001Okay. Sorry, one second. All right, thanks. Okay. Hello and welcome to the Tuesday, May 19th, 2020 6 meeting of the Litchfield Planning Board. Will everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, next is uh roll call of members present. I'm Jared O'Connell, chair. Travis Tucker, vice chair. Russell Blanchet, member. Jesse Noel. Member. Okay, and we are joined by Jamie Cara from the NRPC and Joan McKibbin, our Planning Board administrator. Um so, first up is public input on non-agenda items. Uh any items not on today's agenda that uh you would like to uh comment on. I'm seeing none in the gallery. So, I will
002close public input on non-agenda items. First up is review and comment on a stormwater regul- regulator assessment. Um so, I think I'll turn that over to Jay and Joan. Just these two things. Um Kim said that it has to do with a lot of parking issues. That's pavement and parking. Not parking, pavement. We already made a big improvement to the number of required parking spaces. We did. I I think I think I meant pavement. Yeah, I mean yeah, pavement's a biggie. So, I went through um the report that we received from the consultants, um which is this, and um attempted to make changes throughout the regulations. Um it was kind of a bear to do and to follow it. Um it's a little scattered. Um so, I'm not going to bring it up on the
003screen, but um if you'd like, I thought it would just make sense to kind of walk through the comments and then how I um addressed them. It tends to jump around, so it's a little um it can be a little bit hard to follow. Um basically, in all places where there were no recommendations, I didn't propose any changes. Um so, that was that was really the first page. Um I I'm on uh now page four of their comments, if you're following those. Uh I'm going to reference this. The There was a comment that said, "Consider increasing storm water design to accommodate for climate change." Um that was pretty vague, and so I kind of just put a question mark next to that one. Maybe that's further research, cuz obviously we have to have a standard.
004>> Yeah, and I think I we made one change that kind of relates to that. I think a while ago, we we added the 100-year storm to the or the >> make a change to to to the storm, and we had a lot of conversation around it. And um so, if there is something else out there that says projected storm water event you know, it's uh storm events for whatever based on projections. So, I'll do a little research to see if there is another standard, but I'm not I'm not sure that there is. So, right now I didn't propose any change. Um the next one I think um that I'm not quite sure they understood. They referenced section 410, parks and open spaces, and then talked about require, you know, um using a low-impact design
005uh techniques, and that's really not a section that has standards in it. It just says the planning board can require open space. So, I didn't propose changes there. Um where I did was in the zoning ordinance, so I'll come back to that. I think there was a misunderstanding that that related to open space developments, and that's not what that section is. So, I'll come back to that change. Um and um then again they talked about flexible um I'm on page five, uh consider allowing flexible developments such as cluster open space. We do, we have that section, and I did propose some changes there. Uh the next So, the next real substitutive change was to section seven um 30.05, and that's the first page you see in the packet that I handed out. The comment was
006consider the allow allowing the use of um permeable materials such as porous pavers, etc. So, um Is that 73? Oh, oh, I'm sorry, that was the next one. There's one that This is the jumping back and forth. So, I apologize. Go to um turn your page. So, it's page 17, and what I suggested was a new section 730.05.01, and basically I took their language that the use of permeable pavements, porous, etc. um are permitted. Uh but then just noted that the use of conventional paving is required for travel lanes. So, basically that's their language put there and that seemed reasonable to me. And I'm going to want because they jump around it's kind of hard to figure the rational way to walk through this. I think I'll still kind of keep referring to this and
007then I will kind of come back to it. Um Yeah, there's there is really I've just got to kind of jump around. So, I apologize for jumping around, but that's what I am going to do. So, next time I'm page six the comment um was consider allowing the use of open drainage. That's now in the site plan regulations. So, I am apologize, but um Yeah, I'm trying to think again the best way to do it. So, if you dig into your package a few pages until you see on the top of the page site plan review regulations, you'll see a small table. If you go down towards the bottom of the page, again I took basically their language open drainage systems along residential streets and then just note that So, I guess the way this
008is structured is under street edges. It's structured as basically you have to use essentially granite curbing or berms and then there are the following exceptions. So, I made the open drainage systems one of the exceptions. And then note that again I'm taking their language where the protection of the roadway edge is a concern, you can do what they call curbs with openings or flush curbs etc. So, basically that's their language. Now, we would allow it. And then the next one again we will be jumping around and this will be a big one. So they note that low impact developments recommend pavement widths of between 18 and 22 feet. I also looked at AASHTO standards for those who are familiar with AASHTO standards those are really the recommended engineering standards. So for residential streets lane widths
009recommended lane widths is vary between 9 and 11 feet. Depending on traffic 10 being very typical. So. Now I'm going to ask you to go to your second page and there is and it it says appendix A on the top. And there going to be a few changes in there. So right now we require for residential streets 12 foot wide lanes. That's actually wider than the turnpike. So it's it's really exceptionally wide. One option is to say it's between 9 and 11 based on the traffic. We don't see traffic levels that would get to 11. I just chose 10 it seems easier to just pick one in the middle and then that change kind of carries through as you move on down minimum roadway width would change from 24 to 20. And you know just
010kind of keep going down basically I'm chopping two off of each of these. Needless to say one of the reasons key reason behind this is less pavement less drainage. That's where most of our drainage is coming from roadways so there is an emphasis on reducing pavement. I also went ahead and took some other liberties that are unrelated. We don't have to do these, but just again kind of looking at actual standards and what are best practices today. I suggested dropping the design speed on a collector road from 35 to 30 and on a local road from 30 to 25. You really don't want people going faster than that on small residential streets. So, that's just a suggestion. They had suggested dropping our sidewalk width the minimum width to 4 ft. I didn't change the sidewalk
011width. You know, adjacent to an arterial. I mean really what we're talking about is our side path on Albuquerque. Um We actually didn't have a minimum standard for other sidewalks. I put in four. Um that is what they recommended, so I just put it in there. Um And then what what Oh, and then I should note this relates to another comment that they're going that they come up with later about the cul-de-sac widths that we should reduce the width of our cul-de-sacs to not more than 70 ft. Um our current requirement is 75. So, I'm just going to jump the gun and if you go on to the next three pages, we have in uh appendix A, there are three exhibits showing different types of cul-de-sacs. So, I basically carried that recommendation of 70 ft.
