►
Description
USDO Amendments
A
A
A
D
E
F
A
F
A
D
Yeah-
and
I
just
wanted
to
note-
you
know
there-
we
are
planning
to
get
this
stuff
up
on
the
web
relatively
shortly.
We're
going
to
work
with
dennis
gaffney
at
acda
to
help
us
do
a
little
bit
of
outreach
and
kind
of
help
us
on
the
back
end
of
making
sure
we're
up
to
speed.
Obviously
this
is
very
time
intensive
for
us,
so
we
do
want
to
help
the
council
promote
this
in
any
way
that
they
choose,
but
we're
we
admit,
we're
a
little
bit
behind
the
curve
on
that.
D
D
C
D
Tonight,
we're
here
to
talk
about
article
one.
A
lot
of
it
is
relatively
straightforward
purpose
and
intent
language
of
the
code
severability
how
to
deal
with
things
that
may
have
been
in
effect
at
the
time
the
code
was
adopted
that
may
not
comply
with
code
etc,
and
some
of
these
are
more
formally
or
more
dressed
in
more
detail
in
later
sections
of
the
code.
So
there
were
a
couple
that
we
wanted
to
call
out
and
just
highlight
in
particular
to
get
you
thinking
about
that.
D
C
C
So
the
the
first
point
is
unchanged.
The
second
point
also
is
unchanged:
the
implement
the
policies
of
the
adopted
comprehensive
plan,
as
may
be
amended
from
time
to
time,
promote
economic
reinvestment
in
the
city,
but
third
point
does
have
a
change
and
the
the
changes
where
it
says,
protect
and
preserve
the
city's
residential
neighborhoods.
The
changes
made
to
say,
protect
and
preserve
the
city's
neighborhoods
and
also,
in
addition,
add
promote
and
promote
racial
equity
within.
C
So
the
point
of
this
is
that
the
previous
language
of
protecting
preserve
city's
residential
neighborhoods
was
a
little
vague
in
the
in
its
application
or
interpretation
of
what
protect
would
mean
and
what
preserve
would
mean,
and
it
creates
a
little
bit
of
a
confusion
as
to
whether
or
not
it
applies
to
the
historic
standards
or
whether
it's
referring
to
environmental
justice
issues,
so
it
in
order
to
more
narrowly
focus.
This.
This
point
here
what
was
added.
C
C
A
G
Of
all
the
memo
that
we
got
last
week
did
not
include
the
and
promote
racial
equity
within
is
that
memo
now
going
to
be
revised
to
reflect
this,
and
how
are
we
going
to
go
about
doing
this?
I
might
my
recommendation
would
be
that
we
include
these
kinds
of
adjustments
in
that
march.
26
memo
note
that
it
was
revised
as
of
a
particular
date
and
to
make
sure
that
the
powerpoint
presentation
that
we're
being
provided
with
is
consistent
with
the
memo
that
we're
being
provided.
D
Speaking
to
this
in
bullet
number
three,
as
we
developed
the
powerpoint,
you
know
we
concluded
that
we
had
sort
of
come
come
to
the
conclusion
of
the
language
that
we
wanted
to
use.
So
we
did
just
propose
the
amendment
as
a
part
of
the
this
slide,
as
opposed
to
creating
the
separate
slide
that
left
it
more
open-ended.
Obviously,
that's
why
we're
here
to
discuss
these
items,
so
if
that
language
isn't
working
for
anyone,
we
can
certainly
revisit
that.
G
Well,
yes,
but
I
did
that
was
part
one
of
my
questions.
Okay,
go
ahead,
my
my
second,
that
was
just
a
process
thing.
My
second
gut
reaction
is
that
the
language
should
be
promote
racial
equity
throughout
such
neighborhoods,
because
I
think
within
does
not
get
at
the
issue
that
there
is
disparity
in
the
extent
to
which
we're
protecting
and
preserving
all
neighborhoods,
and
so
there's
a
there's,
a
racial
equity
issue
embedded
in
that
as
well.
G
G
C
H
D
F
Yeah,
it
just
takes
I'm
on
a
ipad,
so
it
takes
a
second
or
two
to
get
the
mute
screen
up
with
neighborhoods.
Is
there
different
definitions,
because
I'm
just
curious
about
how
why
we
took
out
the
residential?
Are
we
thinking
of
like
warehouse
or
industrial
neighborhoods?
