Music Good evening. I'm like Carl D'Aurel over here. July 28, 2008. I'm going to call for the meeting of the Planning Commission. Would you please rise for the pleasure of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God in the middle of the world. It was under the Indian Justice for all. We have a short agenda tonight. So I'd like to get on with that and discuss the agenda. Are there any additions or changes? Get on with that and discuss the agenda. Are there any additions or changes? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend that since our chairman and new member are not present that under our work session agenda, item number six, which is discussion of the zoning ordinance action plan, be deferred to our first meeting in September, if that would meet with your pleasure, and then move that the remainder of the agenda be adopted as presented. Unless anyone has an objection, moved by Mr. Cunningham, seconded by Dr. Cohn, agenda is approved. I'd like to invite presentations of the public at this time. Should you wish to address any subject other than the regular agenda or the work session agenda? We'll invite comments from the public when we begin the discussion of the standards for fences at that time. But if there's any other subject anybody wishes to bring up now is the time. Seeing none, let's move on to item three of the agenda. The meeting minutes of the meeting of May the 12th, 2008. You've received in your packages. Are there any corrections or additions? Motion for approval. I'm sure I'm looking through, but there's small corrections. And it's just my name should be con KHA instead of K. I mean, not a big deal, but for the record. Other than that, I move that the adaptor means. Thank you. Is there second? Second. Minutes approved by acclamation. Okay. Item four. We're going to join the regular session and go to the work session and move right on into item five which is discussion of the Standards for fences that's being proposed proposed text amendment and I'd like to I guess turn the meeting over to Miss Godel us Thank you Earlier this month the City Council initiated a zoning text amendment and sent it down to the Planning Commission to begin discussions on establishing standards for fences. This project has been looked after very admirably by our senior planner, Eric Foreman. And he's going to give you a little bit of a presentation with some photographs. Talk about some of the issues that we as a staff have identified as we've gone through this review and then we'll have a discussion at this work session and then we'll expect to bring it back forward for further discussion and hearings in the fall. Eric. Well thank you very much. As Ms. Coddlesa had mentioned, the issue of residential fences has come up in a number of times in the last few years. The issue has come up again. And earlier this month in response to a few comments from the community, City Council initiated a text amendment on this issue. And staff has written a draft ordinance. And this is the ordinance that's included in your packets tonight. And this ordinance establishes standards for fences in the R1, R2, and R3 residential districts. Now an important thing to keep in mind about ordinances regulating fences is that any fence ordinance has to be mindful of the various reasons and there's a lot of reasons. Why homeowners choose to have a fence in their yard. Some of these reasons, for example, include privacy, include security, include simply aesthetics. And on the security issue, security in terms of presidential fences tends to be a little bit different than security in other fences or other tends to be a little bit different than security in other fences or other elements that we tend to think of. Security in residential fences tends to include keeping things or people in, as opposed to keeping people out. And what folks tend to want to keep in their yards, pets, for example, children, toys, et cetera. keep in their yards, pets, for example, children, toys, etc. So it's a little bit different of a security issue than we typically think of as far as security. Fences in front yards, side yards, and rear yards tend to serve different purposes, and again, in ordinance, would really have to be mindful of all of these uses, you know, which tend to be reasonable. Now similarly, there's a lot of different fenced styles that are out there. Each have different characteristics and some of these characteristics become important when we're talking about regulating things such as height or other issues. These are seven styles up here which are very different from each other. There are many, many more. There's combinations of styles and it's just another thing to be mindful of when talking about fence regulations. Now many folks are surprised to learn how few standards there are currently in the city regarding residential fences. Secondly, in the city regarding residential fences. There is a building permit requirement for fences that exceed six feet in height. Below six feet there is no building permit requirement. And from a zoning standpoint, there are very few requirements. There is what we call a visual site distance requirement, which establishes a safety zone for motorists to maintain visibility in your corners. Other than that there is very, very few, if any, requirements from a zoning perspective. There is no height limitation for residential fences and there is no distinction between fences in front yards or rear yards. Now our draft ordinance that we're discussing tonight proposes what really is a minimal amount of regulation. Now this, the regulation has been kept to a minimum, really for two reasons. For one, there's somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 single family homes in the city. By our estimation about a quarter of these homes contain fences. And very, very few of these fences tend to be problematic or generate complaints. The predominant issue that we tend to be discussing tonight includes tall fences in front yards and you know just thinking off the top of my head I can think of maybe a dozen homes with tall fences in front yards. So it's an issue that tends to be visible because it's in the right of way on busy streets etc but is not numerous in terms of sheer numbers. The second reason, right now there is no permitting or application process involved for a homeowner to erect a fence. And this is something that we would like to keep both for saving resources on the city's behalf and in avoiding having homeowners to go through another application process, which would typically involve submitting flats of a property, submitting an application fee, et cetera. The more complex regulations become, on fences, the more likely it is that we would have to establish some kind of a permitting system in order to keep track and make sure that folks are abiding by the regulation. Now for these reasons, the draft ordinance addresses what we consider to be the most pressing issues. Those include tall front yard fences and some issues relating to tall front yard fences, for example, how to define a front yard. And that actually becomes probably the most complex