012Um so, at the very top of each one of these you see a minimum equals 75. So, I did change that to 70. The math actually doesn't quite add up, but you there probably are more than one ways you could get to it. You could also see I carried through the other change where it's 24 ft uh width minimum. It's now 20. Um and that's shown in three places. And I did that same change on all three exits. Are there any um places that allow you to just have one travel lane around the cul-de-sac because theoretically that's all you need. It would also potentially be easier for the road crew because they would just have to drive around once rather than once and then go backwards the other way. That's a good point. I did
013research and apparently parking can be a problem when that happens. Sure. We could require like non just pavers. Instead. Yeah, I mean outside of a party that doesn't happen very often. Yeah. Um that's I I I I'll definitely look around. Right now we don't allow that, but that's certainly something we could look at. May I ask a question on the non-arterial? Yes. Okay. Are we going to Well, I will bring it up to the TRC committee, but does the fire department We don't know what the fire department will have a problem with going to 20 ft versus 24? We don't. Non-arterial, but I will bring that up at our next meeting. >> I would hope that that would be okay because I know that they've mentioned their plow widths, but theoretically the plow can be
014Like it depends on if it's a curved road or not. Um >> Depends on the storm, too. Yeah, cuz if it's a curved street, if the road's 20 ft wide, then you'll have 2 ft of overlap into the other lane, which will leave um 8 ft for a car if the plow is going by when there's a car, which could be tight, but like how would wide are normal cars? Yeah, but you have to think fire truck, too. Yeah. During a storm, especially. Uh Emergency vehicles. Yeah, they're pretty wide. Um so, yeah, that The only place that that could cause problem is you just happen to have a really wide vehicle, like a really wide fire truck and a plow at the same time. Well, snow bank snow banks and that people shouldn't be parking
015during a storm, so snow banks may be an issue. Yeah. Possibly. The right-of-way doesn't change, though. Mhm. So, you still have as much room to put the snow banks. Your snow banks don't have to shrink. Yeah, it just makes it a little harder for them to move all the snow off the road because eventually the plow will be >> right-of-way still be 24? Right-of-way is still 50. But, excuse me, 50. You're right. >> Yeah. 50. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Yeah. And if they have trouble with this or concerns about this, we could always have the road agent visit the planning board. Yeah, absolutely. Uh I would expect that the road agent would want to weigh in, and I would expect, you know, fire department would want to weigh in, and usually they like roads to be
016as wide as possible. It would be good to get information on the how narrow you can have a fire truck go around a cul-de-sac cuz that actually is probably the biggest limiting factor on the size of the cul-de-sac. Um Yes. Cuz I think like I'd be okay with going even smaller than this as long as the emergency vehicles can go around it. Yep. So, yeah, it'd be very good to get that information. All right. So, now where am I? Uh yep. All right. I am on to their comments for those following page seven. And this is where we now go back to subdivision to the very first page. Um their language again references low-impact development practices. Um This is just a general comment where they recommend street light considerations including reducing street length and minimizing
017total paved area. Uh with the goals of um protecting hydrology, reducing cut and fill, protecting steep slopes, etc. That's really a very general statement, but I added it to the very general layout um section that we already have. So, that's the very first page that you see. Again, pretty much I took their language and adapted it for this section. And then once again, um jumping around. Now, we don't have to again. The next comment is consider minimizing the required paved diameter of cul-de-sacs to 70 ft as encouraged in low-impact development practices, etc. So, that we already referenced. Um Uh the and then they um just have a general comment about considering requiring uh allowing more flexibility in providing sidewalks only where we need them. I think we do that. So, I I didn't feel we
018needed to um address that. Next is site plan review um regulation section 160.3. So, if you go past all of the appendices, um where you start to see site plan review regulations towards the top of the page, and you're going to continue until the page that says 70 page 71 at the bottom of the page. Again, I apologize for making everybody around. You're giving good directions, though. So, if we're there, so we have a general section now on buffer yard requirements with kind of an A and a B. I added a new C and basically took their language that low impact um development stormwater management practices such as tree boxes, etc. Um are permitted within required buffer yards. Uh so, that's just their comment. As I go through this and think about it, um we
019should probably just include in the subdivision and site plan regulations a a definition of low impact development so I don't have to keep repeating it. You know, I can just say LID. Um so, that's something I will do. Um and then again, you can see the at the bottom of uh page 7 of 10 of their comments, consider lowering the sidewalk requirement with the 4 ft, so that I already addressed. And then, again in the world of jumping around, so now we're going to go back to close to the beginning to subdivision regulations appendix A. And um again going back to that table, um the table of geometric standards, their comment was consider allowing um or requiring uh permeable surfaces for sidewalks. So, I just did that. We have a notes section on the bottom
020of that table and I just added another note that permeable pavement surfaces are permitted for sidewalks on non-arterial streets. Uh I didn't figure we would really want that for our larger side paths. Yeah, I do wonder how long those would last. That's why yeah, yeah, that'd be my concern and maintenance would be my concern. Yeah, cuz we the town might be required to maintain those. Right. And it's really unfortunate when sidewalks become unusable. Right. So, that's just a note and it's and it's not a requirement. It's an allowance. And then next we are referencing site plan review section 120 off-street parking and loading. And again here what they're looking for is once again low impact development stormwater management practices. So, once again, keep going until you get to site plan review regulations and this is
021section 120. Wait, where are we? 40. I lost myself already. Oh, there isn't a 120 or 130. Yeah, that's I found that a couple of times their references were off. Let me find So, that is on the page under site plan review regulations are on the top and page 34 is on the bottom. The reference was wrong. It's actually section 120.12. And again, I just took their language low impact stormwater structures such as bio retention etc. Um are permitted within buffer areas. Um parking spaces they had a few that um do not uh I think they were looking at older parking uh requirements. So, they had a uh suggestion that we uh that we should not require more than 4.5 off-street parking spaces per 1,000 sq ft of gross floor area for shopping centers. We
