►
From YouTube: County Board Work Session with the County Manager - ADU
Description
To view this meeting with live captioning and to view the agenda, go to http://arlington.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2
A
B
All
right,
let's
get
this
show
on
the
road.
Thank
you
all
for
being
here
and
thanks
for
those
who
have
come
to
join
us
today
in
the
audience,
this
is
a
work
session.
Looking
at
the
issue
of
accessory
dwelling
units,
this
is
a
part
of
our
affordable
housing
portfolio
of
items
and
and
tools
that
we
use
to
try
to
extend
and
expand
the
opportunities
in
the
county
for
people
to
live
at
low
and
moderate
income
and
to
in
fact
stay
in
their
own
homes,
with
some
additional
financial
support.
B
Thank
you
for
joining
us
on
behalf
of
the
the
community
group
and
the
task
force
that
worked
with
staff
and
we'll
go
through
the
agenda
and
then
see
if
County
Board
members
have
any
questions
on
a
number
of
the
particular
elements.
We're
recommended
changes
are
being
recommended.
So,
mr.
manager,
let
me
turn.
C
D
These
include
detached
accessory
dwellings,
maximum
occupancy
minimum
lot
width
requirements,
time
requirement
for
owner
occupancy
in
an
annual
countywide
limit.
We
will
then
go
through
next
steps
on
where
we
go
from
here.
The
presentation
outline
has
four
main
components
that
include
background
on
the
current
ordinance
and
process,
best
practices
from
other
jurisdictions,
recommendations
on
detached
accessory
dwellings,
size
and
occupancy
design
requirements,
compliance
and
parking
and
again
the
annual
countywide
limit
and
then
we'll
end
with
next
steps.
D
The
affordable
housing
master
plan
was
adopted
in
2015.
The
plan
was
developed
as
the
county's
long
range
division
for
addressing
housing
needs
in
the
county
and
identified
accessory
dwellings
as
an
existing
tool
to
provide
an
adequate
supply
of
housing.
Help
older
adults
age
in
place
provide
a
typically
lower
priced
housing
alternative
in
a
enable
homeowners
to
receive
additional
income.
D
The
average
age
of
the
homeowner,
creating
an
accessory
dwelling
in
Arlington,
is
55
indicating
that
they
may
be
creating
the
unit
to
help
age
in
place.
Additionally,
the
housing
master
plan
highlighted
a
sharp
decline
in
the
number
of
at
affordable
units
and
noted
a
need
for
approximately
7,000
affordable
units.
The
average
rent
that
it's
being
reported,
that's
charged
for
an
accessory
dwelling
in
Arlington
is
one
thousand
dollars
which
is
actually
below
60%
of
the
area.
Median
income
for
one-bedroom
unit
accessory
dwellings
won't
solve
the
housing
affordability
issue,
but
as
the
plan
notes,
it's
another
tool.
D
So
the
major
goals
for
revising
the
ordinance
were
to
make
it
easier
for
residents
to
add
accessory
dwellings
while
maintaining
the
residential
neighborhood
character.
We
prioritized
these
two
items
while
making
our
recommendation.
So
what
is
an
accessory
dwelling
currently
in
Arlington?
An
accessory
dwelling
in
his
independent
dwelling
unit
that
has
its
own
kitchen
and
bath
is
within
a
single-family.
Detached
house
is
occupied
by
no
more
than
two
persons
and
has
a
separate
entrance.
D
Accessory
dwelling
unit
must
meet
Building
Code
for
fire
separation,
fire,
egress
and
separate
heating
and
air
handling
accessory
dwellings
are
currently
allowed
in
all
our
districts
and
one
family
detached
dwellings.
The
yellow
on
the
map
indicates
where
our
districts
are
located
in
the
county
couple.
Other
items
that
are
allowed
in
the
zoning
ordinance,
our
Family
Caregiver
Suites
and
the
recently
adopted
short
term
residential
rental
ordinance.
An
accessory
dwelling
is
different
than
a
family
caregiver
suite
and
that
in
that
and
accessory
dwelling
is
a
separate
dwelling
unit.
D
Whereas
a
Family,
Caregiver
Street
Suite
must
have
interior
access
to
the
rest
of
the
dwelling
and
can
only
be
occupied
by
two
persons
who
are
either
related
by
blood
and
marriage,
adoption
or
foster
care,
or
if
they
are
providing
on-site
care.
A
short-term
residential
rental
allows
residents
to
rent
out
their
primary
residence
for
stays
of
less
than
30
days,
whereas
an
accessory
dwelling
does
allow
for
long-term
occupancy.
D
The
map
on
the
next
slide
shows
the
location
of
the
20
approved
accessory
dwellings.
As
you
can
see,
there
are
accessory
dwellings
in
East,
Falls,
Church
way,
Croft
woodland
lion
park,
Barcroft
aurora
highlands
and
elsewhere.
The
chart
shows
the
number
approved
per
year.
We
are
averaging
between
two
and
three
accessory
dwellings
per
year
with
a
high
of
six
units
and
2015.
D
We
looked
at
other
jurisdictions.
We
heard
from
applicants
that
were
both
successful
and
from
those
who
are
not
able
to
create
an
accessory
dwelling.
We
revert
reviewed
the
current
regulations
and
examine
ordinance
provisions
that
may
limit
usage
and
from
there
we
identified
preliminary
ideas
for
community
discussion.
D
Community
engagement,
Community
Engagement,
kicked
off
in
the
fall
of
2016,
with
a
missing
middle
design
gallery
that
was
co-hosted
with
the
Alliance
for
housing
solutions.
This
gallery
started
a
conversation
with
the
community
regarding
detached
accessory
dwellings
for
affordable
housing
month
in
October
staff,
developed
educational
materials.
That
included
a
website,
frequently
asked
questions
and
posters.
These
materials
provided
education
on
what
currently
is
allowed,
what
has
been
produced
and
what
are
some
of
the
issues
that
have
been
identified.
D
Community
forum
was
held
in
May
where
staff
shared
preliminary
ideas
for
discussion
on
options
for
improving
the
accessory
dwelling
regulations.
Many
members
had
an
opportunity
to
have
small
group
discussions
on
the
topics
of
size
and
occupancy
design,
guidelines,
parking
and
compliance
and
parking
and
detached
accessory
dwellings.
The
input
from
all
these
engagements
aided
staff
in
developing
the
preliminary
recommendations
that
will
be
shown
today.
A
community
survey
of
those
draft
recommendations
just
closed
and
we
will
have
those
results
compiled
and
posted
soon.
We
do
have
some
lemon
Airy
results
from
them.
D
So
best
practices
we
looked
at
other
jurisdictions
who
allowed
accessory
dwellings,
including
locally
Fairfax,
County,
Montgomery,
County
and
DC,
as
well
as
well
as
those
that
are
considered
best
practices
across
the
country,
such
as
Portland
Oregon,
Seattle,
Washington
and
Santa
Cruz
California.
Many
communities
are
doing
what
we
are
doing
now,
which
is
revisiting
the
ordinance
some
are.
The
communities
are
looking
at,
allowing
for
larger,
excessive
dwellings
and
some
are
looking
at
allowing
for
greater
occupancy
and
many
allow
for
detached
accessory
dwellings.
D
Some
jurisdictions
do
not
currently
allow
accessory
drawings,
such
as
the
city
of
Alexandria,
locally
Fairfax,
Montgomery
and
DC.
Hollow
allow
accessory
dwellings
and
all
three
allow
for
detached
accessory
dwellings
for
the
size
and
accessory
dwelling
in
Fairfax
in
DC
cannot
exceed
35%
of
the
gross
floor
area
in
Montgomery
has
a
max
cap
of
1,200
square
feet.
I'll
require
owner
occupancy,
meaning
that
owner
has
to
live
in
either
the
main
our
accessory
dwelling
fairfax
has
a
maximum
occupancy
of
two
persons.
D
Just
a
little
look
at
the
comparison
of
installation
rates
to
see
how
some
of
the
best
practices
are
doing
in
2009
portland
was
issuing
about
27
permits
for
its
new
accessory
dwellings
in
2010
the
accessory
drawing
production
more
than
tripled
when
they
waived
what's
called
their
system
development
charges.
These
charges
cover,
impacts
on
roads,
sewer
parks
and
utilities
and
are
estimated
around
seventeen
thousand
dollars.
So
they
saw
a
pretty
big
jump
once
they
wave
yeah.
D
We
have
those
charges,
so
portland
has
approximately
under
fifty
thousand
single-family
houses
for
an
installation
rate
of
about
point
zero,
nine
percent
per
year,
which
is
about
a
hundred
and
thirty-five
accessory
dwellings
per
year,
so
they're
producing
probably
the
largest
gross
amount
of
accessory
dwellings.
Seattle
is
kind
of
interesting
case
because
they
did
not
allow
detached
accessory
dwellings
until
december
of
2009
the
next
year
that
they
did
it.
They
had
approximately
thirty-five
attached
accessory
dwellings
and
fifteen
detached
the
following
three
years.
D
They
averaged
about
thirty-one
detached
accessory
dwellings
and
I
believe
they're
currently
about
that
same
rate.
So
seattle
has
approximately
one
hundred
thirty
thousands
single-family
homes
for
installation
rate
of
about
point
zero.
Four,
so
that's
about
fifty
per
year
they're
doing
santa
cruz
is
another
example
of
best
practices
and
in
the
early
2000
santa
cruz,
expanded
its
original
ordinance
that
had
been
in
place
since
nineteen.
D
Harrison
Arlington
has
averaged
I
mentioned
about
2
to
3,
about
3
accessory
dwellings
per
year
for
installation
right
about
point
zero.
One
percent
do
remember:
the
cap
is
28
per
year.
