 just start this planning commission meeting April 22nd 2021. I've started my recording and yep our recording has started as well on the team's platform and we just I've just admitted one person with a telephone number and I don't know who that is so I would ask that whoever just came in with the telephone number of 802-793-0107 if you could identify yourself. Yeah it's morning Maureen O'Day. Yeah thank you. Okay Daren can you put up the preamble? I grabbed the wrong document for the thing so briefly before we get rolling just to share this with folks I Dustin Burso as chair of the Essex Planning Commission find that due to the state of emergency declared by Governor Scott as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to Addendum 6 to Executive Order 01-20 and Act 92 this public body is authorized to meet electronically. The full script is available from staff at the town offices or is available online. As we go through the meeting this evening I would like if you're not speaking to please mute your phones, mute your connections. When we get to the point of public participation please use the hand-raising option in Teams to let us know that you want to speak. If you don't have that option try to use the chat window and we'll go from there. We have an agenda this evening it has some amendments to it and I had some challenges are there only two rescheduled items folks? Perfect so to be noted on the amendments to the agenda is the single consent agenda item has been removed and is will be rescheduled at a later date and item five was a site plan public hearing for the state of Vermont that has also been rescheduled to a later date. So before we get going I'd like to ask anyone who is going to be providing commentary this evening to please take an oath and I would ask that you swear that any testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities. Verbal acknowledgement would be good. I do. Thank you first item on our agenda is public comment this is an opportunity for anyone in the public to provide commentary to the select board about items that are not on the agenda. To the planning commission. Planning commission who did I say? Blackboard. Oh man. I'm trying to give yourself a promotion. No. Oh hell no. So do we have anyone that wants to offer comment to the planning commission? Hearing none we'll move on to the next item on our agenda which is a site plan and master plan amendment public hearing for Euro West retail partners. This is a proposal to extend the green space to accommodate an outdoor stage located at 21 Essex Way. Darren you'd be presenting for staff. Yes I will. Thank you Dusty and looks like Maureen O'Day is coming in just want to give her a sec to get caught up and let me get caught up with the plans here. Okay so this is the Essex experience formerly known as the Essex Outlets and Cinema and I'm showing the overall plan here. So Vermont 289 is along this bottom of the plans here. Route 15 center road is along the top left and Essex Way runs top to bottom here on the plan. So we're talking about the central green. The proposal is to expand the green even further. There was a proposal a couple years ago to do this and it created a central gathering space within the Essex experience and allowed for some great events to happen over the last couple years in spite of COVID. So applicants are hoping to add a little more of that green space. This is existing today so we're going to zoom in a little bit here to show just a few more parking spaces 17 total being removed to expand the green further and a new stage will be added to the east side of the green. This will be a repurposed historic barn that will be relocated to the site. Staff have no issues with the proposal. We do want to note that there are several parking spaces that were planned behind building two so where Black Flannel and Purple Sage and a few other businesses are today. These were never constructed as parking spaces. There's still space there. It's essentially loading areas for the building. We don't feel there need to be those parking spaces there at this point so we are fine letting that be as needed construction based on demand. We also want to note that with the new Bob Arusa approval for building one there was planned to be on street parking along the future Commonwealth Avenue. But that has been removed with that plan so that's no longer part of the master plan. Otherwise fairly straightforward and no objections here. Thanks Darren. Commissioner is there any questions for staff at this point? No sir. One point that we didn't do we didn't identify commissioners participating for the record. Oh thank you David. You're welcome sir. So let's do a roll call before we go any further. David Raphael present. John Mangan present. Tom Ferland present. Joshua Knox present. Ned Daly here. And Dustin Brousseau present. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you. Okay that business taken care of apologies for the interruption. Who will be presenting for the application on this? Okay yes that is me. Sean Cunningham from Ulary Burke. We have read the staff notes and the conditions and we are good with them as written. Wow. Okay that's good. Any commissioners any questions for the applicant? And I would take a motion to open the public hearing. I move we open the public hearing. I'll second. Moved by Josh, seconded by John. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. Public hearing for this is open. Again please use the hand raising feature within teams if you can. Anything in the chat? Again I'm just practicing my patience. Okay hearing none and seeing none I would take a motion to close the public hearing. I move we close the public hearing. Second. Moved by Josh, seconded by Tom again. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. Public hearing is closed. Commissioners if I'm not hearing any questions and whatsoever an applicant is not arguing with staff on any point which is unheard of. Who wants to make the motion on this one John? One observation before we go to motion. Yeah. I mean fully in support no issues whatsoever. I just noticed that there's really no conditions or much chatter about the stage slash barn and maybe that's because it's really not a building it's more of a kind of a repurposed structure but I assume there's no issues with like state permits, fire safety, anything like that because it's just an outdoor structure. Is that right there? That is our understanding and I'm going to try and pull up pictures to show you really what it is. It's barely a structure at this point. Yeah I started in the packet the pictures of the barn before it was taken down and going to be re-raised but yeah I mean again no issues I just noticed there was not a lot of conditions treating that like a building so. I would say that we keep that templated condition of any and all state permits that may be required of this approval shall be secured or however it reads something very close to that that should be added I would say. I believe that's in there if not we can add that. Yep condition six prior to the zoning permit being issued applicant shall obtain all applicable state and federal approvals and permits and submit copies to community development. Perfect. So this just for folks who are interested this is the and Peter I don't know how things have progressed at this point but that's sort of what we're looking at right? That's correct and I'll just give a little bit of color to it. It will be a three-sided open stage with one side will be closed. We are having engineering done outside consulting engineering to make sure the load factor is for the sound and light equipment is are adequate or more than adequate and safe and we are going through an Act 250 noise study that was really the only requirement that they have requested so that that has commenced it'll you know all of our approvals from the state will be based on the results of that study and what Act 250 has to say. I've got I've got no issues I think the juxtaposition of barn at this age against the outlet buildings is going to be really really cool so yeah I'm good. Thanks Dave. I appreciate that. I also I should say I really think you know one of the one of the overriding issues I've had with the center is the the distance in between building to building and needing something to really tie this location together and give a central gathering point and I think this this is a great historic and and we'll we will be featuring the history of the barn which is pretty interesting to Vermont as as part of the presentation. Thank you. Yeah commissioners any additional questions thoughts or discussion points hearing none is anyone prepared to make a motion at this point? I will. I'll move that we approve the consent agenda for site plan and master plan amendment for your west part retail partners LTD and 21SX way as written and with the conditions as defined by staff. I'll second with the removal of the word consent agenda it's just the site plan master plan amendment so we're good. Okay sounds good. Okay moved by John seconded by Dave. Any further discussion? All right all those in favor of the motion signified by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries six zero. We're good. Thank you. Great thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Onward. Next item on our agenda is a sketch plan public hearing for Ron and Alice Segrist the proposal to divide two existing lots into five new lots located at 226 and 236 River Road. Darren who is presenting for staff is it you? Yes it is. Thanks Dusty. All right let me get the plans up so I apologize because I'm probably going to say something wrong so in terms of all the details of these lots that are being subdivided so there are two lots off River Road close to Paul Maz's farm stand near Greenfield between Greenfield Road and Sand Hill Road. They are 26 and 236 are the addresses of the parcels. Within those there are five separate residential dwellings sorry five separate residential buildings addressed 184 226 228 and 232 River Road with a total of eight dwelling units between them so there are three single family homes two duplexes and one triplex. Most of this is on Municipal Water and Sewer one the number 232 River Road which is down here near the river is on a well and number 228 shares that well with 232 everything else is on sewer. The proposal is to resubdivide these lots into five separate lots so going from two to five lots each building each structure would have its own lot and they would all be sized appropriately to what is currently within those buildings so the duplex would have enough for two units density and the triplex would have enough for three so the remaining lands would be 25 or sorry 29 acres approximately encompassing most of the farm field as well as the dwelling at number 232 and some of the access. This is a minor subdivision so we are doing a