022require four, so we already require less. They also said do not require more than two off-street parking spaces per single-family home. We changed our regulations last year. We only require one per residential unit as required by the state. Um but they have a requirement, do not require more than three off-street parking spaces per 1,000 uh sq ft of gross floor area in professional office buildings. And we do require more than that. So, if you turn the page, uh you're you're looking at site plan review regulations with page 40 on the bottom. And so, I changed that from one space per 250 sq ft, which is obviously four per thousand, to three spaces per 1,000 sq ft. So, that aligns. Next. Um bump ba da bump. Um actually, I didn't do this. Um and I I
023I did not get to driveways, but they do recommend um requiring a driveway width of not more than 9 ft for one-way and 18 ft for two-way driveway. So, I did not dive into the driveway regulations, but I will. Um and then um the next comment was I had a hard time finding what they meant, subdivision um regulation appendix J. I um actually couldn't find that. Um but I inserted that. Now, if I can find where I inserted it. I forgot. I did insert it. I'll have to find it. I'll find it as I go on. Um next Uh site plan review regulations again. Now we are referencing I'll find it. 120.12, I think that is another one. Um that is Yeah, page 34. I think we already hit on this. They It was a
024comment that they had before. Um but if you go to the site plan review regulations with page 34 on the bottom, you'll see that comment was put in there. I think the comment's in here twice. Finally, not finally. Uh next, they had a comment in here. I'll I'll just read it. Um it said, "Consider establishing limits on the extent of lawn area in residential lots either by the area or percentage of the lot. Encourage property owners to plant native drought-resistant species on lawn areas, etc., etc." Um my We could certainly do that. My reluctance in that is that that just becomes something really hard to enforce. Um so, I didn't put it in there just because I don't know how we would actually Which one was that again? Uh so, what they are saying is
025considering establishing limits on the extent of lawn area in on residential lots. Yeah, that would be It would just be I think beyond what we could do. So, I didn't suggest it. I wouldn't support it if we did. Yeah, I mean it's You can't enforce that. You can't. You just can't. You can do educational campaigns and plant native species, definitely, but So, the next one was consider allowing the placement of utilities on all roads under the paved section of the right-of-way so that the land adjacent can be used for swales. So that is subdivision section 400. Let's see if I can find it. And I did stick it in here. I think I forgot to print it. I did stick it in there though. I forgot to print it. I apologize. I did make that
026change though. What what was the approximate wording that you used? I I basically said that under our section on I'm going to have to find it. I'm sure I can find it in here. Under the section where we talk about underground utilities are required, I just put in there that they can be placed under pavement to allow for swales. I think I put a caveat. My concern with that was and this will be definitely where we want to get input from the road agent is my concern is does it mean you have to dig up the street? Or you have to put in those boxes which as I understand it are very expensive because the OSHA requirements for digging in the road and working in a trench are significant. Um so I I only say
027that because I have memories of having this conversation and Eversource really pushing back. Um but that could be just because it's expensive. All right, let me let me see if I can quickly find this though cuz I did have some language in there. Cuz I do know that if a utility needs to add another utility and there isn't conduit they can use then yeah, they're going to be digging up that road. That's right. And also, interestingly, Eversource actually required uh requires two like a power line ran on each side of the road now. So, they bury when you bury them, they want them on both sides of the road so that if one line is compromised, you can switch to the other. Um So, I wonder what what would happen if it was under the
028road. Yeah. This Yeah, clearly this was intended for not under the road. Yeah, that was That was our assumption that it would be alongside the road and they want to you know, they're encouraging these open swales by the side of the road. Although, I suppose they could go back a little further. Did the requirement for underground utilities decrease the prevalence of the open swales because Yeah, most of the swales I've seen in this I think all of the swales I've seen in this community have been developments before the underground utilities were required in 2000. I'm honestly not sure. It's never come up as a issue. Um Yeah. So, I I am honestly not sure. Is it possible to just bury them under the swales? I don't know. That's also a good question. Like I'm sure
029you you wouldn't be able to put the utility boxes in the swale, obviously. That would get flooded. Um It might be a challenge and also you're getting pretty deep, probably. Um so, here's I'll I'll read you the language uh that we have now. Uh I'm not going to go through all of it, but the section is underground utilities. Um it's section four um 14. And I'll just start this this section um with basically we say all major subdivisions that include new road shall provide underground electric telephone television and other communication lines both main and service connections within easements or dedicated public rights-of-way. And then it says underground utilities shall be installed in accordance with the prevailing standards and practices of the utility or other companies providing such services. And then here's the language I inserted.
030Underground utilities may be placed under the paved section of the right-of-way where possible so that the land adjacent to the roadway can be used for swales. That makes it sound like it should always be done there rather than if using swales. Would you just be able to make the added language a little bigger for me? Oh, yes. I'm sorry. >> Thank you. Thank you. I can't find where to zoom. There we go. There we go. Thank you. It does say may so I kept that permissive. But we could change it to where possible so the land it could be we could always change that to if the land. We could. Is used for swales. Or providing that or if required to install swales. Cuz we obviously don't want this to be the standard. I'll put
031up a if necessary. Yeah. Oh, wait. It's not quite like that. Stop. I got to wait for this silly thing to go away now. I hate this little thing. There we go. voice Are you able to use control Z instead? So, yeah. Yeah, I got this little thing that just Okay, so under replace under pavement under the paved section of right of way if necessary to use the >> or Oh. I was going to say for the land adjacent to the What about that? And then instead of can be >> to be used. And then we just to be used. Right. Oops. Okay, underground utilities may be placed under the paved section of the right of way if necessary for the land adjacent to the right of way to be used um used for swells.
