1 00:00:01,100 --> 00:00:12,140 All right, everybody. Meeting to order, work session to order. And so, if you could please call the roll, I would appreciate that. 2 00:00:14,310 --> 00:00:14,730 President. 3 00:00:17,210 --> 00:00:19,570 Here. Here. 4 00:00:25,650 --> 00:00:26,730 Here. Here. 5 00:00:29,960 --> 00:00:30,320 Here. 6 00:00:34,660 --> 00:00:35,680 Mr. Cone is absent. 7 00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:52,320 Okay. Thank you. So appreciate it. So discussion items reviewing of the comprehensive plan. I'm hoping everybody had a chance to. 8 00:00:53,080 --> 00:00:58,460 scan through it. Will, do you want to sort of walk through like we did last 9 00:00:58,460 --> 00:01:04,480 time? Sure. Yeah. Happy to. Thank you. And if I may just one second, if you've 10 00:01:04,480 --> 00:01:09,400 not met Sue, Sue Foote, she is not the new Rhonda. She just happens to be sitting 11 00:01:09,400 --> 00:01:10,940 in her seat this evening. 12 00:01:13,220 --> 00:01:17,600 She is she is our planning and project associate. So that 13 00:01:17,600 --> 00:01:24,080 position has been vacant for a little while and we were successful in stealing her from 14 00:01:24,080 --> 00:01:30,160 the police department where she was serving in an administrative role. So she's now with us in 15 00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:34,140 the planning and zoning side. So welcome. 16 00:01:39,030 --> 00:01:42,810 Yeah the chief threatened to charge me with 17 00:01:42,810 --> 00:01:45,050 large knee and a bunch of other things. 18 00:01:47,490 --> 00:01:54,250 So similar to last month, what I have attempted 19 00:01:54,250 --> 00:02:02,130 to do is just an initial markup of the chapter. Some of which I put in here is kind of editorial 20 00:02:02,830 --> 00:02:09,750 asking if you think maybe things still apply. Some of it, there are a couple of suggestions 21 00:02:09,750 --> 00:02:17,890 you'll see under the strategies that came directly from Mr. McConey. He knew that he was going to be absent, so he'd sent some comments in. 22 00:02:19,530 --> 00:02:34,790 And then there's also just some updating of data from the best available sources that I could muster up, and we'll kind of talk about that as we go through here. 23 00:02:36,050 --> 00:02:36,670 So, 24 00:02:39,620 --> 00:02:47,160 again, just in general, I'd prefer to skip maybe at first the goal and strategies 25 00:02:47,160 --> 00:02:53,940 areas because sometimes those are better informed after you discuss the meat of what 26 00:02:53,940 --> 00:02:59,640 is in the chapter and then you try to go back and say, hey, does this goal still necessarily 27 00:02:59,640 --> 00:03:07,800 apply and second to that are these strategies still the ones that would be the best things 28 00:03:07,800 --> 00:03:15,040 to kind of attack to achieve what is in the text of the chapter. 29 00:03:16,000 --> 00:03:21,220 So kind of just going through here under population growth you'll see that we've updated 30 00:03:21,220 --> 00:03:25,040 with the 2020 census number. 31 00:03:25,460 --> 00:03:33,020 So the 2010 census had Middleburg at 673 in population, 32 00:03:33,380 --> 00:03:37,380 the 2020 decreased by 4 to 669. 33 00:03:40,130 --> 00:03:45,170 Under the local trends, we start talking about this issue 34 00:03:45,170 --> 00:03:51,290 about how can we get good data or how good maybe 35 00:03:51,290 --> 00:03:54,830 is the data that's available to us. 36 00:03:55,110 --> 00:04:00,590 So, similar to when we updated the plan in 2019, 37 00:04:00,810 --> 00:04:03,270 we were almost as far removed from a census 38 00:04:03,270 --> 00:04:05,010 as you could be at that point. 39 00:04:07,670 --> 00:04:12,170 But we note that oftentimes we believe 40 00:04:12,490 --> 00:04:16,990 the census count in the town to be a little shy 41 00:04:16,990 --> 00:04:18,990 of what our actual population might be 42 00:04:18,990 --> 00:04:27,810 In the intervening years, between the Dysonial Census, there's what's called the American Community Survey, 43 00:04:28,310 --> 00:04:31,350 which is a product of the U.S. Census Bureau. 44 00:04:32,670 --> 00:04:42,990 But it is rather than the door-to-door count, which the census strives to get an actual count of each citizen in town. 45 00:04:42,990 --> 00:04:50,950 A lot of this is just statistically derived and the methodology is beyond me. 46 00:04:51,950 --> 00:04:59,290 What I do know is that in general, the smaller the locale, the greater the margin for error 47 00:04:59,290 --> 00:05:07,790 that occurs, and particularly in the ACS, the American community survey, they try to 48 00:05:07,790 --> 00:05:15,890 offset that a little bit. The ACS does an update every year, but they don't do it for the 49 00:05:15,890 --> 00:05:23,550 town level every year. Each year when they do an update for anything that is a population, 50 00:05:23,550 --> 00:05:29,570 I shouldn't say town, it's population driven. Anything that's assumed to be less than a 20,000 51 00:05:29,570 --> 00:05:38,530 population, they use a five year aggregate of their estimates to try to better make 52 00:05:38,530 --> 00:05:42,770 up for the margins of error that come with the small samples. 53 00:05:43,750 --> 00:05:47,530 So I have a quick question. So in some of those surveys, they do it based on 54 00:05:49,250 --> 00:05:54,730 square footage of the houses, so they determine how many bedrooms and what the 55 00:05:54,730 --> 00:06:02,930 expectation is of the estimate of humans in the building and then take the number of houses 56 00:06:02,930 --> 00:06:10,070 and then they just extrapolate from there or do they have some I'm not exactly sure of 57 00:06:10,070 --> 00:06:18,550 the methodology. They try to baseline from the most recent census that they're working from, 58 00:06:18,550 --> 00:06:26,490 However, what we know is that with each census, the actual information that is being requested 59 00:06:27,010 --> 00:06:28,070 varies year to year. 60 00:06:28,310 --> 00:06:33,110 So in the 2020 census, it was a really short form census, so they were not collecting 61 00:06:33,110 --> 00:06:37,110 nearly as many data points as they had in previous years. 62 00:06:37,550 --> 00:06:44,250 But the intervening years of the American Community Survey, they always have tons and tons 63 00:06:44,250 --> 00:06:45,350 of data points. 64 00:06:45,350 --> 00:06:52,750 So, we'll see kind of as we go through some of the charts that I've updated with the data. 65 00:06:53,290 --> 00:07:02,090 For example, it had our number of housing units decreasing from 429 to 422 and there's 66 00:07:02,090 --> 00:07:08,570 no legitimacy to that at all, but still it's the data that's published and available. 67 00:07:08,570 --> 00:07:16,090 so I've used that. We can talk about whether we want to try to do any of our own manipulation of that. 68 00:07:16,690 --> 00:07:24,210 My general feeling is that's probably a bad idea, but that we simply recognize, maybe within the text, 69 00:07:24,730 --> 00:07:27,510 that there generally is a large margin of error. 70 00:07:45,690 --> 00:07:54,170 are we safe to maybe assume that what we've got with this data are a couple of brackets. 71 00:07:55,190 --> 00:08:00,910 We've got the census and we've got the ACS. So we're pretty safe in saying that the 72 00:08:00,910 --> 00:08:05,810 number probably falls somewhere between those two points, right? 73 00:08:05,810 --> 00:08:17,650 I think that's safe. That's almost word-for-word what our text in the 2019 plan said, and I would suggest that we would include a similar statement. 74 00:08:18,570 --> 00:08:26,510 I think I've kind of done that in the markups. I think that's probably the best way to attack that. 75 00:08:26,510 --> 00:08:27,510 So, 76 00:08:31,910 --> 00:08:35,770 kind of going on within the next paragraph, 77 00:08:36,330 --> 00:08:40,350 that paragraph kind of focused on the, 78 00:08:41,370 --> 00:08:46,350 it gave a lot more background on the development of the resort 79 00:08:46,350 --> 00:08:50,290 than maybe we need to retain in this plan. 80 00:08:50,790 --> 00:08:54,550 I think it's still very important to recognize 81 00:08:57,030 --> 00:09:03,210 That is probably still fair to call the largest development project in our recent history. 82 00:09:04,190 --> 00:09:13,970 But of course, at the time of the 2019 plan, ground and not broken yet on any of the homes within the residential component. 83 00:09:14,170 --> 00:09:18,130 And obviously that is well underway at this point. 84 00:09:19,970 --> 00:09:31,720 One of the things I wanted to run by you, and I took my own approach here to see if you're 85 00:09:31,720 --> 00:09:43,940 okay with this or not. So in the 2019 plan, we discussed during that process that in the mixed 86 00:09:43,940 --> 00:09:46,940 usage village area of the Salamander development. 87 00:09:47,240 --> 00:09:50,200 So that's basically what's directly north of us here 88 00:09:50,200 --> 00:09:53,420 on mostly on this side, Pendleton Street, 89 00:09:54,520 --> 00:09:58,120 that there's a profit array of uses, which includes 90 00:09:58,520 --> 00:10:00,920 a significant amount of commercial space 91 00:10:01,500 --> 00:10:04,880 as well as 60 residential units, 48, 92 00:10:05,060 --> 00:10:09,660 which would be multifamily units, 12, which would be homes. 