Welcome everybody to a meeting in the economic development committee.

We're um going to discuss uh rezone.

I'm joined by Councillor Paniagua and Councillor Nave.

Um, you know, this meeting was called a uh insistence of my colleagues as someone must have missed the notice that we were having the meeting today.

Um, Jake, you know, if you could start off maybe going over um uh like a sketch of what we plan as far as like um corrections, not corrections amendments to rezone.

Um just go through what I did last year.

I would just say I you know, I can I don't want you to go through every single thing, but I I mean I've really have we'll see if others show up, but like I I have nothing new to add.

Like these are these are real use situations that uh and examples that were updated based on actual case uh caseload and experience utilizing a new code for the first time and things that you know need to be added.

Um, this isn't this is outfacing, right?

These are things that help serve and develop our city.

This isn't something that I'm pushing on.

These are things that need to be updated or amended or corrected even for the people that we uh all serve, um, whether it's developers, whether it's homeowners, whether it's uh people that live here, do business here, uh, entertain here.

But I mean, I'm happy to go through all the details again.

I just I guess I would ask if it's necessary.

Well, it seems like everything when I reviewed a lot had to do with like uh restructuring the sentence.

Yeah, exactly.

Um for people to understand.

In consultation with corporation counsel and our land use attorney, a lot of it is kind of restructuring things, moving some things around, you know, definitions being added.

Um again kind of in the weeds um sort of details if you're not doing it every day.

Um, make it easier to uh for people to understand in consultation with corporation counsel and our land use attorney, a lot of it is kind of restructuring things, moving some things around, uh you know, definitions being added, um again uh kind of in the weeds um sort of details, um if you're not doing it every day, but these are things that this staff needs to do proper administration of the code, and it's uh it's like any new law or any anything new, like you're gonna learn as you go and and uh and adjust things or add things to it to make it better, and I think that's exactly what we're still in the process of is taking a a new code that was adopted uh two and a half years ago and still kind of molding that and fine-tuning that and shining it up.

Um I mean, when we first envisioned this when we worked our way through the uh first part of rezone, uh we uh uh foresaw that we'd have to amend uh and be as flexible and fluid as we possibly can as far as this goes.

I find most of the time with any kind of zoning ordinance, it's more or less the interpretation and the implementation of the of this particular uh zoning uh requirement than it is anything else.

Well, sometimes I'll give a real example of what this this one of the one of the amendments that we're proposing will do.

Um there's a two-story minimum requirement for uh development in certain areas, uh one being Erie Boulevard, and we have a an applicant uh who wants to redo a single story building, but by code it says you have to be a two-story.

Well, we're fixing that in this.

This is a real project.

Somebody wants to spend money to fix up a building here.

Uh it would be for uh it's uh biggie tire, who I believe they have a footprint down in the southern tier, Binghamton area, um, but can't do it right now because the code says two-story minimum, and what one of the changes we're making is um for development of uh that you can take a single-story existing building and develop it for for use.

You know, the land use has to still be correct, but um it's things like that that are the bulk of the changes in here.

Um or other so in a situation like that, that's an unconforming use is hit in as far as the new zone goes, but we're interpreting like since they do want to what do we give them a ver uh variance or what?

Or well, no, we would we want to change the code so we can let them go ahead.

Okay, so he's jammed up now, he hasn't been able to go ahead.

Oh, yeah, he's been, yeah.

So it's just for that one, right?

That's just one of the changes, but yeah, I mean it's things like that.

Like again, this is all outfacing.

This isn't me coming up with you know all these crazy new policies to add to this because I want to this is just kind of going through and correcting and editing and updating just nuances of the code so we can better administer it day to day and get people what they need.

So, what happens if like um like I understand that one what you're saying, but what happens if the average person wants to do something different, right?

And then they want it this is not set up in zoning for that.

Like, are they getting that same opportunity for stuff to be changed?

Like, so for instance, that is a business, right?

What was it?

I would say the process we're taking is identifying if we're gonna make a change, it's citywide, right?

Like, what is best for the city, not just the individual, like take him out of it.

But that was a real example.

