[1:10] All right.

[1:16] You could all join me in a moment of silence.

[1:29] Thank you.

[1:32] All right item number six, review and adoption of the meeting agenda. As everyone had an opportunity to review.

[1:47] Motion has been made, second, motion has been made properly, second, any further discussion. Will we get a vote please?

[1:59] Mr. Williams. Mr. Catwood. Mr. Townsend. Chair Cello.

[2:07] Aye.

[2:09] Item number seven on the agenda. Approval of the minutes from the August 5th,

[2:13] 2026 Planning Commission regular meaning. Have everyone had an opportunity to review the minutes?

[2:20] Well, there are any questions, concerns?

[2:26] I will entertain a motion.

[2:27] I will make a motion that we accept that is written.

[2:32] The motion has been made, the motion has been made, and it is the vote, but at least.

[2:37] It is Williams.

[2:38] No.

[2:39] It is Caledon.

[2:42] Mr. Caledon.

[2:44] Chair Caledon.

[2:45] All right.

[2:48] Next on the agenda, item number 8A, consideration of the revised planning and zoning fee schedule.

[2:55] table from the August meeting who will be presenting.

[3:01] That one.

[3:49] The first item on our agenda tonight for public hearing is the

[3:54] consideration of the robust planning and zoning fee schedule

[3:57] that was tabled from all this.

[4:02] As we all know, the meeting last month, the planning commission

[4:07] then suggested staff updated definitions to explain the changes in the relating terms

[4:17] to the fees and what was changing.

[4:22] I've listed out the proposed definitions.

[4:24] I can review them if you would like.

[4:27] Some of these are new terms to the fee schedule, and some of these are amended terms to the

[4:33] current fees. For

[4:40] instance, the first one, the conditional use permit amendment, that is

[4:45] a new fee to the fee schedule. With that, we would add the definition as a modification

[4:54] to an approved conditional use permit, including any change to the approved use cycling development

[4:59] standards, operational conditions, hours of operation, intensity of use, or other permit

[5:06] The amendment shall be reviewed and approved using the same procedures and criteria applicable

[5:11] to the original conditional use permit unless the zoning administrator determines that

[5:16] the proposed change is minor and does not materially alter the approved use or its impact.

[5:25] And conditional use for home occupation type 2.

[5:28] We have a lot of home occupation permits come in that are allowed by right in the ACR-R and R1.

[5:38] The condition or the type 2 home occupations are a little more intense.

[5:43] They allow more employees, more customers, whatever it may be.

[5:48] And I think some of those are allowed only by conditional use in those things in districts.

[5:55] So we have a use matrix that tells things that we can do in our homes as a home occupation and then if we have further needs we can come and make application to have a modification to that.

[6:08] Yeah.

[6:09] Yep.

[6:10] You see an increase in them.

[6:13] Not so much for the type two, although there have been a couple that I know of.

[6:21] that would be probably be interested in this.

[6:26] Yeah, this particular conditional use

[6:28] for the home occupation.

[6:30] And then that would give us,

[6:32] you know, or give the board the ability

[6:35] to put conditions on their use.

[6:39] So we're talking about people that want to work from home

[6:41] like an account or someone pretty much

[6:45] just working out of their home running a business.

[6:47] Right.

[6:48] Not a lot of traffic,

[6:50] not people commenting. And I type one home occupation, it allows up to five customers. I believe daily. So anything over that would would trigger the type two and a conditional use permit.

[7:03] That's that's what I wanted to get to. Perfect.

[7:06] All right. The rest, like I said, you know, they're, they're most of them are brand new as they were added to the fee schedule subdivision construction plan amendment.

[7:18] the bond reduction or release with inspection,

[7:22] playing unit development with the master plan amendment.

[7:28] Preliminary plan was an old fee,

[7:30] but we didn't necessarily define it in the ordinance now.