93 00:10:09,660 --> 00:10:18,240 and there are some qualifications on who those homes or apartments would be reserved for. 94 00:10:18,800 --> 00:10:23,560 The homes would be reserved for teachers, but if there was no market for teachers 95 00:10:23,560 --> 00:10:30,300 and for elderly housing, the 48 units would be for quote-unquote workforce housing. 96 00:10:30,800 --> 00:10:35,460 Although, if you actually look at the details of the prophets, 97 00:10:35,460 --> 00:10:56,460 What they describe in there as who would be eligible for the quote unquote workforce housing are those households that earn 80% or less of loud in counties median household income, which with the current ACS is at about $174,000. 98 00:10:56,460 --> 00:11:03,380 thousand dollars. So even 80% of that is that really what we envision as workforce housing. 99 00:11:04,100 --> 00:11:12,740 So all that being said, we do at the 2019 time frame as we do now that 100 00:11:14,340 --> 00:11:19,480 representatives of salamander have publicly stated in a planning commission meeting that they have 101 00:11:19,480 --> 00:11:24,300 new intention of pursuing that array of uses that is currently 102 00:11:24,300 --> 00:11:30,900 profiled. Our consultant for the 2019 plan thought it would be 103 00:11:30,900 --> 00:11:37,620 best to still include those 60 potential housing units in the 104 00:11:37,620 --> 00:11:43,740 pipeline, if you will, for development in town. I'm suggesting that 105 00:11:43,740 --> 00:11:46,580 we should have the conversation whether we want to continue to 106 00:11:46,580 --> 00:11:54,540 include that or whether we want to do something similar to what I've done in the mark up here 107 00:11:54,960 --> 00:12:02,020 and that is recognizing that that zoning is in place and they could theoretically be built 108 00:12:02,020 --> 00:12:08,680 but also recognizing that again, salinear officials have said they don't intend to pursue that 109 00:12:09,300 --> 00:12:13,840 and further that if they want to do something that's not in conformance with the 110 00:12:13,840 --> 00:12:17,160 that they would need to return to the town for a rezoning process. 111 00:12:18,180 --> 00:12:20,340 I think that's a better approach. 112 00:12:21,000 --> 00:12:25,420 It still recognizes that those 60 units are on the books 113 00:12:25,420 --> 00:12:28,580 and if the winds changed for whatever reason 114 00:12:28,580 --> 00:12:31,100 and they decided to pursue what's profit there 115 00:12:31,100 --> 00:12:34,680 as long as it was in accordance with the profits they could build it. 116 00:12:35,340 --> 00:12:40,840 But the likelihood, I think, is that they will not as they've stated. 117 00:12:41,340 --> 00:12:48,540 Yeah, and I think that we should at least leave some sort of comment about it. 118 00:12:50,260 --> 00:12:56,820 But I wouldn't, I don't, like it's my understanding that there really isn't a market, you know, 119 00:12:56,920 --> 00:13:02,640 I don't think that the retail spaces, it was concerned that they could even fill the 120 00:13:02,640 --> 00:13:08,460 retail spaces, then you're going to have a bunch of open storefronts, I'm not even sure 121 00:13:08,460 --> 00:13:15,540 they could fill the, so it's my understanding or what I gained from it was that it's probably 122 00:13:15,540 --> 00:13:22,100 not going to happen at that. But since it's not completely off the books, my suggestion would 123 00:13:22,100 --> 00:13:28,640 be to at least leave a comment that it's out there, but the likelihood of it actually happening, 124 00:13:28,640 --> 00:13:32,940 I don't know if we can say that, but I mean the chances of it happening are probably slim at this 125 00:13:32,940 --> 00:13:35,440 point from their perspective. 126 00:13:36,120 --> 00:13:40,300 Yeah, and I think that's a fair statement, and again, because it's a statement that 127 00:13:40,300 --> 00:13:43,280 they've made themselves, that they don't intend to pursue that. 128 00:13:47,610 --> 00:13:52,350 And as you read through this, it doesn't have to be tonight, but if you want to wordsmith 129 00:13:52,810 --> 00:13:57,610 anything that I've marked up in here, even if we're saying we're generally in agreement 130 00:13:57,610 --> 00:14:05,410 with it, I'm not only am I open to it, I welcome it because it might not be the crack 131 00:14:05,410 --> 00:14:07,790 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 132 00:14:11,370 --> 00:14:14,790 I remember at the time the 133 00:14:16,070 --> 00:14:24,150 the developers for the resort approached several merchants in town, I think 134 00:14:24,150 --> 00:14:29,830 including Safeway, suggesting that it would be a good thing that they could 135 00:14:29,830 --> 00:14:35,270 move over to the mixed use village, and I believe I don't know that they 136 00:14:35,270 --> 00:14:42,330 It was completely unsuccessful. There was no interest on anybody's part to move into the village over there. 137 00:14:43,670 --> 00:14:47,750 And I think it's important enough, Will, that instead of saying 138 00:14:47,750 --> 00:14:57,470 and salamander officials publicly stated, perhaps it's worthwhile digging up the minutes 139 00:14:57,470 --> 00:14:59,390 from that council meeting. 140 00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:09,420 And say something along the lines. However, the council meeting on such as a salamander representative stated that. That's great. 141 00:15:12,480 --> 00:15:13,400 Thank you, bud. 142 00:15:17,560 --> 00:15:35,240 Yes. Yeah, I also think wheels wording without addition is great in the sense that it alerts and the comprehensive plan that the community is aware that the planning commission is aware and it alerts the community that we are aware of the need that have been changed. 143 00:15:35,240 --> 00:15:41,220 It would come back before planning and they would have a chance to voice their opinions on the new idea. 144 00:15:44,940 --> 00:15:45,380 Great. 145 00:15:47,080 --> 00:15:47,920 Thank you, Chris. 146 00:15:50,830 --> 00:15:54,290 But as far as we know, I mean, they haven't actually taken it off the books. 147 00:15:54,290 --> 00:15:57,890 They just said it's not, I mean, they still have the ability to do it. 148 00:15:58,450 --> 00:15:58,770 Correct. 149 00:15:59,150 --> 00:16:05,210 It's just they stated they're not, they don't have any intentions right now of making that happen currently. 150 00:16:05,210 --> 00:16:21,090 So it's not technically off the table, it's just, I think we should just, like you were saying, we should just note it as, but it said we should just, we should use those minutes to validate our comments and then leave it at that. 151 00:16:21,090 --> 00:16:21,850 That's great. 152 00:16:21,870 --> 00:16:24,510 Is there a time limit on Proffers? 153 00:16:24,910 --> 00:16:25,710 Do they expire? 154 00:16:26,330 --> 00:16:27,210 I'm sure. 155 00:16:27,950 --> 00:16:28,250 I'm sure. 156 00:16:28,990 --> 00:16:32,730 Only if there's a time limit built into the Proffer itself. 157 00:16:33,550 --> 00:16:33,630 No. 158 00:16:34,230 --> 00:16:34,410 Okay. 159 00:16:34,910 --> 00:16:35,450 Thank you. 160 00:16:39,510 --> 00:16:51,670 So kind of just continuing, we have some additional demographic changes in the age and race 161 00:16:51,670 --> 00:17:04,510 section. I have stricken a sentence that reveals that the past U.S. census counts revealed 162 00:17:04,510 --> 00:17:13,170 small decline in residents over 65 and increases in residents ages 25 to 34, simply because 163 00:17:13,170 --> 00:17:20,750 that's not supported in the newest date. It actually shows the opposite. It shows the fairly 164 00:17:20,750 --> 00:17:29,470 significant climb in those over 65 and a decline in that particular age group of 25 to 34. 165 00:17:30,990 --> 00:17:33,810 And again, we'll go through those charts here in a minute. 166 00:17:36,690 --> 00:17:45,090 There's a statement that I think still is true in that the racial diversity of 167 00:17:45,090 --> 00:17:51,070 Middleburg has declined since 1980. It's a little bit 168 00:17:52,130 --> 00:17:56,830 weighted though and I thought it was important to point it out because it was comparing it 169 00:17:56,830 --> 00:18:14,070 essentially to the African American population which has further decreased between the 2010 170 00:18:14,070 --> 00:18:23,550 and now the 2023 ACS, the African American population had declined from 18.8 to 11.9% of 171 00:18:23,550 --> 00:18:32,750 our population. However, the category of those identifying as two or more races increased 172 00:18:32,750 --> 00:18:41,150 from virtually nothing to 10.2%. So I think that's more so the decline in the African American 173 00:18:41,150 --> 00:18:49,830 population is more so with this trend of more people identifying in that category of 174 00:18:49,830 --> 00:18:55,190 two or more races, whereas in the past, if you had two or more races in your background, 175 00:18:55,670 --> 00:18:59,790 you were essentially choosing one or the other two identifying as. 176 00:19:03,370 --> 00:19:12,650 The educational income, in particular, this is where the largest skew, if you will, between 177 00:19:12,650 --> 00:19:21,450 the 2016 data and the 2023 data has occurred. While I'm not pulling my hair out trying 178 00:19:21,450 --> 00:19:30,290 to figure out all of my new changes, this one was a huge one in the town's median household 179 00:19:30,290 --> 00:19:40,630 income, which had this at about 43 and a half thousand, 43, 43, 8, and 2016, and the 180 00:19:40,630 --> 00:19:52,590 2023 ACS now has us at over 115,000. So that rise is extremely curious to me in that 181 00:19:52,590 --> 00:19:59,890 length of time. Again, I'm going to do a little bit of a deeper dive and see what 182 00:19:59,890 --> 00:20:08,570 that they're reporting as their actual margin of error on those numbers, but I can't find 183 00:20:08,570 --> 00:20:13,730 any good explanation to this point as to why they would report such a vast increase. 