[0:09] This is the call to order for the

[0:12] January 14th, 2026 meeting of the Town

[0:16] of Woodside Planning Commission.

[0:21] And we'll start with the Pledge of

[0:22] Allegiance.

[0:38] Indivisible, liberty, justice for all.

[0:45] » Roll call, please.

[0:46] >> Chair Weaver,

[0:48] >> present.

[0:49] >> Commissioner Abfell,

[0:52] >> present. Remotely.

[0:53] >> Commissioner Gerko,

[0:55] >> present.

[0:56] >> Commissioner Tober,

[0:57] >> present. Vice Chair Gar is currently

[1:00] noted absent.

[1:04] » Are there any changes to the agenda as

[1:07] published?

[1:10] >> There are no changes to the agenda and

[1:12] there are no desk items.

[1:15] >> Um given that we will open the public

[1:18] comment period for items which are not

[1:22] on tonight's planning commission agenda.

[1:25] This would be an opportunity for members

[1:27] of the public to speak of items of

[1:29] interest to the planning commission or

[1:30] the town of Woodside, but which are not

[1:32] on tonight's agenda. This is

[1:34] traditionally limited to at the

[1:36] beginning of the meeting to up to five

[1:38] speakers, up to three minutes each. Such

[1:41] items cannot be acted upon, but can be

[1:45] taken down by staff and agendaized at a

[1:48] future meeting. Is there anyone here

[1:50] tonight that wishes to speak on an item

[1:54] not on tonight's agenda?

[1:57] >> For those online, if you'd like to make

[1:59] a comment, please use the raise hand

[2:00] feature.

[2:05] » And I see no raised hands.

[2:08] Given that we will close the public

[2:11] comment period

[2:14] and move on to the consent calendar

[2:17] which consists of item one and item two

[2:21] which are the approval of the minutes

[2:24] from the December 3rd and December and

[2:27] December 17th planning commission

[2:29] meetings.

[2:30] Do any commissioners, staff, or members

[2:32] of the public have any comments,

[2:35] additions, deletions, or elaborations on

[2:38] those minutes?

[2:44] Since there seems to be no request for

[2:47] that, the chair would entertain a motion

[2:49] to approve items one and two on the

[2:52] consent calendar.

[2:56] » Second the motion.

[2:59] Uh, could someone make the motion first?

[3:01] >> So moved.

[3:06] » Chair Weaver.

[3:08] >> Yes.

[3:08] >> Commissioner Abfel.

[3:10] >> Yes.

[3:10] >> Commissioner Gonerko.

[3:12] >> Yes.

[3:12] >> Commissioner Tober.

[3:13] >> Yes.

[3:16] >> All right. Um given that we will move to

[3:20] the next item on our agenda, which is

[3:23] the

[3:24] um a formal design review and

[3:27] consideration of a variance for a

[3:31] property at 125 Farm Road.

[3:36] And I believe that Sarah's presenting on

[3:48] this Sarah and I'll just clarify this is

[3:51] for designer view um a gradient

[3:53] exception and a maximum resident size

[3:56] exception.

[4:02] » Okay, thank you.

[4:04] So I will be introducing the project at

[4:07] 125 Farm Road. The project includes the

[4:11] construction of a new single family main

[4:14] residence with an attached garage as

[4:17] well as a pool house, gym, ADU, swimming

[4:21] pool, sport court, and other site

[4:24] improvements on a vacant lot.

[4:28] The project also includes a maximum

[4:30] resident size exception and a grading

[4:33] exception for site grading in excess of

[4:36] 1500 cubic yards.

[4:40] Um the property is approximately 4.8

[4:43] acres and it's in the SCP-5 zoning

[4:47] district. It's located near um Portola

[4:50] Road in the southern part of town. The

[4:54] site has a gradual slope um away from

[4:57] the road to the back of the property

[5:00] where there is a town designated stream.

[5:06] Uh the as I mentioned the property is

[5:08] currently vacant and the new main

[5:11] residence is proposed in uh the

[5:13] approximate center of the property. So

[5:16] that's um on the screen that's these

[5:19] structures here.

[5:22] There will also be an attached garage

[5:26] here.

[5:28] Um and there's uh several other

[5:31] accessory structures that I mentioned.

[5:32] So, there's a detached garage here. Uh,

[5:36] this building over here is a detached

[5:38] ADU.

[5:40] And then over here, we have a pool

[5:42] house,

[5:44] gym, and then their proposed swimming

[5:47] pool. And then on this side is a sports

[5:50] court.

