One more minute. Then it's five minutes. Those are very go ahead and get started then. Okay. If everybody's fine with that. >> Do are we on? >> Yeah, we're on. We're live. >> Do you want to call or I can call the meeting to order?
>> Oh, I thought you would call to order. That's fine. >> I'll call the meeting to order. Pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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. >> All right. Now for the roll call. Chair Clifton, >> present. >> Vice Chair Stevens. Board member Sushi >> here. Board member White >> here.
>> Board member Santiago, Francancy and Ramalia, town manager, community standards director Karen Gardner Young and assistant to the town clerk Gabriella Crosdale is present. >> And I'm here
>> and Jeff is um >> any additions, deletions, or modifications to the agenda? >> None by staff. Any here? None from business.
>> Um just any a um modifications to the agenda? >> No. >> Okay. And then if there are none, we'll move on to the approval of the minutes. These are the minutes from last meeting. >> So I I think there's something that I don't know that the minutes that I
reviewed were accurate. Um does anyone have any comments on that? Yeah, I went back through the meeting before I guess from the last meeting. >> So, um what we directed staff to do. Um
so, I went back through. We directed her. I just wanted we did not direct her to have the mayor attend to explain. We asked for clarification and thank you for coming anyway because we definitely want to, but that was not something that was directed. she was going to request
it because we were unclear where the mayor was was um she just put the information out there. The other two were what we directed defining in a chart and then we were going to talk about having people come in. >> I remember talking about that.
>> I just wanted to clarify that it was not directed. Um that's all >> and and that is No, we're not taking anything. I just want to make sure it's clarified what we directed. >> Yeah. Yeah. And that's consistent with my memory as well. And and I do appreciate you here. We did request
clarification as to what our responsibilities were supposed to be. Um and the definition and I think the other two um were directives too and >> was putting words in mayor's mouth. >> Right. Okay.
>> Trying to figure out what you said and it's like maybe >> we're trying to discern your intentions. Appreciate that. Well, I'm happy to be here to clarify my words. >> Thank you. >> It's nice to be asked to clarify them instead of coming this story on social media. Um, so what
I was suggesting is that we might want to consider something. I grew up in a town called Maryland. Um, I know things are different up north, but we had a lot of large estates. Many of them equestrian estates. Some of them just people who like to have big beautiful
properties. You know, as a child, we rode for miles. You could jump in and out of people's properties. They had coupoops along the the fences, so you could, you know, was totally different country. We have some images of one. One I had brought up was the Gore estate, which after Colonel Gore passed away was
bought by Linda Carter, who the movie star, and her husband. Um, and so I think they brought up some pictures of it. But what I was thinking I was I was thinking about something that Miss Alraine said about um you know trying to
not just enhance but improve the values of all of our properties by making sure that we do things the right way. And one thing that we have a really bad habit of doing in this town is perpetuating a culture of breaking the rules. >> Um it it's just something that we do and
people do it all the time. I'm going to use for an example the very nice lady on Bay Road. She's not breaking the rules, but what she's doing is she's skirting the rules with her 20 acres. That's, you know, I I can't tell you how many people ask me how does she have those two houses right next to each other like that. She does it because what she did
was she bought 20 and kept them at five individuals. And so she followed the rules on each of the fives. Okay, that's her way of getting the accessory buildings she wanted. So then I started thinking about and it's perfectly legal, but it it's it's manipulating the system
to get what she wants to do. So I started thinking about all the art illegal RVs we have that people pull on for help and all that stuff. And then I went back to my childhood and like the Gore Estate, right? Where when you drive in the front of it, they have a gate house over the gate that the gatekeeper
lives in, right? And then when you go down at the barn, they have a carriage house that the the barn people live in. And so it's it's a planned estate, right? And I think it would wind up I I believe if you guys were to set it up, right, it would actually wind up being
less density. I mean, let's let's think about if somebody bought 40, right? And kept it as fives or 40, how many dwellings that would be on there. Whereas if they had 40 and they came in with this equestri state, I don't know, overlay. And again, that's I'm just
throwing I'm tossing the ideas out there. equestrian estate overlay something where you planned it and the whole thing had sort of a site plan to it and a planning and a buffer is required and they were allowed to have their accessory dwellings right and you
did it in a way where they can't um subdivide it back into the fives you know what I mean it has to be this estate we would have a lot of really beautiful estates here and I think that's what's happening is people are buying larger tracks of property either by buying up a bunch of fives next to
each other or whatever. Or we have people the guy right next to me just bought the 20 behind me and he's planning on a big estate there and everything. So, um the these people that have these large tracks of land and a lot of money have needs that we're not necessarily
addressing, but what we what we have and what we allow. Um and what is what happens what we see happen traditionally in our town is people just skirt the rules or hide what they're doing. you know, build a barn and have 25 apartments inside the barn for people.
So, I'm what I'm looking for is an avenue for them to be able to do it legally, to be able to do it nicely, to be able to do it in a way that's beautiful. That's that looks like that, right? That's beautiful in our town that has buffers and landscaping and and and that that's a beautiful thing.
Obviously, not the huge big man, but >> but you get what I'm saying. Okay? I mean like you know that a way that that that is legal and doesn't have our code enforcement chasing their tail trying to find all these illegal things back in
the woods. Um my idea was that it be on only 10 acre or plus properties. I mean again these are just ideas that I'm throwing out there. This is purely you guys' bailey leaf. Um you know and that you would do setbacks, right? perimeter
setbacks or landscaping much like we do with with our little commercial buildings up front here, but that you could institute those sorts of things. Um that you could put one primary caretaker structures on there which would allow which would hopefully
prevent people from dragging by Barbies and hiding them in the woods so that they have their caretakers or their grooms living back in there. Um and get rid of some of that problem. Um, I think that, um, there's
a lot of possibility and I think there's a lot of possibility in helping make this an even more desirable place for people to buy land if they know they can come in and develop an estate, a whole place that suits all of their needs
without breaking the rules. So, um, did I miss anything? >> Pretty good. I um I mean I I we have Prince William counties, we have Montgomery counties, which is where Republic is at just about we pulled a lot of municipalities that have estate
planning. Um I've called it equestrian estate planning, but it doesn't have to be equestrian estates. Like I said, it could just be I mean I think about um like Dennis Slip and Northern Baxter who lived up on North Road near me. They only had five, but they had a beautiful place there but there but it was just
because they love horiculture. they had amazing trees and and things in their place and you know was really planned out and well thought out. So that's what I was hoping that you could consider is something that would um offer people who wanted to develop out these larger properties
legal options that will actually help beautify the town instead of junk it up and create problems for code and things like that. So that was my idea and I have lots of documentation from different
places. I have a Yeah, I'm sorry, Peter. Of kind of just like my basic first ideas. I mean, you know, and again, these are all just suggestions I do. I'm in no way intentional in directing you to do anything. And you may say that's a really terrible idea, Nita, but I just
saw it as a way of um trying to get around some of the rule breaking. Well, and I think um kind of where we were starting was, you know, until or unless we know what a clear definition
of a state is, then how then do we build on that, right? We need to make sure that we're all on the same page as far as what we're defining as an estate. And then once we're clear on that part of it, um and then we can say, okay, what's next? Um because we all we need to know
we you know we if we're having a conversation we're trying to build something or come up with something um we need to start you know with a the understanding of of what we're trying to to build or which way we're going or where we're starting. I I do want to say this and I don't know if Gabby you want
to come back. I know we did not approve the minutes. Um you want to Yeah. >> Um with the modification or the correction um do you want to go ahead? Are you okay with that? >> Yeah, I'm fine with that.
