 So I'll get started. Like to call the order of this June 13th. Meeting of the popular planning commission. First thing you have to do is approve the agenda. So. Someone's ready. I'll take a motion. I motion to approve the agenda. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Sure. Okay. Motion from gave and I heard John first. We'll see the seconds from John. Those are favor of approving the agenda. Say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. Comments from the chair. I have a few things. So I wasn't here last time. So. Just run through some updates for folks. If there's anything big last week that I might have missed, I did take a look at the minutes, but. But feel free to chime in anybody if you have anything. So the updates. Our, our bridge article about housing is going to be in the next. In the next issue. It's, it hasn't, hasn't been published yet. So early July, I believe. When we can expect to see that it's going to be published as a commentary. They had me cut down the words. I ended up cutting, I don't know, like 30, 40 words. They also, she also asked for a bio, even though it was a planning commission document. So they have a bio for me on there. So, so that's happening. They were agreeable to future commentaries in a similar way. Cause we had talked about doing the solar shading and. And density discussions the same way. So they're, they're ready to agree to that. The editor's name was Cassandra. So she was agreeable. So I'll use that as a segue to say that. I think we probably should. Get started soon on drafting a solar shading article. So. If John or Jeff or anyone else that has like notes about the solar shading issue wants to send those along to me. I can draft something. In the next few weeks. Hopefully. And then share that with the group just so we have that ready to go. Cause we are going to probably crank up how much activity we're doing on the city plan pretty soon. So, so let's go ahead and just get ahead on that. While we're not too busy. Another thing I think I'd like to try to get. Headed or get a head start on. Is we had talked about doing an optional arts and culture chapter. So I might take a stab at that. And circulate it with the existing city. Committees that we have. And when I say take a stab at it, just take a stab at some of the, like aspirations and goals and. And things. And if that sounds okay with you, Mike, like that help take anything off your plate. If I. Put in a little bit of preliminary work on that. That's fire trucks going by. I mean, yeah, if you certainly you're welcome to go ahead and do that. I don't know if it makes less work. It'll probably just. It'll eventually get there. But yeah, there, there is an arts committee. Public art committee. And then. You can touch base with Josh Jerome. I mean, yeah, if you certainly you're welcome to go ahead and do that. And then you can touch base with Josh Jerome. He works. He replaced Kevin Casey here in the office. So he would be one of the staff people to contact on that. What's his position. He's the community and economic development specialist. Okay. Yeah. And I'll definitely be involving the public arts commission. Which they seem to. I'm not sure if I'm giving them credit for maybe things they are related to, but. There's been a lot of public art that's gone up at the last couple years and will be there. So. Assuming that was them. They've been busy seems good. Okay. So, so those are some things. Hoping to work on really soon. There's the solar shading article in the arts and culture chapter. Couple other things. I think we're going to start having a high school member. We're going to be having a high school member. We're going to be having a high school member. We're going to be having a high school member. Noah, which is an existing thing. It's just been vacant. So. There'll be. A junior from up here at high school who joins our meeting sometimes and. Is involved in the discussion. And they won't vote, obviously. But that's, that's going to be something that's going to be happening probably at our next meeting. So everyone knows. And. In a similar vein. In a similar vein. In a similar vein. That's going to be a really important thing, especially if you're going to be busy. But I think that's going to be a really important thing. And the post office position is going to be posted. I sent a notice to Mary. I actually had forgotten to let her know. So I sent her note today. Letting her know that Mary. That. Marcella isn't on the commission anymore. So we'll have to get another position posted. So if anybody knows anyone. It'll be. I don't think it's going to be a month for now or when do you think the city council will. The next council meeting is next week so that obviously doesn't fit into anybody's schedule but the meeting after that isn't for like another five weeks I want to say it's like July 27. So, if people are thinking it'll probably get posted in that window of time so people think of something getting getting an application filled out by July 20 would get somebody appointed on the 27th otherwise it's not till mid August. Is