 before we do anything else since we do have not to discuss it. Yeah, it isn't. There's no meant. There's no application on the agenda. So we don't need to take. We don't need to swear folks in. OK, so if there's anyone who wants to offer public comment to us on items that are not on the agenda, this is the time. That's anybody in the audience or in the online and just to clarify for the people in the room, the the emails that were received that will be discussed during regulations. That's the time. OK. That was more of a question for you, unless you wanted to. Well, I'm just since we have no applications, I want to make sure that the stuff in the folks that are here are for discussions during during regulation workshop. OK. OK. Yes, sir. Do we have any further detail on the application that was called for essence way for the. The theater, whatever it is, the stage thing. All I know is that both from an agenda, but I don't have any detail on it. We're going to find more detail in advance, or is that not possible until it actually comes to the table? So I'm no, I'm you don't have to unmute. Sure. You never unmute at your computer. Or Scott will come up. I'm happy to tell you why, but I'm not so happy to tell you why. So there was a there was an error so it was not warned in time to be kept on this agenda. So it had to be bumped in order to meet the legal requirements to have the meeting go for. So is it possible, though, to get more information on advance? And I'm being asked this by my neighbors, too, is and I also need to decide whether or not to do myself from it. Right. But I have no information. Oh, so so I'm not sure if that site plan was completed yet, but it will go up quickly. But let me let me bump this, since it is not on the agenda. John, with all respect, I think that should be a discussion you have offline with Sharon so that we don't have any issues with public warning or discussion of an of an application that's not truly on the agenda. That OK? I'm sorry, I thought that's what we were asking questions about. We are, but we know this is coming before us and you're asking about an application that's in flight. So I think as far as the details of have a follow up conversation with Sharon, you can go into as much detail as you want at that point. But that sounds good. Yep, no problem. That was John Mingen. Anything else? OK, with that, let's roll into our workshop. Can we start off with Josh and discussion on the groups and are that goes or do you want to have a different no difference in front of us? Good. So the town plan is a separate item and that is also a work group. So I expect to get rolled in together. Josh would like to speak about both. Josh, you're good. Yeah, I'm good. So with respect to the work groups overall, I don't I would admit I don't actually know what is going on with the work groups that I'm not heading up. Back off his mic and turn on his camera. Do you hear that, Josh? Could you step back from your mic a little bit and turn on your camera for the there you go. I thought I was that I thought I was pretty far back. Well, we're going to keep going. You got you got control. OK, the work groups of which I'm not a part. I don't know how those are proceeding necessarily because those are under their own steam and I haven't had the time or where with all the check in, unfortunately, and if you'd like, I can talk about the town plan working group. I didn't entirely hear what what the preference was on that. If we wanted to hold that off to see or I could just go for it right now. Go for it. OK, so we have met. I want to say now four times. We we've sort of gotten to a regular enough pattern in meeting the Wednesday before a Thursday PC meeting. And where we are right now, actually, what I can know, I don't think I have that as a separate document. We've we take sort of a sense of the meeting after the fact and come up with things. And what we've done so far is we have agreed that the initial purview of the group should be visioning as opposed to really getting in the weeds of detail detail work. And specifically, what we've done is each member from a separate committee or commission and who we've got. We've got planning commission. We've got trails and conservation. We've got economic development. We've got housing. We've got energy. And I think I think that's everybody. And so we had each committee or commission or individual come up with sort of their five to seven top priorities. And then we sort of we merge those, put those in a blender and come up with an executive summary document for what the overarching interests were in terms of vision. That document I have and I can email that after the fact. I don't think I, let me see. It might be too busy on the screen to put it up right now, but there's a document we're working on that has sort of the summaries of sort of the overall heads what people are interested in, what, such as zoning, urban design, economic development, infrastructure, things like that. And the next phase that we're working on at the moment is we'd like to start to have community visioning meetings around town at different locations where we would put it to, excuse me, put it to the groups assembled. Here are sort of the broad strokes of what the town committees and commissions are coming up with. Again, that's still a little in process, but here's what they're coming up with. And what are your sort of overall thoughts and we'll try to tie those in to the overarching things. An example we talked about at yesterday's meeting, for example, if someone comes in and says, I don't like the light at the intersection of 15 and 289, we as a group would say, okay, this sounds like broadly infrastructure. What do we think about infrastructure? And so we could take particular inquiries from the community and shape that into, here's what we think the community would like as a vision. And from that point, we would imagine that staff would have to be a lot more involved when we get into the particulars of what will be required for a town plan. That would be well above the ability of our group. But right now where we actually are is, we're going to start setting up those community meetings. And we're gonna, people are gonna start soliciting various businesses and locations about town to see if there's interest and availability. With an aim to doing those, most likely late November, December, at this point. And I think that's accurately captured it. Good, Catherine's been there for a lot of this too. If she can confirm or deny what I'm saying. No, that's perfect. The only other thing as far as some more of the technical work we did get a review from the Regional Planning Commission just yesterday, I think, or the day before, they took a look at the plan and just to see what was good, what's working, what needs to be beat up or changed. So that that's running concurrently and I think staff will be more involved in some of the technical updates and conclusions. Right, Catherine, I don't know if you were still in the meeting at that point, but we did give a little look over to those documents. Obviously, we didn't have time to do a deep dive, but that led to the discussion of some of these particular statutes and the particularities were way above our ability to reckon in a town plan. So that really re-solidified our contention that we should be focusing on sort of vision-y stuff. For lack of a better term. Go ahead, Betty. I just wanted to say, Josh, that, because she was not here, she and I are on the same committee for Act 171. And I just have a quick short synopsis, but between now and November, 2022, we're reviewing existing biofinder and other natural resource information to get the lay of the land. And I'm personally working really hard on that. Every time we even have anything that comes to the board, I'm doing the biofinder, so I'm getting better at it. But number two, as a group, December 2022 and spring 2023, we want to conduct a community outreach about forest integrity and wildlife habitat, possibly including additional citizen science data collection or community values, mapping as a Vermont community wildlife has done for other towns. And two more. Number three is spring summer 2023 to fall 2024. We want to prepare updated information, data, goals, and actions for the 2024 town plan, reflecting the requirements of Act 171 and the public outreach conducted in the preceding