Is
that
considered
like
a
neighborhood,
or
I'm
just
curious
about
the
reasoning
why
we
took
out
residential?
F
D
C
Yep
so
there
are,
there
are
partial
portions
of
the
city
that
have
mixed
uses
with
residences,
with
residential
type
uses
and
and
business
type
uses,
and
those
can
have
vary
to
to
to
include
a
word
residential
kind
of
limits
that
the
the
narrow
focus
is
a
narrow
perspective
of
the
of
number
three
to
areas
where
the
primary
use
allowed
is
residential
and
where
other
uses
are
not
allowed.
So
it's
to
be
more
inclusive
of
areas
that
have
mixed
uses.
F
Luis,
I
got
a
follow-up
too
just
real
fast.
Do
we
want
to
protect
like
industrial
areas,
though
I
I've
seen
it
like.
I
grew
up
in
new
york
city
and
areas
that
used
to
be
just
like
warehouses
and
factories.
They've
turned
into
residential,
and
you
know
long
term.
Is
there
industry
ever
going
to
be
back
there
again?
Is
that
something
that
goes
into
the
planning
that
you
know
if
an
area
is
meant
for
doing
like
you
know
any
of
the
river
and
you're
near
loading,
boats
and
stuff
like
that?
C
Yeah,
so,
if
you're
directing
a
question
at
me
yeah,
so
as
you
mentioned
you,
you
kind
of
interpret
the
neighborhoods
as
being
places
where
people
live.
If
there
are
areas
that
are
predominantly
industrial
uses
where
residential
uses
are
not
necessarily
prevalent,
the
nodes
are
necessarily
fall
under
this
specific
purpose,
but
they
are
covered
under
other
parts
of
our
ordinance
that
does
determine
what
uses
are
appropriate
in
in
those
districts
so
that
they
don't
conflict
with
nearby
residential
uses.
C
If
residential
uses
were
to
come
into
those
zoning
districts,
then
at
that
point
they
would
fall
under
this.
This
purpose
here
and
you
would
both
be
trying
to
prevent
harm
in
the
as
as
defining
protect
to
that
area
and
those
residents
who
are
now
living
there
and
also
you
know,
keep
this
well,
it's
different.
You
wouldn't
necessarily
preserve
an
area
where
residents
residential
uses
weren't,
really
there
it's
kind
of
like
a
circular
argument.
C
If
you're,
if
you're,
maintaining
the
status
quo
of
industrial
usage,
that
means
that
people
could
never
live
there,
but
that's
not
necessarily
speaking
to
the
point
of
rehabilitating
uses
that
may
have
at
one
point
cause
brownfields,
but
you
can
be
remediated
and
allow
for
residential
uses.
So
you
don't
necessarily
want
to
avoid
expanding
residential
uses
to
areas
where
it
could
be
a
beneficial
use.
So
you
wouldn't
necessarily
want
to
to
stifle
that
with
with
the
interpretation
of
preserve
so
by
using
the
neighborhood
portion
of
it.
D
Yeah,
if
I
could
just
add
really
quickly,
I
think
that
was
it's
an
interesting
point.
That
tom
makes,
because
you
know,
do
we
want
to
preserve
and
protect
every
neighborhood
or
a
certain
characteristic.
I
think
that
when
we
looked
at
it,
that
was
the
you
know,
and
I
think
you
all
know
that
this
has
come
up
at
some
meetings
and
planning
board
meetings
and
otherwise
preserve
and
protect
the
city's
residential
neighborhoods
or
the
city's
neighborhoods.
D
It
wasn't
entirely
clear
what
that
meant,
and
it
was
certainly
clear
to
us
that
it
could
be
different.
People
interpret
it
different
ways.
So
that's
where
we
were
trying
to
bring
the
lens
of
of
equity
into
it,
and
I
think
you
know
I
think,
we're
open
to
continue
discussion
on
the
language,
but
we
did
feel
that
there
needed
to
be
clarification
as
to
exactly
what
the
intent
was.
One.
A
One
thing
that
occurred
to
me
was
maybe
adding
the
the
word
in
protect,
preserve
and
improve
the
city's
neighborhood.
So
then,
you
kind
of
get
at
what
tom
was
referring
to
as
far
as
that,
we're
not
going
to
want
to
preserve
all
the
all
the
neighborhoods,
but
we
do
want
to
improve
all
the
neighborhoods
just
that
was
just
a
thought.
I
should
also
mention
that
council
member,
alfredo
ballerin,
is
also
here
any
thoughts
about
that.