it possible if we have someone between now and the next meeting apply or does there need to be some kind of minimum posting period and I don't know it certainly if they if they fill out an application and get it to marry by Friday by this Friday. It's something they could the council could certainly consider filling it in that way but I don't know the official rules of getting it. If somebody just says I heard there was a vacancy I'd like to get appointed maybe they'll appoint them right away. Okay. That's that's helpful enough. Okay, so I think that's about it for comments does anyone have anything they want to share. Okay. Well the next thing on the agenda is an election of a vice chair since we barely have a quorum. Yes going to take a unanimous vote. So first off I guess I would say just does anyone have a nomination of mine. I'd like to nominate. Mr Gabriel legend as the vice chair, the planning commission. Very smooth. I will say this, I think before we can have this discussion I would actually I guess maybe we should have talked about reordering the agenda because I don't feel comfortable until we have the Vermont the Central Vermont Planning Commission figured out. Okay, well we can we can do that we can we can skip ahead to that discussions. It's on the agenda next and then we'll revisit this. And then we'll put a pause on that nomination and open up the next item, which is CVR PC. There's only four of us here, which makes that more difficult, but before we had talked about Marcella being the main person for a while, and gave filling in from time to time as the alternate. Marcella is destroyed. If, if Gabe is going to take on any new responsibilities or anyone's going to take on new responsibilities. Then, then we've got to take that into account when looking at the CVR PC. So first off, Jeff or john to either of you have any interest in filling in and some capacity to help us CVR PC. I think we have a good faith that commit to taking anything on. And I'll have to do that. My available time is different than when I initially brought that up in the early spring. Okay. That's, that's fair. We still have Arianna we have Aaron. And so we can figure something out. I think that it's slightly more important to make sure that the vice chair situations, taking care of Gabe have you been officially put into that position by the city council or anything like the CVR PC stuff. I think there was a nomination that had to go forward and we have we need to have some representation. I don't mind continuing to act as the, you know, as our representative until we figure things out I just feel like, you know, you look at your capacity, how many things can you take on. And I think about the, you know, the vice is that I'm going to be in these meetings anyway so if it's just having someone who can, you know, conduct the business when Kirby's out and there certainly could be other things that advice might take on but I'm okay with that because I'm already going to be here. But to do that with whatever may that may entail if there's, you know, some additional work to be done, and to be the only sole representative at the central Vermont I, I can't do it. So for the vice position I mean the way it's been done in the past, like when I was the vice, it was this way and the way that Aaron and Marcella. You know, took on the position was the vice has involvement and putting together the agenda for the week, which is just a, which is usually a matter of just reviewing what Mike puts together and if anything springs to mind you can comment otherwise you can even be silent and then and you know Mike and I'll take care of it. That's the biggest thing which is not much. And then whatever additional things you could take on or want to take on. So from there it's flexible. And then the other part of that position is just yet to fill in and running the meetings if I'm if I'm out. John is the person that you're that you're thinking about what they be interested in and serving on that central Vermont planning commission as well. It's possible they'd certainly be qualified. But you know maybe getting ahead of ourselves committing them to join it. They haven't they haven't said that they'd be on board for joining the planning commission. That's one thing at a time right. Yeah. Right. Well Aaron's on Aaron must have heard this was going on he's he's ready to volunteer. So Aaron to, to let you know what's going on is we've got the vice chair positions open we saw what we also have this the CVRPC stuff that's up in the air with with Marcella's departure. Aaron had nominated Gabe to fill in for vice chair, but Gabe had also already committed to be an alternate type for the CVRPC. So we're trying to figure out if Gabe were to take on the vice chair role, what we're going to do with CVRPC, but we don't have Ari on here we don't have a position filled so we have some complete and from incomplete information about the CVRPC. Do you have any thoughts Aaron about that info download. I just got on so I don't know what's going on. Did you hear my nomination Aaron. I would just say I guess I would