Like we looked at it and said, Yeah, it probably doesn't make sense to have all these single-story buildings on every boulevard and say, yeah, to develop them, they all got to be two-story, like no, you know what I mean?

Like, that's an existing, but it and it wasn't just Erie Boulevard, but that's just an example.

There it exists on North State Street too, North Salina.

There's uh you know, uh, I don't believe that that was the intent, at least that's what my interpretation is.

I don't think that was the original intent on how the code got adopted like that originally, but that's what ended up going in it that way.

And we we feel like existing buildings should not have to meet that two-story requirement, and that we're a built-out city.

You should be able to fix up a single-story building and use it and develop and come in and establish something and and run your business out of it.

But the way the code is written right now is it says you have to be two stories.

See, I I commend you for doing that.

Um, couldn't you like offered them a conditional permit, then come to us for that or not?

I mean, like let them go ahead knowing that we're gonna change the zoning.

I mean, because if we get into a situation where we're specifically changing the zoning for any entity that you know, and as far as it being for the benefit of the community at large, I'd be in favor of it.

But I mean uh Martha Hertzberg Corporation Council's office.

Can I answer your question, Counselor?

Um, this first of all, it's not a zone district change at all.

This is just tweaking the language.

So as Jake's saying anybody on Erie Boulevard who occupies or wants to occupy an existing building cannot renovate.

It so happened that the code got adopted to say you must make it two stories.

So we've walked down Erie Boulevard on screen multiple times and said we're creating disinvestment with this provision because anybody who wants to improve their building, the code says you have to be two stories.

So we believe that if someone wants to be two stories, they should be able to build that, but not be forced to if it's an existing building.

So was it was it left over from the original code that we changed, or we just then change it or what?

I don't believe it was left over from the original.

I think it was um well, yeah, it was part of the original adoption.

It was in the original adopted, but it's not from the old code.

Oh, right.

It was part of the original adoption of rezone, not in the old 60s code.

Um if that makes sense.

67.

Yeah, so uh Commissioner Michael Collins.

Uh the Yeah, I so what it you just reminded me 67.

What one of one of the things that was really personally tough for me was everybody talking about how ancient the code was and it was created the same year I was.

So I, you know, per personally that was hard.

Um the reality is that uh two things.

One is you made the perfect point at the beginning of the meeting.

We knew when we adopted it, we were going to keep coming back.

It had been over 50 years.

And so uh we're now uh and you know, Owen had done 99 meetings overall with it.

It was never gonna be perfect, it was too much for it to be perfect.

So we're things like this.

All right, hey, that didn't work out exactly the way we want, so we come back to you.

To your other question, uh, well, couldn't we have done something provisional?

Possibly.

We do not want to ever appear to a developer or to the council that we are presumptive of your intentions and your actions.

And if we had done that and the council had you know decides in the end to not adopt what we've proposed, now we've got a developer who's invested money into uh moving along a project that in the end we would not be able to uh to do something with.

And so uh we never want to come up to you and say, well, we've already given permission for somebody to do it, so I need you to do it now.

Just do what we say.

That doesn't that's not good on our part uh in being a partner with you.

Okay.

I don't know if I totally agree with the reasoning on that, but we I understand I'm just talking about where we're where we're coming from with it.

Yeah, okay.

We so I we have done we have gotten him started with some things unrelated to the second story.

Right.

So site work, demolition.

So he doesn't have final approval yet to do it everything bec pending this, but he has started other unrelated items that would be unrelated to the second story.

We we can't make a conditional approval because that doesn't exist in the code, but we've this it should I'd have to investigate that legally, but I I want to explain whether one other thing about the genesis of this change and some of the others.

When the code was adopted and in those eight years preceding, um the planners and and through the meetings Owen had throughout the community and the council had a vision for what they wanted in certain areas.

So for example, there's a new credit union that's on Erie Boulevard and it's two stories, there's lots of grass, and it's a beautiful development.

And I think that was the vision that we would build it up and make it more beautiful, more inviting to investors.

And so that two-story provision went in as kind of the ideal as the dream for Erie Boulevard.

But the reality is that not everybody can afford to or needs to have two stories.

So this tire guy, he doesn't need two stories.

The only way he could get approved without changing the provision, and it's not just to benefit him, it's we realized that the vision is great.

