##VIDEO ID:JYM94VUYYqc## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e testing testing how are you good how are you doing I'm going to announce before we start we're not going past [Laughter] 8:00 I here we have a limit yes well you know the thing is we could we some we can kick around for hours hey uh Craig what are we picking up so my notes say that we left off at number 21 21's like that's a oh yeah really stting on 22 and that's a d and that's a d okay guys the the work session of the Cav city planning board is now in session and in compliance with the open public meetings Act of 1975 adequate n to this meeting has been provided should any member of this board have reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of this act they shall so State at this time hearing none we will uh start with the Pledge of Allegiance one nation under God indivisible Li and justice for all I'm going to get this right this time Karen uh November 12th minutes would you like roll call I'm sorry roll call okay thank you Happy Thanksgiving M Mr bazer yes Mr Jones here Mr rigs here Mr Crowley here Mr Gorgon here mayor mullik here council member Jagger here Mrs Reed here Mr lenol here Mr bedus here Mr krippin here thank you okay then we have the minutes of November 12th any corrections for the minutes motion to adopt I'll make a motion thank you may I'll second Mrs Reed motions council member Jagger seconds uh Mr gorgone Mayor mullik yes council member joerger wait I think I have to abstain okay was I here still make the motion okay Mrs Reed yes Mr Crowley abstain Mr lenol abstain Mr rigs yes Mr Jones yes Mr bazer yes thank you okay tonight's meeting is 're going to continue the discussion on the master plan on the on the land use elements um before we start we got a TV time limit of 8:00 remember that when they had the wrestling yeah years ago TV time Li all right so Craig I'll let you pick up where we left off and okay so I'm continuing on with my review sorry continuing on with my review memo dated uh October 15 2024 hope everyone has that um my notes indicate we stopped at number 20 so I'm going to pick up with number 21 so there was a recommendation to uh reexamine and address the standards for all the commercial districts and that was because there was a lot of uses that just weren't listed um and that's based on the definitions I believe that the recommendations I made earlier with regards to the definitions for the commercial uses addresses that so I think we can move on to number 22 if everyone is okay with that sounds good okay now 22 uh recommends that we comprehensively reexamine and address the standards for the C1 District uh which is essentially the Washington Street Mall primary business district um so availability of off street parking in this area is extremely lacking and the ability to develop new parking is problematic due to land availability availability of Workforce housing has also been slighted as a concern this area is pedestrian friendly and complimentary to Apartments over commercial uses which are perit permitted currently ability to convert unused areas above commercial uses has been curtailed by lack of parking relaxing or eliminating the parking requirement for apartment uses in this District should be investigated so that's the recommendation that's in the master plan reexamination um based on that I made a recommendation that we revise section 52522 c 1A which is essentially how our parking calculations are made and if you skip to page 13 of 16 at the top um we have Apartments over commercial uses and this is an addition so we don't have any standards for that but typically it falls to the residential site Improvement standards um and and I Echo that in my recommendation so I'll just read it into the record Apartments over commercial uses Apartments over commercial uses shall provide parking in accordance with the residential site Improvement standard requirements in the C1 District No off street parking shall be required for apartments over commercial uses so that's the big one this is probably an item of discussion um I'm essentially saying that there should be no parking requirement for a departments over commercial uses in that District um to facilitate uh developing Workforce housing now I don't I haven't I haven't done this in a while but Workforce housing is different than affordable housing um affordable housing is a state defined know COA yeah very COA uh restricted uh you can't really control who's in there or anything like that it's it's often deed restricted it's always deed restricted um Workforce housing is a little different um it's your um your day-to-day workers um your seasonal workers your j6 workers um those type of workers um that could be there it's it's an affordable housing stock that um doesn't meet the affordable housing requirements so how come you weren't specific to the exemption I mean would it would it be a good idea and it's a lot more palatable if the exemption applied only to um apartments above commercial buildings that were for affordable housing or Workforce no Workforce Workforce housing excuse me yeah we don't Define Workforce housing so we would have to come up with a definition of Workforce housing okay okay yeah cuz how would you control it not being that's that's the other issue you're probably going to have a hard time controlling I mean you've got if you've got Workforce housing it doesn't mean that it can't be market rate housing that you know how the that determination also have to remember the C1 Zone encompasses more than just the mall it goes over to Lafayette Street it goes to the Acme it goes down Washington Street past um Victorian Tower so so we not just don't just focus on on the mall Because unless we want to do overlays with the mall in other other areas so there's it's um it's it's not an easy thing to tackle it also assumes that who's ever in the workforce housing doesn't have a car that's probably not that's probably not an unfair characterization oh it unless you restrict those housing units to people who are in the workforce you you don't know who's in that property that that was what I was just saying you you can't it's it's hard to make that distinguishment between that and market rate market rate unless you want to recommend that's restricted to employees of some business in town well I don't know how you're going to do that the not Sugg the other thing too is that you know we need we need um we need housing for young families we need we need affordable housing and not not not COA type thing but somehow I don't know how you I don't know how you middle income housing Young Middle income how how do you legislate that you just relax some of the standards I'm not even sure you can relax the standards enough I don't think you want to legislate it I think you want to believe that this type of housing that we're providing is the type that are going to be used by people that don't necessarily have an automobile don't are more pedestrian friend that they're they're utilizing pedestrian friendly Transportation as opposed to obviously they're not going to to be able to park in that C1 dis business district the parking the parking is just not there um un unless unless we start talking about a parking garage it gives us some more and there's only one well there two logical spaces for that next to cers and the lot down at the end of banks Bank Street well it's a big it's it's it's all intertwined and it's not it's not it's not an easy Sol and the other part of the master plan does recommend uh at least a discussion of a parking garage yes it does it has for years I know people are uh they don't want to see a big Park and garage but if I may just add that I came from uh up north Jersey a town called raway where the main hub for the transit uh trains into New York City stopped and um they have a parking garage there you right byy it you don't even know it's a parking garage same thing down the same thing down in Charlotte and uh Savannah there one in the middle of town Savannah St Augustine St Augustine Annapolis yeah they could be Westchester very prinston just GNA name Co Coral G now looks like ret but that's that's really a council decision to do a parking garage we should be we can recommend it but they've got to make the call they got to pay for it and you know there's a lot of things you can do with parking garage you can condo them M sell spaces to the businesses or or or to uh um houses in the area they don't have don't have parking so there's there's Market forces that can could come into play would that might work out but the cities the cities want to controls the majority of that of that space Mr chairman just a a quick question the apartments that are above them all that exist today are they um illegal are they were they each individually granted something most of the apartments are legal but you've got a lot of space above some of the stores that are not Apartments okay that could be turned into a that was my that was that was my question when you say above the first floor you could have two and three floors of this most of them are three well two above yeah two above it but and a lot of