issue within this draft ordinance. So we can move on to talking about what the standards in the draft ordinance actually are. The main features include establishing a four foot height limit for fences in front yards. And we'll get into the details about that a little bit later. Include establishing a six foot height limit in rear yards and side yards. And right now there is no height limit at all. And as I mentioned, these regulations cover the R1, R2, and R3 zone-industrics, not planned developments, not department communities, et cetera. Relatively simple regulations, but as is always the case, nothing's quite as simple as it seems and we'll move on to discussing a little bit of the details here. The main issue, as we've said, is front yard standards. And again, setting of four foot maximum height limit for fences in front yards. A four foot fence is pretty much the standard as far as a mid-sized fence goes. And four foot fence can be functional, such as from the security standpoint that I had been speaking of earlier, but less visually obtrusive than a taller fence. The taller fences tend to create what people refer to as a fortress type of environment, which tends to be the thing that folks don't like about tall fences in front yards. Again, four-foot height limit in front yards is what's recommended in the draft. And now comes the complicated part. It seems like a straightforward issue, and it is a straightforward issue for most lots. It gets more complex when dealing with corner lots and other lots that may have multiple frontages. Now, the reason it's complex is most folks tend to think of a front yard as the area in front of a house. So if you look at the large picture on the top here, this is the area in front of the house and this is what folks tend to think of when they say front yard. The zoning ordinance, our zoning ordinance, and most zoning ordinances, say that a front yard is anything, any yard, that borders a right of way. So again, on this top photograph, the zoning ordinance says a front yard is all of this, wraps around the side of the house. Now, this makes sense from a zoning ordinance perspective, because this was put in place, obviously, for setbacks to ensure that the building itself doesn't get too close to the road, was not put in place mindful offenses. It can't be even more complicated when looking at properties such as the one on the bottom. This is a property that's on an odd shaped corner and from the zoning ordinance perspective, virtually this whole lot is nothing but front yard. So from a policy standpoint, offense ordinance, the challenge is how to define what is a front yard to maintain the aesthetic appeal of the people, want while also maintaining utility the people want in corner and other lots. Now we do have a recommendation, which is in the draft ordinance, and I have a few visuals here, and I'll go on to some photographs that might make it a little bit more clear. The recommendations that we have, the technical aspect of it, is we create what's called a primary front yard and the secondary front yard, four corner lots. That's done with the ultimate goal of establishing what we have here in the diagram, which is establishing a four foot fencing area and a six foot fencing area. Now as I've mentioned, it's fairly straightforward with interior lots. This represents three houses. The houses are shaded in orange. The dark green represents areas that, through the draft ordinance, a six foot fence would be permitted. For the interior lots, it's anything beyond the, behind the front wall of the house. In this draft for the corner lot, and this is a standard corner lot, the six-foot fencing area would come out and include everything behind the front wall of the house up to the lot line on the corner. And it's this area that really presents the biggest challenge for us in writing the ordinance. Whether this area on the sides of corner lots should be within a six foot fencing area, a four foot fencing area, or some combination. Now there really are a few options here. We've come up with an option A, B, and C. And the difference between all of these options is what kind of setback, if any, a six foot fence would be required on a corner lot such as this. Now there's not much controversy concerning four foot or smaller fences on corner lots such as this. The issue really is focused on six foot fences or more than four foot fences. Each of these three options, I'll go over each individually, has benefits, each has disadvantages. What we have in the recommended draft is what we have here is option A, which is no required setback for tall fences on side yards of corner lots. And this means the dark green area here extends, can extend out to the lot line. The advantage is that it gives homeowners the greater flexibility in choosing the kind of fence that they desire for their yard, what suits their yard, what suits their family, et cetera. The disadvantage is you have the possibility of a six foot fence coming right up to the lot line. And the question is whether that is similar to the issue of tall fences in the front of people's houses, whether that's something that's undesirable. Another option is to set some kind of a setback for tall fences on corner lots. Now this setback can be small, can be anywhere from two to three feet, can be larger, 10 to 12 feet, or can as is somewhat indicated here, be half the distance from the house to the lot line. This has the advantage of creating some kind of a landscape buffer or a green buffer between a tall fence and the lot line. The disadvantage, obviously, is it takes a little bit of that yard away from the use of somebody who wishes to fence it in with the tall fence. It also creates a little bit more confusion on the part of homeowners as to where tall fences can be permitted or not permitted. The third option is option C. Option C limits tall fences to the building line and the building line can be either the side building line of the house that we're talking about or it could be the front building line of the house next door. It either could be considered building line setbacks. The advantage is, well, two advantages. One, you get a greater amount of green space between the privacy fence between the tall fence and the street. It's consistent, as we say, here with non-coronormont regulations. Now, the disadvantage is that it's consistent with non-coronormont regulations. And for a lot of houses, you wind up permitting a much smaller tall, fanciable backyard than would otherwise be the case. Now, the diagrams are helpful, but not quite as instructive as photographs. And we have three photographs or six photographs here of the different options. The left column are fences that have no setback that are right at the law line. The second column includes some kind of a setback. The first one is, you know, maybe three feet of a setback between the sidewalk and the tall fence. The bottom one is a fence that's approximately half the distance between the sidewalk and the house. The right column are two fences that are located at or near the building line and represent three options for dealing with this somewhat