[5:53] There is an existing driveway that will

[5:56] be removed and a new driveway is

[5:58] proposed in the northern corner of the

[6:01] property. That's up here in this corner.

[6:08] The new driveway will include an autoc

[6:10] court and parking areas as well as uh

[6:14] firetruck turnarounds and access roads.

[6:17] Um, and it'll extend to that sort this

[6:20] auto court here for the detached garage

[6:22] and attached garage.

[6:26] There are vehicle gates proposed. One

[6:28] sort of at the entrance to the property

[6:30] and then um two others kind of in this

[6:34] auto court area.

[6:37] Um there's a number of fences proposed

[6:41] um with various designs and heights.

[6:52] The height of the residence will be

[6:54] approximately 29.7 ft

[6:58] um at the highest point. It will be

[7:01] mostly single story with a modest second

[7:03] story. Uh the main residence and all

[7:07] accessory structures design will be

[7:09] similar in style and materials and the

[7:12] structures are spread throughout the

[7:13] property to create a lowlying profile

[7:16] and to be harmonious with the natural

[7:18] features of the site. And the material

[7:21] will be vertical wood siding, stone

[7:24] veneer, vertical wood slat screens, um

[7:28] painted metal windows and doors and

[7:30] slate tile roofs.

[7:33] Um and there are two exceptions as part

[7:35] of the project. The first is a maximum

[7:38] resident size exception. Uh this is a

[7:41] formula based on the size of the lot. So

[7:45] in the SCP-5

[7:47] zoning district, the maximum resident

[7:49] size is 6,000 square ft.

[7:52] However, the formula allows for

[7:55] additional square footage depending on

[7:56] the size of the lot. So, the proposed

[7:59] main residence is about 7,400 square ft,

[8:03] which does comply with the maximum that

[8:05] they're allowed based on their lot size.

[8:09] And the second exception is a grading

[8:12] exception. So, the project includes

[8:15] sight grading in excess of 1500 cubic

[8:18] yards. The site grading is due largely

[8:21] to the grading required for the

[8:23] driveway. So the elevation of the road

[8:26] is much higher than the elevation of

[8:28] where the buildings are proposed. So

[8:31] there's a sign significant amount of

[8:33] grading um due to the existing terrain

[8:36] and the access required onto the site.

[8:40] Um engineering and planning staff have

[8:42] reviewed the findings for approval of

[8:44] the grading exception and recommend

[8:46] approval

[8:48] um as described in the draft resolution.

[8:52] The project was reviewed by the ASRB in

[8:56] July 2025

[8:58] and the board was supportive of the site

[9:00] planning, building design, community

[9:03] character and landscape elements um and

[9:06] did recommend approval of the project.

[9:09] Uh the grading exception does require

[9:12] approval by the planning commission.

[9:14] Therefore, uh the entire project shall

[9:17] be reviewed by the planning commission.

[9:19] So, the planning commission may approve

[9:21] the project as presented in the draft

[9:23] resolution.

[9:25] Um, you may make changes or add

[9:27] conditions of approval or deny the

[9:29] project. But that uh concludes my

[9:32] presentation and I'm happy to answer any

[9:34] questions. Thank you.

[9:37] >> So, this is where we note for the record

[9:39] that during the staff presentation that

[9:41] Commissioner Gar entered the room.

[9:44] >> Yes. And it's noted in the minutes.

[9:46] >> Thank you.

[9:49] So, do any of the commissioners have

[9:52] questions for Sarah?

[9:56] » Start with Alex.

[9:57] >> I don't have any.

[9:59] >> Okay.

[10:06] » Um, yes.

[10:10] >> Okay. Um, if you're Um, hold on a

[10:13] second. Let's see if we're done with

[10:14] staff first. Um um um Matt Gar, you have

[10:19] any questions for Sarah?

[10:21] Okay. Um Sarah, I'm 99% sure the ent

[10:27] driveway entrance that is still on Farm

[10:30] Road, right?

[10:31] >> Yes, that's correct.

[10:32] >> It's just at the other corner of the

[10:34] property.

[10:35] >> Yeah, I can pull up um a plan and show

[10:37] you.

[10:40] Um

[10:42] so this is like their existing

[10:44] conditions. So right now their driveway

[10:46] kind of comes in here sort of center on

[10:49] the property and they're proposing to

[10:52] remove that and then move it to like

[10:54] this corner. But yes, both still on um

[10:56] Farm Road.

[11:00] » Absent. Any further questions for Sarah?