just say this is that as long as everyone knows that I think we need to get somebody into that CVRPC position, you know Mike was the alternate before, and he could go back into that, but I think we need somebody besides me and that role. So as long as we go into that knowing that I'm, I'd be okay, you know, serving curvy. Okay, and I'm fine with with you and my cold and the fork for now, and then us readjusting that in the in the near term. Do we have. Okay, so, so CVRPC thing we're going to just keep the status quo, which is officially Marcella spot is vacant. We're going to use the in there as the alternate. And, and we're going to figure that out when we when more of the pieces come together. So that's, I think that's that's what it sounds like we're going to do with that. And we're not going to put on anything there. So let's, so let's drop that for now and return to the Vice Chair conversation. We have one nomination for gay. We haven't had any discussion of that. Are there any other possible nominations? Can I second caves down nomination, just unofficially. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah, I'm definitely keen on his, what I think our primary focus is, which are housing and other housing things. Do we have any discussion of the nomination, the other nomination, the second, do you need discussion of this. Okay. Is everyone ready to vote. Okay, let's just let's do it this vote. So, those in favor of having gave filled the Vice Chair position, say aye. Any opposed. Okay, so it looks like that was a 50 vote for Gabe to to fill in there. And we'll put the CVRPC thing on the agenda. Next time and revisit that we'll have to see if Ariane has any interest. I have to wait for the new person to see if they have any interests. That is, it is, it's usually the new people who are hazed into doing that so we can see how it goes. Okay, with that, that just brings us to essentially the last thing on the agenda night, and we're 20 minutes in, which is to approve the letter regarding, you know, that proposal about developers reputation. I got a version of that from Mike, we all did this, this like 30 minutes before the meeting and I did a quick like 10 or 15 minute edit session on that, and I sent that to everyone. I can share screen, but if you guys would take a look at my edits, one thing Mike hopefully that what I didn't overstep and, and you're okay with, with me doing that. I have a separate substantive comment, the in the email Mike that you had written, and we had more of the discussion about this when we were, you know, talking about it. Few meetings back. The idea of the proper place for this being enforcement of code. And so in your email, it was like the third to the last paragraph you went through, you know what that process would look like and that's the letter that's written is very legalistic it's as if the only factor to the letter is about whether something's lawful or not but there's a policy, a good policy point that you make in that email that I think needs to be included in here which is the proper place for, you know, discussing violations of code is by enforcing the code. Right and there's there should be a process to deal with. Yeah, and I think I was channeling a little bit. A little bit of john in this one here, when you know I wrote the other other one with all of the, you know, kind of the straw man arguments and then when I wrote the letter I kind of pulled out a lot of those different pieces and kind of really summarized Sometimes a little bit, you know, saying less is a little bit better so I kind of went through and just kind of sum that right up and said, Well, you know what we agree to do is just do what we're doing, which is what we, you know, we're already experienced in an enforcement we already know what we're doing in enforcement. And that's what we should be doing to address the concerns that these folks have. And I guess it's just not quite as, I mean, you know, it was a little you had some examples and stuff but yeah, I just don't I feel like that's very because I missed it. In the worst case where development takes place violations occur city staff will take appropriate action to enforce the city's zoning regulations. Maybe maybe just break that into its own separate paragraph so it stands out or something. And certainly this is your memo to if you guys go back and say hey I want to grab that paragraph or grab those three sentences from from your email and insert them in. This is your This is your memo I wrote a draft for you guys to work with. Mike, are you going to attach Dave Ruiz opinion to this letter. No. He made a wreck. His recommendation was not to put this Council's opinion. He wants that he says it comes legally it puts us into a different position if somebody decides they're going to appeal or someone's going to go forward. I would rather that that's why he wanted us to share that opinion in executive session which we did. And then if Council wants to review the opinion they should review that an executive session because it really is intended for you. And for the Council. I'm just more curious