confusing issue of tall fences on corner lots. Now the question frequently comes up, what are other jurisdictions doing as far as corner lot regulations? We're back to the graphs. This graph shows six jurisdictions and the purpose here is to show that the – our neighboring jurisdictions in northern Virginia are literally all over the map as far as what they require. You'll notice that a few of the jurisdictions, Alexandria, Vienna, and Herndon, we have a striped area, and the striped area means that in some cases it can be the tall fence line can be somewhere and in some cases somewhere else. Now an important thing to keep in mind if I can go back to the photographs. All six of these photographs are obviously are from the city. The current fence regulations are that there basically are no fence regulations. So just because something is permitted doesn't necessarily mean that most homeowners would take advantage of it. But obviously the option is there currently for somebody to bring a tall fence out to the lot line on a side lot. It might be a good time to stop here if anyone has questions concerning the corner of odd issue before we move on to other issues. Mr. Chairman, first of all, excellent presentation. I think I had five, six questions and you answered them, all of them, and we didn't talk. So that means you really anticipated this. Thank you. I have just two questions, maybe clarifications. Well, first question really is that right now, although the city doesn't have any regulations, but there are a lot of homeowners associations have regulations and some of them are more restrictive. You know, so the question really is who dominates, who, who dominates, no, no, who, who has the final say, City are the homeowners association. The more restrictive would prevail. So in the case of a homeowners association that has regulations or confidence that govern fences, those regulations would prevail over the city's regulations. In those cases where there are homeowners associations that regulate this, where the city's regulations or stricter, the city's regulations would prevail. This ordinance would not get in the way of any homeowners associations, regulations or components. So that was another question I was going to ask. Okay. Thank you. If I may, there is a distinction and I think it needs to be made here so that the listening public isn't confused by it. The homeowners associations that are associated with developments like Barcroft and many of our other developments have their covenants and they, you know, the size of their fences and the location of their fences and what they're made of is covered by those covenants. These regulations would only apply in the R1, R2, and R3 zoning districts. Very few of the City Civic associations which in those districts are not normally covenanted plan developments. There are few that have some regulations, offenses, but very few. So that this isn't, if you know, if you're in a community with standard covenants, this does not apply to you. If you're in a community that is in the R1, R2, and R3 zoning districts that happens to have some fence standards, then the point is accurate that the more restrictive will apply. Thank you. Thank you, the New Gentlemen, I have a question so far. Just kind of again. I have one and as we're talking about, excellent presentation. And I am noting that I think all of the examples you've used are our lots that have been developed and primarily have at least gutter if not both curb and gutter. We still have a number of streets that I don't think are in homeowners association areas or that that would have restrictive covenants. Before we've got a somewhat less clear line between what is the street, what is the city's right of way, what is the actual property owners right and recalling a past instance when we were dealing with pocket parks or street that hadn't been developed, which is public property and homeowners are looking back and forth. My presumption would be, but it is that need to be stated that all of these fences are from the property owners, property line, not what may or may not be perceived as their front yard that goes out to a ditcher or a non-standard street, which would lead them to do something on what otherwise would be public property or city property. Well, that's an important point to make, not only from the right of way perspective, but from neighboring properties. You know, we do get instances where people erect fences that are either on their neighbor's property or their neighbor believes that they're on their property. So we can include something in the ordinance that just spells that out, you know, for added clarification. Am I correct that you have more of a presentation. That's correct. Okay. Then why don't you continue that and then at the conclusion of your presentation, we'll see if the public has any comments. I want to make. And then we will have added. Alrighty. and then we will have added. All righty. The situation with all the diagrams that we've talked about has been pretty much relegated to interior lots and to standard corner lots. If those weren't confusing enough, we have plenty of examples of unusually shaped lots or lots with unusual frontages. These are addressed in the ordinance as well. If you recall, we set up a what we call a primary and a secondary front yard. The primary and the secondary front yard applies not just to corner lots, but to lots such as these which are which back up to oldly highway that have unusual frontages. The end result is that the front of the house is defined as a primary front yard and would be subject to the four foot height limit. The rear of the house is such as these that back up to a right of way would still be classified or would be classified as a secondary front yard and would be permitted a taller six foot maximum fence per the draft ordinance. The same applies if you stare at a map of the city long enough, you'll see examples such as this pop out. This is a house that has, that's on the end of a cul-de-sac. It has one street that wraps around three sides of the house and there's a number of examples such as this. The homeowner here is elected to use a privacy fence in the backyard and again the primary and secondary yard definitions would permit this sort of treatment on lots where the street wraps around. The confusing lots continue. The house on the left here is the house that we had mentioned a little bit earlier. That it is nothing but front yard. This here is an illustration and this is actually the same regulation that would govern corner lots establishing a primary front yard which would be in front of the front of the house and the side yard in this case would be it considered the secondary front yards and would be permitted to tolerate fence The house on the right is a house that's situated diagonally on the lot. These diagonal houses give the zoning department fits because sometimes it's impossible to see where the front of the house is and what's inside. The zoning ordinance, the draft ordinance likewise does define through the primary and secondary front yard definitions what would be the forefoot fencing