[7:42] The only administrative modification

[7:44] would be a limited adjustment to dimensional design

[7:47] and develops the other ordinance that is all that has to be approved.

[7:51] administratively by does any administrator or other designated administrative official

[7:57] without a public hearing when the adjustment satisfies the specific objective standard established

[8:04] and established in the official without a public in the ordinance, excuse me, and administrative

[8:12] modification is intended to allow minor flexibility and applying ordinance standards where the modification

[8:18] does not materially alter the purpose, character, or intent of the applicable

[8:23] to any regulations. That was one of the land disturbance.

[8:32] Is that something that just hasn't been completed, that it's an annual land disturbance?

[8:41] Well, before, let's see, our old annual

[8:44] end disturbance was renewal fee.

[8:52] It's good for 12 months, all the end disturbance.

[8:54] If it goes over, we can go.

[8:56] Yeah.

[8:57] So that would just be.

[9:01] It's basically just renewing the land disturbance for a minute.

[9:04] Instead of having a recent mit within plat and, you know,

[9:07] limits of disturbance and all that.

[9:08] It would just renew the current B. And then I specified, I guess in the annual land

[9:17] disturbance permit renewal, but also we could look at adding more to the land disturbance

[9:24] permit itself, adding the 2,500 square feet or more and less than one acre per lot in preparation

[9:35] for the support of development or redevelopment.

[9:43] There's re-inspection after the fact fee, working without a permit,

[9:50] and that's page is the proposed fee schedule.

[9:59] The backup just for a second.

[10:01] Pain disturbance re-inspection after the fact.

[10:04] So somebody has a land disturbance permit.

[10:08] What is after the fact?

[10:12] So if air inspector goes out and has to, I guess, not pass, or something is not adequately addressed, and she makes a suggestion and then has to go back out to reinspects.

[10:28] That would be where that reinspection fee comes out comes into play.

[10:32] Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, that's her calls to first visit. Pretty much. And there's there's a couple of instances where air inspectors had to go out to places several times and she's not charging any amount for it. So right now it's all an air calls.

[10:56] So, the first inspection is figured in the first.

[11:00] Absolutely.

[11:01] I mean, you have to get multiple inspections and you didn't have to feed, and you didn't.

[11:08] Right.

[11:11] Excuse me, one second.

[11:12] I'm a little uncharted territory.

[11:14] Mr. Kat, it can probably help me.

[11:16] Mr. Hendrick said he thought it was next week.

[11:18] He would like to join the lesson now.

[11:19] And he joined us that just be as a citizen as a citizen.

[11:33] Can we go back in the blue to electronic?

[11:37] No, as we've already approved the need and agenda can't alter it.

[11:42] So he can watch us be as we just can't participate because no electronic

[11:46] I'm not going to participate.

[11:47] We already have a phone.

[11:48] Yeah.

[11:49] Sorry for the no option.

[11:50] That's okay.

[11:51] No.

[11:51] Well, I didn't know he's okay.

[11:53] Yeah.

[11:57] Yeah.

[11:58] That would trigger the re-inspection fee.

[12:06] Working without a permit.

[12:07] That's explained in the definitions as well.

[12:11] And then that would be double the permit fee as a minimum.

[12:16] With up to, I think we discussed like $2,500 at this.

[12:21] If you

[12:30] have any other questions, other staff recommends planning commissions in the

[12:37] zoning.

[12:37] I have subdivision ordinance amendments to chapter 86, section 5, Article 2 definitions

[12:42] and the revised plan and zoning be scheduled to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation

[12:47] of approval as presented.

[12:51] Yes, sir.

[12:52] Mr. Williams.

[12:53] If you have a public hand on this, we all would you like to wait till we have that and then

[12:57] Yes, and you're good.

[13:01] All right.

[13:02] Do we have anyone signed up?

[13:11] I'm going to

[13:18] open the public hand this time.

[13:20] I'll close the public hand.

[13:23] And fellow commissioners.