C
A
A
D
D
So
I
think
this
may
be
something
that
we
will
continue
to
look
at
and
we
would
encourage
the
members
on
the
call
council
members
to
maybe
look
at
it
and
give
us
some
suggestions
and
we
can
follow
up
on
this
at
our
thought
at
our
next
meeting.
Yes,
you
know
if
we
could
conclude
upon
any
particular
language
or
we
can
add
and
prove
and
call
it
a
day.
I'd
be
happy
with
that.
C
Number
five
remains
unchanged:
secure
safety
from
fire,
flood
waters,
panic
and
other
dangers.
Number
six
remains
and
change
facilitate
the
provision
of
adequate
transportation,
water,
sanitary
and
storm
sewers,
schools,
parks
and
other
community
facilities
needed
to
serve
new
and
existing
development.
D
So
yeah
and
just
on
number
seven,
I
wanted
to
add
that
it
just
felt
like
it
was
conflating
two
separate
items
there:
encouraging
aesthetic
quality
and
then
preserving
historic
urban
fabric.
So
we're
not
opposed
to
adding
an
additional
numerical
item
that
speaks
to
the
encouragement
of
aesthetic
quality
or
design
excellence
or
some
sort
of
something
architecturally
or
urban
design.
Otherwise,
that's
not
necessarily
focused
on
the
historic
elements
and.
A
G
A
A
B
B
We
are
proposing
to
remove
the
reference
to
inner
or
outer
courts,
and
then
add
the
word
or
before
side
yards
just
to
kind
of
end.
The
list
we're
removing
this
just
because
inner
or
outer
chords
aren't
referenced
anywhere
else
within
the
zoning
code
and
it's
so
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
include
something
that
doesn't
have
a
definition
and
it's
something
that
we
don't
see.
Architecturally
a
lot
within
the
city.
B
A
B
D
D
D
G
B
B
D
F
D
D
Okay,
and
if
you
want
to
change
the
slide
it
just
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
segue
here,
just
to
give
a
brief
overview
of
you
know
non-conformities,
so
you
know,
non-conformity
is,
is
typically.
This
is
something
we're
going
to
revisit
towards
the
end
of
the
code,
but
it's
important
to
be
thinking
about
as
we
go
through
the
code
in
its
entirety,
a
condition
that
was
legally
established
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
the
usdo,
but
does
not
conform
to
the
current
regulations.
D
So
that
could
be
the
use
of
the
property.
It
could
be
the
dimensions
of
the
lot.
It
could
be.
The
setbacks
of
the
structure,
signs,
hours
of
operation,
parking
and
site
improvement.
So
it's
relatively
complex.
Our
prior
code
only
spoke
to
non-conforming
uses,
which
are
perhaps
the
most
egregious
form
of
non-conformity.
D
The
new
code
does
speak
to
a
broader
type
of
things
that
may
not
conform
to
the
current
regulation
and
that
I
think,
as
we
get
to
that
section,
we
could
probably
improve
upon
that
a
little
bit.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
a
property
owner
to
substantiate
provide
proof,
the
legality
of
a
non-conformity
by
law.
D
Non-Conforming
generally
may
not
be
expanded
in
scope.
Although
this
code
does
allow
non-conforming
use
to
be
expanded
with
an
existing
structure,
provided
that
there's
no
physical
expansion
of
that
structure
and
not
affected
by
a
change
in
ownership
or
normal
maintenance
or
repair
and
375
506
are
the
more
detailed
standards
on
non-conformities
this
language
that
I'm
reading
from
here
is
not
the
exact
code,
language.
D
Just
an
overall
summary-
and
you
know
there
are
certain
one
of
the
things
we
tried
to
do
when
we
adopted
the
usda
was
decrease
the
number
of
non-conformities
in
the
city,
some
of
that
accommodated
in
some
cases
new
development
that
in
some
cases
you
know,
created
some
challenges.
So
I
think
it's
in
balancing
the
we
need
to
respect
our
existing
fabric
in
homes
and
communities,
but
we
also
need
to
set
a
vision
for
we.
What
we
want
new
development
to
look
like
in
the
future.
D
D
Those
are
the
city's
prior
codes,
so
we'll
add,
whenever
we
adopt
the
the
updated
copy,
edited
version,
that'll
kind
of
go
in
the
pool
with
the
september
9th
1993,
which
wasn't
a
full
code
rewrite.
