[0:01] Good evening, and welcome

[0:02] to the Environmental Impact

[0:04] Commission.

[0:05] Today is Wednesday, February

[0:06] 11th, it's 7 o'clock,

[0:08] so I can get roll call

[0:10] from my right.

[0:12] Jeff Harreld.

[0:14] Gary Dufill.

[0:16] Christina Brenn.

[0:17] John Schwartz.

[0:18] Elizabeth Falk.

[0:19] Matt Rose.

[0:20] And Jeff, if you can lead us

[0:21] in pledge. Please.

[0:22] Please rise if you're able.

[0:23] I pledge allegiance

[0:26] to the flag of the United

[0:28] States of America, and to the

[0:30] Republic for which it stands,

[0:33] one nation, under God,

[0:34] indivisible,

[0:36] with liberty and justice

[0:37] for all.

[0:43] The members of the last meeting

[0:45] that were here can vote

[0:46] on the minutes, go ahead.

[0:50] I make a motion we accept the

[0:52] minutes from January 28th.

[0:54] I'll second that.

[0:55] All those in favor?

[0:56] Aye.

[0:57] Opposed?

[0:58] Thank you.

[0:59] The next meeting is February

[1:01] 25th, and the first reading

[1:04] of the activity is item 1261,

[1:08] 134 Chambers Road, the

[1:12] applicant here.

[1:34] Hi I'm Abigail Varga.

[1:36] And I am Brooke Clark.

[1:38] We're from Brooke Clark

[1:39] Landscape Architects.

[1:40] And we are the agent for 134

[1:42] Chambers Road.

[1:46] The property is a 7.9 acre

[1:51] zoned in RA40.

[1:54] It has an existing brook that

[1:56] bisects the property

[1:57] with the majority

[1:58] of the property

[1:59] on the far side

[2:00] of the brook being wetlands.

[2:02] There are some existing

[2:03] wetlands also on this side

[2:05] of the brook close

[2:06] to the home.

[2:08] And it's located in the

[2:14] Paternarum Brook Watershed.

[2:19] Existing or proposed activity

[2:21] includes the demolition

[2:23] of an existing

[2:24] above ground pool, the removal

[2:27] of an existing terrace,

[2:30] removal of an existing shed,

[2:32] and the relocation of a septic

[2:33] pump and septic tank.

[2:39] Proposed mitigation measures

[2:40] include holding an average

[2:42] of a 10 to 15 foot buffer

[2:45] from the wetland line

[2:47] on this side of the brook.

[2:50] The demarcation is utilizing

[2:54] the pool enclosure fence.

[2:56] And beyond that, where needed,

[2:58] it is demarcated

[3:00] through boulders.

[3:01] And then beyond that, between

[3:03] the demarcation line and the

[3:05] brook would be no mow,

[3:07] fine fescue.

[3:11] Some erosion has occurred along

[3:13] the bank alongside the brook.

[3:16] At critical areas,

[3:17] we are proposing boulders set

[3:19] in grade

[3:20] with native planting.

[3:22] And certain more critical

[3:24] areas, we're proposing a

[3:26] fieldstone wall.

[3:29] There's an existing footbridge

[3:31] that we are proposing

[3:32] to rehabilitate

[3:33] with added concrete footings.

[3:37] And we're just holding a mown

[3:39] lawn footpath

[3:41] to that bridge.

[3:49] Oh, so the proposed barn is a

[3:51] 20 by 20 with an added lean-to

[3:54] on the rear.

[3:55] And that is held in the same

[3:57] location as the existing shed.

[3:58] No tree removal

[4:06] in the wetlands is occurring.

[4:08] There's one small ornamental

[4:10] tree located

[4:11] between the terrace, the

[4:13] existing terrace and the house

[4:14] that's to be removed.

[4:16] And I think that's it.

[4:27] Yes, as a matter of fact, I was

[4:29] the sanitarian that was working

[4:31] on the 100% replacement area.

[4:34] So I did the test holes

[4:35] with the engineering company,

[4:37] which is far enough removed as

[4:38] it is because they're a

[4:40] swimming pool and it needs

[4:41] to be a B100.

[4:42] And the B100 is,

[4:44] they're asking for permission

[4:46] for us

[4:47] to accept that as well.

[4:48] The site,

[4:49] like the applicant has stated,

[4:51] the site is seven and a half

[4:52] acres and they're really

[4:53] primarily just working

[4:55] on everything that's in the

[4:56] front and the areas that have

[4:57] already been an active,

[5:01] the active part

[5:02] of the home site.