them all only has two two stories to begin with MH so we're talking about encouraging three-story buildings of course then you got then you got fire escapes and there's other there's other um elements that have to be brought into play but it just makes sense it's right in the middle of town that's where all that's where all the stores are that's where the employees need to be I don't hear much discussion against this no amongst this board right now I I would just like to add um if if um personally and I don't know if this is lawyering or just being a member of the town uh if if you allow there to be created a two or three-bedroom apartment uh anywhere near the mall I don't think it's going to be used for Workforce housing I think it's going to be an Airbnb I mean I I just I just don't think people are going to take two and three bedroom apartments that they can get you know $600 a night for and and use it for employees I also don't think that you should be um providing for Workforce housing without defining the term and setting up a permitting system for it I mean I have the alcot down the street from me which is allegedly Workforce housing and you know it's an economic downturn away from being a boarding house so I don't really I don't understand how that works I I don't know if that's a hotel or or what exactly that is uh it's fine now I mean you know Mr basaw runs a nice operation his employees are mostly neat and polite over there but it's not you don't you can't legislate based on personalities or how that one person operates so I don't know what Workforce housing means from a zoning perspective well it it it's it's something that obviously everybody seems to be in favor of the concept but the the devil's in the details and maybe maybe we could have a couple people would would like to volunteer to work on the side and put put up some uh put some ideas forward Mr chairman just um just to fully understand the existing I'm not naming any existing okay um the ones that are ex when I read this um is that meaning that the ones that exist provide parking it means generally they've all gotten variances they've they've corre gone through the variance process nobody nobody or their grandfathers one of the two okay okay I'm I'm I'm the reason I'm asking that obviously is to see how it exists today because we know there's apartmentss there I assume that they're all you know well I the over have been there forever right and as an example if I'll name names if you think that it would turn like Airbnb disaster there what would be if say we allowed this and then we started to realize that there were a lot of airbnbs what could we do then can let us like that can't you tie couldn't you couldn't you have a um a SCH a a legislative scheme where in order to get your um what's that called your your permit your mercanti license to operate that commercial rental or commercial operation for Workforce housing you have to demonstrate the person is an employee you have to provide it so then I don't then I don't see that being a real problem we can do that no that's what I'm saying I'm saying I wouldn't I wouldn't zone for Workforce housing until you have that system in place so that you really are going to make sure that it's for Workforce housing because when you do these kinds of things in one commercial environment or one economic environment you don't you have to think 20 30 years ahead and things right now seem that way but I mean things go up and down and I just I just I'm worried that you're going to create a bunch of boarding houses and have no control over who's in there and no definition of what Workforce housing means so if you're really going to do it I would create a scheme where it's tied to a mertile license there's a verification the person certifies they don't have a vehicle and then they can have an apartment that is Workforce housing is that is that a council level requirement or is something we can do I don't think it's something that you can do I think you have to do it you have to do it together you know I mean I think that that would be a conservative effort to Define Workforce housing and have a system in place and then once you have that then you can really take advantage of it you could have whole buildings that are Workforce housing buildings and they go through that system and Mr chairman I just again back to how it exists there are currently buildings that are three-story buildings that are only used on the first floor and then the second and third are basically storage or whatever I mean that's I mean I mean but with with the with the the obvious one is the old berries close building right which which is which is a big building I don't if everybody knows where that is but that's on the corner of Jackson and and uh Washington MH and it's got three Flor it's a big just got the two stores on the first floor and there was three floors above it they used to have a tailor up there years ago um it it does seem like a waste of space when you are not using the second and third floor on is there any sense on how many um apartments that are used as Apartments as opposed to storage there and and when someone has the business and owns owns that building a whatever excuse me isn't it licensed or um you know they have a permitted use they may not be using the second floor in accordance with the permanent use though but but what's the count that we're talking about by the way I'm in favor of doing away with the parking criteria there but um is any any sense of the numbers here would you have to assume the worst case scenario because anyone even if they had commercial on the first and second floor they could do away with the second floor yeah I mean the definition is Apartments over commercial uses so there just has to be commercial use on the bottom floor and then everything above can be commercial I mean can be Apartments yeah sorry I said that wrong and you're asking for qualification of how many there are now yeah can I remind you of the Bogle Brothers application where they must have gotten a variance for parking to construct a more than one story building on the mall and then they came back to get um approval for apartments because the board had only allowed them to use it for storage and then the board required it to be not a manager working year round it had to be a J1 or a summer employee I don't know how code enforcement would handle that but that is what the board did I don't know if you made a d restriction or not no you guys remember that wasn't deed restrict I mean when the bogles built that property was the parking lot for the bank on the corner those two those two stores so the the Assumption underlying all this is that the reason these apartments aren't already developed the reason these spaces aren't already developed as Apartments is because they think they can't comply with parking that's Ian I can't imagine that's the case if someone thought that they could have livable space above those units I've never seen the board turn down a parking variant for space above a place on the mall I mean I so is that the presumption that if not for this parking restriction all of these things up there would be developed it's possible it's possible well some of these bigger older buildings to convert that second and third and fourth floor living is probably a major renovation to meet code it and it might and then you g to tell them you have to make it work force affordable housing they're going to say it's not worth it that was my question right I'll let you come up with a way of incentivizing I mean you still got to renovate the building it's got to be egresses and you know there's not a big stairwell in the middle of Barry clothes for egress and fire escapes there was denied yeah that well no they were adding 10 rooms upstairs and had nowhere to drop people off for a hotel that's different than a place on the mall and that was a totally different scenario that's not same district though it's a C1 but they don't have any dead space unused up there do they no do they have oh they got three floors of on it that's nothing restaurant restaurant on the second floor yeah I was going to say bar on the second floor two floors above that two floors above that what I'm saying that's that could be an illustration of what that's not in the C1 Zone though I think that's C2 C1 C2 that's C2 there but we made the same recommendation for the C2 but that's another discussion that area is a little different than the mall the primary business I mean I don't know that that we we don't kind of take a leap of faith and then as things occur we we make adjustments along the way um once thees yeah I I'd like to go back to Richard's point and and and if we don't lay the groundwork for what this thing is before we start changing our codes to accommodate it we're going to be in for a problem I think you need we need to Define in code what Workforce housing is and then change our code to accommodate that I just want to clarify my my comments weren't so much at the mall and there's only so much that can happen there there only so many possibilties I'm talking just in general Workforce housing and Trina there's