It
was
sort
of
a
a
semi
update
of
the
may
1968
coordinates.
But
when
we're
trying
to
document
non-conformities,
really
our
zoning
goes
all
the
way
back
to
1924,
so
it
it
can
get
relatively.
It
can
get
complex
in
some
cases
when
we're
dealing
with
with
older
structures.
D
It's
also
important
to
remember
that
I
don't
know
the
exact
percentage,
but
a
very
substantial
portion
of
our
city
was
built
prior
to
1994,
where
there
was
no
zoning
in
effect,
so
there's
nothing
guiding
that
development,
some
of
which
we
like,
but
we
need
to
be
conscious
of
that
as
we
write
our
current
codes
and
ordinances
that
that's
still
exists
and
it
may
never
comply
with
the
building
codes
or
other
elements
that
we
apply.
Moving
forward.
D
D
So
I
I
think
we're
going
to
remove
this.
This
remove
this
removal
and
restore
what's
originally
in
the
code,
and
we
may
want
to
just
take
another
look
to
make
sure
we
don't
want
to
change
or
or
tweak
anything,
but
as
of
the
2017
code,
there
are
no
pending
applications
or
approved
projects
that,
under
the
prior
code
that
are
still
in
existence
or
pending.
As
far
as
as
we're
aware.
B
B
Doing
further
research
on
this,
we
found
through
state
law
that
interpretation
by
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
should
only
be
appellate
in
nature.
So
functionally
the
there
has
to
be
a
city
official.
That
denies
something
for
the
applicant
to
appeal
through
an
administrative
appeal
and
have
the
bza
interpret
the
administrative
appeal.
B
So
I
think
this
is
an
opportunity
for
the
code
to
provide
more
opportunity
for
transparency
and
more
opportunities
for
public
comment,
but
also
to
make
sure
that
the
sections
of
the
code
are
aligning
with
new
york,
state
law
and
the
purposes
and
functions
of
both
the
chief
planning
official,
as
well
as
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
and
if
daniel.
If
you
could
go
to
the
next
slide,
please.
B
The
process
for
the
chief
plane
official,
making
interpretations
how
long
an
interpretation
should
be
posted
with
on
on
the
city's
website.
Should
there
be
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
at
a
formalized
meeting
or
just
through
written
correspondence,
and
also
trying
to
make
sure
that
interpretations
for
relatively
small
issues
are
not
holding
up
smaller
projects.
F
F
The
ordinance
is
created
by
the
common
council,
the
legislative
body
of
the
city
of
albany,
and
my
feeling
is
that
there
should
be
for
interpretation
if
we're
creating
the
law,
it
should
be
our
interpretation
of
the
law
and
in
a
way,
if
we
were
more
involved
in
that
for
situations
like
you
just
had
said
about
maybe
a
little
tiny
thing
with
a
swimming
pool
that,
if
we're
dealing
with
these
little
issues,
we
would
be
able
to
change
the
law
because
we
we
created
this
document.
This
is
our
responsibility.
F
What
you
know,
I'm
not
saying
we
sat
down
and
wrote
it
we
had.
You
know
you
guys
were
involved
and
we
had.
You
know
we.
We
hired
out
people
to
to
come
up
with
this,
but
the
bottom
line
is
the
ordinance
is
from
the
council,
and
I
don't
want
it
to
me
it's
too
putting
too
much
eggs
in
one
basket.
I
really
think
this
really.
F
We
need
to
come
up
with
a
better
way
to
do
it,
whether
it's
you
know,
the
planning
committee
of
the
council
would
help
in
the
interpretation
or
the
full
council
or
members
certain
members
of
the
council,
but
in
my
mind
the
interpretation
should
be
made
by
the
council
since
it's
an
ordinance.
Thank
you.
B
Yeah,
I
can
speak
to
that.
So
I
think
when
we
were
thinking
of
interpretations,
I
think
these
are
kind
of
short
transition
periods
where
it
would
allow
for
issues
to
be
resolved
in
between
the
time
that
we
might
notice
an
issue.
That's
not
coming
from
a
specific
project,
but
we
might
be
reading
the
code
one
day
and
notice
an
issue
and
want
to
address
it.
B
So
it
might
avoid
issues
in
the
short
term,
but
I
think
it's
a
good
opportunity
for
us
to
be
looking
at
time
frames
for
putting
forward
changes
through
the
text.