>> Do you have is that okay with you if we address it um that way just with the um verbal correction of um what occurred? Otherwise, we're fine to >> adopt. Is there a motion? >> Motion. Yeah, I make a motion. >> Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Approve. All >> in favor? >> All right. So, and then um with the other two 829 I think previously um because of
objections for people not being present we have said that um the recording if there's a something inconsistent with the recording versus what was um in the notes we would rely on the recording. >> Mhm. >> Is that correct? >> Yeah, that's in the in the um motion as
well. Okay. So, um, with that being said, is there a motion to approve the meeting? >> You You only have to approve last minute or last meetings minutes. >> Oh, perfect. Perfect. >> We're just go-getters. Okay. All right. Um,
so back to what um Anita was saying, do you want to um >> go ahead? Um, so I did I went through we were really saying exactly the same thoughts that she had and I think we're all on the same page because but there was some
confusion and issues and things that would have to get addressed. Um, we kind of had the same idea, but there was issues with, um, uh, somebody gave an example of 10 acres having the two five acres and having to put the FDA and
the burm in the middle because FDA required a burm. Uh, and then we talked about that being addressed. So, and then we talked about what's allowed in our zone already and what is the difference. So in our zone we are allowed a and
Karen confirmed it a subordinate dwelling which was a accessory dwelling and is that considered to be what you're thinking of a caretaker >> potentially I'm honestly I'm throwing out ideas
>> because we when I was going through the the transcription again it got a little confused and muddied and I know remember the the example the friend that had the the two five acres and the question from I think it was Mr. Santiago, why don't they just combine them? Because the
thought would be they could have two residences because you can't have two large residences because the accessory dwelling was limited. >> Um, so >> and that's what potentially we're talking about. I mean, and I don't know some of these larger equestrian operations or even larger they need a
different kind of flow structure for their rooms and stuff. The question is, do we want them to bring, like I said, 10 or 15 RVs and hide them in the woods on the property, or do we want to offer them some kind of opportunity to actually house those people legally? I, you know, I don't know. I'm just I'm
just tossing out ideas and and >> we I think we were all on the same we were all I think we're all in this room >> throwing out the same thing just in different words, >> right? >> Karen, you've listened to all us all of us. >> You guys just have to make the rules. My major concern in doing it is actually
that that it has to be the 10 and that they can't that somebody can't come in and build it out right and build all these we allow these you know different structures because of of the estate zoning or whatever you want to call it overlay I don't know that's up to you
guys but um and then then subdivide it and and create more houses if you know what I mean so so it has there has to be something in there that says it it If if you revert back, if you subdivide back to the two fives, then you got to pair stuff down. I mean, that's basically
what it comes down to that you're not you're not it's not once and it's like >> and that was discussed too. Karen brought that up. >> That would have to be the zoning more so than the overlay. I'm correct. >> It'd probably require a restrictive covenant of some sort to limit the
transfer of the property in um in any kind of subdivision. Now I >> look at the building that's happened here in the last particularly two to three years. This is what's coming guys. This is what's happening. People are buying large tracks and they're putting
up estate and struct I think you need to jump on it and and create something that works and works for them but also works for us. So we had a um what I think it was like three when we did the comp plan that was
before so it would have been two or three years ago and in one of the zonings they they had come up with a bunch of zoning categories and one of them was equestrian residential or residential equestrian or something like that. Did you guys ever run did you guys run across that? I was trying to go back
and find it. There was a there was like they had a res it was it was in different categories and when they were going through the comp plan um to redo it they voted the the council up there. I don't think you were on the council then. I think it was right before that
and they voted to um do away with it. So I don't know I don't remember what that uh definition was but it was voted down. >> I'll have to go look for it. You said it was in the time frame when we did it. >> Yeah. I' I've tried to go back. I just haven't had time to go back and do the archiving. >> Was it was it in or was it proposed?
>> Proposed was they uh Fleman came up with a bunch of the the the chart and they had divided the residential a into a bunch of different ones and one of them was recreation and some other things. Um but I I remember it was something with equestrian and that was next but I don't
know what the wording was. Do you know why? I have to go back. So if we if we can find it if I do I'll Well, I can pull the minutes >> the discussion because there was a big discussion on it. I don't know. >> It's not necessarily where we were at five years ago. >> I just wanted to see what they were
proposing back then >> to to do it because um we have the same thing. None of us want if the if the people die or want to sell now they're stuck with, you know, somebody wanting to subdivide it again. So, we were we we were very much I think in favor of that.
>> Yeah. Restrictive covenant idea would have to would have to be. You know, again, this is up to I I have all kinds of resources for you to look at if you want. >> I think that would be helpful. >> Cassie, you're a leader. >> Yeah.
>> To you, >> I mean, is that my kind of recap? And I think we we pretty much >> we were all >> we were we were trying to determine >> Yeah, different places >> what we had and how it was be different. There's all kinds of different places that have them, but I just there's tons.
I believe >> Yeah, we can make copies of you guys. >> Make copies for for everybody. And um and again, they're just ideas and then just toss them. So that's obviously what works in Maryland is not necessarily going to work
>> here, but we all see we liked the idea. We had just Yeah. We just have to make sure that um we're not being duplicative that we're not you know eliminating something that is um desired um from you
know previous discussions. Um, one of my concerns and I don't know why and I I I didn't spend much time in between thinking about it and I wanted to. I I also don't want to create a a scenario where we're able to do
individual businesses on the one property like we're creating the estate um for really more for unity, right? I mean for >> that's my my idea for unity for design to do it so that we can put r world as the guidelines into it so that it so
that we'll be beautiful and so it will enhance and beautify the town as opposed to exactly what you're saying right people coming in buying the 204 fives there's guy SA that's doing it right now he's running four different businesses exactly what you're saying on the four different properties whereas if it was
conjoined and he was doing something like this like the estate zoning that wouldn't be he wouldn't be able to do So, and I want to I would like to make sure that we don't set something up for that to continue or even to grow, you know,
>> because when you do start bringing in um a veterinary and you know, and they have a a quarters, I don't know what you would call it or or you know, an office and clinic or whatever it is. And then, you know, you have, you know, so all of a sudden you're starting to see this and
then it's just kind of like its own little town there, you know, and and really kind of skirting exactly the intent that we're here trying to to create. So, I had another question. that came up and I I think um Arlene brought it up was we mentioned about um the size
of the accessory dwelling and we didn't ask the question that night but I wanted to find out what is the rules in the equestrian preserve even though we're not Wellington what is there were rules for extra buildings and sizes >> it's smaller
>> 600 square feet I >> and how many are they allowed on an estate >> one >> yeah it's in It's in your reading now. >> Oh, I'll read it. >> I know. I know you will. >> Probably till like 3 in the morning
because that's about >> Yes. >> Yeah. P Wellingtons are actually in some ways they're a little too liberal for but again I'm I'm not at all here trying to guide you at all. I am not. Just like in my research and doing it in some ways are a little bit too
liberal for me and in some ways they're a little bit too conservative for me. And we we need to tailor it for us. I mean, I think we really need to tailor her locks as she grows. Um, and that's why I'm not making a big I didn't make a big presentation of theirs particularly.
Um, because >> they they they allow quite a bit of buildout on much smaller properties than than we're talking about here >> in the equestrian preserve. >> Yes. I mean, there's a lot of only two >> or residentials and accessories. both
are only twos and they and they allow >> I mean pretty much every square inch of it to be built out except for some family areas and everything and that's not >> not at all what my vision is and that's why I mean it when I've been talking
about it with Karen earlier you know the idea of a five came up and I that's why I said no I think it needs to be 10 or more I mean and again I'm not dictating I'm just saying in my opinion needs to be 10 or more it needs to be it needs to be distinctly different from what we already have our 5acre one home
buildable. It needs to be distinctly different than that. It needs to be a large property thing. That's that's my opinion. >> Um Cassie, there's different ways of regulating, you know, the the the dwelling that you have like we have, you know, you have lot coverage. So, you
know, that's a question that I think that this committee needs to determine that you could be more broad. So, you know, like if you say block coverage that only 35% has to be covered, then you as the property owner get to decide is the principal house, is it the is it the caretakers, is the room quarters, is
it the riding rink that's covered and you then get to determine how you spend that 35% or you can also do, you know, like we have here where you're allowed 1,200 square feet is the max that you can go in regards to an accessory use. So, these are different ways on how you
can do it. you know, determinate buffers also because you're reserving that area, you know, for buffers, so you can't put structures in there. So, there's different ways of handling how you may want to restrict how much is actually built on a particular lot. >> So, kind of like a um is it the the
floor area ratio of whatever buildings are, we limit that. >> Correct. >> Um this is a legal question for our lawyer, and I'm glad you're here because you don't have to relay it. Uh in my reading um there was one of the readings I was reading about the the live local
catastrophe that I feel they've taken away municipalities home rule. Um but one of the things in the definitions and reading and reading all that stuff was if there is something on the property that has been operating as a profit. So,
first of all, we know that if it if it is a profit business, it's considered commercial. So, if we allow, and this is something just to consider, whatever use is allowed in there because it was brought up about vet services and hay
things, and this is for you. If if we have an estate zoning and we allow accessory uses for the horse, because you said that this is centered around the horse and not the house, which I
love that. Would that then turn that property into a commercial usage which could then be >> basically turned into something, you know, some stretch to make it live local and say,
"Oh, we'll get commercial uses on here, so we're going to say this is commercial." Just put that in the back of your head. see if you can come up with something because what I was reading it was just saying that if something is here even though it's not zoned and it's been operating as
commercial it could could participate in that with local. So would that if we were to consider commercial type uses because a veterary service would be commercial or we would consider a hay business or whatever. >> Would that could they could they do
that? Think about that. I don't you know unless you know the answer right away. >> Um I'll think about it. >> Think about it. But >> did not even apply. It was just something I read and I'm not a lawyer. So >> yeah, I um I don't want to scare you too
much. Um but remember that everybody who gets an a classification on their property >> um what they are telling uh the property
appraiser is that they are involved in an agricultural business. Now we know that businesses don't all make money. Um but the presumption of operating a a
farm is that you are in business and you have an intent um to make a a profit. If you go into the the property appraiser and you tell them, "Oh, I've just got some horses and I know I'm not going to
make any money on it, but I've got some transactions going on." They should not give you that um classification. And so when you're when you look at it that way, every property out there is um that
has an agricultural classification is trying to um make money theoretically, but I don't want you to get too concerned about it because live local and and the big advantage that we have
here um is our density is at one unit um per 5 acres. ers and that as we've discussed it briefly would not change
with respect to this estate concept. What would potentially change is that you could have either additional accessory
units or larger accessory units. Um and that may that may result in um maybe a few more people that are legally um allowed to be
on that property and and staying there for a period of time. Um but what you also have to recognize that with this concept um many not not all and I don't know exactly what the percentage is going to
be but there's going to be a significant percentage um because we see it right now that these type of places are going to be somebody's second home. They're not going to be permanent residents of of Florida. You see that um in our
neighboring community to the the south um and the the people especially in the equestrian field they are traveling um a lot of the support staff is is traveling
on a seasonal basis. Um, so I I don't think the the density concern or the live local aspects of things are going to be uh significantly impacted by anything that you're talking about. But I will give um
what you're what you indicated uh to me another look, another read, and I'll report back to the >> I Yeah, you don't want to get into it. Um, as I said, as I've read, uh, live local and the density, uh, that we have
here, I'm not as nervous and worried about it as some people, uh, may be. Um, I think our our, uh, density protects us here from any significant impacts. >> You guys have no more questions for me.