three recommendations for Workforce is fine I don't one is in the C1 one is in the C2 and the other one's more Global for the rest of the city so like this is a a focal topic um that needs to be addressed so we certainly need to address Workforce housing and and Define it there has to be a definition of Workforce housing that other municipalities are using right just we may not but other yeah I I'll I'll research it and try and find one um but well but like rich said that if it's if if this is done in conjunction with with Council making some Provisions that there's got to be proof that that that who's going to be there that that that's the way that's sort of the way to control it I mean I mean you could you could you could make it like a dormatory where you got four rooms and they all shareed kitchen just as an example I we want to do that but that's one way of saying well it's you're not going to get you know you know just more General than what we're talking about but just maybe a bit obvious but even since the last master plan development I think at least I felt like look Workforce housing is not such a big problem in Kate may you can go over the bridge and within 10 minutes you're in North Kate May you're in portions of lower Township that there is affordable housing yeah you're going to have to drive in and drive D out not anymore that as we all know that's so changed even in the last 3 to four years where affordable Workforce housing I I think really does become a Cape May problem because we don't have 10 minutes over the bridge anymore it's a county problem it's a county problem so but I mean I I'm for this board I'm saying you can no longer say you have that affordable family housing 10 minutes away is that really a big deal go over the bridge and you know you're in and out of town pretty quick now it's we don't have that luxury yet so I do think you have to look at what you can do creatively to I look we're going to have problems getting lifeguards and and police officers and firefighters I mean you know there there is in the business Community it makes sense for the business Community to rent places make sure that they can keep their employees yeah employee doesn't work for them they're not they're not going to that was that was what I was thinking with with with Rick's comment which makes all the sense in the world does someone actually want to invest that kind of money the answer may be if they want to stay in business and have employees and I think there also should be a conversation between the council and maybe this board with the business community and the people who employ these folks what are their needs are they assessing their needs properly do do do we know exactly how much impact Workforce housing could have on Kate May and and the folks who need to sit around a table are the businesses who employ these people before we go any further it has to be a comprehensive look at this thing from a council level just so clear though I I I I'm not I wasn't so much talking about the mall I don't mean to put the kaios on the mall thing I no I mean I do think there'll be some of the maybe airbnbs I mean look at the Peter Shields thing upstairs is a high-end Hotel AB above the storefront I mean that's they didn't make that work for his housing there that's you rent like a room for the Peter Shields above the uh whatever that thing's called diagonal from Finn and that became a hotel above it so um but that's not there's there's an apartment up there no that's you rent that through Peter Shields you do but it's not it's not it's not Workforce housing it's not no it's not work forceing no it is not so so that's what I'm saying I just I'm just not sure that the nice upper end of these buildings are going to be work for his housing but I also don't think parking requiring parking in the malls is is silly I mean it's just there's no there's nowhere to park there even if you require you where it's an impossibility it's like the same thing on the boardwalk so I wasn't talking about that I'm talking about in the more general part of that Craig's report work force housing can I comment about parking excuse me I guess not right no you don't every time U the only not the only problem but the biggest problem with Kate May is parking it's it's uh we have codes that require parking from every resident every business uh this proposal strikes me as the first step in a surrender to the the ins solvability of that parking problem if you do it for one sector of of your residential housing stock or commercial stock you're going to do it for another there going to be no justification for not doing it and sooner or later you're going to just dismantle all of our parking requirements which is a shame because there are opportunities for the city one of them is the uh the parking trust fund to to to create a a a revenue stream that would solve the problem of parking or at least mitigate the problem of parking I think taking a step like this sends a signal that we're not going to be ever really seriously talking about parking well that's I get that except that unless you're going to do in a parking garage you're not going to mitigate the parking issue by by charging people money and putting in a fund with no sense of purpose of where you're going to use that money is a money grab it's I absolutely agree with you I I absolutely agree with you well parking garage is one good solution to it another one is a a more comprehensive shuttle system U that needs to be worked out the point is if you start saying well this sector of our stock doesn't have to have parking requirements then the next sector is going to come to you and say well why not us too and you're going to basically begin pulling threads out of the thing that that could be the solution to the cap ma problem and you're basically saying we can't solve it we don't even want to try so let's let's pull apart our parking requirements some spots just are not I don't practical it just can't happen yeah and and see and the point is you either have to provide an off street parking space or you have to provide the city with the resources to get that car someplace that you can't get it that's the responsibility of the property owner H the hook for this town is the mall H the hook for this town is is one of the hooks is the mall and if you can't satisfy those people on the mall that that I just think we ought to try this thing in baby steps if it doesn't work we try something different yeah yeah but but I don't think it's because of this you're going to it's going to expand elsewhere I don't think that at all well I the we have restaurants on the on the beach right now who were supposed to have 40 parking spaces they have none and it it it's not just the mall that causes this problem it's going to be everywhere and it is everywhere and existing buildings they weren't they weren't built recently with no parking they've been there forever I I can't I can't think of a a restaurant on the beach front that's been built that was allowed not to have any parking oh Primal Primal it's not practical though you where you you can't there's nowhere to park Primal at this let me say it again I'm not sayal reded reduced an amusement an amusement use that I think generated as much or more parking in that space space than Primal did so it was a net it was a net zero kind of thing yeah and but let me say it again space it was it was part of the arcade I'm not necessarily arguing for Onsite or off street parking as because our code requires it what I'm saying is that the that the individual property owner who creates the need for parking that he cannot meet either on off site or in some other way needs to be held accountable for the impact that that decision has on the city's parking problem Dennis there are people who have received variances and they paid for the fees and everything to get VAR that's fine that's fine so you you can't go back to them and say by the way if you're not complying we're going to start charging your money that's that's not that's not right that's a possibility it's not that's but not my life it's not that's that's that's it's a possib I bring it up as a what about the houses what about all the single houses that that that that don't have parking that pre-exist when the horses were here and what about all what about the what about the sleeps 26 houses built in poverty Beach that impact by bringing 10 and 12 cars to the property they they meet the parking requirement they don't they don't no they don't meet they do meet the ordinance requirement it doesn't mean that they don't have more cars than they're supposed to but everybody in town you when you have guests at your house street parking when you have guest in your house are you exceeding your parking no I have parking thank you but you have but but if you have if you have have more than if you have more than the three spaces behind your house or whatever is four spaces as a matter of fact I do but you can send an inspector out to make sure you what I'm saying what I'm saying is if if if anybody who has guests you're going to start charging them because they have people in for for the night