Welcome to the zoning subcommittee of the Revier City Council for April 28 night. Yeah. 2025. I was going back. I was going back Andre. That's all right. Go going back to my olden days. Please
rise and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Roll call the members. Councelor Arenzio here. Here. Councelor Gino SA here. Here. Councelor Harmo here. Here. Councelor Nobasellski here. Here. And Chairman Zambo here. Here. Quorum is present. First item on tonight's agenda is a special permit request for
870 Broadway to for a change of use from commercial garage to contractor storage yard. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. Name and address, please. Joseph Ktogio one spring street review
representing the applicant uh and their request for a special permit to change the present use um to what we consider and I believe the council considers as well a lesser use of a contractor's yard. Uh we did specify at the initial
presentation that the uh specific use would be for the client's uh spray foam business trucks to be stored. uh six in total, three vans, three uh box trucks. Um we uh had some discussions on uh
building the building structure. Um we're asked to present uh some information uh and offer to the building inspector the opportunity to review the building. Uh we had a report that was done actually uh specifically for the initial uh site plan review. We uh
submitted that to the ward counselor. I believe I submitted it uh to the chairman. Um and we also submitted it to the building inspector and offered him the opportunity to inspect the property. He came back and indicated that uh he had uh uh was satisfied with the the
report. Um did specify the the concern over some stuckco that had uh been broken on the building. Um following that we received a report uh of recommendations from site plan review um that was uh put together by the building
inspector and by Frank Stringy. Um I believe they submitted to this uh subcommittee for uh uh for um inclusion uh should the committee approve. Uh my client did review them is agreeable to all the conditions as presented. uh and
we are hopeful that we can uh have your approval on this application. Again, we're indicating that it's it is a lesser use um and one that would uh fit nicely into his his business. Thank you. Well, uh we certainly will include the uh recommendations of site plan review
and um I think there'll be some others added here tonight and uh I have any councilors uh have any questions? Council Novaski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. chairman. Um, as I stated at the public hearing,
you know, I have a concern, you know, that may get out of hand. The word storage, you know, they could store anything they want there. You know, I know you're talking about vehicles, but I'm just cautious cautious about what else they
may store there. you know, I just don't want to see any uh piping or wood or anything stored there other than the vehicles. And I'm, you know, I'm concerned that it may get out of
hand to to the counselor. Um again, my my client's business is specifically spray foam. The containers are all inside. uh the the business requires that the trucks be uh uh supplied and then uh you know
uh the items removed beginning of the day, end of the day. Uh he is not in the construction business. He's not a contractor. Um whatever guidelines you want in that light, I'm sure would be fine. We are specifically looking for the storage of trucks.
that satisfactory council. Is is is that in the uh the language of the permit trucks only? We we have some uh if no one else is uh no one else wants to speak on this.
Yeah, we can put whatever conditions we want. We have a list of conditions that have been kind of drafted here. Uh you want to read them. Uh, Madame Clerk, please. Based on the uh public hearing and uh conversation with Chairman Zambudo, some
other conditions uh he submitted other conditions for today's uh meeting. One, all owners and employees of the spray foam insulation business at 870 Broadway shall park off street. 870 Broadway shall not be eligible for participation in the city of Rivier on street permit
parking program. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The city council shall rescend the existing chapter 148 license number 221 issued on June 14th, 1926 for
a commercial garage and additional storage of flammables. And as uh committee member Novaski just mentioned, there shall only be vehicles and materials related to a spray foam business stored on site. And if you'd like, I can read the other conditions that were submitted by
site plan review. Okay. Site plan review submitted the following conditions. The exterior of the building is to be repaired, including the replacement of missing stucco and boarded up windows. The fire department must review and approve fire suppression and ventilation systems
within the building. Since the primary use of the building is for a contractor storage facility for a spray foam insulation business, the owner of the property must cease operation of a commercial garage and used car sales. The building must be brought into compliance with all fire safety and
building electrical and plumbing codes. Mr. Chairman, if I may through you to the councelor Novasowski. Thank you. U councelor, um how many vehicles can be put? How many spaces are there for vehicles in the front of the building? I
I don't know that it was it's mapped out, but I know that it will hold the six vehicles that my client's looking to store. It's a wide birth and the building is set back, so there should be room for the three vans and the three box cars. Yeah, as long as it doesn't
block any potential fire access that into the front of the building. Yeah, we whatever fire requirement again we saw that as part of the condition we would be fine with review and approval. Mr. Chairman, can we uh add a uh an amendment to that to limit the vehicles
