We will call this meeting to order on this planning commission on Thursday, May 28th, 2026.

And we will go right into the regular agenda.

Okay.

Oh, I should probably pull up.

Sorry, I should have asked if you were ready.

I am not, but I have not been in this room before for a meeting, so let me figure out how to get set up.

Oh yeah.

Too many cables.

Take your time, Jacob.

Okay.

We got all the okay.

Perfect.

Okay, you can see that now.

Um okay.

Item two point one is public hearing and recommendation.

And I believe has your has your agenda been updated to say recommendation?

I think it previously said consideration, but it does online at least.

Okay.

Um public hearing and recommendation of Terry Bishop's request for review of the Bishop development agreement, allowing to increase the number of lots in a subdivision to thirteen for a seven-acre parcel located at twenty-four twenty-four west, nine hundred north.

Um so as mentioned this development agreement will allow for thirteen lots with a one-third acre lot size.

Um there was a previous general plan amendment that um this body gave a positive recommendation to, but the city council denied, but the direction was given by the city council to go for this development agreement.

Uh and keep the general plan designation as VLDRA.

Um and the proposed development agreement is just a increase of one lot from VLDRA.

So it has some of the other VLDR components, but it really is mostly just to keep the general plan designation the same, but allow for the one additional lot.

So with that, I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Thank you, Jacob.

Does anybody have questions for staff?

Uh is the applicant present.

I am Terry Bishop.

Good to see you all again.

And uh I don't know that I have anything to add to this except that uh I do appreciate uh Kim and his staff and the uh energy that they've put into helping come up with the agreement to uh limit us to the thirteen lots, whereas the uh zone change that we requested could have gone as far as seventeen, but we didn't want to do that.

We were we think it looks best at at 13.

And that's where we want to stay.

But uh so I I don't know that we're asking for anything different except for your approval.

So thank you very much.

Any any other questions for the applicant.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, this is a public hearing.

If anybody is here that would like to speak to item two point one, we will open the public hearing now.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and motion for further discussion.

I have questions, but I'm I'm not I don't know address them to or exactly how to frame it.

But uh one of them is so that maybe it's to the staff um going from 12 lots to 13 lots.

That's uh B B L DM right?

Explain that to me.

Let's start here.

Yeah, I essentially the decision, my understanding is they wanted to leave the general plan designation as VLDRA.

Um, but just grant one additional lot, which typically would have kind of carried it over into that VLDR section.

But they didn't want to have that potential, I guess, risk of the maximization of the density.

So they decide the city council decided to go this route is to leave the general plan designation and just do a development agreement to allow one additional lot.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

That actually answers my question.

Okay.

They could go up to 17 otherwise.

But it could, yeah.

But that I guess that's the purpose of this is to cap it.

Yeah.

Why not state 12?

Why why not?

Yeah.

Because it made a really ugly subject.

Yeah, real uh really ugly subdivision.

It pre-vented us from making it look nice.

And uh as you may recall when uh when we met last time.

Can I be can I become the sorry that's why I didn't know that's the same thing?

Folks watching the home want to hear.

When we had when we met last time, there was like 14 families that all showed up and everyone was in favor of this.

Um Gary was actually in the meeting where it was called out that we've never seen that many people agree on one single thing in the in this whole neighborhood believes that this and we've I've showed them all our different possibilities.

And this they all agreed that this is by far the one that fits in and blends in with what's already there.

And that's why.

Okay.

Yeah, it's interesting to think that putting one more lot would make it a nicer development than it well technically it's one more lot, but the way the roads are and stuff, we it could have actually limited us even lower than than the 12 lots possibly depending.

They also uh the city council agreed upon leaving the most strips smaller as they were.

Just when would you say came a year ago, two years ago?

I don't know.

Yeah, it's been a minute been a while.

Um where the most strips now are have gotten larger and it cut our roads down, our lot sizes down as well, and the roads are wide are not as as wide as well.