[5:03] The stabilization of the stream

[5:06] bank was something that we

[5:07] discussed when we walked,

[5:09] saying that there are some

[5:10] definite erosion measures and

[5:12] they actually located them and

[5:14] they're showing what needs to

[5:16] be done.

[5:17] I know that we can go

[5:20] out there.

[5:21] We should go out there and take

[5:22] a look because even though

[5:24] there may be snow cover,

[5:26] it's very fairly evident of

[5:27] where everything is going so

[5:29] that we can see it.

[5:31] I know that it's been brought

[5:35] to my attention by one of the

[5:37] commissioners that the invasive

[5:39] species removal that's

[5:40] on there, that all invasive

[5:42] species should be bagged and

[5:43] removed from the site, not

[5:45] stockpiled or placed anyplace

[5:47] else so that we don't spread

[5:49] them around.

[5:50] It's just put it in

[5:51] with the trash, thank you.

[5:53] As well as there's a lot of

[5:54] down debris that you're

[5:57] referring to.

[5:59] We need to maintain some

[6:00] critter habitat, please, so we

[6:02] can discuss that as we're there

[6:05] and we can look

[6:06] at it when the commissioners go

[6:08] out and look at it.

[6:10] I do recommend that if you go

[6:11] out there that you can just

[6:14] obviously introduce yourselves

[6:15] and if you want me there

[6:17] with you, I can,

[6:19] and take a look

[6:20] at it.

[6:22] I do have to admit, the

[6:25] planting plan and everything

[6:26] that they did,

[6:28] everything is list

[6:29] of species, the list of cost, I

[6:30] mean we can do bond estimates

[6:31] right from the thing, it's

[6:33] very, job well done ladies,

[6:34] thank you very much.

[6:36] We appreciate that.

[6:37] It's very complete, it is

[6:39] definitely a good application

[6:41] and I look forward

[6:42] for making it work.

[6:44] Thank you.

[6:50] Yeah, maybe there's a question

[6:52] for you Larry.

[6:55] The stream bank stabilization,

[6:59] I haven't been out there.

[7:03] They show some boulders,

[7:04] they show some walls.

[7:07] There's not a lot of detail

[7:08] on that, how high the wall is

[7:10] and all that.

[7:11] Is there enough information

[7:12] for you

[7:13] to know what's going on?

[7:15] That is a question that we're

[7:16] going to, that is a question

[7:17] that was going to be asked

[7:19] in the staff report

[7:21] in between, and yeah, I do need

[7:23] a little bit more detail

[7:25] about the wall specifically,

[7:27] especially if the wall is

[7:28] going, especially wall height,

[7:30] because if it's

[7:31] over three feet, it needs

[7:32] to be designed

[7:33] by a professional engineer.

[7:35] The scouring areas where they

[7:37] are and where they're going

[7:38] to place the boulders for,

[7:40] well it's really not placing

[7:41] boulders, it's kind

[7:42] of armor plating, some

[7:43] of where the scour is

[7:44] from the meander

[7:46] of the stream, I mean that's

[7:47] fairly evident and that detail

[7:48] is in their stabilization,

[7:52] but you're right, the wall

[7:53] needs a little bit more

[7:55] fine-tuning and that's, I'm

[7:58] sure that will be asked and

[8:00] answered

[8:02] before the next meeting.

[8:05] The same with the footers

[8:06] for the little bridge,

[8:10] I don't know if those are just

[8:11] like footers that are just

[8:13] like for a deck.

[8:14] When you see it, you'll see

[8:16] what they're talking about.

[8:17] They're just going to pour,

[8:20] obviously they're just going

[8:21] to pour two concrete curbs,

[8:25] for lack of a better term,

[8:27] that they're going to attach

[8:28] to it.

[8:29] This isn't a foot, this isn't a

[8:31] bridge that's going to be

[8:33] for vehicles,

[8:34] this is just a bridge

[8:36] for pedestrian traffic, it's

[8:38] just, and right now,

[8:39] I think that what they want

[8:40] to do is they want to make sure

[8:41] that it doesn't wind up

[8:42] downstream, and part

[8:44] of the process of doing this,

[8:46] what I would be also

[8:47] recommending is how are they

[8:48] going to anchor it or at least

[8:49] tether the bridge should a

[8:51] flash flood come by,

[8:53] that the bridge is, that

[8:54] footbridge doesn't become

[8:56] something clogged

[8:57] in a culvert downstream.