if the intent is to share Dave Ruiz opinion with the City Council directly, whether that probably an executive session or not. The question really is, is this going to be the universe that the City Council reviews when they look at this issue or are they also going to see Dave Ruiz opinion. Dave Ruiz opinion will be made available to them that was why I kind of put it in there. And I don't know between. Yeah. Yeah, we'd be we highly recommend you review the legal opinion of Mr. David ruin executive session and direct any legal questions to him for clarification. Right. Okay. That's helpful. Because we're we're making our opinion and that's why I kind of worded that I don't know if that remained in. Yeah, nice. Yeah. It's just about, you know, this is our, our opinion based on our experience, advice from the director and review. So if, if the, if the thought is that they're probably going to look at Dave Ruiz opinion. As part of reviewing this issue, likely an executive session by recommendation would be to pair this down as much as possible. I don't think we need to really articulate our thinking on what we think Dave Ruiz opinion says and sort of, sort of counter thinking that way, because I think, I think, yeah, I think it's just basically twofold one is to just say, look, we've got this, you know, we got this opinion letter we agree we have a legal opinion from from Dave Ruiz we agree with it. There is a major case out there. And here's what it says, we don't have to contextualize that in this, you know, in this instance here for them, they can look at Dave Ruiz letter and then yeah I think the other piece too is the policy piece that we talked that was discussed earlier which is, you know, we've got enforcement authority. If these issues come up, you know, we won't enforce that way. Yeah, so let's let's apply this discussion to the letter. So right now on this on the screen I'm sharing. I think there's four sentences that summarize the Vermont Baptist Convention decision. I'm comfortable stating it there just in case there aren't city counselors who read the legal opinion so at least we've put a four sentence version of that there. But if you guys want to cut it down more, we can go that route, but right now it's about it's about four sentences here. And then we move on to this Essex rule discussion which is slightly different thing. I didn't touch that. I think the Essex rule discussion is fine. I worry about putting in any analysis on the Vermont Baptist decision because it's sort of. It frames up the letter in a way that sort of puts us out there is acting sort of as like council to that city council which I don't think we should do. I think we should just refer them to look at Dave Ruiz letter. So this this part that's highlighted on the screen now would be the description I did I did rephrase it when I went in and worked on this but it does it does restate and apply the holding from that case to this question, which is kind of what Aaron saying he wants to. He wants us to basically avoid applying the law to anything because that would be like legal advice. What are others thoughts. I mean my thought I was I was trying to keep out of that I chose that one case because I think I'll give you a little bit of my thoughts as I was drafting it was that I didn't want to go and start getting into a legal argument or citing cases. But this one case is a pretty clear case and it's a pretty clear determination that says that we cannot use somebody's identity in the making of a decision. And so I felt rephrasing that whether it's how I worded it or how you worded it, a little explanation of what that case said, I think is important. I agree I think the parenthetical that comes after the citation is fine and perfectly appropriate if it's the sort of the analysis behind it that starts with Kirby's, you know, analysis after it and there's nothing there's nothing wrong with the analysis I just, I get. I worry that it puts us in a place that we don't want it to be when if we're sort of giving our take on it again because we have, we have a letter from Council that spells this all out for them if they want to dig into it. And I agree. And to the extent that there's any, there's any wording in Dave Ru's letter that is inconsistent with what we're putting out here on this letter. To avoid that issue altogether. Yeah, he reviewed this. And he was comfortable with the area the what was struck out he didn't review Kirby's comment but he reviewed the part starting denying a permit to the bobs based upon who they are as an applicant not based upon the merits of the application the proposed development of the use of the property would clearly violate this basic tenant of zoning in the opinion, in the opinion of the planning commission. But I agree. Part of my impression Mike reading it was like it was like I was reading a legal opinion. And I think just the idea of, you know that we are presented this and then recommend that you review that legal opinion yourself so you can, you understand all the things that are associated there. Yeah, and the reason why I also went