And it uh just changed a few things.

So they they agreed to go back with the prior development agreement.

Just to make the development all plan nice.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

This is exactly the sort of situation a development agreement is for.

I mean property owner has development rights, right?

This can really only be limited in a few guises, that being uh general plan and what we can do with zoning.

Uh and the city is clearly seeing the benefit, also wanting to not just rip the the lid off.

Neighbors are speaking to it.

So in terms of representation of the city, both elected members and the local community are all in favor of it.

This is a slam dunk from my perspective.

So I've always wanted to slam dunk.

Your slam dunking today.

It's overrated.

Any other discussion?

No.

I can make the motion, just thinking someone with anyone looking for that experience here.

All right, we'll go for it.

Item 2.1.

It's just so funny how gun shy people get up here.

I'm 2.1 public hearing to consideration chairing bishops' request for review of the Bishop Development Agreement.

Um consideration.

Should we recommend it?

Yeah, that's right.

Recommendation.

It's updated here and it's not there.

That's what happens when I go and read what you print out for me.

Uh recommendation.

Uh I move that we give a positive recommendation uh with the findings that um this development agreement is consistent with the overarching goals of the city that in this instance uh it uh better represents what's in the um best interests of the city.

And that's cleared and recognized by the city council by the community.

Um include all DRCs and uh leave it at that.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed when will that go to city council?

When will that go to city council?

Yeah, oh yeah, one.

Jordan.

It will be June.

June uh 9th.

We did prioritize it.

Yeah.

Okay, June 9th.

June 9th.

June 9th.

All right.

Item 2.2.

Okay.

Okay.

Item 2.2 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh Cities request or review of amendments to the Lehigh City Development Code, Chapter 35, Community Forestry, adding requirements for trees affected by migratory birds and clarifying the city's recommended public tree planting list.

Um there are some minor changes to wording uh kind of within the chapter, but probably the main change that should be noted is it now includes a paragraph reference referencing federal and state laws that protect birds, uh the migratory bird treaty act and the bald and golden eagle protection act.

Um it requires that a REN survey from an environmental consultant uh be provided before tree removal of trees that have migratory nests that either in the past or present.

And that comes at the expense of the landowner developer.

So with that, I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Thank you, Jacob.

Any questions for staff?

Yes, I'll ask a question.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Well not here built MPM.

I just want you to go.

Um as I understand that this is just falling in line more federal and state regulations that are already there.

Yes, right?

Okay.

Jessica's here.

Yeah, Jessica can speak to it as well.

Well, I guess it's up to the chair.

Please.

Absolutely.

I'm Jessica Smith, the urban forester for Lehigh City.

Um this was decided or seeing that it was needed for us to protect um migratory birds with the developments that happening here down here on the south side, we're along the lake, there's quite a few.

And so we just we're our we are the first defense to shut down development.

Not only does it protect the birds, um, it protects the city, but it also protects uh the developer in the state and the federal.

There we're just kind of that large first line of defense, so we just felt like we needed a paragraph in there to give us the lake to stand on.

So although the federal guidelines supersede our code anyway, we're just gonna be modifying the federal guidelines.

Yeah, so we don't enforce the laws.

We're just that first one to shut down development, and so that's what it is, and then asking the developer to get that environmental consultant study before they start ripping down the trees.

Interested.

Okay.

Thank you for your work on this.

Yeah.

Um this is a public hearing.

If there's anybody here in the public that would like to speak to item 2.2, we'll open the public hearing now.

The mad rush slowing down, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or a motion.

I do think it's important that we don't say shut down development, because that's not the intent.

I don't think.

To shut down is to change behavior.

Is that right?

Come on.

Just all kinds of questions.

Would you like to speak to that?

I mean, it's terminology, but I just don't know.

No, I agree.

I agree.

I tend to interrupt.

Um so we shut down the tree removal.

The development can still happen as long as it's not disruptive close to the nest birds.