032Good. That seems okay. >> Yeah. Okay. It's definitely not preferred, but if it's required Yeah. I think it's going to lead to more trouble if it's actually used. Probably. That could get you trouble. True. Okay. And Next for section D, um the the comment is consider requiring developers to limit clearing to the minimum necessary to construct roadway drainage, sidewalk, and utilities. Um So, I stuck that in as fluffy language. Um so, if you go to um You know, right after the exhibits to the cul-de-sac exhibits, we have appendix D. On the bottom of the page it says 5 of 23. And so, I just stuck in similar language. Clearing should be limited to the minimum necessary to construct buildings, parking areas, roadways, sidewalks, drainage, septic systems, utilities, and other necessary facilities. I added a few
033things just cuz you do need buildings, too. All right, and that is Now, I'm Okay, so I missed a couple of comments there. I'll come back to them. Um on page one um they um noted that in appendix D, we have no reference uh to green roofs. Um and other green infrastructure. So, if you're looking at appendix the page that says appendix D on the top and on the bottom it's 10 of 23. I just added the language LID can include vegetated green roofs and the repurposing of storm water as part of site design as acceptable techniques. And that actually addresses two comments that they had. And I'm just going to glance through these to make sure I did not miss something else. And oh yes, so the comment I was going to come back
034to, they had the initial comment about allowing cluster and including LID. So your very last page is um this is out of the zoning ordinance. So obviously, if we were to do this, we this would be a town meeting thing. Um so and I just I basically took their language and I said um so um conservation open space subdivision shall be designed using low impact of a low impact development approach as defined in subdivision regulations appendix D blah blah blah. Um and noting that we did add a definition for a low impact development in the uh stormwater regs. Incorporating the following design strategies and then again it's minimizing pavement, retaining natural paths, etc. Directing runoff from roofs and pavements into natural planted areas. A areas A shouldn't be capitalized. Um maximize use of infiltration practices,
035etc. So I that basically that is their language and I lifted it and I put it here. That seemed to be the way that made the most sense if we didn't want to deal with amending the zoning ordinance for this, we could just create a section in the subdivision regulations relative to um open space developments. Why I didn't go that way is just because we tend to put the requirement is just where they're specific to open space developments in the ordinance. I didn't want people to have to go back and forth. Better Yeah, better in the I think it's Yeah, I think it's better in the ordinance. So, that's what I suggested there. Um and then I the other just kind of overall comment I would make is as is obvious, these are these recommendations
036are scattered across a number of different sections of our regulations. Um it's always possible that we might want One way to just approach this is we're just going to focus on the stormwater regulations and and you could propose, you know, we'll hold a public hearing on amending the site plan subdivision regulations for the purpose of addressing the stormwater requirements and that's all we do. Or we could look at some of these sections and say, "Gee, maybe there's some other things that we might want to fix as we're going along." Um some of them we spent a lot of time on. So, the stormwater we've already spent like a lot of time on that section. That's probably just fine. But, you know, if there are other sections, um so that and that opportunity is there. I
037know that we did have some conversation around the open space ordinance um a couple of years ago. So, there was ambiguity around some things, um some questions around interpretation. So, that might be an opportunity to just take a look at that section again and are there other things that we have We've got a long window on that. But, if we wanted to, if we're already going to amend that section of the ordinance, maybe we just look at the whole thing and see if there's anything else. >> patient is open to whatever needs to to be done to make it work for us. >> I think that's that's kind of what I was thinking would make that's this. Oh, thank you. >> Thank you for putting all this together for us. Thank you. >> Absolutely. And
038obviously it'll take some time to look at and digest it. >> Then when we're ready, if we feel like going to hearings, we can. And the comments on page four about the open space, that would be also addressed if we try to do the what we want to do with zoning. Um page on their page four? I kind of missed what what we did with Yeah, on the regulatory assessment before the consider requirement. Okay. Last Almost verbatim. Um I just took it and put it in there. Okay. Um Yeah. Mhm. Like regarding the second suggest um second bullet in C what that you just added the conser- conservation of the space development. Yes. The Yeah, runoff from roofs is typically just it just it just goes around to their lawn. It typically does, yes. Yeah.
039It's unlike standard like a city where it might go into a storm water drain. This is true. Yeah, I I in fact, I can't imagine a scenario in the drainage >> dumping your gutters in your septic, you're doing it wrong. >> [laughter] >> That'd be so bad. So that's probably not necessary. Yeah. Good point. And then directing And realistically, the pavement part is just sloping not into the road. Sloping into the their their own yard. That's the only thing I can imagine. >> Or or into a treatment system. Yeah. It's pretty simple to do. All those are pretty simple. >> And three, it also seems to be worded in the context of a city that has a storm water system. >> Mhm. Because conveyed and treated we the only thing we have here is infiltration
040ponds is how it it's being done with all the recent developments. That's right. So It's almost always true. Does it seem like something that will make a big difference in Probably not. It probably makes them happy to see it. You can sit right we can say we've checked that box. Yep. Mhm. But practically, yeah, it's not going to really change what we do. And why do they love surface based storm water management systems? That was the question I had too. After we've done curbing, we used to have run surface run off. You know, back when the day '76 era and then they went to curbing. Right. >> And now we're going back to Does DES like that? I don't know if I do. Well, I I I'm not I'm not sure about DES. I I
041mean I I think the idea is is that it allows more opportunities for infiltration because you're going to be crossing ground. So that's that's really why. And I think they are trying to get away from from curbing and from storm water drainage systems to go with more natural systems. I think that's the idea. Yeah, I'm assuming surface based ones are probably cheaper for the road agent to manage because it's just a ditch basically on side of road. Right. Not not even. It's just it's just run off. Going across the grass. So you lose your lawn at this point, you know, four feet of lawn because of the salt. Yep. Right. >> But other than that, there's nothing really to maintain. Yep. Yeah, in like the housing development that my parents house is at, it was
042built in the '90s and that's a swale. And there's no infiltration pond. Just swales. And then then look at Talarigo, where we have this big infiltration pond and uh That's a huge >> even fell. huge infiltration pond. It's a huge infiltration pond. And and according form, too. And I don't know enough to know whether or not if there was more of a low-impact development approach taken, we could have minimized uh those structures. Um there's a lot of stormwater being channeled. Um cuz I'm sure the culverts and And cuz I would imagine the developers would want to minimize their own costs. Like if they can shrink those tubes and shrink that stormwater man- management area, I'm sure they would take any opportunity to do that just for their sake, not ignoring all the regulations and Um