into that was because of the next sentence part of their argument was that other agencies, Ms Sherman's argument was that other agencies use other agencies and departments within the state considering in fact require an applicant's compliance history, and that's not true in zoning and so that was why I wanted to kind of follow up with that piece was just to go through and say this, this case is why. It's why we can't consider the bobs history. It's also why we can't. We're not like the state agencies and we're not like these other boards, because zoning is unique. It's got this prohibition you can't do this. I do like that. That last sentence that was turned out how do I print the sentence that is struck right now and starts with this prohibition by the course does not exist for some other types of regulations and regulations and boards. Yeah, I rephrase that as. Oh, I do. I can see that. But yeah, we could, we could go with either one. Yeah, I just I just worry that if we're if we're sort of thinking out loud about what we think the courts might do it just I just worry about that. Yeah, and I'm I can I'm saying this stuff, not being an attorney who's trying to worry about sounding like I'm being an attorney, which is why when I when I phrased mine I tried to end mine in the opinion of the planning commission. It was very intentional I wanted to make sure it was in there that this this is our opinion as the planning commission now of course I ignored the fact that a number of you are also attorneys which kind of changes the dynamic for you guys. You know providing opinions as a planning commission that are not legal opinions when your attorneys. So I can see your, your pickle. Yeah, I was I was comfortable with saying this, but but I get Aaron's comment and it. We don't have a, we don't have a lot to gain from redoing David Roos analysis so what do you think about this Aaron was saying we agree is Mr. Yeah, I think that's kind of legal risk considering applicants identity considering application, and then, and then cutting this other stuff. Did you also. Yeah, I think that's, I think that makes perfect sense. So, do you think we should include another sentence there relating to how this might be okay and other regulatory context, or, or leave it. I mean, I think it is worth just planting a flag on that really quickly and just marking it for the reader. Okay, we can just say like you know, we also know that, you know, while consideration of an applicant's prior history might be relevant to issuing permits and other regulatory contexts, that's not the case with zoning, you know, and then just, and then again, you know, you can just that that's in Dave Roos analysis I'm sure. And you might make that another paragraph the other regulatory contexts, and then drag up the we advise you piece again that way we've basically we agree with Mr. and the other one. And then. Nope, down one down one paragraph. I almost feel like we can, we can sort of we can hear. Yes, I feel like we could plug that sentence into the front end of the paragraph that speaks to the Essex rule. I feel like they might be connected a little bit. Maybe not. I'm just trying to think about that right now. Oh, the advice of the legal opinion. Yeah. No, just talking about how. No, never mind. I take it back. Yeah, I think the Essex rule is separate. Yeah. Is everyone okay with what's, what's here now. I did, I did do some caveats here where I said like our understanding and so forth, like, where we're not make making it as a factual claim. I can't tell if Aaron's like word smithing in his mind or if he's good. Just, yeah, I'm fine. I just keep rereading the same three paragraphs or three, three same sentences over and over again. Okay, so so Essex, Essex rule I didn't, I didn't touch. And the last paragraph, I did touch a bit because it also like what Gabe was saying before occurred to me also that I feel I feel like it was a compelling part of our discussion that we're going to review landlords for building code violations. And that's what this is trying to get at but it's getting at it. At a wrong part in the process, a wrong time in the process where we're preemptively. So, so I did try to rephrase a little bit but I, but we could go even farther to make that point clear. What do you think, Gabe. No, I, I think it, I think it's good. Do you have any thoughts Mike about the way it's stated here. No, I think, I think, if you guys are comfortable with that I'm comfortable with it. I'll, whenever we're done I'll send it back to David for some final make sure he's okay with it that. Or, which I think we would be at we haven't added anything his his big concern is whether we get into the legal break into the legal cases. Just for a readability I'm going to accept all changes here. Take a look this last part. I did add the bid in about the landlord, which goes to the building code distinction. Okay, we're ready to vote on this. What's the, what are we voting to do. And to prove the letter as amended here. And then with the understanding that Mike will have David review review again to make sure that