Amendment
process,
since
that
is
you
know,
the
function
that
the
council
serves
and
the
eventual
function
that
you
know
the
council
should
be
able
to
serve
and
decide
upon
within
these
situations.
So
I
think
this
is
trying
to
address.
You
know
things
on
more
of
a
short-term
lens.
You
know
things
are
still
going
to
go
through
administrative
appeals.
B
F
Now
we
meet
every
two
weeks,
so
it's
it's
not
like
we
don't.
You
know
we
meet
more
than
the
planning
board
actually
meets.
I
mean
they
do
have
the
workshop.
But
and
again,
I'm
thinking
if
we
had
some
kind
of
committee
with
people
from
the
council,
people
from
planning
and
maybe
some
other
areas
to
deal
with
these
things
you're
closer
to
the
problem.
We
would
see
it
a
lot
easier
and
I
think
we
could
react
a
lot
more
and
it
wouldn't
be
like
everybody's,
creating
a
little
silo.
It'd
be
more
sharing
of
this.
F
You
know
huge
project,
that's
you
know,
which
is
a
great
plan,
but
I
think
a
lot
of
us
felt
were
kind
of
pushed
out.
You
know
we
went
through.
You
know
even
a
court
case
to
to
show
that
you
know
this
is
the
council's
responsibility.
So
it's
something
I'd
really
like
us
to
think
about,
and
you
know
I'll
I'll
talk
around
to
the
other
council
members,
but
I'm
just
letting
you
know
you
know
I.
F
I
definitely
want
to
work
with
you
guys,
but
I
think
we
need
to
kind
of
you
know
see
if
we
can
do
things
better
and
it'll
never
be
perfect,
but
it
you
know
we
change
as
as
needed.
Maybe
it
wouldn't
work
out,
then
we
change.
We
make
some
changes,
but
you
really
got
to
get.
I
think,
with
the
interpretation
having
it
done
by
one
person.
F
You
know
the
chief
planning
officer,
it's
just
yes,
you
can
go
and
do
an
appeal,
but
I
think
it
would
be
a
lot
faster
if
a
guy
came
in
with
a
swimming
pool
and
the
council's
meeting
every
two
weeks
that
this
thing
comes
up,
it's
more
work
on
us.
You
know
my
fellow
council
members
might
not
be
too
happy
with
me,
but
I
think
we
could
deal
with
things
a
lot
faster.
We
can
discuss
them
and
we
can
get
you
know.
F
G
Have
have
a
have
a
little
bit
of
patience
with
me
on
this
one,
because
I
have
a
lot
of
thoughts
that
are
going
through
my
mind.
Tom
first
of
all,
a
government
would
shut
down
if
every
time
there
needs
to
be
an
interpretation
of
anything,
the
legislature,
new
york,
state
legislature
or
anybody
passed
they
needed
to
go
to
back
to
that
body.
G
There's
also
an
issue
in
general
that
I
think
that
we
all
need
to
be
mindful
of
that.
An
interpretation
so
we're
we're
amending
this
to
say
and
interpret
the
the
chief
planning
official
has
the
authority
to
issue
an
interpretation,
and
this
really
an
interpretation
is
usually
only
going
to
arise
because
there's
some
project
or
something
happening
in
which
there's
actually
a
decision
being
made.
G
The
thing
about
an
interpretation
is
and
and
and
and
planning
staff,
has
pro
appropriately
commented
that
we
need
to
come
up
with.
Probably
a
definition
of
you
know
what
is
the
distinction
that
we're
making
here
an
interpretation
is,
the
goal
of
an
interpretation
is
now.
This
is
how
we
are
viewing
this
for
this
particular
application.
It's
arisen,
the
issue
has
arisen
and
how
do
we
think
it
should
be
applied
uniformly?
G
Not
just
to
this
particular
application
to
this
particular
property
you're
looking
at
the
usdo,
and
you
want
to
treat
everybody
similarly,
so
embedded
in
a
decision
really
should
be.
You
know
an
interpretation
of
the
usda
unless
the
usdo
is
perfectly
clear
on
it.
So
so
that's
something
we
need
to
iron
out
here.
Personally,
I
think
a
lot
of
this
belongs
in
article
five,
where
we
set
forth
the
responsibilities
of
the
different
people
and
different
bodies.