The idea is great to have these two-story structures on Erie Boulevard.

Well, uh yeah, but it doesn't work for everybody.

You know, struggling why that was I you know, we went through this for a long time in the zoning.

I mean, I didn't I didn't, I don't understand why we went with why specifically just two stories in the boulevard.

I think like many new laws, I think, until they actually go through actual application in a real life situation, you don't learn to say, like, oh man, like, yeah, we didn't really think how this would play out in like a real use case scenario with a real application and real somebody actually of real money and real plans to develop.

Um and I think it's difficult to kind of forecast that and plan for every scenario as you're drafting a law.

I think it is.

I think it's not just with zoning, I think with anything.

It's it's hard to get it right out of the gate.

And what we're trying to show here is that we we want to be agile with this, and I want to leave this in a position when I'm not doing this work anymore where somebody doesn't have to do a whole rewrite of the code, right?

Like we plan on having an amendment cycle probably annually.

If not more, just it's sort of so we can keep evolving based on our needs and the vision of the city.

Okay, so okay, I'm gonna say this real quick, you know, I'm gonna lose my train of thought.

Um so really quick with the packet that we just got yesterday um in our meeting.

I haven't read through all of it, I've started it, and it's a lot.

One of my questions is right.

So, with the change in that division through the city, right?

Have any of those changes, because I haven't read all of it yet.

I'm in the process of finishing.

Is it going to affect any of like the um the community homeowners like with any of those changes?

Like, how does it affect and play on a community?

I know the city has their own agenda, right?

But it doesn't always get to the community.

So will it any of those things that you want to change be an impact of the inside of the community as far as you know making any changes where you see anybody saying, wow, I didn't want that there, you know.

I'm like I say well, um the zoning code has to be based off the comp plan, right?

And and we have a division of planning and sustainability led by our deputy commissioner Owen Kearney, and so really those two kind of work coin, they coincide, and they you know, the zoning code kind of follows what the comp plan is saying.

But if you're talking specifically what's in here, I don't think anything is gonna impact or or be a huge change on the community in general.

This is this is kind of like cleaning up and editing text, and I mean there are some additions that we've made, right?

And some changes, but it's overall, it's like cleaning up language and definitions and um but but certainly the zoning code, yeah, like that it was an eight-year process, right?

Like tons of meetings on it.

Um and we we've tried to make even the process for what we're doing open.

Like we had a we didn't call it a committee meeting, but the planning commission, we had a work session meeting just like this in this in these chambers.

Um we at we public advertised.

This is our second committee meeting for this.

Um I say that to say because most people at 12 o'clock, I'm beyond one o'clock, they'll work, right?

And the people that really need to hear aren't in these meetings.

So I'm gonna say this.

So I'm saying simple as like somebody in a neighborhood might be against a three-story apartment building in their community in their neighborhood, right?

And we know we have a housing crisis and we gotta continue to build, but that might be impact of you know, uh, someone who did the sunlight, your tree was there, right?

We we see all these type of there, they might be little, but they're big to the community.

I just want to make sure as we're making these decisions that we're looking at the whole scope, and we don't say, okay, yeah, go ahead and do it.

And then it comes back to say we forgot to look at those things.

Like we had a a um one of Hogan's um constituents, it was a tree.

If we would have removed that tree, it would have been detrimental to them in a whole bit different way, right?

So I'm just thinking about the little things that comes to us that it's important to think about.

Some people might want that, and then some neighborhoods are like, wait, we don't, you know, this is not good for the neighborhood, or it doesn't fit in, or you know, just those things.

I just want to, I know as colds you have to make decisions, but we also have to make sure that we're making right decisions for the community as well.

So the counselor Caldwell's point, obviously, any situation that would uh involve any of our constituents and uh, you know, us as city counselors could ask for a revision of the code regarding that.

We could have another meeting, go before the planning commission and everything else, like they know about it.

Oh, we got the MRNs.

We won't know.

If we're talking about wholesale, like uh, you know, design standard changes, yeah, that that would be an amendment to the code.

Um, and we we haven't really touched any any of that.

Like we're not allowing more stories or less stories in residential neighborhoods, like all that's been it's it's the same.

