Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Well, it is 7 p.m. and we do have a quorum. Wait another minute or two for Member Hagen. Let's call it 7.02 and then we can begin. Since we have a minute to kill, I missed the Bedford Day festivities for the first time, and I cannot remember how long. But a good day, I presume?

It was a good day.

Excellent. Many people stopped by the planning booth.

I waved at the planning booth because I spent most of my day serving pizza for Rotary.

Excellent. I was there for about an hour. It was the last hour, so that was relatively quiet. Okay.

I was only there for like a half hour, I think. I talked to a few individuals, somebody from the Board of Health, Anita Raj. Yeah, sure. And it was a great day.

All right. Well, looking at the time and seeing that we have a quorum. I am pursuant to Legislation 862, Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, extending the suspension of certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, General Law Chapter 30A, Section 20. This meeting of the Bedford Planning Board will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so, despite best efforts, we will post on the Town's website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. Two items in the development session tonight. Request for endorsement of a plan believed to not require approval. Lot line revision between 3 Hilda Road and 6 Fairview Avenue. And a public hearing continued for 145 Davis Road, definitive subdivision plan for four lots off of Jeffrey Circle. And skipping ahead to the applicant has requested that the hearing be continued to October 13th. So effectively just one item on the development session tonight. Under the business session, I'm discussion of a application for variants from a zoning board of appeals. I will come up at their hearing this Thursday. I'm for ADU ownership. I'm separate ownership at 104 A Page Road. I'm Aside from that, or I say in addition to that, discussion of dark sky lighting, small clean energy facility and data center permitting, residential sign regulations, and updates on 340 Great Road. That's the Plaza Hotel. And then finally, reports from liaisons to boards and committees, staff updates, approval of minutes. Thank you very much to Nicholas Gibbons for putting together quite a few backlogged minutes and goal of adjournment at 8 p.m. So with that, Attorney Brown, I presume you're representing Three Hill to Road and Sixth Fairview Ave.

I am.

Please proceed.

And I don't know... This is a quickie, but if Tony wants to let me share my screen, I'm happy to do so. Let's see, I think, oh, no, I can. Hold on one sec. All right, now I lost the Zoom meeting. Hold on. There we are. Okay. So this is really a straightforward A&R application, but it has a little history. So I will share that these two homeowners have cooperatively lived side by side for many, many years. And in fact, when the Fairview lot was purchased, the encroachment of the house, physical encroachment of the house onto the the adjacent property, again, two different streets, but the Hilderow property was discovered via survey. And at the time, the owners cooperatively provided an easement to legitimize that survey, I'm sorry, that encroachment. But at this point in time, we are proposing to create this sliver of land that would actually be transferred in fee simple interest. It's a gift from the Hilda owners, the Wallaces to Eric Shanaway and his wife, Jean. And that's pretty much it. But this sliver in the middle, it actually does encompass the easement that was here. And then a little bit more just to square out their lot. It's about a thousand square feet. And again, it gets transferred from the larger lot to the smaller lot. From a ZBA perspective, they're both nonconforming lots. The larger nonconforming lot is losing a little bit of land and the smaller nonconforming lot becomes less nonconforming. But because we're changing them, we have been to the ZBA and obtained a special permit from the zoning compliance perspective. So after the transfer, the lots still comply. But as you know, I tend to always attach the little general law summary to remind you and myself why this is an approval not required or an endorsement of the plan rather than a subdivision. And that is because The division of attractive land into two or more lots shall not be deemed to constitute a subdivision within the meaning of the subdivision control law if it has frontage on a public way. And in your opinion, those, in this case, two ways have adequate access. Nothing is changing there. These aren't new lots. We're really just moving land in between. But it does require your endorsement. But happy to answer any questions.

Members of the board?

Member Crowley? I apologize, I'm eating. I'm just kind of curious as to why it's being done. You don't have to answer, but I'm kind of curious also because my neighbor, we have the same issue with my neighbor, so I'm just curious what makes sense or if it makes sense to do it as well.