G
So
we
have
you
know
the
responsibilities
of
the
chief
planning
official,
the
responsibilities
of
the
director
of
planning,
the
responsibilities
of
the
chief
building,
official
board
of
zoning
appeals,
planning,
board,
etc,
and
us
is
all
laid
out
there,
and
that
also
then
sets
forth
the
price
process
and
the
criteria
that
you
use.
So
I
think
it
belongs
there.
I
think
the
details
of
that
belong
there
and
you
know
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
to
do
with
this
particular
provision
here
about
this
tom.
G
Rather
than
saying
you
can't
issue
any
interpretations
to
say,
give
us
advance
notice
and
we're
we're
going
to
take
a
look
at
it.
Maybe
talk
to
an
applicant
that
this
applies
to
look
at
the
properties
around
it.
How
to
you
know?
How
do
we
feel
about
this?
Is
this
a
good
decision,
slash
interpretation,
regardless
of
whether
it's
in
an
r2
district
or
an
rm
district
or
a
mixed
use,
district
or
a
foreign-based
district?
G
G
There
would
be
some
discussion,
there
would
be
a
hearing
on
it
and
so
really
we're
talking
about
something.
That
potentially
is
you
know
it's
not
a
two-week
process.
It
is
a
two
to
three
month
process
that
I
don't
think
we
want
every
single
minor
issue
going
through
that
process
and
how
do
you
decide
minor
versus
more
significant,
and
I
think
the
answer
is
to
have
the
proposed
decision
posted
for
the
council
to
be
directly
advised
through
our
senior
legislative
aide
or
whoever,
and
that
then,
that
immediately
is
shared
with
all
council
members.
G
And
then
what
is
the
process
there?
I
have
suggested
in
one
case
that
then,
if
you
have
a
majority
of
council
members,
basically
saying
I
object,
this
should
be
reviewed
and
then
put
a
stay
on
something
and
and
not
to
be
taken,
hopefully
not
to
be
taken
lightly.
If
that
kind
of
thing
is
going
to
happen,
that
is
something
I've
been
toying
with.
That
is
an
idea
that
I've
been
playing
with
in
terms
of
how
do
we,
how
do
we
not
gum
up
the
works
but
have
an
opportunity
to
be
informed?
The.
D
We
support
that.
You
know,
I
think
the
I
think
it
makes
sense.
It
puts
a
little
more
onus
on
us
to
make
sure
we're
thinking
clearly
and
properly
communicating
what
the
issues
are.
You
know,
I
think
that
I
I
think
it's
judy
stated.
You
know
I
had
some
of
the
same
concerns
about
the
way
tom
proposed
it.
Although
I
do
understand
his
his
concerns
that
you
know
as
a
legislative
body,
you
should
be
able
to
have
an
input
in
the
changing
of
the
law.
A
G
I
I
think
I
think
the
the
other
principle
that
I
had
ingrained
with
me
as
part
of
administrative
law
is
there
should
always
be
an
opportunity
for
notice
and
opportunity
to
be
heard
and
that
doesn't
being
heard
doesn't
necessarily
mean,
go
to
a
full-blown
hearing.
There's
plenty
of
case
law
out
there.
That
says
you
meet
your
constitutional
obligations
for
potentially
impacting
somebody's
property
right
by
providing
them
with
notice
and
an
opportunity
to
be
heard,
and
that
can
be
via
a
written
process.
G
A
F
Kathy
can
I
respond
to
judy
you
don't
mind
interpreting
and
again
I've
nothing
set
in
stone
with
me.
I'm
very
open
to
you
know,
working
things
out.
One
of
the
things
I'd
like
to
see
is:
we
went
through
an
experience
where
there
was
a
deed
restriction
and
it
was
just
totally
ignored
and
I
felt
it
should
have
been,
maybe
appealed.
F
It
should
have
gone
beyond
what
it
went.
So
that's
what
I'm
looking
for
is
that
if
there's
something
there
major
that
we
don't
lose,
you
know
that
ordinance
power
and
the
other
thing
is
that
I'd
like
to
see
is
that
if
we,
if
stuff
is
posted,
I
really
that
sounds
more
and
more
like
a
good
idea
that
we
can
correct
the
usdo
as
we
go
along.
It's
not
like
a
big
formal
thing
that
you
know
we
gotta
wait.
F
A
G
If
there's
you
know
these
interpretations,
people
should
have
a
way
of
knowing
that
that's
now
the
standards,
that's
the
way
it's
being
applied
so
that
when
they're
bringing
their
own
case
or
they're
looking
at
doing
a
development,
they
are
aware
of
essentially
those
tweaks,
maybe
in
the
usdo
or
if
they
see
an
ambiguity,
then
they
can
figure
it
out
also.