months. And then spring 2024 warn and hopefully adopt the 2024 town plan in this area. That's the update. So Shu is actually the secretary, but he's not here, so I'm filling in. Well, thank you. That actually, that's quite good because one of the new requirements for the 2024 town plan has to do with sort of a forest inventory and maintenance preservation of that. So that's perfect. That fits with one of the things we were talking about yesterday. Thank you very much. You're welcome. I would ask both of you to keep your, have your groups stay somewhat flexible with dates and targets as we start to understand when we need to have deliverables. So initially, Patty, it sounded like the timeline that you got laid out might be too long in order to meet dates to get things approved and into the 2024 voting cycle. So keep your groups aware that the timelines may be driven or may be changed or have to be changed. So. And I'm trying to get the hang of bio finders. It's very technical. Yeah, I'm just, as far as that goes, this is really good and good progress, but once you sound, now that you've got some progress and send things moving, I'd really like to see regular reports coming back to the, to the PC. Maybe it's just the minutes from your meetings so that we can keep everybody, including staff, appraised of the targets that you're working towards in case we need to change them. These are the minutes for Act 171. Then get them into the commission as a, put it, get them into the staff so we can be put into packets. And it might not take that long of a time period during our meetings for updates to happen that way. But would you, go ahead. Like I said, it seemed a little on the fly to do it in the meeting right now, but I have the sort of sense of the meetings and the documents we have that I can easily upload into a Google folder that can just be part of the packet every two weeks. Whatever, whatever works, the stuff's there. Work it out with Sharon and Catherine and find out what the best way to deliver and keep track of it. It's just a matter, at this stage, let's, you guys are starting to make the actual headway on this. So let's make sure that the timelines and everybody stay in sync and so there's no surprises down the road when you're planning on six months and we need it in three months. Right. So we've, a number of us have been through these cycles enough to know that there are other factors that are going to drive our dates, like the select board doing the budget review. Right. So, okay, this sounds really good. This is really right in line with what we were hoping to get is the community stuff, the community engagement and involvement spread out over more venues. Anything else along that, Catherine, Sharon, or anything, I mean, I haven't heard from zoning or anything about zoning on this. Do we need to reach out directly? So the zoning board, they were given the memos that Josh did and the other, they had conflicting commitments so they didn't step up on that. They did speak to the RPDI uses, which is in a memo that is in part of your packet. Okay. Anything else we want to touch on this point? Anything else that you guys feel we can line up and take a swing at? We had- I know Jean keeps asking about the Fort Working Group when that's going forward. Can I just ask a question to Sharon? Yes, the Resource Preservation Industrial District RPDI. I have the table 2.14, the most recent. Is this still the zoning? Nothing has changed. Nothing's changed. From the zoning rights. Okay. That's all I need to know? Yeah. So we have some items in front of us tonight. Do we want to touch on them? Yeah, for regulations. So I've got Peter Edelman is in the audience. He would like to talk to you about signage. He also did send an email and apologize. I don't know if I emailed that off to you guys ahead of time and it would have just been within the last few days. But nonetheless, he's here to talk about it himself. So Peter, if you want to step up to the table here and explain to them what your request is, that would be great. And then after that, I do have one more. Okay. Thanks. Yeah, thank you for making time to listen. So I had two requests for you to consider for tonight and longer if you need to. One is internal signage for the green. We have a fence going around it and we had been bringing sponsors in to support the free music series that we do in the summer. And part of that sponsorship request is always to put their sign up. So we'd put signs up on the fence area, some bankers. I think technically that is not currently allowed. So I want to see if we could do a waiver. It is internal, not facing any roads or anything. So that's one request if you could consider that and consider that as a waiver. The second, I'm not really ready to do anything on this, but I do want to just bring up to your attention and again, consideration. The performance center looking to professionalize it. And a lot of people just don't know what we're going to be showing or having. So we currently have on the building approved, I believe it's about an eight by 10 foot sign on Essex Way that we had for the movie theater that we can put our movies on. And we've never really used that that much. Didn't do what we needed to do. So I'd like to be able to take that allowance that square footage and create a marquee if possible. Onto the right hand side, the doubly performance center, which is not part of the original movie theater, it's part of the expansion, the T-Rex area. And the marquee ideally would have a lighting on it so that we could show it and people who are in the center can see or driving through the center, can see what's coming up and who are featuring. Those are my two requests for tonight. Don't need an answer, obviously I'm just to consider it. And so I will make sure that I pass this email along. You always. When you talk about a marquee, I mean, in my mind, I'm thinking the Flynn. Yeah, that's in my mind. I think that's a little over what I'd want to do. It would be more of a flat board, probably an LED board that we could just change, but it would be not really coming out, it would just be on the building or flat. Again, that way when you're driving down a six way, you really wouldn't see it, wouldn't be jumping out, it would be more internal. In the other item you were talking about, that's the sponsor signage. Sponsor signage that we put on the fence that we have. We have to fence in the green whenever we do alcohol so that requires fence and we want to just sign it. Is it like a temporary, I mean, temporary? Well, yeah, it's temporary for the season. Temporary for the season, yeah. Season typically running from probably June through August. And right now I think we have banners that are allowed for I think a one week period once a year or maybe a two week period for once a year. Other than that, the only one that I'm aware of for banners is the baseball field, which they have all their skills. You got a big enough lot to do a little league games here. Finish your goal. Yeah. How are they allowed? I don't, I was not able to find any permitting for it. So I'm assuming because it's a town owned property, we're exempt from that, but we try not to do that. So I don't know, it's been there though for many, many or more than 15, so. So is this, Peter, is this, both of these are essentially zoning changes that you're asking for. And prior to zoning changes, potentially waivers on an application. If you submit an application for signage or I mean, Sharon, I mean zoning is. Is it a zoning issue? Well, so right now we don't have, I don't believe we have a regulation for waivers in the zoning regulation. The way we do in, you know, the subdivision. So it would be a zoning change. So that would be something maybe to look at as far as since it's all internal. But it is, okay. So it's again, you know, we don't need the answer but tonight, but it is food for discussion. It is internal. It is private. Essentially they're both the same request almost. It's internal signage changes, one being illuminated, the other potentially is illuminated and the other one not. And signage can be lit. The difference is it's, you know, it's only supposed to be backlit. Right. Think we gotta be careful of using the term internal because we can't have internal signage that is illuminated out inside of a building. So we need to internal to the parcel, not to the