that is acceptable for him, and if it is then to pass it on to the city council. My understanding is city council has this on their tentative schedule they've scheduled kind of things out through months this actually isn't on their agenda until September. But we had already kind of started it before they, I thought they wanted it for the meeting coming up. In the next week. But it turns out that it may have so much stuff in their schedule that it kind of got bumped down and bumped down and when I checked the weekly report it looks like it's down in the September but if we've got it early, we can get it off our plate and move it on and not let it get in the way of us when we are when we're actually working. So do we have a motion to prove the letter as amended here. You do. Karen do we have a second. Second. Second from Jeff. Any further discussion. Okay, those in favor of proving the letter for city council as amended. Say hi. Hi. Can you post. I'm staying. Okay. Thank you. I'll email this. This is MPC edits this version, Mike. And that's all that's all we've got for tonight. Yeah, I didn't have much else to put on there, just as an update on the RFP for the web design consultant that is due on the 17th, so let's do five days now four days from now. So let's do this Friday. So we will have those. We'll be in for Friday so that will be on your next agenda so we can review whatever proposals we get in for Friday. I'm expecting at least two. So gone from one to two, and then we'll review those at the next meeting and decide who we who we want to pick up. What are the next areas of the plan that we're going to look at so I can start just thinking about it a little bit. I think we've reviewed all the ones that we have. All the ones that we we finished prior to the only chapters that were left unless curbies work against the arts chapter going is community services. And we do have to do the land use plan. So that'll be an interesting one public safety would be the third one emergency services. However, we want to capture that basically police fire dispatch. Maybe some of the other ones I'm trying to have enough senior moment on some of the other ones that fall into that category so, but we'll get those going so but I've gotten a lot of the community services moving. So that would be the next big one that I would be able to get to you guys but most of the other ones that I've written you guys have reviewed I might be able to get utilities and facilities that's the other one that's basically done. I haven't reviewed it with the DPW staff because they're so busy, but I might be able to peel a little bit of time away from them to do a quick review of that so we can review that one next. And we don't have too many chapters left really. So there's there. There is some some info in the community services game if you wanted to get ahead start looking at what that kind of looks like. I've noticed that there's not a public there's nothing in public safety right now. Look at the current plan to get an idea because I gotta I gotta admit I'm fuzzy about where public safety overlaps with planning. Yeah, there's not. I mean, there, there are places, but there's not a lot. I mean, again, being a city plan we're going to capture a bunch of stuff that may not necessarily relate to say land use or zoning. A lot of the community facilities, you know senior center cemetery. These are required elements to have in your, in your town plan. We discussed them in those contexts but most of those are looking at goals and visions that are going to probably be implemented through policies through potentially some projects or some programs but there aren't going to be a lot of regulations that we'd be recommending for say public safety or the fire department or emergency services. But there may be a lot of projects for emergency services, adding I'll throw one example out. They've been wanting to. There's an outflow. They need to bury a pipe for the outflow from the sewer plant that runs up to the bridge. So that way they can outflow they have to pump it upstream a little bit to outflow it there during the winter. So that way it melts because warm water it melts the ice and prevents ice jams. They've been doing that temporarily they've been basically cooking fire hoses up to run it up there, but DC doesn't like that because of the potential of it leaking and all these other things so, but they've gotten approval to bury fixed pipe to be able to do that. That would be a great emergency services, preventing ice jams by keeping an open flow channel. That's a project that's on their list for the fire department so there are a number of these different projects. There's been a lot of communication stuff if you've watched the city council, a lot of stuff on public safety communications and and all of our changes that we need to have. We've got very old equipment. We've got very very old equipment. And so there's a lot of plans to upgrade the equipment make it more, make it the same equipment is very city, make them interoperable so that way if, you know, something happens to our facility. They can