043but I I don't And also if we had um even 10-ft lanes instead of 12, there would have been less stormwater. Yeah. Yeah, one advantage of um the uncurbed roads is you can go even narrower probably than a 20-ft road and if >> Well, go down to some of like um I think Gilcrest senior housing. Those were narrow streets. And I think I have the other ones, but check those out because it's okay unless you have a car parked and then then it's a problem. Yeah. But yeah, that's why like during the wintertime you know, we don't allow parking for the most part. And but yeah, theoretically if it's uncurbed and the plow has to pass something wide it can the plow can just be partially off the road. Well, the what but there's the
044ordinance that says you can't park in the winter on on the road. >> Yeah, but like if you were just going around a car that's driving Right. >> they can just move over a bit and not hit a curb or as if in the curb >> Yeah. with the narrow roads with curbs on both sides, they're going to be really tight real real close to that curb. And that's probably going to make them a little wary of the proposal because it's just going to require a lot more precision from the driver. Right. And we could also Yeah, definitely worth a talk with the road agent and Oh, for sure. >> I wonder if it would make sense for us to have different width requirements for curb versus uncurbed for that reason. Possible. If you were
045going to go with in the future uncurbed then you should be all set. I mean because now the ones that are curbed are are wider. Are they 10-ft 12-ft 12-ft? Right. Well, one thing we have to consider if we narrow the cul-de-sac is we might need to have the inside in steep uh a radius of the inside area be poss- like designed such that a large vehicle like a fire truck can drive over the curb. That might >> If they can't make that radius. Yep. I'm guessing they can, but obviously that's one of the things we want to look at. Yeah. And we want loose input, too. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, we need input from fire department, the road agent, and our town engineer for this. And sticking with the cul-de-sacs for a moment, um
046just you know, considering long-term vegetation will infill that center portion of the cul-de-sac. So, you really want to design the roadway around that cul-de-sac to support whatever fire apparatus you need to get in there. Yeah, only in a real emergency when they can bust through the center, sure. But, you know, 50 years from when it's built and there's mature trees filling the whole area. >> of immature trees like up off Pinecrest. They're all gra- They aren't grass. They're all trees in the middle. Sometimes there's drainage in the middle. I I like to I like the idea of having trees in the cul-de-sac. That circle's nice. Definitely. Yeah, it's a nice nice touch. Definitely nice touch. Yeah, cuz the theoretically you can put the paved paved cul-de-sac and then a few feet of like pavers. With
047with that are like maybe raised a little bit to discourage cars to go on that, but it can be used for a fire truck to get around. Right. And they talk about that in here, too, outside of the travelway using uh permeable surfaces, including pavers. Yeah, which could make sense. All right. So, more to come on this and we'll get some input. And John, I'll pass on this packet, but I'll add that one section that we missed if we want to send I don't know if has this gone to the technical review committee? No. Okay. Maybe the whole thing could go as a packet. All right, that's all we have on this. And and the only things um next time we'll just be like the little driveway width thing, right? And then just the definition
048of LID. Is that all that we missed? Yeah, we need to add that and um Yeah, I'll go ahead and add that and then I'll also look into see if I can find a standard related to climate you know, um yeah, strong impacts from climate change. It just Is there a number you can hang your hat on? Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, I wonder if it would make sense to allow in this the note where we allow to permit permeable pavement surfaces. It may It may make sense for us to require submission of maintenance requirements and long-term um like how long it's expected to last. Yes. Are you thinking of the table of geometric standards? Uh yes. So, yeah, instead of just per- permeable surfaces are permitted for sidewalks on non-arterial streets. Um it could be
049subject to um review of um maintenance and um longevity data. Yeah, let me think of where it's best to put that cuz well, I think we talk about permeable pavement in more than one location, so that we might want that to be a general standard where the where it's included. So, I'll I'll probably insert that in the subdivision inside plan regulations in a logical location, so that makes sense. >> Yeah, and then we can just reference that subject to non-permeable requirements. >> Right, cuz it is a thing. Like it can require vacuuming for sand and stuff like that. So, yes. Yeah, cuz basically what's going to probably have to happen is we're going to have to submit it to the road agent to review and see is this something you can maintain? And they're going
050to have to tell us, yes, I can maintain that and no, I or no, I can't. Right, but at what cost? Cuz we might not have the um equipment. Mhm. Yeah, so we could even say subject to review and review of the maintenance requirements and practicality of Yeah, that is a good Cuz usually where I've seen people putting permeable pavement in to any extent, it's always been on private sites, and then it's been incorporated into their maintenance plan. Hasn't been public. Mhm. But just it's just a it's a thing. Yeah. They usually bring in an outside vendor, you know, a company to come in and do that kind of maintenance. Mhm. Yeah, not something our road agent could probably do. Probably not. At least not with the without getting additional equipment Mhm. that we don't
051currently have. Yeah. >> So, that that's a good point. I'll add that. Sounds good. I think that would address at least part of the concerns about that. Right. We don't want to add a burden. We do want brownie points though for doing the things that they recommend to the extent possible. Mhm. So, I'll make these changes and um and then hopefully we'll have an opportunity for I can reach out to Lou directly. Just ask for his input on these and um and then if we can get input from fire and road agent, then maybe we can have all that input and then schedule another workshop when we have the opportunity. Probably not I I would guess not sooner than a month, but I I would definitely love to hear about if it's possible to have
052a paved road that's narrower if it doesn't have curves. Yeah. I guess that's probably the biggest concern right there is how probable it is. Huh? any other comments on the uh draft changes to our regulations and ordinances. Okay. Thank you for the proposal. Absolutely. So, next is natural resources. So, I don't know if everyone has had a chance to take a look. It has been a little while. Um I didn't print this out because I just double-checked. It's 85 pages. Yeah. It's really long. I reviewed I quickly read it today. Okay. Uh Um so, there's a lot in here, obviously. I'm just going to go to page page width. I mean, a lot of this is data. Right? It's just a lot of information about the natural resources that are here. Uh and a lot