Yeah, in this case it was cooperative and they were willing to do it, but owning the land outright is often better than having an easement, especially like driveways. We typically would do an easement. It's really, it's what makes it legit an easement or fee ownership accomplishes the goal of having it be authorized. And a lot of these are because the structures are older. The survey was older, you know, just the methodology wasn't so good a long time ago. And, We end up with these things occasionally. But here, I mean, normally we think owning outright what we call the fee simple interest. And in law school, we talked about the full bundle of sticks rather than as part of the bundle of sticks. So an easement is an interest in land, but the fee simple interest includes easements and everything else. So they're really just kind of cleaning up at this point. As a matter of law, the old easement goes away because now the Fairfield owner actually owns both. And so that easement merges with the title to the land.

Yeah. If I'd help my neighbor out, I could also do the same for them. So I'm trying to figure out.

Do you encroach or your neighbor encroaches?

My neighbor's house encroaches.

Yeah. So. If you have nothing now, probably you want to do something down the road. And an easement solves the problem for the bank or the title. Typically, we have questions about even standard P&Ss say there's no encroachments except those protected by a valid easement. It's standard language. So that usually cures it from a title perspective.

Any other questions? Comments from staff?

Not really. As I said, this effectively is a lot line revision, which we do do as approval not required. It does enable the dwelling to be entirely under the ownership of the property. And we just recommend it be endorsed to just cure the encroachment permanently.

Thank you. Member McLean.

So just functionally, what happens if we didn't endorse this? If you didn't endorse it, you'd have to declare it to be a subdivision.

which would mean that you think this conveyance requires a public hearing under a definitive subdivision application. And then you would review it under that. So you'd have to find reasons to not endorse it and file those reasons with the town clerk.

So in some sense, it's less about approving and it's less about not disapproving.

Yeah, right. The A&R process was set up 70 years ago to purposely enable builders to get permits for initially intended to enable permits for lots along existing roads. In the meantime, it has also been used simply when two neighbors agree that we need to adjust a lot line between their properties. So that's what's happening here.

Thank you. Package all looks in good order to me. I'm just noting that a discovery like this, that can't be fun. I suggest language would be that the planning board endorses the proposed lot line revision at Three Hill to Road and Sixth Fairview Ave as approval not required?

Yep, so moved.

All right, so we have a motion. Do we have a second? Seconded. All right. Thank you. Member McLean. Aye. Member Crowley. Aye. And the chair votes aye. Motion passes 3-0-0.

Wonderful. May I ask if you've already authorized Tony to sign the plan for you?

We have not. So we can go that route. Do we have a motion to, yeah. Thank you. Endorse Director Fields to sign on behalf of the board. So Member McLean, how do you vote? Aye. Member Crowley? Aye. And the chair votes aye. 3-0-0. Endorse Director Fields to sign on behalf of the board.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm with that. You're now on to the public hearing for the definitive subdivision plan at 145 Davis Road. I'm And we have, the staff has comments on the independent reviewers plan, but there has not been sufficient time to fully digest that information. So the plan is to continue until a date certain October 13th. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, the engineers are all meeting later this week with us to review the design team's responses to the peer review, and we fully anticipate returning to testimony at the October 13th meeting.

All right. And Attorney Brown, since you're here... Presume you support?

Yes, I do. All right. And we do request an extension to the 13th. My understanding is that our peer review consultants, I think Tony just said this, but the peer review consultants have gotten in. Our engineer has reviewed and I believe has gotten the comments back. We need everybody to get on the same page.

All right. Very good. We have a motion to continue. So moved. All right. Seconded. All right, moved and seconded. Move to continue the public hearing for 45 Davis Road to October 13th. Member McLean, how do you vote? Aye. Member Crowley? Aye. And the chair votes aye. 3-0-0, motion passes. Public hearing is continued to October 13th. So with that, we can move on to the business session. I have first item. I became aware through a publication in the Citizen of an application for variants for 145A Page Road regarding ADU ownership, specifically a request for, if I'm remembering correctly, a separate sale of unit. So that is covered by Bedford's ADU bylaw. More specifically, our bylaw does not allow that. I will defer to Director Fields to fill in any details. He and I had spoken earlier. I thought it might be appropriate. I thought, I think it is, it would be appropriate for planning board to weigh in as it is. I'm, in my view, you know, directly contradicting what's in our ADU bylaw.