[9:01] Thank you.

[9:02] Gary.

[9:03] Any other questions

[9:04] from commissioners?

[9:05] Is the,

[9:06] where the improvements are

[9:07] going in, is there a flood zone

[9:08] that extends out

[9:09] from the creek?

[9:13] There's not currently shown a

[9:14] flood zone.

[9:15] Okay.

[9:16] It's unshaded accent on FEMA,

[9:18] or?

[9:19] There's a wetland line that's

[9:21] been depicted,

[9:22] but no flood zone.

[9:23] Okay.

[9:24] It's picked up by the CRIR.

[9:25] On the firm map, it doesn't, it

[9:27] does not say that there's a

[9:28] flood zone.

[9:30] Okay.

[9:33] Any other questions, comments,

[9:36] if there aren't any,

[9:38] if someone could make a motion

[9:39] to table

[9:40] to the next meeting.

[9:43] All right.

[9:44] We'll make a motion.

[9:45] We table regulated activity

[9:46] 1261 for Chambers Road until

[9:48] the next regularly scheduled

[9:49] meeting, which is the 25th of

[9:51] February.

[9:54] Second.

[9:55] All those in favor?

[9:57] Aye.

[9:58] Opposed?

[9:59] Thank you.

[10:00] Thank you.

[10:02] (Inaudible). The application is

[10:10] not completed so the applicant

[10:13] has decided to wait this evening

[10:16] and submit a full application.

[10:18] So we will have to make a motion

[10:20] if the application is not

[10:21] complete and vote on it next

[10:24] meeting. (Inaudible) is in Utah

[10:27] right now on vacation, I spoke

[10:29] with him yesterday, saw the

[10:31] report, this is on the previous

[10:33] subdivision.

[10:37] And I said I'd like that

[10:38] revisited.

[10:40] Are there multiple lots

[10:41] associated

[10:42] with the proposed development?

[10:44] Ten.

[10:45] Ten?

[10:46] Ten.

[10:47] We can't talk about it.

[10:49] We're not talking

[10:50] about it tonight.

[10:51] It's not a completed,

[10:52] this is coming down the pipe,

[10:53] but yes, this is a subdivision

[10:54] application.

[10:58] Are you talking

[10:59] about the future is going to,

[11:00] they want to break it down

[11:01] into ten lots?

[11:02] Well, again, we can't talk

[11:03] about that.

[11:04] We're not talking

[11:05] about it tonight.

[11:06] The application is different

[11:07] than what's submitted,

[11:09] so we need to vote

[11:11] on that it's not.

[11:12] We need additional information

[11:13] at this point.

[11:14] Thank you.

[11:15] Mr. Chairman, I'll make a

[11:16] motion

[11:17] to table regulated activity

[11:18] 12.

[11:19] I know.

[11:20] You don't accept the

[11:21] application.

[11:22] Yeah.

[11:23] Okay.

[11:24] We need a motion that the

[11:25] application is not complete.

[11:26] Okay.

[11:27] We move on.

[11:28] Good deal.

[11:29] Do we have a second?

[11:30] Second.

[11:31] All those in favor?

[11:32] Aye.

[11:33] Opposed?

[11:34] Thank you.

[11:35] Old business.

[11:36] We have regular activity

[11:37] 1258, 227-297.

[11:40] So move.

[11:44] Chairman and Commissioner.

[11:47] Oh, this one's on.

[11:48] There we go.

[11:49] My name is Charles

[11:50] Lichtenauer.

[11:51] I'm an attorney with Chipman

[11:52] Mizuko Emerson located at 44

[11:53] Old Ridgebury Road in

[11:54] Danbury.

[11:56] I represent the owner

[11:57] of the property,

[11:59] and I'm here tonight with

[12:00] Jamie LaGiudice from Insight

[12:01] Engineering and Daniel Knight

[12:03] from Morphar.

[12:05] We received the staff report

[12:06] dated February 9th

[12:08] from staff, and we appreciate

[12:09] staff's thorough review and the

[12:12] recommendation that with the

[12:14] appropriate measures and

[12:15] conditions in place,

[12:17] the project will not result

[12:18] in significant impacts

[12:20] to wetlands or waterways.

[12:23] Our team is generally agreeable

[12:25] with the conditions, but we'd

[12:27] like to make one request

[12:29] for a modification.

