 We are going to call a meeting to order for the Colchester Planning Commission, 704. So the first thing we have tonight is the public comment on items not on the agenda. I think we're good to go on that. So the next rate off is our NBI wastewater project. I'm looking like a work session for commissioners. So what you have in your packets is an amalgamation of a variety of things that were sent. I really appreciate the time effort everybody took in submitting. It's a very, very rough draft. I think there needs to be a lot more formatting to it. I know Sarita couldn't be here. She sent some comments. I'd like to get some overall comments tonight, not so much word smithing. I think what my intent is to hopefully walk you guys through a little bit of the formatting structure tonight and then have your next meeting be that sort of final word smithing, choosing words with a presentation early November. So that's a little bit about where we're at and I know people were sending emails sometimes out to the whole group so they got to see it before it got put in. Sometimes it just came directly to me. So thank you all for your hard work on it. So and before you, you have Sarita's comments. I print it off too. So do you want to go through it section by section or what is your pleasure? Yeah, I think section by section. So I'll start with the first section and just say that I think we could reformat this a little bit more into like an executive summary and restate at the very beginning a sort of collapse form of the spreadsheet. I think that would be helpful to start. I think I have the spreadsheet in the appendices and we'll leave it there as well but also sort of staying it in paragraph form a quick summary at the beginning would be useful to sort of do an executive summary. If we break it out into an executive summary and then maybe moving that first paragraph into sort of a problem statement in terms of peers overall what we did here's why we did it and then sort of lead into how this sort of came to the playing commission. And then a quick couple paragraphs about the public process involvement and talking about the kickoff to sort of break this down into more discrete sections rather than it's a very long narrative and then segue into the review of the different options with the land conservation option being the first. Did anybody have anything on the first page or so the overall summary? Trying to jump back into. Yeah, it's pretty straightforward. But we did it and how we did it. I think Serita had a first paragraph of an intro beginning with effects those along the bay as well as larger community and joyous recreational opportunities. I think it'd be helpful to add a reference to the community strategic plan which is the heritage plan. Was her comment so we can most certainly do that. All the public workshops, all comments were about journal pollution to the bay, not wastewater. I think there's some confusion that we're trying to look at cleaning up the whole bay and it's what this whole issue is and our charge is just the wastewater. Just wondering if we should say something in here that this isn't like one project out of many that there's other projects out there to address the other water pollution sources. Anything else on the intro? Let's look into land conservation. Thank you, Nick for pulling this together. It was interesting. I left everything, I tried to reformat things to serve have everybody match. I tried to leave everything as much as possible and it was an interesting point he brought up about relocation funds and we do not need to worry about providing relocation assistance if we were to trigger some sort of a local program here. So I think that relocation assistance could be able to come out. I think the other thing that might be useful of clarifying as well, we did have our intern Marty looking to grants. There is no ready grant source that would cover the full amount. Full amount meaning all 126 parcels. Right. The only other thing that I was thinking of adding was even if it's a portion of, which I don't even know what the definition of that would mean, does that mean three? Does that mean five? Does that mean a quarter of those properties? What true impact would that have of reducing wastewater into the inner bathhouse bed? So I think that's an important concept. Even if it's a portion of or added to one of those other options, is it truly an impactful way of reducing waste water? Not until you get to year 50. Which I think is really important to say in that. Even on the 126 parcels, I mean even if there's half of those, even if all of them are purchased, there's still a total of 289 in that, that contribute potentially, and that contribute are in the high risk area. So is that truly a viable option? In some of these we don't know until we get onto the property and knock the place down and find out, oh, where's the septic that we have to backfill? Well, there wasn't one. Oh, okay. Cross that one off the list. Yeah, I haven't had time to read all this, but this doesn't involve a minute domain. This is buying properties as they come up on the market. It's looking at purchasing all the leak from properties over a period of 50 years. And the hope would be that you would do as many as you could through consenting sellers and willing buyer. But if you were going to, there might be a few holdouts that you might have to pull out all the stops for at the end. Is there room in this discussion for a footnote about, I think a very good point was made that there used to be a fund that perhaps bought a few opportunistically and maybe put a footnote that it's a recommendation of doing this study that the town should consider having such a fund again, so that if a distressed property that had all the other features that you make it want to conserve, perhaps being open space for recreation, that the town could do that. It might be past the scope of this letter, but we're talking about it. I think we can add in, maybe not necessarily a footnote about recommendation