Like we're we're not none of that's been done, changed.

Labeled different, but it's just from the 67 court.

Right.

The regulations are correct.

I think that's a good way to put it.

Um but yeah, and and you know, to your point about the meeting time, like our meeting with the planning commission was in the meet uh in the evening.

Like the the work session meeting, not and then we had the planning commission meeting after that.

That was also in the evening.

So I don't, you know, I I think getting public partition participation is a challenge just overall.

Yeah, I mean, it's the was the you know, a lot going on here, but yeah.

I just want to make sure that we are, you know, we're being inconsiderate, and I'm not saying you guys aren't because I think you do.

I think you guys do think, and I know every time I call you like, okay, Rashida, tell me what's going on.

I just want to make sure that we're not um passing something or changing something that later on comes back and say, Oh, you already agreed on this, and then you know it doesn't fit for that's all just being transparent.

No, I I hear you, and I don't I mean, I'm I'm kind of just re-reviewing the highlights here, and I uh I don't think there's anything in here that would fall into that category.

I don't think there's anything affecting residential per se, except for one really important provision, which is we added something, I think it was at your request in the last amendment round to allow people, it was a street, an area on South Salina where there were people who were having rentals on their second floor, and they weren't able to get bank letters because they were illegal.

We legalized those two family dwellings, but we had a sunset provision that ended at the end of next year, but we couldn't really telegraph that to the whole community except have it in the code, so we removed that sunset so that in the future, if there's other landowners who need to utilize that provision, they're able to continue using it.

And just one other example of the kind of things we did in here.

Um we had trouble, you know, say you have a building and it's on a sloped street, and we didn't have a way to measure the way the language was where to measure the stories from.

Do you do it from the top?

Do you do it from the bottom?

Is that a basement?

So we revised the whole rule of measurement section.

So a lot of these, so that we have a definitive way to measure on a sloped street or in any other circumstance.

Um a lot of the changes are clarifications like that that help the community, the users of this code understand it better and help us to help the community when they come to us.

So browser.

Yeah, so I'm clear.

Um the Airy Boulevard um redevelopments, so there's a max of two stories.

No, minimum, a minimum of two stories, and okay, and so is that and that's for people who want to like if you have a single story building right now and you want to fix it up, you have to go to two stories, or yeah, but if someone has a single and they don't want to go to two stories, that's the issue that you're having.

No, they can't renovate unless they get by disinvestment because someone who wants to invest, right.

So is that something that was a part of the rezone prior?

Because that uh we inherited that.

Oh, okay.

I'll say it that way.

Okay.

That's easier to understand.

Like, and then we had an application come in and we're all like, oh, this doesn't work, like we need to change this.

I don't understand.

I don't understand that.

Because so when I see new businesses buy a property on Ariel Boulevard single single units, um, single floor, and they do all kind of facade improvements and interiors.

Um so I'm confused.

So this would be for like establishing, like, so this guy's coming to uh establish a tiger.

I don't want to just not just one person.

No, no, I know, but I'm trying to explain like what's triggering it, like so he it's not just me, I I have an existing non-conforming, and I'm just like you know, up like doing some cosmetic upgrades, like he's coming into a building op he's it's it's actually in a there's like an addition, right?

With it, um putting an addition on and totally rehabbing like the whole yeah, it's vacant.

So like he's establishing new his business.

It insert anybody on any building on every boulevard, right?

The code says, Oh, you want to do this, it's got to be two stories.

That's what I'm trying to say.

That's the problem since when.

Since we inherited it in July of 23, like I wasn't the four, it was in the code.

Okay, I see he meant when they did every so we can't just do with him or any project like that.

We couldn't just do a special permit and just say this this isn't the first one.

So this is a provision applicable to all development, and I believe it's the MX2 zone district, anywhere in the city.

So we've had other people come in and they had to build a fake second story to get through the provision.

And so this guy came in and we're like, oh my gosh, we have to change this provision, but it takes a long time to get the amendments to you.

We've only this is a second cycle.

So we met with planning, and while there's a desire to have this two-story kind of dream, we realize the reality is we have to let people in any uh district be able to do this.

We carved out just Erie Boulevard this time because it's a big change.