to six if that'll I don't see a problem with adding three box trucks and three vans. Is that that's what my clients applied for. That's specifically what he has. I just
want I just want to make sure that's limited. We can name and one of the things I'm very concerned about is is the employees when they come to pick up these trucks. I don't want them in the street. There's enough parking problems there right now and the neighbors are all over me and I promise them that that
wouldn't happen. So, I'm I'm going to be all over that. If they should park their cars in the street, there'll be a big problem. So, just just so we're clear on that before before we leave tonight, we know what to look for, what what the problems could be. And that's as far as
I'm concerned, that's one of the biggest problems. If the if the employees are pocketing, taking my constituents parking spaces around there. Uh they're already have tight quarters there and there's already trouble getting uh you know, I know they're they're no longer
going to do the repairs, right? not only repairs, but they they've got some kind of a used car business there. And I've I've been there when the truck is on Rose Street unloading these cars that they're going to put in the lot. I don't know where they're transferring to them. I don't know if they're coming from an
auction. We better not see any of that anymore. That's got to end. That's as part of this permit that ends. And and those are the concerns the neighbors have. and and I've heard from a lot of them and they're not, you know, I I've I've kind of eased their concerns by
saying we're going to put all these conditions. The conditions are going to be followed. They're not just conditions. These are conditions that are going to be enforced if I have to enforce them myself. We did see them and we understand them. Great. Great. Thank you. I I have a counselor in the back wants to speak here. Happens to be the
ward counselor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Anthony Kaggleandro, board 3 city counselor. Um, I have the same concerns as you. Uh, we've gotten photos of the employee showing up before 6, loud music, talking, conversing in the middle of the street. These are the things that
have to end. Um, uh, we cannot be inundating the neighborhood with noise at that time. I know there's children in the area as well. Uh, with that said, I do want to thank Mr. Koggio, though we've been in constant contact. The issues with the the disrepair of the building have been
addressed through site plan through Frank Stringy. I believe the issues with the soot coming out of the roof that will no longer be happening at all. I think that's already stopped. Um so those were two of the big concerns and I do agree six vehicles, three vans, three box trucks. I think that's the max that
we want to see in that area. It is surrounded by residential. Uh overall, I'm I'm okay with this. Uh and I just hope that they can keep the employees quiet during the day and show up, load up, and get out. And that's that. So,
thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Madame Clerk, the fa fa favorable recommendation with conditions discussed. Shall the zoning subcommittee offer a favorable recommendation to
grant the relief requested subject to the findings and conditions of site plan review and the zoning subcommittee? Councelor Aenzio. Yes. Yes. Councelor Goaya. Yes. Yes. Councelor Heramio. Yes. Yes. Councelor Nobasellski. Yes. Yes. And Chairman Zimudo. Yes. Yes. The
special permit has received a favorable recommendation for granting. Thank you. Next up is an ordinance further amending the accessory dwelling unit zoning ordinance. Mr. Director, good evening councilors.
Tom Skrowski, 281 Broadway. Since we last spoke, um, we discussed updating our amended ADU legislation to come into compliance with the state, but only after we received the model bylaw. um that was put
together by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities um just so we can make sure that we are implementing the right kinds of reasonable regulations that would um pass legal muster. Um, and in addition to that, in the ensuing period, there
was a few motions that went in front of uh the council to request that we initiate a home rule petition process to um amend 4A and and basically exempt river from from these
regulations. I I don't want to speak for the city solicitor, but I know he did respond to the counselors that had submitted the motion to that effect, stating that would not be um a politically or a legally viable solution. So, what we are left with is
the task of amending our ordinance to come into compliance with the state regulation, but doing so in a way that imposes a set of reasonable regulations as defined by the state. So what you have in front of you um tonight is I
think some reasonable regulations that we can impose. Um I worked on this in partnership with councilors Arenzio and Kelly who submitted some of the motions that we I referred to earlier and I'll just go through the changes and then happy to take any questions if you have
them. Um the first change is in section three of this section um the use table itself. So, um, by law, we need to allow ADUs by right in any neighborhood where a single family home is allowed by
right. Um, so the first thing we did is removed um the Y in the use table for a series of neighborhoods that single family homes are not being built, nor should they be. Um, this includes the
RC, the RC1, RC2, RC3, plan, PDD, PDD2, NB, GB, CB, HB, TED, LI, and IP. These are all districts that are either mixed use or commercial or industrial districts. We don't have any business
getting single family homes built on Broadway or on Shirley Avenue or on Squire Road. So, that kind of solves two problems with one. we can clarify our use table to state that single family homes aren't allowed by right there. But it also then means that those same districts we don't need to comply with