that the town can serve such a fund in the future for those sorts of opportunities. You know, I think it's good, those that don't know the past are doomed to repeat it, but I'm not sure going into too much detail about the past program would be helpful in looking at a solution. I think the point that you're trying to make is that if there was a land conservation fund, it could be used in a variety of different ways, moving forward in terms of potentially addressing this situation or future situations. That's a good point, but how far does that fund go, right? So the fund would be to acquire the parcels, I assume, probably demolition costs, but what about loss in property taxes to the town? I think that's an important aspect to a lot of what-ifs, I know, but to purchasing all of these properties. The benefits, of course, of removing the source, but then the drawbacks, only purchasing, removing in the loss in property tax. And I'll bet you one of the reasons that that funding stopped was they realized the potential of actually having enough money to purchase those expensive properties that are gonna get up and up in value each and every year. Probably wasn't viable in the long run. It was subject to voter reauthorization. I think Jack Scully did an excellent job at providing some of the history to it. It sounded like they took the main, held it for a while, and so there wasn't something going on that perhaps people felt like they could get behind. It did result in the purchase of the properties right adjacent to Lower Bayside Park. So it helped the park. I'm not sure that helped water quality, but... I wouldn't be opposed, though, to adding some language of what Mark was saying. If this were to be a procedure, if this is going to be looked at, that some sort of funding source through this land conservation fund needs to also be looked at just in a broad term. Mm-hmm, any questions or anything else that's are struck people about land conservation? Serita had a comment under paragraph one, creating a priority list of parcels for purchase based upon ways for our risk is not feasible. Add due to, I think it's important to cite or explain the state regulations and our code and why it's not feasible for Colchester to test some more septic systems without their permission. There's still some community members who don't understand why Colchester can't locate the offending sites that are contributes to equal and hold them responsible. You guys okay with incorporating Serita's thought? I agree, I think there is that misconception. I think it should be kind of called out. Anything else on land conservation? You can go through the wordsmithing next time. But thank you, Nick. I think you did a comprehensive job at capturing. Yeah, but I think you had the most experience about it. I don't want to have the most experience. Community septic. Bob, thank you for typing this up. I think we had a really good amount of information given to us by the hydrologists too. I tried to pull that in sort of the intro. I think what we can say in some of that intro, it's sort of hesitated about this because I think while we found the possibility of additional capacity, we'd have to do a lot more additional study to find out the exact amount. Serita had in her comments about community septic as a Colchester citizen very concerned about adding 100,000 gallons of wastewater a day might do to de-stabilize the slope. I would want a slope stability analysis to be completed before this option move forward or the cost be necessary to stabilize the slope. I don't know how far into the weeds we want to get into this option. I don't know how much a slope stability survey would cost. I think we could maybe just leave it at the fact of under that sort of second paragraph at the end, reworking that a little bit to say that there are many issues that would need to be addressed if this option was to move forward, including slope stability. And she also was concerned about impacting the opportunities for the community. So maybe more explicitly reference the park plans that are going on for it. Anything else? Thank you. You provided some really good bullets. I flushed out a little bit more. I just want to reserve that between now and the next meeting that I can read it a little bit more closely and get back to you if there's anything more. I want to get you a product that you can read a little bit more closely too. I remember from the town planning you were my good wordsmither. Well, I mean, just beyond the wordsmith, I mean just reading it in general, that's it. Had other things on your plate. I know it's time. Yep. You lived a real life. Huh? You lived a real life. It was too much fun on our path for the last three months. Let me just ask a question. In that table, we didn't have the land purchase. Should we add the land purchase to the table for the cost of? Because it's a sunk cost. This is incremental cost. Hey, then I don't understand why we should include it again in this. So we purchased the land with the intent of using it for a park for $1.1 million. I don't believe it's fully paid off yet. That was brought up. We would most likely need to have some sort of approval. That's the diluted waste water on that too? I don't believe we need approval from the voters to do the testing. But before we went to construction, if you look back at that whole process with the purses of Bayside and Hazelette, it was implicit that it was gonna be bought and used for some sort of recreational purpose. The idea was that we'd go back to the voters because we need approval or funding to do anything on it. And at that time we'd ask for their approval in terms of was it going to be a community center or park or something of that nature? I think if we went out to the voters to build a waste water treatment plant, we'd be asking for use of the park as well as the authorization for funding. That makes sense. It's definitely a cost. Yeah. Let's talk about that. Anything else under community septic? This is only a partial solution as