[13:27] Well, we asked the definitions.

[13:29] I think I like to look very clarified that I

[13:37] got a question on this.

[13:38] It's going unit development,

[13:43] how many of those do we have going on at the county at the

[13:46] moment?

[13:48] One.

[13:49] The only one that I'm aware of.

[13:54] And if you remember Mr. Williams, we had two very large chunks of land that were slated

[14:00] to BPUDs, and we voted probably a year or so ago to change those around.

[14:07] I look, I'll remember some of the, I'll just, just curious if any of us in just for the, for the public, we have the orchards.

[14:17] But currently we do not have another piece of property. I don't believe in the county that someone could come in and make application for a PUD.

[14:26] We did have two very large parcels in close proximity to the orchards.

[14:31] that the way our ordinance was written, someone could have purchased them and come in here and asked to do a PUD and we would have had a hard time not allowing them.

[14:43] Which could have potentially been another 600 to a thousand houses that we diligently worked to try to put some control measures in place.

[14:56] Come on.

[15:00] I mean, with the HUD master plan amendment, I believe is what we were calling, what we defined, what I defined.

[15:13] I don't, I don't first see that being a big stand out item, but it's defined.

[15:26] I just make sure nothing is swept by that I.

[15:34] Questions concerned? No. I mean, I move that the

[16:12] Any more saying none?

[16:14] Will we get rid of this?

[16:15] Mr. Calis.

[16:16] Aye.

[16:18] Mr. Williams.

[16:20] Uh-huh.

[16:21] Mr. Counselor.

[16:22] Uh-huh.

[16:22] Mr. Calis.

[16:24] Aye.

[16:24] OSHA carries.

[16:26] Okay.

[16:27] Next item number 8B.

[16:29] Consideration of the Chesapeake Bay Act resiliency amendments.

[16:33] Table from August as well.

[16:35] Get married presenting this time.

[16:38] So the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area ordinance was hailed in August.

[16:41] We incorporated feedback that we received from the planning commission that clarified basically what triggers a minor water quality assessment, a major water quality assessment and an RPA modification permit.

[16:56] More specifically, a minor water quality assessment would be needed when activity inside the RPA is above 400 square feet below 2500 square feet.

[17:06] A major would be triggered when activity inside the RPA is the 2500 square feet, and in instances where land disturbance within the RPA is under 400 square feet, then you could apply for RPA modification permit in lieu of water quality assessment.

[17:27] And the ordinance was submitted to DEQ for review on August 19th, but we haven't received any comments back.

[17:34] So staff recommends the planning commission, send the Chesapeake Bay Act,

[17:40] presiding amendments forward to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of a fruitful.

[17:45] And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

[17:54] But we've been over this a lot, and I think that it addressed the issues that we've been

[18:00] trying to get forward.

[18:01] And today we did say that he has a review about what he was going to start with with the

[18:07] event.

[18:08] And I think his major one was about minor versus major.

[18:13] Yes.

[18:13] That explains that under 400 you.

[18:15] Yeah. It's optional. Are you sure? No, you would need the RPA modification permit.

[18:22] You do need it. Yes, you just wouldn't need a minor or a major water quality impact.

[18:27] So anything you're doing in the RPA, you have to have some cabinet.

[18:30] There's plenty of things. Yes, but within the 40 square footers, so you do not go down,

[18:36] take a big tree and say, well, it was down 4 by 10 area. That was within my rites.

[18:40] Right. Just not 4 out of 40 by 10.

[18:42] But you can ask for a modification if you can prove that the tree is diseased or dangerous

[18:50] or the falling of the tree, the root ball will take the bank out or something like that.

[18:57] I mean, there's recommendations in the county back to what to do.

[19:03] Yeah, to Mr. Williams' question, you basically have to get permission to do whatever you

[19:08] do in the RPA, it's just different levels.

[19:12] Let's make

[19:18] that clear outside of that.

