When we were talking about the size of pole barns on properties, a [clears throat] lot of people thought that, hey, if we um you know, increase pull barn sizes, that's going to eliminate a lot of problems. Instead, all we did is create another problem because this particular lot would have been 1,800 square ft. uh would have been the max. And now they're building a second building, which I'm fine with. And they're doing it all within 2400 feet or 2400 square feet, which I'm fine with, too. But it's being built too close to the front of the house. So now they need a variance for it, which ultimately we just created another problem.

the [clears throat] uh the planning commission held a public hearing I think in May or June to increase the size of accessory dwelling units 850 square feet. So we did amend that already, but there was ADUs listed in another section of the code. That's what's before you tonight just to make sure it's consistent. Uh but for all practical purposes, we have been uh honoring the 850 ft since the council approved that previous amendment.

The win in my opinion, the win-winwin is one, a normal user can divide at the same um size that a developer can now. So that's a win in my eyes. Uh number two is we don't lose a lot of density because of doing it, but we are still increasing our lot size. So anybody with a 300 foot road frontage with a 2 and a/4 acre lot now has three uh 2.5 acres out to the center line, which we weren't doing before.

Well, I will say I I thought it was clear the council or the majority of the council wanted the planning commission to amend the code to be 2 and a half acres. I communicated that with the planning commission, but they they did uh make a recommendation to 2.25.

The previous language that talked about to the center of the road is removed here. lot size may be reduced in propo proposition proportion to the area within the subdivision dedicated to right ofway for streets provided that overall density in the subdivision is not increased and the minimum lot size is not less than two acres in any case. So we got rid of all that language about two acres into the center of the road.

I've been strong about it and I I get that. That's the only reason that I'm I'm going to vote for that. But I still support the two and a two and a half acre minimum minimum.

We evaluate it every year. That's why we increased it for 10,000 this year. We'll see how far we get with that for this year. Maybe next year we may have to We'll see. But you usually got to go a year or two before you can really see how it looked. Depending on how far you get. I mean, every road's different, too.

Abdo did that to us. spent a couple meetings discussing that. There were some recommendations in there. Their initial recommendation was to have the Lake George sewer fund uh do an inter fund loan to Lake George water fund. You guys did reject that uh and identified the EDA as a better avenue to to do this interf. So, this just formalizes it in the resolution.

Well, I'm going to vote against it. You all know that I do not like these interfund loans from one place to another. So, I'm going to be consistent and vote against it.

Uh these are two vehicles uh that the chief and public works went over and took a look at these. These are in really good shape. Uh it's a good value and they come with all of the the lights and all that. They're already wired or all that equipment is already included. that is worth uh a significant amount of money to find a vehicle that already has all that stuff installed in it. Um so 50,000 was budgeted for one. Uh but they're able to get two for that price.

my only concern is is now we're going to have to adjust the CIP moving forward because now we got another vehicle that we have to replace at some point.