[11:03] We would invite the applicant or the

[11:05] applicant's architect to come up and

[11:07] speak. You don't have to do so, but

[11:09] you're welcome to do so if you want to

[11:11] say a few words or a lot of words.

[11:14] Keep it brief hopefully.

[11:18] » Good evening. Um, my name is Marcus. I'm

[11:20] from Arcano Architecture with the

[11:21] architects on this project. Oh,

[11:26] >> how about that better?

[11:27] >> Oh, sure.

[11:28] >> Uh, my name is Marcus. I'm from Arcano

[11:30] Architecture, the architects of the

[11:31] project. Um, as Sarah introduced

[11:34] fantastically in this, uh, we have a a

[11:36] grading issue with the site. Uh the

[11:39] levels from Farm Road down to the

[11:41] largely flat portion of the site are

[11:43] challenging. Uh so we've relocated the

[11:46] driveway as mentioned uh partly due to

[11:49] um the building position which were

[11:50] limited on by the uh the fault line kind

[11:53] of trench investigation that was

[11:55] conducted and then also on septic um

[11:58] requirements. So percolation tests uh to

[12:01] kind of locate that septic requirement

[12:03] at the top of the site. Uh so by

[12:05] shifting the driveway to the far corner,

[12:08] we've tried to lower uh the actual you

[12:10] know grading um levels that we're

[12:13] working with. So it's the it's the

[12:14] lowest corner of the site as well as

[12:16] maximize the septic um allowance that we

[12:20] can we can work with uh by keeping most

[12:22] of the project or most of the site as

[12:24] natural as possible. So, that's kind of

[12:26] why the why we've moved the driveway.

[12:29] And then the building itself, uh, we've

[12:31] positioned to limit the amount of cut

[12:33] and fill that's going on. So, we've pushed it up into the hill because

[12:37] we know we're going to have to add some,

[12:38] uh, some some, you know, earth to get

[12:41] our driveway working. So, the goal is to

[12:43] have a almost net um, even cut and fill

[12:46] on the site. That's where this grading

[12:48] exception is kind of coming into play.

[12:51] Uh, in terms of the building itself,

[12:53] we're kind of we're working with

[12:54] agricultural forms. So, a number of

[12:56] volumes in a courtyard uh orientation

[12:59] and then several outbuildings with kind

[13:01] of barnlike uh structures to kind of uh

[13:05] break up the the massing and then also

[13:07] lean into the the surrounding buildings

[13:10] or the the agricultural um

[13:13] lay of the land so to speak. Uh

[13:17] that's the kind of just to you know jump

[13:19] on the back of Sarah's introduction

[13:21] that's the the overall picture. Um, I'm

[13:23] happy to go into more of the the details

[13:25] of the project. We've also got on the

[13:26] call, we've got landscape architects um

[13:28] from Grand Studio and we have our civil

[13:30] engineers at BKF uh for more detailed

[13:33] questions that I might not have the

[13:34] answers to.

[13:36] Thank you.

[13:40] Okay. Um,

[13:43] now would be the time for the

[13:44] commissioners to uh what put questions

[13:48] uh to the applicant if they have any.

[13:52] Yeah. Hi.

[13:53] >> Hi.

[13:54] >> So, I I have a question regarding the

[13:56] tree removal of the 54 significant

[13:59] trees. I'm sorry. I I probably am not

[14:02] looking and it's in the plans. Uh the

[14:06] tree removal page.

[14:08] >> Yeah.

[14:09] >> Do you know which one that might be?

[14:10] >> Uh A2. We've got the existing plan and

[14:13] then A3 uh is our proposed. So A3 is

[14:17] probably our friendliest one there. Can

[14:19] you repeat that, please?

[14:20] >> A 03.

[14:21] >> A Z3.

[14:22] >> Yes.

[14:25] >> I noticed that uh you're planning a lot

[14:28] of bushes

[14:30] um along the bottom section of Farm

[14:34] Road.

[14:34] >> Mhm.

[14:38] » And how high are those

[14:41] when mature?

[14:43] I am going to let uh our friends at

[14:47] ground studio pop in that one. Uh the

[14:49] landscape architects on the page. Have

[14:51] we got uh yeah Johnson will jump in

[14:53] here?

[15:02] So if you could help me which area has

[15:05] the majority of trees removed?