Yeah, so that is what, given that the gardeners were in front of the board back in August with a presentation asking for reconsideration of the reasoning behind requiring ADUs to be in common ownership. And Subsequent to that presentation, the board members, I believe, have all expressed a preference or the principle that ADU should remain as an accessory. In order to remain as an accessory use, they need to be in common ownership, so they are subordinate to a principled dwelling. And since the board was not willing to sponsor a A zoning article at town meeting, I think they were anticipating figuring out if they could create a citizen petition to get that on the warrant. But in the meantime, they have also, I guess they must have applied to the building department for permits for sale of an ADU building. which was denied, and I guess they are appealing that denial. That hearing opens on Thursday evening, or is it tomorrow night? Thursday. Thursday. There are... So the point will be that the provisions requiring common ownership have existed since we broadened the ADU opportunity. When we had accessory apartments on the bylaw, it required it to be within the house, and it was kind of just presumed that if you are building an apartment within your house that you would still own it. But when we put forward the petition to say that as an alternative to having to put it in your house or as an addition onto the house, we promoted allowing them to be freestanding. And in so doing, when we did that, we also provided that if it's freestanding, it still has to be in common ownership. This was before we allowed a broadening of the two family opportunities. So when we created freestanding ADU opportunities, The common ownership criteria was already or was part of that process. So the argument is going to be from us that the builders should have known that that's always been the provision and that they if they went. If they went on their own trying to think they're going to build a two-family with a freestanding ADU and try to create condominiums out of each of them, they didn't read the bylaws.

And to that end, if I can share my screen.

Yeah, just give me a second.

I think I'm good there. So section 8.4, subsection B, general conditions and requirements for ADUs. B1, the lot containing an accessory dwelling unit shall not be divided into separate lots. And following that, the relevant text here, nor shall the dwelling units on the lot be converted into condominiums. It doesn't get much more explicit than that. So I thought that perhaps we might send a communication to ZBA. I anticipate that they're already well aware of this, but just to reinforce the message, 8-4-B-1 being what it is.

Are you allowing comment on this?

Sure.

It's my academic debate here. which I started with Chris and, you know, eventually this may get tested in the court. So I completely agree with where the board's intention, I guess what I struggle with is sort of, you know, I'm a lawyer, so I can argue both ways, right? So the argument the other way is that zoning can't regulate ownership. And in a condo, So I start, and again, this is academic. I understand what the board's intentions were. So for a year, probably, whenever this came out, I started saying, but the two-unit building is a two-unit, whether it's a two-family or two condos, right, is a two-unit. And the ADU is subordinate size and all of these things. So fine. And I think you, you, you, the town has made it clear. Like if you have a two family, you only get one ADU and that actually makes sense. I don't know if you'd limit it to one shed, but, but I get it. That's clear too. So then I say, OK, but you actually cited the lot. But when you have a condo, you have exclusive use areas. You still only have one lot for all of the units. So that line doesn't bother me. You say you can't condominiumize. And I say, OK, it's very clearly there. And that's how I read it. And that's clearly your intention. But the other side of me says, but if zoning can't regulate ownership, how can Bedford, I think other towns do it too. So I'm not saying, you know, so it's somewhat academic, but it's a question I keep raising in my own head is if zoning can't regulate ownership, then how can we say you can't condominiumize?

And what I would push back on that is the AG's office approved this. So it passed muster. And I understand the argument that you just made, you know, could be made in the courts.

Well, I think eventually it will, and I don't want to be the one to do it, but I think it's a good, I'm not a litigator, but I think it's a good argument. And the AG typically, they look at form and make sure you don't, you don't, you don't, what am I trying to say? Conflict with the supremacy clause. And I've way back when, when Bob Ritchie was, you know, revealing all these zoning bylaws, he used to say, as long as it doesn't conflict with state or federal law, I approve it and leave it to the courts. Like a lot of help that gives us. But that was the opinion. And I think still is of the AG's office is that I'm not going to be the one to interpret it and, and test it in the courts. So. Time will tell. It'll be an interesting. And with all these other new zoning changes, same thing. It's like trying to interpret.

I look at this and I'm broadly sympathetic to multiple units on a single lot, smaller, smaller lot sizes. But I look at this and the intent is clear. And the appropriate, if the gardeners wish to change the rules, then there is a process for that. It's fair and open, and that's the route that needs to be taken. Right. That's my position.

Yep. Thank you.