[12:31] And our team would like

[12:32] to see the modification

[12:34] from five years to three years

[12:36] with respect

[12:38] to condition four.

[12:39] And that would be so that our

[12:40] monitoring and our

[12:42] documentation requirements are

[12:44] consistent with Southeast's

[12:46] requirements.

[12:47] And that is our only comment.

[12:50] So I will open the floor

[12:52] to conversations with our

[12:54] project engineer and owner,

[12:56] myself,

[12:58] but that's our only comment.

[12:59] So thank you very much,

[13:00] Larry, for your report and

[13:02] for the diligent conditions

[13:05] of approval.

[13:06] And I'll leave it at that.

[13:07] Thank you.

[13:10] I will open this up for

[13:12] discussion with the

[13:13] commissioners, anybody has any

[13:15] questions? Make any comments.

[13:20] I did, and I have one question

[13:22] to their comment.

[13:24] They want to reduce the

[13:25] five-year monitoring

[13:26] post-complete

[13:27] of the project.

[13:29] Is that what he said?

[13:31] Post, you know, I didn't, I'm

[13:34] sorry,

[13:35] I didn't understand what.

[13:36] The five, the condition four

[13:38] states, the invasive species

[13:39] removal plan shall be

[13:41] implemented and the area

[13:42] monitored

[13:43] for five growing seasons.

[13:45] Okay.

[13:46] And they would like to change

[13:47] that

[13:48] to three growing seasons.

[13:50] Okay.

[13:51] I said five only because I

[13:52] chose five, and my reasoning

[13:56] was that the area that the area

[14:00] of Barbary that they're

[14:01] removing is massive.

[14:03] We walked through that when we

[14:04] were there.

[14:06] And that three years,

[14:07] you're just going

[14:08] to start seeing a little bit

[14:09] of growth.

[14:11] In my opinion, three years, you

[14:12] just start seeing if it's kind

[14:14] of bounced back.

[14:15] You're going

[14:16] to start seeing a little bit

[14:17] of growth, and then it's going

[14:18] to wind up being ten years

[14:20] from now,

[14:21] it'll wind up being fully full

[14:22] of Barbary again.

[14:24] So in five years, it gives

[14:25] them, in my opinion, five

[14:28] years, and I will,

[14:30] obviously it's just a changing

[14:31] of a wording in the approval,

[14:33] however,

[14:34] it's something that we're

[14:38] trying to make it that the

[14:41] plants that they're planting in

[14:43] these areas can harden and

[14:45] maintain and out-compete the

[14:48] Barbary, which has really taken

[14:50] over a large portion

[14:51] of that wetland.

[14:53] And if the agency feels that

[14:55] three is sufficient, I'm okay

[14:57] with that, too.

[14:58] I got to follow up

[14:59] with my question, though,

[15:00] but they, I'm sorry, you

[15:01] referenced,

[15:02] I don't remember your name

[15:03] already, you referenced that

[15:05] to comport with,

[15:06] I think you said comport with

[15:07] Southeast regulations.

[15:09] So they have a three-year

[15:10] monitoring?

[15:11] Is that the idea?

[15:12] Correct.

[15:13] Is that what you're just trying

[15:14] to make them both the same?

[15:15] Correct.

[15:19] Okay, just a question,

[15:20] hypothetically, I can

[15:21] understand the monitoring and

[15:22] maybe you don't want

[15:23] to send pictures back

[15:24] in every year

[15:25] after three years, but if

[15:26] in five years you start

[15:27] to see an infestation of

[15:30] Barbary back

[15:31] into your driving range,

[15:34] what are you going

[15:35] to do?

[15:36] I mean, I'm assuming you're not

[15:37] just going to say, oh, look,

[15:38] there's Barbary and let it go,

[15:40] but what is that,

[15:41] not necessarily reporting back

[15:44] to us as

[15:45] to what the status is, but

[15:46] what's your standard management

[15:48] practice if you start

[15:49] to see that pick up again?

[15:53] So that would be part of the

[15:54] overall golf course management

[15:55] plan, so they,

[15:57] they're not going to let

[15:58] Barbary just kind of take

[15:59] over the driving range,

[16:01] it defeats the point

[16:02] of the driving range, but that

[16:03] would be included as part

[16:05] of their management plan,

[16:06] but their overall operations,

[16:10] so it would be maintained.

