No problem. Wait for you. >> Yeah. >> Okay, we're ready. Thank you. >> Okay. So, um again, the idea was well what it says. It's an equestrian estate. In other words, an area that is on a larger site um that might want to have
multiple functions that under our existing code might not work. So, I'll give just an example. One of them is, you know, we have limited number of residences that are allowed on our parcels. Generally, it's one for every five acres. Well, if we're talking about
uh a larger size, they may want to have more houses because they may need to have different type of uses, may have different needs. And again, I'm not saying I'm endorsing. I'm not saying I'm not endorsing. Um it's just this was kind of the thought uh on this because we we really don't have something that
would allow this type of use. Um, for example, I know, and I don't know the address, but we have one now that is three parcels and they have to keep them separate because they're only allowed to have one house. And so it functions as
one, but they're trying to fit into the code. And so I think the thought of the mayor was, is this something that we do want to encourage? And if we do, rather than having people try to figure out how to get around the co code, are we better off considering something? Uh, and that was kind of the thought and again
outlined in the memo that you all have in front of you. I did give you some examples. I can't say that they're necessarily the best examples. Um, but again, I wanted to give you some ideas of of, you know, what what is basically out there with that. This is really,
like I said, a workshop issue. So, it's not really for me to talk to tell you. It's really for you to dis discuss amongst yourselves. Um, any input that I can give, I'm more than happy to. um for you to decide is this something that you want to consider? If it is, how do you
determine that? What things do you again want to take a look at? Um I did give you a list on the second page of some things to consider. This is not written in stone. This is just some of my ideas. So with that, Jacqueline, I'll leave it to you as the chair to to kind of go from here.
>> Thank you for that um introduction to this discussion. Um, do you want to take a couple minutes and and just jot down any notes and and review see if there's anything inconsistent with what was um provided previously. Have there were there any changes to
this from what was emailed? >> No. So, I have a question um on our code in um let me get in the residential zoning districts 20005.
So, we do allow the accessories dwelling and it says that's permitted per parcel and uh parcel size is 5 acres or greater. Um it talks about different things, setbacks, maximum floor areas,
things like that. The question um in the >> real quick, what page are you on? >> I just I just citing our code. >> Do you know what the code? >> It's not in there. I just Oh, okay. >> It's our code. Um, do you guys want a copy of it? You have to make a copy.
>> Well, I think the code's provided here. >> I just wanted to ask the question. Um, in in our code because it addresses accessory dwellings, it addresses groom's quarters, maybe Karen knows, we allow variances for things. So, if a if a if a project would come forward that's
a large project and would want a change from that code, they would address they would ask the council for a variance or a change. Is that correct? >> There are certain items that are in most instances. It is correct. A variance is basically a request to vary from the
code. There are certain criteria you need to meet in order to do a variance which makes it very hard to meet. For example, the variance request can't be due to your own reasons. Okay? In other words, I just want to,
you know, I I built it and I'm the one who did it and made it wrong. you don't get to correct what you did wrong. It's typically variances are used in when there's an unusual circumstance. So like a property is a pie shape and so it's hard to meet the setbacks because I
didn't create the pie set. It was done by someone else. So that's where a variance might be appropriate. Right? Financial consideration generally is not a factor when it comes to variances. So although it may cost you more money to have separate lots because you have to
create an ingress or egress, that's not a factor when it comes into variances. Okay. So you are correct. The option changes from uh typically code in an example that's not permitted in a variance is typically a use. >> Okay. >> You can't allow a commercial use on a
residential property. It's not if it's not permitted, it's not permitted. So I think my question and understanding our code is and how an overlay. So I know that an overlay and what I'm what I was reading there additional layers of things we want to put in for land use
regulations either more strict or not. Sometimes they put them into preserve historic lands. Although I have a very hard time I think of an overlay approach as a so basically it's a different set of rules and does the overlay then take
precedence over the code my understanding it does. Am I correct in that? >> So the overlay is typically adopted into the code and then you usually would have language saying that the overlay would typically be more restrictive. Not
usually less restrictive but typically more have to. But >> I think my question is, and I know that a couple people that have reached out to me, is if you make an overlay and it's on top of the code
and just if it's which one would take precedence if for some reason um they count they contradict to a extent that maybe we put the regulations in and forgot that we didn't regulate
something for that like I don't know commercial. We'll just say that. Just I'm just throwing it out there. I'm not saying it is. >> So if for some reason it's vastly in contradiction to the regular code, would the overlay still take precedence or would they refer back to the code if
it's if it's something like drastically that was overlooked? >> Right. >> Like a loophole we didn't cover or something. >> Great question. Um it depends. >> It depends on how the overlay is worded. Okay. Typically, you'll find in most
codes, whether it be a paragraph that says if the other sections of the code are more restrictive, they apply or however. So, it depends on how you write the overlay. Um, again, an overlay is generally used, which I like kind of where you're going, is if it's more than
one parcel that might be in a similar situation, you generally would do an overlay. And it typically can be a street, can be an area. Um, and there's different types of overlay, and I'm sorry. My parents are teachers, so I I
overcommunicate, but to you can kick me and tell me if it's bad, but there could be like historical overlays. So, if the houses have been around since 1920, you don't want certain things to happen, you create an overlay. Um, it could be a transportation overlay that a certain
street, you want it to have a certain look, and so certain designs have to be done one way. um could be an overlay for a particular area based on the usage. Maybe you want a mixed use, you know, so you might do an overlay to encourage
mixed uses. So different reasons for overlay and again depending on you how you word that overlay. Um usually the overlay usually applies first, but it doesn't have to depending on what it is. >> I have another question.