switch over very city can take over all the dispatch and vice versa. We can't do that or we kind of can do that I guess my understanding is, but it's not as smooth as it would be if both facilities were operating on the same system and both had upgraded equipment so, and there's plans to upgrade both the equipment and so those are the things that we would capture in that in that public safety vision goals and strategies what's their vision for making public safety making things safe. What are the goals, lay out those goals, and then lay out the strategies and a lot of them are going to be these projects or policies. That would probably make those most of those as opposed to a lot of what we talk about the regulations and the zoning and the codes is there, and there may be room to also talk about in terms of any of the equipment we purchase you know you hear a lot about fire chiefs want to get the biggest truck possible because it's a big fire truck so that's really cool but then we end up needing to design our streets for the fire truck and not the other way around. Sometimes the biggest fire truck possible is not, this is not conducive to the best urban design so hopefully we can maybe get the fire chief excited about the nimblest fire truck possible or something that allows for design of pieces narrow narrow as possible that can still be accommodated by our public safety equipment. It certainly has been in, you know that reminds me john's comment reminds me there were in the past there used to be a lot of comments about making sure that your building height of your buildings does not exceed the height of your firefighting unless you have, you know, elevated building codes because if you don't have building codes up to a certain level, then you risk having fires that can't be fought by the equipment that you have so you basically set a height limit of 48 feet because that's the height that a tower truck could could work a fire but a lot of times that's less of an argument because if you have the correct building codes and you have a fully sprinkler building and you have reliable water sources and everything that's less of an issue but that's other places where these discussions come in where they could overlap with codes or they could overlap with zoning, but I haven't even started public safety so these other ones have all been started in in a vacuum in a bottle, but I haven't public safety I haven't even started and part of that had to do with the new fire the new police chief coming on board. There was a police a PRC a police review committee that was looking at a number of things they were implementing a number of other initiatives with the new chief and so we really just wanted to kind of we had other things we could work on so we kind of left them to move forward on what they were trying to move forward on let them get the new chief get the new deputy chief and get themselves settled. Get through their review committee pieces and then work ourselves back to getting to them after they're settled so I do plan to get get to them but as I said, community services utilities and facilities. And then land use are really the three primary ones I want to get through because those are the three required chapters. So Kirby then a readjust a readjust voting on the minutes from last time then. Yeah, one last thing I was going to say I mean I don't know how relevant will be but it's an interesting thing to read about there was the police review committee that put a report out last year. And that's that's an interesting report you can pull it up online and I'm not sure how much is going to how much the content of that committee's reports going to overlap with zoning but it's, it's full of interesting ideas that were encouraged for changes and police stuff so it's it's it's full. Yeah, we can move on to the, to the minutes review, if we don't have anything else that people are thinking about. Okay. So we have the minutes from May 23. We could take a look at those. Let me know when you're ready to move to approve them. I don't have any minutes. I wasn't there. So I don't know. I would like to, it looks like you guys talked about the, some of the things I've brought up in the comments from the chair, solar access issue. So again, if, if, if anybody has notes about that. Send them to me please because I want to do want to get started on the public outreach aspect of that. Okay, I, I move that we approve the minutes. Okay, we have a motion from Gabe to approve the minutes from May 23. Give a second. Second. Second from John. Those in favor of approving the minutes from May 23, say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. That concludes the agenda. So. I'm open to. Ocean to adjourn. Don't be shy. Kirby. The game to adjourn. Do we have a second. From, from vice vice chair. Lesioness. I'm from Tennessee. So I take no responsibility for how I say anything. Very good. Lesioness. Okay, so we have a motion from Gabe to adjourn. We have a second. Second from John. All right. Those in favor of adjournment. Say aye. Aye. All right, we'll see you guys in two weeks.