sketch plan review tonight and then if approved this will come back as a final plan. The only change in terms of actual construction is the let me get to the right view here lot three I believe sorry a lot four currently is on a shared well that will be changed to Municipal Water there's an existing curb stop on River Road that they will connect to and that will give it the density or the the appropriate density requirements meet the appropriate density requirements. They are also providing a shared use path easements along River Road for the entire length of both properties. There are a couple corrections I'd like to point out in the staff report on the first table after line 12 and we get to that so we can all see. Lot one was listed as being on-site septic and municipal water it's the other way around on-site well and municipal sewer. We run to the next change there is a typo in line 92 the scenic resource protection overlay district and is subject to the requirements of zero section 2.20 should be our subject to the requirements referring to all the parcels and there's another change to a table after line 115 and the district dimensional requirements again lot one is on off-site sewer on-site well and the last change is on line 152 in the public works memorandum regarding access there was a missing word to clarify there will be no need for new curb cuts on to the state right of way because all the existing all the subdivide of loss will utilize existing access drives and I just want to run through and make sure there is the applicants proposed connecting to the water line across the street across River Road with a jack and bore so going under the road but because there's an existing curb stop they don't need to do that so we just want that to be changed on the plans and that actually should say final review not preliminary review otherwise this is relatively straight forward provided we catch all the details and staffs in full support of the application thanks Darren commissioners do any questions at this point for staff hearing none who will be presenting for the applicant on this Darren anybody if there would be me David Ted hope okay David you have the floor any any concerns or questions about the staff presentation no I think that was just fine I think Darren did a great job on that all right thank you Darren good job thanks and thanks to David for doing a very good job in the presenting the application it was actually very well documented thank you great commissioners any questions for mr. Tutto hearing none I would take a motion to open the public hearing I move we open the public hearing I'll second moved by Josh seconded by John all those in favor opposed motion carry six zero public hearing is open does anyone have any commentary they would wish to add to this application hearing none seeing none yeah I'm David Ted hope but in one thing that I that I was curious about was the requirement of concrete monuments versus rebars what we normally put in for property corners Darren where are we looking at that from so that be condition eight okay is that correct dude I think so it was an eight yeah the intention there is simply to follow whatever standard during our subdivision regulations so if concrete monuments are required for I think generally it's used for marking roadways and property lines then we would need that but otherwise free bar I think is appropriate but we can check with our public works and whatever has surveying standards there are so we're not specifically concerned about how it's done as long as it's done with in accordance with surveying standards okay so you let me know if it's going to be all right to place the rebars at the corners yep we'll double check on that all right thank you and we'll fix that with the final approval too this is just sketch so we've got some time to work out those details okay all right thanks Darren any other questions or comments uh Christine Farnham yes uh hi guys uh Dusty uh Brent Farnham 222 River Road um that the proposal it looks uh it looks good but for you know being a homeowner here this until we got something in the mail we didn't even realize what the the layout was going to be with a lot I wish that you know had a conversation with Mr. Segrist to at least be able to look at their proposal it looks like lot five is what comes into play for my area just asking where would the house be located in lot five is that possible Darren to get that viewpoint again absolutely and I'm actually going to zoom back out to the overall plan so we can see your lot uh so here you are 222 yep right here in the Brent and Christine Farnham so the lot will extend behind your house but the actual structure is where it is today they're not proposing any new houses or new construction except uh connecting to the water line so number 226 River Road is going to be where it is today that's the triplex I believe okay the only reason that that extends behind your houses for them to be able to have the acreage to meet density requirements right no again this was the the first view that we got to see of it so I appreciate that Darren um no again thank you for the uh the clarification and on that no problem thank you for uh chiming in and again this is still sketch so if you have further questions it's got to come back to us one more time so you still have an opportunity to you know have a discussion with either staff or Mr. Segris let's see do I see John Alden present you