>> Can I go again? >> Of course. So, I'm I was trying to do a lot of reading. I have a couple questions. So, let's just say we have I don't know, we say it's going to be 40 acres. We'll just pick a random. So, that's the parcel. That's the minimum
lot size. And this person comes in and we've presented we've created this equestrian estate overlay and it pertains to 40 acres and it has all these rules. What happens? Let's say that person comes on. They have 40 acres. Technically, they have what?
Eight 5 acre parcels. Correct. >> They create their overlay which says we'll just say our setbacks say you can put the groom's quarters. You're allowed one per five acres so you can have eight. We'll just I'm just throwing numbers out there. Okay. So they create
this little equestrian estate and then they sell it or somebody dies it gets willed whatever because we're seeing how conservation doesn't protect and it's being sold. So then what protects the next buyer to come in and say, "Okay,
I'm going to buy that and subdivide my property into eight five acre parcels. Now I have a five acre parcel with four homes on it. They were groom quarters and that's going to be one and then I got a main house on another and now I can still have six more houses."
>> Yeah. >> So is that something that would be how is that prevented in an overlay? Cuz I always thought a conservation protected a land. Obviously it's not. >> Yeah. Is that something that needs to be concerned or is there protection for future
>> right >> owners? So in this regard, what I'm actually thinking is a zoning district. I'm not I'm not necessarily thinking an overlay. Not that you can't do it as an overlay because an overlay usually goes over all the property. So you might do
like an AR overlay district. This is really what I'm thinking is like a separate zoning zoning designation. So you'd be so just like if the AR zoning you would need to get and I'm just making it up and an and
EE zoning and that's what would protect you because the EE zoning would have certain regulations that you then could not subdivide because the minimum is 40 acres. or if you subdivided, you would one of the conditions of that would be you'd
have to be in compliance with the normal >> regulations. Well, what people do when they subdivide, they usually file what we call or either way, either uniform or separate. They usually do what they call a certificate of of conformity. And so they submit that to the town. So that
way we can take a look at it because things like your house could now be non-conforming because it might be too close to a property line because you just added on another property line. So, we generally take care of that. But, but Casey's point is well taken is that a lot of people just go over to the property appraisers office and we don't
even know about it. >> So, you know, again, from we don't always catch it, but then, you know, usually we'll see, oh, there's a fence that just showed up, you know, how did that get in there? You know, so that's, you know, we kind of find out after the fact, which isn't great because I don't
want to cause someone to be in non-conformance if I can avoid it beforehand. But that's generally what they do on on subdividing or dividing >> and the zoning districts would be for that parcel >> for that parcel that is >> meeting those standards whatever we put in >> and they would have to come back to the
council in order to get that permission. So staff wouldn't have the authority to allow them to get the EE zoning district. It would have to go to council to do that as a final bond. >> Okay. And I know that we um I don't want to monopolize. I did a lot of reading but a lot of
>> I think you should continue until you've exhausted >> exhausted all my so I was doing a lot of reading and it kept referring me back to what's going on in Wellington. Wellington my understanding has a preservation area which would be different than what we want to discuss
which would be a zoning district. They have I think they actually they have an equestrian overlay district and the reason why just I worked for Wellington back in 2000. So >> because they're they're going through people trying to build things and change things Yeah. >> against what it was originally. I don't
>> and that's the overlay that you talked about. And again if the idea was to allow like I said allow you know 200 parcels to be allowed to do this that's an overlay. So they felt the equestrian overlay is strict because it's horse based. There are a lot of things that
they address specifically regarding horses, but this one again would be on a per parcel basis. So, we're saying we're going to allow you, but we're not opening up the floodgates, which an overlay might be allow more than if you did it as a zoning district. I don't
have a per, you know, again, different reasons for doing it different ways. No one way is better than another, but you are correct. They have a specific overlay district that applies to whatever's in the equestrian preserve area in their comp plan. They actually have a designation around the area in
question and that's where the overlay then applies. So if you were to go for example to Wellington Green, they're not in the overlay district. >> Okay, >> good. I'll probably think of something else
>> on on your page 165. your um second subset um sub paragraph here towards the bottom. >> Um you say in here, but our code unintentionally discourages it. When you use the word unintentionally, is that
subjective or objective? Um and if where was that where did you pull that from that it was unintentionally discouraged? Well, I think that word is to say the intent wasn't necessar we didn't include
it to specifically exclude the outcome of what occurs is the problem. That's why I said unintentionally. I don't think anybody said oh you know we don't want to encourage you know clustering whatever it is. I think the between the
setbacks and the numbers and the distances and the accesses all caused you to prevent you from being able to do clustering which might be a benefit. That's where it came from. That helps. >> It does. And and since your parents were
teachers, >> then let's take this slow. So when you say, "Do we want this type of development?" Can you identify specifically what type of development? like I want to make sure that we're all on the same page and we don't unintentionally
um include or exclude something that that we're not wanting to. So, I'm going to refer you to the second paragraph in my memo which says uh why the town needs clear rules for equestrian estates and I'm saying is seeing an increase in
property owners who want to design and build true equestrian estates. >> Okay, so excuse me for interrupting. So, the type of development specifically we're discussing is equestrian estates. Yes. Correct. >> Okay. So, I I do I want to keep it as simple as possible so we're all on the
same page here. And then you're saying what should be the minimumsiz lot if if in fact this is something that we move forward with changing the zoning. What is the minimumsiz lot that would be I guess in the um equestrian estates?
>> Correct. >> Okay. Um, should there be a number of restrictions on horses allowed like physically living there, staying there, housed there temporarily, stalls?
Are we talking about the actual animal or the ability to house a specific number of animals? Typically, it references the number of actual animals that are on. What is the maximum number that you would want to consider? I'm not saying you have to do it. Again, these
are just some things during, you know, look, I didn't live in a rural environment. So, like Casey, I had to go and do my a little bit of investigation and some of these things came in, you know, do do you want, you know, because again, every limitation will impact what you can do, right? So, if you're
limiting it to, and I'm just throwing out numbers, if you're limiting it to 10 horses, well, it's not going to be a huge estate, maybe that's okay. Maybe you don't want one that's going to have 50 horses, you know, if you I mean, and I agree. I mean, and this is just open
discussion is what we're doing. So, but you know, restriction on the number of horses allowed at one time, overnight, for a period of one week. So I mean you know that I think we need to really if in fact that's something that we want to discuss even further I think that needs
to be narrowed down to say hey we need to define our our terms and our considerations right >> I think that's really really difficult you know >> because you have people that have pasture board animals >> speak I'm can't hear you on that >> there are um you know a lot of horses on
a small piece of property and they're all in one general area together and then you have people like my place where you know each horse has its own stall and has its own paddic and so then it's much more um you know you don't have as many so and then it's seasonal for a lot
of us and then it gets really busy for season and in the summer I'm empty halfway you know and I do repairs so you know I understand that you're you're saying you know that but it's going to be difficult to narrow that all the way down I think you can have a max you know and then the people within that can use
that max number and they have to come and go within that context because most of us don't want some people do but I don't particularly want to have people at my place all year. I want to rest time right because my paddics get demolished and everything looks horrible
and you're spending more money trying to redo everything unless you give downtime. Now, some people have all year 60 horses on the same amount of acreage that I have six on all year and 23 on in the winter, you know, and so then that's
just, you know, it's going to be that's a hard thing. >> I I would I would agree with her. I have a we have a horse farm and I currently have a lot of horses on the horse farm. It's a 5acre property, but they're all well-managed. They're performance horses. They're ridden every day. Not every day.
>> Not at all. Yeah. I had two two years on my farm. They didn't turn a horse out once. So, nothing was even grazing. They were just in the paddics, went to work every day, and that was it. Which was a horrible thing for me to sit and watch every day cuz I don't like that. >> But some some of the horses though, I will say, I mean, we've got a couple
that if if they did go out, they would kill themselves or break the fence down just because that's how, you know, they're habitually, you know, they come in for season, but that's how they've been dealt with. And they get handwalked every day. They go on the treadmill every day. They get ridden. I mean, they
get exercise and and it's easy for me to keep that number of horses on on five acres. Um >> Well, >> back to number two. What's the minimum lot size? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, and I think I think so here's the thing. So, obviously it sounds like
you're talking about more than a 5acre lot. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. So, so this wouldn't even apply to that, but then if but we kind of do have to expand it a bit because >> what's our minimum? We should have some regulations in some some cases, you know, so that you're just not overpopulating a piece of five acre
property with a hundred horses, you know. I mean, like I remember when I lived in Jupiter, it was two horses per acre there, you know, but nobody ever enforced it, you know, and so I I don't know. I think that's that's too little because especially if you have >> right, but this is not for the 5 acre
property. So what we're considering this for would be for the large equestrian estates and we're trying to determine is that 10 acres, 20 acres, 30 acres, 40 acres >> and I and and so you all understand I'm not here to determine a number at this point. My my point where I started with
was the unintentionally discourages it. Well, we're here because it was vague initially, right? And there's questions and so unless we make these determinations as hard as they are to decide or if it's only going to be on
five acres then no or what is the minimum I mean those are all the questions that we need to but the point is is that we don't want to leave it unintentionally vague because somebody might read the same thing and say I don't think it's vague at all you know. Well, but I what what I'm saying is lots are you thinking for this? Like what
what's the >> um you know I I I honestly I I don't have a number in mind. I mean again those who have horses I'm probably thinking you're in the third at least a minimum of 30 acres I would think. >> See that's that's
facilities that have 65 horses on. >> Yeah. Commercial business. Yes. >> The reason why I say that is because when you talk about like I said and and this might be the first question you need to ask is because I can't define what >> an say
because you know if I'm thinking it's you know you're going to have a riding ring, you're going to have stalls, you're going to have barns, you're going to have a residence, you're going to have a groom's quarters. Now you got to start saying okay I don't want these on top of each other right? So now you got
to start thinking, okay, I got to do, you know, I got to have hay delivered. I need a storage. I'm going to have trucks. So now it's like, what size does it really need to be in order to really function, right? I mean, that's how I would look at it. But >> I think I I want to hear Antonio's
comment, >> but no, just looking over the notes and everything, I think it's going to be a big size business. So I think anything over 20 acres will be fine because I
mean RV use writing barns a large business but we have but we now have more than I would say I think we have at least 10 that are um big businesses with 50 plus
horses on less than that on 13 acres on 10 acres I mean there's a lot of them already there. >> So, real quick, my understanding of of the purpose of this is is that when you look at it and you say, let's say
someone has a 20 acre property, >> but because of the way the code is right now, you have your 20 acres and if it's all if it's all one property, not split into four or five acre parcels, you can only have one house. You can only have
one groom's quarters you or maybe two. You can only have one barn, one arena. It's whatever the limits are, it's limited to the single property. And what I understand Karen and and what our directive was is to say, okay, let's
look at those 20 or whatever the acreage is, those bigger equestrian properties, and decide our code. Does it really make sense for that? And I would say it doesn't. I was actually very excited when I heard Anita say that in the meeting because even my 5 acre property,
there's things I would want to do on it. I mean, we have a very, very small house and in order for me to say build a a a big house that would be more suitable for our family, I would have to tear that one down and that's just not going to happen. So, so it it a little bit
devalues the property because it's now I have this smaller, you know, 19, you know, 50 60 year old house on the property. Um, and where that could be like a trainer's house or a groom's quarters and then we'd have a a nicer house and that would not affect any of
my neighbors. You see, even though I have a 5acre property, but think if you have a 20 acre property, you really could have several of these things and have a true equestrian estate where you have a separate driveway for your barn. You have a separate driveway for your house. You have, you know, room enough
in there to turn around for big trucks to deliver hay and shavings and remove manure. And you have enough for paddics. You have a couple of a covered arena, a regular arena. So you have a house and a true equestrian business, which right
now you might not be able to do on just a 20acre property that isn't four separate 5 acre plots, if that makes sense. And if if it is four separate 5 acre plots, you're going to have these setbacks to where the groom's quarters
can't be close enough to the barn. Um can't be close enough to the house, can't be close enough to the arena, for example, so that it's spread out in a way that does not function properly. You need the groom's quarters right next to the barn in case there's a problem, so they can go do night checks, so they can
feed the horses. Um that, you know, you want them close to it. And so I think the my understanding at least of the point of it is is the way it's set up, it creates this because you're checking boxes of what the current code is, it makes the property actually not work
very well um for an equestrian estate. Whereas if it was all one parcel of of 20 acres and you were allowed to have what you could have on four or five acre plots, for example, but not necessarily
um on the setbacks of your own property, right? Which you would have to have. I have I have a friend right now who has 10 10 acres, two 5acre parcels, and her FDA plan requires her to have a burm
between the two 5acre parcels to hold the water on the separate parcels, which makes absolutely no sense when she's using it as one parcel. And it's created all sorts of problems for her. It it creates problems for the horse paddics, for the way the drainage goes. It's It's
all And it's sort of silly. >> Was that how she purchased it and she wants to change it? >> Well, she purchases it as two. That's how it was sold to her. It was two separate parcels. She would she would like to make it all one parcel, but she can't because of the way the rules are.
And because it's two separate five acre parcels, when you do your FDA plan, they look at your two separate parcels as separate. She can't even like use the electricity from one part to the other. She has to get separate electricity. She
has to get a separate um berm to hold that water on that five acres when there's a gigantic pond on that property which could hold the water for all 10 acres, but you can't because of the it's five and five. That that's interesting. So >> I I think you could go down as low as
10, you know, the 10 acre mark because you have the problem with people buying five acre, 5 acre and they want to make one horse farm of 10 acres, which is what I have and I've owned my place for 23 years and it was bought as, you know,
it was put together as 10 acres. It was two fiveacre parcels put together as 10 and then done that way, you know, for the county records. So, I have a house on five acres. I have a house on five acres. I have a barn in the middle, a bunch of barns in the middle, and a big
riding arena, covered arena, outside rings, everything. But I only have 23 horses on that land. But I live there also residentially and everything. So I think if you're going to do an equestrian estate zoning, it's got to encompass even a 10acre plot where
people are going to buy, you know, these two 5acre parcels next to each other and be able to combine them and get some of the the changes made where they don't have to have that burn. They can put it on the outside where they can have all their land, irrigation, water, everything going on one because like my
covered arena goes down, it goes into my pond and then my pond's irrigated out and in. So I handle all my water. I handle my water better than my neighbors that don't have anything. They flood me. >> Yeah. >> So I I I agree with you.
>> I think our you know I I it can't apply arbitrarily is the the main concern, right? >> It's got to be everything. >> Yeah. Um but I don't know why the middle of those two properties required the burm. What were the >> Well, because they're two and I'm not
really asking. I'm just saying. So right. Yeah. Two separate reversals. So they look at them as this five acres is one even though it's the same owner and so they they make it have >> two separate property. >> Yeah. So they make it have its own burm around that property but that actually
hinders the use of her land. >> I understand that. But what was the original basis of it? Maybe there is a reason. Maybe there's an easement. I I mean we don't know. So in in >> No, there's not. It's just because it's two separate parcels. >> I understand. My point is that we can't arbitrarily apply this for your friend and say >> I'm not saying that those just an
example >> like it's it's done. She's already done the FDA. The BMS are there. It's already done. >> So I don't know that we have enough information on on on saying that any two properties should be able to be incorporated into a 10 parcel because sometimes there are um other
restrictions that that we're not privy to. So those are the concerns that I have is not getting back into a situation. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this by any means. I'm just saying that let's make sure that we're not back in the same situation if in fact this is something we choose that we
want to do because we're we're picking and choosing or or we're not um fully exploring or developing it. Does it make sense in a in a um community like Lockahhatchee Groves? Yes. Right. Um but
it can't be arbitrarily applied. We have to have the specifics. I think >> I think that goes into something very difficult. She brought two parcels. I think this has nothing to do with this meeting. I think that's not more of a legal issue. Do you mind making sure to speak in
>> Well, I'm just using her as an example of what can happen and why if we had this equestrian estate, for example, and we had a separate rule for the equestrian estate that she would have been able to basically use her land as
one 10acre parcel instead of the two 5 acre parcels. Now, she can combine those, but if she does, >> 10 acre, >> then but if she does, then then she's got other problems that she's not going to be in compliance because you can only have one house on your parcel. You can
only have, you know what I'm saying? So, that that becomes a problem. >> So, the way I'm looking at it, the way typical zoning, what you're looking at is you're looking the way we have it is residential, right? The house becomes the primary. this type of activity, it's
not the house that becomes the main uh emphasis, it's the horses. Okay. So, the idea of the equestrian estate is what do you need in order to function to properly support your horses right now?
It might be now, and again, I'm not saying to do this. My I'm here just to help the conversation to go forward. But in other places of Palm Beach County, they have a development where they have a stable and people want to live where
their horses. The way that we're set up, it doesn't lend itself because again, we're not looking at the horses. We're looking at how much of a house can you have. >> So maybe you want to allow an equestrian estates that has Arlene that you built a
stable and the person may only be here, I don't know, maybe here just for the season. They don't want to be in a trailer. They don't want to be in a hotel. They want to be by their horse. So, we may have to have more residential structures than are presently allowed under our code because again, the idea
is to service the horse, not to service the house. Does that make sense? >> So, that's and so, you know, you see in here I'm talking about it. You know, do do you have a veterinarian that might be allowed to be on there? Do you want to
have a you know, a hay place? I don't you know again I apologize I'm not a horse person but you know again this is why again Jennifer Arlene you're it's intricate for you to kind of tell us what are the kind of the functions and
the and the um services that might be needed and again I'm not saying to go to that intensity yeah we may not want a veterinarian I'm okay I mean you could take your horse to the veterinarians not we've got plenty within town but again just the idea to get the blood flowing
on looking at the force. How do we want to do that? How do we look at it? And again, anytime, and I think you said, Jacqueline, anytime you do something, there's an impact, right? >> So, you got to make sure when we're looking at it, what we're creating, are
we creating another problem or doing something differently. So, you know, very important to consider. So, I hope that kind of helps to kind of get you along what we're what we're looking at. >> So, it's a couple different things. First of all, how do you define an
estate? So, when I think of an estate, I think of a large private property. You have a main house, you have gardens, you have barns, you have guest houses, you have staff quarters, recreational facilities like pool, tennis courts, and in this case, we have horses to include
in there as well. So, what is your de? First of all, we you want to put rules for something. How do you what do you define in a state? Why are we defining? Is that is that what we're saying? large parcel. Um, is it going to have one main house? Because I'm looking at our code
already, accessory dwellings are permitted on five acres. They just have to be no greater than 1,200 square ft livable. >> So, what you're saying, just for the example of the the friend that had the two five acres, she wants to have more than one house
similar size. Is she Is she saying she wants a main house of 3,000 square ft, but she wants another house, a guest house to be 2500 square feet? Maybe looking into increasing the square footage of the accessory dwellings might address that. Maybe a state is not the
way address it. Um the code also limits the number of animals on acreage, which I don't think we follow at all. It's eight horses, right? >> Well, because we're agg then then it goes into the bonafide egg. What page are you on for me, please?
>> Oh, no. This is just our code >> uh 2005. If you guys want to make you want to make a copy of this because I keep referring back to it. >> You want to It's >> It's the It's a residential zoning district's article 20
>> 0005. It just talks about what's allowed. So, what I'm hearing is >> I don't think that solves it all though. Well, well then the FDA the question then becomes and I when I was reading about the limited information on
overlays they the question would be is my understanding of FDA's is FDA's have their own blood planes have their own rules un different from other rules. So even if you're a bonafideed egg and I don't need a building permit or
whatever, I still may need an FDA if I am in a a or an AEZIT district, if I am in a floodplane district, which means those rules don't apply. So if she has two 5 acre parcels and she wants to
build two homes maximum size, she would have to keep the 5 acre parcels because I don't think any estate overlay we would ask for two 4,000 foot homes. >> Um >> yeah, the accessory has to be subordinate. >> So the question what I'm seeing and I
guess it's something would be considered if we look into this zoning district is what's not addressed. you know, we we we talk about accessory dwelling units, caretaker units, you know, setbacks. They're they go to 50 feet. Um, so what
is it they're trying to do? Do they want to put two homes, two guest, two staff quarters? I >> I think I would say a big part of it is the setbacks because it's 50 feet from each property line. So now you have to be 100 feet away for two things that
need to be right next to each other, for example. No, it says here. >> So, so let's say you have two you have um a barn and um and a hay shed for example, but they're technically on two separate
properties. They each are going to have that set back. So now you need that a hay barn is now 100 feet away from the main barn because it's next to the property line where it needs to be right next to it where it would be within one
of the setbacks. So the setback >> from planning purposes if I'm if I'm let's say I'm buying a 10acre parcel or 20 acre parcel or whatever the amount is and I'm I'm going to go it's it's blank land and it's 20
acres and and I'm going to lay it out. I'm going to put everything here basically probably in the middle with my barn, my arena close to it and then my paddics around here and maybe my house over here. Um, and then I'll have a
driveway here, driveway here. So, I'm going to plan it one way. If it's 20 acres, if I have four, five acre parcels that are separate with all these separate lines and setbacks, I'm going to have to plan my my whole plan completely
differently than I would have if it had been 20 acres. >> But we're talking about this over or this district. It wouldn't be four separate parcels. No, it would be >> Well, right. That's why I'm saying acres. That's why I'm saying I do on 20 acres you have 50 all the way around.
>> Yeah, that's why I'm saying we I think we need >> five acres keeping them separate. Yes, you're going to have these things. So I guess >> that's why this is important. I think >> whatever discussion oh whatever discussion you have is how
>> because everything we're talking about it's all addressed already and if it's not we can ask >> yeah it's not addressed that's the thing. then what exactly isn't and that's my understanding and I guess we need to understand I >> I would say the setback >> the confusion is there's a lot not a lot of information out there
>> I would say the setbacks are a problem I would say because they ha and then that creates the problem of haveing having to have the four separate parcels which now creates four different FDA plans that all have berms and water retention that don't really fit with the way you want
to do it. So, I I think that's a problem. And if if I'm able to go if I have the choice between one 20 acre parcel with one FDA plan and one plan and I don't have to deal with all these
setbacks, but now I can still I can have, you know, two main residences. I can have barn, arena, all the paddics, all these other things. Um technically if it's four parcels I can have fourth
you know large homes I can have so so realistically this may even be a better scenario and it's certainly going to be better for the neighbors because I'm going to now be putting most people I would say are going to put everything sort of in the middle of their property which is going
to affect the properties around them less more than likely. Let me ask Karen. It's my understanding that bonafide agricultural property has different rules when it comes to setbacks of agricultural buildings.
>> They don't follow the rules for residential setbacks. >> That is correct. >> So they could actually build their building right on the property line or just off the property line if it's a bonafide egg building. >> No, there's still setbacks. What? I don't know the I don't have the actual look in front of me. >> Talk when we're doing a specific
situation and Jennifer, I'm more than willing to sit down and talk with whoever you can give her name. >> Well, no, it's but I'm just using her as an example of something of of because we were trying to think through like what what occurs? Why is this even a problem? And I'm telling you this is just one
random example of why this is a problem. There's probably a hundred other type of examples. You know, my my thought just to roll out to the committee is um are there as the example used, are there other potential people that you know
that we could invite to come here >> that they could tell from their experiences >> what again they defined as an estate what they feel would be a minimum. And I'm not saying you don't know, but just
a thought that maybe we want to, you know, again, if we know, I mean, certainly I can advertise, but the more if we know somebody, I'm happy to call them. I think there's one group I might know that this group that I might know and see if we can bring them in who has a the three acres, you know, they got
two five acres or one 10 acre. Maybe bring them in. But if you have anybody you know, I'm happy to invite them and they can come to the next meeting so we can start this dialogue and get from their perspective on what do it take to operate such a such a type of business
if you want. I don't know. I had one more maybe. I don't know if it would help you guys. I'm one that likes to look at charts or likes to look at comparisons. >> Um and reading through the pages of zoning makes it a little difficult. Is there a way to maybe do like I don't know like a little chart or a diagram
that shows bonafide a and their rules? What is their setback? What is the setback for the residential in our code? So we can see the difference. What is allowed in a bonafide egg? What's not allowed? You know what I mean? So what's allowed? What's not allowed? Does that
make sense? So we got like a chart and we can say because I'm I'm understanding if I'm correct. We're kind of all mixing things around, but we we want to know what's the deficiencies >> with each one. What if we talk about
this owning, what could be addressed to address those deficiencies that aren't addressed in bonafide egg or aren't addressed in the residential code that we have right here? So, like I said, the setback, she says a setback on a po portion of land. If a
bonafideed egg has no setbacks, then is that actually something we would >> And and keep in mind too, the the bonafide egg, the way that they measure that with Palm Beach County is not always the what you would think just because
you have a 10 acres, they're not going to give you bonafide a on all 10 acres. So, for example, let's go back to the same example of the lady with the two 5acre plots. She had horse paddics around probably 2 acres of the five acre
and there's maybe like an acre and a half pond and they only gave her two acres of that five as bonafide ad, >> right? >> Because because there weren't actually horses on the property when the lady went out there. >> Something that this could address. >> So, you know, that's
be only for taxes, but for our purposes, it could address the whole parcel. And then the other question is really on that girl that has the let's say she had five four or five acre parcels each of those five acres is getting a garbage bill >> right and all this. So you know and
that's really I mean >> it's crazy because you may only have one house and your garbage may not be that much because if you're just housing horses and you have a few grooms it's not like a full-on big house with kids and everything else. So, and a lot of the farms get their own dumpsters and
don't even use that, but they still have to pay the tax bill on that. So, that gets very expensive. So, I could see that being a problem, too. So, we just have to find a way that we can make it more affordable for the person to keep horses there because it's a good thing for our community and less
>> and I would also say what what I think is a good thing for our community is to encourage larger parcels. you know, right now the way everything's um the codes worded and everything's done, you're really restricted to have these five acre parcels and try to combine
them. I mean, I think we would want to encourage someone to, you know, if you've got two or three 5acre parcels, make that into one parcel. Um, >> who makes that decision? >> What's that? >> Let's say you buy two parcels, you want to combine them into 10 acres.
>> So, so >> where do you go to make that? Who makes that decision? the the owner does, but but but the way things are worded right now, if you're the owner, it does not behoove you to combine those parcels because then you have all sorts of other limitations because it's now one
property. >> So, Melissa, what are the limitations that are seen? I'm wondering the answer is the owner makes the decision on whether they want to divide or combine and you're supposed to fill out the certificate of conform so the town can tell you whether you're
not in compliance with our code because there's certain things you need to follow and then they typically go to the property appraisers office because if you're subdividing then you got to get two property control numbers and if you're combining you get rid of one. >> Has your friend done that? Well, no,
because she there's no like she can't because then she's non-conforming. >> If if she combines those two properties, she's non-conforming. >> Yeah. She's saying there's something going on like our house could become non-conforming or something. >> That's nothing that we can do or take care of right now. >> Well, there is if we're talking about
changing and making equestrian estates and and now let's say it's if it's a 10acre for example and now this 10 acre can be an equestrian estate. So it goes to question >> she would absolutely go and combine those two and make it one 10 10acre parcel.
>> I think the the idea of the council and don't mean to speak for them because it really was just kind of thrown out there without an explanation but I think the idea was >> we're looking to potentially create something new >> to allow uses that are presently in existence
>> that are not able to do what they want to do. I think that was the intent. So, it's not necessarily to go back and change the zoning districts we have, but to address what might be a use again, and I'm not saying I'm encouraging it, but might be a use that the community
feels we're missing and we want to help and encourage because again, people may not be coming here because they don't want to go through the hassle to have to combine these together. So >> I I think one of the biggest um issues with the horse people here w was just
the amount of grooms you can have on staff, you know, or housing because in a typical show barn, you have one groom per four horses. So if you have 60 horses on your property, you've got 20 grooms you have to house and you can't
have 20, you know, one-bedroom apartments on these the way it is. >> Perfect example. So it doesn't work, you know, and if we do want to keep this truly, you know, connected to Wellington and keep the property values the way they are and keep it kind of horse country instead of little apartment
complexes everywhere, then we have to make it so that these people can run their businesses like the guys that just built the polo fields, you know, on North Road. They have 350 horses on that facility, okay? and it's
160 acres and it's all polo fields and there's hardly any turnout but you know they have a lot of grooms that are working for them and I don't know what they're doing about they have some apartments above and some things so I don't know what they got in but you know that that's one of the problems that we
have all the time >> but businesses running a business on a property is separate than wanting to um >> change the residential requirements >> right this is bonafide you know and That's and with a commercial business. Okay. So, fine. But either way, I think
we do have to look at the little horse owner that might just want a personal barn for 10 horses and maybe wants three grooms to be living on their property with them. Do we have that for a 5 acre place? Can we allow three rooms quarters? Can we put a RV, a tiny home,
something for them? You know, that that that's what, you know, I think is the biggest downside to being an equestrian owner here. And I was lucky because everything I built was way before the town became its town. And I was, you know, I put everything up. I put a covered arena, everything. I didn't even
need a um, you know, anything to do anything. Okay. But I did it right. Okay. Because I don't flood my neighbors. I was conscious about that, you know. >> But people today, you know, my neighbors weren't so much fill, they flood me, you know, the same. And I
built like all this stuff and took all my water and then they just put fill in and raised so high that my driveways get washed out all the time. But you know >> to clarify though, so is the goal to create something that doesn't exist or to
>> modify what we have. >> Take what we have and modify it um leaving it for some properties. um changing it into something different for this um equestrian estate >> and having an application, you know, for
a reasonzoning for that or something. And then we can look at each of the parcels, you know, and see what they want to do and does it make sense and does it conform to what we're looking to do in the community, >> you know. But then when we start talking about making the the rules for business
versus a home um then we're impacting the county um and the county requirements um and that you know that that isn't as simple as discussing hey >> I understand how are how are we impacting with the county and the county requirements >> um because you need business licenses
>> not for not for um bonafide a >> okay we're not just talking about bonafide a >> that's all we're talking about here we're talking about a equestrian businesses. >> So you have may be all you're talking about, but I think that it's >> residential a too like just somebody
that just has private a big place of their own. >> The distinction, just so you know, is that you can be a exempt, which is generally determined by the property appraisers office, and you can have bonafide agricultural, which is defined by the state, right, on how you define
it. But you could I mean you could have horses and not be an bonafide because it's personal horses. >> You have to have a commercial. >> So I don't I'm not sure you want you see that as an equestrian estate could be a
person with just their personal horses and a business, a commercial business. So you're wanting to basically consider both. >> I think it's open. Okay. I'm not telling you where to restrict. And I I my my my >> my impression was it was going to be a
new district. That was was not to amend what you have, but to look because we really only have one district, residential district, which is AR. So, it was really to look at the AR, I think, which is where Casey was going. Don't mean to speak for her, but basically saying this is what we
presently have. What is this working? And if not, where are the differences? and how do we put that in a in another zoning district so we get to where we need to be to get the type of business we want. >> Very good. You got all that right along with it.
>> Good job, Kathy. >> Does that does that kind of make sense? And so I think a lot of this is again talking, hearing, uh listening, getting the information. Um you know, so again, this is not going to be one night. This could be several nights that we're going
to come around. Um, and again, maybe it's an overlay, maybe it's not a zoning. I don't know. I mean, until we get to where you're comfortable, we'll know kind of what we do there. So, um, like I said, at this point, I know that, you know, Cassie's asked me, which I'm
assuming is good with this board, uh, to kind of look at, you know, what a exempt how that impacts what our zoning code is. >> So, I certainly can provide something like that. Um again made a suggestion if anybody knows anybody who we can invite
to come to the podium and and give us some ideas of you know what do they think about an equestrian in the state. Have you ever decided to do one? Maybe they did. Maybe we need to talk to somebody who's not here but has something in the county and have them come talk to us. I don't know. You tell
me. Um and I think you know again that you know because again we could talk all night you know and we're going to be doing a lot of that but we need some direction. though tell me what you you know I got the one assignment >> where do you know where do we want to go to the next meeting what what what can I
do to help this board get to where you need to be >> well I I think you know the point of um definitions um is is well made right we need to know what we're looking at what we're trying you know by we need to use the same
definition so we can be clear on what we're discussing right Because if if one person thinks an estate is you know >> business and one thinks yeah you know so let's let's >> I guess have some parameters like what
we're really look are we looking at establishing something new which is an estate and then let's define an estate so we're all using the I don't want I keep going back to to arbitrary you know if we don't know what we're talking about then how are we all going to ever
agree and we're in this situation because according to your memo that work unintentionally uh something was written and it had unintentional um results. So I don't it does us no good to say okay hey we agree
here and then in 6 months and a year somebody's going to say well wait there's it was unintentional and we left this out. So let's be clear on it. You know I don't know I don't think that anyone has said out here this is ridiculous. Let's shut it down. There's no discussion. Um I just think there's a
lot of confusion because we you know we're all thinking in in different categories. I think I think it's a good idea to do the comparison between what each of those are and then us to meet again and to see what the differences are and see where we're lacking some
overlay or some zoning change. And then once we have kind of an idea of where we're going with that, then to invite the public in for people that we know, kind of take a peek around, see who's out there, see who fits the bill for us, and then bring them in and then kind of
let them tell us what their concerns are. and then look back at what we have as a group and how what do we have to change that to make sure that we're meeting all of our community needs or at least most of it and trying to do it the right way. And then once we get it
planned and invite them back and to take a look at it and see if there's any concerns so that we don't get into a fighting match, you know, where everybody doesn't want one thing and somebody wants something else. We have to do something that fits for everybody, you know, and that makes the whole group
happy and we don't exclude somebody >> and we don't waste time discussing things that don't need to be discussed because maybe there is something in in the code and you know what that doesn't even need to be part of the estate. You know, nobody nobody's going to put a tennis court there. So we're we don't you know we can exclude tennis courts
off the bat for example, >> for example. But you know something like that. So um not only you know let's just know our parameters. let's know, let's know our definitions. Let's be clear on on, you know, let's really focus on what we're here to do. Um, instead of
everybody guessing because it's just too wide open, I think >> you have any comment. >> I'll just >> So, it sounds like the next meeting what we're going to do is we'll be able to discuss the comparison. So, I'll send it out with the agenda and then also a
discussion on the definition of what we're defining as states. Again, this is not just my function. I mean, if I come across definitions, I'll be happy to include it, but if you see things or you know things, please send it to me. I I'm happy to be the the the receiver and to
distribute it out to everybody. So, we'll kind of make this a team play. Um, so you have >> So, how does I'm just thinking like when I think of an estate, I think of Palm Beach. Okay. Everybody thinks behind the big walls and everything else. That's
the first thing I think has nothing new questions. Do they have defin I didn't even look there and I just thought about it just sitting here. Is there like a different zoning for them? Cuz I I look at how they utilize these little lots and they got like all this bunch of stuff like crammed in there.
>> So like I said, I don't know. Like I said, I said I'm just Is it >> different? The county has >> kind of like 25 zoning, you know, and they're all kind of different different things and Right. We need to understand what we're looking at.
>> I can look today, I'll have a completely different idea of what I look at tomorrow. >> Yeah. Like uh on Lions Road just north of Beach Boulevard, if you go to the western side, that's I think it's like an HOA that has, you know, a stables. Yeah. Um and then the houses are all
around and you kind of like a golf. You got to be part of the stables. So there's different ways of doing it. I don't necessarily think the intent was that, but again, maybe a could be maybe a smaller scale you're looking at. Like I said, if you have 20 horses, maybe you
got 10 private ones, maybe you want two people to be able to be on your premises or, you know, maybe that's okay because maybe that isn't to the degree of, you know, like a big business. I don't know. >> We just wanted to be clear so people understand whether they can or they
can't and why. and it has to be consistent, you know, across the board. So, everybody's getting the same rules applied, right? Um, one thing and I don't know why this is keeps coming up in my mind and and so maybe it's something we can incorporate into next meeting or maybe we we wait because we
haven't defined a state but you know in the in the next section um of of should we you know we talk about um special exemption allowed as rights dress a drink racetrack training facility all of
those um I think something that we need to talk about when we're we're trying to establish This is, you know, how many businesses are going to be allowed on on an estate? You know, is everyone going to have their own corporation? You know, A through H is as examples here. Is that
going to be acceptable or is that all going to be, you know, do are they all going to fall under the definition of a state? So, I don't know that that's something that we can bring there. But that's something that that's just kind of chewing at me and I don't know why, right? I don't know that it it is smart
to have unlimited um LLC's, you know, that are operating um under one umbrella there. So, just something that I'll probably look into a little bit today. >> Great. Do we have to have the word estate? Can we just have like we have
agricultural zoning, we have residential zoning, why don't we just have equestrian zoning? >> Do we have three things? >> Up to you. Yeah, I like that too because I think the word estate is >> estate is just like it is just like thinking I'm on Palm Beach. I feel like I'm going to work, right?
>> We can we can estate can be defined as we define it. Right. Right now I don't think we have it defined. So an estate here can be you know anything >> under two acres if that's what we want to call an estate. Yes, the the common, you know, the the perception of a state
>> I think we just need an equestrian zoning area that, you know, if you're going to do a horse business and you're going to have a commercial or a non-commercial entity, you just have to conform to this if you're commercial. If you're not commercial, have any horses and that's it. I mean, >> well, and I I think when Anita brought
it up that day at the meeting, um really what she's trying to address, I think I don't want to put words in her mouth, is is that the is that we want to encourage people to have large parcels and we want to encourage people to have equestrian businesses and if they because it it
raises our property values and if it and what's the best way for us to be able to have an equestrian business is the way that I understood she was bringing it up and and and what do we need to change if anything to make
the equestrian businesses work better, be more efficient, be better for the neighbors around them. >> Um and and be better for the town overall is what I understood. I also think that, you know, they don't know how, like I've been in this boat where
you don't know how to how to um address some of the rules of the town and you go down and you try to find out how you pay for your RVs and they don't know how many are allowed. They don't understand any of that and so it's very confusing. So then I think people then they just sneak them, you know, then they just
say, "Okay, well forget it. We'll just hide everything and we're not going to even comply and when they find they catch us, we'll pay." So we need to get out of that. We need to make it so that it's pure and simple. Here's what it is. You can have this many and sign them all up and then you're good to go. And we're
okay with that. Because right now, you ask one person, they tell you four. One person tells you one, one person tells you two. You know, are you bonafideed egg? Yeah. Then you can have a caretaker, but what about a groom? Two grooms that live there all year for 50 horses? No, we can't have that, you know. So, we have to have some things
that make sense for the equestrian community to run their business. But and then they'll be able to comply because it's not like they don't have the money to pay it. These people have a lot of money in the horse world. Okay. And they want to pay their bills but they just can't figure out how a lot of them. So I
think that will help the town. Will actually make some money >> if you put some reserves back in the tank. I think >> so. A clear directive. We need a clear directive of of what we're what they're asking from us. >> Oh, good.
>> Perfect. Right. >> Any any other comments before we adjourn? >> No. >> So the purpose of course is we can't discuss this outside of this forum, right? So there are going to be a lot of comments back and forth and questions
and you know and as we continue to do that and and narrow that down. So um you know I think that it it is beneficial for us all to raise these things because now we know >> um that as an example even you know even though it's just one and it's not the
whole thing but we also know too um that this exists and you know I I just think it is good to bring it all up so we can you know really >> I keep saying the same thing narrow down the focus so we know what we're talking so um I thanks for everybody's comments.
Well, I'm excited to be on this committee and finally have a good group that's interested in trying to preserve the equestrian community. So, I think that's good, you know. So, I I think we'll do good things. >> Need a motion to adjurnn in a second. And
>> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> I second it. All in favor? >> We're Sounds good. I'll see everybody. >> Wow, that was fast. I know. It's because we we didn't get our Actions.