the ADU law. Um so a lot of the concerns we had about those larger apartment buildings adding additional units that settles that pretty significant um problem. The the second change is on um
it's a footnote to the use table where originally we had thought we needed to allow for additional ADUs on a lot by special permit but they did clarify in the model bylaw that we are not required to. That's a choice. Um so we are choosing not to allow additional ADUs on
a lot. So if you have a single family home, you build an ADU, you can't build another ADU. Um, so we eliminated that section unless authorized by special permit. Um, this was a discussion I I think councelor Kelly brought up in San Diego where they were allowing bonus ADUs. It basically just became a large
apartment building that you're building on a lot. That's not the intent of this regulation. The the next major changes come in the requirements section which is 17.25.20. Um and there's a series of requirements that we think are
reasonable that we are uh suggesting be imposed here. Um the first is to allow no new driveway entrances or exits from a street um on a lot with an ADU. So vehicle access would be limited to the existing driveways serving the
principal dwelling. That's for pedestrian safety reasons, right? We we don't want to have additional curb cuts on streets that are already clogged with them, nor do we want additional vehicles on our roads. Um there there shall be no variances granted for ADUs. This is something we saw in a few other
communities and I know was another concern that was raised at um at the last meeting. This is something that has um passed review by our city solicitor. Um and then site plan review is also going to be required um per the
ordinance. And there is a section that does appear to be I might have to double check. Um additional units being built below the base flood elevation would also be prohibited. Um and if that's not in this one in particular, I'm just going to
have to get the language and and clarify that while we're taking questions. It is okay. Am Okay, I might just be missing it because it's not redlined, but perhaps that was because it was already in there. Oh, correct. All right. So, it's already
there in in number three. I think we added it, but then we realized it was already in there. Thank you for that clarification, counselor. Um and then for off- streetet parking requirements. So the state has said that within a half mile of any bus stop or subway stop we
are not allowed to require parking. Um but they did not say we can prohibit parking or we can't prohibit a parking altogether. So what we're suggesting to do here is any ADUs that are not on a uh where the principal dwelling is not a single family home, you would not be
allowed to have on or on street park on or off streetet parking. Um, so the state wants to encourage use of public transportation. So we are going to take advantage of that uh and make sure that any additional ADUs on two or three families or apartments, they don't
have any more cars on our roadways and they're using public transportation. And I did speak with the parking director and that's certainly something we could work um as long as the ADU has its own address. It could be something that is prohibited from getting an on street
parking permit just like the special permit that was just in front of us. Um and then there is still that requirement. Yes. So this would um so uh this would be something we could we could work out with the parking
director, but basically you know 95 Broadway is 95A Broadway have its own unique address to that effect. And then under no circumstances shall more than one parking space be created for an ADU. So even in the cases
where you're outside of the half mile radius and you are um required to have parking um or you know even if you you have your own off- streetet lot that you're able to accommodate an additional parking spot. We're limiting that to one
because a big concern we heard was about bringing additional cars on the roadway. So if you have an ADU, you can have one parking spot. if you're outside a half mile radius. If you're within a half mile, you're only allowed to have one if you're within a single family home as
your principal dwelling. Um, and then the only area where we got more permissive was for detached ADUs. Um, and this is based off the guidance of the model bylaw. Um, if we said they shall not exceed 15 feet, that's that's basically not allowing for a two-story
um, ADU in a detached unit. And that's I think something where we needed to be a little bit more permissive so we weren't running a follow of of the new state law. Um and you know think about garages, things like that. Those are where we're most likely to see detached
ADUs. And then um we added an additional restriction in the dimensional standards that it has to be at least 10 feet a detached unit from a principal structure. So you don't have a case where you have a principal structure that's built and then you know two feet in between it. That would be silly. Um,
so those are the changes in a nutshell. I'm happy to take any questions that you have. Councelor Jensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we were all taken a little bit of back when the uh state legislature and the government passed this ADU ordinance and it came kind of a
little bit as a shock to us. Um, but I think reasonably restrictions I think uh Tom uh Mr. Scorowski did a great job. Um, we had worked with him a little bit and I think these reasonable restrictions would stand up uh to the
test of court and I think they do a go a long way in limiting and helping keep the fabric of our existing neighborhoods. So, uh, any other suggestions? uh you know I'd be very interested in hearing but I think no
variances is a big item uh in this and uh no more than one ADU per lot. So I I think this does at least it it it relieves my mind a little bit um with with these restrictions. Thank you.