[19:20] It's 20,000.

[19:22] Yeah,

[19:25] the land disturbance outside of the RPA.

[19:28] You can clear 2500 square feet or less without a land disturbance permanent when you go

[19:33] above the 2500 that triggers the land disturbance.

[19:40] We want to open it up to the public hand.

[19:43] Right?

[19:44] At this time, I will open up the public here properly.

[19:47] do we have anyone signed up to speak? Not for this public hearing.

[19:53] I'm not saying none. I will close the public hearing.

[19:57] I'll open it back up to fellow commissioners for any discussion or questions.

[20:08] You said you'd send it to DEQ and didn't get a comment back.

[20:12] Not yet. They're still working on it.

[20:14] I just didn't want you to leave thinking that there were no comments.

[20:17] They do intend to send something back. We just haven't gotten it yet.

[20:22] Do we need to wait for that comment for we send it to the board or send the comment they send to the board?

[20:29] As should we do that to make sure we cover?

[20:32] I would like to say it's sent on to the board.

[20:35] I would check with the comments.

[20:37] If the comments are not in by time the board hears if they want to send it back or a table that they can.

[20:42] If it's something like most of all, we've been over this and over this.

[20:50] Just correct me from wrong.

[20:53] We implemented the bare minimum was required and the proposed changes and the template ordinance

[21:03] correct.

[21:04] For my understanding, yes.

[21:06] Okay.

[21:07] And we send it to DEQ to the get a cursor review to see if they agree or disagree with what

[21:12] our language is in our ordinance.

[21:14] That's correct.

[21:14] I

[21:17] mean, I'll say that we can send it, I think my direction from the board level is without

[21:24] the DEQ comments.

[21:26] We won't take action on it until we get that back because we have no point in doing

[21:29] that and having to go back and forth with a fight in DEQ.

[21:32] So should we send it all in and report that on?

[21:36] I mean, I'd say that probably what all eventually happens, if it comes up to the board level

[21:43] and those DECU comments are still outstanding.

[21:45] The board will just kick it back to you yet or to us.

[21:48] So you change it now, so come in.

[21:52] I mean, it's saying to send it,

[21:53] when do we spot comes in?

[21:56] How do you want to do it?

[21:57] I mean, I think that's what this really is.

[21:59] There's no reason to table.

[22:00] There's nothing left to work on.

[22:02] I said, if we don't, we're done.

[22:03] No, and if you guys remember,

[22:05] we got DECU's original draft

[22:07] of what their minimums were and what they wanted to see

[22:11] When it first got presented to us, it had that plus some additional language in there that we

[22:18] asked the question, where did all this additional language come from? We didn't ask for this.

[22:24] So that's when we kicked it back and got the redacted version, I guess, of what is DEQ's requirements?

[22:32] What are they requiring that we do? And Mr. Hendrick worked on that draft to make sure we were checking

[22:38] all the boxes that we will require to do. So I think at this point, it's really, it's just

[22:44] getting there. Their comments should only be, yes, you did what we originally asked you to do.

[22:52] Yeah, that's what it should be, but the knowing, right, that's, yeah, that's, that's just my thing,

[22:59] they throw in something there that you missed or as ambiguous language. I think that the lady that

[23:04] would send it to acting if you did say that if we needed to make amendments down the road,

[23:11] that they would probably have more to add to it anyway.

[23:17] I would be in favor of moving it on and hope that we get that before the board meeting.

[23:22] Yeah. I don't disagree with that. The other thing is I mean Mr.

[23:26] Mr. Smith, there's nothing that says that has to go on our next agenda. We can direct it to our agenda

[23:33] of pending that coming in. So we set our agenda. It's not really a big deal. That'll just be my recommendation to my fellow board members to not take action on something that DEG might force us to do something about them. We're back at the drawing board again and we're just going to say it.

[23:47] Correct.