Because when you look at some other MX2 zoned areas, you might want it to be two stories.

Um I think part of James Street, for example, where everything's two stories, but there's some single stories.

So we only carved out Erie Boulevard because it's one of our major commercial corridors, and we're wanting to bring investment into that.

So for this cycle, we only carved out Erie Boulevard.

We actually had thought, but we didn't know we couldn't do this.

We actually wanted to expand that, but um, since the council can't do floor amendments, we're doing just the Erie Boulevard, but we would like to change that in the future for possibly for all of MX2, so that anybody in MX2 who wants to renovate a single story can do that.

You can do facade changes and some exterior cleanup.

We don't regulate that in zoning, but as soon as you want to occupy a building, then you have to start getting approvals from our department, and it triggers all of these other requirements.

I want to make a comment.

Michael, you said about 1967.

So 19 the previous code that we amended in 2023 was born in 1967.

And it was coincidence, because that's when 81 was going up, and all the businesses were on theory boulevard were now being torn down, and the administration at the time was now let's let's do something different.

So we tore down existing businesses, and while we had we had to do things differently.

Yeah, urban renewal is one of the ugliest parts of our history, right?

Uh so uh yeah, that was you know, I talked about being born in 67.

My grandparents could come most of the way up from Johnson City on 81.

They you know it wasn't quite complete up to uh right into the city.

Yeah, so um yeah, and we lived with that code for 55 years.

And that is too long to go without and this is how many times this is our second time back now for yeah.

So now you know, in two years, we're already back to you twice because we really are trying to make sure that this is a living document that is uh uh as we are you know have two years of application, and as the fact that we know we're you know, we've seen a lot of growth.

We're in a different position now than we were two years ago.

We want to make sure we continue to come back to you and say this is what we see from our property owners, this is what uh we hear from our developers, and this so uh one of the things that this team is great about is well working with uh planning and sustainable, the division of planning sustainability.

So it's not just the application, but it's also the intention.

What do these proposed changes that we're looking at at the moment mean for the best that we can predict into the future?

And so it it's a it's a full team effort to be able to look at it.

And so some of the stuff as we originally looked at it, we then you know went met with Owen, took took a look through it and was like, oh, all right, there are you know, we can see some unintended consequences with our first draft on it.

So let's adjust it.

So we've been through some iterations already before we got uh to the point of of bringing it to you.

Okay, I have um two other questions.

Um, I have a issue with a part of the um not the new adoption, but it's uh already existing.

Um that's probably some conversations that we should have sooner than later, but it's around the um ADUs and the um the owner-occupant properties.

Um I think that there are um somewhat neighbor-to-neigh um real estate owners who have lots that could occupy an ADU, and um we're we're you know, stopping that process because it's only allowed for if you're a homeowner occupant.

Um, but there are wonderful community-based um landlords who who have the ability to put an ADU on a side lot of a property and um that they have as a rental, and we're we're we're stopping that process.

The reason why we only have two ADU applications currently in the uh in the city.

Um so that's some conversations that probably need to be had um and and legislation can be created around that as far as um you know compliance with um permitting and and uh the rental registration um and all of that.

Um the other thing is uh Syracuse University was had a lot of complaints about some of the changes, and I know that you said that you were in conversation with them, so we're where are we with the um PDI and the PDD um uh changes that they were concerned about uh all that's been resolved with what's in the final draft that was presented to you.

Okay.

Um with the exception of we're working on signage with them.

Um there was thank you.

Uh table 2.17.

There are some changes that we negotiated out with SU that they we ultimately came up with language, and that is not in this draft because it was too late.

So we do plan to have another amendment cycle that starts up.

We have a long long wish list of corrections as it were to make to this code to make it operational for the community and for our legislators.

Um there was one outstanding thing, the language is completely approved by everybody and uh everybody who doesn't vote on it, and um it'll come to you in the next cycle.

But all everything else was everything else is yeah, everything else is done, and actually we're not changing anything on that table right now.

Um both SU and the city wanted to make some changes, but they didn't make it in this round, so they'll be coming up soon.

And Lemoine, we haven't heard anything from Lemoyne with concerns about what they were okay.