053of this hasn't changed. Uh some things have. Um you know, just include in terms of standards. Um but a lot of stuff, you know, has not changed, needless to say, over time. The soils are the soils, but we have different classifications now than we used to have. Um so, I I'm just kind of breezing through. Uh so, a lot of this is still the same. Again, a little bit of conversation around um the changes in the categories that we have. Um and probably some of the bigger changes. So, I kind of mentioned this the last time we looked at this. So, so, I I put a lot of emphasis on agriculture. Um this is clearly an area that's changed. There is uh significantly less land um in agriculture um than there used to be. Tried
054to include a um because this is such a high priority um you know, discussion on some of the principal farms. Where possible, I put hyperlinks. So, if anybody wants a little bit of more information on them, um we do have a discussion in here on the Gerow Farm. Um and that purchase and talk about that as a potential model uh for the future. Um then of course, we map farmland, um more drain stuff, wetlands. Not Nothing has really changed in terms of wetlands. Um and there's not a whole lot. Again, we've got a lot of information here, imagery. Um we talk about the ordinance. There's been a little bit of change in our setbacks um since the last time this was updated. Um and of course, we talk about stormwater because that's another area that's
055changed. Um and the change we in particular the changes that the town made um over the past couple of years. And I'm just breezing through these. Flood plains at this point, really nothing has changed. This is just a lot of um information. Um this is changing with new mapping coming out, so that might make a difference. I haven't seen it yet. Um but I hear it's I I've heard it's coming for years, so I don't really know. But one day, we will get more. Um so there is uh of course, a discussion on rivers and streams and surface waters. And um again, a lot of this is really informational. Um there's not a whole lot that um has changed over time. The one thing that has changed in here is water quality, so we did
056include the most recent water quality information. Um you know, and note we've got a couple of areas where we do have um you know, impacted waters like Nesenkeag Brook. And Garapont. That was another one. That's What changes are you anticipating on the future mapping changes? Uh for our flood plains? Yeah, or and all the other ones you mentioned. I don't I really don't know how it's going to change. Uh as I understand it, this has been in the works for years and they have changed what are considered because of we have seen some pretty significant storm events um and the frequency of, you know, 100-year floods is greater now. Um what that's going to actually mean in terms of changed mapping for Litchfield, I'm not sure. Uh we've not tended to have the kind of
057flooding that some other communities have. Uh in part, I think that's because the banks are pretty steep for the Merrimack um you know, for the most part. Um so I actually don't anticipate a lot of change here. Um it's possible there might be. Is it going to be the federal um the FEMA that's updating their maps? >> Yes. Um And uh so as I understand it on a more site-specific right now, I believe it's happening on a more site-specific basis. So when you are coming, you know, looking to get a permit to do work um within a waterway, they're looking at these updated standards that are based on projections of storm events. I just don't think that that's all been mapped yet. Um I'm actually scooting back a little bit. Um This was just a
058section I was referencing where we have more up-to-date um information and um you know, on on water quality. I I do wish they tested more frequently. They I wish that we had more testing um than we do. We don't Some areas have Lay Lakes monitoring programs and you know, other where they're really out there doing it a lot. We're not. Um but here you can see where we do have um issues. There are of course continued issues in the Merrimack. Um I mentioned this in Keg Brook, although the most recent data I have is 2004. Uh for Dorr Pond, we have um more significant um you know, 2018, which is a little more recent uh E. coli, cyanobacteria. That was something that we didn't talk about um as much in the past, but that's an
059area that's much more of a concern. Of course, uh Colby Brook. And those are really the ones I think where you've got the biggest concern. Um and we do talk about Limer Lake. And moving along, not a whole lot though more there. We do talk about the fact that the uh which is actually why we got the money for Durocher Farm. Um but that now the lower Merrimack um is a primary water supply. Um so that's definitely made a difference. Aquifers, there really has not been significant change. Uh um Probably really the biggie is the changes in actually what we're drawing out of the aquifer. That has changed. Otherwise, not a whole lot there. I'm trying to zoom down to where we do have a lot. Probably the biggest the conversation around water quality and
060groundwater relates to PFAS contamination. We talk about that down here under potential contamination sources. Obviously, this has grown enormously as an issue. And that was it was not on the radar at all the last time we did this section. And so here's our PFAS section. Where again pretty lengthy and we talk about the number of homes that were impacted, etc. Household hazardous waste, so let's fill participants in the household hazardous waste program. So we've got more up-to-date data on that. And again and now we have we have mapped the PFAS contamination sites. All of the wells that tested it's pretty amazing how impactful that was. And then we again we talk about the rest of the you know the kind of the general threats to um groundwater and surface water. And then here's our MS4
061section and that's a fairly robust section where we kind of get into the issues and the changes and why. I guess it is. It's very long buffers. That's really not a whole lot new. I think we know that they're good and important and why they're good and important and shoreline protection acts. So, there's a again, a discussion around that. Um then we get a little bit more into forests. Here, really the biggest changes, um when it comes to forests, are some of the more recent invasive threats, like the ash borer beetle. Uh so, there's a there's more conversation in here around invasives. Um and again, nice pretty pictures. And why forests are good. Keep your trees. And then the maps. And these are more up-to-date maps of what the forests um canopy really looks like
062in terms of the habitat types. And then there's a lot more conversation about um wildlife habitat. And the um key areas. So, these are the imperiled and vulnerable communities, and this is uh much more up-to-date information on what's imperiled, what's critically imperiled, where these areas are, and then the those are the habitat types, and then all of the species. And that's very up-to-date data. Um same things, the the natural communities going um and this is also very up-to-date. I want to say 2024. Um so, a lot of information here. And habitat types. Again, this is also very up-to-date. Um no longer clicking. Army areas always rank high. And then the priority habitats and again this is also much more up-to-date. So these are the main priority ones that we see. Uh I I mentioned it
063before about open land and farmland tends to rank high. Yeah, ooh. I went too far. Too far, too fast. Although I like that term. So that's just something for us to think about in the future. So you can see almost all you know all of the farmland that we have along 3A is all ranking very very high. Uh and in part that's just because open land is really good habitat including farmland for things like rabbits. Um Screw it I'm down. So that yeah, so that's 2020. That's pretty up-to-date as these things go. Endangered species. Nice conversation around that. Lots of animals. There's our bunny. I don't I cannot distinguish a eastern cottontail from a New England but some people might be able to. Rabbit. It's a rabbit. >> [snorts] >> Sickly and so Keep going.
064Animal species. Audubon watch list. This is 2021. So this is specific obviously to birds. Plants. Again the threatened species and we've got an up-to-date list on those and an up-to-date list on invasives um and the species of concern. And then of course what's now prohibited. Um which is also an updated list. And a lot I I think I'll I probably goes without saying, but a lot of what this chapter really does is serve as a reference just because there's so it's so data heavy. And So, I'll keep on scrolling through. Ah. Hopefully it froze. Just list after list of stuff. I think it's good to have it somewhere though. And this is a logical place to have it. And again, just so much habitat. Lots of habitat stuff, lots of animal stuff. Little frog, of
065course, vernal pools. And then finally, eventually, we will get to some recommendations. I'm going to go a little bit trim it to that a little bit more. So, now we're getting down to um more recommendations and conclusions. And and really there's a focus here on trying to protect wildlife corridors and priority habitats to the extent possible. For all the reasons that are probably pretty obvious. Um there's also a conversation around trail planning. Um try to uh design trails to minimize their impact to wildlife. And then more data, more data, more data and the parks and the lands and that's also I think Joan you already went through these just to make sure that we're right. And our areas, our totals that should be up to date. Conservation lands, they're mapped, they're listed. Um So this
066should be up to date although these things change. 2021 actually the erosion firm might not be on there. We might have to add that. I'll double check that. It's on here as ag land. It's not necessarily on here as protected [clears throat] land. Then we get into current use. So this would be our most recent list of all the properties in current use the and the categories. And then this is mapped. So this shows um current use parcels overlaid on high um priority habitat just to give a sense of if if the if the property is in current use, it means it's a larger property that's either woodland or farmland. And so these may be areas that would make sense to prioritize for um conservation through acquisition. Either in fee or um easements. And so
067this is this table here is showing the change in land use between 2001 and 19. Um It actually was less dramatic than I would have thought. Um and the percentage change in each category. Not surprisingly what we call urban which is basically mainly residential development is going to be your biggest category of change. I actually thought water was interesting. We have increased water area. I know. I thought that was interesting. I'm I'm not I'm not sure why that would be true. I I I guess it's true. Yeah, water change. You can see the areas where that's happened. So, that was the table, this is the map. So, a lot of the water changes are next to wetlands. Right. >> Means that I mean, it could be beaver. Yeah, could be. I mean, something broke picked
068up a bunch. And then there is a whole section um which is not worth going through that just lists um federal regulations that relate to conservation, and then we will list state regulations um and that is really mainly just informative. To to to to, everything that could possibly touch it. So, that was federal, now we're into state. >> [clears throat] >> And actually double check that. >> [snorts] >> And then local, so we get into all of our local regulations that touch and concern natural resources. >> [clears throat] >> Do. This is what we do. And then these are additional mechanisms that we don't necessarily employ. Current use. Then we talk about all the ways that land can be conserved, acquisition, donation, and current use, etc. Um so these are just all methods for protecting
069land. And then and then the discussion of funding sources, um ba- mainly available grants or potentially grants, many of which we have already taken advantage of. [clears throat] Um other organizations. And finally, we get to recommendations. And a lot of this is is as you would expect, we prioritize conserving your prime agricultural land, oops, wildlife habitat and corridors, scenic areas, and then obviously protecting surface waters. And then again, just get into ways that that can happen. Both regulatory, acquisition, etc. So most of the recommendations are not really major changes. Because realistically, the focus is going to be in addition to the regulations that we generally have, it's it's really going to be a focus around acquisition in some form. And land management, finally. So that's managing the land that we have, and um a lot
070of that is you know, in particular, and this is an area that we're seeing more of an emphasis, is because of the impact of invasive species, particularly insect species that are causing damage. This is something you want to try to continually monitor as much as possible. Maintaining our lands is important. Again, trail systems, education, etc. So, that's that is the overview. Okay, thank you for all this work. Absolutely. Um does it make sense to talk about the insects that are threatening our trees? Yes. If I didn't, I thought I did. Uh if you did, you did you weren't very specific about it. >> Then let me make a note of that cuz I should we should be specific. >> Yeah, there's scale, there's hemlock woolly adelgid, there's the ash borer. And probably several more. I
071will I'll I'll I'll make sure of that. Yeah, I know that on my parents' property, I've had to treat dozens of hemlocks because because cuz there was hemlock woolly adelgid on them. And we successfully removed the hemlock woolly adelgid, and now there's scale. Oh. Um one of them has almost died. Um that was unfortunate. That's very unfortunate. And and there are also implications of treatment because insecticides are bad for bees if done improperly. Um but that's like the the chemicals we had to use like you have to not use them in your flowers because that will kill bees. Um but that that's the most effective way to do it without spraying a 100-ft tall tree with horticultural oil. Um and I want to save this tree cuz we we like those trees cuz they provide
072a lot of shade especially in the wintertime. Or I mean privacy. Privacy. Yeah, they they're really good understory trees. And and there was a recommendation to consider treating Dera Pond. Recommendation to treat what did you say? For treating Dera Pond. We we did that in uh some of it this year. This year or last year? For cyanobacteria? No, um milfoil. Oh, yeah, milfoil. And now they're doing Baboosic Brook for um it's DES just approved treatment. So, we're hoping with that's going to work. What type of treatment? Because of the algae blooms. Cuz the yeah, that algae is like toxic. It's toxic. Um what How do they treat that? I I'm going to say it wrong. So, I I I I I probably shouldn't but I think it's it's like an aluminum-based treatment. It it's a
073it's a chemical treatment. Um Yeah, I could be more specific about that, too. Interesting. Yeah, that could be good information. Context and what other communities are are doing is helpful. It's a good point. We've been slow to do it in New Hampshire to approve it. I know it's been happening more commonly in Maine. Mhm. Yeah, I searched the document and the only reference to cyanobacteria is that there's it's a bad score for cyanobacteria in Dera Pond. So, you didn't you No, there's currently no mention of treatment for it. That could be >> I will add that. Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. So, how many more iterations do you think we'll need to do on this document? Uh I know I got I got comments from Joan, so I incorporated those. So, we're I
074think it's adding these things and unless there's other comments, I think we were probably ready to go. Yeah, I think yeah the more details on the treatment, more details on the tree in uh native species. >> Anything else? And there's no rush for us per se to if like, you know, I definitely want to take a closer look. Um Yeah, cuz it's it's long and >> greater than or equal to 100 and I'm sure there are. But great resource. I was like just in case. All right, good to know. And if you do come across those kinds of things and you want to just send them to me, feel free. And um with cuz a lot of the recommendations kind of fall on the conservation commission. Joan, do you know do they had a chance
075to kind of look it over as a group, everyone? Um I sent it to them several times, but I didn't get any comments back. Okay. And we we did um look at the conservation commission's conservation plan, so a lot of those recommendations were carried over. Good. Good. Okay. Here you go. hampshirebugs.org Oh, there you >> [laughter] >> That's a great name. and forest Excellent. So, we'll we'll make changes. We'll get them back to you probably the same time we look at the stormwater again. Sounds good. Thank you. Okay. Um so, that's that. Um When do you think we should have our next um workshop? So, June 2nd, we've got applications. Just one that should go pretty fast. And then June, what's the second one in June? 16th. 16th. Does that work? Or do you have