structures. Right. Can I ask a question? Yeah. Question, but what if it's temporary? Cause I've been to many of his events. The fence is temporary. You know, they put it up and everybody's inside. It's like on a Mozart festival. You're inside the green and it's fun. And then they take the fencing down. So what he's, I hear what he's asking because so many people are there. He can, people can see what the next event is. And if that's temporary, like the fence, is that still within the regulations? Something that I think if we're doing this round of regs, that's something that I think we can add. But we have to be careful. It's got to be something that you allow everywhere. So I think if we digest this tonight and maybe talk a little bit more behind the scenes to see if we, what we can massage and how. So let's go to the guys online. Josh, Dave and John, do you have any thoughts on these? This is John. I'm in favor of it, you know, as long as the Macquarie sign isn't like, you know, the Flynn, like we mentioned, something that's not overly, for lack of a better word, like gaudy, you know? But I think it's a great idea. I've had to, you know, I've always wanted to know what's going on there as well. So I would love to see something where I can know at a glance what's happening without having to go look on Instagram or Facebook or whatever. This is David, I ditto John's comments. This is Josh, I'm gonna ditto the ditto. I think the key point with, especially with the marquee is that it, that it not have a visual impact on Essex Way. There is, the marquee would be not a temporary whereas the signage on the fence is temporary. That sounds like something we should maybe look at rolling in, doesn't sound like it's a huge lift. Right. And maybe we can put this in this round. Yes, and I think Sharon's suggestion that staff, we can take a look at it and see how we could get it in there, make it work and not cause problems. Right, that'd be fair. So this LED screen is gonna be like this big. No, no there. Not like it's one. Okay, anything, is that good? I think that's, thank you for bringing that to our attention. Thank you for considering it. Appreciate it. Thank you. Good night. The next one that I had was a request from back in August 30th from Eric Langevin. And the request is, Do you have something to hang on? I'm sorry. It's really hard, almost as if you guys are here. And Sharon, it's almost like you're having a private conversation with a little group We're not here. Are you all having that as well? Sorry to interrupt, but online we can't hear anything. So you're not getting speakers. You're not getting the... Should we talk closer? No, I can hear the online. No, David just said they can't hear us. They can't hear. I couldn't hear anything of that whoever just was speaking. Oh, that's Paulus in the back. Okay, so she's right. She doesn't have a mic. Okay. That's better. Just turn up the volume. Okay. Ola, can you hear us better now at this stage with us? Okay, well that's, that's... I've been walking down, sometimes I can... Okay. It's just something to pay attention to. Pretend you're working on manufacturing. No. No. It's okay. No. We can get home with teenagers. That's different. Let's just close up in a corner. All right, let's keep moving. So anyhow, Eric Langevin has put in a request for the Planning Commission to consider eliminating the current bylaw that requires a mandatory 1,000 foot requirement between two group homes. To my knowledge, we don't have any group homes in Essex right now. And Catherine was mentioning that there was a statute at one point. Maybe you can speak to that. Yeah, so when I was in Jericho, we actually looked at this requirement and there appears to have been years and years ago in-state statute, something that said there should be this 1,000 foot separation. It's no long, it is not in statute. So we're not required to have that in our regulations. So, and we are already suggesting a change for group homes. Right, in the regulations. And, no, go ahead. No, I mean, what's the change? Yeah, so this new statutory requirement is that group homes must be permitted and permitted to use everywhere that single unit dwellings are permitted. What we've added a definition for group home is referring to residential care home. So just clarifying that a group home is residential care home. So we could make that change too and just take out that 1,000 foot buffer. Now this says in his first sentence, it says required between two group homes. So, and that was it. So he was looking at a parcel of land that where he could put two homes on it and have them both be group homes, but they were not one. Gotcha, it's not separation between other residential homes. It's just between the two individuals. Right, so, and if we're gonna, it sounds like we're circling back around so I can get this sent off to the next meeting too for further consideration, but that's basically his request, right? And I'll go a little further and let you know that he was looking at the Brigham Hill Lot, the Fountain Lot where they came in for the two lot PUD and were denied, but they, our regulations allow them to put two houses on one parcel. And so they wanted to do that, keeping it where the houses were situated when you reviewed it as a PUD, but again, he couldn't meet the 1,000 foot requirement. So he had to let that go. A state statute doesn't require it. Seems like that would be a reasonable thing. Right. Commissioners, any thoughts on that? Just that our current regs as they're written reference the state statute. So, obviously one of the tiresome things we could do for this and other regulations would be to go through and make sure that our regs still properly reference state statute, but to that point, if the state statute has changed and this isn't applicable anymore, we should kind of figure that out because section, the section in our regs right now does reference the statute right off the bat. Right. That sounds like something we should be in easy call out. Very good. And somebody's done some of the work for us. Thank you. I wonder how many other little statutory references are in there that, well, that's what David was just saying. Oh, I know. But there could be more. Well, yeah, that's a big pride. And I don't want to put that on you guys, but you know, that's the double-edged sword of referencing state statute is, like it's a mammoth task to keep up with when that changes. It is. Maybe we can keep make another PC work group. Sorry, I just had to get that dig in. Good job for an intern. But we will look at that, David. Thank you. You know, to that point, though, should we have some, would it be appropriate? And David, since you dig into these so much, would it be appropriate to have something to deal with the point when state statute changes and becomes less restrictive than our town or there's something that can be changed on the, if we're going to reference the state statute, do we need to have the town requirement automatically change if the statute changes? Well, we have been doing that specifically. No, no, I mean, automatically, like if they change in mid-flight. Yes, and we've been doing that with accessory apartments. So right now, accessory apartments, our regs say 600 square foot feet, but state statute went to 900 square feet. And I think we might have had this discussion early on when that happened and we said, okay, we'll go along with the state statute until we can catch up with our regulations. So that's how I've been processing. Yeah, we're required to do that. Right. Yeah, there's some language in other areas of state government where if there's a conflict between, for example, administrative rules and statutory requirements that there's like this global language that says the more that state statute prevails and the more restrictive applies. And I think we have some of that language somewhere as well, don't we? I believe we do. Yeah, so maybe we do to Dustin's point, we make a declaratory statement to that effect. Right. I know actually with the accessory apartments, it's actually the opposite since there's, you have a less restrictive. Right. Exactly. Yep. Yeah, it's a never-ending process. We have to accept. And I mean, the good thing with state statute is that we always get a printout from the state saying here's what changed this session and here's how it would impact our zoning. So I think we're from