well, correct? This is about 100,000 gallon capacity versus the 120, 120, 120. Right. It could be more or less. It was within that range. Does this include good sale point as well? Well, that's one of the things that you'd have to take a look at is once you got through tens of thousands of dollars or more study to find out what the specific size of the system was that you could accommodate, you'd have to take a look at what all the options were. I think one of the things that we talked about under community septic, I don't think we talked about generally about looking at good sale point area and it was not enough potentially yield from their green area to accommodate their flows. It's like 3,000 gallons at best. It's hard to say. It costs the 200,000. That's mostly for additional staff. Yes. Hired by the town. We currently do not have wastewater operators and we'd at least need to hire two. Does that also include any liabilities associated with that like pension or anything like that? Yes, it would have to include all that when I sort of floated those numbers to Gene, although he's a private facility and couldn't tell me the cost. He thought that that was a pre can survey number, he could only go up. Senator, do you know what I was going to say? You could probably look to contract. I think Charlotte was part time. I think we'd be in need of something more significant given the size and requirements of the facility. It's like hiring contract employees versus your own employees and how many do you go through and assure the training and we'd be at the end of the day responsible for the testing and having a 100,000 gallon facility on the shore of East Lakeshore Drive. We might want those to be our own employees eventually. But I think each one of these we could have gone into four or five pages on, but I think in terms of keeping a report that people will read, it was very succinct and got to the points on each issue, so. Community septic, anything else? People need to have cookies and get some sugar in their system. Somewhere in the red up to, you had something about, I don't know if it was for the community septic or just a regular septic, but maybe both. But Confer locations on that area or even the tree population in that single parcel let's say we did get the approval from the loaders. We did get everything in place. What happens to the actual land? What does that look like? Those trees are removed guys. It depends through the two different possible options. One was more traditional each field, what we saw up in Sugar Rush. The other is a drip irrigation where they have to do some tree removal, but they use sort of a ditch which and run it readily shallow-y through the trees so you could possibly preserve some of the trees with that. Right. There's also the, what can you put on top of it? I think what we saw in Oren is you can put some types of playing fields on top of a traditional each field system. I don't know that you can do that with the the shallow irrigation system. Should that be, does that mention it here that the recreation opportunities would be limited? It's there. Absolutely. You can make sure that we more clearly address that. Does this still have the failure rate maybe less so as a normal septic system? Should that be? There's a lot more monitoring and testing involved to be able to detect failures. I think what you saw with the Sugar Rush system is they alternate their different leach fields. So. It would minimize any type of failure and then there's redundancy. Everything mechanical fails. But the amount of oversight that Gene Martin was showing us at the Sugar Rush facility that they have over it and automation and all the bells and whistles that go off really are something that you would never see on a traditional septic system in terms of being able to indicate when things are starting to go wrong and being able to take corrective action. Do those costs incorporate any of the, those estimates incorporate any of the piping or pump stations that might be required to get to them? So the sewer collection system, the 8 million was pulling the pipes in the ground along the roads and the collection pump stations that would be needed to bring it to a facility. The waste fire treatment facility itself was somewhere around $4 million, $4.4 thereabouts. And then once you're looking at the leach field, $250,000 was what we estimated. It depends if you're going with the irrigation or the traditional. I think we were looking at more of a traditional system. Any other questions, comments? I don't think Sarita had, I think she had, it was a separate email where she sort of went through all the different, playing commission looked at the viability of the community's septic system that would provide solutions in the ongoing pollution amounts. They do the faulty and or failing septic systems, integrated of our resources management plan provides information on how an integrated system could be used, possible locations, conditions necessary to support such a system. And then she sort of goes through what we did sort of early on about Lake Shore Drive, Goodsell Point, Heaslet, Property. I think a lot of what she has written here is incorporated into the existing document, but we can look to, I'll look to try and marry in some of her specific comments. Because I think what she did was she went more into, and we didn't go into this about Goodsell Point. I think we simply stated up on the top about task or the integrated water resources management plans stated that the community septic system, community septic was perhaps viable along the non-Lake side section of East Lakeshore Drive at one location, the Goodsell Point area, no community septic areas were deemed viable within the West Lakeshore Drive area using this information, the hydrologist evaluated the possibility of using the Bayside Heaslet Town Owned Property for community system. I think Suriya is a bit more specific in her comments about the survey that was done and what have you. So I think my only question