Thank you counselor. And uh I appreciate your your effort in uh in tweaking these things. you know that I've always been against these mandated uh things coming down from the state and I wish we could not go along with it. Unfortunately, we
have to follow the law, but I appreciate you and your colleague uh Council Kelly for putting an effort forward to at least tweak this somewhat and uh make it somewhat palatable, although might never be to me.
But anyone else? Oh, councelor Garino SA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry. Um, who is going to be handling the permit uh process with that? Is it the planning department or is it going So, they'll all go to site
plan review. Um, but the actual permitting process itself would be through the building inspector. And then um and you said there's absolutely no off- streetet parking if you are within a half mile of a bus
stop. There would be no off streetet parking. Okay. So the Riverside neighborhood if they're building an ADU if Yeah. So that would be within a half mile of a bus stop. As long as the principal dwelling that is attached to the ADU or or to the lot is not a single
family home, you would not be allowed to have parking. And then um once they go in front of conservation and it's in the 100redyear flood plane um and conservation says no, it's no,
right? There's nothing else they can do. If the project runs a foul of the wetlands protection act or the other laws that govern the conservation commission irrespective of what's in here would not be allowed. Thank you.
Any other counselors? Council Arine. Uh thank you Tom. So I see here the maximum gross uh floor area for radiation shall be not more than 900 square ft. Uh is that that's from the model
ordinance? Correct. That's from the state. Okay. And nothing in the sorry can you define a duplex here? There's a duplex. A duplex would be um I want to give the right definition that's in the zoning ordinance. Um, and I don't have that in
front of me right now, but but essentially a a two family um vertically as opposed to horizontally, which I think is uh defined as a townhouse and which would also be uh denied.
It it would not be denied. What? Pardon? It would not be permissible. It to allow an ADU on a lot where there is a townhouse. Townhouse. Yeah. would be permissible, but if you're within a half mile of a bus stop
or a blue line station, you would not be permitted to have parking. So 0.5 in section 172520 reads, "No ADU shall be allowed within a duplex, townhouse, dwelling, or condominium." So that jives incor that
doesn't jive with what you just told me. [Music] Let's cross that out. Good. I Okay. Yeah. that that was a hold over from the previous ad. So number five and 1725 020
correct. No ADU shall be allowed within a duplex townhouse dwelling or condominium. No matter how many eyes we get on this thing, we always going to find something. So that's a good catch and that's something we would need to um eliminate. Is that correct? You got a strike.
That's correct. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Uh did is there any explanation for this section subsection 4 Tom that you've read from the model ordinance and same section 1725020 section four. Yeah. Subsection four. Yeah. Yeah. So that is the uh actually
even before the model ordinance that was part of the state legislation that defined how when municipalities had to allow by right ADUs. Um this is what's defined as the size limit of a protected use ADU. So um 900 gross square feet of
the principal dwelling or 1/ half of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling whichever is smaller. So municipalities are allowed to go above that. Um but it's no longer a protected use by the state essentially. Okay. And then um commercial use section
subsection 7 not permitted within this new ordinance. What is commercial use? A commercial use would be if the ADU itself would be for strictly commercial purposes. Um, so but that does not
include as a rental second income or does that it does include as a rental second? That that's not the intent. So if we feel as though that needs clarification, happy to do so, but that's not the intent. Could you propose
some language to clarify that? So So I see it as a no. In other words, you can't use an ADU as strictly a rental unit as written here. Yeah, you are per state law allowed to do that. Um, so I think the intent there was more
to speak of. That's one tweak I'd probably like to see. I mean, we could just we could just eliminate it. Okay. So, u we can eliminate section subsection 7 uh in section 172520.
Excuse me. So that uh through you through the chair to councelor Sylvester. So this would allow uh additional So this would allow an ADU to be used for as rental income for the owner. It would allow the change would allow it
would clear it up per what the chair wanted to make sure that we were clearing up. Is that right, Mr. Chair? Well, my point is I didn't want to allow it for a rental. Oh, you do not want to allow for a rental. That was Mike. But the the state ordinance does does allow.
That's one area I could pretty unequivocally say the state ordinance allows you to to use an ADU as a rental. And and that's if the intent here was more of commercial uses, right? So, this isn't going to be a ADU that's a retail
shop or a coffee shop, right? Um Okay. But but the way it's written I think is ambiguous and I think it's already clear enough elsewhere that you can't have commercial uses in an ADU. So I think you could strike this. We we can't keep it if that's the interpretation because
that runs a foul of the new state law. We cannot keep it if the interpretation would be that rental income would be prohibited. Correct. Okay. So then um and I think that's a reasonable interpretation. Okay. So we we'd want to strike that.