184 00:20:14,770 --> 00:20:22,330 Was it because they think we're actually at that level now and that it was under-reported 185 00:20:22,330 --> 00:20:26,390 previously or has there actually been that large of a change? 186 00:20:26,390 --> 00:20:36,930 Well, I think that, I think what I see in a lot of areas, I think the demographics 187 00:20:36,930 --> 00:20:42,610 have changed in the types of jobs that people are taking now that are paying higher. 188 00:20:43,130 --> 00:20:50,170 The IT industry has gone through the roof and those people tend to make a little bit more 189 00:20:50,170 --> 00:20:56,570 if they're qualified. I mean, I know in the part-time works that I do. I mean, it's a huge thing. 190 00:20:56,850 --> 00:21:03,150 So I wouldn't discount it. I mean, maybe back then it may have been that way, but I think the 191 00:21:03,150 --> 00:21:10,570 demo, I think the types of jobs that people are taking now are paying more money. But that could be 192 00:21:10,570 --> 00:21:17,590 a factor of, you know, our economy, inflation, people are making more money. You know, it's hard to say, 193 00:21:17,590 --> 00:21:26,430 But I would think that that 115,000 is not that far off the mark when you look at 194 00:21:27,550 --> 00:21:32,770 where we are and what people can do remotely and how much money they can make. 195 00:21:35,770 --> 00:21:42,370 I can't have any argument against that, but it almost seems contrary. One of the things that we 196 00:21:42,370 --> 00:21:51,350 had already assumed was because of the slightly older population that we have 197 00:21:51,350 --> 00:21:55,170 compared to Loud County with a lot of retirees that that was kind of 198 00:21:55,170 --> 00:22:01,910 forcing maybe income level down and you combine that with an increase in that 199 00:22:01,910 --> 00:22:07,670 older population in this same survey. So the 2016 survey had the 65 and older 200 00:22:07,670 --> 00:22:15,450 somewhere around 22, 23% of the population, 2023 has this more like a third of the population. 201 00:22:15,850 --> 00:22:23,550 So again, there are things that just aren't seeming like they match at first glance. 202 00:22:24,150 --> 00:22:24,770 Mr. Chairman? 203 00:22:25,170 --> 00:22:25,250 Yes. 204 00:22:27,090 --> 00:22:33,150 Well, one of the questions I would have would be 2016 to 2023, seven years, 205 00:22:33,150 --> 00:22:38,030 years, kind of how it changed over the years, and with the small population we have, 206 00:22:38,390 --> 00:22:43,810 all it really takes is a couple of people with substantial wealth moving in and that 207 00:22:43,810 --> 00:22:45,850 could skew that pretty significantly. 208 00:22:46,730 --> 00:22:52,290 Well, yeah, potentially, yeah, I was thinking the same thing because I think a lot of those 209 00:22:52,770 --> 00:22:59,210 there are people and I'm just going to say in where I live, their paying cash for a million 210 00:22:59,210 --> 00:23:05,790 home now whether or not that's considered income but they have the net wealth so 211 00:23:05,790 --> 00:23:10,930 you know if you're looking at income it may be different than having somebody that 212 00:23:10,930 --> 00:23:15,970 comes in and buys a house for a million dollars a cash they have they have the 213 00:23:15,970 --> 00:23:20,690 net worth there so but it may not be considered an income right I was thinking 214 00:23:20,690 --> 00:23:28,490 more income yeah it isn't it isn't important though to recognize that it's the 215 00:23:28,490 --> 00:23:37,310 median income, not the mean. So while you're writing for an average, just a few really big 216 00:23:37,310 --> 00:23:46,370 outliers could skew the data. The median helps to prevent those outliers from really skewing 217 00:23:46,370 --> 00:23:52,410 the data. But still in a small sample size like this, you're not wrong that it doesn't take as many 218 00:23:52,410 --> 00:23:53,930 to change those numbers. 219 00:23:54,570 --> 00:23:59,250 I was just going to add that I definitely just knowing having lived in a couple of streets 220 00:23:59,250 --> 00:24:05,210 where around where I live, the people who are passing away are people who have had very 221 00:24:05,210 --> 00:24:06,170 modest income. 222 00:24:06,870 --> 00:24:12,730 And it's either people who are of what we'll call median income or higher that are buying 223 00:24:12,730 --> 00:24:12,930 that. 224 00:24:13,110 --> 00:24:16,090 So I definitely, when I read that, I wasn't surprised at all. 225 00:24:17,070 --> 00:24:17,490 Yeah. 226 00:24:17,990 --> 00:24:18,790 That's interesting. 227 00:24:18,790 --> 00:24:23,490 I don't think I would have been surprised to see an increase, even a substantial increase, 228 00:24:23,690 --> 00:24:29,010 but the amount that we're talking there is so substantial that it just caught me off guard. 229 00:24:29,170 --> 00:24:31,410 But I'm glad we're talking through that part. 230 00:24:32,270 --> 00:24:43,630 It possibly be that maybe those dollars from the 2016 census were not accurate. 231 00:24:44,910 --> 00:24:46,850 That's very possible as well. 232 00:24:46,850 --> 00:24:50,410 Yeah. They could have been low. Yeah. Yeah. It is possible. 233 00:24:54,080 --> 00:25:01,380 Okay. Well, I'll spend a little more time kind of digging into that just because I can't let it rest. 234 00:25:02,800 --> 00:25:10,360 It's still bothering me. Well, I think it's great. I'm not sure you all can obviously correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's interesting. 235 00:25:10,360 --> 00:25:18,320 interesting piece of information, but is it so important that we need to focus so much time on it? 236 00:25:19,420 --> 00:25:25,000 I think it's great that you're willing to do that, but I don't know that it's going to change the overall 237 00:25:25,000 --> 00:25:32,980 comp plan and what we're looking at, you know, peace, but it's not a significant, interesting fact that's written that way. 238 00:25:34,160 --> 00:25:35,220 Okay, great. 239 00:25:38,840 --> 00:25:53,440 Under demographic strategies, this is something that I've not felt like there would be any maybe change in, but just kind of saying I wanted to test with this group. 240 00:25:53,440 --> 00:26:00,260 if you think this bill seems like it's a valid point and then once we go in the later part of our 241 00:26:00,260 --> 00:26:05,260 update process when we actually do public input we want to test kind of assumptions that we have 242 00:26:05,260 --> 00:26:14,260 but one of the big ones is that we talked about in the crafting of the 2019 plan was the desire 243 00:26:14,260 --> 00:26:23,160 to attract younger families and then the other part of that was particular to housing was also to 244 00:26:23,160 --> 00:26:26,420 have housing that meets needs of older populations too. 245 00:26:27,140 --> 00:26:29,640 But this one particular sentence, for example, 246 00:26:30,400 --> 00:26:32,820 public input consistently suggests the community 247 00:26:32,820 --> 00:26:35,940 would benefit from more young people and families. 248 00:26:36,280 --> 00:26:39,780 And just noting that I don't sense that that is necessarily 249 00:26:39,780 --> 00:26:41,800 changed, but I wanted to get your input. 250 00:26:41,800 --> 00:26:47,000 And then I think we should also just test that when we do eventually 251 00:26:47,000 --> 00:26:49,440 go to the public input part of the process. 252 00:26:50,880 --> 00:27:02,420 It's definitely still a case I can tell you we had a new couple move in on Stonewall and our neighbors we were just jumping for joy. There was a young couple good good good. 253 00:27:05,720 --> 00:27:15,800 Yeah, I think it's certain correct to say that that's a public vision, if you will, that younger families would be good for the community. 254 00:27:15,800 --> 00:27:21,360 And if that's what you're asking us to test, I think it's accurate. 255 00:27:21,560 --> 00:27:22,620 That's certainly what I've heard. 256 00:27:27,500 --> 00:27:30,160 Kind of moving on to the housing characteristics. 257 00:27:30,680 --> 00:27:38,320 Another interesting change that I noted was that the previous data indicated that 45, 258 00:27:38,680 --> 00:27:46,640 46 percent of housing units were renter occupied with 54 being owner occupied. 259 00:27:46,640 --> 00:27:55,500 There seems that that gap is widened according to the data now, which has closer to 35% being 260 00:27:55,500 --> 00:27:58,440 rent or occupied, 65 being owner occupied. 261 00:27:58,660 --> 00:28:05,920 So it's looking like maybe more owner occupied, but again, I'm not necessarily sensing in 262 00:28:05,920 --> 00:28:10,120 the community that change, but not that we necessarily would. 263 00:28:12,240 --> 00:28:12,700 Mr. Chairman. 264 00:28:12,700 --> 00:28:26,000 Is it possible in the renter category to put like the percentage of homes that potentially have short-term rentals attached to just in thinking about what's potentially tracked above? 265 00:28:30,510 --> 00:28:31,270 Interesting. 