[15:09] >> Uh it will be along the the northern

[15:11] boundary. So along along Farm Road,

[15:14] there's a

[15:16] >> That's right. So along Farm Road and the

[15:18] common uh the common property line on

[15:20] the north side as well as there's some

[15:22] removals that need to take place on the

[15:24] western side. A majority of the trees

[15:27] that were removed almost in their

[15:29] entirety. Uh you'll note uh along with

[15:32] the corresponding arburous report are

[15:34] trees that are in very poor health. And

[15:37] actually since we have submitted for and

[15:40] our our our initial set of documents,

[15:42] there are several trees that have come

[15:43] down on site of their own valition. Uh a

[15:47] lot of this has to do with uh either

[15:50] mistakes in planting trees long ago.

[15:52] There's some African pines and there's

[15:54] some eucalyptus trees on site that were

[15:56] simply planted too closely together and

[15:58] they've colonized um through the

[16:00] agricultural use. Over time, as you

[16:02] know, seeds get dispersed along fence

[16:04] lines. And so, there's a very dense

[16:07] collection of trees. And so, uh, as part

[16:10] of our our urban forest best management

[16:13] practices, we are doing we're proposing

[16:16] some selective thinning of ailing trees.

[16:19] Uh, and along with the on the tree

[16:21] removal sheet, you can see the reasons

[16:23] listed in the arborist report for those

[16:25] trees coming down. So, yes, the number

[16:26] is the number is what the number is. Um

[16:29] but we feel very strongly that the moves

[16:32] that we're making to protect the health

[16:34] of the overall urban forest specifically

[16:36] along common property lines um are meant

[16:39] to enhance viewsheds rather than create

[16:41] these you know uh unsightly barriers. So

[16:44] to answer your question the largest

[16:46] plants that we have uh currently planned

[16:49] for common boundaries um would be in the

[16:51] 7 to9 foot range.

[16:56] » So in yellow would be 7 to 9 foot range.

[16:58] Oh, excuse me. Sorry. That those those

[17:00] trees we're thinking of of those as

[17:02] ornamental olive trees that we would

[17:04] keep in the 12 to 15 foot range.

[17:08] >> And those are uh on the hill obviously

[17:11] down at the the toe of the slope as you

[17:13] head um head towards the house.

[17:20] » All right. Thanks.

[17:21] >> Mhm. And just to clarify um for the

[17:24] record while we have you here, it's 54

[17:27] trees, not necessarily 54 significant

[17:30] trees.

[17:30] >> That's correct.

[17:31] >> Okay.

[17:36] » Uh gentleman was mentioning that uh

[17:39] these a lot of them are unhealthy trees.

[17:43] >> That's correct.

[17:46] >> Be large and unhealthy. Significant and

[17:48] unhealthy.

[17:50] Um, Sage, how are um how are the trees counted in a report

[17:57] like this?

[18:00] You will have your number of trees and

[18:03] then sometimes not all of them are

[18:05] significant. So let's look at I think

[18:08] what we're looking at uh AO2 I think.

[18:14] » Yeah. So

[18:16] AO2 will show the diameter size of the

[18:20] different trees. Um

[18:24] and they use the word protected or not

[18:27] protected under significance. Uh so I

[18:31] believe there will be some that for removal that

[18:38] are not significant trees. There will be

[18:40] a handful of those.

[18:42] >> Right? Because where I get confused and

[18:44] then you could perhaps educate me on

[18:46] this is that

[18:49] I would consider a significant tree in

[18:52] the context of something that would

[18:53] require a tree destruction permit from

[18:55] the town if I were just doing

[18:57] maintenance of my uh you know property.

[19:00] >> You're exactly correct. So uh there's

[19:03] three categories of significant trees.

[19:06] Um there's a short list of fast growing

[19:08] natives, a short list of slow growing

[19:10] natives, and then there's everything

[19:12] else. Um and so those three different

[19:15] categories have different diameter size,

[19:18] what is determined to be significant,

[19:20] and you are correct that if you were not

[19:22] deemed significant, it would not require

[19:25] a tree destruction permit by the town.

[19:27] So, there are a handful of trees here

[19:29] that would not require a permit um if

[19:31] they did not meet those size uh restrict

[19:34] our size minimums.

[19:41] Other questions for the applicant?

[19:49] » Commissioner Appfell.

[19:52] >> No, no questions from my end. Thank you.

[19:56] Um

[19:58] given that um if there are no further

[20:00] questions for the applicant, we can go

[20:03] ahead and move on to the public comment

[20:05] period.

[20:07] If there are members of the public

[20:09] either in the room, which seems to be

[20:12] the uh the empty set or anyone online

[20:16] that would like to comment on this, now

[20:18] would be your time to uh speak up.

