[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.