[23:49] So I say, I mean, send it up to my level. There's nothing else for you guys to work on. If someone comes out that we've got to kick it back, it comes back.

[23:56] That's just the way it is.

[23:57] I think we would have it.

[23:59] Brack, boss.

[24:00] Yeah.

[24:01] We know we have some outstanding language in the states, which is way for that.

[24:04] And see if it's something we care about or something that we need to take action in.

[24:08] There's no telling them what they'll come back with.

[24:10] But if it's material, it's material, but it's not.

[24:13] It's not.

[24:14] Thanks for the patient.

[24:22] Do you want a motion?

[24:30] Yeah.

[24:38] We have a motion to forward to the board superpowers.

[24:43] proposed a minute to Chispeak Bay Preservation Act ordinance

[24:51] 9BAC2583011155 for approval.

[25:01] Motion has been made, motion has been made probably a second, any further discussion?

[25:09] I didn't see nothing but we were pending waiting on, they just deal with that when it

[25:15] That's not from Marlowe.

[25:17] Okay.

[25:17] That's just a schedule and then.

[25:20] Sounds good to me.

[25:21] We get a vote, please.

[25:25] Mr. Williams.

[25:27] Mr. Countwood.

[25:29] Mr. Townsend.

[25:30] Uh.

[25:31] Jerkoa.

[25:32] motion carries.

[25:33] Thank you, Mayor.

[25:35] All right.

[25:37] Item number nine.

[25:38] The citizens comment.

[25:39] Period.

[25:40] There's anyone signed up for anyone who would like to speak.

[25:49] Good

[25:58] evening, Lisa Mason, second district.

[26:02] You know, I sit here and I listen to you guys, Hemman Hall over an 8-foot square foot

[26:08] ADU and 1,000 square foot ADU.

[26:13] Last night my husband drove out of our property, went up to Maryland as he usually does once

[26:17] a week and he got blasted in the face by Mr. Sneed's light that's supposed to be shining

[26:24] on his sign, and it turns out I came in today and talked to him as Ashley, and that sign

[26:30] was never inspected.

[26:32] It's shining right on our property, and because of the LED with a light sensor on it, nobody

[26:40] inspected that sign to find out, and even look at it to see if it was shining on our property

[26:45] or not, and rather it was shining the way it was supposed to.

[26:48] And I asked if the sign had even been inspected, and sure the sign had been inspected, and I said

[26:53] that anybody really look at the sign?

[26:56] No, well, yeah, it's been inspected.

[26:58] It's 25% bigger than what's allowed in the AC district.

[27:03] So nobody really looked at the sign.

[27:07] Come back, we've been talking back and forth with Jason here,

[27:11] and we've been having questions about the fence,

[27:15] or the fencing that's been put in there.

[27:18] We call it a use car ride now on the other side of the fence,

[27:21] because it's just so ugly, rather it's supposed to be a seven-foot fence or an eight-foot fence,

[27:26] and it's really eight-and-half feet along most of the length of the thing. And we've got no

[27:31] resolution over any of that. We go back to the driveway that was actually put in at the beginning

[27:38] of the springtime.

[27:42] Many of you will know that the retaining wall that was put in is actually

[27:47] buckled in there, and the culvert that's supposed to go underneath and drain the wetlands

[27:54] that's in there, has pulled away from the retaining wall, and so there's actually

[28:00] leakage from the drain or the wetlands on the Mr. Wainwright's property,

[28:08] and that drain pipe is no longer really attached to the retaining wall anymore.

[28:13] And nobody seems to care, you know, Mr. Sneed is a habitual offender.

[28:20] And these are the things that we can see.

[28:24] I know Mr. Aaronson has called in about the hedges that are actually part of the county's purview

[28:32] now that it's being used as a blockage from Mr. Sneed's property.

[28:38] Mr. Sneed doesn't maintain those and they routinely fall into the easement right of

[28:44] way such that deliveries can't get through.