to all of you is how specific do you want to be? Do you want me to try and include the majority of her comments detailing Goodsell Point, East Lakeshore Drive? I would say no, also. Yeah, that's for the sewer. So that's conflated a little bit. We weren't that specific about the community system. Yeah, there's a few things I don't, I guess I would need to ask her on-site staff don't need to be on-site 24-7. The property would need to be bought back from the town at current value, I'm not sure what that means. It means that the property was purchased for 1.1 with the intention of using it for a park and would we have to buy it back from ourselves? Right. But I don't think we can clearly state that it'd have to be 24-7. We would definitely have to have that meandered monitored. Oh, I know details, we'll get back to you. I'll work with Sarita on this and just try and include some generalities, but the operating costs that she has listed here are the ones that are associated with the sewer project. She has the concern about the odor. I thought that was in there. It was in there. I don't know, I thought it was, but I don't know. I was reading her, is that good? In there too, right? Chains of malfunction as well as smells associated with operation could have negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. Even when they were just lodged or something. Yeah. Okay, all ready. Yeah, you didn't have it in the findings, that's where it was, the chance of malfunction. I don't quite understand what Sarita was saying when the property would need to be bought back from the town. I'm not clear on that. I don't, that's nothing that's been determined. I think she was getting at the issue of the property being purchased for 1.1 with the intent of using it for a park, and that the cost of it should be factored in. That would be something that we'd have to seek legal advice on in terms of whether or not it was, it hasn't been paid off, so I'm not sure that we can buy it back, and I'm not sure that I would. The town owns it. It would just more be a voters consent to change plans. Right. Yeah. Just out of curiosity, how was that purchased? Was that a bond? Yes, general obligation bond. Just that chunk of property that you think would be viable for the septic solution by the houses that were going to use as a community septic. That's a good question. Actually, somebody has to pay for that. It's the houses that are using it, it's part of their cost, right? Maybe that's where she's getting to. Maybe. I'll see if I can clarify with her. I think she'll be back shortly. Everybody ready for sewer? Jump in feet first. Winky goes up. I have all sorts of sewer or septic puns that I can use. Well, that one's pretty straightforward. That's just kind of restating the whole process we went through. Right, I think, I was thinking about this after the last meeting about the dispute in whether or not things would impact value. And I think this is true for potentially the community as well as from the sewer is recognizing those camps right now that are stuck, that can't convert, that might be able to convert. After they go through that whole conversion process, there is the possibility of realized value there. And so perhaps we do add that in as a line. I agree that the property values probably go up. Which is not a bad thing for a cactus. It's a bit of a carrot to get people because right now, if you don't know what you have for a septic energy season, it seems to work. One cent of do you have to upgrade? Versus if you want to go year round, you have to upgrade. So thank you, Prisha. You rocked this. You pulled some stuff together last minute. I think it was looking at standardizing too is I should probably spell out like 100,000 as opposed to 100K in the annual. It was one of those standardized things I missed out. Anything else from anybody on this? Serita. Inclusion, let me say implementing the sewer system in the project area is like the most conclusive thing in the whole, no, but I think, I mean, you took a stand, I don't know that anyone else did. Good job. That is true, she didn't take a stand on that. There's nothing wrong with that though, but yes. And actually, for myself personally, I would think that it's time to take a stand on the final results of what we think here. It's probably that time. I personally think sewer just, we're top dog and we try to find something that can take it down. We just couldn't do that. All the findings and all the work we put into this that's the best way I look at it personally. But that doesn't mean that has to be the final say. Did you mention upfront that this was an option put towards the citizens and it was voted down? Was that mentioned before? Or should it be mentioned here? I don't think that's our deal. No, but it's, you know, it's in everybody's mind that. It's mentioned in the do not. Some people think it's a dead issue that we shouldn't even be looking at it, so. So do you want me to add in a contextual intro? I think so. I think we have to. That'd be back at the beginning. Uh-huh. It is one of the reasons why we're doing it. Yep. I think Sarita had, it's a correction to the chart about sewer, but I don't think she had anything under this. Anything else? You guys are awfully quiet tonight. It's been a long ride. Yes, it has, but Pam brought you cookies, so you should be sugared up and all right, do nothing. Thank you, Mark. You pulled this together and, I think perhaps what I was looking at this and thinking that maybe we add in about the number of years the Integrated Water Resources Management plan and the amount of money that that costs at the beginning when we talk about previous work. During the course of the commission's outreach, there are calls to conduct a general study in the scope, maybe somewhere in there mentioned, similarly to how we did in sewer that that was something that was brought to the voters and was turned down that there's this Integrated Water Resources Management plan that took almost a decade and millions of