They've never reached out to us on anything.

Okay.

All right.

Um, just a quick question.

It's about the variances.

Um by one case, right?

Right now.

But if you see a variance that keeps coming up, it doesn't have to be in the same neighborhood.

Business, I'm talking about businesses, not non-residential.

Um would that qualify as maybe a change we would want to adopt in of any cut?

Um trying to say I know exactly what you're trying to say.

You're trying to say if there were a pattern where the same thing get kept getting repeated as a request for a variance, would we consider a code change?

And the answer, the short answer is absolutely yes, but we haven't had that come up.

We haven't had really any two variants requests requesting the same thing.

Um so once we approve a variant, then I mean then it's a mini rezone or a mini code amendment.

So you get a variance, uh, a use variance.

There's two types, area and use, essentially.

You get a use variance to do something on a piece of land that otherwise isn't allowed.

It runs with the land and it stays with that forever.

So it's kind of a its own little mini code amendment.

That's how they operate under the law.

Okay.

I have a um statement, I guess, about that specifically.

Um so when I did watch the um CPC um meetings concerning this rezone, um, it was stated that if someone wanted to apply for a variance, um, and I don't know which body, um, but it wasn't the Board of Zoning Appeals, um didn't feel it was something that should happen that it wouldn't even go further than that um so it wouldn't even get to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Um, and I have a I have a problem with that because that's why we have the Board of Zoning Appeals, so they can make that decision, and so um for it to be stopped before it could get there, um that's that doesn't seem like we should be doing that.

There are um certain things that are jurisdictional for the boards, so I think I know possibly uh one of the items you're referring to.

Um there was someone who wanted to amend a PDD and that PDD cannot be amended.

It wasn't a matter of whether it could get to the board, it's just some there are some things that just can't be done.

So um otherwise, I have no specific anything.

It's just a statement that was made in the same way.

If it's something that the Board of Zoning Appeals doesn't have authority to act on, then we wouldn't sometimes we process the amendments, but we try to discourage people from wasting their own time and money to go through that process if we know that the board can't do it, um, but if they're really insistent, we let them go.

Uh but once you so there's two things that can happen, counselor.

If you can't get to the board because it's a jurisdictional issue for that board, or you don't qualify, then you can file an Article 78 because you're aggrieved by a decision of Jake, for example.

Um, or if you are unsuccessful at the Board of Zoning Appeals, you can also file an Article 78.

But are they told that they can file the Article 78?

Or do they you just assume that they know that um it says it in the code, and we can't give people I suppose the staff sometimes says it, but they they don't have the legal expertise, and so the code is explicit that if you're aggrieved by a decision, the state laws specific and the code is specific that if you're aggrieved by a decision of an officer of the city, then you can file for the Article 78.

Well, why can't we tell them?

Well, I I can't give legal advice to somebody, and that's essentially what that is.

And and so we don't really have the staff get into that too, because then they start asking questions, and the staff shouldn't be trying to answer that.

So and it comes from Jones Rouser's uh question.

Uh uh is it who who in the administration would check these boards to make sure that your area actually terms on those boards until recently the BZA had two members that were on there for 30 years, so we we monitor all of that.

We know they're turned to maybe I brought it up to because I mean that is you go before a board of zoning appeals and they're the final arbiter of something, and you got two folk uh uh folks that were there until recently, they were there for 30 years.

Um there should be some new blood in some of these boards.

Well, there is and was was now um but we just want to make guard against that.

We monitor the required training hours, we monitor we have everything documented, what their terms are.

Um we're doing the the elections the way the charter says we have to, like we're we're on top of it.

Okay.

I there was one thing I wanted to ask about.

I I I let it go last time.

I think I asked about is the the uh interpretation of like rental as commercial in some aspects.

You mentioned that um rental property being oh like and I don't think it's in it's not incorporated exactly in the zoning.

So at least a revision you mean I'm wrong in relation to how we're not using definition of family to regulate who can live in a structure.

Yes.

Yes.

Do you want me to explain that again?

Yeah, a little bit.

Yeah, so um not a little bit.

One of the I believe it was one of the conditions of adopting it in July was that we eliminate and delete and stop using the term family and how that's defined, meaning uh no more than five unrelated adults ages 18 or older.