area and the six foot fencing area. In this particular case, the homeowner actually has fences that are in conformance, but what we would propose for the draft ordinance. On to another related issue, this sums up our corner lot and unusual lot discussion. Another element towards offense regulation is the seemingly simple issue of how to measure offense to begin with. The main feature of our recommendations is that offense is measured from the top of the fence to the ground directly beneath the fence. This would include all styles of fencing would be measured similarly rather than having a different standard for open fences and closed fences. And fence posts and other decorative elements would be exempt to a degree, letting them rise a little bit taller, is customarily the case. Of course, nothing simple. All styles are measured similarly, but some types of fences are a little bit more difficult to measure with than others. The three picket fences illustrated on the bottom, the concave and convex fences tend to be popular these days as a decorative element. These fences would be measured the same as a standard picket fence having a maximum height as opposed to an average height. And most fence companies do make convex and concave fences that would adhere to a four-foot maximum height. The image, the photograph on the upper right is another example of a fence that's somewhat difficult to measure. When a fence is stepped such as this, there's two options for measuring. One option would be to average the height of the pickets. The other is to establish a maximum height for the fence. We propose establishing the maximum height of the fence instead of averaging pickets. And in this particular case, which is in a front yard, this fence would be in excess of the four feet, and would need to be four feet in maximum of the gray new fence. As I had mentioned before, fence posts are exempt from the height measurements as are other related things. Pillars surrounding entrance, ways or driveways, decorative elements such as finials and the landscaping elements such as arbor, would also be exempt. Yet another issue, as far as measuring the height of fences, how to measure fences that are erected on top of retaining walls. There's two ways of looking at it. One way is to count the retaining wall as part of the fence, saying that it's this street-level view, you know, that's the most critical element. The other is to measure just the fence and not the retaining wall. The reasonable compromise I think that we've reached is in the case where a fence is a part of a retaining wall. If the fence is mounted within the wall, it would all be counted together. If the fence is mounted at any point in back of a retaining wall, it would be counted separately. Part of the reason for this is when retaining walls are on a property, there's frequently a safety consideration to having a fence. You know, you wouldn't want an accident to happen if somebody didn't notice it was there. So it's a reasonable thing to want to do to put a fence on top for retaining law and with this regulation it would be permitted. Now we have a few additional issues that I'll cover before the end of the presentation, the issue of landscaping. The question has come up, whether we would regulate landscaping, hedges, trees, et cetera. in height, similar to how we proposed to regulate fences. Now this draft ordinance does not recommend regulating the height of plants or other landscaping. The reason is that landscaping tends to have a somewhat softer appearance than a built fence. The photograph on the right here is a fence with a hedge that are both approximately the same height, tends to have a softer appearance. And in fact, in our buffering regulations, as far as buffering commercial and residential properties, we do require landscape buffering in addition to fences for that softer requirement. An example of the contrast between the appearance of a fence and landscaping. These are both single-family residences with frontages on Main Street. One, the homeowner erected a tall privacy fence to gain, obviously privacy. The view on the right is landscaping in addition to an open fence and most folks would argue that the photograph on the right is kind of a softer appearance and we're in keeping with the aesthetics of the city. Now one final issue is that of walls. For the purpose of this ordinance, a wall, such as made by bricks or stone, etc., would be considered the same as a fence, and would need to meet the same requirements. And these are walls not including retaining walls. Tall walls such as these would require a special exception with the way that tall fences would, which brings me to the issue of special exceptions. The draft ordinance does include a board of zoning appeals special exception process. Now this process is intended to cover a number of things. Unusual elements in the type of typography or lot configuration. So an example of that, the photograph on the left here is one of the houses, I believe, on Providence Way that has frontage on Tainbridge Road. These are very unusual lots. It's impossible to determine what a front lot line is if one exists to this lot. The back of the house backs off to chain bridge road. And this is an example where a privacy fence may be appropriate given the location or the configuration of the law. Non-residential neighboring properties, the photograph on the right is actually next to City Hall. This fence was erected by the City, but it's a tall fence. This is taller than 6 feet. That border is a single family house, buffers a single family house from the parking lot at City Hall. And again, it's the type of thing that may not be out of the question as far as a homeowner wanting an additional amount of buffering for a neighboring use that's not a single family house. So for these types of reasons, we have included a Board of Zoning Appeal Special Exception process. Now there are a few things that this ordinance would not interfere with. For one, the visual clearance requirements that we talked about earlier would remain intact. And this again is for motorists at intersections, homeowners at civic associations that we as we discussed earlier, necessary functional retaining walls. There are fences that are required in certain instances for swimming pools, for waiting pools, and for home daycare uses. These would not be affected by these regulations. Governmental uses and construction sites, likewise, would not be affected. And importantly importantly existing fences would be non-conforming, such as other non-conforming elements of the zoning ordinance. Non-conforming fences, existing fences would not, would be grandfathered, would not be required to be brought into compliance with provisions of this ordinance. Now what are our next steps with us? Where we're getting planning commission comments tonight. We hope to move forward with public hearing back here at Planning Commission in September and go on to City Council public hearing in the fall. And with that, that concludes our presentation and can be open to additional questions. Thank you very much. I appreciate your work. I don't know