Um, okay. I think that's all I have. Any other counselors? I think we have a citizen that would like to uh speak here. Name and address, sir. Anthony Piali, 51 Arcadia Street.
To be clear, one sizefits-all state mandates on municipalities are garbage. But we are where we are. And something came up about parking and I think I'm not sure if I heard it correctly, but I believe they said that you didn't want more curb cuts and we didn't want more
parking lots or parking or driveways. I feel like we should be advocating for that. So, if the homeowner does have the room for a longer driveway, I feel like we should almost say, "Hey, you need to do that." I'd rather have curb cuts up
and down my street to get these cars because everybody's going to have a license. If you I'm sorry. If you have a license and you're renting one of these ADUs, you're going to have a car. I don't care if it's registered to Rever or not, you will have a car. If you have a license, I live in a onebedroom house.
There are four people in my house that have a license. Everybody has a car. If you have a license, you have a car. Otherwise, it's got to be a financial problem or something like that. And I'm sorry that that's the deal. So, I think that we should consider changing that and say, "Hey, if you have the space to
put the cars on your lot, let's do it." Thank you. Unfortunately, you've just run into what a state mandate means. They're telling you you cannot have pocket. Yeah. Well, let's hear from the director. maybe
there's room for this was one of our um attempts at a reasonable regulation because of the concerns about additional cars on the roadway and so forth, but I do take um his point. Um and I think the intent here is not to create additional
curb cuts where they're unwarranted. Okay. But so this we are not mandated to do. You could strike that if you'd like. Okay. So in other words, we're not mandated not to allow cars. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay. Let's strike
that then if that's what it takes. Um section section 9 and 172520. Tom, I have an additional question. Mr. President, if he Mr. Chair, if you would indulge me. No, go right ahead. Uh, how
would this jive with our uh how would this jive with our uh family child care ordinance where folks uh you know run early education and care centers out of their homes if we're not
allowing commercial use in an ADU? So I think that it would still be considered a home occupation um and that would be unchanged. I think the square footage would be the bigger hurdle um for an ADU because there's different square footage um thresholds that must
be met and I think it would be much more difficult in an ADU to make that work. Um so it probably just would be impractical to do that in an ADU as is. Thank you. on that previous request to
strike. Section 172502 subsection 9. No new driveway entrance or exit from a street shall be constructed on a lot with an ADU. Vehicle access shall be limited to the driveway serving the principal dwelling. That's what the committee wants to
strike. Well, if we want to allow parking, we would have to strike that. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that's the language that's being stricken. the citizen and myself agree that you know tell telling people that you can't have parking is crazy off street parking
Mr. Chairman, Councelor Jensen. So, if we were to allow parking, the curb cuts uh mandated by the uh Department of Public Works, so you can't be 20 more than 20 ft wide. You can't park in front of a house.
Those regulations would still stand. Correct. Okay. And and to um citizens point of enlarging a driveway or a parking area, you could still do that. It's just not additional curb cuts, right? So, I know when I was giving out
uh driveway permits as superintendent, sometimes the neighborhood would get upset with a lot of curb cuts because as you give a curb cut, that means there's one less spot to park uh you know on the street. So, it it some people feel one way, some people feel. You are getting a
car off the road, but then somebody can't park there anymore. So, thank and and you've certainly are the expert on curb cuts over your 40 years of uh being okay so C uh councelor Cogland
good evening Anthony Cogland three counselor just a a clarification I guess so the state law says that we can make reasonable change is that correct it's my idea of it yeah my interpretation just the wording if you don't mind sure
so I wrote this I forget it be a question. So, reasonable regulations that serve a legitimate municipal interest but do not result in the complete nullification, excess costs or substantial interference without a
legitimate municipal interest. Thank you. So, my question and I don't think we've done any of that. So, so my question is who determines what's reasonable? We do. We do. Right.
Okay. So, we So, we our we're the ones who decide how we define reasonable as it pertains to this ADU law, the council. Well, if I if I had my brothers, the the ADU law, this is this is important because this is incredibly
vague. It's incredibly vague. And I I would I if we're going to adopt this and I understand it's a state law. I think we need to be very careful about what we do and we need to I want I really want to know what reasonable means because RE as it was just stated it's a state
mandate. It applies to everyone. So River is is different from as I said Ipsswitch or Springfield or whatever it may be whatever city. So if we have the opportunity to make reasonable change, whatever that defines as for Revier, we
should do that to cater to our city. We already have ADU uh an ordinance. Can we just plug and play that in with this? That's my question. Thank you. Uh may I speak on that? You go right ahead. It might be an unpopular opinion.