So that's what we're doing is shutting down that part of it.

But other parts of the development can continue, like the roadways or homes away from the trees where the nesting birds are.

Yeah.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yeah, because these are even as it's written, it's to pause situations before they they cross over into federal situations.

So any other questions, comments, concerns.

Only concern that it doesn't address uh the airspeed velocity of the unladen swallow.

But it should.

Next.

African cut for those of us.

Africa.

European or African.

European or African.

Oh my gosh.

Yes.

Monty Python for everyone who's giving us great looks now.

I I I followed you.

Oh, I know you did.

No, I caught it.

This is this is a slam job.

Yeah.

I'm ready to make a do you mind if if we have the findings page?

I forgot my question.

We'll see if I left the findings page yet.

Maybe.

Maybe.

Okay, item 2.2, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh Cities request review of amendments to the Lehigh City Development Code Chapter 35.

Community forestry adding requirements for trees affected by migratory birds and clarifying the city's recommended public tree planting list.

Sorry, I don't I took out that page.

That's all right.

Um I move that we give a positive recommendation with the findings listed in the findings of motions, and please include all DRC comments.

Second.

We have a motion in a second.

Uh all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

And last but not least.

2.3 is public hearing recommendation of Lehigh City's request for a review of an amendment to Chapter 26 of the development code, accessory uses, updating the requirements for detached accessory dwelling units to meet 2026 state legislation.

So the biggest changes with the most recent wave of state legislation is that we are required to reduce the minimum lot or the lot size requirement to 11,000 square feet.

Conversions of an existing accessory building to a detached ADU can no longer be a conditional use permit, so you won't see any more of those.

I think you only saw two or three of them at the most.

Yeah.

This is all I mean, the state's trying to you know make it easier to do detached ADU.

So and we were pretty, I would say we were in a pretty good place.

Some cities I'm sure have to make more updates, but obviously, yeah, this is gonna loosen things up a little bit.

Um we can still have restricted areas, but um really this is more just a guide um some of the the details, the parking, the size, the square footage of the lot.

So yeah.

I did have one note that the letters in section two point or twenty-six point zero four zero.

They should go to M.

Because there is already an I.

So you put two I's on there.

I think that I is uh like a subset of H.

The formatting always gets weird when you do the track changes.

We'll make sure it's correct.

It is confusing though.

Yeah.

So I see that.

Yep.

Um, this is a public hearing.

Anybody from the public would like to speak to this item, you're welcome to do so now.

We'll open the hearing now.

You don't all vote.

Cool.

All right.

Sorry.

Pull the soap feel off.

Um I understand that we're going down a state code and we're doing this to meet state code, but 11,000 square foot lot seems really small to put an ADU on there at some point, let's just put apartments in neighborhoods at this point.

So just my opinion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, my name is Marshall Gary.

So one, I someday I want to actually build a backyard cottage in Lehigh.

I'd love to be a small builder and help provide some housing stock to people who need it.

I'm really cognizant of just how tough it is.

So anyway, I appreciate I'm not in love with state generally forcing cities to do stuff.

But I appreciate that this is becoming a little bit easier to do.

Small show and tell.

One thing that just confuses me is how that the language that I saw on this and that I saw on the engage Lehigh page seemed like malicious compliance, like we're gonna do the bare minimum, and we're not like it seemed like we actually don't want people to build detached ADUs.

That's the vibe I'm getting.

I don't know if that's the actual intent, but that's that's what I read.

Or that that's how I interpreted it.

And that doesn't make sense to me, so I'm I'm just confused.

And I'd like to understand more like do you just don't like detached ADU?

Do you not like backyard cottages and don't want them built for anything?

Um I just one real quick wanted to share some of the books that I've read that have influenced my thinking.

Last time I spoke at Planning Commission, I talked about incremental developers and how we were doing looking at the overlay zone, and I thought that just didn't really make much sense.

And I feel like this is a great way to help foster incremental development.