I'm going to go take care of my mother. >> Hope everything's all right. We appreciate it. >> Just just to address what you said earlier, I wasn't directed to be here. I was asked if I would mind being >> No, I was I was correcting what was written. It was the written. >> No way. Felt directed. >> That's why we were correcting it. So,
yeah, the minutes state that. So, we just want to make sure it's accurate. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> More questions about my vision. It really is a very broad vision. >> Well, if you know anybody I know that came up and we we come across I know one of the issues was coming up. anybody
that might have this issue or have done this, maybe they want to come talk to us. >> Well, I think on Vro that found ways around it was would be willing to come talk to you. She's very nice. I mean, she's one of the ones who found a way
around the rules by keeping her five. So, that might be a good a good person to talk to to know >> what what it is that we're trying to avoid happening. those two monolith houses right next to each other. You know, they're really an
eyesore with nothing around them with vegetation. I'm sure they probably plan to put some in at some point, but um have to be part of the development. Somebody who wants to do it. You mean >> No, what did you say? Somebody that's doing it or would want to do it is having pro issues. Maybe somebody from experience we were thinking if there's
anybody out there, you know. >> Well, that's what this lady was trying to do. She, like I said, found a way to spurt our rules and get what she wants, which is an equestrian state. She she found a way. I mean, everything she did is perfectly legal and legitimate, but
it's a way to to skirt the rules. And >> now I have to drive down B road and see. >> Oh, the new one. They're just doing it now. Okay. They're just building >> houses right next to each other, but those are on two separate fives. The
arena's on another separate five. So, And they have they are northerners who only come down here apparently they don't live here full-time. No, they're not. They are planning on eventually. >> Do they own the property next door? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So that's all contingent because I
see a property behind you the walking road. They could have spent that kind of money developing. >> So they own like 40 acres now or they have >> No, they own that goes to Sea Road behind that. >> Yeah. They have like the there's 20 on this side that they have all developed with the barns. Now they've had that
>> 20 or 10 here and they had a walker there for years that they were taking the horses from here through there. But now they have developed that whole thing and covered up there and now they bought um across the street. >> No, right behind it behind it. Okay. Now they're going >> so behind that 20. So they are, you
know, and that person, she's got a lot of money on a lot of money and, you know, they're they're buying it that way. So >> that's what I'm saying. Imagine how she would have developed it out. >> It would have developed it totally different, I think, if she had had the right to do it. Yeah. Because she has the money to make it gorgeous, but she's
doing it. >> It could have looked like the board. >> Yes. >> I do believe that's where we're headed. And I do believe, you know, as these places across the street are costing in the billions, >> billions of dollars instead of the millions of dollars, then people are
coming over here to spend the millions of dollars and that's where we're headed. So, thank you for having me. >> That actually causes me more concern. I mean, thinking about that. So, let's say then um that they were able to develop
all the way back. So, their properties now are backed up to other people's homes back there. So, if they're if it's going to be >> Well, let's look at One of the things you that you'll be talking about is okay if you're if you're talking about a a
larger lot or a combination of of lots that people would you know do unities of title on so that it would operate as a single property. um because it's now a larger lot and things like that, you can require more buffering
>> that they would be required to to to provide. Um and it allows them to have a more sensible overall plan and not worry about um property lines and
and squares. uh you know five five acre squares within a a 20 or a 40 acre parcel. There are you know what you will what you will see are situations where people
have the the big barns um they've got a main house um they might want to have their trainer um on site. That trainer may have a family and not be a 25 year old person
who'd be perfectly happy and 800 to,200 square feet would are limits at 1,200. You know, they might that those people may travel uh with their their spouse and their three kids and maybe some of
their kids are, you know, high school age and all of a sudden, no, we're not going to squeeze into that. um it makes all the sense in the world for them to be on the property. They don't necessarily want to be right next to the
the the main house. They might be down here with their own little view of a pond, whatever it happens to to be. And they might want to be in 2500 to 3,000 square foot house. And maybe the main house is 10,000 or 12,000 square feet.
So the the those kind of things whenever you're talking about something like that, you're talking about a very expensive proposition, >> which means people do have to have significant funds. It's not something that I could ever think about um
accomplishing. Uh but those those people that do have the wherewithal um can make very nice plans and have a coordinated effort and it all makes sense and it's not intrusive upon their neighbors. Um
and you know it may make sense to have you know the tennis courts here and the guest house. um all those kind of all those kind of things that you think about in in very
large big properties. Um and uh takes an amount of wealth that most people don't have, but for people that are wealthy enough, um it sort of fits in with their their lifestyle. Um and
we've got the limitations on the number of um of accessory dwelling units. Um the size of it is uh simple is a problem. You also have situations where people might
have a perfectly good good house, a great house that I might think is fantastic. Um, and they come in and they go, "Well, that's not the house for me, but I'd love to keep it as,
you know, >> trainer's house. >> Trainer's house or, you know, um, a guest house or something along those those lines." And we go, "Wow, it's bigger than 12,200 square feet." So, you almost force the knockdown of something that is worthwhile keeping. um you know
and when you get into it maybe not even depending on where it's located maybe maybe not keeping it there but moving it to another section of the property. >> Um but those are the kind of things that people do
uh when they um they want to put this together. We've got one parcel. What is the the the Gorilla Oak? Um are they developing? Is it 40 acres that they're
is it 20 or 40 that they're putting together? Gorilla Don Don's the frames. >> It's 40. >> Yeah, it's 40. And so they wanted to have a number a number of of units and they had to end up
keeping or segregating the the properties. And it probably would be a better plan if they could have been wide open because they're, you know, they have to worry about setbacks on each of the lots. Um, and why do you necessarily
have to have that setback if that's essentially going to be a guest house? Um, those kind of things. So, uh, it it makes sense
um to have a zoning that will accommodate those those needs. The protection from the town's perspective um is to ensure that you have restrictions that would prevent the
subdivision of you know each of those little little um uh I shouldn't say little but smaller um residential uh um buildings
uh to be segregated and and you don't want to create all of a sudden and somebody go look at it and say, "Oh, well, mom and dad might have been equestrians, but I'm not. I'm just going to sell this off and sell it off in little bits." No, you got to wait for the right buyer or you have to knock
things down. Um, and that's not unreasonable when you're talking about people who are putting this together and they they understand the the benefits and the risks of all that. >> Um, so I'm looking at that property on B
just we'll just use that perfect example. And when I look through this, I I keep coming back to um how I understand what everybody's saying, but how is it that it's different than what's our rules allow?
So, let's just look at that property on Beaver. I just did a quick quick little sketch of what's on the property. I might have it off. So on the property that's got the high hedge, the the one that's one property north, they have a barn and they have I think it's either
one or two. I'm not sure if it's one building or two separate ones right next to the barn right up in the um little corner. Um and that's where the caretakers are, the grooms. >> Then their driveway goes from the barn goes to the back and their main house
sits in the back. To the right there's another barn which is somebody else owns that. It just happens to butt out in there and I don't see any other structures. Now we go over to the one that has the arena that doesn't have the covering and it's 20 acres.
So in the covering they tore down the residence and they put the arena >> and they put the hot walker covering and they're building the barn. >> Then we go next door. They have all these little padocks and they built two buildings together on a separate five. So, I would assume one of them is a
residence, one is an accessory, which we're allowed to do. >> They're saying that this house is on this five and this house is on that five. That's how they got away with the two, >> but they're not. That's I don't think they're delineated according to the property. >> Is that true? Is the is the is the
property line go between those two buildings or did they use one as a residence, one as an accessory? >> We'd have to look. >> I'd have to >> Do you want to pull it up? I think I think how um >> my question said that was that they >> it was on two separate >> I don't think no so my question was can
they redraw >> I can >> the property lines I don't think you can speak for >> can you can you make the line to ac accommodate your needs is what you're saying >> well if it's owned by the same owner as long as you meet the town's requirements
like you can't be less than five acres but you could reline them. I mean, you just redo a survey, >> right? Break it down. >> Well, you do the unity of title. Well, >> you join them >> and you change the structure of the five.