Um but we we are allowed to impose reasonable regulations but then we set the parameters but then those are at the state level then would be adjudicated in the courts. So we can't
impose restrictions that are too unreasonable that would impose excessive costs that would basically result in a complete nullification or substantial interference with the creation of ADUs. So there are bounds and I understand that's vague. I completely agree. I was
hoping they would be more specific. I think the less reasonable we are, the more likely this will be challenged in the courts and and that will be a municipal liability that we need to deal with. What I can say is the the restrictions that we believe we've
imposed here, we think they're reasonable and and they've passed review from our legal team. But um doesn't mean these are the only suggestions. We would just need to make sure they're serving a legitimate municipal interest and not doing those other things. So, we're taking your word for it that these are
reasonable. I'm just teasing. We all we all agree that they're reasonable and but that doesn't mean the state might see it differently. That's accurate. Absolutely. Okay, great. Thank you.
I think we're about Oh, councelor H. welcome. Thank you. Robert House, 161 Fenley Street. I had a question for Tom regarding the ADUs. I thought the main purpose of an ADU was for an aging
relative or an in-law almost like an in-law apartment. Um, that's what I've read is the major bonus and I know that's been overlooked and um, but I was wondering why we're even talking about putting new driveways in if that's the the main goal of an ADU is for an aging
relative. Thank you. I'm I'm not sure that I'm not sure that that's the way uh the ADU is is actually interpreted as as for an aging relative. I think it's much broader than that. Unless I'm Oh, I know it's not I
know that was one of the the big things that the state it was one of the selling, but I don't know that it was, you know, it was carved out for that. I just don't know why we're talking about new driveways. Well, because people, you know, if you're
going to have other people living in in a dwelling, they're probably going to be driving and and do we want them on the street? And you know, it's easy to say in a in a law that you're not allowed to have any new curb cuts or driveways, but
is it practical? So, um, Mr. Director, you want to answer his question? Was there a carve out for uh is it is it strictly for an aging relative or that is what a lot of people think of when they think of ADUs and that's
certainly how they traditionally have been in River. um and a lot of communities um over decades. I think Newton's had that in their ranks for over 40 years. Um but this definition that the states imposed is not just for relatives. Um it actually mirrors
California done similar legislation. And for what it's worth, even once they opened it up, studies that showed about 61% of um ADUs are for relatives. So the bulk actually end up being for uh a
relative but they aren't exclusively and that's not how it's written. And that is one of those areas that I don't think there's any gray area. If we said it was only for blood relatives or only for owner occupied um principal dwellings that would most certainly run a foul of
the state regulation. Thank you. Council, you got something else? Yeah, sorry to throw you to Tom. Sorry, Tom. What my favorite guy. Uh, okay. So, back to 172520. Uh, no ADU shall be permitted
below the FEMA 100-year base flood elevation established on the FEMA 100-year flood hazard map for the city of River. And 1725040, no more than 25% of a rear yard and sideyard may be occupied by a
detached ADU. So, if someone couldn't build a basement unit per section three of 1725020, they would not be able to use 25% of their rear or sideyard for a
detached unit. Is that correct? I'm not understanding how they're connected. So, if they were in a 100redyear flood hazard map and did not want to build an ADU in their basement because they're in that
map and this prohibits it. Would it also prohibit them from building in their side or backyard? Oh, because they're in a flood plane. Yes. Um, it would depend on a determination of the conservation commission
ultimately. um if if they built it in a certain way, perhaps not. Um it's not a a complete outright prohibition on building. You have to follow the standards of the Welllands Protection Act, but Okay. So, but it would be it
would be much harder to to your point um to do that. So, they'd have to get essentially an appeal from order of conditions from from the Conservation Commission with their building. Yeah. It would be built on stilts or something, right? Okay. Right. Thank
you. Okay. Uh, anybody else? Here we go. Come on. Anthony Pialy Ali, 51 Arcadia Street. Did you guys decide to keep it or strike it? The parking thing that I was talking about, uh, Mr. chairman.