Um anyway, so here are some of the books that I've read that.

So this one actually is a sequel to a book that I have read.

I haven't read this one, but I read the first one called The High Cost of Reparking.

Uh but I don't have the physical book.

Um this one is really great.

We're in a housing trap.

This can help.

This one's really good.

Anyway, one it's all right.

So main question is what do you actually like?

Do you like backyard cottages?

Do you not like backyard cottages?

What's your intent here?

And I also wanted to share this with you.

Um Strong Towns and the Incremental Development Alliance have worked together to put uh a couple of housing tool kits, and they're working on a third one.

So they have two working on a third one released this year.

Here's just a link to it.

And it basically, if you want to support locals being able to build housing, and not just big developers building housing.

This is from people who've actually done it and how to do it and how to be successful at it.

So that that's all I have.

I'll pass these around to everybody.

Thank you.

Um yeah, especially with the parking.

I don't understand why we're requiring two off-street parking spaces when we have so much on-street parking that's empty everywhere.

And also if you make a parking, a driveway cut, you're losing on-street parking spaces for off-street parking spaces, so it's not really a net gain.

So I don't really understand that either.

Uh I I'd prefer it to be more nuanced than just like a blanket, thou shalt build two off-street parking spaces.

Commandment number 11.

Thank you.

Would anybody else like to speak to this item?

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

Um applicant, did you want to address anything you heard?

I guess the only thing I would say is, I mean, Lehigh City, even before the state stepped in and started requiring us to allow detached ADUs.

We were one of the first ones to allow them.

And yeah, we've slowly had to whittle down as the state kind of stepped in and required it.

And I guess to copy what you said.

We've kind of been giving these commandments that we have to write it this way.

That's how it is now.

I mean this code is essentially exactly word for word what the state legislature passed.

Um I'd say we do like detached ADUs, but I think there is concern about how do you fit certain size detached ADU in a backyard with the setback requirements that we have as well.

So I don't know if you have anything you want to add to that, Kim, but yeah.

I I would say we are supportive of them.

We've seen a lot of the internals, the the detached ones are less common, but we have seen quite a few over the last two or three years since we started allowing them.

From my personal opinion, I'm excited that we have more flexibility.

I am worried, like the other public comment that some areas are gonna be interesting, right?

About does it really work in certain spots?

And yes, we are moving towards compliance with the state.

But I don't think that's necessarily an indication that we're just trying to do the bare minimum.

Is there a sentiment that maybe we had more control?

I think maybe about where they could go or what they could be done, but I don't think that's a sentiment, and I don't want to speak for this body per se, but for me personally.

But we are also trying to be compliant with the state.

Well I I'd also say that I think it's perfectly fine to acknowledge that there is like Lehigh City doesn't represent one single voice, right?

It's not like there's the entity that is Lehigh City that wants A or B.

It's a tension between various visions.

And that vision is reflected through elected officials, through uh appointments to uh professional uh hires.

And um they're just speaking from my experience serving on this body uh for the last several years.

You know, we've we've seen proposals for ADUs have have had their tussles in our previous chambers, uh both with people wanting to build, neighborhoods that don't want the ADUs.

And so all that tension you know gets captured in in various policy shifts and changes.

And umoubtedly I that there are those who who are Marshall, well what was your exact language, malicious uh compliance compliance.

No, I love that.

Um not laughing at, it gave me a good chuckle.

I uh I never heard that phrasing before, and and I really like it.

Um it's it's an incremental step, and I think that's about what we expect and see with with policy, right?

Is uh going a little deeper in into the waters, and if it's a positive thing, maybe we we go a little bit deeper still.

Uh I take I take the point on parking, for instance.

We've talked in this very room in not this very room, excuse me, in that previous room.

I guess we just got real comfortable here.

It feels like home already.

But uh about the calming nature that on-street parking has.

That uh drivers naturally slow down when the street is a little more crowded.