if you did this on your own or you got help, but to you and your associates is a nice job. Thanks. Before we get started with our questions, let's see if the member of the public has anything he wishes to say in the comments. The whole crowd should come up at once. Yes, sir. You have to do the main address. Yes, sir. He's not the changes. All right, Gary Parem, and 1-1008 Westmore Drive. A couple of things that have a little problem with. I disagree with the corner lot option other than C. And the reason for that is, is that your neighbors, if you're allowed in a corner lot to go all the way out like that, the person living next to them, when they look out the front window, all they're going to do is see a six-foot privacy fence to their right or left. And hopefully they don't have one house in between two corners because in your box then you might as well have a privacy fence across the front. It just, if the whole idea of this is for aesthetics and by the way, I live on a corner lot. So I would not have a problem with stopping that. Matter of fact I have chain link fence 4 foot tall all the way around my lot and one of the couple of things that doesn't I think we ought to stay with what zoning does for the same reason zoning does it things like temporary garages, driveways that are to the side of the house and stuff cannot be on the side facing the street like that. A temporary garage sitting on the side of somebody's house when the neighbors are sitting there just, it doesn't look real good and if it's out on the street it really looks bad. So if you keep the fences down to four foot on any side, fronting a road. And I know that's going to be hard on some of the, like you said, the unusual lots. And I think you have to take in consideration if it's an unusual lot. If there's no neighbor to the side of them, then by all means you can go all the way up that side. I just say take in consideration the neighbor. And you mentioned daycares. Daycares are they allowed to six foot fence the whole yard? There's a requirement that daycare lots be fenced. There's no height requirement for daycare. Well, the reason I ask that is most daycares, at least in a city, are privately owned in residential areas, R12 and 3. And you defeat the purpose of the whole idea going to bill if you've let every daycare put a six foot privacy fence. I have one directly across the street from me. They have a six foot privacy fence just around the back of their house. And I think that meets the requirement of the city's idea of having the law. So I would still say that the four foot fence in the front still stay that way because I mean if you have a four foot fence in the front, kids are not going to go over that. And the privacy rules still stays in effect if the kids most of the time are playing to the backyard because you don't want them out in traffic anyway. So that's about all I had. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Thank you for coming. As a matter of clarification for the daycare requirements, there is, as I said, a requirement that daycare lots be fenced, not, I believe, in the front, but that they have a fenced yard. There's no height requirement. The reason that the daycare exemption was put into the ordinance was in case at some time in the future, the city wishes to change the fence restrictions, just to make sure that daycares do not become non-compliant at some point in the future. It's not something that conflicts or would conflict right now. All right. Well, let's start with Mr. Landis. And if you have any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for spicing up this very dry material. I just wanted to make sure I had option A, correct. That's no required setback. So the only thing that would be limited in option A is the height of the fence. That's correct. The height of the fence would be limited to six feet. As long as the fence is behind the front line of the house, I'll flip back to that square. I'll take a little bit more clear. So in this instance, this is the graphic for option A. The dark green again is the six foot fencing area. So the six foot fencing area would be permitted to come out to the lot line as long as it is behind the front wall of the house. Okay. An option C, can you just go over that again, no quickly? Sure. Option C is limiting the six foot fencing area, basically to the side of the house as well. Okay. Thank you. An option B, of course House as well. Okay. Thank you. And option B, of course, is something in between. Right. All right. Dr. Ghan? Mr. Chairman, I think I don't have any question on the presentation that he has made very clear. But I have just a small question. In the introduction on page 2, you mentioned the Rabharah. 25% of the homes have fences, but 75% don't. Now, my question frankly is, out of those 25% how many are the problem fences that made the city decide that we need to have these regulations? Is it a necessity or is there a part of just planning there is a part of preventive medicine. I just want to see what was the thinking. I think a little bit of all of the above. I think preventive medicine is a good way of putting it. There's a small number. I would say, now as far as the issue, if you consider a problem fence, to be a tall fence running across the front yard of a house. I would say there's about a dozen examples that I can think of in the city right now. Now these dozen examples might be more apparent than their numbers may suggest. They tend to be on busy roads. They're in front of houses so people tend to notice them. But it's a relatively small number. Thank you. to notice them, but it's a relatively small number. Thank you. Senator Chenle. Yes, thank you. Mr. Warren, I've got a question. You mentioned that, I thought you mentioned that the fence, the area that we're talking about, that the Forfeit fence is in front of, is in front the front wall of your house or your neighbor's house? I'm sorry. That's one of the options for regulating fences on corner lots. And both can be described as a building line setback. A building line setback could either be that the six foot fence has to be oriented to the side of your house, or it could be that the building line setback has to be oriented towards the front wall of the neighbor's house. If it extends farther. If it extends farther, that's right. Okay. I have another question. Just, I don't know. Can a fence be on your property line? Or does it have to have a setback off your property line? It can be on your property line. Most people would be well advised to put it a little bit beyond, behind the property line just to make sure that it's not where it shouldn't be. But right now there is no required setback for a fence. Thank you. Mr. Cunningham. A couple of things. One. And noting the work and the tax and the other recommended rubage we have talked about providing privacy or security to control access sort of Markovondry. One word that I think goes in there probably carries the equal weight. I don't know whether you'd want to consider adding it would be the word safety. Because that I think is what's implied in the trial care regulations, as well as with