>> If you if you if you unify title, >> then then you're going to limit the number of buildings then you can put on. >> They put the two buildings there and they got one president, >> one accessory, which would be a lot. >> We could >> and then the back ones are open right
now. Karen, if you could direct us to where this >> what is it that we're seeing project is because I'm think that you're saying is that what they did now was if these are each on two separate 5 acre tracks had they have had the >> well the question there's no way to do it
>> if if we could for all those yeah >> I'll tell you in a because I think they would have built it differently. They would have paired with that and I apologize. >> I can go to see here. I'll pull you right now.
>> Well, it's somewhere on B Road. >> It's going to be in the 900s. I know that. Probably 100 >> 190 maybe. It's almost a collecting canal. a couple a couple of properties up from collecting now. >> You're talking about
>> this is tense. >> This right here. >> Well, that is this the property you're talking about here. Just click on it for >> this. >> Yes. Yes. Okay. So, it looks like it's 10 acres and two five acres, correct? >> Yes.
>> So, on the two on the five acre. Okay. So the the Brina is on the left and they got a they tore down the residence >> by the little circle and they have a they have a barn >> a bull barn and they're building a big barn. >> Then you go over to the northern boundary where they put the two houses.
That's on what? >> That's on one >> 10 acres. Five acres 10 five acres. So it looks like they built two two houses >> on five on that five. >> So our code allows a residence and an accessory. >> Yes. So they just put two which would be
a residence and accessory >> is one larger than >> one large slot. So what is it that they have done that has it just they just put them next to each other but >> we allow that as an accessory unit to be within so so many proximity feet of the
original residence. Correct. >> Right. But I think the the difference is is that when you're looking >> when you combine the lots together, right? You get rid of all the lines in the middle, right? So you don't have to
>> vertical challenge, but you know where the yellow and the red lines, those would disappear. >> They could have moved the house. >> Put in houses. You can put in barns that don't have to be, you know, 15 feet into the lot because you have to have
setbacks because there are no setbacks in the middle. What the suggestion was the setbacks on the exterior, >> not on the interior. >> So nice. Do you understand where my confusion is? Yeah. >> And when I see when you take the lines out and we look at, let's just say hypothetical,
>> we take out the red line and now we got one big unit and we got two buildings and we're going to put another house there because we're allowed to. So, we have a big residence. Now, we have three homes on the the property clustered in an
area. the the concern I have in talking with people was and I know we say the zoning could it ever change where now you have the higher the more density in one area.
>> Well, let me let me let me make sure I understand >> people that I don't understand it. >> But you're saying right now you believe based on what we're looking at we already have the two homes on >> the two buildings were allowed >> on five acres. So there's nothing
stopping them as it sits right now to put one on the other five acre, right? Two more >> because you could build two on the other five and and he's got 10. He could build two on the 10. >> But what but what Anita is saying is that they don't want to put another two
over here. Maybe they want to put four there and cluster them together and use the rest of the property for paddics and things or whatever they want. >> Do you hear what you're saying? Clustering and then they want to cluster. >> I know. And we know >> 2026, >> we put rules in place
>> and we have this thing that's built 15 down years down the road. We come in >> that's generous. I'm just 10 five >> now we have could something happen with a different council and we say okay well now we have clustering so we should just
be allowed to cluster then on the other >> since we already >> that's the concern not just me but my neighbors I've talked to different people and that's the concern that people have you know this comment in whether you use clustering or not you
are clustering >> so what they're doing on And there are 5 acres is doing exactly what we allowed. One home, one accessory home. So technically all five acres can have two with a smaller building. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's allowed. And then they
don't matter in 5 years nobody can say, "Well, you're clustering." No, that's what is allowed. But if we do this, open this thing up and then 5 years down the road, we have two buildings. We have a main residence. Remember, they're allowed uh and then another two buildings. So, we'll do four caretakers
and a main residence all on that one five. That looks pretty bad. And then the question is, can it be used to the detriment of the community? Because what's protected us thus far, we're now trying to rewrite which may
inadvertently unprotect us. And that's the concern that I hear out there. And my cons, my understanding, my limited is what does our code does? What does our code not allow for her to do it? So, she can put everything right near the barn
>> five acres. Why wouldn't she just make it all one property? >> Okay. Well, I >> Well, then she couldn't do two buildings. >> I'm not I'm not familiar with this particular development, so I don't know the answers as to why they did or didn't do things. >> We're just picking it because they have
buildings there. But if but if you were if you were talking about an estate um >> zoning whatever whatever we're talking about it and you were looking at this as a 20 acre piece
>> um and what let's say for example um let's say they let's say they put the house back here. I don't know why I'd put the house all the way up there, but let's say I I have my housing compound
on this five acres >> and I have my barn compound over here and I've got paddics and covered arenas in the the back. Okay. And so I've
I I've I've clustered, if you will, the the housing um in this area, but it's on it's on the 20 acres. That would be the purpose of the restrictive covenant. if if somebody came in and said, "Well, I'm
just going to subdivide this five acres um with the four or five residential units on it." Um and we would say, "All right, you can do that, but as a part of the
restrictive covenant, in order to do that, you're going to have to knock stuff down. been knocked down the house >> and you're going to have to pick and choose what is going to to stay or not in order to have your subdivision. Otherwise, if you just happen to want to
have the, you know, the residential cluster, which would have the pool and the, you know, um, the tennis courts and the paddle ball and all that kind of stuff there. Um, and it's part of the 20
perfectly. Okay. >> And >> by all means >> and and I understand that, but we're seeing right now >> restrictive covenants and land, you know, deeds restrictions can be overturned at a later date and we have
there is things that has happened in the past where things have been overturned. Covenants where you couldn't build. I I have to pull your case law on that. But we're seeing conservation land set aside for conservation land now being discussed that we're going to sell it back to the owner and it no longer will
be conservation land. So something that was given to the town because of a code issue as a conservation and we can discuss as a council if we want to sell it to the highest bidder. >> Right? >> You see what I'm saying? So nothing is set in stone. What do you have covenant? What we have right now is zoning that
says one house per 5 acres and an accessory dwelling. So my understanding is what besides the fact that I want to put a compound or a cluster into five acres, what can that partial land not do
now that they could do except compound it and cluster it and then at a later date 5 years 10 years something come in and say well you set precedence you've now increased density on that and you're this person has more money or whatever
and Now we want to increase density. Do you see where I'm coming from? And my understanding is what is it that they can't do now that we want them to do? The only thing that I see is clustering and compound. And is it true? Do we see do we really have them knock buildings
down? Well, we'll see what happens with code when we have these illegal businesses that built and said they were going to be a barn and they're now a business. We'll see if they get knocked down. >> Um I mean >> that's my concern. Do you see where I'm coming from? I do this. I I I do
understand that and >> and what you're what you're worried about is what the future might bring and and and some some folks with radically
different ideas getting in charge and changing the rules. That's essentially what you're you're worried about. >> Not saying that it doesn't happen, but >> Thank you. But if it were to happen, there's nothing to stop that same
radical group that was elected, >> right, >> to go, hey, let's do one acre zoning, one acre zoning, one acre zoning, and we have money. So the the fear of the future that you have
>> um and and I'm not saying you have it, I'm saying the fear that people have of what could happen and how this could change. Yes, absolutely. Things could change in in the future. Future councils can't be bound by by what's going on
here. You put in place restrictions based on what you know at the the present time. Can the powers that be change those rules? Yes, they can. They they could change things and it might it
might be detrimental. Um but like I said, it's just that same group if they're likely to do that, they might be changing this to um acre zoning or halfacre zoning. They would have the
power to to do that. So any anything that you are concerned about um when it comes to future potential change yeah it's a possibility >> and I understand future potential change but it's not and anything can be changed
but right now what I'm trying to understand is what is it that they can't do right now that we have to change because the only thing that I see is the clustering and >> well wait a minute can I ask that question so On each of these 5 acre parcels,
if they are going by our current rules, they have to make a a 15 foot burm between each of those parcels. Correct. Right. >> They have to have a pond on each of these if they build something. Correct. >> They have to they have to accommodate they have to do compensating storage on
each of the unit. If they dig up the ground and they put a building up, now they've got to build a they've got to make a pond to hold their water on each of those 5 acre parcels, which then restricts the amount of use of the parcel because, you know, that happened
with a lot of people. They they bought a small piece of property, they built a barn, and then they made a had to make a pond to carry their water and they lost all their riding area. Okay? And that's particularly my neighbor on Sea Road. she was not allowed to put a ring in and then the new person bought the place and
put a ring in, didn't ask anybody and then got a slap on the hand where the other girl had to move out, you know. So, it was a little crazy. So, I I don't want I'm saying that right now I think it's a big problem because I mean we we go through these issues. I mean, I'm a
horse farm owner and I have a property that's developed like an estate, okay? I do have a main home, a second home. I have um camper, you know, hookups and things there and everything. And I understand how many people it takes to run the operation. But if I had to dig a
pond for every one of the structures that I built there, I would never have been able to do it because I would have lost half of my 10acre property on that. Okay. >> You're confusing FDA. And I believe FDA said you did not have to do a burn. I think that discuss came up. That was the
incorrect information. So I would roll it's it's not it's not that it's not that you would necessarily have to do a burm. You would have to provide the compensating storage on each of these three lots.