076somebody coming in? I don't have anybody right now. >> June 16th would be just about a month, so that would be good. Sounds good. Does that seem like enough plenty of time for all these changes to be incorporated? Yeah. I definitely on on this chapter, and I mean, there should be enough time to get input from fire department and road agent, you know, in lieu. So, I think that should work. 16th should work for both. Perfect. So, yeah, let's do that. Let's do that. Um okay. And I know that um I think Tuesday is the cutoff for 16th, so it should be good. I know Rick Charbonneau had some comments that he wanted to make during a workshop, so >> um we should probably just I don't know. >> just a When we have that
077meeting, we can just have a section on our agenda for just general workshop, and we can let him know so that he can come here, and we can actually >> On that same day or a different day? I probably makes sense the same day as we do all the other stuff. Unless anyone has any other He may also have an interest in the stormwater lines. You know, that's a good point. Yeah, he is one of the He is the biggest His company is the biggest uh road company in town. Right. by large margin. Um so, yeah, that would be good. Uh any other things to discuss before we move on? Okay. So, next is committee reports. Uh do we have anyone here that's on any committees? Uh CIP I last time, but we'll meet uh
078what, June 2nd Monday, June 2nd, I think. >> That's right, yeah. Um so, we'll update kind of the first meeting of the month. Okay. Sounds good. I think that's it for committees. June 2nd was what committee? June 1st. Oh, June 1st, sorry. CIP. Oh, CIP, okay. Okay. Uh so, next is the minutes. Has everyone had a chance to review those minutes for May 5th, 2026? I noticed that the absent section in the in attendance was supposed to be the also in attendance section. Yeah, those two sections got reversed. >> Yeah. Yeah, we have these people that >> also And this is absent or it's like they were definitely present. Mhm. Um I didn't notice anything else. All right, I think I'm one other thing um in the where we discuss the conditions for approval. Um
079I think it sounds like the same thing in on page seven, summary conditions, landscaping shall be installed behind the garages including evergreen planting strategically placed to screen and break up the view from a budding properties. I think those are more separate items. They're one is landscaping just to break up the facade. Um and then separately evergreen planting strategically placed along the front of the development across Albuquerque to break up view from the road. And also I had on um a restoration bond shall be established in an amount to be calculated by the town. It should be by the town's consulting engineer. Yep. And I took notes on the conditions, so let me just make sure that they match. >> [snorts] >> The wording is a little different. The wording in the minutes is the application
080shall coordinate with the property owner across from the Charles Bankroft Drive entrance. >> a little confusing because it was more than more than just right across from the entrance. It was further down also. The what way we worded it was stipulation of talking to the owner across to address concerns regarding traffic lights. Right. >> So we use the word stipulation. Um Maybe to establish a stipulation to address concerns related to traffic and tr- traffic lights specifically. Yeah, cuz I think that was the specific concern was the light shining in Yeah. >> [clears throat] >> And let's so yeah, let's split um let's split B into two. One is landscaping shall be installed behind the garages to break up the facade. Right. And a separate bullet to say um evergreen strategically placed between Albuquerque and the
081units to break up the view to be reviewed by the planning board. What would be the the new bullet point pick we're adding specifically about the evergreen plantings for Albuquerque? So um so yeah, we for B we ended at the comma. >> Mhm. Um or we can clarify also that it's to break up the facade. Mhm. And then the new bullet point would be evergreen strategically placed between Albuquerque and the units to break up the view to be reviewed by the planning board. Um and strategically placed >> to come back to the board? Or or that's the wording we use, so um Mhm. that that just means it's during a meeting that will be cuz either it's reviewed by just me or reviewed by the board, so >> when that when the final plan comes
082in we'll just take a look at it. We can add to our agenda to just review it. >> Um to review the conditions for approval. Yep. Yeah. That was how it was worded during the meeting, so we got to reflect how it was worded during the meeting. Right. >> [snorts] >> Um and yeah, then by and what it means by strategically placed it basically means every once in a while far from all the sep- the leach fields because it can't be placed next to leach fields. >> Right. Um I think that sounds good. So, um And uh Joan, do you have any clarifying questions regarding what we just discussed? No. Okay. Sounds good. So, any other Yeah, going back to page three at the bottom under uh the paragraph site [snorts] walk and site walk
083observations. Second sentence. During the walk, residents expressed concerns, particularly near the wooded areas. Oh, yeah. Yeah. We I think the We And any questions? We we did they didn't do it during the walk. We we we looked out for the concerns. >> Yeah. >> [clears throat] >> We How do we How do we state this >> Yeah. In a clear way. We The board expressed the board who took into account the residents' Yes. Yes. Yeah, thank you. Previously stated residents' concerns. There were no residents at the site walk. >> Yeah, previously stated residents. the residents had expressed concerns to us that we then acted on. >> Yeah, or yeah, or expressed at the prior hearing. That's probably the biggest takeaway from the site walk. Mhm. >> Any other um concerns or proposed amendments? Okay. In
084that case, um would someone like to make a motion to approve the May 5th, 2026 minutes as amended? So moved, Mr. Chairman. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Uh any further discussion? Okay, all those in favor of approving the amended May 5th, 2026 minutes, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed, abstained, motion passes 4-0-0. Okay, thank you. So, next, we have any other business. So, is there any other business for this evening? Not for me. Okay. Um over the weekend, I attended the um the New Hampshire Office of Planning and Development training. Um that was a training design for planning board members, local land use officials. Um if folks are actually curious, um all of the slide decks are and the agendas are posted on
085the website, but also there is a um YouTube channel of all of the um recordings for anyone who is uh curious to review the materials, but um I attended the sessions that covered legal requirements for procedures, how to have handle conflicts of interest, um new tools for housing, um and preservation that can also strengthen our decision-making. Um I attended some of the special tracks. So, I found them really interesting. >> [laughter] >> Um particularly around um historic preservation and planning tools for our community. So, um happy to share link out with all the slide decks and the recordings. I, uh, it's a it's a good rainy day read. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, thanks for attending that. Were there any, uh, takeaways that you think, uh, are worth mentioning to the board? Um, you know, I
086think we should do a pretty good job at, you know, just observing our, um, procedures there, too. They had a couple of case studies that they presented where things could go wrong. Um, so it was a sobering reminder that, you know, things can go in the other direction, too. So that was one of my my, um, my takeaways, so. Yeah. I feel like this board has handled things pretty professionally in my time here. >> Uh, which is definitely very something to be proud of. Um. Yeah, I've been to a lot of boards and I think that's absolutely true. Thank you. So, yeah. Uh, any other business? Okay, in that case, would someone like to make a motion to adjourn? So moved. Okay. Second. Seconded. So we have a motion and a second. Uh, any further
087discussion? All those in favor of adjourning, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. Uh, those opposed, abstain. Motion passes 4-0-0. So, yeah, thanks for, uh, watching the Tuesday, May 19th meeting. The next meeting will be on the first Tuesday of, um, June. Yeah, they had it confused cuz they put two lots into four lots. It's confusing.