266 00:28:39,100 --> 00:28:50,480 I'm not sure, I mean it's such a small number currently and I don't know I think 267 00:28:51,920 --> 00:28:59,360 Currently, all of the ones that have approved short-term rentals are oner-occupied, although 268 00:28:59,360 --> 00:29:04,760 that's not a requirement. It's not a requirement, but all those are currently. 269 00:29:06,400 --> 00:29:13,620 I think having some additional commentary on short-term rentals, which is later in this 270 00:29:13,620 --> 00:29:15,020 is going to be important. 271 00:29:17,480 --> 00:29:20,360 I'm not sure this is the place for it. 272 00:29:21,440 --> 00:29:25,040 Well, when you look at metal broke, do you consider those rental units? 273 00:29:27,800 --> 00:29:39,840 Because the school rents them to their five to teachers and one is rented to someone else, only two are occupied by owners. 274 00:29:39,840 --> 00:29:47,100 yeah so I guess the way I would answer that is if I were the one doing the 275 00:29:47,100 --> 00:29:52,760 data collection I would consider yours to be owner occupied I would consider 276 00:29:52,760 --> 00:29:59,980 those that the school owns that teachers live in to be rentals but I'm not sure 277 00:30:04,810 --> 00:30:28,470 I think the short-term rentals, I get what you're saying, and I think what you pointed out is that they're usually owner occupied that received the short-term rental ability to rent them out like that. The rest of them are long-term rentals, I'm assuming. They're truly long-term rentals. 278 00:30:37,580 --> 00:30:44,740 So in the same paragraph, you'll see that there's been a marked increase in the median 279 00:30:44,740 --> 00:30:52,160 home value, but that's, I think, pretty self evident that we've seen in assessment values 280 00:30:52,160 --> 00:30:59,860 in the market, and you'll see it's a similar jump, almost identical with Loud Counties 281 00:30:59,860 --> 00:31:05,100 so not questioning that data, at least. 282 00:31:14,090 --> 00:31:36,790 Under housing initiatives, there's some things that you might want to slog through here separate from this meeting, but if there are things that jump out to you, we've talked about managing the housing stock in the future through changes and ordinance. 283 00:31:36,790 --> 00:31:49,850 I'm thinking that this might be a good place to recognize some of the development regulation changes that were initiated last year. 284 00:31:51,730 --> 00:32:04,290 I'm not sure how extensive we want to go into that commentary but just, you know, a quick note with some background that the town was experiencing some infill and redevelopment 285 00:32:04,290 --> 00:32:10,930 that we didn't necessarily felt was in character with the town and as such there were some 286 00:32:12,430 --> 00:32:13,730 fairly extensive 287 00:32:14,370 --> 00:32:15,370 changes to the 288 00:32:15,890 --> 00:32:17,710 development regulations passed in 289 00:32:18,530 --> 00:32:20,530 2024 so I 290 00:32:21,090 --> 00:32:28,310 Think this would be probably a good place to put put that under the help. I think this section 291 00:32:29,010 --> 00:32:32,870 Under housing initiatives would be a good place to put that commentary 292 00:32:34,150 --> 00:32:36,850 But again, open to your feedback on that. 293 00:32:38,510 --> 00:32:41,450 I thought a couple of sentences would do it. 294 00:32:44,180 --> 00:32:46,780 I made notes and of course didn't bring them. 295 00:32:47,080 --> 00:32:51,460 But while these older homes are a big part of the town's historic character. 296 00:32:51,460 --> 00:32:59,460 gotata, maintenance, lower injuries, and so on, have made these properties attractive 297 00:32:59,750 --> 00:33:16,480 to developers interested in building homes with larger footprints, etc., etc., and to 298 00:33:16,480 --> 00:33:26,240 meet this challenge town undertook, we did it in 2023, I guess, whatever it was, we finally 299 00:33:26,240 --> 00:33:35,380 passed it in 2024, like 24. Some sentence indicating that we stiffened the requirements. 300 00:33:36,700 --> 00:33:41,500 Okay, it's up to you really well whether you go into any great detail about those requirements 301 00:33:41,500 --> 00:33:43,200 but just to highlight that. 302 00:33:43,880 --> 00:33:44,200 Yes, sir. 303 00:33:45,000 --> 00:33:45,200 Perfect. 304 00:33:53,070 --> 00:33:53,410 Yeah. 305 00:33:53,610 --> 00:33:56,410 Your thing here has become attractive to developers 306 00:33:56,410 --> 00:34:00,310 to raise in order to help. 307 00:34:13,390 --> 00:34:17,690 And then finally, I did include a couple of the graphs 308 00:34:18,000 --> 00:34:21,890 in this last paragraph because they were so interrelated. 309 00:34:23,970 --> 00:34:28,310 Again, this is talking about projecting future population 310 00:34:28,310 --> 00:34:38,370 in housing. The Welding Cooper Center for Public Service is the kind of clearing house for 311 00:34:38,370 --> 00:34:46,750 that kind of data that we look to in Virginia. Again, they don't drill down and do these projections 312 00:34:46,750 --> 00:34:53,010 at the town level, but just talking in general about what's happening in the region and in our direct 313 00:34:53,010 --> 00:35:08,250 surrounds with Loudon and Faulk here. I've kind of updated some numbers here based on the 2020 census and then have extended their projections out to 2050 instead of 2040 where we had those before. 314 00:35:09,810 --> 00:35:21,610 and then will given the mayor's recent article on expansion and housing in 315 00:35:21,610 --> 00:35:28,830 Loudon County that appeared in the Zest magazine. It's I think it's an issue 316 00:35:28,830 --> 00:35:36,630 that it's going to be very hard to hold it back unless we have strong barriers 317 00:35:37,550 --> 00:35:41,770 in the comprehensive plan and the regulations that would support that. 318 00:35:43,800 --> 00:35:47,700 Yeah, I think there's, I think that's absolutely true. 319 00:35:48,440 --> 00:36:05,540 This chapter may or may not be the chapter to have those types of issues raised that probably are land use chapter is where we talk about our efforts in the town as well as outside of our borders. 320 00:36:05,540 --> 00:36:17,100 but no that's a it's a it's a very good point yeah so the town section of this chart again this isn't 321 00:36:18,400 --> 00:36:23,740 there's nothing magical that goes into this kind of projection so 322 00:36:24,960 --> 00:36:32,720 using the existing population as is estimated I am plugging in that number from the ACS if you're 323 00:36:32,720 --> 00:36:39,260 comfortable with me doing so. The existing housing units, again, it shows a decrease from 324 00:36:39,260 --> 00:36:44,520 where we were supposedly in 2019, but it's using the same data, which I think if we're 325 00:36:44,520 --> 00:36:49,580 going to pull data, we're pulling it off from one source, that's probably the way we 326 00:36:49,580 --> 00:36:51,580 should attack it. 327 00:36:53,640 --> 00:36:58,760 This is where I raised that question, so where it says the approved 328 00:36:58,760 --> 00:37:06,520 unbuilt houses. Right now I have 32 parentheses 92 because the 32 basically 329 00:37:06,520 --> 00:37:11,620 represents what is left to build and what is left to be permitted and built in 330 00:37:11,620 --> 00:37:19,140 the single family section of the the residences at Salamander the 92 would 331 00:37:19,140 --> 00:37:27,760 then add the 60 additional units in the MUV. We could include both of those 332 00:37:27,760 --> 00:37:34,820 numbers parenthetically in this way with some notes if we wanted to or we could just 333 00:37:34,820 --> 00:37:43,040 leave the 60 out whatever you think would be the better approach I think we 334 00:37:43,040 --> 00:37:49,780 should keep it in because as in theory they're not going to do it however we all 335 00:37:49,780 --> 00:37:55,760 know that sometimes things do change and at least we're recognizing that there 336 00:37:55,760 --> 00:38:01,520 is that additional number. Okay, so I just don't think we can assume a hundred percent. 337 00:38:01,880 --> 00:38:06,920 I know we can't assume that. Mr. Sherman, to the earlier point that was made, I also think 338 00:38:06,920 --> 00:38:14,620 including the 92. If you see 32, you might think that oh well maybe we need to expand the city 339 00:38:14,620 --> 00:38:20,000 because we need to get more housing units available to allow more people to move in. Where if you have 340 00:38:20,000 --> 00:38:26,220 92, it's kind of, oh, well, there's room within the community to create additional homes. 341 00:38:26,600 --> 00:38:34,280 Okay. So maybe in this kind of format, not with a big question mark, but maybe with an 342 00:38:34,280 --> 00:38:44,500 asterisk and an accompanying note. Okay. Okay. Great. It might be helpful down the road if we're ever 343 00:38:44,500 --> 00:38:51,460 approached as we have been for annexation and the construction of large numbers of units 344 00:38:51,460 --> 00:38:58,280 in the newly annexed property. So I agree with you. I don't know. I don't normally agree with you. 345 00:39:02,080 --> 00:39:02,560 Excellent. 346 00:39:05,760 --> 00:39:16,320 To Commissioner Jacobs' point, should we have something in the comprehensive plan that 347 00:39:17,540 --> 00:39:26,500 maybe addresses the fact that we've had people try to annex their property to build these houses. 348 00:39:26,820 --> 00:39:33,380 And that's a potential, I don't know if you call it an issue, but it's certainly been out there. 349 00:39:33,480 --> 00:39:37,640 It's not the first time that it's happened. And maybe we should come up with some type of 350 00:39:37,640 --> 00:39:44,360 leverage at some point in here that we need to be cognizant and careful about how that 351 00:39:44,360 --> 00:39:50,320 has an impact on the town and what we're really looking for is that something 352 00:39:50,320 --> 00:39:56,200 that we should be doing and what's the reasoning behind doing it and I think 353 00:39:56,200 --> 00:40:01,580 we should at least acknowledge that piece that's out there. I don't know how to 354 00:40:01,580 --> 00:40:09,560 worry but no that's great. I think I think again we're probably going to be 355 00:40:09,560 --> 00:40:15,420 focusing that effort in chapter seven land use when we get to again this is 356 00:40:15,420 --> 00:40:21,840 where we talk a little bit in our strategies you know working with the 357 00:40:21,840 --> 00:40:30,340 counties surrounding us preserving the rural nearby rural and scenic areas 358 00:40:30,340 --> 00:40:34,800 promote conservation in those areas I think that's the chapter where we start 359 00:40:34,800 --> 00:40:40,040 We're talking about those efforts to protect what's outside the land, outside the town 360 00:40:40,040 --> 00:40:40,260 of them. 361 00:40:40,340 --> 00:40:46,760 It's at the same time maybe we address the potential of boundary line adjustment slash 362 00:40:46,760 --> 00:40:48,700 annexation in that area. 363 00:40:49,460 --> 00:40:49,760 Yes. 364 00:40:50,620 --> 00:40:55,920 Also in that discussion, I would think with the water challenges that are hitting our community 365 00:40:55,920 --> 00:41:02,980 that we directly address any expansion or even some other home units about the scarcity 366 00:41:02,980 --> 00:41:06,020 to be and being good stewards of the water that we have. 367 00:41:06,900 --> 00:41:07,540 Yeah, absolutely. 368 00:41:08,080 --> 00:41:08,280 Agreed. 369 00:41:08,520 --> 00:41:08,920 Thank you. 370 00:41:13,950 --> 00:41:14,170 Great. 371 00:41:16,050 --> 00:41:19,590 And then if I can, I'm going to jump over 372 00:41:19,590 --> 00:41:21,490 to the charts really quickly. 373 00:41:21,490 --> 00:41:24,530 And then we'll come back to the short-term rental section 374 00:41:24,530 --> 00:41:25,150 if that's OK. 375 00:41:29,340 --> 00:41:31,960 Again, just walk through these quickly. 376 00:41:32,900 --> 00:41:38,400 This first table was just adding the latest census counts. 377 00:41:38,400 --> 00:41:48,320 so nothing surprising here. This is the age distribution graph. Again, you'll 378 00:41:48,320 --> 00:41:54,140 see this kind of higher pocket down here in the bottom right of the existing 379 00:41:54,140 --> 00:42:01,140 data where that 65 and over group is climbing to almost a third of the 380 00:42:01,140 --> 00:42:09,400 population, whereas before it was down in the still over 20%, but it's a fairly significant 381 00:42:09,400 --> 00:42:09,920 climb. 382 00:42:12,950 --> 00:42:21,630 And I think some of these, although it's not a direct switch, but some of this has 383 00:42:21,630 --> 00:42:29,090 just taken the population and moved them along the six or seven years in between the data 384 00:42:29,090 --> 00:42:36,190 data points, but I think it reflects a little bit of migration in and out, but a lot of 385 00:42:36,190 --> 00:42:40,310 it has just been showing some of the existing residents ageing in place. 386 00:42:40,930 --> 00:42:46,350 Well, it's kind of interesting that when you look at the age distribution in 2023 relative 387 00:42:46,350 --> 00:42:54,550 to 2016, the 15 to 19-year-olds has jumped incredibly, which would indicate that their families 388 00:42:54,550 --> 00:43:03,010 moving into the area so it's you know and then some of the others 24 to 34 was much higher in 389 00:43:03,010 --> 00:43:12,490 2016 than it shows in the 2023 so does that mean that they're they're leaving for different jobs 390 00:43:12,490 --> 00:43:19,770 or you know so it kind of makes you wonder what's what's driving that dynamic same way with the 35 to 391 00:43:19,770 --> 00:43:27,150 44. Yeah. And I don't want to beat a dead horse, but again, the margins are there in this 392 00:43:27,690 --> 00:43:34,050 data are fairly high. I think I can't remember what it was, but the 422 housing units, I remember 393 00:43:34,050 --> 00:43:38,910 that caught my eye because it was a decrease from the previous one. And I think the margin of error 394 00:43:38,910 --> 00:43:48,850 and it was like 73 plus or minus. So that's a huge number with the baseline being 422. So yeah. 395 00:43:53,380 --> 00:44:04,320 Race and ethnicity, so the consultant in the 2019 plan included those categories in 396 00:44:04,320 --> 00:44:10,900 the same pie, which they should not be in the same pie, because ethnicity includes 397 00:44:13,220 --> 00:44:22,240 and specific to its Hispanic and Latino, you're also a race in addition to the ethnicity. 398 00:44:22,240 --> 00:44:29,080 So if you add the ethnicity to the raised bucket, you come up with a number greater than 100 percent. 399 00:44:30,160 --> 00:44:40,400 But I think it was more cleanly collected that data in 2020 and the ACS is reporting it a little better. 400 00:44:40,880 --> 00:44:44,220 So they're reporting it clearly as separate categories now. 401 00:44:44,400 --> 00:44:46,860 So we're just kind of showing that. 402 00:44:46,860 --> 00:44:59,820 That essentially the racial categories of American Indian and Alaska Native, other and Asian are at zero. 403 00:45:00,270 --> 00:45:30,030 According to the most recent data, I think the Asian was at 0.4, which had like three residents, but basically it's the split between white, black, African, American, and the two or more races are the three main racial categories you see here. And then within those races, we have eight and a half percent roughly that are identifying as Hispanic or Latino. 404 00:45:30,030 --> 00:45:31,350 mental ethnicity. 405 00:45:34,960 --> 00:45:40,520 Gender is retitled as sex in the most recent data. 406 00:45:41,880 --> 00:45:42,740 Us slight. 407 00:45:43,360 --> 00:45:45,720 The males are trying to catch up a little bit, 408 00:45:45,880 --> 00:45:52,840 according to 2023, up from 38.9 to 44.8%, 409 00:45:53,160 --> 00:46:00,120 but still the females have 5% or 10% swing overall. 410 00:46:00,120 --> 00:46:05,300 So I just have to ask you, why was it changed from gender to sex? 411 00:46:07,440 --> 00:46:08,560 I'm not a doctor. 412 00:46:10,980 --> 00:46:12,020 I'm curious. 413 00:46:14,720 --> 00:46:19,880 I think that could send us down political paths we don't want to go down. 414 00:46:20,740 --> 00:46:26,240 I think technically it's the correct term when you talk male and female. 415 00:46:26,240 --> 00:46:33,240 It's the correct term for me, but I don't know what I'm going to do. 416 00:46:36,060 --> 00:46:36,200 Mr. 417 00:46:38,420 --> 00:46:38,520 Chair. 418 00:46:39,620 --> 00:46:39,960 No. 419 00:46:40,280 --> 00:46:41,040 A quick question. 420 00:46:41,420 --> 00:46:47,500 Is it worth including anything on Loudon County in terms of those same breakdowns? 421 00:46:48,940 --> 00:46:50,720 Or is that not necessary? 422 00:46:54,590 --> 00:46:56,150 I'm open to your thoughts on it. 423 00:46:57,010 --> 00:46:59,670 Honestly, I didn't put that level of thought into these. 424 00:46:59,830 --> 00:47:03,630 I just took the graphs that we had and updated them. 425 00:47:04,030 --> 00:47:09,530 But if you think there would be value and additional data to be graphed, 426 00:47:09,530 --> 00:47:10,670 I'm happy to do that. 427 00:47:11,890 --> 00:47:19,330 The thought was kind of, if it mirrors Loudon, it's kind of consistent with the region. 428 00:47:19,330 --> 00:47:25,530 if it's an outlier then do we need to consider kind of how attractive the 429 00:47:25,530 --> 00:47:32,840 community is for different groups just kind of thinking about it and it may not 430 00:47:32,840 --> 00:47:34,100 be worth doing I mean 431 00:47:40,630 --> 00:47:44,790 this yeah I mean it's the the women are the females are 432 00:47:44,790 --> 00:47:53,120 leaving the community rather quickly between 2016 and I'll 433 00:47:58,820 --> 00:47:59,480 take a look at the 434 00:47:59,480 --> 00:48:05,480 data and see if there's anything that jumps out as being oh there's a really big 435 00:48:05,480 --> 00:48:09,360 difference there and maybe we add that in. To me it was more race and ethnicity. 436 00:48:09,720 --> 00:48:18,220 Okay okay no happy to take a look. Great thank you. Update on household size 437 00:48:18,220 --> 00:48:20,440 again there's some yeah 438 00:48:22,580 --> 00:48:32,180 I won't say it's stagnant here but at the end of the day 439 00:48:32,180 --> 00:48:53,080 We still have a significant population of one in two member households and the average number of persons in a household still is just under that two person markets, 1.88 versus 1.89 previously or vice versa. 440 00:48:54,800 --> 00:48:57,680 Any chance we can use the same colors for the same groups? 441 00:48:57,680 --> 00:49:01,640 I can try. 442 00:49:02,600 --> 00:49:04,800 Yeah, yeah. 443 00:49:06,670 --> 00:49:16,850 It was tricky because I'm not the expert chart generator in Excel and I was doing it that way. 444 00:49:17,010 --> 00:49:23,390 It was clear that the previous data is just a copy and paste out of these existing plans. 445 00:49:23,390 --> 00:49:29,930 And so I tried to get the colors to match as best I could, but I was a little bit challenged in doing that. 446 00:49:33,450 --> 00:49:34,650 Happy to help with people. 