dollars and despite that, there are calls to conduct additional studies. I think it more polly conveys because I think people are aware of it, but still have questions. And my bullet points, I thought of one other one. Concerns about negative impacts of increased development. And that was a big one. We spent the whole thing about the build out study, trying to wrap our heads around the way. I would like to note here at the findings, the last one before the bullet points that that's a separate kind of, kind of gets washed in there the way some public sentiments, I think it almost should be a heading above the bullet points. Okay. Yeah, exactly. There should be a line above that, the bullet points there. So it kind of runs together otherwise. So move it to more of a header. Yeah. Yeah. Serita had under better enforcement, efforts to ID and whole polluters accountable. She said, again, need to set regulations, state statute that limits Colchester's ability to hold polluters accountable. I think what Mark was doing with the bullet list was saying some of what we've heard. I don't know if that goes below in that paragraph. Yeah, that's the reason for the sentiment, but it's just a list of sentiments. Yeah. You always, I'm thinking that somebody will seek findings and it'll jump right to the bullet points. They won't read the little paragraph. Oh, yeah. You know what I mean? They'll go, oh, findings, just take all the... Yeah, those weren't our findings. Those were the sentiments of the phone. I'm trying to explain in the context of do nothing is essentially what was voted on when the sewer was voted down. So it's trying to... It's funny over the time that their process of this... I spoke to a lot of people who told me they just don't have enough information and they weren't informed enough to make a decision. I found that very interesting through the course of the last couple of months of people telling me that. And I thought we've done a pretty good job trying to provide that. I'm concerned if I do read this about the better enforcement efforts could identify and hold polluters accountable. I mean, that's an ideal world but we don't mention anything that right now we cannot do that. Well, I think that was part of Cerrito's in that paragraph. These are, I think, correctly stating some of the public sentiments that were erred to the commission, but sort of rebutting some of it in the next paragraph. She says, again, we need to say regulation and or state statutes that limit Colchester's ability to hold polluters accountable. And then she recommended adding to the final paragraph the Montenegro act 64 clearly states that the statutes require municipalities that are responsible for adding pollution as the lake takes steps to restore impaired water and come into compliance with the act. The goal of the federal EPA is to continue to monitor Lake Champlain, all the surface waters in Vermont to ensure I address impaired water. So I think I can take some of that that she's offered and when you put it right in the cost of an action that's considerable paragraph. Question about the Clean Water Act. Does the act specify how soon a municipality has to take action in order to incur consequences? No. It talks about, so under the Environmental Protection Agency there's the total maximum daily load which is specifically looking at phosphorus for Lake Champlain, a timeline for the state to clean it up. I think it's, I'll work with Sarita on this because I'm not sure that act 64 is specific to our problem, but I think the intent of stating that the state as a whole is holding municipalities accountable for pollution is a good thing to put out there. Anything else under the do nothing? I just have a question. Has, were there more beach closings this year than last year or is there any trend? Because we make the statement that it'll continue to get worse, which I don't doubt but is there facts of that? Beach closings are interesting. They're a symptom of the problem. They're not the sole symptoms. So I don't know about the over-alliance upon that. We could look into those numbers and possibly include them, but you know, I don't know the numbers off the top. I had to be very honest as I'm sitting here tonight. I'm trying to recollect I don't have the numbers. However, what I would say, which has sort of been fascinating to me, is when we talk about the area being a high-risk area with twice the rate of failures as the rest of the community, the fact that we saw four to five systems fail just over the last, hasn't even been five months within the area and now we're looking at triple or maybe we're even at quadruple the rate for the rest of the community. In terms of looking at different symptoms, there are a variety of ones that we can pull out and extrapolate and I worry about putting an emphasis on any particular one. Properties that everything's high and dry, there's no problem, great, but the minute you get a lot of rain on that piece of property, that small piece of property, they have washes a lot more into the lake and we've been very fortunate this summer that we didn't have a whole lot of heavy storming and stuff once we got through the wet season. But I think that might be why I don't know the numbers either compared to previous years but I do know that makes a big difference. Somewhere in this report, should it be mentioned about what you just said about the last five months that we've had this increase in failures? Sure. It was so hard at this. Anything else on do nothing? It was a very wide ranging category and I think Mark did a really good job at distilling the essence of it but I'm sure that there are things that we've missed or any other thoughts? While I move on to the chart, the chart needs reformatting. I think when Sarita was looking at it, they clipped it when it changed into a PDF. It's a chart in a word doc. It's never good in terms of fitting all the words in. Sarita had a comment under the purchase and conserve effect on property values, that the removal of properties