So
if
we
had
met
that
cap,
it
would
have
been
right
on
about
par
with
the
other
jurisdictions
about
0.1%
or
28,000
single-family
homes.
So
we
just
a
little
bit
of
comparison
with
what
other
jurisdictions
are
producing
a
couple
examples,
and
just
some
illustrations
of
detached
accessory
dwellings.
C
E
E
Think
they're
both
I
mean
the
one
on
the
photo.
There
I
think
they're
back
to
back
Habitat
for
Humanity
lot,
so
they've
got
in
this
case.
They've
got
a
the
primary
building
is
on
the
front
and
that's
in
the
backyard,
and
then
the
lot
on
the
other
side
of
that
is
has
a
primary
structure
on
the
back
end
a
lot
and
it's
got
the
accessory
dwelling
on
the
front
end.
But
this
is
a
example
of
Santa
Cruz.
D
So,
jumping
into
the
proposed
recommendation,
the
elements
include,
as
I
mentioned,
before,
detached
accessory
dwellings,
size
and
occupancy
design
requirements
and
compliance
and
parking
so
starting
off
with
detach
accessory
dwellings.
Currently
they
are
not
allowed
so
homeowners
are
unable
to
convert
an
accessory
building
such
as
a
garage
into
an
accessory
dwelling.
Under
the
current
provisions,
the
preliminary
staff
recommendation
would
be
to
allow
an
accessory
dwelling
in
what
you
are
already
currently
allowed
to
do,
or
a
one
and
one
and
a
half
story
accessory
building
those
one
and
a
half
story.
D
Buildings
can
be
up
to
a
height
of
25
feet.
Their
setback
requirements
include
for
interior
lots,
are
one
foot
from
the
rear
inside
lot
lines
and
eight
feet
from
the
principal
dwelling
a
corner
lot.
Setbacks
are
a
little
greater
at
25
feet
from
the
corner
street
ten
feet
from
the
rear,
lot
line
and
one
foot
from
the
interior
lot
line,
and
they
also
have
had
the
same
weight
from
the
principal
dwelling.
D
The
footprint
cap
for
our
five
in
our
districts,
which
have
smaller
lot
areas,
is
560
and
650
square
feet
and
all
other
our
districts
detached
accessory
dwellings
would
be
closer
to
neighbors.
Then
attached
accessory
dwellings
as
accessory
buildings
would
be
allowed
to
be
as
close
as
one
foot
from
the
lot
line.
D
D
The
next
slide
shows
the
possible
placement
of
two
accessory
dwellings.
Note
the
potential
from
there
for
them
to
be
one
foot
from
the
lot
line.
The
smaller
accessory
dwelling.
His
footprint
is
displayed
on
the
the
lot
on
the
Left,
which
is
depicting
in
our
five
district,
which
has
a
minimum
lot
area,
5,000
square
feet
and
a
larger
accessory
drawing
footprint
on
our
a
district
on
the
right.
The
are
the
one
on
the
right
is
also
depicting
what
would
be
an
example
of
a
corner.
One
on
the
left
would
be
an
interior
lot.
D
Here
is
another
illustration
of
the
height
looking
at
it
from
the
street
view,
the
blue,
in
the
back
of
the
house,
represents
the
maxed-out
height
of
25
feet
that
you
could
do.
We
thought
it
was
important
to
show
you
what
the
maximum
of
what
is
possible
there
so
max
moving
on
to
maximum
size
requirements.
D
Applicants
for
an
accessory
dwelling
noted
that
if
they
have
a
larger
basement
footprint
than
750
square
feet,
which
is
what's
currently
allowed,
they
would
have
to
partition
off
part
of
that
basement.
So
if
you
had
a
850
square-foot
basement
and
you
would
need
to
carve
off
about
a
hundred
square
feet,
so
staff's
preliminary
recommendation
is
to
increase
the
maximum
square
feet
from
750
square
feet
to
a
thousand
in
basements
for
accessory
dwellings
an
above
a
basement.
It
would
remain
at
that
750
square
feet.
This
would
eliminate
the
problem.
D
Occupancy
requirements,
some
applicants
noted
that
they
would
like
to
rent
out
the
accessory
dwelling
to
a
couple
with
a
child,
but
the
current
occupancy
limit
of
two
does
not
allow
that
so
staffs
preliminary
recommendation
is
to
allow
up
to
a
maximum
of
three
persons.
We
also
do
note
that
limiting
it
to
occupancy
does
reinforce
the
accessory
nature
of
the
use.
D
Second,
currently,
the
owner
needs
to
either
live
in
the
main
dwelling
or
in
the
accessory
dwelling,
and
we
are
proponent
proposing
that
this
remain
part
of
the
ordinance.
However,
we
are
proposing
and
removing
the
requirement
that
the
owner
must
live
in
the
house
for
a
year
before
getting
approval
for
the
accessory
dwelling.
This
requirement
can
present
challenges
for
new
construction.
D
Our
new
home
buyers
wanting
to
renovate
before
they
move
in
so
also
for
home
occupations,
currently
home
occupations
are
allowed
with
permit,
consisting,
with
consistent
with
home
occupation
regulations
for
all
this
dwellings
except
contractor
and
service
businesses
are
not
currently
allowed
in
accessory
dwelling.
The
proposal
would
remove
this
restriction
on
contractors
and
service
businesses
as
home
occupations.
This
would
make
this
consistent
with
home
occupation
requirements
for
all
other
dwellings.
D
Currently,
an
accessory
dwelling
on
a
corner
lot
cannot
have
its
entrance
visible
from
the
street,
and
staff
is
proposing
to
remove
that
requirement.
Staff
is
also
recommending
a
change
where
the
main
entrance
and
accessory
dwelling
entrance
may
be
on
the
same
side
of
the
house
as
long
as
they
are
not
facing
the
same
direction.
We
have
an
illustrate
to
illustration
to
show
an
example
of
that
and
lastly,
similarly,
there
look
we're
looking
at
removing
the
requirement
and
accessory
dwelling
with
an
entrance
above
the
first
floor
cannot
have
exterior
stairs
visible
from
the
street.
D
Likewise,
for
the
illustration
on
the
location
of
exterior
stairs,
the
one
on
the
left
is
an
interior
lot,
so
you
would
not
be
able
to
put
exterior
stairs
on
the
front
of
the
house,
but
it
would
be
available
on
the
sides
and
their
rear
on
the
corner
lot.
You
would
not
be
able
to
have
stairs
on
either
side
that
is
facing
a
street.
D
D
D
D
Approximately
60
percent
of
the
Lots
that
do
not
meet
50
50
50
foot
width
requirement.
Do
you
have
the
unique
do
meet
the
area
requirement
and
many
of
those
that
are
our
50
feet
are
just
shy
of
the
50
feet,
so
there's
a
large
percentage
that
are
right
around
like
48
49
feet,
so
they
would
not
be
eligible
by
the
few
feet.
D
D
Compliance
requirements-
currently
the
owner,
agrees
to
cooperate
with
code
enforcement
staff
for
annual
inspections
and
complaints
and
staff
is
not
looking
at
any
changes
there.
A
covenant
is
recorded
on
the
property
when
the
accessory
dwelling
is
created.
This
is
important
because
it
alerts
a
future
buyer
that
there
is
an
accessory
drawing
on
the
property
and
they
need
to
follow
the
regulations
we
are
recommending
still
requiring
the
deed
covenant,
but
are
looking
at
reexamining
language.
That's
state
specific.
D
The
affidavit
of
compliance
is
currently
required
at
initial
occupancy
and
whenever
new
tenants
move
in
staff
is
recommending
room
requiring
this
at
initial
occupancy.
Only
since
it's
not
necessary
every
time
a
new
tenant
moves
in
since
they
are
already
are
certifying
that
they
will
comply
with
the
regulations.
D
There
is
currently
a
limit
that
only
28
accessory
drawings
can
be
approved
in
a
year,
while
zoning
and
court
enforcement
complaints
have
not
been
generated
as
a
result
of
accessory
dwellings
created
since
2009
and
production
of
accessory
dwellings
has
been
minimal.
Regulations
with
more
flexibility
and
more
options
may
generate
more
accessory
dwellings
than
power
possible.
Previously,
therefore,
we
are
proposing
to
keep
the
annual
limit
and
re-examine
the
ordinance
in
a
couple
of
years
parking
requirements.
Parking
requirements
have
remained
largely
unchanged,
with
some
minor
clarifications
for
intent.
D
So
if
a
property
has
one
space
than
one
space
shall
be
maintained,
the
property
has
two
spaces.
Then
two
spaces
shall
be
maintained.
If
a
property
has
no
on-site
parking
spaces
than
they
need
to
create
one
on-site
parking
space
are
they
need
to
do
a
parking
survey?
If
the
parking
survey
determines
that
the
block
is
less
than
65%
part,
then
they
will
be
able
to
create
an
accessory
dwelling.
D
Emily
staff
is
recommending
and
removing
the
requirement
that
if
there
are
two
spaces
that
are
not
tandem
than
those
two
non
tandem,
spaces
be
maintained
and
what
that
means
is
on
the
next
slide.
If
you
have,
for
example,
four
spaces
you're
only
required
to
maintain
two
of
those,
so
you
would
either
have
the
option
one
to
maintain
the
two
that
are
tandem,
our
option,
two,
the
two
that
have
access
to
the
street.
Under
the
current
ordinance.
D
You
only
have
the
ability
to
maintain
option
two,
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
on
what
you're
able
to
maintain
there
next
slide:
short-term
residential
rentals
on
December
10th
and
January
28th
of
2017.
The
Board
adopted
new
zoning
ordinance
regulations
that
define
a
short-term
residential
rental
home
occupation
called
accessory
homestay.