do I'm just a guest today I guess well if I'd seen you there you would have been you would have been pulled into service yeah I know I was a little late I had a couple of things tied me up he just he'd got here relatively soon not too long ago okay have you been on board for this entire application John Alden I joined during the presentation of the staff report okay so I would like to indicate that John is an alternate and with Mr. Schumacher not present I'd like to recognize John and allow him to be a voting member for this application is that acceptable to the rest of the commission yes sir okay John you're you're you're on tap okay so at this point I believe the public hearing is still open do we have anyone and any additional comments or questions from folks I would take a motion to close the public hearing I move we close the public hearing second moved by Josh seconded by Ned all those in favor aye opposed motion carries seven zero discussion any questions or commentary for staff or applicant Mr. Chair yes sir so uh 10,000 foot view I completely support the application there are several references in the staff report to the Bianchi ruling which mostly you know is a supreme court ruling that Bianchi ruling deals with marketability of title I am struggling with this application with the duplex and the triplex so I would only be in favor of supporting this with some either conditions for state review fire safety other other review at the state level for these multifamily properties and or further town review I'm not comfortable moving this app forward without town approvals in place for those two those two dwellings that appear to never have been approved by the town okay so Darren go ahead thanks for pointing that out Dave and I do want to clarify the condition five does require that the single unit dwelling that's currently permitted at 228 river road actually get a zoning permit to become a duplex because we don't have any records of that having been done properly so that would be prior to the recording of the Mylar which is the only real um uh stage where this becomes official after the PC approval so uh we believe that would remedy the situation and otherwise all the other um lots appear to be in um conformance with zoning I mean but not the tribe I mean there were several references to the duplex and the triplex and the findings and are you suggesting that the triplex get a zoning board approval well so I'm concerned at two levels um I mean they're there they're functioning but there's there's two triggers there's you know does the town allow it but then whenever you get to a multifamily dwelling it triggers state regulations that go in place especially division of fire safety so I want to feel comfortable that these now standalone lots that could be conveyed meet the Vermont division of fire safety requirements especially since they're dwelling units yep understood and David are you concerned with the reference to the Bianchi um case because it's not um a correct application of the precedent yeah that's part of it Tom I mean you know I'm not an attorney but I love to play one but the Bianchi ruling is a Supreme Court ruling that deals with marketability of title so you can't after a certain statute of limitations 15 years you my understanding is you can't uh put a cloud on title due to the inability to obtain municipal permits or or approvals that has nothing to do with the town during a subdivision process putting requirements on to the subdivision that deal with violations all Bianchi says is look you can't cloud the title and stop the transfer title because of a violation that happened that's 15 years or more now again I'll defer to the town attorneys for this but my point of all this from a 10,000 foot view is you can't just cite Bianchi and say well if they didn't get all their town stuff there's nothing we can do about it now that's not true in this subdivision process we have the ability to bring those parcels into compliance with our town regulations and if we've determined that prior approvals were not obtained and that these are not legal triplexes and duplexes we can put conditions on those to bring those into compliance now okay and so we shouldn't even cite the Bianchi well yeah I mean I would argue from my real estate background that yes Bianchi doesn't come into play here because I don't care what they do they're not selling it they're coming before us for a subdivision approval therefore we have the ability to say Bianchi doesn't matter here if you if this these aren't legal legally what they are supposed to be we can put whatever conditions we want on them to make them legal right and and it shouldn't even be mentioned in the staff report because that kind of expands the scope of Bianchi you know implicitly potentially you're right Sharon did you have something did you want to add yeah I was just going to say um I think that you know we probably may seek a legal opinion but it might be because of Bianchi that we can do this administratively I'm I'm I know that the state fire marshal has been in some of these units but not specifically all the whole building at the same time so I think if we you know work behind the scenes in between sketch and final and prior to final um we can um probably close that loop fairly quickly I don't think a fix is very difficult so so I have I have to thanks Sharon I have to play um I have to play the the my my old and slow and stupid card I'm I'm reading lines 105 103456 so forth and I see that you know calls out the the lack of a the duplex which is referenced in step five but I don't understand why and I guess I just don't understand the Bianchi law and how to interpret it but why are we not also calling out the triflex in this in the same the similar way that we're calling out the duplex help me understand that daren or david or somebody uh david david top oak go ahead yes um do you want to speak to him ron or alice yes this is alice sigris and she's gonna respond to the the two units I'm actually actually on the three units right now so I'm trying to find out why in the staff report we reference and this is me being ignorant why are we referencing that there was no conditional use for the triflex but then we go down to the stipulations and we talk about bringing the duplex into conformance but we don't reference the triflex so so maybe this is back to daren for a minute since you authored the the report as to where's that gap the can I let me let me let me stick with staff for a minute let me go to daren please so my understanding which david is now corrected is that uh bianchi law applied to zoning as well um and we can again double check on the legal angles here but um my assumption was that there wouldn't be a point in getting a zoning board approval before the subdivision because um it would sort of it's already taken care of in case law but we'll um gladly look into that and make sure that you know all the eyes are dotted and the teeth are crossed um and I did notice in my review that the and maybe alice and ron can clarify this because this was a long time ago and I wasn't here um it looks like the triflex was originally meant to be or contemplated as either a single unit or a duplex and then maybe was added on afterwards before a construction was finished so that might have been why it maybe didn't trigger us to go to the zoning board um even though maybe it should have at that point so it seems like maybe hopefully just uh an oversight and um we'll double check on what may or may not have happened back then and what would be appropriate now okay so mrs secris if you'd like to add comment now that would be okay right um well actually it's the triflex I want to add comment on that um uh we um uh had a permit for the for the first one apartment and then we put a second apartment in and had a permit for that and I have the numbers and so forth of the permits and the completion date and I don't remember at that time that anybody you know we were involved in the whole process and we were not asked to do any other uh piece of a variance or whatever it might be so um when I when I saw that I thought well we were involved with the whole process but uh for some reason that was not we were not asked to do that okay it sounds like Darren to your point there's a little bit more homework that could maybe be done on that yes and like I said the um this was a long time ago and so uh I had to look at the zoning regulations then at the time and where the zoning districts were so um this was only a several years after the town instituted zoning it's quite possible that again this was simply an oversight okay so mr chair just just so I just don't want to hold this up I just want to be clear from a 10 000 for view so the way I'm approaching this is I'm looking at a multi-building parcel that potentially doesn't have approvals but it has a history and they're asking to subdivide it so in my mind that opens the book up for the opportunity to bring the property into compliance because we're creating five distinct parcels so the reason Bianchi doesn't necessarily apply is because we're not talking about marketability of title here what we're talking about is they're asking us for permission to subdivide these parcels into five distinct parcels therefore we get a a whack at the at the pinata to say okay were these previously approved yes or no what do we need to do to bring these into compliance it's sort of like looking at something that might not be the town road specs or public work specs we had the opportunity at the time of subdivision to say okay this needs to be brought up to the current town road specs in order to move it forward so that's all I'm suggesting is that throw Bianchi out and let's just look at if we've got issues where zoning and and the community development records don't master a parcel this is the time to bring it up to compliance so that when we subdivide it it meets our current rules okay I think that sounds good um David um Rafael if yes sir with no understanding this is sketching with their statement that there would be working to clean that up um and just confirm everything going forward would are you would you be in agreement of moving sketch to um to final yes sir okay that's that's I think that's that's clear that we've got a sticking point there well can can I add one thing absolutely go right ahead okay the one thing I want to add is that the buildings are in compliance as far as state and what was it state inspections everything it's it's in full compliance and it has to be because it's it's an apartment or or triplex or duplex they have to follow these rules and in the rules were followed and they're documented yep what would that should help and that should make this more of an administrative exercise than than any sort of punitive action yes we get things cleaned up so that there are no questions going forward I that's what I'm taking from from Commissioner Rafael's point is that this is the time to clean things up and not leave to to to go back a few election years not leave a hanging chat okay Darren you have more yes so I just want to clarify assuming that as the applicant state that the um buildings in the lots are in conformance with state standards and we'll check on that um the only thing I think that we're hung up on uh chat or not is that um the zoning board never issued an approval for a triplex um so it's a conditional use in the r2 zone and I'm just trying to play out if the planning commission wanted that cured that would mean the applicant should go to the zoning board and get conditional use approval for this triplex that's been there for about 50 years um so I just want to clarify that what that would look like is the zoning board sort of rubber stamping that um and is that the intention of the commission and and if not and if so I think we might want to do that before final but I just want to clarify well isn't that what you propose for the duplex have the zoning board rubber stamp it that would be administrative because it's um a zoning permit not a conditional use approval so one of the things that the applicant has said is that they feel that they've got all their approvals and everything in place so to me there's an opportunity to review what they have and to see if it's if there's a gap between what the town has on file and what they have on file and again that may allow this to be dealt with administratively um if not then I think to follow up what uh mission Raphael was saying is that we need to get this just close the loop and I think it would be a zoning board David is that David Raphael is that one uh you in agreement on that yeah it's completely accurate okay Sharon that sounds good okay Sharon yeah I just wanted to say that a lot of possible solutions but we will get a quick legal opinion and we will act as as they tell us to do and if it's been 50 years and he feels that Bianchi for some reason can be weaved in or whatever we will go with the legal advice and we'll get that cleared up before it comes back to you guys for final and if they do say it needs zba they should go to zba first before you guys give final I don't think we would be able to approve if the zba hasn't been put in place yep any further questions or commentary okay hearing none does anyone prepare to offer a motion on the sketch plan David Raphael why don't you take a whack at it sure we'd be happy to I'm going to move approval of the sketch plan public caring of Ron and Alice Seacrest's proposal to subdivide the two existing lots into five new lots located 226 and 236 river road in the medium density residential R2 zone scenic resource overlay and floodplain overlay districts tax maps 33 and four parcels one and ten staff report as written with the changes notated by Darren remaining as written David do you want to remove lines 103 to 110 for now maybe they come back at final but just for now just take them out yeah that's a great point so that's that tom furlin with the second and a friendly amendment to remove those lines friendly amendment accepted I like that moved by David seconded by Tom worked out very well any further discussion on that all those in favor signified by saying aye aye opposed motion carries seven zero sketch plan approved with uh items still to be worked out before it comes back for final thank you uh let's see we are moving on to the next item on our agenda which is the minutes from April 8th I get a motion for the minutes for April 8th please I'll move we approve the motion the minutes from April 8th second moved by John mangan seconded by Tom does anyone want to offer any corrections to the minutes at any part of the document hearing none all those in favor of the minutes as moved signified by saying aye aye opposed minutes carry seven zero other business do we have any I have some um and but I'm going to ask I'm going to say this but that can be answered after my other business John Alden where you been anyhow um well we've missed you anyhow um just to FYI there are a couple of um plan uh PUC applications for the tower 150 Brigham Hill Road to add some more antennas um and one at uh corporate drive um I will get the PDF and and just I'll just zerox the proposal part for you guys so that you can read the specifics of what it what it art what it is but um they're de minimis both applications were de minimis through the PUC and that's all I have all right thank you Sharon Erin yes we want to let you know that there is a fair housing workshop being hosted by the agency of com or department of housing community development next Wednesday April 28th and we will forward the information to you thank you um I don't think it's fair to let we so get away out of the meeting without having to say something well Darren took my announcement sorry always I see your hand up sorry I was I was making sure it got set no thank you mr chair can I ask a question of staff certainly are we so are there any opportunities with um I heard the governor talking about the funding that's coming in from the stem pack that will address in particular affordable housing initiatives do does Essex have any opportunities to either get some of those grants or funds or participate in that it will depend on whether they are directed towards designated downtowns or village centers or designated village centers but um yeah there there's supposed to be a couple of pots of money being made available in the next few months probably for affordable housing uh some of it is for um for rewriting will be um uh carrots offered by the federal government for um for increasing densities and um and otherwise providing looking at zoning to provide for affordable housing and overcoming obstacles in zoning to create affordable housing okay that was eloquent of me no no like that that's great I mean I would just love to see if there's an opportunity for Essex to to get some units as part of this and take advantage of some of those funds and either work with the tech center or whatever we got to do to do that I would that would be super exciting yep great to know that you're on board and if something comes up we will definitely tap you for um for participation in whatever the process is cool have we started to is the the potential roadmap for our work work map started to gel out yet it's starting we've met and we're going through some items and Darren is um Darren is doing some data collection to facilitate the process because we really need to we really need to have some data on the table to understand what we may or may not be proposing okay can we can we try to consider with within like one of the meetings next month to at least have a have a discussion about what's what we might be able to do in the you know when we can do it and so forth even if we're not talking absolute specifics but I'd like to start maybe having maybe the second meeting of each month if we can reserve you know 15 minutes on the agenda or have an agenda item to talk about you know regulation updates sure um what what I think Darren and Sharon would both attest to is that there's a lot of unraveling that needs to happen um with the with some of the zoning changes because they're not everything is so interconnected yep we sort of we've gone to the to the root of of the um of the ordinance which is the use table and looking at the zoning districts and within the zoning districts Darren is collecting information on the parcels that are contained in each and we're going to start doing some analysis to start understanding so what I'm proposing is not is not to to change the way that you're doing that what I'm proposing is that every month we have a period of time that the commission and you have a direct interaction on what's in play what we can do what we might want to focus on other than you know it make sure that we stay on the same page because it would be um I think a disadvantage to all of us if if you guys start if you guys go down a path that either we don't want to go down or are unaware that we have to go down and we can become disconnected in this process so if there's a commission field that that's an appropriate step at this point is to start putting a regular line item on our agenda I guess it's just me then I I like that idea and maybe maybe a given week there's not a whole lot to say but I like calling it out at the maybe every fourth Thursday like where are we on this and if if there's nothing as of yet there's nothing as of yet but I like that idea okay so I think that's how we've done it in the past so I think we'll just you know giving you a little update and if it opens up to a bigger conversation so be it but um I think that's easy to easy to accommodate for you yeah I'm not trying to make this be onerous or you know necessarily unnecessarily detailed at this point but let's this is an opportunity for us all to stay on the same page so that we are working um collaboratively and towards a common goal as I learned that at work but the data really is going to be very important to the whole process I understand and I'm not arguing against that what I don't want to do is I don't want to wait until everything is collected before we even start talking about any of it so my my point is we want to be on board with this and we're not going to I don't think it's appropriate to wait and wait and wait and wait because data collection can be a never-ending process yes that's what I'm in for but also being able to present things to you in a coherent way in which you can analyze and understand them is going to be the way that I think that we're all going to move forward together but we also want to be able to present to you so I'm not I'm not bouncing back and forth I'm just not I'm this isn't necessarily yeah I'm just saying that we're not trying to punt on anything we we have been doing work on this and we want to hear about it this is I think it's as simple as that are we so we want to hear about it yeah um I mean we can also have a work session but a lot of it is very it's there's so much minutiae and there's so much um so so let's let's not overthink it yep bear with me don't know let's not overthink it like the staff have to overthink it and so that's that's how we're I understood what I'm trying to get to and let's let's let's leave it quickly with this but what I'm trying to get to is is we want a regular update to be provided to the commission yeah it can be it can be a one senate it can be two paragraphs it can be see it next time but let's just make it or be a regular item so we have it we I haven't set as an expectation okay sorry um anything else if not somebody quickly make a motion I move from your journal this is the night of Josh motions second second all those in favor all right all right opposed we are adjourned thank you everyone bye everyone has to see you