No, thanks for your comments. Appreciate that. All right. I'm I don't have wording worked out. My thought was, generally, ask Director Fields to relay to ZBA that The planning board is aware of the request for a variance and feels that it's at odds with 8.4.b1. I would be comfortable... requesting that they deny the variance, but also sensitive to that may be a bit outside our authority.

Well, it's important to state that we discussed the potential of bringing this change to the bylaws, and the planning board decided as a whole we did not endorse that.

So let's see, what do we want to capture? Um, that, um, that we feel that the request for variance is contradicted by 84B1. We did hear the Gardner's presentation and discussed potential amendments to the bylaw. The board as a whole did not favor proceeding with 84B1. with an amendment at this time.

That sounds great to me.

Yeah. Member McLean, thoughts?

All right. No, I'm dead agreement.

All right, very good. All right, so with that, I got agenda here. Dark sky lighting. I remember Crowley and I took a crack at revising the draft. I had hoped to have a revision done by Bedford Day. I Fortunately, life gets in the way. The major change I want to make at this point, and it may sound like a small thing, but I found it significant in how I was reading the document, just the layout and how the sections are presented on the page. I found I wanted to change that formatting. It just helped me organize the ideas and the content in my head as I was reading it. So that's my goal for this week, to knock that off. And we'll share that once I have.

Unless, Member Crowley, oh, please go ahead. Did you have kind of an outline of what you were thinking? Because I know we discussed that as well, and I think it was close, but it was just some tweaks.

Yeah, I don't have the document up in front of me. Ms. Durham's comments, I think we were in alignment that those were good suggestions. I'm For those who watch board meetings on YouTube, we discussed those at the last meeting. We went through the document suggestion by suggestion and the edits. So I anticipate that all those suggestions will be adopted in one form or another. I liked the layout. I have to open up. Pardon me while I... All right, I'll share this. I like the physical layout of Chelmsford's bylaw. I just found the separation of the sections is easier to read. So I'm going to try and do something along those lines. Also, I liked the figures that they included. So in my working version, I've got these two. I don't remember if I included this one here. Ah, that's a question to staff. Would you be able to rework some figures? If we annotated those.

Hopefully, we will figure out how to do that.

Okay. All right. So I will, in all likelihood, have some marked up figures for you. What else? Yeah, I just like the indentation here. And that's, you know, if we go back to... how our zoning bylaws laid out and it's the same, same general structure. I haven't done my to-do list to do myself. If staff has the bandwidth to undertake that, I'm happy to hand that off. But I realize that you have, they will have more significant things to be working on. So I don't hesitate to take that on. We just may be a little slow. We have time now, so. Yeah. Yeah. Without fall town meeting, that's not pressing. To staff for small clean energy facilities and data center permitting.

So I don't have an update on the On the draft regulations, we are going to continue to work on those because we're not rushing to hold a hearing in October for a meeting in November. We can, to be honest, slow down and make sure we are incorporating the features we want to in a manner that the board will agree, hopefully, that these are how we want to regulate these things here in Bedford. So we continue to find more examples, and there's still interesting training going on. Interesting that some of the state training is scheduled after the effective date for small clean energy regulations, but That's the way the legislature set a deadline to get started, and the administration isn't... It's just another example of lack of communication between branches of the state government. But we will endeavor to get some polished... documents in front of you in the short future and also working with the Energy and Sustainability Committee on these topics since they have some very good insight into them. So we will hopefully jointly, you know, kind of jointly sponsor these articles if we agree to submit them for annual town meeting.

Thank you. Residential sign regulations. I did review ZBA member Wilson's document that she shared with the board. Based on her comments at our previous meeting, I wasn't planning to discuss that until later this fall.

Yeah, I agree. I think given that the two boards have a common or overlapping interest here that we can try to coordinate that and we're just not ready to move anything. We don't have any real substantive discussion for that tonight.

All right. 340 Great Road. I understand that there is a probable buyer for the property and that they're intending to continue use as a hotel.

That's what we understand. There is a meeting on Thursday with the was actually the potential developers of some adjoining property. But based on a discussion that the building inspectors had with this entity, the intent would be to acquire the hotel and upgrade it to a branded hotel.

Thank you. Reports from liaisons to boards and committees.

I missed the last select board meeting. The big news is we're not having a STM this year.

I attended. I didn't attend. Sorry. News from community preservation. I'm The 3% community preservation surcharge will automatically renew. That's 3% on property tax bills. It's essentially a formality that it's voted on at town meeting, but it will automatically renew. Staff updates.

