ORDNC-2025-2 : Amending the Melrose Zoning Ordinance to allow for Accessory Dwelling Units

Transcript (~38 min @ 29:50)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 29:13 Mark Garipay: This serves as a notice of a quorum for the record. And the public hearing is now open in accordance with the Open Meeting law. This hearing is being recorded live, uh, and broadcast live on MMTV. Um, I gonna hold public comment until after we hear the presentation tonight. So just for anyone that may be online or in the gallery. Um, that will be after, after we hold the, uh, presentation. So we're gonna go on to the agenda, which is, uh, ID number the first one. 1 2 3 9 8 amending the Melrose Zoning Ordinance to allow for accessory dwelling units. And I will hand it over to Laurie Souza.

▶ 29:56 Speaker 4: Sorry, sorry. I went to college with a Laurie. Susan.

▶ 30:02 Speaker 6: Alright, well thank you for having me. I'm Laurie Nelson. I'm the planning Director, um, for the city. And, um, tonight we have a zoning proposal to allow for accessory dwelling units, um, in the city. So accessory dwelling units are, um, also known as Granny Flats or in-law apartments. Um, and I have this presentation here, um, some of you would need to turn to see. But, um, so the accessory Dwelling Unit regulations, uh, were part of, um, an Affordable Homes Act that the state passed that Governor Healy signed on August 6th. Um, the Affordable Homes Act changed the State zoning Act, um, and created an accessory dwelling unit as a protected use. So, uh, some other protected uses in the zoning act are schools or religious, um, institutions. The law became effective, um, February 2nd, so it's already in place. And the, the Final State Regulations came out, um, February 3rd. So very quick turnaround for us to put these regulations together and get them before you. Um, we did under the state law. Um, when you advertise a public hearing, um, for zoning, it kind of sets, um, the regulation in place. So anything that happens after that time, um, there's kind of a period where you're looking at what the proposed regulations are. So if somebody applied right now, um, they wouldn't be able to move forward. Or if they did, um, they and didn't comply with something, they would have to change it after the fact. So, um, so what's in the state law? Um, it defines an accessory dwelling unit as a self-contained unit, meaning you can, you know, cook, um, sleep, um, sanitary facilities all in contained within the unit. And it has to be on a dwelling unit with, um, at least one principal dwelling. So one kind of residential unit. Um, it can be attached or internal to the, the house, um, or detached in an accessory building. Um, you can't prohibit, um, these, um, uses. So they have to be allowed in any zoning district where you allow a single family house to be, um, built by right? Or by special permit. Um, we can have reasonable regulations, so things like setbacks, um, bulk height, um, or site plan approval, which is an approval from the planning board, the parking regulations, um, there's a maximum of one, but if any properties within a half mile of a transit station, um, then no additional, um, parking, um, can be required. And this is the image from the state of like showing kind of the detached attached internal kind of possibilities. Um, so within our housing production plan, um, we have mention of, of wanting to explore accessory dwelling units. Um, this housing production plan was a robust study that involved community engagement, uh, to identify the, the city's housing needs and goals. So some of the needs that relate to accessory dwelling units are, um, we need more, more housing options for all. Um, increasing the housing stock to provide more options for all family, um, types and income levels. We need more senior housing. Um, over 25% of our households are, um, 65 or older. Um, we need to improve housing access and affordability. The housing costs in Melrose and in our region, um, are high across all of our housing types. And it's, um, directly impacting, um, the ability to find suitable housing. And the goals in this plan that relate to ADUs are, um, we, our goal is to create a housing mix. So have a range of different kinds of housing options, have more affordable housing, um, which ADUs are, are small, so inherently, um, going to be more affordable than, um, other types of housing and enhancing neighborhoods. Um, so utilizing new housing options, um, to enhance neighborhoods as opposed to totally, um, changing their, their form. So the, the benefits, um, to help accomplish these goals that ADUs provide. Um, it's an increase in, in housing options. Um, you can have some ability to age in place if, um, you, you have a unit, the, if you own a house and you wanna move into the, the A DU, um, you can do that and have a more age friendly, uh, house. Um, or, you know, if your, um, elderly parents want to, um, live in the property, that's, that's a housing option for them. Um, it is our smart growth. Um, there's pretty low impact on the environment and, um, they don't really change the, the form of the neighborhoods. There's also an economic benefit for property owners, um, and the city. So rental income for property owners in the city, um, for tax base. So regardless of if you think ADUs are a good idea or not, um, we have to allow for them under the state law. So we have to allow for them in any, any district where a single family house is allowed by rider or by special permit. So this chart shows all the, um, zoning districts in the city where that's true. Um, and so we were curious of how many units, uh, how many properties there are in these zoning districts, um, with one unit, um, or more. So, um, in the srs, um, zoning districts, which is the more suburban, um, residential districts, the most of those properties are single family houses. Um, in the URA and URB, we have mostly single family houses. Uh, but there are some two family, two families in the the URCD and our, um, bd, our business district, there's kind of an equal number of, um, single families, two families. And then, um, there are some kind of more multifamily, um, properties in those districts.

▶ 36:30 Speaker 6: And then, just to give you a sense of what that means, it's the, the green is the SR districts. The blue is the, um, the UR districts and the BD is that red, kind of in the, the middle. And that's near the hospital in the, uh, in el pond. Um, so to dig into the details a little bit, um, we aren't able to actually change or regulate, um, a lot of these things, um, because they're set by state law. And, um, there, there's an allowance for, for changing, um, some of these things. So first off, the definition, which we talked about, we're kind of mirroring that in our local zoning ordinance. Um, there's an entrance requirement that there be a separate entrance from the outside or through an entry, um, hall or corridor. So you, you can't kind of go through like another person's house in order to get to an A DU. Um, so we have that same language. Um, the size of the unit, it can't be larger than half of the, the largest, um, dwelling unit on the property. Um, or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. Uh, there's, there can be additional size regulations and they must be reasonable. So for, uh, the zoning proposal and our, um, we'll get into detached accessory structures in a minute. And then when, um, an accessory drawing unit is attached to the principal structure, it has to follow the, um, dimensions that a principal building has. So in the state law for permitting, um, you can't prohibit them. You can, um, you can't require a special permit or other, any other kind of zoning, um, discretionary zoning approvals. We, um, put in our, um, zoning proposal that, um, that these ADUs are allowed as an accessory use. Um, but when you have three or more dwelling units, um, it requires a site plan approval from the planning board. So this is not, uh, something that the planning board can deny, but they can take a look at, you know, the, um, the design of the building and the site and, um, look at impacts and condition things, um, if needed before allowing it to move forward.

▶ 38:46 Speaker 6: Um, use and occupancy. The state law says we can't require owner occupancy, age requirements, income requirements, familial relationship, or limit the number of occupants in an A DU. Um, so we have no mention in of those things in the zoning proposal. Um, you can restrict short term rentals. Um, and so we've done that in our, in our zoning proposal. Um, the number of ADUs there in the state law, you can allow for more than one, um, by special permit. Um, and so in our zoning proposal, we are not allowing for that option right now. Um, one, you know, feels like, um, a way to start. And then, um, so that's that the current proposal is to just allow for one per lot, um, parking we talked about a bit. And, um, we are proposing, I'll show you the map next. Um, we can, uh, require parking, um, because of the distance of the distances to, um, transit investigations. Um, but we're putting a maximum of one so that people aren't paving excessively on their lots to, um, to add parking for ADUs. Um, we don't want to have a lot more cars in Melrose for these, um, small accessory units. Uh, and an existing regulation that we noted is you can't reduce the number of existing required parking spaces. So to, to build an A DU or, or anything else. Um, you couldn't take away, you know, what, um, the required parking for a house just to, to add an A DU. So this is the map that chose the half mile buffer around our T and bus stations. Um, so we're essentially covered, so we can't require a parking space for ADUs under the state law. So we did propose some design standards that we thought would fall under the reasonable regulation standards. So when an A DU is internal to principal structure, um, an additional entrance on the front of the building, we're allowing floor, but it must appear as a secondary entrance to the principal structure. So in this house, you can see there's a small side entrance there. Um, if an entrance is above the first floor of the principal building, you can't have exterior steers on the front of the building that would, you know, cover the, the front and change, you know, the, the parents in the form of, of a typical building, typical house. Um, and we added that there's, uh, can be no new curb cuts for driveway entrances or exits, um, for property with an accessory dwelling unit. So that that impacts, you know, the, the streetscape, the, um, pedestrian safety, vehicular safety, um, by adding, we don't want a whole bunch of more curb cuts, um, just for accessory dwelling units. So if an accessory dwelling unit is in a detached structure, um, we have in the regulations that the, the primary entrances, decks and balconies, um, are not allowed on the rear of the structure or the side closest to the nearest of butter. Um, these are activities that allow for, you know, hangout space or, um, would be more activity in the side, in the rear yard that's close to a neighbor. So we're limiting those, um, elements in, in those yards. And then we also have the exterior design or alterations, um, for construction are of equal or better quality, um, and detailing than the principal building. So this isn't talking about style, so you can have a different style for, um, for alterations. But, um, we wanted some way to look at, you know, somebody's proposing something that that has, um, you know, no, um, no detailing, it just, um, isn't going to be, um, attractive and, um, functional. Um, we wanted some way to, to take a look at that before, um, uh, these, um, projects can move forward. So other things were changing in our zoning ordinance. Um, we had to strike the in-law use. It didn't comply with the state law in terms of the familial status or the size or really any component of it. So we struck that, um, we changed the definition of accessory building, um, to not allow for, um, cooking, sanitation, um, or sleeping within accessory buildings because it's kind of a slippery slope from, um, putting those things in your, like garage and then it could easily turn into a, a living space. So that's something that kind of has popped up and is an issue right now. So we're kind of with this, um, making it clear, is this an accessory dwelling unit or is this a accessory building? I'm making that distinction. Um, and then we changed all of our accessory building dimensions. So the existing, so it, um, accessory building is a, a shed or garage, um, a structure like that when, um, and accessory drawing units that are detached are in accessory buildings. Mm-hmm. So that's the connection here. So, um, our existing accessory buildings allow for very generous buildings. They, um, have coverages of 750 square feet to 1,375 square feet, depending on the district. Um, they allow for their setbacks of, um, four feet to 10 feet. And oftentimes, um, the yard behind an accessory building isn't maintained or used. And so 10 feet is, is quite a bit. And, um, so we're changing that. And then the building height that's allowed right now, now is 20 feet, um, which is very tall. You can fit a two story building within that space. So we're proposing, um, to have the max coverage be 900 square feet, which is the same kind of max, um, a DU size. Um, and making a note that that, uh, covers all of the accessory buildings on the lot, which, um, the building commissioner requested we included. Um, so that you're, you're not having a bunch of accessory buildings that, um, are exceeding the, the coverage. Um, the setbacks, um, were are the same as the principal structure in terms of the front lot line, the front setback, um, the side and the rear. We are, um, proposing two different setbacks based on the size of the accessory building. Um, under the state law, we don't, we can't have special, um, dimensions for accessory dwelling units. So we are, um, proposing to have different setbacks for different size accessory buildings. So if you have a one that's less than 400 square feet, so you have a shed or one, uh, one car garage, the building can be four feet from the side or the rear. Um, but if it's larger, if it's greater than 400 square feet, it has to be six feet, um, from the side in the rear just to provide a bit more space if you have somebody living in that unit, um, to have a more of a a yard space there. And the height, um, we've reduced to 16 feet. And that's a story and a half as opposed to two, two stories. Um, the other change we are proposing is the, the side in the rear, um, required yards for accessory buildings need to be ous. 'cause there's been issues with stormwater runoff onto neighboring properties when you're adding an accessory building. Um, and then also in, in the existing code, um, you can't have an access accessory building in front of a principal building. Um, so that would be, we, we are keeping that in there as the same case, so you're not kind of blocking your, your house with an accessory building. So we have a lot of, um, existing structures, existing accessory buildings. Um, so the, the state law says when you have one that complies with the building code, the entrance requirements, the the size requirements, um, you have to allow for them to convert to an, an accessory dwelling unit. Um, so we've put in a requirement that if that's the case, then um, the property owner would have to come for a site plan review from the planning board. Um, and that's the same zoning permit that I mentioned where they can't deny it, but they can condition it. Um, and, you know, suggest changes if there's potentially other ways of, um, addressing concerns. Um, the, and then we also included that if it doesn't comply with the regulations, that there is an ability to get a special permit from the zoning board of appeals. Um, and the a special apartment is something that can be denied. Um, but we wanted some allowance for if there's, you know, we have some interesting carriage houses, historic properties that it would be, might be a great use to have somebody living in there and, and incentivize the, the property owner to, um, to be able to fix it up because they'll would have income. So that's, um, that's in the zoning as well. Um, so this is just a summary slide of, um, all of those things to put it all together. Um, and so, um, I don't think I need to go through this in detail, but if anyone has any, any questions, we can go back to it. Um, so the next steps in this process, the, the planning board is going to meet after this meeting and discuss the comments and questions that came up during the public, um, during this public hearing. And then, um, submit a report back to, um, the appropriations, um, and Oversight Committee. And that has to happen by March 4th. Um, and then the Appropriations, appropriations and Oversight Committee can, um, discuss that report and have, you know, further discussions and meetings until, um, they're ready to make the final vote to the, the full city council. And then, um, the full city council vote needs to happen by May 11th, or, um, the process needs to start again for a zoning amendment. Thank you. Happy to answer questions.

▶ 48:56 Mark Garipay: Thank you. Um, any councils? I have Council Hamilton in the queue. Anyone else?

▶ 49:02 Speaker 2: Alright. Council Hamilton.

▶ 49:04 Ward Hamilton: Thank you. And through the chair. Thank you Ms. Masa and members of the planning Board for being here tonight. Um, so the Commonwealth has passed legislation that makes, uh, a accessory dwellings by right. An opportunity, uh, or it's a law we that, that we're gonna need to do. And the planning board in Melrose has, uh, gotten together and presented to us trying to get out in front of that or whatever recommendations we're gonna see from the Commonwealth. They're trying to frame, you know, how we're gonna handle this.

▶ 49:48 Ward Hamilton: So would it be fair to say that the motivation for the governor was to create much needed housing opportunities in Melrose, in communities like Melrose? Yes. Thank you. And so I appreciate that and I, and I think that we're on the right track towards doing that. Um, but what I'm concerned about is, in the first iteration that was presented to us, um, you know, to, uh, revamp the ordinance, um, section six accessory dwelling unit, um, subsection E, the idea the, uh, what was proposed, the language proposed was that an A DU an accessory dwelling unit should not be used as a hotel. And then in the revamped version that we're considering tonight, and a DU shall not be used for temporary lodging. And I did some searching online, and I am not an attorney, but I could not find in the mass general laws a definition of temporary lodging. I could find a definition for transient lodging. And it's basically everything but short term rentals. And so my question is, would it make sense to change the language in the proposed ordinance? Um, rather than trying to define what temporary lodging is, why not keep with the language that mass general laws use and say, an A DU shall not be used for transient lodging and short term rentals and short term rentals, uh, is a very clearly defined thing in the mass general laws. And because we have not amended our zoning in Melrose, they're not legal. And my concern is that folks take advantage of this opportunity and instead of creating much needed housing opportunities, they create little cottage industries next to their house accessory dwelling units, short-term rentals, Airbnb, and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council on their website. When they, when they presented their opinion on these changes in the law, they say they write the a DA, the a DU by Right Law does allow communities to regulate whether or not ADUs are used at short-term rentals and in their words, vacation homes.

▶ 52:33 Ward Hamilton: So I wanna make sure that as we change our zoning ordinance here mm-hmm. To allow for aus by Right. Which we have to do, that we do not green light and open up the door to, uh, little one unit hotels and motels throughout the city. Because I don't think that's the intent, right. Of the government. So Yes. What are your thoughts?

▶ 52:55 Speaker 6: Yes. So we, or originally, um, so we're using language in the, the zoning ordinance, existing language. Um, the, uh, we started off with hotel 'cause that seemed most directly related to, um, what we were regulating. Uh, but then, you know, you raised that concern and we took another look at, you know, we wanna make sure that this is clear and that's why we have a public hearing to, to gather, you know, other people's reads on what this actually means. We wanna make sure that it's crystal clear. So, um, we don't have, we don't have short term rentals by identifying the, that term. It will, I think, open up the, uh, question of, well, it's not allowed for accessory dwelling units, but it's probably allowed for other dwell for other dwelling units. So we didn't specifically use that, that term. Um, the, the definition of dwelling unit in our zoning talks about, um, permanent housing. And so the flip side of that is temporary housing. Um, and so we felt that that covered what, um, the intent was. If it's any, if it's any kind of temporary, um, situation, then it's not allowed. So, um, that was our attempt at getting to that concern. And we can certainly discuss it more when we bring it back to the planning board. And, um, you know, we've kind of went around trying to figure out the best, the most direct way of saying it. Yep. Um, you know, maybe it's a DU must be used as a dwelling unit. There's, there are, you know, other ways. So we can, we can take a look at that and, um, make sure that you know it, the, um, because the short term rental is short term than it is temporary and therefore it wouldn't be allowed. Um, but we'll, we'll kind of look at again, make sure that, um, we've, we've all kind of taken a look and make sure that this isn't something that, um, someone can challenge as we move forward.

▶ 54:56 Ward Hamilton: Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And what I will tell you is that is my strong recommendation when you go back and discuss this, that you specifically address and identify short-term rentals. Because if we're gonna dance around and not address it, then I'm gonna make an amendment, or I'm gonna, I'm gonna make a motion to amend your ordinance to specifically identify short term rentals, because they're not legal in Melrose. I'm not trying to make them legal in Melrose. That's a whole other discussion. Yeah. But ADUs by Right. Have just opened the door. Right. And so no, that connection.

▶ 55:34 Speaker 6: Yeah. I just finish. I think we need to make sure we, we would have to add it to the, um, the ordinance to cover the, like everything else as well.

▶ 55:45 Ward Hamilton: I would suggest we do that because the idea behind a by right. Is to create housing opportunities. Airbnb is not a housing opportunity. Okay. We went to one in North Conway this weekend for my birthday. I'm able to afford that. It's not a housing opportunity. It is a vacation home that we were able to afford and do, we're trying to, I think the governor's intention is to create housing opportunities. And an Airbnb, a short term rental is not a housing opportunity. And if we don't address it in this, we are leaving the door open. And if we're not gonna address it in this, then we need to address, frankly, publicly in discussion, short-term rentals in Melrose, of which we have over three dozen. I'm not trying to open Pandora's box and create a nightmare. Okay. But this is a big deal, what's happening right now, and I'm good with it, and I'm supportive, and I appreciate the work that the planning board is doing, but I feel very strongly that we need to address the issue of short-term rentals as folks could take advantage of this and exploit it to create a little cottage industry on the side of their house to make money. And that's not a housing opportunity for folks.

▶ 57:05 Speaker 6: Right. And I, I believe that we did that with how the zoning, I mean, in the zoning, we, we don't look at state law for, um, if something's not defined, you look in the dictionary in the, um, for that. So I think that we covered it, but we will definitely take another look with the planning board. Thank you. And, um,

▶ 57:22 Ward Hamilton: And, and just as a final thought, if I could through the chair, let's try to stick with definitions that the mass general law has used, like transient housing, short-term rental. I could not find temporary lodging, and I'm not an attorney, but I did a pretty exhaustive search. So if we're going to use our own term, like temporary lodging, let's define that. And as a final curve ball, um, temporary lodging, the way that that we've articulated includes ins or in-house, which turns out in the city charter, it is legal in Melrose. If you make an application to protection and licensing, not trying to make anybody's life more difficult in any way, I promise you. Yeah, there are. I just want to make sure that mm-hmm. 1, 2, 3 years from now, it's not Wow. People, you know, this was, this was a great tool to create opportunities for folks to live in Melrose as opposed to, well, it just opened the door to Airbnbs and nobody, nobody's actually been able to move here 'cause of that.

▶ 58:30 Speaker 7: That's all. Thank you. Thank you.

▶ 58:33 Mark Garipay: Thank you. Um, in the QA of council, Jamal and Council Stewart. Council Ro, anyone else? Councilman Council. Jamal. Thank

▶ 58:42 Maya Jamaleddine: You, chair. Thank you for this, uh, informational presentation. And thank you for the board for being with us tonight. Um, I have few questions, but I would like to comment on, um, my colleagues', um, comment about Airbnb. I do know, and through the chair, I do know of families that cannot afford, uh, long-term rental that do, uh, look for Airbnbs, uh, as a short and temporary, uh, rental. So that is an option for low income, uh, individuals and people that cannot afford long term until they find, uh, more sustainable solution. Uh, so I would caution, uh, everyone from that, um, uh, you know, uh, from generalizing or assumption. Uh, I would, uh, also, I do have a couple of questions in term of the, uh, you know, how, what is the, uh, you know, like the distance that is required between abuts and the, um, eds? I don't know if you mentioned that, and apologies if you did. Yeah,

▶ 59:54 Speaker 6: Sure. So if a, if a accessory dwelling unit is detached, it would fall into the accessory building dimensions, uh, regulations. So it would pro, it would likely be greater than, um, 400 square feet. So it would be six feet, at least six feet from the side, lot line, and at least six feet from the rear lot line. Okay. And then the front can be, um, it would be 20 to 25 feet from the front property line.

▶ 1:00:21 Speaker 10: Okay. And, um,

▶ 1:00:27 Maya Jamaleddine: now I'm going more into details mm-hmm. Uh, for when we have those, um, uh, buildings or those properties are, do they, in terms of the trash, in terms of all the other things, uh, and other services, city services, would that be created as a additional, um, uh, property?

▶ 1:00:48 Speaker 6: So for like the kind of the trash fee, for example, that would be an additional fee? Yes.

▶ 1:00:53 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. And they would have to get, um, uh, separate trash bins and all the other things. Right? Mm-hmm. Okay. Okay. That's, um, those are my questions. Thank you so much,

▶ 1:01:07 Speaker 2: Council Stewart, uh,

▶ 1:01:09 Robb Stewart: thank you Chair and chair Sampson. Uh, thank you Ms. Massive for this, uh, uh, very, uh, informative in information. Appreciate it. Um, question regarding, um, say two family, uh, properties that have rented out both the top and the bottom. So would the, with this law, would they be able to then say, Hey, you know what, I'm gonna open up the basement, uh, because it's 900 square feet and I can throw a bathroom and a sink and, uh, you know, a stove and all that. Uh, would that be, uh, an allowable option for, um, these scenarios?

▶ 1:01:53 Speaker 3: Yes. Okay. Okay.

▶ 1:01:55 Robb Stewart: Um, so I have some concerned about it. Um, I'm in Ward three and we have a lot of two families and the, you know, where the houses are all close together and, and so forth. Um, the biggest concern that I have is park, um, you know, if you throw, even though we're a half a mile from the tee, everyone's gonna bring cars, right? And they need to figure out where to park cars. And I think particularly given, uh, folks that are less rooted here, um, they're gonna start parking on the streets overnight. And that's a problem in many aspects. Uh, you know, I've been through, uh, uh, with, uh, the, the traffic commission, why I think it's a really bad idea, at least my ward. 'cause the streets are narrow. Uh, overnight, it would be challenging for fire trucks to get through, ambulances to get through all that kinda stuff. Uh, but also, um, it just creates, um, more of a havoc, um, of a community that we have always had that parking. So that's one concern that I want to bring to you. I know it, I'm not here to solve it, but I want to state it publicly. Um, the second concern that I have is safety. Um, you know, in these, in these multifamily, uh, houses, you're gonna get people that, uh, typically are fairly contract savvy and they're gonna be do it yourselfers. Um, and I know that we typically adhere to the code, but, um, I'm just concerned that, you know, they do what my neighbor did and they, they, they do it all on Labor Day weekend when no one's around and they get it done right. And then all of a sudden you have something that could, could or cannot be within code, and they start renting this out. Um, there's also, um, I noticed that there's no limit to the number of occupants. That's a very big concern for me. 'cause then that tells me that you can have six people in one unit. Right? And so it, it could be like the places that, you know, rent out the, um, they, they go and have one unit and they'll have locks on the cabinets for their own storage. And then they have a, they have a stove in the main kitchen, but then they have their own like, heating pad in their own bedroom and so forth. And when you have that many occupants, that just adds an additional safety hazard that's very concerning to me. Um, so, and then the last is, you know, you, you will say, well, we can manage all this because they need to come and submit paperwork and so forth. Um, there's the whole tracking aspect of this that the administration is gonna need to take on. Um, and to be able to understand, um, uh, who has the multiple units and have they applied and are they following the rules? That to me is a little bit more of a burden to the administration. And, uh, again, it's, it's, uh, something that I want to point out that it would need to be accommodated for. But that's also concerning because, um, I think we're taxed enough as it is from, uh, from an administrative standpoint. Um, there's a demand for resources currently. I think it's gonna get worse. And with these, uh, additional, uh, demands, uh, on the administration, I think that's gonna be concerning. So I just, you know, and, and again, I'm not here to solve or point mm-hmm. But I just wanted to raise awareness, uh, that I have these concerns, um, for my ward, but also in general, I think from a safety standpoint.

▶ 1:05:25 Speaker 6: Okay. I, I do have a few, a few things to add, um, to, to those points. Um, so there is, um, for occupancy, the building code does have a, a minimum number of square feet per, um, occupant. So it's not that it's unlimited, it's just that for zoning, you can't restrict it. So you can't say there's can only be like one or two occupants per accessory dwelling unit. But there is a limit. The, the,

▶ 1:05:50 Robb Stewart: Okay, that wasn't clear in the presentation,

▶ 1:05:52 Speaker 6: Right? So this is just talking about zoning. Um, so the, the, the units still need to comply with building code. They still need to get a building permit. Um, they need, you know, egress and fire, you know, codes. All those things still apply to these units. So this is just specifically talking about what we can regulate for zoning. Um, so I mean, there are, I'm sure a lot of illegal apartments right now. Um, and you know, the, the hope with, um, when you, um, legalize something is that people are gonna go through the proper channels because it's legal versus just doing it, um, you know, illegally, um, as you know, they're doing now. So I'm not sure there's a, a big change with, um, with that concern of, of somebody doing something, you know, illegally, if they're gonna do that, they're gonna do it. Um, and we just will, um, respond if there are complaints and, and, um, you know, figure that issue out, um, in that way. Uh, so we've, um, you know, I've connected with, um, our, uh, city assessor and, um, building commissioner. Um, we do, the building commissioner has changed the online permitting to have a separate category for accessory dwelling units. Um, and we, we do need to report to the state. That's another part of the law on how many accessory dwelling units are being, um, built and established here. So that's something that's, um, required. And we are have already, um, started the process to be able to, um, to track them. Right now we have 31, um, in law apartments that have received special permits over the years. Um, so we do have that number, um, because of, um, the, the special permit requirement, um, for those units. So,

▶ 1:07:39 Speaker 3: Okay.

▶ 1:07:40 Mark Garipay: Um, excuse me. Um, we have legal alleged it was supposed to start legal and legislative that was supposed to start at eight o'clock. Uh, our rules require that we gavel in no later than 15 minutes after we're supposed to start. So we're gonna take a short recess and then we'll come back to questions.