The
regulations
effect
short-term
rentals
through
online
services
such
as
Airbnb
and
Craigslist.
D
So
the
next
step
I
had
mentioned
that
we
just
closed
a
survey
that
we
did
on
the
draft
recommendations.
We
are
working
to
compile
those
results
now
and
then
we
will
finalize
our
recommendations,
hopefully
by
the
end
of
July,
and
then
we
will
review
those
recommendations
with
zoning
zoko,
which
is
the
zoning
commission
of
the
Planning
Commission
about
a
scheduled
meeting
date
thereof.
D
B
You
very
much
I
am
going
to
turn
just
to
see
if
the
chair
of
the
working
group
that
worked
side
by
side
with
you
and
anything
she
want
to
offer
and,
of
course,
as
we
start
working
through
the
questions
they
can
be
directed
to
Alice
or
anyone
on
staff
as
well.
So
Alice
is
there
anything
you
wanted
to
say
as
we
launch
into
this
discussion,
I'm.
F
Just
it's
been
a
great
process:
we've
had
several
meetings
and
I
feel
like
that.
We
got
good
input
from
the
different
Commission's
and
folks
in
the
community
who
are
interested
and
we
don't
have
any
qualms.
A
few
things
have
changed
since
our
last
meeting
and
so
I'll
be
curious
to
see
the
results
of
the
survey
and
we're
meeting
a
couple
more
times
and
I'll
be
curious
to
hear
your
opinions
on
things,
but
no
we're
pretty
well
in
line
with
staff
recommendations
at
this
time.
Do.
F
B
B
Back
okay,
I'm
colleagues,
shall
we
work
through
first
the
five
bullet
points
and
then
completely
open
it
up
to
other
things
as
well?
Let's
start
with
the
detached
staffer
recommending
that
we
change
the
ordinance
to
now
permit
detached
accessory
dwellings.
Is
there
any
questions?
Conversation
about
that
issue?
G
D
H
So
a
half
story
is
this
is
actually
the
illustration
used
in
the
zoning
ordinance
to
define
a
half
story
and
it
has
to
do
with
the
height
of
that
knee
wall,
which
is
the
two
the
two
feet
you
can
see.
It's
it's
pointed
out
on
the
right,
so
that's
that's
sort
of
what
gets
you
to
the
half
story
and
just
also
a
little
bit
more
background
on
the
on
the
kind
of
dual
height
requirement.
These
regulations
proposed
for
the
detached
accessory
dwellings
are
consistent
with
the
existing
regulations
for
any
detached
accessory
structure.
H
So
sorry
the
statue
accessory
building,
so
it's
consistent.
If
you
already
have
a
detached
accessory
building
and
it
is
meeting
the
current
requirements
then
so
it's
just
for
consistency,
so
those
are
requirements
that
are
already
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
It's
probably
unlikely
that
in
one
and
a
half
stories
you
would
get
as
high
as
25
feet,
although
just
because
of
the
way
the
the
height
is
measured,
it's
it's
an
average
of
the
four
points
on
the
perimeter.
So
if
you
have
some
topography
on
your
lot,
you
you
might
get
there,
but.
G
G
H
Yes,
that's
correct
and
that's
it's.
The
same
half
story
requirement
that,
if
you
you
know,
if
you
add
dormers
on
to
your
house
or
you
add,
if
you
build
up
on
your
on
your
main
dwelling
up
as
well,
the
half
story
regulation
applies
there
as
well
in
terms
of
how
its
measured
thank,
you
could
I
follow.
I
H
G
Is
mostly
from
the
context
of
existing
exec
accessory
structures
are
built
with
this
typical
type
of
configuration
of
someone
were
to
build
one
from
scratch,
would
would
they
be
building
if
they
wanted
to
build
two
habitable
stories?
Would
they
be
building
with
their
architect?
Would
their
engineer
design
something
that
had
knee
walls
higher
than
two
feet
in
order
to
meet
any
modern
code
standards
or
preferences?
Would
this?
G
H
I
I
H
That's
correct,
if
you,
if
your
garage
is
already
tall
and
you
need
all
that
space
for
your
garage,
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
convert
it.
But
again,
that's
consistent!
We're
not
proposing
to
change
the
the
limits
of
attached
accessory
buildings
generally
okay,
but
it
is
true
that
if
you
had
a
detached
garage
that
was
more
interior
to
the
lot
and
mr.
love
is
giving
me
sign
language
that
I
can't
read
about
how
to.
K
I
Just
a
phone,
so
might
we
if
we
go
through
this
and
I
by
the
way?
This
is
all
great
I,
really
appreciate
the
work
and
I
think
it's
a
huge
improvement.
But
if
we
went
with
this
one,
could
we
possibly
have
somebody
come
and
say
you
know,
they've
got
this
house
and
the
garage
is
out
back
and
it's
two
stories
and
they
want
to
convert
it
and
the
only
way
they
can
convert
it
to
an
Adu
is
to
take
off
the
roof
off
the
top
and
lower
it
down.
I
H
H
L
B
Could
be
written,
I
try
to
focus
this
I
think
this
is
helpful
and
that
it
surfers
something
is
I.
Think
mr.
Dorsey
started
the
questions
and
trying
to
understand
the
difference
in
one
and
a
half
and
two,
and
we
thought
what
we
were
hearing
was
it's
consistent
with
the
code.
It's
got
to
be
one
and
a
half
all
these
structures,
etcetera
have
to
be
one
half,
but
then
you
mentioned
that
in
certain
instances,
when
it's
more
interior
to
the
property,
in
fact,
there's
a
different
standard.
B
D
H
I
would
also
just
add
that
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
we're
thinking
about
throughout,
in
terms
of
thinking,
through
kind
of
what
what
tweaks
we
make
to
the
adopted
regulations
is,
is
maintaining
the
accessory
dwelling
as
an
accessory
use
and
reinforcing
that
accessory
use
and
kind
of
not
getting
to
a
point
where
we
have
kind
of
two
dwellings
on
a
lot.
So
that's
something
that
we
kept
in
mind
throughout
the
process.
Might.
B
I
ask
that
that
you
know
looking
at
the
board
members
here.
I
think
what
we
don't
want
to
do
is
see
a
situation
where
there's
already
such
a
structure
and
that
it
it's
like
another
one
of
these
situations
where
in
the
past,
we
wouldn't
let
you
do
it
for
the
first
year.
Well,
why
not
well?
Why
not?
On
the
other
hand,
we
have
to
be
careful
that
we
don't
want
to
incentivize
the
larger
structure.
B
I
I
F
L
I
think
that's
what
I
was
just
gonna
append
to
what
mr.
phys
ed
is
just
SSF,
which
I
think
is
exactly
right
is
to
the
extent
you
can
give
us
some
sense
of
scale
I.
Imagine
we
have
a
bead
on
how
many
accessory
buildings
on
single
family
lots.
There
are
in
Arlington
County
roughly
right.
So
because
do
you
not
need
you
don't
have
to
go
through
any
sort
of
exception
to
create
an
accessory
unit
or
an
accessory
building?
L
I
H
B
M
D
You
would
still
need
to
need
to
meet
coverage
requirements.
We
did
meet
with
our
stormwater
management
team
and
they
said
this
was
when
based
on
the
footprint.
This
would
be
unlikely
to
cause
any
additional
requirements
unless
there
was,
unless
they
put
in
a
large
long
driveway,
and
then
it
might
trigger
some
additional
stormwater
requirements,
but
they
said
it
was
not
not
an
issue.
D
B
I
D
D
I
L
F
G
Yeah
I
just
want
to
draw
down
into
this
a
little
bit
as
well.
It
just
seems
that
and
correct
me
if
I'm
misremembering
what
we
did
with
accessory
homestays
but
I
think
with
accessory
homestays,
we
allowed
the
greater
of
two
per
bedroom,
something
along
those
lines
and
some
other
metrics.
So
in
an
accessory
I'm,
sorry
in
a
short-term
home
state,
you
can
have
two
occupants
per
bedroom.
G
Get
here
we're
capping
the
number
of
occupants
in
an
ad
you,
even
though
it
could
be
at
750
square
feet
as
it
can
be
used
as
a
short-term
homestay,
and
it
has
a
different
occupancy
requirement.
Then
the
general
short-term
homestay
ordinance,
because
it's
750
square
feet
that
could
clearly
be
a
two
bedroom
Adu
which
would
under
that
ordinance
be
allowed
to
have
four
people.
But
in
this
case
it
would
only
be
allowed
to
have
three.
How
would
we
we
deal
with
that.
D
So
currently,
as
I
mentioned,
accessory
dwellings
are
allowed
to
be
used
as
short-term
rentals.
However,
in
the
ordinance
it
does
say
that
you
can
only
rent
it
to
two
people.
So
it's
the
same.
So
we
that's
how
we
still
limited
her
short-term
rental,
and
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
on
that,
but
so
I
think
we
as
staff,
you
know,
still
want
the
accessory
dwelling
to
be
accessory
to
the
dwelling
and
I.
Think
that's
why
we
we
didn't
see
the
lot
to
increase
it
beyond.
The
three
I
think.
Does
that
answer
your
question
not.
D
The
current
ordinance
for
short-term
residential
rentals
only
allows
you
to
rent
out
your
accessory
dwelling
to
two
people,
which
is
the
cap
for
accessory
dwellings.
That
was
what
was
passed
by
the
board
in
your
house.
Yes
right,
so
so,
if
you're
renting
out
thanks,
that's
we're
drawing
you
only
get
to
rent
it
out
what
is
currently
allowed
now,
which
is
two
people
so
going
forward.