what Sharon's saying, we've been trying to, been keeping up with that, but not necessarily maybe from 15 years ago. Right. You know, so. Yeah. Okay. What about CCRPC? Do they or the LCVT, you know, that group and CCRPC, do they, are they an intermediary for us? Cause they're the regional planning commission where they could kind of give you heads up too? They, they do. Okay. But the best people, all the different groups used to have like little printouts of stuff and they still kind of do, but generally the one coming from the state from the agency of community development, they're, they're the best resource or the most comprehensive. Yes, everybody's looking out for us. So it's good. Okay. So that's, that's all I have. Good on that one. Yeah. But the business design control language. Yeah. We also do have some folks in the audience who wanted to speak on something as well. Well, let's, let's go to them next then. Who's up? And we'd ask you to come stable, please. And state your name. So, so I can actually kind of kick, kick it off a little bit. Thank you. Thank you. So we are, we have this summary sheet of the simple zoning changes that it just shows out on two pages versus having to thumb through the whole document here. So that's the stuff that we've already looked at, but then there was a new memo that actually Darren prepared before he left. And one of the changes that we have suggested, staff has suggested in there is a, that we allow PUDRs in the center zoning district. And it is one. It's actually right here. So, so it's the proposed zoning and subdivision regulation updates is the subject and the memorandum. So the staff changes are, as I said, allowing PUDRs in the central district and then having their dimensional requirements be that of the identity residential, the R3 district or less. Staff feels like that's a good idea. So we were in conversation with the potential development on the flurry parcel, flurry lane, is that what it's called? Flurry road. Flurry road. So just talking about the center district being within our growth area and we wanna be able to see creative design, we wanna see more density where it's appropriate and it is appropriate in the center district. So let's make my kind of team you guys up. Sure. You can jump in. Thank you so much. So what we'd sent in was, Oh, sorry, I'm Rich Gardner. And Jay McCormick. So what we'd sent, the site plan that we'd sent in was actually kind of a guide as to what the current regulations could have us. And that one's actually a little bit out because we do have a three unit there, but at current regs, not with the new regulations that are coming in, which we would love to see, and maybe February or March fingers crossed would allow for a total density there for about 12 units if we do it the way the regs say we're supposed to do it now. I think allowing for PUDs in this district would allow for a little bit more density, which would be great. The challenge with the PUDs or at least the way they're stated right now, it does subtract out. So you're allowed density based on overall acreage, but it does subtract out the density that you'd be allowed if you've got wetlands. And if we use this parcel as an example, and we subtract out the wetlands, we're actually even less unit count as we would be if we were to go through and permit today. The other benefits of a PUD are also in the financing side. So if we're gonna take these units, opposed units and actually sell them on the market, David can speak to this as well, but the financing for that end user or that new owner is a whole lot easier to achieve and to get if we can sell them the soil beneath their unit or what the PUD would actually allow us to do. So there's lots of benefits and I appreciate that the opportunity to come in and talk to you guys. The other piece that we brought were really just some examples of some projects that are in and around Vermont that may allow for some higher density that are currently not allowed in the district today, but we hope would be allowed as you guys move forward with your plan. So the other attachment or the other doc that we've included, we're really just some examples of multi-unit buildings that still have similar shape and scale to residential homes with a little bit of a different flavor than what we don't see too much of at least in Essex right now. I'm happy to have a little dialogue with any and all. So I don't know where those folks, we can hold those up for them to see what I do with them. It's Fleury Road, part of the urban core. What was that Patty? I don't know, Sharon, you would know the urban core, I have a map of the new urban core, like where I live as part of the urban core is Fleury Road, part of the urban core. I know like Route 15, not to the Jericho line but a little in like where that development is where the church is. I'm actually not sure. Cause I have a map and I just wondered. So it was private. That one gets a little tricky cause Fleury Road has, and maybe Sally can speak to this, but Fleury Road has been the town maintains that it's been a public road that the town owns it. But it's always been more of a driveway, if you will. It wasn't connecting the road the way it is today. I've never been on it, I'm just asking. Yes, but I can't answer specifically if it's part of the road. I'm just curious. Yeah, sorry. So I don't know, can you guys see this and am I too far away from the, actually I would ask you guys, if you want to go and stand in front of the camera. You can do it. Okay. So if you want to describe, sorry. Describe what we got. It might be enough multiple paid. These are just examples. These are just examples. No, I know, but I just would like the. So yeah, so what do you got there? So that's a project in South Burlington off Hinesburg Road. That is a four unit building on the top. The unit just below that is another road. The unit just below that is another building that's in South Burlington. That's a multi-family residential building if you want to flip. So now we're going back to that. I have it, I have it. Oh, she has it. Fantastic. So these are, thank you, it's been a lot easier. These are just renderings of some buildings that we've designed for another town. These are, you can see the standard two-story height of the buildings with some additional space for the units on the inside. That is an eight unit building that's scaled to be a bit smaller than what some of the traditional type eight unit buildings would be. It's a little bit more residential feel. If you flip the page on that, we did include some just some sample floor plans that were done as well of what that eight unit building could look like. Again, the scaling of this and the massing of this was really set so that it could fit in a residential type development, especially if you're building a single family homes around it. So, and this again is just as a sample of things that for you guys to think about that could potentially be built in this area if you guys wanted to add some density specifically to this particular site would be great. Next page is another similar type building. This is a four unit building. Again, similar massings in size and scale. And then the next is just some pictures of other buildings that were built. You wanna flip through. I don't know how much time I have, so I don't wanna waste too much time on that. I only have those three. Oh, okay, sorry. So the photos that you have, I can email the photos out. So, to Catherine and Sharon on this one, you know, I appreciate these coming in, but how do they fit or can we see if they fit with regards to the ETC Next master plan? Because I, you know, it's great to have somebody come in and bring some examples and show some different options. But we had design forms and stuff that we put into the master, you know, ETC Next plan. It would be nice to be able to go to those and say these, you know, we're pulling designs from that. So that we're not adding additional variables into our process. So I'm just, sure. If ETC Next comes out and passes as it sits without some adjustments or tweaks. ETC Next has passed. It is a design document that's a living document. It exists. I think he meant to say the regulations. Thank you. It's the vision. Right. It's the vision. So we got to start working towards that. Yep. Your question is, I'm reading your question about using PUD ours in this area. And these