And so on-street parking actually can serve as an important uh mechanism to help us to better comply with with speed limits and of course more importantly than simply complying for the sake of complying, but that makes it a safer space uh as well.

And uh undoubtedly the this also reflects those who don't want to see that on street parking.

There's that that dream and vision of uh streets where every cars in the in the driveway and um little cookie cutter uh neighborhoods.

Um but I I do like that this is a step a little bit toward what um I I suppose we should be addressing the room, but Marshall.

Uh um since since you're the only ones commented uh toward that natural development.

Uh you know, Boston I think is a great example of more natural development where you've got these once three-story um single family uh wealthy homes that in time became uh three-level uh condominiums effectively as as the years went on as it was properties divided up to accommodate the growing population.

Um I guess that's that's my reaction is I I see an incremental step.

I doubt that we're we would see much more uh from uh uh the um much more change.

Uh yeah, that most would be comfortable pursuing presently, but I think it's important to continue talking about um strong towns, right?

And these uh other elements that you that you always bring to bear.

Uh and how there is a in importance to cities kind of naturally having that further development.

It does we don't have to just level a place and have it turn into condominiums that neighborhoods can in fact have one phase in which they're built, but then they can be reconceived with ADUs or the house ends up becoming two separate units and so forth.

Um so all that to say, um I I uh I I don't know that there's uh that there's an entity to speak to, but this is probably as is realistic of a step in further development as we're gonna see in the immediate future.

Any other comments?

Yes, thank you.

Um that I forgot what it was.

It was a good one.

It would come back.

Yeah.

So uh I'd love to address a little bit more about the comment 11,000 square foot lot.

Is that big enough to accommodate an ADU in the back?

And two parking spots.

Yeah.

That's a good question.

Um I think it will depend on the individual lot, right?

Some lots are wider, some are skinnier.

You'll also depend on is the applicant planning to do a one-story versus a two-story ADU.

Um I think a lot of or if they're a conversion of an existing accessory building versus a new build.

I think there's gonna be a lot of situations where 11,000 square foot lots due to setback requirements is gonna really narrow it or make it impossible.

But I do think there will be a handful of uh creative individuals who will be able to make it work, and that's great.

Because I I think what you said about the setbacks.

Yeah, because as soon as you go to two as soon as you go to two stories, you have to meet the setbacks for the zone, right?

You keep it one story, or if you're a conversion, the setbacks are much smaller for the rear and the side yards.

So yeah, it's I don't have a perfect answer for you.

That is the answer is I think it's gonna depend on each individual and what their lot looks like, if they're gonna be able to do it or not.

Jacob, does the Navy you require a kitchen?

Kitchen, bathroom, living facility.

Yep.

You have to have all three.

If you just have two, it's uh fun hobby space for your teenagers.

Okay.

Or anyone, it doesn't have to just be teenagers.

Yeah.

And then do these do they hook into the sewer line that's already existing there, or they have their own.

Yeah, it's the existing.

That's in here somewhere.

Uh yeah, it's one of the eyes.

It's one of the eyes.

One of the eyes that Tyson mentioned.

There it is.

All utility services shall be connected to the primary.

If the primary dwelling is connected to septic.

How does that work?

Sorry, I didn't know I was gonna get so interested in this all of a sudden.

But uh but here we are.

I think the way it's written now, it would just connect into the existing sewer system, and so they'd have to share septic.

It would probably have to be upsized.

Okay.

Well, because just because it says connected to the primary dwelling, but if the primary dwelling is on septic, yeah.

Okay.

That would still be okay.

Okay.

But there's very few places where that would be applicable.

Sure.

I know that that would be pretty rare.

Right today.

Okay.

Any other questions, comments, deliberation or a motion?

I would like to make a motion, Mr.

Chair.

I'd love to hear one.

How about you can do it if I want to or not if I wanted to.

That's true.

I wanna make a motion.