swimming pools and some other things like that. So that safety probably has an equal weight for why people put fences up with some of the other reasons and would be used as a justification. I know that the Planning Commission spent significant time on the childcare regulations a couple of years ago when they were revised, and I would think, you know, the way it's being handled to continue them as they have been revised from the work with that is excellent. It should be adhered to me because I think safety was the major reason also that under underlay most of the work that was done in that area. I guess the additional question I have when it comes to areas, our options options A, B, and C is that I can think of exceptions to almost all of these. And if you were to look at what's up there with option C right now and restricting it on the side, we have a number of houses in which the driveway is as shown on one street, but you will have a front door around the corner. So in terms of defining the front yard, who gets to decide is that zoning is that the property owner, which one, if you go with option A, and you were to flip back to it, your green area is supposed to coming out one street, could go out the other street as easily when you end up with those unusual situations. And I guess it's the exceptions that prove every rule or that make it a challenge to administer. So administration of the rule would be one of the things that would look for in clarity. That's true. It's more confusing than it seems to decide what the front of a house is. With this ordinance, how we define it, we define it in steps. A, the first criteria is what you are the front door of the house faces. Now, if that's unable to be determined, for example, if the house is diagonal, the next criteria is where the driveway is. If neither of those two can reach a resolution, for example, you could have a house that's diagonal with a circular driveway and what on earth do you do. As you said, there are so many different variations and different exceptions. Once it gets beyond those two, we say you know it's really a zoning administrator determination because we would drive ourselves crazy coming up with regulations for each of these oddball cases. Now you can argue this back and forth either way. Using the front door of the house as a criteria means that there are houses that technically have the driveway and back of the house and the driveway would not be in what we consider the front yard. And you know, that's an unusual case. It's not preferable by, you know, a lot of people's standards, but there are houses like that. And then you have houses with multiple driveways, each on one lot. And with the front door, and then the driveways, the compromise that we came up with for this ordinance. I don't know if that clarifies your question. I think it helps clarify it. I think I would be leaning toward option C in order to cut down some of the concern in that area. I believe it's former Councilman Silverthorn who used to frequently use the term you can't define taste. So that trying to regulate taste is, you know, it's an impossible task and this is the same issue. I think that comes up with housing redevelopment, which will lead to many of the fencing issues. But when they were things may be an inappropriate redevelopment or that of a house, somebody else is doing and thinks it's just fine. So ordinance has to be applied in a common sense manner. So from that standpoint, making it as easy to apply would be the area I would look for perhaps in terms of keeping it simple. My turn. I may be chasing the curve here a little bit, but I'm uncomfortable as Mr. Cunningham was just saying, dealing with or trying to create an ordinance to address aesthetics as was stated in the handout. Although I'm not as uncomfortable if you're talking about safety and visual and traffic considerations and neighborhood considerations. But if you're going to get into that quicksand, we're really talking about privacy fences for 12 to 18 homes in the city. Is that a fair assessment? If you're talking about privacy fences that are for more. Or instead of the term privacy fences, I should use the term tall fences because some of these fences are. Tall fences that are not iron fences. You can't see through. You can see through. If you're talking about tall fences that are in the front yards, people's houses, I'd say about a dozen. So we're creating an ordinance to address a reasonably small number of exceptions. Right, OK. I agree with you that it's going to be tough to deal with some of these lots. And one that has not been brought up, we're going to be pipe stem type lots, where the two houses in the front have tall privacy fences in the little house in the back has lost their view. I think option C makes more sense, but option C assumes, if you look at it, the vertical aspect of this, it assumes that the front of the house behind the house on the corner lot is exactly lined up in all cases with the edge of the corner light house, which may not be the case. So I think the point is well made that you could have some jutting out of a tall fence that in effect could hurt the market value of the home because it starts to chop off their view of the home behind. I think your special exception on BZA for the trade off of opacity versus my pronouncing that correctly. I have no idea what the correct way to pronounce that is, but I know what you mean. Opacity versus the higher height issue is something you might want to think about a little more. And I think the only other thing that concerned me in your presentation toward the end was the grandfathering. If we're going to do it, if we're going to get into this business of regulating fences, then it seems to me we've got to have a phase out, three years, five years of the existing, what would become exceptions rather than grandfathering them, because we have a solve the problem that we're trying to address by creating the ordinance. If we don't get those 12 to 18 fences changed, we're gonna know better off than we are today, without the ordinance. One more exception to that is the fact, I'm gonna wanna drop this up a couple of months ago. The city council. The problem we have is not necessarily the ten or twelve houses. You want to step up there please. We need you on the microphone. Yeah, the problem that we have isn't the twelve or eighteen houses that are there. It's the stop it from happening to another hundred houses around the city. The whole idea, because while I brought this up, we see it happening, it's starting to happen, where people are bringing out the tall fences from, you know, they already have the backyard done, and then they start bringing them up the front yard on the sides, and of course the next step is to close it off. And I've seen that in our neighborhood in two or three cases already, and so the idea is to stop it now. I mean, you can address the other ones as a long-term plan like you're suggesting. But the whole idea that at least when I brought this up to the City Council is stop it from progressing. We will start looking like LA where everybody's got a six or eight foot either