[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.