[28:49] They end up driving into our property.

[28:51] I've had to fix that driveway so many times, especially in the winter when it gets wet.

[28:55] They drive off and they get stuck.

[28:57] I've pulled many a delivery driver out of our lawn because they drive through.

[29:04] Thank you.

[29:04] I'd like that addressed.

[29:05] Thank you.

[29:09] All right, anyone else signed up?

[29:11] Your body has to sign up.

[29:13] All right, item 10, unfinished business.

[29:34] Finished business and

[29:40] unfinished business.

[29:41] Your fellows would like to call the bill.

[29:46] I do have one thing that actually I'd like you and Mr. Smith

[29:50] to maybe check into.

[29:52] We went back and forth a lot with the change in the setbacks

[29:56] from the center line to the e.

[30:00] Amendment, variable with easements, 30-foot, 40-foot, what have you? I don't

[30:10] know if there's anything in

[30:11] our book. I cannot find it, but I know we directly addressed it and we directed Mrs. Wolf at the time

[30:17] what we wanted, and that was that measurement would be taken whether we were using the center line

[30:25] or off the easement. It would go to the brother's most point of the half, the porch on the house.

[30:32] Not the steps because steps are subjective if you've got a three-foot foundation steps will be out three foot

[30:38] If you've got five-foot step will be so we decided that would be the kind of static point right there

[30:45] I like to just see if that is actually spelled out in there and the second part of that equation and this is all stemming

[30:55] From me personally in Essex County who also had the Berkeley group doing their ordinances at the same time

[31:02] we had hours done.

[31:06] And in that ordinance, the Berkeley group and Essex's interpretation

[31:15] of it is when a plaque was approved with a 50-foot setback or 75-foot setback, if the

[31:34] The way our interpretation is when the plat is approved whatever setbacks are approved is what you have to adhere to

[31:41] Which I personally think

[31:44] You know if you approved the plat today with 75 foot setbacks just because you change it down the road to 50

[31:51] It doesn't mean to me any new lots created from here forward should have to adhere to that right and that that's being addressed in Essex

[32:01] currently with their planning commission, but I'd just like to know if those two things are specifically addressed in our ordinance, just for clarification.

[32:11] Because we did talk about what we need to make sure we did.

[32:16] We went from the center line because of the variable with right-of-ways to then we said the edge of the right.

[32:23] We went from 75 foot from the center line to 50 foot from the edge of the right-of-way, which basically gave you the same net result.

[32:31] But just some clarification just to make sure we've got that in there because air original ordinance from the Berkeley group was very vague on that, which is what Essex is running into right now.

[32:44] But just to just to offer to clean that up a little bit if need be okay.

[32:49] And that's all I have for unfinished business.

[32:51] I guess for unfinished business, we're going to get the BMI, BMA reason and try to get

[32:59] the applicants out on the end of the week.

[33:02] I was hoping to have them done today.

[33:07] And now I'll take 60 seconds guys, I promise to speak on that, but I have seen some social

[33:12] media chatter about what we're trying to do to rezone some new businesses in the county.

[33:20] in the same token, I see social media buzz about the most recent townhouses that were

[33:28] approved and why aren't we trying to attract businesses, so kind of can't have it both

[33:34] ways. What the VMA is trying to address is to rezone some more properties that will allow

[33:41] us to be more open to potential businesses to come here to help offset the tax-based

[33:50] if you will. Just a little clarification there.

[33:55] I'm a press release as well, but it helps identify.

[34:00] I would fall to the fall.

[34:03] There's a plan.

[34:08] Anyone else any unfinished business?

[34:12] I'm not. We'll move on to item number 11 new business discussion of the amendment to the

[34:18] the 2026 Planning Commission, regular meeting schedule regarding the November Planning Commission, regular meeting date.

[34:27] Does anyone really need a fifth?

[34:30] Yeah, so vice.

[34:34] Which is us.