>> Compensating storage on this, bro. >> I I'm not familiar with this development. So, I can tell you it looks like they've got a >> I know we have big, but there was a lot of inaccurate information that council changed. they determined. >> But rather than getting into that
discussion, there's there's no what what is undeniably true is if you had this as 120 acre piece and and you had the rules that would allow
the same amount of development on the 120 acre piece as is allowed on the four fives. and you decided to um put the buildings in one or two
particular areas, you're going to be able to through clustering um have more combined o open space um or consolidated open space in the area. That's what you're going to be
able to do. That's the advantage of of clustering. Now with respect to to to this whole concept when people would go ahead and do it once again the if you're if you're talking about doing
the kind of things that we're talking about doing um you're not necessarily worried about clustering and those kind of things. you're worried about how am I going to make this place great?
Um, and the great may involve, you know, uh, clustering. It may not. It would, everybody's got their own definition of what great is, but it allows you to plan, um, better because you've got the bigger area to to work
with and you're not limited to the the restrictions. As you said, there could be under our present code here without any problem um eight residential structures. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, let me let me create a conversation with your conversation and maybe you can help me out here. So, >> four or five acres. we'll just stay the four or five acres so we can build two buildings and we know that they don't
have to build a burm because that was incorrect information in the FDA. >> They h they would the >> that was in the past. So let's just say >> forget about burm they have to they would have to do compensating storage. Yes. So, if you don't want to do that and separate it and you're going to make an estate anyway, then just have two
10acre parcels or one 20 acre parcel and then you don't have to worry about the burm or the p four ponds, >> right? >> Unless you're unless your goal is to build eight units in a compound. Do you see where I'm getting at? So all the
arguments of the FDA and having to put a pond on each one goes away when you make it one big property and we're talking about equestrian estates being one big property. So then all these little I got to do an FDA on this and an FDA on this five and this five and this five goes
away and I just have to do an FDA on my 20 acres. >> But is my goal to have >> eight units, eight residences? Can you still have the eight residences if it was a 20 acre parcel? >> You guys are going to the the purpose
the purpose of this >> enough to manage that amount of horses. We could add an excessor >> we could use. >> This is something this is something for you all to to discuss. I don't know whether eight residences makes sense for
the the 20 acre piece. Um, and what I do know is that we could divide this into four four fives and we could have >> eight eight resonances. So, if you had the choice
um to have secondary residences that are larger than,200 square feet. Um because what we're saying is this this person right now could have 4,800 square
feet of additional residential space. That's Yeah. And and kind of unlimited on the on the other three. But if you took out that limitation or raised the limitation, probably you
don't need eight buildings. if somebody needed 4,800 square ft. Um, but they might not think that the best way to divide that up is uh with um
four buildings. They might want two buildings depending on how things go. >> So you'd actually end up with less less buildings of this. is if we talk about an equestrian estate that instead of giving them all the buildings, we could say we'll increase the square foot. If
you have an equestrian estate, we will increase the square footage of the accessory dwelling a little bit and allow an extra accessory dwelling on an equestrian state. >> That is that's an option >> to be defined as >> well that's what I'm saying. Yeah, >> we could do something like that because
>> is it is the goal to have large uh two because it was mentioned at their last meeting. I can't remember who who mentioned it, but we could have two residences on the same. Well, that's is that the goal of the equestrian estate that we want to tailor to or look at or
is that something that is a way to know? So, what are we looking at? If we want to increase the size, maybe they want to have, like you said, it's not enough buildings. It's not enough buildings to house that group. So maybe we say depends on the equestrian state of 20 acres. They they're allowed.
>> I think you have to I think you would have to have limitations like based on okay, if you have 20 horses on on site, then you're thinking you have to kind of get an idea. It's about four horses to a groom, right? So if you have 20 horses
on site then you need five places for people to live for those 20 horses to be managed properly. >> But then the question goes >> then if you go to a 40 horse barn you need 10 places for living right. So, do
you want to do you want to make it where you say, "Okay, how big is your barn going to be and how many stalls are you going to build?" And then if you're going to build a 50 stall barn or, you know, like the Polo guys down the road, 350 stalls, okay, on that place, how
many how many residential people do you need living on site to run and manage that property? And that's more of the concern that I think the equestrians want to to get accomplished. They don't necessarily want to build eight houses or whatever, but they have to have
enough housing for their staff. And you know, these guys, we all know they live, you know, four and five in a house. You know, they pack them in and some have a bedroom and some have bunk beds in them and everything else just to sleep because they're here for six months and they're working like crazy and then they
leave, right? And so, you know, the question is, how do we make it work for them so they can run their businesses here, but we don't make it be an apartment complex. >> So, >> well, you could I mean, one of the things you could do is, you know, you
allow a higher a higher structure. >> Yeah. >> Which would allow you to put a second floor where you could put the groom's quarters in that whatever the size is, you can let them put in the size >> so you don't have to do separate structure. is the structure >> because really the and I think you know
Cassie is pointing out the the bigger the parcel the more flexibility >> right so you know I would give an example that you know potentially based upon the design of the lot um maybe I want to have my house and I have my
horse stables but maybe I want to have the trainer have his house right there well the way we're doing it now you can't do that unless it's an accessory structure and it can't be the size like Jeff brought up that maybe I have kids and a wife and I'm not going to do a 12,200 foot house I want a 20
>> square foot house whatever it is >> and so I can't do that now because if it's on a 5 acre lot all I can do is one primary >> and it may not be as impactful when you're on a 20 than if you're on a five right so those are the kind of things
that give you a little bit more flexibility to decide what you might want to do >> and and in the In the past with my experience in this world, most of the people that have the money that buy these properties don't live on them. >> Okay? So most of the people that have
the big money, they have a house in Palm Beach >> and they come out and ride their horses and they go home and they might want an area like a nice little room that they get to chill out in and have a shower if they want to go over to the, you know, watch the horse show later or whatever,
but they don't have a big main residence on the property. Who gets the main residence is the trainer most of the time, you know. So, usually it's a trainer that moves into the main house on the farm and then they have a bunch of grooms housing and the owner of the
horse has its own little cubby cottage or a piece of the house that's theirs that they have, you know, a nice room and a a sitting area and they can have a little kitchenet or something in there and then they just get cleaned up and leave because they don't want to live out here. No, I'm sorry, but that's
reality. Like look at Maryann McFale for all the years, you know, she had the big property in um in white fences and she had a house there that was tiny and then she had a house on the ocean in Palm Beach and she just did the run, you know, and her husband had a helicopter and they flew back and forth to the to
the farm, you know. So, when you're talking about that kind of money, a lot of these places are not going to be residential for the person that owns it. I'm sure the woman that bought this property here is not going to live in any one of those homes and that she she
has a a mass heres and and and one of the things that I suggest >> the big >> she lives in that one. >> We you don't >> I think the trainer lives there. So as far as I know I think the train there
because that's the Canadian >> the big house that sits in the back and it's very big. I don't I don't think you want to sit there and think about how each of these properties is going to be developed. You you set parameters and
then they decide how is it going to be best for them. Maybe they want a pool house, maybe they don't. Um, >> remember the parameters that are set >> have to be beneficial to the entire
community and not just one aspect of a community, >> right? >> Whatever parameters council eventually adopts if they choose to has to accommodate the entire town. >> Well, yeah. >> Not to the detriment of >> Yeah. >> So, are we are we actually having people
that are now not purchasing big tracks of land here because of these restrictions? I am not personally aware, but I think like the mayor said, what's happening is they're figuring out a way to get it done, which really doesn't work from an
operational perspective as well as it would if it was in one if it was one parcel. >> We're making it cumbersome for them. I can tell you that >> or we're making them cluster because of the the restrictions on on that. Are
they allowed to have a a residence or a a something in the barn? Because I know some of these fancy barns have like the one that Kaiser built, they had a residence in the middle of the barn. >> Yeah. >> And then the barn went out on each end. So now, not only do you have separate
accessory dwellings and a residence and you have a barn, which you can have multiple barns, right? >> Yeah. >> And are those considered those those residents in the barn? Are those considered what are those considered? part of the barn. How what does our code how does our code address that? >> So it we just define it as residential.
We we define it as a residential accessory structure. >> So let's just say because I know there's places out here on my five acres I build four barns >> and I have four residential structures in my barns >> and then I build my house and I have my accessory dwelling.
>> So now I have my grooms with my barns because you said it's what? Five women. >> That's actually the best case >> because they we want them in the barn. >> But I'm trying to So our code allows that. >> That is correct. >> Okay. So our code >> and again there's restrictions like groom's quarters are based on the number
of horses, right? >> So but I think there there's but there are some problems with that because I do believe that like so I'm just thinking about my neighbors that did that and you know they really were only allowed to have one bathroom, right? Because once you put a bathroom in in each of these
structures, that's considered another residential building. So when you're putting if you're putting groom's apartments in, you're looking at, you know, maybe four or five rooms with a bathroom. So now you've got four or five additional residences in that building.