So
it's
looking
to
apply
the
usda
uniformly.
G
G
Let's
provide
that
clarification
directly
in
the
usda
or
we
may
decide
that
it's
not
necessarily
necessary.
Certainly
all
of
those
kinds
of
interpretations
should
be
looked
at.
I
think
on
the
annual
review
that
is
anticipated
in
the
usdo
and
if
there
are
things
in
the
meantime
that
the
council
feels
really
should
be
addressed
as
a
result
of
us
getting
the
notice
of
these
kinds
of
interpretations,
then
certainly
we
can
address
it,
but
I
don't
think
that
we
necessarily
want
to
be.
A
Okay,
we've
gone
through
all
the
items
on
the
memorandum
that
the
planning
department
presented
to
us.
Does
anyone
else
have
any
other
issues
with
the
article
one
that
they'd
like
to
raise
or
any
other
comments
by
the
planning
department
as
well
before
we
wrap
the
meeting
up,
we're
going
to
be
meeting
again
on.
G
I
just
want
to
go
back
to
the
question
about
whether
we
revise
and
how
we
revise
or
whether
we
keep
the
language
regarding
the
effective
date.
I
don't
know.
I
think
we
should
be
looking
at
that,
but
I
think
that
as
time
goes
on,
we
will
reach
the
conclusion
either
we're
going
to
repeal
and
replace
the
usda
with
all
the
changes
we're
making
or
we're
going
to
amend
it.
G
I
favor
amending
it,
even
though
it
can
be
somewhat
cumbersome
to
do,
and
that
can
impact
the
language
in
that
because
previously,
because
that
language
treats
it
as
though
we're
repealing
replace
again.
I
just
want
to
know
that,
so
I
don't
want
staff
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
that
until
we
reach
a
conclusion.
I
think
one
way
the
other
and
I
see
that
richard
conte
has
his
hand
up.
Oh.
E
F
E
D
And
we
can
come
back,
I
mean
there's
going
to
be
things.
I
think
we
identify
that
we
need
to
come
back
to
like
the
the
chief
planning
official,
the
interpretation
section,
we're
proposing
a
change
there.
We
may
want
to
just
kind
of
flag
that,
as
like,
it's
going
to
be
affected
by
something
we
look
at
in
article
5.
F
I
think
you
should
change
the
date
because
you
know
you're
repealing
it
now
you're
putting
a
new
one
in
all
that
would
change.
I
would
just
change
the
date
for
now
and
if
you
want
to
change
anything
else
in
it
do
it.
You
know
with
the
amendments,
but
my
my
mind
is
that
this
is
not
the
same
document
that
we
put
in
in
2017.
G
If
I
can
chime
in
there,
I
don't
know,
I
mean
we
didn't
address
that
when
it
went
through
a
committee-
and
I
don't
know
that
it
makes
any
difference,
because
we
very
carefully
looked
to
take
out
any
real
substantive
amendments.
There
might
be
a
clarification
or
two
that
in
that
that
I
think,
has
already
been
the
interpretation
of
the
usdo,
but
but
there's
no
real
substantive
changes
that
make
that
you
know
that
have
a
real
at
least
there
shouldn't
be
any
real
impact
of
this.
G
G
You
know
any
property
owner
in
the
city.
I
think
would
appreciate
knowing
where
we've
made
these
tweaks
or
significant
changes
in
this,
because
they've
gotten
used
to
this
document.
As
it
exists
from
what
we
adopted
four
years
ago,
so
I
I
hope
that
that
that
clarifies
so
the
reason
why
we
didn't
do
a
amendment
for
the
current
technical
amendments
is
because,
when
I
saw
the
redline
version,
I
saw
that
everything
was
not.
That
was
being
added
was
not
underlined
and
everything
that
was
being
repealed
was
not
even
necessarily
shown
and
struck
out.
So.
A
D
Well,
I'm
I'm
meeting
with
dennis
tomorrow
in
in
the
f.
You
know
to
get
his
assistance
in
doing
that,
so
I'm
hoping
that
will
speed
us
along.
I
don't
know
that
I
can
give
you
an
exact
date,
but
the
new
website
is
pretty
easy
to
work
with,
so
we
should
be
able
to
get
something
up
there
pretty
quickly.
It
may
need
to
be
refined
over
time.