that they that are parking in the see see what you're doing is you're you're you're gain saying what I'm trying to say and and in the process you are basically shutting H gain saying yeah that means means contradicting yes what in in the process you're saying you're suggesting that we really don't need to really put our minds together on the parking problem no I'm saying we don't need to penalize people financially because they don't have parking which is what you're you're you're trying to capitalize on the I'm not trying to I'm not I'm trying to open a dialogue on what we can do to solve our parking problems that's what I'm doing Mr chairman you originally recommended maybe putting together a task force or whatever to in regards to affordable housing right um I think that makes sense I mean maybe have a small group present some thoughts to the board or I don't I don't know what you think Mr King uh I think for the mall I think you guys should decide that okay for the mall um but for in general uh in terms of like your Workforce housing plan and how you're going to implement it that's something that you should have some people from the committee and some people from this board kind of get together and think about it but for the mall stuff that I think is the first element I think you guys can decide that and me come up with a well keep in mind the C1 C1 district is more than the mall I understand but so but you can do you can do an overlay of just the mall properties that would be Exempted from the parking requirements if that's I'd like to get tell me thought there was an overlay of the mall I didn't know not's not I thought the mall was that there was some separate part I'd like to give Craig a shot at just finding the definitions for Workforce I'm not so sure that it's it's I don't think it's something that we need everybody's got to put their head together cuz there's got to be other towns that have already done this for us and we can just take the best moment we think is right Mr chairman I I believe that we should table this issue until we get a true definition of what we're looking for Workforce health for Workforce do you have to use the term Workforce because if you think about who's going to be staying there they're either staying there for a season or they're staying there well that's why we need the definition but then you don't have to call it Workforce okay I mean we're going to keep going around and around until we actually have a definition of what it is I have another comment though you know I I I live in the city as many of you know and what our mayor stated is so true and what I see happening is that our Workforce is parking a half a mile a mile away and then getting scooters out of their cars and using scooters to get to work work or they're getting bicycles out of their car and using bicycles for that last half mile or one mile uh in order to get to work the space above the commercial businesses in the mall should be utilized whether they want to put the money into it or not it's up to them uh but it should be utilized with a special maril license I believe that the landlord and the business owner would work together to ensure that it is a working force employee that is using the premises and renting the premises and then they would also have to sign some type document or whatever if they have a car if they don't have a car and possibly a special permit put on that car where they can park it that's just something I'm throwing out there but that space above them all should be utilized and it should be up to the individual owners of those property to decide whether they want to utilize it or not I think I think there's Universal agreement on the on the mall situation and and in order to u to facilitate that I think there needs to be an overlay just for the mall and then there needs to be some language saying that the the use of the second and third floors for residential uses does not require parking we're not without defining Workforce housing or or or ever being I mean it's at least get a start and and I I I mean sometimes Market forces take care care of themselves if you don't have any employees you're not you're not make you're not making any money you you're shutting down we are repacing ourselves out of here yes and and possibly the way that um I think that the mayor stated was to get maybe some sort of a a system where the um shop owners have some have an affidavit they have something stating these people living here are my employees that that can we're slowly we're slowly pricing ourselves out of a Workforce hearing K may we already have and yeah K May County in many ways we have we really need to address it and maybe this is the starting point why don't you give Craig and I a chance to do a definition and part of that definition will also include qualifications so to speak and we'll have that for the next event why don't I if you don't mind can I throw it out to the municipal Managers Association let me see if I can get something together before we start you know round and around with the professional so I can get something together through my group and then I'll I'll bring it back to the the board sounds good what what are you going to bring back though I'll bring back a couple definitions I'm sure like you said other towns I'm sure have put together a comprehensive definition for Workforce housing I'll put together a couple definitions that other towns have used and I'll bring it back to the board for a consideration if you can not just look at the definition though look into the enforcement scheme you know what I'm saying how they verify that how they report it that would be really cool yeah or the incentives that they put in place I mean I you know the city the city could benefit from this um we've got problems with City employment because of housing you know what kind of incentive can we put in place there but anyhow I think housing is by the way is number two on the list behind parking it's it's serious problem all right so we're leaving it that um Rich you and you and Craig gonna I'll I'll I'll take a stab at it first if I can't come up with anything I'll work with the professionals to get something together to come back a good that's a good plan okay we weren't going to solve this in one night no it's a complex issue I mean it it and it runs through the the rest of the the recommendations too so the the next one is uh item number 23 on page 13 um the same recommendation was made for the C2 District which is essentially the commercial District that's Bound by Beach Avenue Grant and Howard um and that that's the primary area and that was there was a recommendation for um the apartments over commercial uses um there too so it's a little different area um it's not the mall I had a question about that sure uh uh why just C2 why not also C3 the C so this is the master plan recommendation so those discussions were held during the drafting of that so the C1 was recommended the C2 was recommended separately um you know I I in the hierarchy of things I think the C1 is a much easier lift than the C2 C2 is a little different area um but the rationale is so you know we can look at that but I think the definition of Workforce housing is going to be a big driver on what areas we want to see that right now once again the theme I'm going to move the 24 Workforce housing there was a large recommendation um in there um that was more globally encompassing Kate may as a whole um and there were some unanswered questions in there so it was more of a recommendation to where where can we put this Workforce housing where can we allow this to be um a permitted use so which zones or areas um what type of housing you know are they multif family you know what are they just apartment units um conversions you know what are the economics of this um that was all in there that needed further study so I think as we start going through this we're going to come up with some of the answers or not answers and saying that or maybe we don't find as palatable I don't know um I don't vote but I'm here to help you guys um but that was so there those the three three recommendations in a row all deal with Workforce housing one in the C1 one in the C2 and then more entire K May where can we facilitate this type of of use to address the problem that we see and we've already we've been talking about the problem we recognize that there's a problem so um I think it might be just a little bit premature to dive into that and whether we want to set up a you know a subcommittee or something like that to start discussing that as we get into this um I think as as we address items number 22 and 23 I think we start setting the stage for a dealing dealing with it number 24 well they're all tied together exactly so that's that's something that the the trium V try and you guys will fig figure out all three of those all three of those items well figure R out's probably not the right word all right we'll move just move forward past okay so number 26 was a recommendation to update our off street parking standard um quite frankly we don't have all of the permitted uses are not in there um so that's the