So what we did, and I I bel still to this day, right at this very moment, I think we're the only municipality that I'm aware of that is regulating um how a structure is is uh regulating the density and intensity of use in conjunction with property maintenance and fire codes of New York State in lieu of trying to track blood relations and people and ages of people living with one another.

So ResCom is a scheme that does that uh in residential zone districts, and it uh again is a scheme for intensity and density of use.

So what it does is it treats rental properties as businesses and that it's a commercial enterprise, and but the the people living there it's no different than a homeowner.

It's they don't there's no changes in physical living conditions or what they're able to do or not do, like none of that changes.

I think we are all comfortable when in fact we insisted upon that change, but I'm not sure uh the word commercial uh is something I'm comfortable with to describe that at all.

Well is that in the new changes?

It's already adopted.

Um commercial?

No, we can adopt it.

Residential, so so this is all kind of hypertechnical zoning categories and classifications.

So there's we only have five classifications in the code.

Industrial, maybe six open space, industrial, commercial, mixed use, and residential.

Did I say commercial?

So you gotta kind of fit into one of those.

So what we did, so residential zone districts.

Um, it's not the zone districts, the residential classifications, there's two types.

There's residential and residential commercial.

Under residential, there's only single family homes and attached single family, two-family homes, and is there anything else under residential?

I think group living, which is like dormitories and stuff like that.

Boarding houses, dormitories, uh eventually when we can get to it, tiny home villages, congregate living facilities are all under residential.

Yeah, the residential commercial designation was a way to get we had to come up with a way to get rid of that definition of family.

And so we happen to have a category of commercial apartment buildings, are residential commercial.

Uh a home that's renter occupied, such as the one I live in, is residential commercial.

Um if you own a home and you rent out more than three rooms, you become residential commercial.

If you're renting out two of your rooms, you're still just straight up residential.

So I I'm not sure.

So the rooms, the room part is also changes in the commercial versus residential situation.

So would they if I'm renting out rooms in in my house and now it's considered commercial, am I getting which which C of what am I getting?

Which what?

I'm sorry.

C of O, C of A, C of U.

Oh.

So it's owner occupied, so I wouldn't be getting any of that.

Yeah, this isn't it's not about so if it's owner occupied, you would still be exempt from rental registry if you're a single family or two family.

This is about land use approval, and if you want to make uh changes in the intensity use and density, then certain land use rules would be applied.

Um a lot of this has to do with overcrowding and adding of illegal bedrooms in basements or sunrooms or large closets, or taking one bedroom and putting a wall in illegally to create two bedrooms or in the attic.

Um so it also deals with illegal conversions of space not designed or approved to be sleeping rooms or bedrooms.

Um and if you do want to do a conversion like that and you fall into a rescom category, you have to offset the increase of density and intensity by having certain common area based on the state property maintenance code, but also an additional off-street parking space, because we see that is an issue citywide in certain neighborhoods.

And that only happens when you're converting non-bedrooms to bedroom space.

So the issue really for those came about because there's a lot of applications that come and they want to make the dining room a bedroom, and they want to make the living room a bedroom, and they want to make the sunroom a bedroom, and then all of a sudden there's no common area.

So the commercial part of a homeowner-occupant rooming house.

I'm just gonna call it a room and don't ignore me.

Comes with the conversion of like the person on the east side who wanted to add eight bedrooms to a three-bedroom house per se.

It's it's uh I'll just backtrack and then let Jake take over again.

Um it's called commercial because you're monetizing just like a multifamily, an apartment building has monetized those um living spaces.

Somebody's making rent or or uh income off of it.

Um that was the terminology and the thought process, the corporation council wanted to use, and in fact, it was her uh coined the residential commercial status.

Excuse me?

Who is home?

Sue, uh the corporation council.

So uh so okay, so just so I'm clear.

And and just we ran that by the state, actually, um, to talk to them about using that moniker or that designation, this whole scheme.

And um they said that that was the only way to make it constitutional.

Um, so if I have a single family home or a two-bedroom home, I'm considered residential.

If I have a three or more, I'm commercial.

If I have a single family home that I'm renting out any room, I'm commercial.