We
had
proposed
that
accessory
dwelling
if
the
occupancy
did
increase
to
three,
that
you'd
only
be
able
to
rent
accessory
dwelling
out
to
three
people
as
well.
Okay,.
G
I
think
I
understand
I,
guess
what
I'm
suggesting
we've
got
somewhat
of
a
a
new
scenario.
I'm,
not
saying
we
necessarily
need
to
treat
it
differently.
It's
just
in
congruent
at
this
point.
If
you
were
to
run
out
your
whole
house
as
a
short-term
homestay,
you
would
be
able
to
do
a
maximum
of
two
per
bedroom,
so
this
is
now
becoming
a
separate,
correct
house.
If
you
will
that's,
it's
gonna
be
governed
by
different
standards
as
if
it
were
within
an
owner
occupied
house.
It's
just
a
little
different.
B
G
L
And
I
think
mr.
Darcy
I
may
be
the
broader
point
of
what
you're
surfacing
is
that
it
introduces
some
inconsistency
into
our
zoning
ordinance
about
what
we
think
is
an
appropriate
amount
of
people
to
be
in
a
bedroom
right
and
if
we
think
two
people
per
bedroom
is
up
to
two
bedrooms
is
overcrowding
and
in
a
detached
exit
attached
accessory
dwelling.
I
B
M
An
it
is
an
interesting
conversation
and
I
don't
mind
continuing
it,
except
I
think
you
know
just
the
way.
People
are
it's
it's
one
thing
to
maybe
stay
one
or
two
nights
in
a
in
a
crowded
hotel
room
when
you're
on
vacation
with
the
kids
or
with
you
know,
relatives
or
friends
or
whatever,
and
it's
another
thing
to
have
that
that
that
crowded
condition
on
a
you
know,
monthly
or.
M
B
H
Just
in
response
to
some
of
those
comments
and
I'm
actually
going
to
kind
of
reiterate
mr.
Vyse
stats
point
to
some
degree
that
the
difference
here
is
is
that,
with
an
accessory
dwelling,
we're
really
looking
at
residential
occupancy,
so
permanent,
occupancy
and
sort
of
thinking
about
sort
of?
What's
the
impact
on
the
neighborhood
on
a
permanent
basis,
whereas
with
a
short-term
rental
we're
looking
at
transient
occupancy
and
it
is-
is
sort
of
a
different.
A
different
animal
zoning
ordinances
treat
those
two
things
differently
and.
B
I
would
just
say
that
my
own
point
of
view
again
looking
at
slide
15,
where
we
granted
this
isn't
a
comprehensive
look,
but
just
to
give
some
people
on
the
board
some
level
of
comfort
around
this
to
the
degree
you
found
anywhere.
That
allowed
for
might
be
useful
because,
honestly,
where,
where
it
appears
people
gravitate
is
to
two
or
three
and
and
I
do
see.
I
don't
see
this
as
a
consistency
issue
so
much
as
a
different.
B
G
B
G
The
purpose
of
being
your
opportunity
for
doing
short-term
home
stays,
so
this
conversation
about
permanent
versus
transient
use
is
not
necessarily
preordained
by
what
we
do
here
and
I
would
also
caution
us
to
recognize
most
the
other
jurisdictions
that
we're
comparing
ourselves
to
have
those
limits
that
were
created
well
before
short
term
home
stays
became
the
norm.
Ours
is
coming
at
a
point
where
we're
trying
to
marry
what
we've
recently
done
with
that
versus
a
new
effort
here.
G
M
M
So
so
the
slide
that
the
one
or
two
slides
that
you
had
Joel
was
helpful,
that
that
attempted
to
distinguish
between
among
ad
use,
short-term
rentals
and
and
caregiver
Suites.
So
there
are
all
variations
on
a
theme
but
they're
all
they.
Each
of
the
three
are
intended
for
different
purposes:
they're
permitted
differently.
So
my
first
question
is
from
a
there's,
the
regulatory
question
of
how
do
we
keep?
M
How
do
we
enforce
all
these
and
how
do
we
keep
these
individual
schemes
regulated
and
then
the
other
thing
is
the
intention
of
the
homeowner
now
and
the
intention
of
the
prospective
homeowner
who's
shopping
for
a
house
and
who
moves
into
the
house
taking
subject
to
an
Adu
or
a
caregiver
suite
or
an
accessory
homestay.
Is
that?
How
is
that
person
going
to
be
refreshed
and
reminded
what
the
regulatory
protocol
is
for
that
particular
accessory
use?
Let's
say
that
you've
got
a
home,
caregiver
suite
in
your
house.
D
So
for
an
accessory
dwelling
anyway,
there
is
the
annual
inspection
and
I
do
have
Robert
love
here.
If
you
would
care
to
answer
a
part
of
this
question,
and
the
other
thing
I
think
that
you
had
mention
in
your
emails
is
I
think,
which
is
a
very
good
idea
we
did
put
together
a
comparison
of
you
know
what
a
family
caregiver
suite
is
versus
an
accessory
dwelling
versus
short-term
residential
rental.
D
We
need
to
update
that,
based
on
what
we
are
proposing
and
as
what,
as
well
as
what
was
adopted
for
short-term
rental
and
I,
think
that
will
be
very
helpful
to
old
a
place
up
on
the
website
that
helps
people
compare
what
the
different
requirements
are
of
each
proposal.
As
far
as
yes,
the
other
portion
of
your
question
was
regarding
enforcement
of
baldies
I
know,
code
enforcement
does
do
an
annual
inspection
for
accessory
dwellings
and
they
look
to
make
sure
that
they
are
meeting
all
the
requirements
there
for
Family
Caregiver
Suites.
K
Currently,
who
don't
have
any
sort
of
annual
inspection
for
that
as
long
as
far
as
the
short-term
residential
rentals
obviously
have
to
come
in
once
a
year
to
reapply?
So
that's
how
we
have
that
on
track
on
what
exactly
the
use
is,
then,
for
the
accessory
dwelling
units
we
do
have
a
yearly
inspection.
That
would
go
by
ensure
that
your
numbers
are
the
same.
You
haven't
converted
it
away
and
then
actually
we've
told
people
that,
if
they
let's
say
they
sell
their
property,
they
can
just
count
and
simply
come
in.
They
can.
K
M
L
M
L
D
Have
not
looked
into
that
on
other
cities,
we
do
know
for
arlington
county
that
they
do
indicate
how
many
people
they
plan
to
rent
thanks,
that's
very
drawing
two
and
sixty
percent
said
they
will
did
plan
to
rent
the
maximum,
which
is
to
another
forty
percent
said
they
were
going
to
rent
plan
to
rent
to
one
person.
I
mean,
obviously
that
could
change
I
mean
that's
what
we
know
so
far,
but
that
is
a
good
point
and
that
we
could
ask
other
jurisdictions
if
they
have
any
data.
I'd.
L
Love
to
know
just
a
little
more
about
it,
I
say
that
actually
not
thinking
that
that
would
be
a
disincentive
to
allow.
Maybe
you
know
I
know
for
some
people,
including
myself.
One
of
the
appeals
of
this
type
of
affordability
or
this
type
of
housing
form
is
that
it
introduces
affordability
into
parts
of
the
county,
including
school
boundary
areas
where
you
don't
often
see
market
rate
affordable,
so
I
actually
think
it
could
potentially
be
a
great
thing
to
introduce
into
some
of
our
neighborhoods,
but
I
course
need
to
be
prepared
for
it.
L
I
I
Guess
is
that
that's
going
to
change
over
time,
it'll
start
out
not
and
find
out
so
I'm
missing
something
I.
Something
I
explained
to
me
why
we
should
have
different
rules
for
what
is
what
goes
into
a
caregivers
suite
and
what
goes
into
an
accessory
dwelling
unit.
Why
is
it
necessary
to
have
different
walls.
D
So
the
caregiver
suite
is
has
a
very
intentional
purpose
for
it.
It
is
either
you
are
one
providing
care
to
the
primary
residence
child
care
elder
care.
Are
it's
a
relative?
The
accessory
dwelling
allows
you
to
rent
to
basically
whoever
you
want,
and
so
they
are.
They
are
intended
for
two
different
purposes:
I.
D
I
D
D
M
But
but
continuing
miss
Garvey's
question:
it
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
that
way.
I
guess
is
your
question
and
in
other
words,
okay.
We
did
that
then
now
we're
doing
this
now
you
do.
We
want
to
reconsider
that
or
their
policy
reasons
why,
rather
than
having
that
those
bright
line,
distinctions
that
may
be
from
a
policy
perspective
there,
it's
not
needed
and
that's
probably
a
discussion
for
another
day
and
we'd
probably
want
to
you
know
commune
with
our
Commission
on
Aging
and
and
and
other
folks
in
that
regard,
but
I
don't
know
miss
Hogan.
M
I
Barriers
every
time
we
talk
about
this
I
come
up
with
my
own
situation,
so
my
daughter
has
this
house
we
put
in
on
it.
The
kitchen
had
to
come
out
because
it
has
to
be
efficient.
You
know,
I
want
to
live
with
my
daughter,
that's
my
aging
and
placing
as
I'm
gonna
go,
but
I
want
my
own
house.
Part
and
I
want
my
own
kitchen,
but
right
now,
I
can't
do
that
right
under
what
we
have
I
can't
put
another.
Well,
that's
that's.
What
I'm
asking
under
this
will
I
be
able
to
do
that.
D
B
To
be
only
thank
you,
I
just
want
to
try
to
tie
this
part
up
is.
It
seems
to
me
this.
What
I?
What
I
don't
want
is
this
discussion
of
whether
we
should
change
the
family
caregiver
suite
ordinance
to
interfere
with
tying
up
the
Adu
ordinance.