chain link fence, center block wall going completely around their house for protection purposes. And they may need that there because some of those neighborhoods are really rough. But Fairfax City is not yet and I hope it never will be in that particular text where you have to put up an eight foot wall to keep your house and your property safe. So that was the whole idea that I brought that up for. And like you say, the sea line, the sea plan that you're talking about, the reason that I am in particular, I'm in favor of that is consideration of the neighbors. When you run a six foot fence all the way up the side of your property, you and friends on your neighbors right when open view. And I don't care if it's a side yard or whatever, and even these oddly shape yards, if there is a neighbor to the side, it should not in French hit on his view of the open street and stuff. And that's just where I was coming from. Thank you. Mr. Collegion. I think it's an extremely good point, but I guess the crux of the matter is you've got to deal with it going forward and backward. Well, one issue as far as the option A, B, and C, when we had mentioned the possibly dozen houses with tall fences in the front yards, that does not include houses with tall fences on the side or rear yards of corner houses. Now, there's dozens or possibly 100 houses in the city that have that situation. So then you talk to him. I'm sorry, taller than 4 feet. Okay, but this proposed ordinance allows a 6 foot fence in the back. That's correct, but if we were discussing option C, option C would regulate, would place a maximum of four feet on fences on the side yards of corner lots. And there's a lot of houses with side yards that have tall fences many more than 12. Well, I think the reality is that the fence that creates the hardburn, the tall fence that has no opacity, is for the most part made of wood and it's got a shelf life where an iron fence might not. And that some consideration ought to be made of the possibility of phasing out rather than grandfathering for perpetuity. And when it ventures they can put up another one exactly at the same height. That's what you're, you know, it seemed to me when you reached that point there's got to be a compliance. Okay. point there's got to be a compliance. Okay. Let's go to last one. I can just make three points as we close the discussion tonight. We talked about security safety privacy as reasons for fences. And when we talk about aesthetics in general, certainly that can deal with what the fence looks like and where it's placed on a lot. But also I think addresses something that Mr. Perryman and a couple other folks alluded to, which is neighborhood character and the maintenance of a contiguous pattern of open space within a community. And that also is what we're looking at as we're looking at this ordinance. What is it about an opaque six foot tall fence that's disturbing? Well, it might be a very attractive fence, but it does cut the neighborhood character. as we're looking at this ordinance, what is it about an opaque six foot tall fence that's disturbing? Well, it might be a very attractive fence, but it does cut the neighborhood character. Second, I wanted to let you know as we're talking about some of the difficult lots and what we've got going on is that we did have a full meeting and vetting with the zoning administrator and the zoning staff to bring up some of these issues and discuss some of the things that would be troublesome as we went forward and Eric made some good changes as a result of that meeting so we can go forward with that. And third, we'll be bringing this back to you on the 8th of September and with that we will provide you in your package a copy of this presentation because I think some of the visuals have been very helpful and you can And you can then, as you're looking at it and going throughout the community, make some notes and ask some questions to further our discussion when we're a full board next time. Okay. Thank you. Do you have a last question, Mr. Carnegie? No, I think I guess my comment would be that I think the exceptions in this will be as important as the rule and as in in dealing with the grandfathering issue because there are specific areas or pieces in town that would be impacted by who and how that was implemented. Thank you here. Good job. Let's move to item seven. The discussion in the national community planning Month, which is in October. Yes, just briefly. That's in October. I think I referred you at our last meeting to the American Planning Association's website, and invited you to be thinking about, we can sort of finalize these things at our next meeting as well. But if any of you have thought of some ideas that you think we might pursue in the community, to celebrate this month and to bring it out to the community, I'd be glad to move forward with making some of those plans. Thank you. Would you like to segue right into a staff report? Sure. Staff report just a few brief things. Again, in September, we are going to have Dr. Chris Martin come and discuss with you all the beginnings of the historic resources component of much stronger historic resources component to the master plan. As we go forward with our review of the city's comprehensive plan. Will that be on the 8th? I'll talk with the chairman that we've got several things for the 8th and the 22nd. We'll have to sort of sort out when we want to do these. Most of you know already that we do have a new planning commission member, which is Ms. Jennifer Robinson, who was not able to join us tonight, but she will be with us in full force at the beginning of September. She has great background in law and it was quite a bit that will be very helpful to us in our discussions. And we'll have her introduce herself then, give us a little bit of background. The first meeting in October conflicts with Columbus Day. I would like y'all to think about, come back in September, let us know whether your schedule would permit the meeting before or the, it's always troublesome to try and do the Monday before because then we conflict with the school board. So perhaps we'll have two back-to-back meetings in October, the 3rd and 4th Mondays if that's preferable. Let us know. Finally, I just wanted to briefly say I went to a foreclosure community impact summit. The governor called to summit in Virginia about the impact on communities of foreclosures that are happening about. Got some very interesting data, which again I will do a brief report on in September when we're full-boarded. Certainly got some interesting community stabilization strategies, Northern Virginia and Tidewater area, the two highest hot points I guess for foreclosures in the state of Virginia. I would say that one out of five of the recent loan originations will go to foreclosure. It's a significant impact in many of our communities. And while we may not be at the apex of that yet, and we need to understand what that does to our community when those things happen, certainly in Northern Virginia, the hardest hit point, places are Prince William, that does to our community when those things happen. Certainly in