Yeah, three uh after you start renting out three rooms, you become commercial.

Oh, after three.

Okay, you're you're you live there and you've got two bedrooms, and you want to make a little extra, you rent them out.

You're still residential.

Okay.

Once you start running out three or more, you become residential commercial.

We had to draw a line, and and that's where we thought that there could be overcrowding issues because remember, it's not just the number of rooms that you're renting, but then there's become parking implications, and frankly, garbage pickup implications and other implications, the more that gets rented out, and the density.

Other other communities call these mini dorms or their illegal rooming houses.

Uh I'll I'll try to lay it out this way because I think it's a good way to explain it and what Mayor was hitting on.

Mayor rents a single family home.

I own a single family home.

If I if I started renting out my home tomorrow, my the structure I own would go from residential to rescom.

The person living there or myself is not impacted at all from that unless I try to come and add a bedroom in a space that's not approved to be a bedroom, meaning I want to take my family room and change it into a bedroom because I'm renting it now and I want to monetize that because I I know I can get an extra thousand bucks a month for that additional bedroom.

Um it's only triggered then.

It doesn't change anything for the people where that's where I think you keep on losing me at because you're saying using rooms that aren't currently rooms.

But if I have a five-bedroom house, you're good.

But you just said that if we use more than three, no, no, no, no.

No, no, no.

What she said is if you rent more than three bedrooms.

What we're saying is if you convert a space that's not a bedroom to a bedroom and you're you're renting it, there are certain offsets you need to make in that increase of in intensity of use and density of use to account for the common area and parking.

It's only yeah, go ahead.

I see where we're hanging you up.

So there's two tracks, okay.

There is uh house that you live in, and you want to want to rent out bedrooms, and it's a five-bedroom.

So you rent out at first two of them.

It's still just a single family home, you're living there, you got a little extra income.

Now you want to rent out all five.

Yeah.

Well, four because I'm I'm in one of them.

So once we once you rent out three of them, you become commercial.

That's what it doesn't change anything.

You don't that's it's another category under rescom.

Okay, there's there's five, I think five categories.

There's multifamily, there's residential, owner occupied, there's um you're just going to have to raise the rent on the other three rooms to make it up.

But that's I don't understand.

I can sit with you if you want.

It's it's another category of rescom, what we're talking about where you where you're converting non-bedroom spaces.

That's a type of rescom.

And then there's another type of rescom where you're renting more than three bedrooms.

So there's we're talking about two different animals, which is uh that's the confusion.

Is this only for your language?

Like what difference does it make from res like residential to rescom?

Nothing.

Yeah, it's only for land use.

So you guys know what's sort of like in here.

Okay.

It's just to prevent people from adding illegal bedrooms.

Really?

And adding to that, like it doesn't impact anything.

If you're not changing your structure, doesn't it doesn't matter if you're renting, owning, renting out three and living there, none of that, none of that those three examples, nothing would change other than what category you fall on.

The only thing that changes even the rental part, if I own a five-bedroom and I do rent, I still think that does change the like parking situation that might bring more cars to the neighborhood.

So I understand all of that, but I just want to be clear so people understand it because if I'm confused, then somebody else gonna be confused.

Right.

Okay.

I just want to remember counsel.

I just want to remind the counselors we have another another meeting over there at the other building.

I know I just as that's three o'clock.

So can we just wrap this up maybe and um you got any more questions, Council Call?

I will, but not online.

I'll make it a little bit more than Jones Rouser.

You got your all segments.

I'm fine.

You're okay.

So I appreciate Jake.

I appreciate you and your crew being here, but uh, we have to go over the housing tree that you're gonna do.

Yeah, I um just one last thing quickly.

I have to go out of town for a wedding on the holiday.

I unfortunately will not be here Tuesday.

So um if you can, I mean Zitong, Mayara, Michael, they'll all be here.

But if there's something needed, if you have a question, please reach out.

I'll answer uh by email, by text, talk to somebody, or they'll be here Tuesday.

Um not allowed but thank you.

We just don't listen.

Uh I'll ask for a meeting to be adjourned.

Almost second.

All in favor, yeah.

Jake, I'll I'll talk to Ryan.