[16:11] And my other reasoning

[16:13] behind that is, is that they

[16:15] are limiting their invasive

[16:17] removal to the area where

[16:19] they're doing work and not the

[16:24] entirety of the wetland, and

[16:28] it's inevitable that that area

[16:29] is going

[16:30] to revert back.

[16:31] I'm trying to make it, the five

[16:33] years is that if we have it and

[16:34] they maintain it, but again,

[16:37] this is not my decision,

[16:39] it's your decision, and if the

[16:40] agency thinks that marrying

[16:42] with what Southeast does is

[16:44] appropriate,

[16:45] then so be it.

[16:54] I'm on, okay, I think I'm

[16:56] personally uncomfortable just

[16:58] marrying it because that's what

[16:59] Southeast does, but

[17:00] from your perspective, five

[17:03] years is a more robust and

[17:05] ensuring it, however, you've

[17:07] also just described the fact

[17:09] that they have a seedbed just

[17:11] outside the area,

[17:12] which is still going

[17:13] to be full of Barbary, and it's

[17:14] right there.

[17:16] Okay.

[17:19] Okay.

[17:20] We didn't require that the

[17:21] entire wetland be mitigated

[17:22] of Barbary, okay, because that

[17:24] would be an undertaking that we

[17:25] wouldn't ask to do anyway,

[17:27] okay, that would be

[17:28] astronomically expensive as

[17:30] it's not prudent or feasible,

[17:32] however, what we, you know, if

[17:34] we can make it the areas that

[17:38] are visible and are going

[17:41] to be utilized, again,

[17:44] I have no objection to three,

[17:46] okay, but knowing that their

[17:49] maintenance program is going

[17:50] to be that they're going

[17:51] to maintain the driving range,

[17:54] once the driving range is

[17:55] complete,

[17:56] I'm really not that concerned

[17:57] about the driving range,

[17:58] I'm concerned about the

[17:59] periphery and the wetlands

[18:01] on the outskirts

[18:02] of the driving range, and so,

[18:04] you know, it's going to be,

[18:05] it's also utilized

[18:08] for good scientific research as

[18:11] to what we see, what we

[18:12] monitor, what we saw

[18:13] from the beginning,

[18:15] and I might be able

[18:16] to write a paper about that,

[18:17] about, you know, golf course

[18:19] improvements,

[18:20] which is what we talked

[18:21] about when we were out there,

[18:22] you know,

[18:23] so the golf course is just

[18:26] another,

[18:27] it's just a technical term

[18:28] for turf management,

[18:31] that's what they do, they

[18:32] manage the turf and they manage

[18:34] the environment,

[18:36] I'm just trying

[18:37] to set some parameters, again,

[18:39] I have no objection to three,

[18:41] and you know, if necessary,

[18:43] you know, if it comes in, you

[18:45] know, they're not going

[18:46] to get their bond release until

[18:50] everything is taken care of,

[18:52] and the plantings that they do,

[18:55] it's got

[18:56] to be an 80% success rate

[18:59] after five years, three years,

[19:01] whichever way that,

[19:02] whichever number you guys agree

[19:04] to, so that's the way that that

[19:07] is and that's fine,

[19:09] that's okay

[19:10] with me.

[19:11] I'm just listening to different

[19:12] comments, I mean,

[19:13] what I'm hearing from Larry is

[19:16] we're only just going

[19:17] to see how it's doing

[19:19] after three years,

[19:21] and the only reason not

[19:22] to do it is to be the same as

[19:23] Southeast, I just assume then

[19:28] stay with the five,

[19:29] because there's a staff there,

[19:32] a good staff,

[19:34] this is a good way

[19:36] to make sure we're going

[19:37] to get what has been promised,

[19:39] so I'm not an expert

[19:42] on these plants,

[19:45] other people know more,

[19:47] but I'm just going

[19:48] by what people are telling me,

[19:51] so.

[19:55] If I may, Mr. Chairman,

[19:58] Commissioners Harreld and

[19:59] Dufel, completely understood

[20:03] with respect to your reasoning

[20:04] behind the five years, and

[20:06] after discussion

[20:07] with the owner,

[20:08] we will concede

[20:09] to the five years,

[20:10] we don't have a problem

[20:11] with that, it would be nice

[20:13] to have consistency, but we

[20:14] understand staff's arguments,

[20:17] and so with the conditions

[20:19] of approval shown

[20:21] on the staff report, we are

[20:23] hoping and requesting that this

[20:25] commission will approve the

[20:26] application this evening.