[34:36] I just think.

[34:36] Okay.

[34:38] But basically due to this special election, we are now amending the agenda.

[34:43] I mean, excuse me, the median schedule, again, in order for the electoral board to use the public space here at the.

[34:51] I mean,

[34:57] the mid-turn election.

[35:00] Is it?

[35:01] Yeah.

[35:02] Yeah.

[35:03] It terms is special.

[35:04] It's way different.

[35:06] What?

[35:07] So.

[35:08] Okay.

[35:08] Yeah.

[35:10] Nice.

[35:10] The mid-turn election.

[35:12] Just leave it as that.

[35:13] Okay.

[35:14] So what are our options?

[35:16] The fifth.

[35:17] The fourth.

[35:18] The fourth.

[35:20] Not just the fifth.

[35:22] Originally, we have it on November 3rd, right?

[35:27] Right.

[35:29] I would recommend moving it to Thursday, or Wednesday, excuse me, before.

[35:38] For what reason?

[35:43] Well, it's the very next day.

[35:45] And the advertising deadlines for the December planning commission agenda would be that Friday.

[35:51] So whether it be Wednesday, the 4th or Thursday, the 5th.

[35:55] just before that Friday, would we be better?

[36:00] Does JB play on Wednesday of Thursday that week?

[36:03] I don't know the answer to that.

[36:04] And you're supposed to have that one?

[36:06] Well, I don't know about November.

[36:08] I think we might be done.

[36:14] I personally have no preference.

[36:16] So I'll leave it to someone who may.

[36:18] I have another journal on Wednesday that takes place on it.

[36:23] I'm sure.

[36:24] Absolutely.

[36:28] I think Thursday is the doable date, Mike Stex, and he's fine with either one, but he said the fit first, so.

[36:39] The ban 26th.

[36:43] Make a motion that we made in November meeting to November the 5th.

[36:49] Motion has been made.

[36:51] Second.

[36:52] Motion has made probably second.

[36:53] Any further discussion?

[36:56] Can we get a vote please?

[36:57] Mr. Williams.

[37:03] I'm going to give it to Mr. Calvert.

[37:11] I'm going to give it to Mr. Calvert.

[37:14] Chair Calvert.

[37:16] All right.

[37:18] Motion carries.

[37:21] Item 12, staff, special committee reports.

[37:27] The planning, building, and zoning reports are answers to chairs.

[37:32] I did notice after I would print it, there's planning report, it's not exactly accurate.

[37:40] So I'm going to have to go in and tweak air smart-gov system a little bit to find out why.

[37:47] There should be some minor subdivision completions over there that are accurately represented.

[38:18] Thank you very much for coming out the staff and trying to get all the stuff organized

[38:28] for us.

[38:30] We're looking forward to seeing you all next month.

[38:36] Thank you for your hard work on the definitions.

[38:38] I could tell it took time, but it was easy to read.

[38:43] I appreciate that and thanks for the public.

[38:50] Definitely thank you for the public for being here tonight.

[38:54] These two ladies right here.

[38:56] I'll work with them a lot down here.

[38:57] I'm down here a lot.

[38:58] And I just, I think they're doing a great job.

[39:01] Thanks for the streamline.

[39:02] Thanks a lot.

[39:03] and smooth. I know they've got a good support group behind them with these guys. And Mr. Stamie,

[39:09] and Mr. Smith, the transparency on social media, the blogs, putting everything out there. I

[39:15] will appreciate that. I think that has answered a lot of public questions and lead us in the right

[39:22] direction as far as just having transparency and letting the public know where we're trying to go.

[39:27] So thank you guys for that and thank you ladies for all that you do and after that motion, door number 14 in motion to the journal recess.

[39:40] So move right motion has been made.

[39:45] So all in favor say.

[39:48] All right.

[39:50] That's when the drunkard chiming, the gentleman, right now.

[39:55] And you, business and...

Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript