To order April first, twenty twenty six.

Can we get um do we do a um we don't need to establish a quantum because it's a works work session and there's no business items to welcome everybody.

Let's uh stand from position for weeks.

Um, as we've been going through all of their recommendations.

You recall we've gotten through the policies.

Now on to land use.

Um we will see how this um conversation goes.

There aren't of we got about, I don't know, maybe about halfway through them.

So there aren't a whole lot more.

Um of course it only takes one good juicy recommendation to uh spend a lot of time discussing and debating, but um but uh assuming that we'll get through the rest of the land use recommendations.

The rest of the meeting we wanted to circle back around on um some of the target areas that were part of the economy work group.

Um if you recall we had um kind of set those to the side, the recommendations for those target areas to the side with the idea that we would come back to them and look at them collectively at the end.

In the meantime, we were going to go out and um meet with the municipalities that are on the subject of those target area recommendations and kind of get their take on um on those recommendations so you have that some some of that feedback.

So tonight after we go through the land use recommendations, we wanted to take a scan of those target areas and get a sense from you all of um what kinds of questions you want to make sure we ask when we when we meet with the municipalities so that we can bring all of that information back to you um as completely as as possible.

So that's the game plan for tonight.

Anyone have any questions or alternate suggestions?

All right.

Um so let's dive back in here.

You can see from um column C here the action that you guys took.

Well, the um the discussion that you guys had on the recommendations through um March 17th.

So um we got through one to three, four, five of these, and they were all affirmed with some notes on um on revisiting, particularly these last three here.

Um revisiting these um at a later time.

So we were gonna keep them for now and kind of see how they fit in with the rest of the recommendations as those um get fleshed out.

So we'll go on to um this recommendation on line 11.

Also um an economic uh and economy work group recommendation, and this one is to encourage diversity of allowable housing types, and the note uh further note that these this may require amendments to the county zoning code to support as well as comprehensive review of zoning to ensure appropriate integration into communities.

Thoughts on um that recommendation keep change something else, but I would say keep it.

I mean, obviously we want to encourage different housing types.

Right.

But and like it says that it's going to require some code changes.

Yeah, and certainly um what those different housing types are and how they would need how the code would need to change in order to accommodate them would be part of that next level of um discussion and um and code revisions and like this recommendation points out um there is an element of ensuring that that it's located in the right places, right?

Um can I give an example of that?

Yeah.

Well, I'm the only one well, I might not be the one person, but like a lot of my large dairy dairymen around the US, especially in New York, they build uh do what do they call like bunk houses where they have like a shared space and they might be like eight single bedrooms and stuff like that for employee housing.

Okay.

I can think of some other people that like bulkers probably use something like that.

I don't know what they have.

But instead of just being one large house, they each have their own door to come in, but then they'd have a common area and stuff.

I see quite a bit of it.

They I mean New York State actually has plans for stuff, yeah.

I mean, some of them might have 16 bedrooms and interesting.

I don't know how easy that'd be get a septic permit for that.

Yeah.

That's a good point there, because agricultural, right?

Yeah.

Because also they're like out in in Frederick County right over there towards barriers.

There was that church back in there that had like a retreat built back in there that was for sale years ago.

I saw when I got looking at it, it's like how did they ever get this thing permitted?

Because it's got it basically sewer system, but room for like up to 50 people.

Right in Frederick County, right on Clemps, like yeah, it's Clemsonville Road.

Is that that's not the Clag It Gardens?

I have no idea.

It wasn't hasn't been a farm for a long time.

Who was that now?

But it was some church, but they went bankrupt and it was for that that does big up bring up a point.

Um this goes back quite a few years where um had a person out of another county who bought a farm here and um a lot of people want to push the limits on agrees and different restrictions.

But he happened to mention that I think it was in Howard County where they allowed a common septic system for two, three houses, and uh in a way some of that made sense especially what Matt's talking about.

So you know, that might be something that you want to look into because that that is a problem, especially for operation like Matt or Balker or some of these larger uh high high employee labor areas um yeah, I I think that's something we might want to radar.

It's definitely a monastery, yeah.

So it says a sacred monastery of blank.

Yeah, I think that's um that's a really interesting um perspective on this question because we talk about a diversity of housing types, and I think a lot of people's mind goes towards what we could accommodate in our higher density growth areas, but there may be some things that we need to consider to allow different types of housing in areas that are not on public water and sewer.