So >> it'll be Yeah, it'll be kitchen facilities usually, but they're >> my bedrooms. Usually they like, you know, if you look at Erin Newkerk's place, you know, next to me, she's got the groom's apartments at the end of the barn and each of them has their own
shower, their bathroom, and they have a like a, you know, a thing like a a studio. And then this one has a studio and they're and they built them right into the barn. So, everybody has a studio apartment. Um, you know, there's lots of those. I mean, you know, you know, um,
>> we we allow grooms quarters based on the number of stalls. So, >> okay. So, what is the what does the code say for groom's quarters for stalls? And what does the code say for bathrooms in those groom quarters? Does it address that? >> So, there is no So, who made that rule up? Was that the health department? Is
that a health department? >> The building department. Yeah. So, what is the building code? >> A structure as a residential if it has a bedroom, a bathroom, and typically an >> Mhm. So, >> so what does our code say that we you
just said we're allowed to do that in a barn? Let's just say I build a 40 stall barn and I have my living area. Mhm. >> So again, so I know that I know that the one on a road had a living area and it
had an office, separate office area and then it had the stalls going this way kind of like >> if it's an office, it's not defined as a residential. >> Let's So what does our code define? What does our current code defined as? What's allowed in a barn for the living? Does it
>> It just defines it. It says a room. >> So where does Okay. So, how would I look for the the number of bathrooms? The problem that she's saying >> because could you could you literally like if you built a 40 40 stole barn, could you have 10 >> units in the middle of that barn for
grooms with their own bathroom? >> There's a lot >> the It's not the bathrooms, it's going to be the ovens and the kitchen facilities that that's going to be there. But I you know you things guys that I know we're trying to
I know because there's things like there's usually a minimum square footage of living area. You have to have certain windows they have to have and you know so there's other find that >> where would >> it's all in the building code and you have to go through but like this but
>> I'll do that if you can give me like what I'm looking for >> but but what I guess what I think before you go and look what are you looking for >> well I want to see if I want to see I want to be able to see what we have and does what we have
not allow them to do what they want to do or is it what they want to do something different and they want to completely change it. So what I'm understanding is we can have a residence, we can have an accessory dwelling. Accessory dwelling is subordinate to the residence has to be a certain size. So we could increase the
size of the accessory dwelling if we want it depending on the size. Then what I understand is they could have each barn depending on stalls. What's the number of stalls can have a groom's what do they call it? A groom's what? >> Groom's quarters. >> Explorers. Okay. So you can have a
groom's quarters for the number of stalls, five horses, five stalls, whatever. So in that groom's quarters, what defines what's that groom's quarter is? >> How big can that be? How many can it be? >> Okay. >> Okay. So my question is if the goal is not having all this, you know, I mean,
we're have we're already allowing a lot of this, but what is it we're we're not allowing? But it would actually >> I don't know the answer because I don't know the >> it actually makes sense in a way to to allow those grims quarters in the barn because it takes away from having
another cluster of homes and >> but your friend said that she couldn't have a bathroom. So where was that address? Was that an actual rule? >> I have no idea what she's talking about with that. >> So the question we need to find out before we can even create something is
is it already been addressed? Is it allowed? I do know places that have barns with apartments in it. >> Yeah, it may have to do with the septic. >> Yeah, that's a there's going to be a part of that. >> So many bathrooms per captic. So it could be
>> health department. >> The health department but health department. >> Let's talk right now lot coverage is 15 15%. Is that correct? And is F also 15%.
>> And that is what livable space or barns >> it can be. It it can be any and all. >> Okay. But on culture operations a lot I'm want to do the numbers here and I think that's how you >> ADHD.
>> No no >> I have some comments too. I'm just waiting. >> Yeah. So, if you let's let's say it's let's say you've got 10 acres, okay? Um, and an acre is 43,560
ft. I think let's call it 44,000. Um, and if I can have 20% lot coverage, >> lot coverage is 15%. The combined area of all buildings and roof structures shall not exceed 15% of
the plot area. >> Okay. And um and what about F >> uses other than a single family residential not exceed a combined floor to area ratio of 15%. >> Uses other than residential but when it
comes to residential because I can have multiple floors. Um but let's say I can cover um at 15% and um that is uh an acre and a half on
a 10 acre piece. So somewhere in the neighborhood of 65 to 70,000 square feet. I could do all residential if I wanted to. I could have um 65,000
feet of residential space and I could put a second story up there probably. Um so I can have a massive amount of residential space if I want to. Nobody has done that here yet. Almost nobody in the country has done it
anywhere. I can't remember what the Builtmore is, but it's uh it's a huge, you know, it it was the biggest estate and it was something over 100,000 square feet or something along those lines. So, it's extremely rare that anybody's going to to do that, but
that's the amount that you can actually build. So how you divide that up um be it for barns or for um uh residential
spaces is is up to to you. Now we put some restrictions on that. I could build a 20,000 square foot house and there might be a 20,000 foot house in this community. I don't know. There certainly
are in the Palm Beach area. And if I built that 20,000 square foot house, what we would be saying is and your guest house can only be 1,200 square ft.
Um, now you can also have 40,000 square feet of uh of barn area if you want to. Um so the decisions about how
we allow allow somebody to allocate what they want to do. Um my suggestion is we leave that up to them and not try to figure that out. Now you can come up with some limitations like you know right now we've got the
limitation it's primary residence and the 1 ADU but I can also have groom's quarters and I can have caretakers quarters right so I can
right now have four um four places but uh they're limited in size not the primary residence but the the ADU.
Um so I think what this is the idea of this is um try to come up with some regulations that would allow more flexibility
um and trust people that are going to be developing this. but not living on it >> that they'll that they'll develop um in, you know, a a way that makes sense. And if maybe
maybe eight units, eight eight residential units does make sense for whatever they're doing. Maybe it's three. Um maybe, you know, it's a 10,000 and a 4,000 and a 3,000 and a and a 70,000 foot barn. Um, but uh the concern
I've got is we're you're trying to figure out how every property is going to be developed. Um, and most likely every property is going to be developed very differently. And you know, just as so that's where I that's where I don't
want you to to to go is to try to say, okay, I'm I know how these things are going to ha could be happening and and that's the development that's going to going to happen. You set forth parameters and everybody's going to have different designs.
So that I have a different take. Um certainly I don't feel like anybody's trying to dictate how someone's going to do their property. I think um there's a lot of questions in trying to understand um what currently exists and and what if we made these changes, what would it
look like? Um but you know, I think also we're talking about um two different groups of people. one that have a lot of money. They're building it
simply for their horses and their employees um versus residents of the town that live here full-time. Um and and want their property to work for them because it's their home, not a business or not
part-time or not someone that's going to come and just have, you know, want a cool room to after they they ride their horses. So, I think there's there's competing interests there. So, I think to to your point, Cassie, we have to talk about like what makes sense for the town, right? And some of that is growth
and development in a way that's consistent with the equestrian. Um, but also some of that is to keep it a home. Um, and not just all businesses. Uh, you know, I I can tell you this
season is is has been so busy. I mean, you can't pull out of your, you know, dirt road without waiting for six different horse trailers to go by, you know, and then other people riding horses and all of that. I mean, literally to to get to Southern Road, Southern Boulevard, you know, you're
adding a good 17 minutes because of having to slow down. I mean, that's that's a good thing. I think that, you know, we see the hustle and bustle. Um, but certainly it's impacting the residents. Um so when we start to talk about things like adding more rooms
quarters and things like that, we're now increasing um the number of people. Uh and you know that's certainly going to impact the town. I don't know if if that's the interest of the town is to
make sure that we have 10 grooms quarters on a property and then the main home and then that you know not the business owners I mean not the uh property owners ever going to live in and all of that. Uh to me hearing all of this really kind of defeats what we're
trying to do here and it sounds more businessoriented to me than residential. So, I don't want to get too far away from residential. Um, but hearing what you're saying and talking about the lock coverage and I know Karen, you mentioned
35% as an example, you know, just you said, hey, what about 35%. But if you do something like that then if you do maybe 35% but it has to be limited to like okay you can do 35% um
lot coverage but only 15% of that can be um any residential whether it's a green quarters whether it's you know the main house or something like that I I don't know because there's so many different things
that we're you know not getting into with um FDA a and and building codes and things like that that we don't have that information that really would impact any decision we make. Um, you know, but maybe that's the way to go about it that we can accommodate by increasing, you
know, your ability to build on your lot at 20 acres, but we're also still keeping the interest of limiting the clustering, even if it's just people, by saying, but of that 35% only this many can be. And I know that it directly
contradicts what you're saying we should do, not dictate how people build. Um, but then we're we're kind of accommodating the, you know, development there, the barns and the and the and the um brooms quarters, but we're still
focused on making sure it doesn't turn into individual communities. Um, you know, so I I don't want to go down that where we just completely lose all control over what happens on a 20 acre lot because we now have the ability to
house, you know, 35 people on that 20 acres. >> I think it's a difficult time right now because the price of the property on Moxahi Groves is no longer affordable to an average Joe that wants to live in the country. Okay. And so whether you like
it or not, it's going to get built out by Eve's people and they are going to run businesses avoiding horses here because they need it. You know, there's no more land there. There's no more land anywhere else to go. And we're a town that has that ability for them. So, as
much as you want to keep it reserved for the locals and the and the people here, I I just think you're fighting a losing battle on that because at the end of the day, those structures are going to get gobbled up and bought up by all the people that are doing it right now. And you see it when you look around when you
look at all of our properties. I came here 26 years ago. I bought my 10 acres for $650,000. Today, I could sell it for $6 million. Okay? When I'm ready to go, I will sell it for six million. Okay? And who's going to buy it? That really rich
person. And they're going to develop it. They're probably going to knock down half the stuff that I have on it, and they're going to redo it the way they want it. That's the reality of it. But the good news is is that they will keep it a 10acre track at least, or they will buy maybe my nursery next door for