Northern Virginia, the hardest hit point places are Prince William, Manassas County, the closer in communities of Arlington, false church, Fairfax and some of Fairfax County are slightly insulated from that. However, there has been an estimate that 40.6 million neighboring homes will experience devaluation because of subprime foreclosures. I think it's an important thing that as we go through looking at our comp plan and our housing options that I'd like to talk about and give you a little bit more information on. It's something that you have to attack like a wildfire. When a hot spot hits up, you put it out, or you have a wildfire. So you've got to do it, you know, understand what the problem is, and how it affects us. And I'll bring you that data again in the fall. That's the staff report. Thank you. Commissioner comments, Mr. Landis. If I could actually ask a question, you mentioned foreclosures and I've noticed more and more of these signs going up on doors. Don't say they're foreclosed, but they say that the house is not habitable or something along those lines and they have the city logo on them. What is it about a house that makes it rate one of these signs? Is it just that the utilities have been turned off or is that, is it condemned or what does that mean? It can be any number of things. When the building code office is the one that will close a home and determine it is being uninhabitable and your right utilities can deal with it. There can be a structural issue that's been determined with the house or it can be an incomplete construction. There are a lot of things that can contribute to that. But that's along with the other things that we, that's the sort of thing we're looking at. What homes are uninhabitable, what might need a little paying attention to is the grass growing tall, you know, are the utilities on all of that matters in our community. Thank you. Dr. Khan, Mr. Bob Chellie, Mr. Cunningham, I have one question. Did you want to say something? I just thought of one more thing I'm sorry that I forgot to mention the staff report, which is that there will be a meeting of the City Council on August 5th if that's something that you want to talk about. That's fine. I was just afraid that I had missed saying something about that. If you want to discuss, I just didn't want it to fall by the wayside. To write a hit. City Council is holding a special meeting on Tuesday, August 5th. That's next Tuesday. It will be to discuss various aspects of development in the Fairfax Boulevard corridor. We do have a new newly seated council who are beginning to explore some of the issues you've been looking at for some period of time and it will help us to determine where we go forward in policy discussions and bringing parts of that Fairfax Boulevard Master Plan into our comprehensive planning process. What time is that meeting? I believe it's 5.30 but I will double check. It is online. It's listed online. It's prior to the regularly scheduled meeting. The council has no regularly scheduled meetings in August, so it's a special meeting. Thank you. I had a question as Mr. Landis did, a venture, 40.6 million homes. My quick reaction is there are only 300 million people in the country. And it would seem to me that at first blush that number may be somewhat inflated. You know, beauties in the eye of a halver and you can push numbers around to make anything and foreclosure is nothing to take lightly. But it would seem to me that 40.6 maybe just a little bit high and overstates the severity of the problem. Right. That's not 40.6 million foreclosed. I understand. You said homes that were affected or the prices might be affected. That could be affected. I don't know how many homes they are in the entire country. 150 million maybe. 100 million somewhere in there. So you're saying a third to half of the homes in the country are affected in their price. And I just throw out the fact that it seems like that number may be as good. I'll pull the information because the information that we've got is they've done an awful lot. There was some discussion that on average a particular home might be devalued in the neighborhood of $5,000 by this whole crisis. You know, you're not talking a huge, you know, sinking drop of 50%. It's just yes, there is some residual, and I'll bring all that to you. Okay, thanks. Well, if there are no other comments or questions, I declare the meeting adjourned. Even though we didn't vote on it. I'm sending 111,000 people to the board. It's for the people, that's one of us for every two people. Why don't we have a... That's one of us for every two big ones. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be to the the guitar. I'm going to play a little bit more. Music I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna to be a little bit more careful. I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a music I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be to the next station. I'm going to go to the next station. I'm going to go to the next station. I'm going to go to the next station. I'm going to go to the next station. I'm going to go to the next station. I'm going to go to the next station. I'm going to go to the next station. I'm going to go to the next station. I'm going to go to the next station. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to go to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to play the guitar. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play to the school. I'm gonna go back to the school. I'm gonna go back to the school. I'm gonna go back to the school. I'm gonna go back to the school. I'm gonna go back to the school. I'm gonna go back to the school. I'm gonna go back to the school. I'm gonna go back to the school. I'm gonna go back to the school. I'm gonna go back to the school. I'm going to be a little guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to go to little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm I'm I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm I'm gonna go home. I'm I'm a man. Thank you. I'm going to do it. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going a bad guy. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go home. music I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do it. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. you . I'm going to do it. I'm not to do it. I'm not a bad guy. I'm going to go be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to to the next room. I'm going to do it. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do beach. I'm going to do it. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Music I'm I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to do a the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do to the next room. I'm going to do it. I'm I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. Oh I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to go to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to do it. . I'm going to be to the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do to the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the Thank you.