I thought the will of the committee was to strike that, wasn't it? Oh, asked for a roll call on on that. My apologies. Did you say it into the microphone? Did you have your microphone turned on? I didn't hear you because I would have
if I heard roll call I would have done something about that's still the case. So, okay. So, do you need a roll call on that or you are you okay with it? You want a roll call on it? Okay. So, Madame Clerk, you'll have to frame it for me. Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Chairman, council Gino SA, I can't vote on having a driveway made bigger if there are already curve cuts. People have their parking spots that they park
outside their house. If we allow more curb cuts for these ADUs, which are not supposed to have any parking is what we were just told, then we're going to allow more cars out there. And then residents are going to be fighting with each other and and me living in the area
that I live in and and all of W five is the same way. People are always fighting over parking. I can't like I don't feel comfortable allowing even more cars and then taking away the spots that they have in front of their homes to
allow the curb to be cut even long um bigger. So that's why I'm against it and I that's why I'm asking for a roll call. Thank you. Well, so so that was that was councelor Arenzio's point that you take away parking spaces when you do make curb cuts, but uh is there a middle
ground? You know, is the question here. It's because, oh, we're just going to allow or what the state regulation says. If you're within 600 feet of a bus stop or something, you can't you can't have a car or you can't you know, Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Chairman, Council Novaski, you know, I understand what everybody's saying on the curb cuts, but a lot of streets in REA have no parking on one side. So if there's no parking on any particular side that they want in the ADU, there wouldn't be an issue with giving them a
curb cut. So maybe we can put something in here that would give the option from site plan review whether not to allow it on that street or in that lot of land. So I'm just saying what the options are. So So the question is, are we going to
solve this tonight or are we going to put this in committee and try to work this out or uh what is the will of the committee here? Mr. Chairman, Council Jensen, how about an amendment stating that uh no new curb
cuts will occur on parking sides of the street? If it's a no parking side of the street and you can't park your car anyway, then a curb cut could be considered. I think that's reasonable, but we'll have to see. I I
could live with that, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Okay. What's that? There's a great question. What if the pocket commission changes the side of pocket? Then it changes the Okay. So,
it's the same thing. Well, it will Well, it will, you know, well, this is the only reasonable uh compromise here, I think. And let's uh let's put this forward as an amendment and and vote on it as a roll call. How's that?
So, no new driveway entrance or exit from a street shall be constructed on a lot with an ADU except on the no parking side of the street. Correct. So subsection 9 would read as follows.
If this amendment is approved, no new driveway entrance or exit from a street shall be constructed on a lot with an ADU except on the no parking side of the street. Vehicle access shall be limited to the driveway serving the principal dwelling. Mr. Chair,
do you have something? Yeah, I just I I keep thinking about this uh FEMA FEMA thing. So, um can can we make an amendment to 172504? maybe up for discussion, I guess, here for the colleagues that uh in the event that a
unit is within the 100red-year FEMA um FEMA map that a detached unit can occupy maybe 50% of the rear and sideyard as opposed to 25%. Just cuz it feels like this could
prohibit I mean this could be prohibitive for folks who are in a flood plane. um it can't build the basement obviously uh but maybe don't have a large enough
yard, right? Does that make sense? I Yeah, I understand the point. I think that would that could make for a pretty sizable ADU um in taking up a lot of backyard space. But um if it's the will
of the council, I mean I I do think but can we do it to a number that's could we do a a square footage number so that you could still restrain the size of the DADU without tying it to the percentage of the back and sideyard? I suppose that would would be possible.
Um what number would you it I honestly if I gave you a number it might feel somewhat arbitrary but um I think there is a distinction between there are properties in a 100red-year flood plane that are above the base flood elevation. That's not always the case you know
depending on where a property sits. Um so there might be cases where you know you're permitted to have a basement or or even just an attached dwelling right. So, a lot of ADUs are attached dwellings
attached to the home. Um, and then perhaps we don't have this issue that we're we're grappling with. I I'm If I threw out a number, it would be arbitrary and I'm just going to be honest about that. So, I'll leave that to the to the council. I'm not a good judge of those kind of things. So, So,
what is it now? 25 25%. So, maybe we go I' I'd be comfortable going maybe to 35%. I don't know if I want to go to 50%. Mr. Chairman, I'd be okay with that. Mr. Chairman, if I may, just um an inquiry. Council Novaski. Go ahead. On
item on section 4 of uh 02, it says that there's a uh 900 square foot limit. And I don't know why we can't use that if that if that would fit, you know, the requirement or the
issue. That's the limit for the structure itself. But but what the 25% allows for it it it provides more flexibility depending on what kind of backyard you have. Um or less flexibility if you're on a very small lot. I think we could all think of