from cultures whose grand list would add additional tax burn to taxpayers. I think she didn't say where she wanted that but she goes on to say a revenue source for funding to purchase properties at fair market value as the land on the open market if they ever do would need to be created. So I don't know if she was looking at estimated cost and then potential funding sources to add those in because we do have under property tax values and taxes we have production values do the removal of improvements on properties and increase townwide to compensate. That kind of covers it. I think to Mark's point too about we would need to create something to fund it. Well, boy, maybe that's needs to be mentioned under funding sources. Yeah, I agree. Under sewer, Sarita had the South Burlington facility provide a high degree of what operation performance management will have you. I think that cut off on her. I think it was under reliability. It was supposed to be high degree of reliability with continuous automated monitoring and trailing to wastewater professionals. Anything else under sewer chart? Sarita had a comment under community septic under neighborhood character, possible odor, especially during sledge removal would impact nearby homes and possible property values. So we add odor under neighborhood character. Anything else? Can you septic rolling through do nothing? She did not have any comments. Anything else going once, going twice? Looks good. I think you're doing a great job of rough draft first round. Yeah, I was very impressed with what everybody wrote. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. So for their next meeting, we'll have that flanking. Yep. Sounded off. I'll try and get into the Dropbox early so people can start their word smithing and we'll go through word by word if we need to at the next meeting and get cleaned up. Are we going to have a conclusion paragraph or executive summary? Well, I think we are going to try and reformat that intro paragraph to have an executive summary and restate the spreadsheet in a paragraph form. So this is more information to give the select board. It's not really a viewpoint of giving a recommendation. It's just looking at what the options are. Must be a recommendation, isn't it? It can. I think you do that under the sewer. As you said, that was the only one that really had a sort of stronger point to it. So we can look to try and encapsulate that into an executive summary, pull some of the wording from the sewer section. The reasons why. Yeah. Look at the world. All good. And you thought you were done with the town plan and drafting things. Where's Zach? Your minutes? Yes. I need a motion. My favor. All right. That's your discussion. All right. Packet information. So you have in the packet information a couple of things I want to call your attention to. There's some correspondence from Brian Castello. He have follow-up email that he asked I share with you. That's before you tonight. I'll get into the packet later for the sake of making sure that you saw it tonight. There is also correspondence from Jack Scully about the odors, as well as correspondence from Amy McCrellis from Stone, providing some additional information. As to, I think it was recommended in odor mitigation, you could plant trees, and you can't plant trees on top of a septic tank. And she provided the whole sort of Warren system information in case anybody really wanted the very thorough read on that. Thought that was great. And I think it was great, too, that Jack Scully looked into this issue that arose that some people had odor issues and investigated it. So it's all there if you want to read through all of it. South Burlington is amending their development regulations. There's a nose of hearing on that if anybody had questions on that. There's also our work plan for the year. Feel free to not read all of it, but go back to the very last page of it, because that's where the sort of planning commission stuff kicks in. When we're taking a look at those last two pages of what our department's doing for the year, a lot of this is taken right from the town plan in terms of what's on our to-do list. And you can see there's stuff in the land use chapter that then hits the development regs. There's some stuff in the energy chapter that gets into the development regulations, too. But really, when you get down to these sort of discretionary projects, that's where a lot of these smaller, more sort of discrete projects like rezoning requests kick in. And there are several, I think, we're up to 32. So I think what I'm going to be asking more specifically from you at your meeting by sort of wanting to what your appetite with this was, we can start pulling out some of these and taking a look. These have been sitting around for a while. There are some folks that have been waiting for rezoning for the better part of the year so that they can do a boundary line adjustment and build a garage, hopefully before winter. I'd really love to get going on some of these. So I think you're going to have a lot of wordsmithing at your next meeting. But I'd like to try and pull together some of these. That might make sense to try and hit with a quick supplement first. East Lakes Road Drive is high in your priority list to take a look at. I'm not sure that we want to keep some of these folks that just need these quick fixes beholding to what will be a much larger project of East Lakes Road Drive. So if it's all right with you, I'd like to pull out some of these things on this list that could be addressed rather quickly. And you get a quick win with your zoning supplement and fixing the development regulations and then move into East Lakes Road Drive and some of the more substantial stuff. Sounds good to me. I think people have been very patient with us. Great. We're into the 40s now. I know. Time flies when you're having fun. Oh, good. Yes, sir. The emotional journey. I can make emotional journey. I'll second. I'll fifth. All right. Thank you. You're very good. Thank you.