another tenant. They'll keep it a big track of land, and it won't be apartment complexes and things here, but it will be an equestrian development similar to what you have in Wellington at some point, I think, because there's there's no way around it, you know. So,
that's >> I don't think Wellington's a good example. >> No brooms going. >> Well, they're getting out of it, right? >> And they they started the same concept and now >> Yeah. >> And I feel like brooms quarters though, I mean, we're calling it something else. Some people call it an apartment
complex. Some people say it's grooms course, you know, or you know, I mean, we're just putting a fancy title on 10 rooms in a in a one location >> because what's happening like you said, you know, like look at on B road, look at point, right? I mean, you know,
that's a 13 acre piece of property and they have 65 stalls on there. >> So maybe that's where we start limiting. >> So that's 65 stalls on a 13 acre property. How many people do you need to run that operation? you know, and how many trainers and people are in and out
of that place and the traffic is in sync there, right? >> But then they're not then they shouldn't they shouldn't qualify as the difference. They then they're a commercial property. They shouldn't qualify under this estate with what we're discussing. So
>> there is there they have that >> ability, but it's not under the equestrian estate. If you had restrictions like we used to have where you had one horse per acre or something or two horses per acre and you put that
in your deed here, then that would make people buy the bigger properties and limit the amount of horses which would then limit the amount of staff. So if that's your ultimate goal at the end of the day, the only way you're going to limit the amount of work and thing you
have is to limit the number of horses on the acreage because that's where everybody gets away with it because nobody listen we have anything in our charter that says anything about how many horses per acre. But do you think anybody pays attention to that? >> Because literally I mean how could she
get 65 acres on on 65 horses on 13 acres? It's not really quality of life for a horse, is he? You know, I mean, at at 20 on my 10, I fight for grass and I get rid of them for half the year just to grow grass because I don't want them
living on dirt lots, right? I want them to have a good life. So, you know, at the, you know, maybe we have to look at it from a different perspective and say, okay, maybe we limit the number of animals on the property because that's what these people are going to do. If they can't, if they can't at the end of
the day have the housing that they need to take care of the horses, they're just going to build out every ounce of space in a barn because guess how much money we get for a dry stall here, right? You know, they're making,400 $1,500 a month per stall on a dry stall.
if you have a covered arena. If you don't, you're getting a thousand a month. So, if you put 60 horses, 60 stalls on that property, you're getting 60 grand a month minimum. Okay? So, that's a commercial entity that's raking in the dough and that's why people buy
the place, right? But if so, it's maybe makes more maybe more sense to limit the amount of horses so that you can control the density on the farm. I don't know. I'm just throwing it out there. You know, maybe if that's what your ultimate goal is to keep it more of a rural
community and get away from the commercial aspect of this because you know, like how did those guy I mean those guys are not in Lockachi Groves right on um on North Road. North of North Road is not is it? So how did they get 350 stalls built on that?
>> Because the next question I was going to ask is does your coverage cover agriculture land or is that just residential? The 15% is that the rule for residential structures. Okay. So, agriculture can build the 350 stalls
because it's agriculture and it's run by what the right to farm act or Yeah, there you go. >> So, that there you go. So, there you go. So, then you know, so is our job to accommodate the staff and go back to what Miss Clipton said and now we're accommodating the business and forgetting about the actual residences
of the town. >> Is that that's where that's kind of >> that's not what anybody wants. >> I know, but that's kind of when you look around what's happening, right? I mean like you know he's buying up every building around that whole center there. You know he bought all the houses all around >> limited to what he does based on the
rules he had. Now could he build and put 5 million barns up there? Yes, because he's a bonafide egg. >> But he can't put 20 residences in 20. >> Nobody bought all the properties around all the little five acres and twoacre places and he put all his people in
there. So now he's buying up everything on the outside. When you look at that, his he's over the RV number on his residences. So, that would be a code issue that would come up because each one of those residences are above the RV issue. >> He has he has housing in the bonds. >> Well, that's a question right there.
>> That's an issue. >> So, then the question becomes how much housing there's a rule. How many grooms per is the stalls? Is that an actual rule? >> If there was housing in the barns, you have to get a permit. If there is not, if there it's just a aggra
non-residential agricultural building, then you don't have to get a >> then you then you don't have to get um a permit. So, one of the and one of the things then it when you talk about limiting the number of horses, how are
you going to figure out how many horses are on there when you didn't have anybody you didn't have you didn't have anybody that was in there um viewing the size of the barn because you didn't need a permit.
>> And the issue then becomes is what do the rules have? It doesn't seem to me that the rules we have are hindering anything. It's actually hindering what you're saying they want to do. And what you're saying is we need to accommodate all their staff. Well, we didn't become a town to accommodate the staff of a
business. So, >> we can't lose sight of who we're here for >> of what why we became a town. And are do our rules actually hinder what these people want to do? It doesn't seem like it seems like they can do all that stuff. And we're never going to be able to control the barns because it's not
one of our rules. It's run by the state. >> They do it. They do it, but they do it. >> They do it hiding. >> Yeah, >> it's the same thing they do at hiding. The campers and theers and everything becomes a code issue, which we're addressing right now. >> Hopefully, we can get that
and because we don't have code enforcement and we don't have any we don't have any particular specific rules that made sense to anybody because they couldn't figure it out, you know, with the way it came in and what it said. Nobody knew if we were allowed to have a caretaker and a and a person living
there. What if your business runs all year and you have 20 horses on site all year? You need enough people to live there, take care of all them. And if you can't have that that time there, then you're in trouble. So, you know, I I don't know. I see both sides of this. I have a business and I have a residence
here. I have both. Okay? And I live on my property. I have the main house and I have boarding horses. And in the winter, I'm packed. But in the summer, I'm empty, right? And I go down to, you know, I don't have any I have two grooms
on staff for the whole summer, but in the winter we have six. You know, some don't live on site, some live off. I have probably 25 owners driving in every day, plus I have three trainers, plus I have friers and vets and everybody else. And so it's a mad house, you know,
>> a busy season. Yeah, >> it's crazy. >> Now multiply you times what? every every you know every other home >> and then you know in the summer it dies and then it's gone. So you know and every we have to make enough money to pay all of our bills in the winter and
then we get a break, right? But there's some people that are going to stay all year. You know some people that are going to build businesses here and stay because you know they don't want to go up north and we're just as hot there as it is here. So now they put it covered up and they stay here. So you're you're going to have a lot of things changing with those people now. But I don't know
what the answer is because you know I think we need to accommodate some of these businesses or no one can afford these properties. Right? So if if you think that um if you if you're going to restrict them to the point where the people say okay I'm not going to buy
there and I'm going to go somewhere else then we're going to lose all of that potential revenue that would bring up your property values. So then the question then you want to ask is you talk about okay so we want to do an equestrian estate we want to limit the
number of horses on the equestrian estate but can we legally limit number of horses per the right to farm act I don't know where does that conflict I mean if we say we have an equestrian state zoning we're going to say 10 acres but you can only have you know I don't
know what 20 horses on 25 horses can we legally do a rule like that in a zoning district or or does that run in direct conflict between the Right to Farm Act or agriculture? That's a question I can't answer. >> I mean, the old the old a rules when I first moved to Florida when I looked
because I lived here from New Jersey, it said one two horses per acre on almost, you know, Palm Beach County. >> I think that's what they do for taxing. >> That was a long taxing. >> Palm Beach County does the taxing two horses per acre. I think >> I think what you're talking about there
was a uh Palm Beach County had um an animal control ordinance um and they have regulations with respect to to to those things. um those
I I do not know whether or not they still have those limitations, but they do not apply to the equestrian farms when it comes to the number of animals >> that you know have to consider. I know that's >> a lot of questions. I know Jeff, we're all over the place because we really
don't have any, >> you know, we're >> No, I think I think I think you guys are having a wonderful discussion on >> I'm trying >> on on on the issues. You're you're certainly issues spotting, you know, um and I think it's a good discussion and
you guys, you know, uh you'll end up not tonight probably because hopefully we'll get out of here soon. Um but uh um through the process you'll you'll come up with recommendations as to uh whether
or not we should go in this direction or not go in the direction. But yeah, it the the place is changing. >> Yeah. And and I think that we I think that that really is what we want. We want to be able to um you know
go with the progress without losing the fact that this is people's homes as well and you know the residents have voices here too you know and it's not just the the incoming businesses stuff. I think what would be
beneficial would be a side by side of where we are now what we have now. Um, you know, because Cassie, you think it keeps cutting up, >> right? >> Yeah, we have part of it. >> Part of it. Um, >> so this is, you know, what we have now,
five acres, and then if we did the overlay, it would be a minimum lot size of 10. >> Okay. I'm sorry, but we need to add in then um where we're limited on with the right to farm act. Um, >> we just learned that the the lot coverage doesn't apply if it's
agricultural. Is that correct? So that would not apply. >> I don't know anything about the right to farm act. So I'd like to spend Yeah, I would like to understand that. >> Don't you think that if people buy these properties and they do the equestrian um overlay that they're actually
agricultural businesses, commercial businesses? >> And that's what we need to look at too. The business that's the question, you know, how they're zoned. >> Like if you're talking 10 to 40 acres, most people that are buying the 10 to 40 acres are actually a commercial
boarding farm business of agricultural business where they're doing, you know, training horses, bringing them down for the season. This is not a residential person in our in our neighborhood. They're here strictly for the business
of everything and then they leave, right? And so that's really what you know the bottom line is is that the equestrian estate overlay would apply. And would that apply because these people are not they're here just for
the commercial use of the property. >> And then did you did you get one of these that was passed out? You have >> So on the lot coverage we're saying so right now the AR5 is 15 to 20% and then the E would be 30%. But we're my
understanding is that doesn't apply when we that goes out the window with right to farm agriculture. Correct. So even though we have those rules in, it won't apply. They could go above and beyond that even if it's Is that correct?