447 00:49:35,150 --> 00:49:35,230 Yeah. 448 00:49:35,870 --> 00:49:35,970 Yeah. 449 00:49:37,330 --> 00:49:40,870 Or I could just, in the future if I'm doing these comparison ones, 450 00:49:41,050 --> 00:49:44,630 I'll just recreate the previous one, and then they'll match better. 451 00:49:45,030 --> 00:49:45,490 So, yeah. 452 00:49:46,010 --> 00:49:46,090 No. 453 00:49:46,550 --> 00:49:50,090 I'm just saying that the one person household should be the same color. 454 00:49:50,470 --> 00:49:51,170 On both grades. 455 00:49:51,810 --> 00:49:51,910 Yeah. 456 00:49:51,910 --> 00:49:56,250 Yeah, point big makes perfect sense. Yeah, makes perfect sense. 457 00:50:00,670 --> 00:50:07,830 Number of bedrooms. Again, this is where there are some things that change that don't necessarily 458 00:50:08,650 --> 00:50:16,770 make sense. It's telling us that we have five fewer five or bedroom, five or more bedroom homes 459 00:50:16,770 --> 00:50:22,430 than we did. And we know that's probably the exact opposite with some of the tear-down rebuilds 460 00:50:22,430 --> 00:50:50,970 as well as the new builds, some in South London which have slightly more not all, but again it's just that whatever methodology they're using to generate this, I think what remains still true and evident is that the largest number of households that we have are still in that one to two to three bedroom at most. 461 00:50:50,970 --> 00:50:57,990 We still have some smaller housing stock in terms of numbers of bedrooms, whether they 462 00:50:57,990 --> 00:51:00,250 get those numbers right within those categories. 463 00:51:01,350 --> 00:51:04,030 Clearly, they're not 100 percent accurate. 464 00:51:07,520 --> 00:51:10,020 Age of housing, again, this is the same thing. 465 00:51:11,600 --> 00:51:17,380 The previous data had us with 106 units that were built in the 30s or earlier, and now it 466 00:51:17,380 --> 00:51:18,680 says we only have 46. 467 00:51:18,740 --> 00:51:22,300 I guarantee you, we didn't lose 60 along the way. 468 00:51:22,300 --> 00:51:30,140 Yeah, so, you know, the 1980s for the same, I mean, how did you go from 96, right? 469 00:51:31,020 --> 00:51:31,540 177. 470 00:51:31,760 --> 00:51:41,760 So, again, I don't know, you know, are they truly, yeah, are they truing up the data? 471 00:51:41,960 --> 00:51:47,600 Are they pulling any sources that are different from where they pulled before? 472 00:51:47,600 --> 00:51:53,860 or like I know you can get some data from loud counties, 473 00:51:54,780 --> 00:51:58,460 geographic information system on when a home was built, 474 00:51:58,680 --> 00:52:00,880 but oftentimes that data is skewed 475 00:52:00,880 --> 00:52:04,520 sometimes for older homes, if they didn't have a year for it, 476 00:52:04,520 --> 00:52:08,300 they put in 111, which makes it literally look like 477 00:52:08,300 --> 00:52:10,120 it was built in the second century. 478 00:52:11,240 --> 00:52:14,760 So, you know, or no, 12th century. 479 00:52:14,760 --> 00:52:16,460 Yeah, but close up. 480 00:52:17,140 --> 00:52:25,520 But point made, you know, it has some bad data in there, but, yeah. 481 00:52:25,920 --> 00:52:31,500 So, again, this is just what we're dealing with in the accuracy of what we have. 482 00:52:31,980 --> 00:52:33,700 And then finally, housing types. 483 00:52:35,620 --> 00:52:37,940 Again, some changes in the numbers. 484 00:52:38,160 --> 00:52:42,420 We know we haven't decreased in the single family detached, 485 00:52:42,420 --> 00:52:49,340 although it looks like it, but still fairly accurate that the majority is single 486 00:52:49,340 --> 00:52:54,760 family detached, followed fairly closely by single family attached. Those would 487 00:52:54,760 --> 00:53:00,400 be town homes or duplexes and then apartments and other are the small segment 488 00:53:00,400 --> 00:53:00,960 that we have. 489 00:53:05,210 --> 00:53:07,550 Any additional questions coming to you? 490 00:53:07,850 --> 00:53:15,070 I just have a question. How important is the data? Because we recognize there's no way 491 00:53:15,070 --> 00:53:21,570 that data is written. So if we know what stuff are off, A, do we just not include it if it's 492 00:53:21,570 --> 00:53:27,110 stuff are off, or P, do we actually try to get real numbers? You know, this is the tiny community, 493 00:53:27,610 --> 00:53:30,650 it shouldn't be that hard to find this information out. 494 00:53:33,850 --> 00:53:37,250 As Reggie Dawson, he can tell you 99% of our 495 00:53:38,150 --> 00:53:44,910 I guess it becomes a question, like you said, how important is the data? 496 00:53:45,570 --> 00:53:55,730 We could do a slog through what's available through Loudoun County's data, which even 497 00:53:55,730 --> 00:54:01,930 though they have some of those inaccuracies, like I mentioned, they have a lot of additional 498 00:54:01,930 --> 00:54:10,190 data that I think we could improve upon this with, it's just it would be a tremendous 499 00:54:10,190 --> 00:54:17,370 lift to do so and how valuable is that in the overarching purpose of the plan? I'm 500 00:54:17,370 --> 00:54:23,870 open to doing that slug if we think that that's important. That's where I'm gonna 501 00:54:23,870 --> 00:54:25,850 look for you, for your guidance. 502 00:54:28,190 --> 00:54:38,050 The existing plan relied on the same type of data, and I won't say that it's been 503 00:54:38,050 --> 00:54:44,350 unimportant, but no extremely important decisions were made simply based on that. 504 00:54:45,950 --> 00:54:53,330 There is that question mark regarding the median household income, which could become important. 505 00:54:53,330 --> 00:55:01,730 So, for example, when we were seeking grant funding to do a project a couple years ago 506 00:55:01,730 --> 00:55:07,670 to get the existing homes in town that were still on septic systems, get those systems 507 00:55:07,670 --> 00:55:15,690 abandoned and connected to our sanitary sewer, we were eligible for some funds that we probably 508 00:55:15,690 --> 00:55:21,650 would have otherwise been ineligible for based on our median household income. 509 00:55:21,650 --> 00:55:30,470 Now, I think we pulled that from the census, but I'm not 100% positive, but still that kind 510 00:55:30,470 --> 00:55:38,890 of a shift could make a big difference in that one area if we had to do something similar 511 00:55:38,890 --> 00:55:39,210 again. 512 00:55:41,290 --> 00:55:48,750 Is it worthwhile acknowledging the discrepancies of this data and just a census or two that 513 00:55:48,750 --> 00:55:58,030 just says, you know, based on what we have, yeah. Yeah, I think I would feel more comfortable 514 00:55:58,030 --> 00:56:04,250 if we did that, but I would want to keep it fairly short and sweet. I mean, I don't want to, 515 00:56:04,510 --> 00:56:09,890 you know, give anybody the impression that you should pay attention to this plan at all, 516 00:56:10,190 --> 00:56:15,730 that kind of thing. But yeah, yeah, I'll see if I can craft something and we can talk about it 517 00:56:15,730 --> 00:56:20,590 maybe next month about what that might look like in terms of terminology. 518 00:56:21,550 --> 00:56:28,990 So the final thing that I wanted to raise this evening, which I had given you essentially 519 00:56:29,490 --> 00:56:35,610 no input on to this point, is within the section on short-term rentals. 520 00:56:36,650 --> 00:56:42,050 And this is something that even though we might move on to the next chapter next month, I think 521 00:56:42,050 --> 00:56:43,370 we could circle back on this. 522 00:56:45,510 --> 00:56:55,010 This section when we added it in 2022, there was a lot of back and forth on the word 523 00:56:55,010 --> 00:56:56,070 smithing of it. 524 00:56:56,750 --> 00:57:02,510 I was pretty satisfied with where we ended up, where the commission ended up, because 525 00:57:02,510 --> 00:57:07,090 the commission ended up being the authors of it, and the council did not change the terminology 526 00:57:07,090 --> 00:57:08,070 when adopting it. 527 00:57:09,030 --> 00:57:17,530 But I think it would be helpful to go through and look at it carefully and then I will back 528 00:57:17,530 --> 00:57:27,910 up and say, I don't see any clearing deficiencies in this section in itself. 529 00:57:28,450 --> 00:57:35,690 What I think would be helpful is then back at the beginning of the chapter, adding the strategy 530 00:57:35,690 --> 00:57:42,110 that helps us get where we're going in this section because while this talks 531 00:57:42,110 --> 00:57:50,910 generally and I'll give the you know we talk about wanting to have stable 532 00:57:50,910 --> 00:57:55,110 residential neighborhoods and their character could be affected if this use is 533 00:57:55,110 --> 00:57:59,950 not carefully managed and then we go on to say likewise a saturation of such 534 00:57:59,950 --> 00:58:04,690 uses in new neighborhoods could be contrary to the plan and strategy for new 535 00:58:04,690 --> 00:58:14,050 development to be compatible. So that's good, but it might not be strong enough when this 536 00:58:14,050 --> 00:58:21,130 body is reviewing an application, and when the Council is finally acting on an application, 537 00:58:22,110 --> 00:58:28,370 it would help if we had a little more strength, and what does that mean in terms of evaluating 538 00:58:28,370 --> 00:58:34,830 an application. So if we go back to the strategies at the beginning of the chapter, 539 00:58:37,130 --> 00:58:39,550 I inserted 540 00:58:39,550 --> 00:58:44,890 a number five and this comes directly from Mike Rukone, who had spent some time on this. 541 00:58:45,850 --> 00:58:51,930 I'm not suggesting that these nor is he suggesting these numbers are the perfect numbers or what 542 00:58:51,930 --> 00:58:59,610 they should be, but said limit short-term rentals to know more than 30% of the eligible occupied 543 00:58:59,610 --> 00:59:05,590 home in any given neighborhood. He actually listed out, he said in Ridgeview and in 544 00:59:05,590 --> 00:59:12,690 Chen Lane and in Resurances at Salamander. But we could say something like this in any 545 00:59:12,690 --> 00:59:18,550 given neighborhood and then also limit all new short-term rentals to no more than 546 00:59:18,550 --> 00:59:27,710 60 nights per calendar year. So I would ask you maybe over the next month to look 547 00:59:27,710 --> 00:59:33,150 look at that short-term rental paragraph at the end of the chapter and maybe see if 548 00:59:33,150 --> 00:59:39,530 you think it needs some word smithing and then to consider what Mr. Recodian suggested 549 00:59:39,530 --> 00:59:48,890 here and are we on the right path with this is that all it should say if that is all it 550 00:59:48,890 --> 00:59:55,550 should say are those numbers right should it be 25% no more than 25% should be no more than 551 00:59:55,550 --> 00:59:59,970 10% in any given neighborhood is... 552 01:00:00,210 --> 01:00:28,950 No more than 60 nights per calendar year, the right absolute cap, or should it be higher, should be lower, something like that. But I think this will be really important as we go forward, especially because we have an interesting issue right now with our current ordinance where some legislation was passed that our attorneys read of it is we can't really touch our current ordinance. 553 01:00:29,510 --> 01:00:36,470 because it was adopted, it's in place and it's safe, but if you change it, it could potentially invalidate. 554 01:00:37,210 --> 01:00:45,530 So our current ordinance, for example, says the maximum number of nights per calendar year that can be considered as 108. 555 01:00:46,110 --> 01:00:55,750 I don't think we ever envisioned approving the 180, although we did with the very first one with that really tiny property on J Street. 556 01:00:57,330 --> 01:01:02,270 I think going forward, we've realized we probably don't want to get anywhere near that number, 557 01:01:02,810 --> 01:01:08,670 but we can't really change that number in the ordinance right now, because there could be risk, 558 01:01:09,350 --> 01:01:13,070 because of some legislation that was passed as it could invalidate our ordinance. 559 01:01:13,470 --> 01:01:19,050 So, but adding something in our comprehensive plan that gives a little more guidance 560 01:01:19,050 --> 01:01:25,470 to how those evaluations or applications could be evaluated would be helpful. 561 01:01:26,350 --> 01:01:27,870 So that's, go ahead. 562 01:01:29,110 --> 01:01:35,850 If my memory is correct, we seemed with the decisions we've made thus far. 563 01:01:36,050 --> 01:01:40,010 We seemed to have landed on the 69th of the year. 564 01:01:40,150 --> 01:01:43,270 I think most of them, something like that. 565 01:01:44,970 --> 01:01:47,970 Yeah, so we had, yeah, 566 01:01:50,020 --> 01:01:54,440 we definitely had one in the Residence of the Salamander that was 90. 567 01:01:55,020 --> 01:01:59,460 At the same time, we approved one on West Washington for 60. 568 01:02:00,040 --> 01:02:04,740 I can't remember where there was a subsequent one that came in in the Residence of the Salamander. 569 01:02:04,900 --> 01:02:07,920 I can't remember where we landed on that for 60. 570 01:02:07,920 --> 01:02:17,760 So we can't change the ordinance but we can put restrictions on and collect as we did with the 571 01:02:17,760 --> 01:02:25,580 special use permits that came in. Absolutely. Yeah, we can still impose conditions. I'm simply 572 01:02:25,580 --> 01:02:35,480 saying that if we if we have a suggestion in our comprehensive plan that says limit them to no more 573 01:02:35,480 --> 01:02:43,800 than certain number of nights per year, that could be additional strengths, when we make those 574 01:02:43,800 --> 01:02:52,440 decisions. May we do that? I think so. Does we can say no more than that? I think so. At some point in 575 01:02:52,440 --> 01:03:00,680 time, all of this is going to get reviewed by our attorney staff, but I think it's a good way to, 576 01:03:00,680 --> 01:03:05,780 It's a good way to supplement our ordinance. 577 01:03:06,800 --> 01:03:18,400 When we've decided what that language will look like, maybe it's worth inserting a sentence 578 01:03:18,400 --> 01:03:26,160 that says parts of this ordinance are currently being contested in the courts, 579 01:03:28,270 --> 01:03:30,690 and that decision 580 01:03:30,690 --> 01:03:35,570 I don't think it's going to come before what the end of next year probably be a while. 581 01:03:36,710 --> 01:03:40,670 Is that worth doing? Maybe we could ask Martin. Probably a lot of reasons not to do it. 582 01:03:40,810 --> 01:03:45,570 Yeah, I would definitely want his counsel on that. Mr. Chairman. Yep. 583 01:03:45,970 --> 01:03:52,370 Yeah, I really like what Mike put in here. The one question I have is in terms of the percentage. 584 01:03:53,470 --> 01:03:58,770 Would it be reasonable to consider mirroring the long-term rental percentage that 585 01:03:58,770 --> 01:04:07,490 is discussed earlier, which is a lower number than the 30%, so that just kind of making it maybe 586 01:04:07,490 --> 01:04:14,670 not arbitrary, but tied to something that there's a rationale behind why we decided to do that. 587 01:04:14,910 --> 01:04:20,130 Yeah, it's interesting. I think those the long-term rentals are just a function of people not 588 01:04:20,130 --> 01:04:24,270 putting them in the long-term rentals. The short-term rentals are a function of people wanting to rent 589 01:04:24,270 --> 01:04:29,410 their properties. So I think that would change it a little bit. I mean so it's not a that's not a 590 01:04:29,410 --> 01:04:35,750 number that we that was said, okay, we're only what 25% or whatever that number is for the long-term 591 01:04:35,750 --> 01:04:40,050 models. That's just a function of how many people have done the long-term because you don't need 592 01:04:40,050 --> 01:04:44,830 to especially use permit correct to do a long term model. I was just going with character of 593 01:04:44,830 --> 01:04:49,890 community since it's a lower number than 30 that in maintaining the character of the communities, 594 01:04:49,890 --> 01:04:57,150 We would want no more than this percentage and use that as the percentage for that knowing that motivations are completely different. 595 01:04:57,630 --> 01:05:06,370 It does go some way toward rebutting the charge that we're making arbitrary decisions. 596 01:05:07,670 --> 01:05:14,610 The only concern I have with it is knowing that in my strip there's several houses that 597 01:05:14,610 --> 01:05:22,990 are owned by one or two individuals and my concern is that since I see so many long-term 598 01:05:22,990 --> 01:05:28,270 rentals or houses that could be long-term rentals, is that would that be almost an argument 599 01:05:28,270 --> 01:05:33,290 that, hey, okay, well now we have more long-term rentals, but what I'd like to have is fewer 600 01:05:33,290 --> 01:05:40,110 rental period, long term, whatever, have more owner occupied. And so I just worry about if we say, 601 01:05:40,170 --> 01:05:45,630 okay, it's tied to long-term rentals, then as the long-term rental numbers go up, because a lot of 602 01:05:45,630 --> 01:05:52,810 people are buying these houses and then holding on to them, and you know, I don't know if that's 603 01:05:52,810 --> 01:06:02,130 happening, but it just feels that way in my area. So two points, I would make, not to contest what 604 01:06:02,130 --> 01:06:11,970 you're saying but so the that that number owner occupied versus renter occupied that that number is more than 30 percent. 605 01:06:12,470 --> 01:06:22,970 So it's it's about 65 percent owner occupied 35 percent renter occupied currently. So the numbers actually higher than what he's plugged in. 606 01:06:22,970 --> 01:06:29,330 And the only other thing I'll say is when we talk about character in the community, 607 01:06:32,060 --> 01:06:33,640 this is a personal feeling. 608 01:06:33,980 --> 01:06:39,840 So if it's going past the bounds of the profession, but it's been discussed in the profession 609 01:06:40,740 --> 01:06:50,140 is that although home ownership is, I think, still very much part of the American dream 610 01:06:50,140 --> 01:07:00,970 to a point it's not as attainable as it once was and I don't want to I don't 611 01:07:00,970 --> 01:07:09,170 want to ever imply to someone who is a long-term renter that they're not part of 612 01:07:09,170 --> 01:07:15,130 the community whereas it's clear if you are a transient renter if you're 613 01:07:15,130 --> 01:07:20,790 running for fewer than 30 days at a time that you are not part of the community so 614 01:07:20,790 --> 01:07:29,310 So that's one thing where I'd be hesitant to equate the two if that makes sense, yeah? 615 01:07:29,870 --> 01:07:40,090 Yeah, I think in terms of people in the community, long-term runners definitely a part of the community and makes up the fabric of middlework. 616 01:07:41,130 --> 01:07:42,790 I don't think anybody would debate that. 617 01:07:42,790 --> 01:07:54,950 I was mentally in my head, I had it at 25 percent, so I thought it was a way of lowering the numbers from 30 and a thoughtful manner as opposed to his randomly saying it's 25. 618 01:07:56,150 --> 01:08:04,910 I love the idea of finding not only a number, but applying some sort of rationale to it, because I think that's important. 619 01:08:04,910 --> 01:08:13,370 So wherever we may be migrating to, we should be able to articulate a reason why that number 620 01:08:13,370 --> 01:08:15,210 was the one that was chosen. 621 01:08:24,150 --> 01:08:27,310 So if I may talk 622 01:08:29,490 --> 01:08:39,350 homework, if you will, yeah, it really goes to, and I could, if you're 623 01:08:39,350 --> 01:09:01,550 agreeable with this. I'll put it out in an email as early as tomorrow. But having the commission spend a little bit of time on individually, maybe looking at that paragraph at the end of the chapter on short term rentals and deciding whether or not you think it needs some updating. 624 01:09:01,550 --> 01:09:09,210 and then also with that strategy that Mr. Raconis started with if you have any 625 01:09:09,210 --> 01:09:14,350 thoughts of if you have any additional thoughts like Dr. Herschel was going down 626 01:09:14,350 --> 01:09:18,810 the line of is hey how can we how can we equate that to something how can we 627 01:09:18,810 --> 01:09:23,190 tie it to something that would give us some strength behind whatever number we 628 01:09:23,190 --> 01:09:29,430 end up choosing to include in the draft. I think that's a good idea. I'm assuming 629 01:09:31,950 --> 01:09:48,410 So in addition to that, I'll plan on doing the same kind of initial markup of chapter five, which is on community facilities and services as we're going into this next month. 630 01:09:48,410 --> 01:09:49,310 I 631 01:09:54,650 --> 01:09:58,550 want to say, well, I think you did a really good job on this. 632 01:09:58,770 --> 01:10:00,490 It's just looking at it. 633 01:10:00,550 --> 01:10:04,390 You can see that it's a lot of work to do this update. 634 01:10:04,390 --> 01:10:05,130 So thank you. 635 01:10:05,390 --> 01:10:05,830 Thank you. 636 01:10:06,070 --> 01:10:06,310 Thank you. 637 01:10:06,910 --> 01:10:09,030 It was actually strangely fun. 638 01:10:10,270 --> 01:10:16,150 Once you figure out how to navigate their data sets, 639 01:10:16,150 --> 01:10:19,170 and which data set to look in, which is a challenge. 640 01:10:19,450 --> 01:10:22,450 Once you figure that out, it's actually quite interesting. 641 01:10:22,450 --> 01:10:28,620 Yeah, we spent a lot of time putting it together. So it's you know tweaking it now is I 642 01:10:29,610 --> 01:10:34,070 Think more joyful than the time we spent originally trying to do it. 643 01:10:36,860 --> 01:10:38,240 Okay, great 644 01:10:39,080 --> 01:10:47,410 Or we said everything will that is all I have on it. All right, I will 645 01:10:49,170 --> 01:10:51,430 work session and 646 01:10:51,430 --> 01:10:53,950 and I guess we will call the meeting's order. 647 01:10:54,890 --> 01:10:58,070 Sue, if you could please go out and think 648 01:10:58,070 --> 01:10:59,170 we need to take roll again. 649 01:11:00,190 --> 01:11:02,850 Disclosure of meetings with any applicants. 650 01:11:03,690 --> 01:11:07,110 Sue, if you could just ask each commissioner 651 01:11:07,110 --> 01:11:08,750 if they've had any meetings with applicants. 652 01:11:10,980 --> 01:11:12,380 Just call the roll basically. 653 01:11:14,490 --> 01:11:16,710 I have not had any meetings with applicants 654 01:11:16,710 --> 01:11:17,650 before this board. 655 01:11:20,300 --> 01:11:21,660 I have had no such meetings. 656 01:11:28,600 --> 01:11:30,340 I've had no meetings with applicants. 657 01:11:31,720 --> 01:11:33,780 I have had no meetings with applicants. 658 01:11:36,900 --> 01:11:40,920 I've had no meeting with any applicants with any matters before this discussion. 659 01:11:43,760 --> 01:11:44,600 Okay, thank you. 660 01:11:44,900 --> 01:11:49,500 Any public comment, is there anyone on the phone that has any comment? 661 01:11:49,700 --> 01:11:50,600 Okay, moving on. 662 01:11:51,540 --> 01:11:55,700 Do I have an approval of the minutes from April 28th to 2025? 663 01:11:56,580 --> 01:12:00,680 I move we approve the minutes, that's a second. 664 01:12:00,800 --> 01:12:01,180 Second. 665 01:12:01,960 --> 01:12:02,860 All in favor? 666 01:12:02,860 --> 01:12:08,960 Thank you. Council representative Commissioner Jacobs. 667 01:12:11,040 --> 01:12:16,880 We had a great middleburg day. I hope everybody had a chance to stop by and the rain did 668 01:12:16,880 --> 01:12:25,120 not dampen anybody's enthusiasm. Music was great. 2D did her normal, great thing with 669 01:12:25,120 --> 01:12:26,920 The food, it was just a lot of fun. 670 01:12:28,500 --> 01:12:34,100 We also had a successful foxes on the fence. 671 01:12:34,720 --> 01:12:39,300 I think they made something on the order of $24,000, $25,000, 672 01:12:40,780 --> 01:12:42,160 which is really good. 673 01:12:42,700 --> 01:12:47,320 And generated, I think, a lot of popular support 674 01:12:47,320 --> 01:12:50,500 among visitors, at least some members reported. 675 01:12:51,360 --> 01:13:01,220 We've pretty much wrapped up the budget and all of the numbers are available I think on our website if you're interested in take a look. 676 01:13:01,700 --> 01:13:07,880 We ended up not expanding the police department by two positions. 677 01:13:10,100 --> 01:13:17,780 Unfortunately it was just given the current fiscal and political realities in the country. 678 01:13:17,780 --> 01:13:23,260 it seemed to step that might be riskier than we wanted to take. 679 01:13:24,700 --> 01:13:32,760 And we're slowly working through the water issue that somebody pointed out. 680 01:13:33,940 --> 01:13:40,380 The most – it's the most contentious, but I think it's the most misunderstood piece 681 01:13:40,380 --> 01:13:48,580 of that is if we got through it ever got to the stage that we had to implement rationing 682 01:13:49,160 --> 01:13:55,840 and people obviously really don't want that and we're going to have to do a pretty good 683 01:13:55,840 --> 01:14:00,540 job I think of explaining what that is and what it would look like. 684 01:14:02,200 --> 01:14:07,300 We've heard some complaints about what that would do to property values. 685 01:14:08,120 --> 01:14:14,780 people need to understand, I think, that if we ever got to the stage, we have to 686 01:14:14,780 --> 01:14:19,700 ration water in this town. It's not an issue of people's property values. It's a 687 01:14:19,700 --> 01:14:25,660 safety and health issue. We have to be able to provide whatever level of service 688 01:14:25,660 --> 01:14:31,600 and water we can under the circumstances we face. So that's ongoing. I think is 689 01:14:31,600 --> 01:14:33,900 Is there going to be another public meeting, do you know of him? 690 01:14:35,160 --> 01:14:40,880 There will be another meeting during which council will be asked to consider approving. 691 01:14:41,200 --> 01:14:41,460 That's right. 692 01:14:42,000 --> 01:14:45,180 So, but not a specific meeting. 693 01:14:45,400 --> 01:14:48,880 There won't be a public comment meeting or whatever we call those. 694 01:14:49,340 --> 01:14:54,000 So anyway, that's the last time I've forgotten anything important, that's pretty much where 695 01:14:54,000 --> 01:14:54,280 we are. 696 01:14:55,560 --> 01:14:58,760 Okay, thank you, but any discussion items? 697 01:14:59,640 --> 01:14:59,920 Two. 698 01:15:03,500 --> 01:15:26,840 Okay. Next item is a quorum for June 23 or June 30, which is preferable. So typically your meetings are on the fourth Monday, but there is a fifth Monday available in June. So whichever works best. Anyone have a preference for those days? Are everyone available for either one? 699 01:15:29,120 --> 01:15:34,260 I'm going to be at North Carolina on both those states, but y'all go ahead. 700 01:15:34,880 --> 01:15:35,900 Thank you. 701 01:15:37,820 --> 01:15:40,800 I will be in Maine both Wednesdays. 702 01:15:41,720 --> 01:15:41,960 Okay. 703 01:15:42,540 --> 01:15:42,740 Okay. 704 01:15:43,420 --> 01:15:49,660 It does sound like so Commissioner Menchew would not be available on the 23rd but would be in 705 01:15:49,660 --> 01:15:51,040 the 30th on both. 706 01:15:51,800 --> 01:15:54,540 So maybe we aim for the 30th. 707 01:15:55,560 --> 01:16:05,360 If we want to continue our review this couple of months, I think it's good to keep up momentum 708 01:16:05,360 --> 01:16:05,760 more. 709 01:16:05,840 --> 01:16:07,880 I think that we should set a date. 710 01:16:08,160 --> 01:16:08,320 Correct. 711 01:16:09,180 --> 01:16:10,140 We should set a date. 712 01:16:10,380 --> 01:16:16,500 And if we can, if the 30th works and you two do the 30th, is Commissioner McCone, do you 713 01:16:16,500 --> 01:16:17,240 know if he'll be in? 714 01:16:17,460 --> 01:16:18,140 I don't know. 715 01:16:18,140 --> 01:16:22,640 But then are we agreed that the 30th would be a good date? 716 01:16:24,340 --> 01:16:27,940 Okay, okay, then we'll put the 30th on next one. 717 01:16:30,280 --> 01:16:30,700 All right. 718 01:16:31,180 --> 01:16:32,260 I think we're done. 719 01:16:33,200 --> 01:16:35,580 Unless there's anything else to be discussed. 720 01:16:36,300 --> 01:16:37,260 Hope, thank you.