You
know
we
can
all
decide
if
that
deserves
to
be
adjusted
in
the
future
and
it's
a
workplan
issue,
but
it
really
I
think
you
were
right,
mr.
Vyse,
that
it
wasn't
necessarily
part
of
this
conversation,
but
it
might
spawn
another
work
effort
down
the
road.
B
You
know
we
just
went
through
the
short
term
home
stay
and
we
didn't
really
have
the
discussion
of
how
it
should
be
consistent
with
the
number
of
people
and
in
Haiti
you,
we
created
two
per
bedroom
or
whatever
you
said,
and
that
was
quite
inconsistent
with
an
Adu,
because
the
product
was
inconsistent.
It
was
a
very
different
thing,
so
it's
a
little
odd
for
me
now
to
think
that
why
we
are
trying
to
you
know
make
them
all
the
same.
I
think.
B
Yes,
we
need
to
be
able
to
communicate
consistently
or
you
know
it
created
clearly
about
what
one
is,
how
it
differs
from
another
and
their
purpose
and
their
requirements,
but
you
register
for
each
of
them
individually
and
separately
in
there
another
one.
One
thing
mr.
Dorsey
said
is:
yes:
if
you
haven't
a
ad
you,
you
can
use
it
as
a
home,
short-term
homestay,
but
according
to
the
code,
you
can
only
have
two
people
in
it
which
is
consistent
with
an
ad
you
and
we're
now
exploring
saying
now.
B
You
can
have
three
in
it
or
some,
maybe
looking
at
four.
So
really
the
operative
question
right
now
is
I'm
not
hearing
anyone
having
a
problem
with
three
as
the
is
proposed.
The
question
is
whether
we
want
staff
to
further
explore
whether
it
should
be
more
people
for
adults
in
an
accessory
dwelling,
whether
you're
comfortable
with
it
I
will
say:
I'm
not
but
I'm
curious.
If
there
are
others
that
want
more
information
about
that,
so.
L
I,
don't
want
to
belabor
that
whether
this
is
similar
to
accessory
to
short-term
home
stays
or
not,
but
what
I
would
say
is
with
short-term
homestay.
You
can
for
up
to
nearly
six
months
out
of
the
year,
have
four
people
in
two
bedrooms
and
so
again
I
what
I
was
trying
to
articulate
earlier.
You
can
have
six
people
in
three
bedrooms,
and
so
what
I
was
trying
to
articulate
earlier
is
it
may
not
be
the
preference
of
the
consumer,
whether
it
is
an
Airbnb
renter
or
someone
renting
your
accessory
dwelling
as
their
permanent
home?
L
I
think
it
might
be
interesting
to
see
you
know
I'm
sure
some
of
the
survey
data
indicates
what
attitudes
are
I'm
sure
the
working
group
could
give
us
some
feedback
if
there's
a
real
sense
that
you
know
three
is
an
appropriate
threshold,
but
four
feels
like
too
many
to
the
neighborhoods
and
here's.
Why,
and
here
are
the
concerns,
and
here
are
the
parking
concerns
or
the
crowding
issues
I'm
interested
to
hear
them,
but
I
do
think.
You
know
that.
That's
why
in
my
mind
at
least
those
conversations
are
related.
B
B
B
G
Said
if
I
get
to
say
for
our
friends
in
the
minority,
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
we're
looking
at
a
higher
standard
staff
could
very
well
upon
further
conversation,
come
up
with
a
rational
way
of
thinking,
conveying
communicating
and
conceptualizing
all
of
this.
It's
just
that
we're
going
to
take
greater
greater.
M
I
M
I
B
A
L
L
You
know
I
think
when
we
talk
about,
for
example,
setbacks.
It's
really
clear
to
me
why
that
would
be
required
right,
that's
a
sort
of
a
matter
of
use
of
the
home
and
neighborhood
boundaries.
These
feel
almost
a
little
more
like
aesthetics,
and
so
I
wondered
if
there
was
any,
which
you
know
suggested
to
me
at
least
they
might
be
considered
guidelines
rather
than
requirements.
Any
texture
from
the
conversation
about
that
you
all
might
provide,
or
is
that
something
we
could
do
more
thinking
about
together.
I
But
I
had
one
part
to
her
question:
I
think
if
that's
alright
I
think
it's
helpful
I
think
it's
helpful
I
think
it
is
so.
For
example,
when
you
look
on
slide,
27
you've
got
the
two
red
doors
there
in
the
front,
which
frankly
look
better
to
me
than
the
other
way
and
I
could
see
a
home
built
this
way
where
that's
a
family
room
on
this
side
and
that's
where
the
kids
come
into
the
mudroom
and
you've
already
got
a
house
like
that,
and
you
want
to
come.
I
L
B
D
So,
as
you
remember,
one
of
our
goals
going
into
this
was
maintain
the
character
of
the
single-family
neighborhood.
So
you
know
in
the
case
of
the
two
front
doors
there's
concern
about.
You
know
creating
a
look
of
a
duplex.
We
wanted
to
maintain
that
look
of
a
single-family
neighborhood
and
it's
it's
hard
to
regulate
design.
I.
Think
we
can.
You
know,
that's
why
we
put
these
regulations
in
place
on
what
we're
allowed
to
do
things
it's
harder
to
regulate
a
good
good,
taste,
I
guess,
but.
I
B
I
L
F
B
It
for
a
single-family
home
to
have
two
front
doors,
like
my
house,
does,
there's
no
opposite.
My
house
actually
has
two
front
doors
because
someone
added
an
office
to
the
left
side
years
and
years
ago.
We
don't
use
it.
It's
actually
cocked
to
provide
some
energy
efficiency.
So
you
do
not
open
that
door
anymore.
It's
true,
but
you
don't
come
in
and
out
that
door.
On
the
other
hand,
to
the
public,
to
the
there
to
fete
front
facing
doors.
So
so.
L
Think
he
said,
I
would
like
to
maybe
broaden
this
point
a
little
bit
beyond
just
the
front
door
issue.
To
my
point,
I
mean
I,
you've
presented
cestus
suggests
the
average
rent
charge
for
an
ad
in
Arlington
is
a
thousand
dollars.
This
is.
This
is
really
a
significant
body
of
work.
This
is
a
use
that
I
think
we
should
be
welcoming
in
our
community.
B
I
E
L
F
A
B
B
M
Add
yeah,
just
just
from
my
perspective,
I'm
actually
comfortable
with
this
staff
recommendation
about
about
you
know
showing
that
illustration,
with
and
and
holding
the
line
and
not
having
an
Adu
front
door,
just
like
I'm,
comfortable
frankly
with
what
you're
proposing
with
respect
to
stairwells
or
exterior
stairways
mm-hmm,
because
I
think
I
think,
while
absolutely
the
use
is
important,
I
think
aesthetics
are
also
important
and
and
I
think
you've
struck
a
good
balance
here,
at
least
from
my
perspective.
Anyone.
B
So,
as
your
picture
showed,
you
can
put
them
in
different
places,
just
so
they're,
not
on
the
side
of
the
building
facing
the
street.
Correct.
Okay,
no
concerns
on
that.
Let's
go
on
to
the
next
one!
Then
the
next
issue
here
was-
and
we
had
no
issue
with
minimum
lot.
Width
changes
proposed
and
time
requirement
for
owner
occupancy.
This
one
I
will
say
is
the
biggest
no-brainer
of
all
of
them,
because
we
heard
from
several
people
over
the
years.
Who
said:
why
did
you
when
we
were
building
a
home
or
renovating
a
home?
B
Why
did
you
not?
Let
us
build
an
Adu
into
the
house
to
start
with
and
allow
a
staff
a
renter,
and
you
know
for
the
life
of
me:
I
can't
remember
how
or
why
that
occurred
if
it
was
just
modeled
off
of
other
communities
where
we
never
focused
on
it,
but
it
seems
completely
counterproductive
and
it
has
been
a
major
obstacle
or
one
of
them,
I
I
sense
for
going
forward
with
80s
in
single-family
homes.
So
this
just
removes
that
requirement
to
live
there
for
a
year
before
you
actually
can
have
an
ADA.
You.
G
B
G
B
Don't
even
know
that
you
can
build
it
I
think
you
can't
build
it,
you
have
to
build
it,
and
then
you
have
to
build
something
and
then
finish
it
a
year
later.
You
actually
can't
build
the
ad
you
if,
as
I
understand
it,
but
also
people
want
to
move
in
and
they
they
want
to
get
some
rents
right
away
to
be
able
to
afford
their
mortgage
or
have
an
income
stream,
but.
G
F
D
We
actually
heard
from
a
person
that
was
trying
to
do
this,
and
it
was
very,
it
was
quite
difficult,
very
labor
and
because
you
can't
actually
complete
it
until
you
moved
in
cuz,
you
can't.
Actually
you
know,
do
the
stove,
you
don't
have
the
permit
for
that
until
the
year,
so
it's
it
would
be
unable
to
be
completed
until
that
one-year.
B
M
Yeah
I,
just
it's
it's
it's!
It's
I!
Think
it's
a
crazy
requirement.
I
mean
it's
a
real
inhibitor
to
if
you're,
if
we're,
really
gonna
foster
this
type
of
thing,
but
you
glossed
over
mr.
Fassett,
the
the
minimum
lot
width,
I'm,
not
sure
I'm.
Quite
there,
yet
I
I'm,
still
looking
gonna,
be
looking
forward
to
more
discussion
about
the
minimum
lot
width
requirement
and
how
close
these
ad
use
might
be
to
an
adjacent
property,
especially
in
more
dense
areas
of
the
county
annual.
B
B
This
was
one
that
I
think
at
the
very
end.
Last
but
eight
years
ago,
nine
years
ago,
I
think
I
proposed,
and
it
was
only
because
we
had
a
lot
of
turmoil
in
the
community
about
moving
forward
with
an
Adu
proposal
at
all
and
after
looking
at
other
communities,
28
was
about
the
average
that
some
of
those
like
us,
that
was
you.
B
Able
to
accomplish
so
to
quell
the
angst
that
we
were
gonna
have
200.
In
the
first
year
we
set
a
limit
of
the
average
of
what
other
communities
successfully
were
able
to
accomplish,
and,
of
course,
we
came
nowhere
near
that.
So
you
know
I,
don't
feel
very
strongly,
I
think
if
we
got
28
a
year,
we'd
be
in
good
shape.
On
the
other
hand,
I
don't
particularly
see
a
need
to
have
a
limit
at
28
and
I
really
open
it.
Up
to
my
colleagues
to
comment.
Mr.
Dorsey
yeah.
A
G
Will
just
say
this
is
really
great
work
that
everyone
has
done,
but
this
is
not
anything
that
I
can
stomach
or
support
at
all.
I
think
it
in
the
data
that
you
provided
just
really
reinforces
that
you
know
one
if
we
think
this
is
a
good
policy.
Putting
a
cap
on
it
to
me
sends
a
very
different
message
to
even
at
the
likely
installation
rates.
B
I
Was
just
gonna
say:
ask
mr.
Doris
if
he'd
be
comfortable
with
a
much
with
a
higher
cap
and
I'm
thinking
that
eventually
we
would
remove
it,
but
I
do
think
we
will
run
into
people
really
concerned
about,
what's
going
to
happen
and
that
it
might
be
a
way
of
reassuring
people.
But
we
could
also
wait
and
see
what
kind
of
feedback
we
get
from
the
community
when
we
go
into
it.
C
If
I
could
just
add
some
context
about
the
conversation,
because
the
staff
proposal
that
came
to
me
had
no
limit
and
I
looked
around
the
room,
no,
this
is
me:
I
looked
around
the
room
and
I
did
a
survey
of
everybody
who
was
here
nine
years
ago,
who
was
still
suffering
from
shellshock
and
I
said.
What
do
you
think
and
the
consensus
of
the
grizzled
veterans
in
the
room
was?
We
could
kill
the
entire
conversation
by
not
having
some
sort
of
limit
and
then
we
said,
okay.
Well,
what
limit
makes
sense?
C
B
And
if
you
I'll,
just
focus
people
on
slide
16,
which
was
in
the
presentation,
which
is
the
only
information
that
kind
of
relates
to
this,
is
how
many
have
been
approved,
as
quote
installation
rate,
and
you
go
from
135
averaging
a
year
in
Portland
in
recent
years
to
50
222,
two
or
three
for
us.
So
again,
just
a
smattering
of
four
localities,
but
Mr
Vyse,
dad
and
then
was
crystal.
Thank.
M
M
We
just
don't
know
I
mean
we're
really
plowing
new
ground
here
and
yes,
we
can
look
at
what
other
communities
have
done,
but
I
don't
think
we
know
enough
yet
to
say
what
what
limit
is
appropriate,
maybe
not
even
to
say
whether
a
limit
is
appropriate,
but
at
least
at
this
point
I'm,
not
in
favor
of
removing
it
all
together.
I
think
a
higher
cap
deserve
some
discussion
crystal
I.
L
Don't
necessarily
have
an
answer
to
this
question
of
cap
or
no
cap,
but
I
will
say
in
terms
of
how
I'm
looking
at
it
at
least
what
would
be
the
only
reason
I
would
consider
a
cap
or
didn't
want
to
think
about.
It
is
what
are
the
impact
of
these
at
scale
and
neighborhoods
we're
at
a
significant
scale
in
neighborhoods,
it's
sort
of
why
I
brought
up
the
student
generation
factor
right,
or
certainly
you
know
off
street
parking
or
on
the
street
parking
or
sort
of
other
things
like
this.
L
So
what's
the
number
at
which
this
actually
really
starts
to
have
an
impact
on
kind
of
ways
of
life
in
the
community.
We
are
so
right
now
we
are
so
far
with
twenty
and
a
decade
from
actually
having
an
impact
on
any
of
those
sort
of.
You
know,
public
accommodations
that
that
it
almost
seems
laughable,
but
but
I
guess.
If
we
would
like
to
signal
to
the
community
that
we
are
mindful
that
these
could
at
scale
have
an
impact
that
might
be
where
the
cap
question
enters
in
Emily's
could.
M
I
ask
to
have
a
question
about
this:
is
it
would
it
be
at
all
workable,
not
not
today,
necessarily
but
to
consider
a
cap
in
terms
of
numbers
in
within
Civic,
Association
boundaries
or
or
in
kind
of
injury?
You
know
in
G
in
in
a
gia
think
considering
the
geography
of
things
now
that,
of
course,
the
thing
is
we
don't
know
who's
gonna
be
applying.
D
Are
some
ordinance
that
limit
it
that
way
they
do
a
minimum
feet
from
the
next
accessory
dwelling?
That's
been
approved,
so
if
you're
within
you
know
500
feet
with
an
accessory
dwelling,
you
can't
create
an
accessory
dwelling,
so
Samet
limit
it.
That
way.
I
haven't
seen
any
that
have
limited
specifically
based
on
geographic
areas,
but
it
I'm
not
sure
you.
J
J
It's
grounded
in
certain
land
use
principles
that
we
can
come
up
with,
but
it
gives
you
an
ability
to
kind
of
control
how
many
you're
gonna
be
in
a
particular
area
because
again,
I
think
the
underlying
premise
is
you
don't
want
to
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
to
such
a
degree
that
end
up
imposing
all
kinds
of
impacts
on
the
single-family
homes
in
the
area.
M
B
G
G
This
whole
idea
of
an
annual
cap
to
me
just
seems
really
arbitrary
and
capricious
just
because
you
know
if
you
get
50
better
well
dispersed
throughout
the
county.
Why
in
the
world,
should
you
prevent
the
fifty-first?
Yet
if
you
get
20
that
are
concentrated
in
Barcroft
or
wakelock
way,
Croft
Woodlawn,
you
may
in
fact
have
a
problem
so
to
me,
if
we're
still
in
the
experimental
phase
of
this,
we're
still
trying
to
gather
data,
how
about
you
know
set?
G
You
know
set
a
number
that
we're
going
to
allow
ourselves
to
approve
and
then
once
we
hit
that
number
we're
gonna
reassess
where
we
are
at
the
program
based
on
the
data
that
we
have
collected.
If
this
is
still
a
concern,
can
I
be
honest,
I,
don't
think
it's
a
concern.
I
think
we
should
let
the
market
do
what
it
does
and
it'll
be
fine.
But
mr.
B
B
The
idea
frame,
because
I
have
to
look
at
slide
11
only
because
that's
the
one
in
here
that
talks
about
where
the
20
are
and
I
do
think
that
this
conversation
is
in
fact,
a
solution.
Searching
for
a
problem
and
I
would
also
say
that
that
the
idea
that
some
localities
have
a
500-foot
limit
from
the
next
ad.
You
sounds
like
a
terrible
idea
to
me.
B
You
know,
I,
don't
know
what
jurisdictions
and
I'm
glad
you
know.
We
know
that
that
other
jurisdictions
have
different
ways
of
trying
to
address
what
are
seen
as
potential
concerns.
That,
to
me,
is
a
really
problematic.
Then
you
have
a
big
r20
lot,
which
is
never
going
to
fall
into
that
category,
but
several
in
another
neighborhood,
where
they
really
want
it,
because
their
neighbor
has
one
they
can
never
have.
B
One
I
just
think
it's
bad
idea,
built
into
the
ordinance,
should
be
those
realities
and
protections
and
mitigations
for
the
reality
of
having
an
ad
you
in
your
neighborhood.
If
there's
not
enough
parking,
you
won't
be
granted
a
permit.
For
example,
there
are
protections
built
in
you
can't
have
one
with
six
people.
B
The
idea
of
making
sure
you
don't
have
too
many
in
one
area,
I'm
a
little
nervous
about
that
too.
I
think
I'm,
most
comfortable
with
what
mister
Dorsey's
recommended
is
that
we
have
a
look
back
to
see
what
the
implications
are,
so
that
if
there
is
a
developing
concern
that
we
weren't
able
to
predict
that
we
have
an
ability
to
assess
it,
yeah.
I
Mr.
Fisher
I
really
like
that
idea.
It
makes
it
feels
more
like
a
pilot
program
to
some
extent
and
I.
Think
I,
don't
think
we're
gonna
have
a
problem.
We
none
of
us
do
but
I
think
when
this
goes
out
to
our
community.
Listening
to
mr.
Schwartz's
memories
and
mine
are
very
vague,
because
I
wasn't
near
the
county
board
at
the
time,
but
I
did
kind
of
watch
it
from
afar.
I
G
If
we
could
just
be
clear,
I
personally
believe
that
we
ought
to
do
this
because
there's
good
work
that
informs
it
it's
the
right
way
to
move
forward.
If
we
found
out
that
it
wasn't,
we
could
always
stop
it.
But,
however,
if
it's
a
way
of
getting
that
buy-in,
I
think
this
is
a
better
approach
than
annual
caps
right.
D
When
we
talked
about
you
know
proposing
the
annual
limit,
we
also
talked
about
doing
a
more
robust
annual
survey.
That
would
you
know
identify
you
know
within
these
changes
are
more
accessory.
Dwellings
coming
in
because
of
them
may
be
more
of
a
survey
to
the
ones
that
have
been
created
so
that
you
know
we
know
exactly.
What's
going
on
yeah
I.
B
M
B
Okay,
that's
fine
and
I
think
that
everybody
feels
pretty
good
about
that
direction.
So,
let's
move
on
you
know.
A
couple
of
people
mentioned
the
idea
of
the
deep
cover
the
issues
with
the
deep
government
covenant
and
then
sort
of
tied
to
the
issue
that
mr.
Vyse
that
raised
about
what
shows
up
on
our
real
estate
records
right.
L
They're
recording
or
the
record
ation
on
the
deed
covenant.
Specifically,
so
could
you
repeat
again
knowing
that
I
think
we've
heard
from
a
few
at
least
instances,
if
not
just
in
the
general
conversation
that
actually
this
could
be
a
real
burden
having
it
recorded
on
the
deed
in
terms
of
financing
mortgaging,
etc?
So
so
can
you
just
repeat
for
us
again
why
it
why
it
matters
or
why
we
would
like
to
continue
to
require
it.
D
So
the
deed
covenant
was
put
there
and
it
is
considered
a
best
practice
with
other
jurisdictions
and
most
others
require
a
deed
covenant
and
what
it
does
is
that
alerts
the
new
homeowner,
that
they
have
legal
accessory
dwelling
in
their
property
and
that
they
need
to
follow
their
the
requirements
that
are
in
place
in
the
zoning,
so
it
actually.
The
big
thing
is
that
it
alerts
the
new
owner
that
there
is
an
accessory
dwelling.
There
is.
L
L
L
B
D
D
And
part
of
the
issue,
too,
is
that
you
already
he's
saying
that
if
you
go
into
closing
and
then
this
shows
up
on
your
there,
your
deed
that
can
definitely
affect
what
type
of
financing
you
yet
and
that's
very
much
at
the
last
minute
of
you
know
when
things
are
happening,
so
it
doesn't
necessarily
affect
the
construction
of
an
accessory
dwelling,
but
it
could
have
unintended
consequences
for
the
for
the
future.
Buyer
can.
D
And-
and
we
have
not
been
able
to
verify
that
you
know
this-
is
it's
correct?
What
I've
been
saying
we've
reached
out
to
other
jurisdictions
and
the
jurisdictions
we've
talked
to
have
not
had
the
similar
issue.
I
did
reach
out
to
Fairfax.
I
haven't
heard
back
yet
since
they
are
also
Virginia
locality
and
to
see
if
they
have
any
issues
with
us,
the
banks
that
have
been
reached
out
to
been
reluctant
to
answer
until
they
actually
know
you
know
if
they're
actually
going
through
the
process,
so
I
think
it's
it's
still
unknown.
M
Think
I
think
a
couple
things
number
one.
It
might
be
helpful
for
us
to
reach
out
to
the
Mortgage
Bankers
Association
and
maybe
the
Northern
Virginia
Association
of
Realtors,
to
get
to
get
their
their
insights
on
on
this
kind
of
financing
dynamic,
but
the
other.
The
other
thing
is
okay,
so
we
record
a
restrictive
covenant
or
a
deed
covenant
for
notice
in
the
Adu
context.
But
do
we
do
that
in
the
you
know,
in
the
in
the
homestay
context
or
in
the
family
caregivers
suite
context,
and
if
not,
why
not
do
is?
L
M
B
Into
that,
because
I
think
I
think
we've
heard
this
in
a
couple
of
other
instances
with
the
different
you
know
whether
in
the
are
PA
etc.
It
seems
like
there's
a
value.
Now
it
doesn't
mean
you're
using
it
or
you're
renting
it.
It
means
that
it
is
legally
been
created,
but
it
seems
to
have
some
value
and
again,
it
seems
like
we're
worth
exploring
and
trying
to
assess
whether
there
is
value
in
terms
of
providing
that
additional
information
and.
D
We
did
reach
out
to
the
assessor's
office
and
ask
them
mr.
Vyse
Ed's
question
regarding
how
are
these
appraised
right
and
you
know
what
the
luck
time
lag
is
for
that
are
assessed,
so
they
are
assessed
based
on
their
improvements.
So
you
know
if
they're,
adding
a
kitchen
that
gets
added
to
the
assessed
value
and
they're,
usually
caught
somewhat
soon,
when
the
permit
is
done
when
the
construction
is
done
and
if
not,
then
it's
usually
in
the
calendar
year.
So
it
is
within
that
timeframe.
B
M
So
so,
for
example,
assuming
a
person
pulls
a
permit
which
they're
there
they're
supposed
to
do
that's
logged
into
the
county
system
and
then
and
then
there's
a
certificate
of
occupancy
issued,
presumably
after
the
work
is
done
and
then
so
that
would
be
registered
with
our
Assessors
office
and
and
that
presumably
increased
value
would
kick
in
for
the
next
assessment
year.
Correct.
That
is
correct.
Okay,.
B
G
So
you
know
it
can
be
a
garage
that
would
otherwise
not
be
a
concern
for
a
lender,
or
it
could
be
a
place
that
this
part
of
our
approved
Adu
program,
but
that
could
change
at
any
point
over
the
life
of
someone
having
alone
yet
there's
this
covenant,
which
requires
some
degree
of
you,
know
legal
involvement
and
some
cost
to
change.
If
you
should
ever
change
the
use,
it
just
seems
like
a
a
blunt
instrument
for
what
we're
trying
to
overall
create-
and
that
is
flexibility
and
how
to
use
your
property
to
meet
goals.
B
Am
happy
to
have
some
more
analysis
of
this
I
mean
I.
My
gut
tells
me
because
we
actually
purchased
a
home
that
had
a
mother-in-law.
Suite
is
what
we
were
told,
but
we
were
told
when
we
purchased
it,
you
could
rent
it.
We
had
no
idea,
so
the
information
that's
provided
to
me
on
a
deed
is
a
value
about
what
actually
you
are
buying
and
what
you're
not
and
therefore
what
you're
able
to
do
with
it
legally
and
what
you're
not
I.
B
You
know
I
think
I'll
go
back
and
read
Ken's
letter,
for
example,
but
I
have
always
assumed
that
if
you
had
an
ad
you
that
you
then
would
qualify
for
a
higher
mortgage
because
they
see
this
as
a
they,
they
allow
that
to
be
then
counted
as
income
when
you
qualify
for
mortgage
so,
but
but
more
than
anything,
it's
about
being
clear
about
what
you're
buying
as
a
purchaser
and
a
lot
of
people
won't
know
the
difference
between
these.
These
things
can
I
ask.
I
would
like
to
ask
question
how
about
Building
Code
obstacles?
B
D
We've
had
numerous
conversations
about
this
and
the
cost
really
varies
on
the
creation
of
an
accessory
dwelling
ranges
from
you
know,
20,000
to
80,000
dollars,
but
you
are
correct
and
you
know
one
of
the
big
drivers
in
that
cost.
Is
you
know
the
fire
separation,
the
separate
heating
and
air
conditioning?
And
we
can
get
you
the
you
know
the
range
on
those
prices
of
what
that
costs.
D
I
mean.
There's
it's
going
to
be
new
construction,
more
than
likely
or
some
kind
of
substantial
renovation.
So
there
is
going
to
be
the
costs
associated
with
that
architect
is
probably
going
to
need
to
be
involved
electrician,
so
it
all
kind
of
adds
up
and
we
can
work
on
getting
you
a
cost
breakdown
of
that.
As
far
as
your
other
point,
Shahriyar
mary
has
our
had
submitted
some
revisions
to
the
state
on
how
accessory
dwellings
should
be
treated.
D
M
You
know
we're
the
way
this
sprung.
The
sprung
sprang
was
through
our
affordable
housing
master
plan
and
what
what
I'm
wondering
is?
Are
we
really
talking
just
as
much,
if
not
more,
about
Aging
in
Place
intergenerational
housing?
That
type
of
thing,
because
there's
certainly
nothing
that
we've
talked
about
today
and
nothing
that
we're
considering
really
insurers
or
mandates
that
that
we
are
expanding
the
supply
of
affordable
housing?
There's
not.
M
We
know
we're
not
imposing
rent
controls
or
mandates
that
somebody
rent
this
unit
to
people
of
a
certain
income
or
our
asset
class
or
economic
circumstance
you
you
could
be
renting
this
too.
You
know
the
the
son
or
daughter
of
a
you,
know:
well,
wealth,
wealthy
family
who's
in
town,
going
to
a
private
school
and
and
can
easily
afford
to
live
somewhere
else
or
have
a
bigger
place
or
whatever
so
I'm,
just
I,
just
like
folks
thoughts
as
to
how
this
really
helps
housing,
affordability
and
it
may
at
the
margins.
M
F
Okay,
I
think
a
theme
that
that
has
been
touched
on
many
times
this
afternoon
is
that
you
know
this
is
kind
of
a
second
look
at
something
we
looked
at
about
a
decade
ago,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
backlash
from
the
community.
So
I
think
these
are
sort
of
those
baby
steps
trying
to
come
back
from
a
lot
of
restrictive.
You
know
aspects
of
this
ordinance
that
weren't
necessary
and
got
well
people
some
people
wanna,
which
was
almost
no
units
so
now
we're
ready
to
relook
at
that.
A
decade
is
gone
by.
F
We
have
the
Airbnb,
things
have
changed
and
people
are
opening
their
minds,
and
so
here
we
are
kind
of
making
our
way
back
towards
a
reasonable
ordinance.
So
I
think
you
know
to
your
point.
We
didn't
look
at
affordability
per
se
and
making
these
into
CAF's
or
any
of
that
yet,
but
by
default
they
will
be
about
a
thousand
dollars
a
unit,
so
in
effect
for
some
people
this
will
be
market
rate,
affordable
and
so
I
think.
The
idea
that
we'll
look
at
many
of
these
things
again
in
two
years.
F
That
certainly
would
be
something
to
look
at
later.
Would
there
be
some
sort
of
a
you
know,
a
cool
that
that
landlords
could
tap
into
to
kind
of
supple
and
renting
at
a
lower
rate
or
something
you
know
we
could
figure
out?
Could
this
be
part
of
the
housing
grant
program?
Could
this
be?
There
are
many
things
that
we
could
elaborate
on
later.
I,
don't
think
we're
going
there
yet
and
I
think
that's
potential,
especially
depending
on
volume.
We
have
to
wait
and
see
I
think
good.
I
M
I
Seems
to
me
there
two
ways:
it
actually
helps.
Affordability,
one
is
the
one
miss
Hogan
outlined,
I
mean
a
thousand:
it's
a
small
space,
a
thousand
dollars.
Yes,
maybe
somebody
who
really
doesn't
need.
It
could
be
the
bet,
but
in
general,
people
who
have
a
whole
lot
of
money,
don't
live
in
small
spaces
and
they
get
there
anyway.
I
think
it
it.
It
allows
the
market
to
supply
it.
I
The
other
thing
it
does
I
think
is
it
helped
mix,
helps
make
home
ownership
more
affordable
because
people
can
buy
a
home
and
they've
got
$1,000
extra
on
the
mortgage,
and
so
I
think
it
does
both
things,
both
home
ownership
and
rental,
which
makes
it
really
great
I
hope
we
get
a
lot
of
them
and
everybody's
happy
with
them.
We'll
see.
L
Yeah
and
I
appreciate
miss
Garvey's
comments,
as
well
as
miss
Hogan's,
I.
Think,
that's
exactly
right
and-
and
you
know,
I
actually
came
in
to
this
work
session,
prepared
to
ask
a
few
questions
about.
You
know
how
we
might
be
potentially
setting
incentives,
etc,
and
then
you
all
came
in
with
that
really
remarkable
statistic
right
about
where
the
market
is
supplying.
These
and
I
actually
think
this
is
really
indicative
of
a
broader
issue
in
our
community,
which
is
diversity
of
housing
forms
is
such
an
important
element
of
our
overall
affordability
picture.
You
know
right
now.
L
We
really
just
have
kind
of
one
way
of
tackling
our
affordability
challenge
and
that's
through
density,
right
and
and
so
thinking
about.
You
know
ways
to
look
at
whether
it's
micro
units
in
Crystal,
City
or
accessory
dwellings
in
our
single-family
housing
being
able
to
to
see
that
picture
more
robustly,
even
if
it
includes
some
people
paying
less
and
rent
than
they
might
otherwise
be
able
to
afford
it's
the
different
types
of
housing
that
will
will
create
a
more
complete
picture
for
us.
L
So
with
that
said,
I
just
really
wanted
to
give
commendations
to
the
workgroup
and
the
staff.
I
think
this
is
something
a
lot
of
us
have
been
excited
about
for
a
long
time
and
is
in
fact,
maybe
just
one
step
on
our
journey
towards
talking
about
missing
middle
housing
forms
more
broadly
and
I'm.
Just
really
pleased
that
that
this
conversation
is
now
underway.
There.
B
Are
any
other
issues
we
wanted
to
surface
I?
Have
only
one
I,
don't
see
anything
else,
and
that's
just
in
looking
at
the
table
on
page
16
and
what
some
of
the
other
cities
have
done.
I
noticed
that
waived
system
development
charges
and
one
of
my
questions
is
whether
or
not
we
looked
at
in
light
of
some
of
those
building
code
requirements
and
costs.
Did
we
look
at
any
potential
of
waiving
various
fees
that
we
otherwise
wouldn't
in
order
to
incentivize
a
to
use.
D
B
I
mean
I,
don't
know
the
answer
either
and
that's
part
of
why
I'm
asking,
but
you
know
you
mentioned
separate
and
Heating
and
Cooling.
You
mentioned
fire
particularly
design
around
fire
and
and
ingress/egress,
maybe
to
the
degree
there
are
specific
permits
that
would
be
required
because
it
is
an
Adu
I
would
ask
that
you,
you
know
if
people
are
comfortable.
Just
look
at
that
see
if
there
makes
any
sense
to
find
one.
B
That's
so
specific,
you
know
that
that
could
be
attached
to
an
ad
that
could
be
waived
or
reduced
and
I
say
that,
partly
because
you
know
Shahriyar
I
believe
has
gotten
to
the
place
where
he
sees
that
some
of
these
requirements
in
the
Building
Code
are
onerous
and
that
he
would
be
comfortable
if
some
of
them
were
modified
and
we're
now
hearing
the
state
is
unlikely
to
do
that.
So,
on
the
flip
side,
there's
a
cost
to
some
of
those.
B
Is
there
a
way
to
reduce
some
of
the
cost
burden
for
the
implementation
of
some
of
those
code
changes?
That's
kind
of
what
I'd
ask
that
we
look
at.
If
you
haven't
already
don't
know
what
might
come
out
the
other
end,
but
it
seems
like
it's
worth
exploring
if
the
goal
is
to
reduce
some
of
the
obstacles.
Mister
I.
L
B
L
The
the
only
thing
I
would
hesitate
is
a
fit
car
I
think
about
this.
In
context
of
you
know,
when
we
talked
about
the
the
short
term
home
occupancy,
if
there
is
a
cost
to
staff
to
administer
these
things
and
if,
if
that's
a
mere
fraction
of
the
overall
cost,
I
worry
that
we
could
be
waiving
that
you
know
imposing
costs
for
us
to
find
elsewhere
in
our
operating
budget
without
actually
really
reducing
the
disincentive.
M
B
B
Those
were
fees
for
sort
of
mitigation
of
impacts,
it
almost
like
impact
fees
but
I
come
back
to
you
know
when,
when
you're
looking
at
promoting
incentivizing
solar,
there
are
things
you
do
sometimes,
with
your
permit
costs
to
reduce
that
administrative
costs
that
permit
fee
are
there
any
that
could
be
attached
to
ad
use.
That
would
help
incentivize
and
overcome
some
of
the
it
truly
is
a
cost.
I
Committing
with
mr.
Lawson
there
who
sent
us
the
email
about-
and
he
thinks
that
in
fair
fact,
there's
did
they
make
some
definitional
changes
that
get
that
make
it.
Then
the
code
doesn't
apply,
I'm
sort
of
changing
on
how
they
define
things
so
I
think
he's
gonna,
look
at
that
I'm
sure
staff
and
the
staff
may
be
aware
of
it
already.
I,
don't
know
if
that's
the
case
or
not,
but
apparently
there's
some
ways
around
things.
I
G
Would
certainly
encourage
mister
seconding
your
desire
to
take
a
look
at
it.
I
would
think
with
new
construction.
It's
not
really
gonna
make
a
difference.
However,
for
the
purposes
of
existing
construction.
You
know,
maybe
we
could
think
about
well
for
the
next
year
there
are
no
Earling
Arlington
County
permit
fees
associated
with
those
are
six
months,
assuming
that
anything
that's
already
as
built
to
Adu
specifications.
G
That
will
then
be
an
inducement
for
pee
to
actually
bring
it
in
and
register
it
as
legal,
because
they
don't
have
to
pay
any
fees
for
something
that
they've
already
built
and
spent
the
money
on.
So
maybe
there's
a
different
way
of
looking
at
it.
How
to
how
to
encourage
people
to
you
know,
come
out
and
make
theirs
legit
versus
you
know,
throwing
away
money
that
we
should
write.
Write,
write
lira
sieve
when
people
are
spending
thousands
on
creating
one
all.
B
Right,
okay,
I
think
we're
all
done.
Thank
you.
I'm
gonna,
just
echo
what
my
colleagues
have
said.
Thank
you
for
some
great
working
group,
work
and
staff
work
and
we'll
look
forward
to
getting
this
back
in
advertisement
in
October
and
adoption
in
November
and
if,
for
any
reason
you
feel
like
you're
off
that
timeline
like
you
want
to
come
early.
Let
us
know.
F
One
of
the
things
that
I
was
interested
in
and
we
discussed
in
the
the
working
group
that
didn't
come
up
was
the
idea
of
you
know
this
idea:
a
of
bringing
people
into
compliance
who
are
already
out
there
and
be
incentivizing
new
ones.
One
of
the
things
we
heard
from
people
who
came
and
testified
was
that
the
process
and
the
zoning
office
is
tricky
and
at
different
times
you
go
in
and
get
different
answers,
because
it's
so
unusual
to
do
this
and
there's
no
expert.
F
No
one
in
that
office
knows
exactly
how
to
implement
this
ordinance
and
now
we'll
have
new
regulations
and
I.
Think
that
will
remain
the
case.
So
that's
changing.
One
of
the
things
that
we
had
talked
about
was
the
idea
of
having
one
person
in
that
office
to
Shepherd
people
through
this
process,
because
we
don't
expect
there
to
be
500
applications.
Would
it
be
feasible
to
have
someone
who,
who
is
the
expert
to.
B
You
Alice
thank
you
for
raising
it,
I'm
glad
you
all
talked
about
it
and
I
think
when
this
comes
back
in
the
board
report
that
we
advertise,
it
will
be
helpful
to
address
that
question,
which
is
really
the
the
administrative
carrying
out
of
this
function
within
the
within
the
permitting
office
and
all
so
it'll,
be
a
good
thing
to
get
some
more
information
from
staff
on
okay.
Thank
you
very
much.
We
are
returning
for
a
work
session
at
7:00
p.m.
but
in
the
interim
we
are
adjourned.