a situation where you're on a lot that you basically have no backyard, but you still put a detached dwelling on it that takes up that entire backyard. Um and actually it's particularly important in the case of the flood plane, right? because even if they're going to construct in the flood plane, they're going to need to get an order of conditions from the conservation
commission. And part of what they're going to need to show is that they are um by increasing all this impermeable surfaces, they need to have a storm water management plan that effectively manages all that storm water and the potential runoff into the wetlands. So
having more impermeable area um through a larger building might run into conflict with the concom regulations there. be okay with the rest of the committee would be okay with that to allow some flexibility
for those folks who have a big enough yard but a quarter of their yard you know they might need more than so so I'm the chair and I and I offer that as a suggestion but the the committee is going to have to vote on it Mr. Chairman, just a point of inquiry, um,
point of information, but we still have a city ordinance that are required to have a 30% of greenage on the property around if I'm correct. So, I don't want to jump into that where they'd be violating another ordinance because of
this. The total lock coverage, you mean? Yes. So, you would have to get a variance anyway. Is that you can't get a variance? So, okay. So, all right. What's the will of this body? Well, so I mean I motion to change
1725 section number 25. Okay. Is that only for Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Is that only for the houses in the flood plane? Yes, I believe so. Uh, well, initially that's how I had proposed it, but but I guess we could
specify if we wanted to. Well, I'm not in favor of increasing the plan. I could I suggest an alternative perhaps an ADU that does not meet the uh the requirements of
17.25.20 subsection 3. So it's not just flood plane across the board, it's flood plane and they cannot build because their base flood elevation is below. Sure. So changing subsection number
25 and then at the end only for what was that Tom that you said for units that ADUs that cannot comply with 172520 subsection 3. Okay. A subsection
3. Thank you. Okay. So let's do that as an amendment. Okay. And as roll call. Okay. Mr. Let time out. Mr. Chairman, clerk needs some time. Right. And I just have one question. Go ahead. So all our other variants uh excuse me, all our other zoning regulations are still
required. Setbacks, green space. This does not overrule those or anything. And there are no variances allowed. So, if they don't meet if if we're trying to increase the size of a detached unit on a lot, you still need the required
setbacks. You still need the required green space. And there and there's no exception because there's no variance. That's all correct. Okay. Thank you. When the clerk has this put together,
we'll have a vote on this. No more than 35% of the rear rear yard and sideyard may be occupied by a detached ADU except for ADUs lo potentially located within the 100year flood plane.
I think I think the director had a better version of that, but should Yep. Yeah. Go right ahead. I don't know how you do the rest of it. I'll just know how you do this under pressure. [Music]
Okay. I didn't know how to site that properly. This is You can just do 172502 subsection 3. Okay. Just do a parenthesis. There's an A as well, which there probably shouldn't be.
Oh, yeah. You don't need an A there. Yeah, that's what I was. Okay. Okay. Okay. So the amendment to 1725040 detached ADUs subsection 1 is amended by reading
no more than 35% of the rear yard oh I'm sorry no more than 25% of the rear yard and sideyard may be occupied by a by a detached ADU period for ADUs that cannot comply with 170502O subsection
3 no more than 35% of the rear and sideyard may be occupied by a detached ADU on that amendment. Councelor Aenzio, yes. Yes. Councelor Green Slaya, no. No. Councelor Hero, yes. Yes. Councelor
Noasellki, yes. Yes. And Chairman Zambo, yes. Yes. That amendment has been approved. Now, there's still the other amendment regarding the driveways that was not voted on, unless that was Okay. So, so the driveways are are the ones that we're
going to say that on the side of the parking that you can't park on. Correct. I have that amendment written up. Okay. Let's read the amendment and we'll vote on it. And the last amendment that was discussed was for section
172502 subsection 9. No new driveway entrance or exit from a street shall be constructed on a lot with an ADU except on the no parking side of the street. Vehicle access shall be limited to the driveway serving the
principal dwelling. Roll call. Roll call on that amendment. Councelor Arenzio. Yes. Yes. Councelor Gino SA. Yes. Yes. Councelor Harmo. Yes. Yes. Councelor Novaski. Yes. Yes. And Chairman Zambo. Yes. Yes. That amendment
has been approved. Okay. So, I think we're ready to vote on this whole uh ordinance now. This whole package. Sure. Sorry. A point of clarification, Mr. Chair. All the other amendments we discussed were just adopted, right? like striking the
certain sections on subsection five and subsection 7 of 172502 have been stricken. There was no roll call or any further discussion requested on that. Right. Okay. Not needed. Okay. So, we're ready to uh vote the package. Okay.
Shall the zoning subcommittee provide a favorable recommendation to the full city council to adopt the zoning ordinance further amending uh zoning for accessory dwelling units? Uh councelor Arenio, yes. Yes. Councelor Goaya, no. No. Councelor Hermo, yes. Yes. Council
Novaski, yes. Yes. And councelor Zamutoo, yes. Chairman, yes. The or the ordinance as amended has received a favor or recommendation will be forward to the full city council uh for for roll call. No further business. No further business. Thank you all for attending.
[Music]