[20:22] And as a reminder for those online,

[20:24] please use the raised hand feature if

[20:26] you'd like to make a comment.

[20:32] » There are no raised hands.

[20:34] >> Given that we will close the public

[20:36] comment period and move on to

[20:38] commissioner deliberation.

[20:40] And I invite Commissioner Gar to start.

[20:45] Sure. Um, so I mean looking at it, I

[20:48] guess a number of things, you know, as

[20:49] far as the grading in particular, it's

[20:52] basically

[20:53] >> if you could speak into the microphone,

[20:54] just make sure everyone on Zoom here is

[20:56] listening. Is it There we go. Um,

[20:59] the the volumes are relatively balanced,

[21:02] so there's not a lot of inflow outflow.

[21:04] So I think that's great. We talk

[21:06] sometimes about, you know, lots of

[21:07] trucks and traffic and road damage. So

[21:10] this will all sort of be contained on

[21:11] site, which seems good. Um I mean it

[21:13] looks like the area that we're

[21:15] traversing of the high slope is as far

[21:18] as I understand it kind of condition

[21:19] coming off of the road that was graded

[21:21] previously. Uh so kind of going over

[21:24] that seems fine. We also you know in

[21:26] many cases have looked at 35% and found

[21:30] it acceptable as well. So it seems

[21:32] pretty uncontroversial. I mean I agree

[21:34] on the ASRB

[21:36] uh findings in general in the house is I

[21:38] think quite tasteful. blends in like a

[21:40] lot of square footage but looks kind of

[21:42] it I sort of it fades in nicely. It's

[21:45] kind of like almost like type of design

[21:47] which which is kind of cool. And so from

[21:50] my perspective it seems it seems pretty

[21:52] reasonable.

[22:02] » Richard, do you have any comments?

[22:05] >> No negative comments this time.

[22:11] Alex,

[22:13] >> no I don't. I think I I follow the

[22:15] staff's rationale on the formal design

[22:17] review with regards to community

[22:19] character and

[22:21] site planning. I think the site planning

[22:23] has some constraints

[22:26] with regards to the building design and

[22:28] the landscape elements. I think with

[22:30] regards to the two exceptions

[22:33] on resident size, I mean it's within the

[22:36] >> Sorry again. you just speak into the

[22:38] microphone. The people on Zoom can hear.

[22:40] >> I think with regards to the exceptions

[22:42] um it's with it's within the

[22:46] um within the except with within the

[22:49] exception

[22:51] um and then under grading as Matt said,

[22:54] I mean it's

[22:56] it nets out. So good.

[23:00] >> Commissioner,

[23:03] >> I have nothing substantive to add to my

[23:05] fellow commissioners. I'm uh very

[23:07] supportive of the project.

[23:10] >> I will just echo what Commissioner Afel

[23:12] said. I'm supportive of the project and

[23:14] can make the findings.

[23:17] >> So given that we could entertain a

[23:19] motion to approve the draft resolution.

[23:23] >> So moved.

[23:27] » And I second.

[23:32] » Chair Weaver.

[23:33] >> Yes.

[23:33] >> Vice Chair Gar.

[23:34] >> Yes. Commissioner Appfell,

[23:37] >> yes.

[23:37] >> Commissioner Gonerko,

[23:38] >> yes.

[23:39] >> And Commissioner Tober,

[23:40] >> yes.

[23:42] >> All right,

[23:44] that takes care of that item. And moving

[23:48] on, Sage, do you have anything for us

[23:50] tonight?

[23:50] >> Um, first, I'll just note that there is

[23:52] a 10-day appeal period. And if anyone

[23:54] would like to appeal the decision of the

[23:56] planning commission, uh, please see the

[23:57] deputy uh, town clerk. Um, and

[24:00] >> there is a fee involved for appealing.

[24:02] >> Yes. Yes. Thank you. Um, and as far as

[24:06] you do have two director's reports from

[24:07] November and December in your packet.

[24:10] Um, I'll just go to the December one.

[24:13] Most notably, something that's kind of

[24:15] this nice new inclusion into these

[24:17] reports are what our housing numbers

[24:20] are. And so we completed 2025. So, um,

[24:26] we can note that the town had a total

[24:29] of, let me double check on my head, uh,

[24:32] 11 single family dwellings, which is

[24:34] actually a little bit higher than

[24:36] typical. Typical or a little bit close

[24:38] to 10 or under 10. Um, and then we had,

[24:42] uh, 23 accessory dwelling units, hoping

[24:45] for that 25, but we did get to 23. And,

[24:48] um, that is also a fair number. Um we

[24:52] have been kind of hovering around the 20

[24:54] to 23 range over the last few years. Uh

[24:58] if everyone may recall that our housing

[25:01] element targeted 15 per year for ADUs.

[25:04] Um so we've always uh for every year of

[25:07] this housing element cycle, we have been

[25:09] um well above that 15 number. So that's

[25:12] good news for the town. Uh well that's

[25:15] good news. There's still a ways to go um

[25:17] through this cycle. we still need to uh

[25:20] have varied types of housing throughout

[25:22] the town. So town will continue to

[25:24] pursue the different programs and

[25:26] strategies within the housing element.

[25:28] Um but it is nice to report that those

[25:31] numbers for single family dwellings and

[25:33] ADUs um are at or above where we would

[25:37] expect them to be.

[25:38] >> As are those the SFRs are all net new?

[25:41] >> Uh they're I wouldn't say net new. um

[25:44] the the HCD uh used to count finaled

[25:49] permits and they would do a net

[25:52] calculation. Um so demolished versus uh

[25:56] what's new. Um they still have you track

[25:59] the demolished units although that does

[26:01] not come into play with regards to units

[26:04] being counted towards your arena

[26:05] numbers. And so and also the numbers uh

[26:09] now are counted based on permits issued

[26:12] as opposed to permits final. Um and so

[26:16] there's a a bit of a different

[26:17] methodology. So sometimes people will

[26:20] gasp and maybe should at the larger uh

[26:23] allocations distributed to the different

[26:25] jurisdictions noting that there is some

[26:28] slight changes in how units are counted

[26:31] uh which would be to the benefit of

[26:32] jurisdictions being able to just count

[26:34] all new units.

[26:37] >> So the 11 and 23 are issued

[26:40] >> those are all permits issued in 2025.

[26:43] Yep.

[26:46] Um, and with that, um, yeah, I mean,

[26:49] you'll see the valuations and permits

[26:50] listed. You know, we continue to keep

[26:52] busy. Uh, we've just received, um, I

[26:55] don't know, four or five planning

[26:57] applications in the last, uh, two to

[26:59] three weeks, um, extending back to right

[27:01] before the break. So, uh, there will

[27:04] still be more stuff. and uh been working

[27:07] with the town manager and town

[27:08] attorney's office and we're focusing on

[27:10] some goals um many of which will be come

[27:13] before the planning commission this year

[27:15] and uh some which will likely be in the

[27:18] first quarter of this year

[27:21] >> and then we will definitely be having

[27:23] another meeting next week.

[27:25] >> Um no.

[27:27] >> Okay.

[27:27] >> No, next week has been cancelled. The

[27:29] next meeting is scheduled for February

[27:31] 4.

[27:32] >> Okay.

[27:32] >> Yeah. So that concludes my report.

[27:35] >> We don't have it.

[27:38] >> Okay. Um

[27:40] >> does that mean it may or may not happen?

[27:42] >> It means uh we don't have any items

[27:44] confirmed yet for the February 4th um

[27:46] meeting. Um we'll know two Fridays. I

[27:49] think two Fridays before then we'll have

[27:51] it confirmed.

[27:53] >> Did anyone else have anything for Sage

[27:55] or staff?

[27:58] >> Nothing for me.

[27:59] >> Oh, sorry. Um yes, thank you. There's

[28:01] just one more thing I'd like to report

[28:03] um that some commissioners are probably

[28:05] aware of. Um for districts, one in three

[28:08] of our planning commissioners, so

[28:09] Commissioner Gar and Commissioner

[28:11] Appfell terms are expiring here in

[28:14] February. And so those um the town is

[28:18] accepting applications for those that

[28:20] are due by February 4th. So this is for

[28:23] districts one and three. Um

[28:27] so uh if you know anyone in those

[28:28] districts who would like to apply uh

[28:31] there is a provision that the council

[28:33] can point someone out of district with a

[28:35] four-fifths vote. Um they probably

[28:38] usually tend to defer to folks who are

[28:40] in the districts but um if there are

[28:42] none who apply within the districts uh

[28:44] they would likely consider some other

[28:46] alternatives.

[28:50] » All right with that we will close

[28:52] tonight's meeting. Thank you very much

[28:53] everybody.

Planning Commission Special Meeting - January 14, 2026

Transcript