are examples of what there could be. So I would, I'm just, maybe I'm going a step to the side, which I don't normally like to go sideways, but I would like to see when we start having design discussions, I'd like to see our ETC Next document used to drive those design discussions. Since Josh and everybody did so much. And David, is that your hand raised? It is. How about it? I'm getting ready for it too deep. All right. So first full disclosure, Rich Gardner is a close friend and I would even argue that Jay might even call me a buddy. So hopefully no one will hold that against me, but my comments are, when we talked about ETC Next, we talked about there being high density in this area because of the walkability to shopping bus routes and that this is where we wanted development. So I don't know if, I know that the PUD gives us an incredible amount of flexibility in this area and that might be the solution. But if it's not, whatever we do, my personal opinion is we need to make sure that the density is super high in this area because it's one of the most walkable area for basic necessities that we have in town. So that's my two cents. They always saw this as being developed as a high, high density area, but also fitting in with the character of where it is in essence. Can I comment on that? So I appreciate that. Thank you, David. And I too would like to see some density there. I believe it's four units per acre minus wetlands. So I think in total, we're probably looking at pushing it 13 to 14 units on this particular acre, this particular parcel, which is 4.37 acres. So high density, no, but some density. But high density, definitely not, not based on currently, not based on, and so that may be something you guys wanna take a look at, which was why I offered to come in and speak a little bit. So I had heard that as well, that there was a, and I don't know whether to look at the camera or to look at you, but I had heard that as well, that they were looking for high density here. And then when I actually took a look at the regs and did some of the quick math, it's not high, it's not high density. It's density, but it's not high density. So. Is this something that you might want staff to look at a little further? So maybe PUD, PUDs could be allowed, but that might not be the only answer for this district. Maybe it is, as David suggested, increasing the depth. And I also wanna add to that. I also think the new, in this particular district would only allow for a maximum of a four unit building, which would also inhibit density, right? As soon as you start clustering and you're forced to cluster at a four unit max for building, then you've got, obviously you've got distances and setbacks from other buildings. So that would be hard to eat up some additional space in just the massings of the buildings and the parking lots and all of that. Yep. One more comment to back up with kind of what Rich is saying about density. There are not many places left in Essex where you're this close to being able to walk to a grocery store and some of our other amenities. And I think it would be a mistake to only have four households, to really limit how many we have there. I think there's a way to develop this with higher density but still have it be aesthetically pleasing and having a bunch of families that can get to the library and to the theater and our historic district and not have it look like it's a high roof. That's just, that's my two cents. Go ahead. And I totally concur with David because our goal really with this whole ETC manual here in my hand is a walkable community. And if, as long as you respect the wetlands because that's my baby. I like doing the maps and knowing where all the wetlands are on any kind of development that we're looking at. But I think that that should be the goal and a pedestrian oriented on foot be able to walk even where I live. We're 20 minutes away. We need sidewalks, everything plowed so we can get to the ETC next. So I'm totally with Dave on this. I think it's a great idea. I would like, if we're gonna investigate this, I'd like to see what regulation changes we need to get to a greater density. I'm not sure, I'm not in argument disagreement with the goal of greater density. I am leery of density over form. And that is still a rural feeling section even though it's, I see the opportunities there. So I'd like to make sure that whatever we do balances and it's not just a cluster of what looks like apartment buildings and just as much building as we can put into the space. Because then we're not necessarily gonna have right outside the historic center which we're trying to maintain a character or we would potentially have very awkward looking cluster of high density buildings and that. So where's the balance? What's the balance beyond what would be allowed under the regulations now? What could we change that would allow a reasonable adjustment, reasonable increase that would still allow the buildings to actually fit? I'm totally with you. I've lived in the area my entire life, not in Essex but I'd like to see something that's good for both and fits well with both. So here's maybe a challenge back to you since you brought this to our attention and brought examples and so forth. Yep. I would, and David if you, let me know what you think of this. I would like to maybe see you take a look at the regulations and provide some commentary to staff whether it's working with Catherine or just straight up private commentary on what you as a developer would potentially suggest for changes to promote a good vision. Again, it would be very much your opinion. But it would be interesting to see, how that fits. An opinion for the other side. Yeah, I mean, it's really, it's you're on the side of putting it up. So what would make sense to you might not make sense to us, but it might save you some time and effort by giving you something to work off from. And I'll give them credit. They actually asked, we got a meeting with them, they asked us to come tonight. And I said, if I have a chance to have this conversation and dialogue and I again, I appreciate even the opportunity to be here and have these conversations that I would. So I give them credit. That's why we're here tonight. They actually pushed me to come. Now, so this is public comment, public info. I'm gonna, Paula's jumping out of her chair. So I wanted to see what you would cheer. No, I think that one of the challenges in the area is that it's taking a transition from a high density building to civil family homes that are on the other side of the road and not having dropped their thoughtful change. I have the urban compact map up and I'm trying to figure out where Flurry Road is. It's, I have route 15, oh, here's route 128. And then So it's on the corner of towers. Okay. Just a little ways up from Memorial Hall. Oh, okay. A little ways up from Memorial Hall? Yeah, a thousand feet. Oh, okay. So that's really, so the urban core compact, at least I live there. We want the people that live in my area a walkable community. So whether you build up to the sidewalk and avoid the wetlands, to me, I mean, how else are we gonna have, this is the other side of Essex is rural. You can have a pair, your house and 40 acres. But this is the urban compact right here and that area you're describing is in that urban compact. It is. Yeah, it abuts the grocery store and the bank. Yes. Yes. So I'm looking at the, I'm into maps. That's my, though. I've never been on the road, but I just wanted to see where you're talking about and you're in the urban compact. That's a fact, though. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be a smooth transition and a graceful transition to maintain the village that we all want. Right. And the historic district. Right. And if he can only put four of the buildings and make it look like it fits with the architecture, that could be a win-win, in my opinion. So I think we're back to this stage. We've got a lot of, there's some hope, there's some design, there's some positive reception to increasing the density. Question is how? How to do it right? How to do it with, you know, maintaining the, you're right adjacent to the historic neighborhood. Heck, Flurry Road is historic neighborhood. It's. That's not right. But it is, as everybody said, does have immediate access to a lot of the amenities. So how do we do this without having it all of a sudden become a, you know, it just, it can't look like the projects. I mean, I'm looking, it's not something that where we want to have, as Paula mentioned, we get single family homes on the north side or what east side. And do we just all of a sudden have block homes on, you know, block buildings on the other side for the, for the sake of density. And I don't, quite frankly, I don't see us as needing it that badly. So we need the right mix. We need the right balance to give some nice, you know, I would challenge you to see what you, what you would suggest, work with Catherine and see what you, and then that can, that that can be presented to the commission as part of this round of discussions and amendments. Yep. I mean, is that reasonable? Sure, that sounds great. Yeah. And I, just to go back on the density piece, I don't think we have the right makeup for roads and all the other thing to really put a ton of density on it. I don't think it would fit anyway, just with our challenges that we've got with Flurry Road, the size that it is right now and where it goes. I don't think it's going to, I don't think a big, big building would, public works wouldn't, I don't think they'd let that go. I don't think so either. I mean, I thought that's an extra. So we've got, we've got some, you've got some challenges with the site anyway. But I think we have, we have a little bit of an opportunity to do a little better. Well, we're, we're at the point of, I mean, we're in the, the amendment phase right now. We're trying to come up with the regulation changes to support initiatives. You know, Peter was here with a couple of things he wanted to do. You guys are here. This is the right time. Yep. And if you've got the knowledge and the know-how, get a little more detailed with it. Can do. David, John, Josh, does that sound reasonable? I'm good. Thank you. That sounds good to me. Patty? Yeah, we can even use Paula. She's a designer of houses. You can ask for her income. Our audience is part of our group too. Good. Okay. There is somebody, Margaret Smith who has her hand up. Okay. Margaret. Hi there. It's always interesting to listen. I live fairly near the intersection of 128 and route 15. Margaret, can you take your address, please? Alder Lane. Thank you. And I've noticed that that intersection often gets plugged up. It really needs one more turn lane to go onto Tower's Road that just isn't there because if somebody's turning then and there's oncoming traffic, it's really difficult to make that turn. And because of all the building that's going on that has gone on up 128 and up route 15, there is more and more traffic all the time. So I was happy to hear the gentleman mentioned the traffic issues. So I really wish that that could be part of the discussion. Is increased traffic? Thank you. Thank you. I think traffic is always a factor. We have development discussions of any sort. Get people walking. Pedestrian for any road, otherwise I don't support it. Okay. Anything else that you guys wanna throw into the mix? No, thank you. Sally, you've been very quiet. You wanna throw anything towards us? No, I'm most impacted here, I think. I will stop the problem. Okay. It's gonna be the other way around. They're gonna be complaining about me. The new neighbors are gonna, I'm not gonna complain about the new neighbors. Okay. Well, thank you all. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks. Let's continue. What else do we wanna touch on tonight? Okay. Well, we have I think two other items. So one is putting in the suggestion and put in some language to the business design control district that is pretty specific to maintenance on parcels. So thinking about waste management, pavement management, landscaping management and fire and safety hazards. So keeping roads open and safe. So this is that wasn't something that made it into your packet, but I could put it up on the screen to let everybody else see it. But the idea would be that it is for the business design control district. We have the table in the zoning that we could add some language to to try to just beef that up for development going forward. And so there's some suggested language that both Dusty and Patty have, but I'll pull it up for to view. Sorry. You guys actually would show up here in the building. You'd have it in your hands right now. We wouldn't have to put in captain to do this extra work of having to struggle to get that on the screen. Just saying. Just saying. I'll pay for that later, I'm sure. Someday when I go on vacation, you guys are gonna miss me. You have a trip planned? Okay, so here's some potential language. This was taken from a property management plan. So some language directly from that. We would definitely wanna try to amend this if we need to to make it fit the needs, the general needs as opposed to the specific needs of one particular person. But I think it's pretty transferable. What is here? My suggestion would be that staff could try to massage this a little bit, get it in a better form, put it in the zoning so you could see where it would fit as well. It's free or floating out there of language, but it's actually in that business school. And it's really quite important, I think, for the properties within the business design control to give more teeth to violations to help try to keep things more in a good state of affairs. And the business design control is not too big, but now it would be for the whole overlay district. Yes, quick question and like the pavement maintenance. Is that, does that need to have review by public works or has it been reviewed by public works so that there's no interpretation by the owners of what pavement means? Yeah, no, those are things that we're gonna have to dirt out everything from one end to the other because there will be challenges, I'm sure, that will come back at us. So no, not at this time. First, we wanted to see if you guys were agreeable to any of this or at least taking a shot, as Catherine said, to massage and put it in so that we could see. I'd be personally to be amenable to having just looked at them. I'm a little, I think there'll be challenges to like the under landscape where it says aesthetically appealing environment. What's aesthetically appealing? I think that's a very subjective, saying that the grass should be mowed regularly. Well, that's fine unless somebody comes back and says, I want a natural environment. We've got to be a little bit careful on appearance. How we approach it. I think most people would think mowing your grass is a regular thing, but I do know of some folks who hired cheap to commit and do their property maintenance. And that might be aesthetically pleasing to them. But I know what the target is and it may be that not all of this can realistically go in other than dead plants and trees should be removed and replaced as soon as possible. I mean, that's a common sense. It's easy and not really debatable. We would likely have our attorney weigh in a little bit to some things. But I know we've had issues with this. And I'm more than a single parcel. It would be good to have this put in now. We're talking about this for the business design control. Is this something that should be wrapped in in general to all zones or commercial and for commercial development? I don't think it's an issue, but it would eliminate some might eliminate some challenges if we had a waste management plan. Expectation across the board. I'm Susie Wilson Road development over there. Susie Wilson Road, but even in say the RPDI, which isn't an issue, but it's not just a residential place, but. I think that's a great idea. It should be all of Essex. The town is responsible for all pavement and sidewalk maintenance within streets of right away. I mean, the whole urban core, people are walking in the middle of the road all winter. We're not paying our snow plowing people enough to come and snow plow. It's dangerous. There shouldn't be any maintenance of pavement unless there is pedestrian lane on the side of the road. I almost got hit by a car Saturday morning coming down from where she lives. Sam and I were running on the top of the hill on Weed Road. The sun was just coming up. We were single file with Zoe. This guy almost hit us in a truck because the sun was coming up and it was in his eyes. We jumped into the ditch. There's not even a little six inch area on the side of the road. There's no, every paved area in the town of Essex has to have two feet for the pedestrian. It's ridiculous. So that's my two cents on that. We'll definitely have a conversation with Public Works. And we just have to start there with that. I think even if we limit it to waste management, I mean, something that we know is it's gotta be definitive and measurable, right? If it's, okay. You guys online, I'm not watching hands up. So if anybody has them, David, John, what are your thoughts on wrapping in to businesses and control and or other areas of having a generic, maybe even a generic waste management policy that we reference and landscaping and so forth. So you guys have any thoughts that you wanna share? Are you still with us? Yeah, the waste management policy sounds fine to me. I like it. The details are always gonna be important, but I like the sentiment behind it. I guess I don't have any thoughts right now. I'm just kind of mulling over it a little bit. Okay, nothing to add though. Sharon, on Weed Road, there's a house being built. I saw a sign that you permitted at the bottom of Weed Road on the left-hand side as I'm running north. Between Taylor and Sleepy Hill. Yeah, the intersection, I'm coming down the hill, right? And there's, this is where there's no piece of pavement. You have to go in a ditch when a truck comes because they can't see with the sun in their eyes. There's a house going up that I saw your permitting sign. That right before that house as we're coming down the hill, that's where we almost got killed, FYI. Yeah, yeah. And there's a lot of bikers. People are biking on that Weed Road, not 15 because the car's still 50 miles an hour. Okay, what else do we have that we can address tonight? All right, so the other item that is new is the memo that I briefly spoke of, but it's the one that was included in your packet, proposed zoning and subdivision regulations updates. So it's kind of like a cover letter, but it also brings in some feedback from our other boards and committees and the staff, couple of staff recommendations. So the housing commission is supportive of any sort of housing initiatives or any changes that increase the availability of housing. And there's a little bit more in here just saying that they're gonna be bringing in some more proposals in the future, perhaps. So inclusionary zoning is an example, but that will not be a part of this update. Conservation and Trails Committee had some suggestions for updating the zoning related to trees and tree care. So they have some pretty specific bullets of requirements and suggestions that they have. The zoning board had some discussion about some different additional uses in the RPDI. And do you have anything else you wanna add on that, Sharon? If you were there. No, other than I will bring it up to them again at their next meeting, we haven't had, we're down a member in the ZBA, so we've only had four and of the past three meetings, we've only had three. So they're trying to wait to get all four. So now there's been no more further discussion, but I'll bring it up to them again. You know, one of the things, is he'll be still. He'll be there, yeah. He'd had a comment at one point about definitions and appendix, I would maybe ask him to write up what he was talking about. So I know it was something through the effect of consistency of definitions across all regulations. And that might be, if he could clarify that, my thinking in that session I attended with him was that maybe we need to have a definition, a single definition document that's attached to zoning and attached to subdivision. So it's not one set of definitions here and another set of definitions. These are the definitions that go with the zoning and subdivision. Another idea would be to merge the two documents together. I think if we can get rid of duplicateness, that's fine, if there's still a need to keep them separate, maybe, but I mean, that's, anyways, if you, I know he had something specific in mind. I'll reach out. And maybe instead of waiting for four, we can get one to draft his idea. Mm-hmm, perfect. Okay. So the next step would be to look at rolling. I mean, these are reasonable things. Maybe look at, I'm a little concerned about the accessory apartment and the RPDI. That's a crack in the foot in the door that I'm a little worried about. Where did it say that? Zoning. They're made of juices, caretaker apartment. Okay, so yeah, caretaker apartment is not an accessory apartment. Caretaker apartment. Okay, yeah. Well, that makes my little panic come down. I think this is like, this is a flag to me. And that's why it's coming back to the planning commission table. Yeah. And then you're right to have that flag. If we couldn't use the word may consider, then yeah, probably. Let's roll around the table here. Josh, the items that were in front of us, do you support rolling them in? Yes. Rolling and for active review. Yeah, rolling and for admin support them like pass them tonight or anything, but yeah, rolling for active review, definitely. John. Yeah, definitely I would support as well for review. David. Yep, no issues. Patty. Yeah, no issues. Okay, so we've got working list. Paula, you've been sitting there pretty quiet all night. Do you have anything you want to present to us, share to us or give us your thoughts on? I've forgotten you before. I didn't want to make that mistake again. I think so. I think at some point, once we get a little further like in the town center, not the town plan work group, we probably need to figure out what the PC needs to start focusing on. But it sounds like there's still public comment to work on and I think that's a great that that group's got. Yeah, I don't know how many, you've got a bunch of different setups, touch points arranged already are planned. Right. You've got the recommendations from the RPC. So at some point, it sounds like maybe December-ish we'll be able to start looking at that stuff as a merge point or? Yeah, or maybe January. Maybe January. Yeah, that's okay. It's only one meeting in December. So if they're having their groups meeting in December. Well, maybe that's our rough target then is to start, have the PC come together on the town plan in January. If we've got enough stuff then we can dedicate a whole meeting to just that. Anyways. I think that sounds good. I have a question. What about all the PUD stuff that I was reading about the CCRPC suggesting for us? I read that page that talked about their recommendations. Is that something that we need to address? As a part of the town plan, you mean? Or just what he was talking about. Yeah. I mean, I don't know because it sounds to me I've just been listening and whenever there's a PUD discussion I don't know if that's something that has to be changed because CCRPC is recommending it or is that something maybe the statute or whatever. I don't know. I guess I'm just asking is that something we need to address at some point because I saw it in today's packet. PUDs in general or something we want to address this go around in some detail. And we want to... I know nothing. I'm a blank slate. So I'm open to it that I didn't know. Excuse me, Dusty. Did you say something you want to go through in this go around? I hear you say that. We've been fighting with PUDs every single time we've seen one. I would like to... And I think their support from other commissioners are trying to find out what we're actually doing with them. So I would say that we want to touch PUDs this time around. Okay. So yeah, there are a couple suggestions already for some small changes. I'm very supportive of changes to PUDs. I feel like it might be a larger dive if we can find some smaller easy changes all for it. But I think it probably needs an overhaul. That's... But if we won't do it if we don't take a swing at it. But like anything, if we get into it and find that it is too big for anyone... Anyways. Excuse me, Dusty, can they hear us? I don't know if they can hear us. They're not saying anything. So... Well, that's why I'm... Yes, we can hear you. Yeah, we can hear you fine. Okay, no problem. I didn't want to explain to you guys. Okay. Okay. I think that's all we have. Yeah, the person. So let's move on for the minutes of... Oh, we have the roof 15 quarter study. Oh, roof 15 quarter. Thank you. Okay, what do we got on that? So just as a reminder, there was a presentation a couple of months back. Was it, maybe it wasn't even