first thing um the other the other issue that is brought up during a lot of uh parking variances is that the standard the planning and Engineering standards for parking already have the employees wrapped up into those numbers um but Kate May the way it's written is that we do our standard for the commercial use and then we count the employees after separately um most of the modern-day standards for plan for um for parking um APA or you know the um it those standards all wrap the employees and customers into one big ball so it's well you know what what happens is we end up relying on the applicant saying how many employees are going to and we generally know half the time no we get an arguments so it it might make sense to think about doing a a one not a one size fits all but combine them together based on whatever these other yeah so I'm I'm pulling together those those planning documents and to try and to try and give some suggestions as how do we we should modify that but um I don't have that completed yet can you make um some type of payroll sumission a checklist item when someone comes in here and says yeah I have a hotel and I'm adding you know 10 rooms I would say and that's going to be one more employees how many employees they have and they say seven I mean can you have a checklist item that says they have to provide a payroll list we could because I just had this argument with my mother of all things because she lives in Ocean City and they're doing the hotel in Ocean City and I'm like you know they really not many employees at these hotels they come they tell us they have the biggest ship has like seven employees and my mother's yelling at me that can't possibly that's not possible and she works at the Flanders and they have this many employees and she does the paral for the Flanders so she get some idea how many employees they really have and I was like well I guess we might not be getting accurate stuff um so it would seem that that data is out there I can't they provide well the thing maybe maybe what Craig's suggestion is is that there's a there's a there's already a proven formula it's based on size and anticipated always that drops them all into modern data today does a because they're doing parking counts at if you're if you're looking at a hotel they're doing parking counts at a hotel they're not Discerning who is the employee and who's they're just how many people are coming in and out of that lot at peak times and that's how they're deriving the the parking calculation as long as those formulas include restaurants as part of the hotel and bars as part of the hotel because I I never understand that's understand it but you know the parking Dynamics at the Montreal in you picking I'm not picking on them they're perfectly fine I'm just saying there there places have a liquor store a restaurant a bar and 50 hotel rooms and then we're trying to yeah what rich is touching upon is that all these applications that we're hearing where they're trying to justify these parking variances we're hearing this this overlap or or you know they're saying oh well you know those guys are biking in or they're not really driving in and they're not so we're hearing these arguments um and it gets very in a gray area um and I think the board members have a hard time waiting through that let me ask you a question about that it's it's pretty straightforward what we currently require isn't it I'm sorry it's pretty straightforward what we require so a retail store one parking space for every 2ou 200 square feet one employee on the uh uh one largest shift largest shift largest shift depends on what depends like the mall ex excuse so there's different there's different standards for different zones so some for hotels one says in on the largest shift and one and other one say all the number of employees so there's different counts depending on what zone and what use you are but our Cod and our ordance doesn't take into account the fact that people staying in a motel are going to be going to the restaurant are going to the bar correct so so there so yeah there's there's logical that's the shared par that's that's an almost unprovable assumption that that's what Rich Craig is saying there are there are proven formulas out there that other municipalities use based on they're estimations they're not estimations I think that's I was questioning if those things really I I don't know they work I mean estimation that's a step backward in specificity because we know now that there's a one one parking space for every four seats in a restaurant well maybe it becomes one space every three seats and then we we don't have the uh employee count well it seems to me like you're making it less definitive rather than more definitive you're basing your definitive on the number of employees which is always subjective when it gets in front of the board they just give us a number and we don't really have an expert that says I'm not an expert at how many employees are necessary for a 240 seat bar so we rely on the applicant for that but the other thing too on parking what we don't consider in our current regulations is um how many people are standing around a bar at on On Any Given Sunday afternoon matina in a restaurant which which is U has X number of seats required by our ordinance but there's no part of our ordinance that says how many parking spaces are generated by the extra 200 people standing around your bar when your band's playing what about what about the time when the tables aren't all all occupied the reverse is true also you don't always have to have those spaces all the time but you begin with the basis of what you're required to have even if you're empty even if you're empty but you're but you're saying you're going to take into account the fact that people are standing around and now you're going to take now you're going to provide parking for them well there's other sections of the of the statute and the ordinance that that require uh occupancy uh minimum occupancies for by square foot couldn't that be the basis for parking requirements then then take away the seats no in addition to the seats because you can't do both Maybe oh my god well you can do both you can do both if you have a big enough space in your restaurant to have tables and standing room I mean it's just the reality of everything else that happens in the code in terms of square footage there and there are other sections of the statutes that do require uh minimum occupancy by square footage we can roll that into a parking it's ma it's maximum by square footage H maximum by square footage not minimum yeah maximum yeah in my almost 10 years here now on these two boards and wesy may but it's not the same um I don't think making the parking restrictions harder is a useful exercise because nobody can meet them anyway there just isn't the space everything's built like it's you can make you can make the parking impossible if you want to you can require them to have 5,000 parking spaces so you're AR they don't have the 150 that they need anyway I mean I think a better way is to try to make it more efficient uh to understand prove their prove how how you're arguing down the same road I thought we were all going a minute ago the first step toward eliminating parking requirements is to wave them for housing above stores on the mall and and if if it's so impossible to meet them let's consider dropping them all together that's where you're going thing is every well why bother if you can't meet them I probably seen 20 or 30 different Hotel applications since we've been here and not one of them had um more parking than they needed so your parking regulations are certainly hard enough well I think the perer house so you're arguing for eliminating them then the perer house claim they did not making it tougher not Mak people that might be standing around you could you could add all those people in and then you know the the the uh pick a hotel needs 400 more parking spaces well that's fantastic that they don't have the amount required under the current ORD the r the one they yeah exist with 130 spaces and they require 275 in our formula ones that come in so you can make it number 450 it would help you define the parking problem though wouldn't it no not really why not you want to quantify how many SP short seats good Lu with that Dennis we're way short well that's why the city doesn't want to do that kind of study because it's impossible to actually calculate the number of spaces I don't think as a taxpayer I don't want to fund something like that to it's a waste of money yeah there's no there's there's not enough land in the city to fix it all right so basically this discussion is going in the in the direction of of eliminating parking requirements no but around the mall we're talking about so far we're focusing on the mall well what about no you you've tried to expand it we're saying let's not expand it we'll just keep it at the mall right now you're trying to expand restaurants people are standing we hav't the Journey of a Thousand Miles begins with the first well you can you can fly philos ofies all you want but we're still just talking about the all the the relaxation of parking in the C1 district is proposed to address a greater problem that we see in my opinion you're dealing with trying to promote Workforce house in an area that has zero parking in it that has available space above storefronts that could be utilized for the type of Workforce housing that we're looking for but only if you hog tie it to Workforce housing only right and I think we I think we've evolved the discussion here tonight that that is the important that's going to have to be about an ordinance I I just want to say and I don't get mad at me um taking this parking another step as a board many times we have people come before us not with commercial but with housing and we bend the rules and where they really should be having four parking spaces they are asking only for two and we allow it I think as a board we have to rethink that and stop saturating the parking problem more I don't I don't recall us I mean I'm not trying to be contrarian but I've sat through because I'm one of the zoning boards so that's where that comes up even more so than here I don't really remember us granting a variance for inadequate number of parking spaces never a new construction on a house um it's it's rare if you see us Grant a variance for parking it's there's been no change in the house so that they had two before they have two now and they need some small variant for for something I've seen no profit but the concept that we are that the zoning board or this board is granting variances for new construction houses or expansion of houses and giving parking variances that's not what I've seen I've seen many more times where they're adding parking to the application where they come in they had two existing and now they're going to have four the end of this application that's been my experience and we have reports at the end of the year on what variances are granted and I had this we actually looked into this was it last year somebody um someone who runs for the board called me and asked me this question and I went through the mall and we hadn't granted a parking variance for a house and the reason why is that the residential site Improvement standards are what super they supersede our ordinance so we just adopted them because they they govern they're probably not reflective of when you get someone renting out a house and how many vehicles are coming to that to that rental you know if it's a normal residence you probably don't have a problem you know they're probably very reflective of how many vehicles per bedroom are required but those rentals are where we hear all the complaints true um and but there but there's nothing we can do because the but I do recall sitting on this board and having giving people the car uh a variance for for inadequate parking or new residential construction well there hasn't been a lot of new construction people coming and doing renovations and we ask about the bedrooms and their short maybe a parking space and we still have passed it I'd have to go back in my packet some be interested in seeing that I I don't I don't recall that but there may but just moving forward we should keep that in mind in K may as it is in some other places is garages the the fallacy that A gage counts as a parking space because everybody builds a garage and they never put a car in it that that to me Ocean City is rampant with that but here there's some of that and we're getting a little more of it now that they're raising houses and trying to put garages under and they don't really Park cars there but it counts these parking space and then the residential site improvements residential site Improvement standards require that you count it yes that's so we can't we can't discount those are we allowed to make it more restrictive than RS that are we allowed to make it more that that's the problem is that we we're stuck where are we here okay but before we before we we're waiting for you to tell we we just talked about Craig right here okay we talked about Mr chairman if you don't mind I actually I do have a definition already for us to consider on Workforce housing if we want to go back to that real quick I can read it and we can chew on that uh so the state did put out a definition a couple years ago through legislation and what they came up with was Workforce housing means housing affordable to according to Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development or other recognized standards for home ownership and rental costs and occupied by or reserved for occupancy by a household with a gross household income equal to more than 80% but less than 120% of the median gross household income for households of the same size within the housing region in which the housing is located and that may be reserved for occupancy by a household with at least one member working or living in the municipality upon submitt of the application for Workforce housing housing yeah I was looking at that too that's really not what you guys have in mind I don't think but you're trying to find something that they don't call Affordable housing that's Working Families you're looking more like for season employee housing kind of thing not tied to income but tied to the definition should be more related to your ties to employment within the city of K May um okay well yeah okay yeah I I saw the same thing because there's actually legislation just passed about certain benefits you can get and Loans you can get through Workforce for Workforce housing right that's that's more affordable housing yeah okay working family housing figured I would give it a stab since we were all here yeah no I was cheating too I was flicking through this okay we're number 24 okay 27 aren't we yeah we just I just touched upon pass that number 26 and we just had a little discussion with regards to that so we'll evolve that um concept item number 27 is the parking trust account um and there was a recommendation um a parking trust account the current parking trust trust zoning regulations are as follows and that's all um in the italic on page 15 um the recommendation is contribu to the parking trust account have been infrequent over the past 10 years due to the fact that the contribution may only be collected for the conversion of existing buildings and that may be a deterrent and not an incentive to development revising this section to allow for a more liberal application and allowance of the contribution in lie of variances has been discussed in the past to potentially generate funds to Target improvements to the city's parking infrastructure is now recommended that the above provision for the parking trust fund be eliminated so we discussed this back when we were doing the re-exam and the consensus was is that we eliminate the parking trust fund because it really isn't used being used at all I can tell you that the Genesis of that trust fund was back in the 80s when lot of a lot of larger houses were being converted to b&bs and the b&bs did not have any parking so you couldn't buy a way to it you couldn't say I'll just put I'll just give money to the city and automatically I'll get six rental rooms it was it was something that kicked in once they got permission once they got the Varian variances and so that was pretty much it and um I don't know how much is in that fund now Mike do you remember how much was that no not much no you you know how much is in the fund I don't but I can report back for the the next meeting probably a couple hundred, think it's yeah probably less than that it also it also is the repository for the parking assessment uh meraner license parking assessment it's also used to that's not how it's defined and I understand that but that's what the city's using it for right now feil so that the amount of of funds in it is going to be generated both by the original assessments which are no longer viable and the annual parking assessment col collected from merant licenses so where does a where's the parking assessment come from it's a it's been the ordinances it's attached to every meraner license to assist the city $25 to uh assist the city in parking solution every mer license pays $25 and that's that's all deposited in this that's put in that account EX well um back back to this section here uh it has this this this park and trust fund has not been utilized U Mr chairman can I just jump in on just to quick I think we did use some of these funds for example on the um on the parking lot at the bus at the Welcome Center the bus depot right um we could use these funds um at the uh Lafayette Street Park surface parking lot that we in fact um some good news was we finally got um the how I forgot how many uh how many letters are in the acronym for the ppcd letter or whatever from J from jcpnl um but bottom line is um we can now proceed with the land um taking the land over from jcpnl for Lafayette Street Park we just got that letter last week they also cut us a check for $270,000 for the park sorry not to get off on that bottom line is we we will be building a parking lot to some degree on that property um frankly we would use some of these funds if we had to If We R ran out of it so I just say that we probably haven't used it in a while but we did use it on um The Welcome Center we would use it at welcome at the Lafayette Street Park and perhaps in the future I'm I'm not trying to sway people one way or the other I just think we haven't been doing a lot of parking projects in a long time and if I could just piggy back off that mayor I would recommend against eliminating the parking trust fund at this time just based off of you know we don't really know how the city is going to completely evolve over the next couple years and maybe there is a need and and we do need to tap into that to resurface a parking lot or build one or do something that we you know normally wouldn't have the funds to devote towards that so I would recommend not eliminating it at this time Mr so this is this is for this is for conversions of existing buildings correct solely that's that's why it's not being used really that's right I don't I don't recall an application using it I remember mono Tim once sort of talked about it and then I don't think they did it I don't I haven't seen one now it was a one time deer like Bill said most of these conversions happened early on the money was put in the fund it's been sitting there the only time it's been added to is when the city used it to save the uh parking uh assessment but it it hasn't been used that's not the reason to eliminate it the the discussion that was taking place in the master plan in 2019 seemed to indicate that it still had a viability if you changed its mission right if you broadened its catchment the use so start so let's the problem with the use is is um under 52549 e number one contributions to the city parking trust account shall be permitted only for the conversion of buildings in existence as of the effective date of the establishment of the city parking trust account in the event that an application for development constitutes an addition to an existing building or the construction of a new building the parking requirements of subsection C must be met and no contribution to the city parking trust account will be permitted yeah so the so most most applications that we're seeing it's not permitted correct contribution andly convert what to what it was the whole reason was for the convert to protect the bnbs correct to allow the conversions for for bnbs that that was the intent of what to what single family to from single families to be and bees that's why we haven't seen right exactly so that's not happening anymore so if if you want I don't like and I think this discuss discussion was had um you know during the re-exam process but you know part of the discussion was do we want to broaden this to allow more contributions right remove the remove the impediment that makes it useless exactly so and so that that's why I brought it up is like this is not being utilized at all I I think just personally I agree with you but the recommendation should not be to get rid of it the recommendation consensus at that time was to get rid of it I mean I don't I don't write what you I I get you relax I understand that but let's consider a recommendation to remove that impediment which you mentioned there limiting it so much that it's useless and broaden its use and start using it that that to me sounds like a more constructive recommendation that will let people do the thing that you're worried about which is they will be able to do development without heavy parking they will just dump some money in this thing and which which is just as good as consistently granting waiver uh getting variances for no parking spaces at least we're getting some Revenue to help the city the opportunity to say no this you can't say no to so if they if they if they want to do it and they have the money they can just not apply well the way this is written is it says you have to get the variance and then you're allowed to contribute well then you have to it supposedly puts theoretically the board could deny the variance but that sounds it's it's it's a little clunky well it's a lot of Cl it's 25 years old right so but yes well well let's let's let's let's go let's just continue real briefly with what Dennis is saying is it throw this out but you rewrite it to to the to the extent that if anybody gets a parking variance for any conversion new construction whatever that there's a contribution for every spot that's it's deficient yeah can I can I ask what when was this $5,000 number written before when was the $5,000 number years named yeah so maybe it should be a higher number well no you you you're never going to find a property that that's going to want to do what this thing helps them do because nobody's converting to be air it's going the other way around it's going the other way around and and the other the other problem with this was a one-time deal so they gave this much money 25 years ago they've never given anything else there's never been an annual so well that was never intended to be that right I know I know I'm just saying what is what it is correct right I understand it purpose when you're trying to deal with a specific conversion thing but when you just start equating variances with money this there's something about that that makes me just feel weird so if if you're broke and you want to parking variance you don't you don't get it but but if a big hotel comes in and it's 30 spots short and they want to D 150 Grand and they're they're they're going to get a leg up on a variance I guess it's okay but well doesn't sound like what this was designed for at least it's an acknowledgement this was this was Des design because some of the first C that were in with bmbs saw all this new competition coming in that it was actually an attempt to try and discourage more bmbs and that and I I'm not going to name names but it was it was they were afraid there was more and more competition their business was going down so that's and to your point Rich at least it's an acknowledgement of the responsibility of the applicant to to address the issue of parking in a in a productive way for the city interesting that's okay yeah well Mr chairman we have 20 minutes until 800m I think fencing may be a little easier is that the next one fencing I mean we by the way I appreciate the hard stop I appr we have to solve all these yeah right what we don't have kid it's a joke solve all these we just if we discuss them and they're still hanging out there so be it we can there's some things we can take care of and some we can't all right so number 29 is on the last page so this deals with the definition of fencing and the and the controls for fencing um and there's and the recommendation is clarification should be provided as to rear rear should be clarified to indicate rear rad of the principal structure 6ot high fences in The sidey Yards could potentially negatively impact views in the historic neighborhoods and should not be permitted so this was whether the rear was the rear yard or rear yard setback or the rear of the structure and I believe during the reexamination we we the board um thought it should be to the rear rearward of the principal structure so you can have six foot high fence to the the back face of your structure but forward of that it has to be 4 foot or less and then I even though I don't agree with that I'm not going I'm not going to think think about it what's wrong with the front of the house and going back um I'm not a policy maker I'm just carrying out what the board recommended what was the question three yard would start the front of the from the front front line of the house back and going back instead of the back of the house I mean your your point is what's wrong with the six foot fence or not fence you didn't say the word fence I me fence res say what you said you said about with the your rear set back and confus Mr start what you say the rear yard would start where the front of the house is as opposed to the back of the house okay so your side yard the side yards will have six foot fence there m that's my okay contention and just yeah I was just I mean I had to apply that criteria when I had a fence installed at my house and the way they defined the 4 foot was to what the where the original structure ended in the backyard I have an addition be behind that had been added on like 25 30 years later or something like that so I had 4 foot up to what was the end of the original house then I could go six feet from that point on and to me it was straightforward um made sense to me the way I was the way I was going to do it anyway so that's going to be a horrible that was about 15 probably 10 12 years ago too does this um say anything about Corners what they well corner lot you got two front yards here here's the house you can't you can't have you can't have a six foot front fence on the corner or here well the the ordinance allows you to choose your your rear yard in that case you have one side and one rear okay so you're allowed to choose it and then that that would be the rear face of your principal structure and then you would be allowed to have 6ot fence but on both street frontages they're only four they're only fourt correct back to my my I I just we've had we've had variance