Uh on item 2.3 public hearing and recommendation of the I City's request for a review of an amendment to chapter 26 of the development code.

Accessory uses updating the requirements for detached accessory dwelling units to meet the 2026 state legislation.

I recommend that we move for approval, recommend approval to the city council.

Based on that we will bring into compliance with the state legislation code.

Uh add some clarity to what's needed to do an ADU.

And conforms to the general intent and purposes of the uh general plan.

And if there are any DRC comments, please include those.

A second.

Can I make one comment?

I would expect it almost actually.

Can we please change the formatting?

So it matches.

That's many items.

Because I think that would solve your double I.

If you just capitalized all the letters like they are on the left side of the page.

E F G H.

If you followed that same formatting on the second column of the page, I think it might solve that double I problem.

Start.

Sorry, that was all.

How would that impact the motion?

Does your second still stand?

The second still stands.

All right.

Motion in a second.

All in favor.

All right.

Any of us.

All right.

City business.

Um the only thing I can think of is we do have a work session scheduled for next Thursday, a week from tonight.

We're still waiting to get a confirmation on from the sanctuary is what we were trying to line up so we could go on a tour of that.

And if we don't get confirmation, we'll have to either cancel or change something if if you want to go to a different location.

I think we've decided on the which by the way, just says a return and report type thing.

Um the Perry homes, I think you guys are probably all pretty plugged in that that was denied.

But if you still wanted to go see the that overlook, there were I think two that definitely wanted to go, but I I think at this point we were gonna try and do both of them next Thursday, but I think we were trying to line up the sanctuary, and as we got thinking, it we it would probably eat up definitely the whole hour and a half.

So I think we'd just say if you still are interested, just get a hold of was it Angie?

Angie, yeah.

Yeah.

And and you could just go individually.

Um so yeah, we'll keep you posted.

I'm hoping by next Monday we'll have the sanctuary people on board.

And I would think we'd just meet up there on site instead of trying to arrange.

Oh, no fun bus.

Well, my neighbor across the street has one I can ask her if you want to go.

We have one.

We have one here.

Yeah.

And then our next regular meeting would after that would be June 11th.

And there's about seven items on there, so it's definitely a bigger meeting than this one was.

And then no other meeting in June because of roundup week.

And we'll probably cancel the work session.

Oh, yeah.

Uh the July work session fell on July 2nd.

We felt like that's probably gonna be people out of town.

So Real Independence Day.

Yeah.

It's the day Congress actually.

Okay.

That's all I have.

So if we are not having a work session in July, is that what you're saying?

Correct.

Okay.

Next week we're meeting for a hike.

Uh it would be the tour.

Yeah, so we'll send something out.

July second, believe.

First of the week.

Hopefully, I've texted a backup person, the original guy that we went there as staff and I reached out to the same person and he just hasn't responded.

So I had a second contact who's one of the architects that worked on the project.

I'm waiting to hear back from him.

Hopefully, one of the two will get back to me.

So right now it's tentatively planned to meet on site at the sanctuary at 5.30, but we'll confirm Monday and give you details.

So I'm deleting this July 2nd work meeting right now on my calendar.

With confidence.

Okay.

So if the if the sanctuary doesn't work out and there's a backup, one thing, I don't know.

I would love to walk Main Street.

Oh.

Talk to a couple of business owners down there and get their feel for what's going on and what they'd like to see.

Okay.

And we are at the council's direction working on some amendments to mixed use to the mixed use zone.

So maybe that would be worth you know maybe we could kind of brief you on where that draft is at and then we could go walk Main Street.

I yeah I think that's a a good time as we stop at Lucky's down.

Ooh yeah and Lehigh Bakery there's a lot well that they might be closed button.

Okay.

We'll we'll figure something out.

We're hoping the sanctuary I think you guys would really enjoy seeing in that project.

So okay thank you Kim make a motion that we adjourn.

Second.

Aye.

Any opposed all right to just take a motion