that long ago? Not that long. Few meetings back. And the, you all had some discussion but wanted to take a little bit more time to think about it and see if you had any further recommendations for the consultant who would be wrapping up the project. And I know that John had some comments as well. He was not at that meeting, but has provided some comments already for you all. So, you know, at least he'll ask something to say. I don't know where else we'll go with this. John, you want to go, you want to sort of verbalize? Sure. Submit, send in. Just in a nutshell, I'm just not swayed to the points that there is a speeding issue on that corridor to the data. I could be swayed one way or another, but to me, the data isn't showing it. And it just got me thinking like what, I don't recall what even spawned us to think there was a need to conduct a speed study to begin with for that. I don't know if anybody else recalls why we decided that was needed, but certainly as a, since this came up, it's been top of mind to me. And I traveled that corridor at least twice a day, the entire stretch, and I don't see speed issues. You know, and when I looked, I revisited the presentation that's in the folder today, and I still think the numbers that are shown are pretty minimal. And I looked up more on the whole 85th percentile study, and they say that generally speed is designed, speed limits are designed for expecting people to go plus or minus five miles per hour over what it says. That's pretty much the expectation always. And the numbers are not that far off in what I'm saying. And I just, I could be swayed. I think it would be helpful to see, you know, how many vehicle speeds were collected over what period of time in each one of those areas. There's nothing mentioned about that. And like, what was the minimum sample size? Are we talking 25 cars or 100 cars? And make a big difference in, you know, how I might be swayed to agree that yes, this is definitely an issue. And similarly, I guess, you know, how many traffic incidents have been reported in what type in those corridors? You know, I can't tell you the last time I've seen somebody pulled over in that area for what appears to be a speed-related incident. I really can't, I don't remember the last time. So that's my feedback. I'm just looking for more data to support that there really is a speed issue there, that's all. Because I'd hate to slow down traffic that's already not that fast to begin with. Good points, John. So in a sense, let's see the data backing up the numbers. Exactly, and I could definitely be swayed if I just see the data and just not seeing it right yet. I would be, what else do we have for thoughts or comments? Not you, John, necessarily, but anybody? I'm kind of interested to see more data in the way that John was talking about because I just had to scroll back through this study to see if I was remembering it correctly, that the westbound between Old Stage and Billy Butler, the average speed was 41 and the 85th percentile speed was 48. And like John, I go through there a bit and I'm usually going like 20, it feels like. So I do kind of wonder what time, basically a reiteration of John's questions. I'm just kind of curious. David, any thoughts? No, I'm good. The only thing I would have wanted to do at some point if we move forward with any of the recommendations is to dial in public works because some of the solutions would require some of their input. The public works actually was a part of the study. So it started out with Dennis and then Aaron took over. So they have been a part. And I think one of the largest comments was that some of the changes that would maybe be or that are suggested would require, it'd be hard to do it because it's a state-owned roadway. What might require the town to take over the roadway? And public works is like, we are not taking over the roadway. It really sounds like the question is, are we trying to fix something that truly isn't broken? And I think it's just as a reminder, I wasn't here for the ETC Next Plan, but this came out of that. So it was a way to try to make it more walkable, make it give that quarter more identity as well. So those traffic calming measures, the pedestrian biking measures were with that in mind, tying into the ETC Next. And nobody's saying that those are all going to happen or that they're going to even happen soon, but it's some tools in the tool belt down the road, literally, I guess. That could be implemented at some point. Yeah, that's why I wasn't keen on the plan at all because I agree with what everybody else said about the traffic is calm. I mean, I'd go 25 miles an hour. It's not, it's the amount of cars. I mean, we can't stop the amount of cars coming from Milton, 663 per day. I have that as a statistical fact, come to Saxon Hill Business District from Milton. But you were part of a study in Milton where pedestrian orientation development was what the people of the town wanted. And that's why I am not at all interested in this study because it doesn't address it in my opinion. It actually does. Not enough. No, but it does. It does address. I don't think it's appropriate. I mean, I think it's not like Milton. Well, we're not in Milton. I know. Yeah. And this was a different study. The methods were different. And I think the desired outcome was different when it started. Yeah. But maybe the reason I don't have anything to say about it is, I guess, and I know no one's going to want this, it has to be a town road for what I want personally. So that's why I'm just going to keep my mouth shut. But maybe if we can get numbers behind this, ultimately, maybe this might be something we accept and put in our toolbox as recommendations if we get to the point of thinking that we need changes or something like it. We have a model we have something we can look at without necessarily trying to implement this at this point. Makes sense to me. But I think to John's point, without statistics, without a statistical number, 38%, 89%, without the numbers to back it up, doesn't mean stuff. It's just numbers. So is it 89th percent of 10 cars or 10,000 cars? There's a big difference. So John, thank you for putting that detail out there. No problem. Can I add one more quick thing? Absolutely. So I did, I looked back. I saw that one bullet in the presentation that said that this came about as a result of the master plan. Specifically, it mentioned the speed. And that had me questioning what was in our plan. So I looked back and I didn't find anything in there. But what it did make me think of is perhaps what spawned the speed study is, we know no doubt about it. We want better connectivity and walkability, pedestrian safety. So I think those were the things that spawned this study. But back to your comment, Dustin, is are we solving the right problem? I think, or putting in mediums are going to slow down traffic. Maybe that is a solution to get better things safer or better connectivity. But we shouldn't focus on solving a problem of speed. One speed, it isn't an issue. And we ought to consider what other issues it might bring up if we make traffic too slow. So that's all, that's it. Okay. Now, I don't think it has anything to do with speed. I think it has to do with infrastructure need for pedestrians. I think it has absolutely nothing to do with speed. So I agree with you there. Okay, sounds like we've beat that one enough for the night. So we have a few things we've, we have anything else that we want to touch on tonight? This seems like enough. I think so. Okay. Let's do the minutes of October 13th. I'm not sure which version I have or if there are multiple versions, but I'm going to bring up the one that I have. I think there's only one. Good. Can I get a motion for the minutes of 10-13? I'm moving through. Oh, go ahead. I'll move we approve the minutes from October 13th. A second. Moved by John, seconded by Patty. Does anyone want to offer any changes to the minutes as presented? Grammatical corrections, Sharon. I'm sure I'm assuming you put them in as we went. Hearing none. All those in favor? Signified by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes carry five zero. Do we have any other business? To present to us this evening. Please say no. No. I have a motion we adjourn. A second. Moved by David, seconded by Patty. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? We are adjourned. Seven, 20.