applications for pools on Corner lots for those see so is there any reason why fence six foot fence can't start at the front of the house running down the side all the way to the back it's done a it's not a sight triangle issue it's saying it's an aesthetic thing problem I mean based on what the discussion it it's an aesthetic issue I I guess yeah it's not a safety issue no no no it's more of a street skate right if you're walking down the street and you the six foot fences start protruding out further than what they were intended to and and a neighbor can have their view obstructed by six foot fence as well light air in open space yeah so yeah I'm fine with it to me it straight forward so it was just it's a if I recall correctly the zoning officer requested this clarification be made so that it was clear for applicants um so that they weren't coming in and getting bounced back and forth um because of the unclarity of it so um I change I recommended changing the language um and fence so the last sentence is the only change fences may be constructed to six feet in height when located and to the rear of the principal structure so it right now it says fences may be constructed 2 six foot height when located in the rear period so the clarification is just to the rear of the principle if you go back to Bob's illustration of his house he's got an addition on the back of his original house but his fence was allowed to start at at the at the back of the original house and not the addition I wouldn't have put a fence in then because You' have four feet and then six feet for the last um probably 20% of the backyard that would have been it wouldn't have made even from visual perspective wouldn't have looked right right Mr chairman I remember we had the discussion on um finished attic space I think it was that came from a recommendation from the um the um code Code Enforcement I guess is that right yeah do you think on to finalize some of these just having him come to the meeting and and explain some of those might make sense or did we did we get Beyond The Attic based thing already and I'm bringing up an old one no that I think we addressed some of that last month but I I wasn't going to start rewriting of these until we got through these and then I was going to start okay CU there were recomend recommendations made last meeting this meeting um so this thing I get he wants to know whether you start the back of the house or the front of the house so that's I did have a convers clarification on that yeah yeah and I did have a conversation with Bruce today briefly about um the atct space and and kind of that that living situation so I mean if you want to comment I can or if we want them to come to a future work session we can do that too maybe we i' go with the what we were doing I apologize I forgot that you were going to come back with those recommendations to the board and then if had misunderstood your your uh your comment but I do when I craft these I send these to to the zoning officer and let him comment um I did Rec receive some comment back from him last time and incorporated into our comments last time so um I'm not doing this in a vacuum you know he's he's very essential to this process perfect and and mayor so you know uh since coming on to the planning board I've had an active conversation with Bruce and trying to create that dialogue so when I do come to the meetings we have some background on what we're talking about perfect does anybody have a preference for the fencing was if we start from the front of the house and go back and then then you know where it is yeah I I believe that it's being interpreted this way I'm just we're just trying to clarify the language in the ordinance that's that's so I don't think we're we're changing anything right I think it's fine okay so the front of the house great okay um the last one item number 33 so to maximize potential parking spaces within the city off street parking standards should be revised to clarify no limit to the stacking of parking spaces for the for dwelling uses only five SE section 525 59e um backout parking should not be permitted for commercial uses and clarified as such parking in lawn should be expressly prohibited and enforced the city currently allows on street parking and driveway curb cut areas by permit for dwellings where the owner entirely controls the driveway to address parking shortages in the city these types of spaces are relatively unknown and should be publicized promoted and possibly permitted to count towards all street parking requirements so that right now if you have a dri a parking space in the mouth of your driveway um it's really not counting um so we recommended to clarify that the following is recommended to change section 525608 off street parking shall be limited to approved areas and then this is new language backout parking is permitted for residential uses from permitted residential driveways back out parking onto public streets and alleys is not permitted for non-residential uses on street parking in the driveway curb cut area Allowed by City permit May count towards the required on-site parking requirements and and the the property owner pays a fee for that right so very simple y it incorporates all the recommendations I okay so we so what if they don't have a permit for that what would happen ticketed doesn't count they just get ticketed I mean I thought driveways were you know you would have to call someone to to well an owner is not going to call on himself no I know right right no exactly but so if there's some if there's a a car parked there and it's it's not permitted who's who's the it's becomes a Enforcement issue yeah it's just no like no other just like a regular parking do it all the time it also could come up in front of the planning board if they're at but this is but remember this is in the zoning ordinance so this is this is more for people that are coming in to get applications approved or submit for a building permit and comply with the ordinance um so it effectively makes it EAS on the applicant to comply got it so when you can park in front of your driveway cutout there's no minimum that says you have to have so much space to be able to do that you know what I mean like some driveways are narrow yeah there's no there's nothing that says that there should be something that says like has to be like this at least the minimum space of a parking spot because otherwise somebody could park in there and mess up the parking on the rest of the block I thought there was a a minimum Dimension you have a minimum parking space defined elsewhere in the ordinance so but that should say if you're going to do that your driveway cutout should meet a minimum parking spot cuz if you have a narrow driveway that's 18 ft yeah whatever it is right your normal driveway is like 16 so with the lines you should have plenty of room right sorry with what line we know when when your driveway is marked is you can't not a parking spot there should be 18 ft there but if they have a permit to park there park they have to mark 18t wide yeah no but when they mark them you don't go right to the edge of it you give them a couple feet on each side of it who marks it the DPW I I they painted yellow yeah they P Department of Public Works were paint the yellow as part of the permit process and I think part of it is too is actually just that turning radius coming at of course you're not going to have the parking right up on each side of the driveway there's a little right G's a yeah there is the wings we have I I believe that we've denied um some of the requests for permits for that because they did not have the adequate space yeah so you want 18 ft Craig yeah I'm just going to I'm going to call it out as meeting the minimum parking WID which is defined elsewhere in the ordinance parking parking length length you're right can a person who's renting use that I don't see why not I I I don't I just remember hearing if if it's the permit transferable yeah that's my question that sense yeah well it's meant for the occupant of the house okay yeah that's it yeah and if anybody else talks the O of the house CL the right that's why it's effective it's because it's controlled by the the homeowner yes we've had those impossible questions enter our office where people have a situation and it gets almost impossible because they say I can't do this I can't do that and this says the owner controls the driveway not the occupant well the the owner's controlling it by by letting his o letting his tenant use it that would be my argument Dennis what do you think I like it all right let's go of course he do we W long enough so so we have a few things that we address there's still a few hanging out there um we have to evolve some of these recommendations so we'll work on that um have some definitions to work on parly standards to get you yep okay well this this is helpful yeah baby St L we we we meet we made the deadline a motion motion second second motion all in favor thank you everyone good night hey Happy Thanksgiving Happy Thanksgiving YY yeah yeah what's on hey Bill what's on at 8 o' come on over come on over once you get a SE