Is that my understanding? >> Jeez, that's correct. >> You're still going to have to comply with the flood development regulations. >> The flood but okay. But does the flood does the flood talk about the coverage? Well, I think what Jeff was saying, I
think that you have a certain amount of water retention. Yes. So, you're limited if you're in a certain district. >> It's going to have an impact. You can't you you can't just simply cover the entire lot. >> Remember, that's only again if the area
in question is defined as a exempt or a or agricultural use. >> So, you're looking at another rule set of rules that apply what you're saying, right? which I don't understand all >> really. I think the only thing you keep in mind is that the only distinction, if I could try my best to make it as simple
as possible, is that if you have a residential unit, whether it's in a barn, whether it's a separate structure, it it applies like it is today. The the act exemption has no impact if it has a residential structure in it. You need a
building code, you need the building permit, you need the follow. >> If you have a structure that doesn't have a residential component, then it's freeforall. >> So, does that make that help? That's kind of the distinction. >> So, a groom's quarters is a residential
component. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, if you have an accessory structure is a residential component, >> but if it's a barn that has no rooms, quarters, has no caretaker, all it has is the horses, it's not a residential
unit. Could we get where that information is so we could look at that? But you can have in a barn that is a non-residential barn, you can still have bathrooms, >> kitchen, have all that stuff. >> You can have Well, kitchens are a little
trickier, but you can you can have a lounge area, you can have an office, it can be airond conditioned. Um, >> yeah, >> you can have induction, air fryers, things like that. transition the
>> Yes. >> The cot um the cot can become a a problem. Um the sofa in the office and it might be big enough to sleep on. Well, you know, farm act was basically to make it easier
for you to be able to conduct agriculture >> business. Yeah. >> Right. Because the idea was that Beach County was losing or the state was losing art, you know, agricultural use. >> So to have a structure that doesn't have somebody living in it, what's the life health safety issue when it comes to
having a plow in a barn, >> right? Horses are a little different because there are horses worth a lot more than I am. But u you know, but typically that was the thought. thought was if you need to put your your you know irrigation supply stuff in a
structure, why do you need a building permit? Let's help them be able to do their agricultural that they could just put something up. That was really the intention. But once you have where somebody potentially lives in it because now you have, like Jeff says, you have, you know, water, sewer, you have
electrical, you know, you have people living there, now it becomes a higher level of review and that's why they look at that as being required to have building Otherwise, we don't know what goes on. Like Jeff says, we don't look in nonres
non-residential, >> which is interesting because everyone's talking about, oh, there's too many RVs on this property, but then come to find out that there's 65 horses on a property and 42 groomsman, you know, rooms. And I mean, so really and and then what what
they've done in the past is they've built stalls in the barn. So then the building inspector comes and they get their CO for 50 stalls or whatever. And then the m moment that they get their CO, then they take these five stalls and they build them out into rooms and they
put a bathroom in them. You know, they pipe it in and do whatever outside of that. So, you know, they get away with it because they do it after the fact. >> Yeah. And the bathroom I mean, >> and then who comes and inspects it after that? Nobody, you know,
>> till they want to sell it, right? Yeah. They go to sell. >> Yeah. >> You find out when someone's squeal. >> Yeah. Or somebody or the neighbor squeals or something. Yeah. But a lot of them don't know what's going on because it's under the barn. You know, they don't see they see horses on e and in the middle all of a sudden it's
>> also remember, you know, you and again the assumption would be that the person is not going to build a residential unit unless they're going to use it, right? Because you need a building permit. the building permit gets told to the property appraisers office. Now, your value is higher than if it is if you
didn't have it. >> So, I don't see where people are automatically going to say, "Oh, I have the ability to do 20 units. I'm going to do 20 units." >> It's a business. I mean, I understand that, but I think kind of need that. I think, you know, again, there's abuses in any system, right? It doesn't matter
what it is. Um, and you know, it does happen, you know, and and that's when you get those your reports when somebody says somebody died in a fire because they couldn't get out because the window wasn't available as it should be to be able to break out to get out of the the room. >> So, um, but again, the intention here
was to give the agricultural community the ability to continue to make a profit >> so it doesn't make it difficult for you to have to get all these things permitted and move. It was a good discussion. >> Yeah, that was very I like I agree with Jeff. These are the discussions that
need to be had and it's great. You all have different backgrounds. So, you all look at from different directions because guys in zoning there's no right or wrong answer, >> right? >> It's what works for you and the community. So, I guess the the mayor gave you some
codes or we'll get copies. Um, >> the packet from the last time >> I'll read something else tonight. >> We'll give that to you Gavin. You can make copies of the civilian. >> But, you know, to follow up with Jeff, I think what would make sense again, the
mayor gave you the chart to take a look at, continue those discussions, right? talk to you. I know Cassie, you talked to your neighbors, you know, talk to people who have horses, you know, ask them from your discussion tonight kind of where they thought. I'll send you I'll send out to everybody the right to
farm act which is the language that talks about those not from the FDA or flood plane regulations which are doesn't matter. You're all applied affected by it. Um, and then maybe we come back and however you want to work, whether you want to concentrate on one,
whether you wanna, you know, pick a couple and talk about those because again, there's a um, you know, remember the first memo that I gave, there's a lot of things that we haven't even hit upon yet. You know, things like the bigger it is, the bigger impact you have now because you have more manure you
need to get rid of. Maybe we need lined, you know, dumpster areas or something, which we haven't even gotten into because we got to get through this stuff before we get into the other materials. Does that make >> sense? Of course. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, I will go ahead and I will include this in the next packet as well so that
we have it. If you need me to send it to you, do you want me to email? >> And the right to farmax, we'll send it to you. if you can send us the where to look for the building thing or whatever doesn't >> it looks like in one place but I'll >> I don't know where to to look if I have
an idea >> I'll look too I would see if we can find and send it to you >> and then if any questions come up guys between now and the next meeting you know email me you know don't email each other we don't want any attorneys here
no sunshine law violations but if there's that you can think of that might help in the conversation and you want direction or you know if there's something that I can easily locate no I'm happy to do that as well >> okay we want to vote do we want to have our
meeting on election >> oh yeah do you want to do it on the 10th or that's election day up to you guys >> I don't want to have it on collection day so >> about you guys but so then do you want to do another one in March or just skip
to April. >> I would say skip to April. >> Okay. >> I mean I unless unless the council comes back in one of their meetings and says we should. I mean what do you guys think? >> Well, if we don't do it that week, I'm booked every other week.
>> So I skip to April. I would skip to April >> because I'm out of town and then I have classes and all kinds of stuff and April I'm wide open so that's fine. So >> April >> it's the 14th of April would be our next one. >> The second we're looking at
>> that's fine. Yeah. >> So let's just keep that one and that gives us time to think and take a look at everything. So you have time to read read that stat's job. >> I do sleep in there some idea.
But probably when I fall asleep in the middle of the week. Mom, you're sleeping now. Yeah, but I'm up wide awake at midnight. >> You guys are done. We need a motion to adjourn. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Oh, unless you want to do any comments. I'm sorry. >> No. Um,
>> yeah, we're just waiting on What are we waiting on? Properties. >> Motion to adjurnn. Yeah. >> Oh, is there a motion? >> No, you're going to give us comments. >> I'll give it to you after the meeting. It's a bit of hefty. >> Is there a motion? >> All right. All in favor? I
>> All right. Thank you guys.