[20:27] Thank you very much.

[20:31] Solves that?

[20:33] Any other questions, comments,

[20:37] or is anybody interested in

[20:40] making a motion?

[20:41] I'll make a motion we approve

[20:42] regulated activity 1258 for

[20:48] Morphar Golf Course, and

[20:50] with the stipulations noted

[20:51] in the staff report.

[20:54] Do we have a second?

[20:55] Second.

[20:56] All those in favor?

[20:57] Aye.

[20:58] Opposed?

[20:59] Thank you.

[21:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[21:03] Thank you.

[21:05] Good.

[21:06] Next item on the agenda is

[21:07] 1260 Ann Albert Road.

[21:15] Hi, Marissa Bablako, I'm the

[21:16] homeowner.

[21:17] I read through the staff

[21:18] report, happy

[21:19] to provide a bond and plant 15

[21:22] plants.

[21:23] Larry sent over a list of

[21:24] approved shrubs.

[21:25] I found one that was non-toxic

[21:27] to dogs, and it looks great,

[21:29] so happy

[21:30] to meet all the conditions

[21:31] of the report.

[21:37] Do we have a motion to review

[21:40] the report and the commission?

[21:50] I'm doing it.

[21:54] The suspense is killing us.

[21:55] Okay, I make a motion we accept

[21:57] regulated activity 1260

[22:00] with the specifications noted

[22:03] in the staff report,

[22:05] and approve the request,

[22:07] approve the...

[22:10] Do we have a second?

[22:11] Second.

[22:12] All those in favor?

[22:13] Aye.

[22:14] Opposed?

[22:15] Thank you.

[22:16] Thank you.

[22:19] We don't have any applications

[22:22] for administrative approval,

[22:24] staff actions, violations.

[22:29] Anything there?

[22:31] As far as the violations,

[22:32] we are in contact with council

[22:35] about a few of these,

[22:37] and there will be news coming

[22:40] in the not-too-distant future.

[22:43] Larry, I'm

[22:45] in the work group.

[22:46] Okay, working group updates,

[22:48] we met last week.

[22:51] Yeah, last Wednesday.

[22:54] Wednesday, Thursday?

[22:55] Was it Thursday?

[22:56] Yes, right, it was Thursday,

[22:57] Thursday the 5th,

[22:59] not the 4th.

[23:01] And reviewed the edited version

[23:05] of the regulations,

[23:07] made a few minor changes

[23:10] for clarification

[23:11] on what's written in there.

[23:12] Next step is to update that

[23:18] version and send it out

[23:19] for review.

[23:20] So this will be the existing

[23:23] Danbury regulations showing all

[23:26] of the edits and using the

[23:29] trace function in the Word

[23:30] document for everybody

[23:32] to review, and we will meet.

[23:36] The crux of the revision is

[23:39] that the fee schedule is taken

[23:41] out of the body

[23:43] of the regulation and made

[23:44] into an appendix.

[23:46] The fee schedule is also going

[23:47] to be distributed to everybody

[23:48] so that this way then you can

[23:50] review it and make comments,

[23:53] and then the next steps that we

[23:54] have is to have it reviewed

[23:57] by the Corporation Council,

[23:59] just because they have

[24:00] to review all changes,

[24:01] and then after it goes

[24:03] to the DEP for their review and

[24:05] final blessings of it.

[24:08] Then we will have

[24:11] to publish it in the paper.

[24:13] That's part

[24:15] of the requirements.

[24:16] Okay, so proposing to meet, I

[24:19] think, like Tuesday, February

[24:21] 24th?

[24:23] Sure, that works for me.

[24:24] Okay, at 4 o'clock?

[24:28] 4 o'clock.

[24:29] I serve at your pleasure.

[24:30] You guys tell me when you can

[24:32] do it.

[24:33] And whoever can make that,

[24:34] we'll start, you know,

[24:35] we'll go

[24:36] over the complete document.

[24:39] Okay? Great, thank you. We have

[24:49] no correspondence. Do we have a

[24:50] motion to adjourn? Who wants

[24:54] to adjourn? Make a motion we

[24:59] adjourn. Do we have a second?

[25:02] Second. All those in favor?

[25:04] Aye. Aye. Opposed?

[25:13] Thank you, everybody.

[25:14] I hope you have a good

[25:15] Valentine's Day.

February 11, 2026 E.I.C. meeting

Agenda

Transcript