So just a reminder for anyone who wants to have their two cents heard about the future use of the existing fire station, that meeting is a week from tonight. It'll be held in the high school because this building is expected to be under construction. It did not start today, but we thought today was going to be the first day of... of construction of a new handicapped ramp into town hall and therefore town hall cannot host meetings for a short period of time while we rebuild the handicapped access into this building. So, but next Tuesday at 7 p.m. at the high school large group instruction room will be the select board meeting on the future use of the fire station. Otherwise, we have... We've been attending a variety of training and instructional webinars or in-person events. More are coming, and... We will... hopefully put that knowledge to use as we try to write these various bylaws. So we'll get that out there. Also, for board members interested in the citizen planner training collaborative courses, I still haven't seen them post the calendar, but I assume that will be coming very shortly. I just haven't reached out to the coordinator to see what is happening.

So I have a question regarding other development projects in town. 310 Great Road, are they going to get a utility hookup this year, do you think?

Yeah, I meant to get you an answer to that before tonight's meeting, and I don't have it. Yeah, we intend to warn them that they're approaching the winter moratorium again. So if they want to have water in the building before, you know, for the winter, they need to get that installed before December 1st.

And how long is their building permit good for?

Yeah. Well, typically, you get an initial one year, but you can extend it. And I'm not sure where they stand. Plus, the Permanent Extension Act gave them some extra time, where there were three Permanent Extension Acts since COVID. But I will try to find out where that is.

Not to be coy, I'm wondering what our leverage might be to get them to finish the project.

Yeah, similarly at 30 North Road, 36 North Road. That was my next question. Where in that case, the permit was extended in exchange for meeting certain targets for progress. And I will check with the building inspectors to see where that stands because... A little bit of activity happened, but then it seems to be quiet again.

And to better understand our leverage with permits, if we were in a position not to extend a permit, what would be the consequences of that if we chose not to extend it?

If it is not extended, then you have a partially constructed site. And then the town working through the building commissioner has to decide whether to enable that the initial applicant or someone to try to get that project back on track or alternatively issue a demolition order to undo what's been done. That tends to get a little legally messy.

I would imagine so.

But can be done.

Okay. All right.

Good to know. Member Crowley. Just as kind of a separate question, but I actually had missed the meeting late August, but the tree protection bylaw, are we doing anything more with that in the near future or not sure? So you and I both missed that meeting.

That's true. But given that at least some of the members do see some opportunity here, my intent is to work with the tree warden and the DPW superintendent on the changes they've been working on to the town's tree policy and then take a look at the Clearly, BARC had an ambitious set of regulations they were hoping to add to the tree bylaw, some of which members of this board don't support. But there may be areas where we do agree. And so the goal would be to see what features we might want to help promote. if any, and we just need to have some more discussions between all these players.

Member McLean.

Yeah, so I was at that meeting and I realized, well, my position wasn't ripe for STM. I expected there would be enough pushback in town that it wouldn't succeed, so we need to I mean, I think in general, there's probably something reasonable to be done here, which is Tony alluded to. Maybe not everyone on the board agrees with that assertion, but I just didn't think it was going to go over well at the STM.

I would say, too, I agree. I would say, too, that it doesn't necessarily have to pass on first attempt for it to have merit. I think that frequently people see proposals for the first time at town meeting. Even though we have public hearings and there's coverage in the Citizen, sometimes that is the first forum where people get to hear the proposal and go away and give it some thought. I wouldn't bring a Warren article to town meeting that I didn't think was was winnable. But if it weren't to pass, that wouldn't necessarily be the worst thing in the world. Remember McLean?

Yeah, I mean, I was just struck by the level of confusion around what Bark proposed and the amount of pushback it got at the select board meeting where it came up. So it, I mean, you know, when something is right, but something that reasonable people can differ on, but, but the particular valence of this particular issue at this particular moment in time, didn't, didn't, didn't seem good. So that's fair, but now we don't have to worry about it because there's no STM to not bring it to.

All right. So moving on to minutes, I'm, we had what? Seven sets of minutes. No more than that. Oh my gosh. Uh, nine sets of minutes. That's great. Thank you very much for these. And for what it's worth, I do a search on my name and yeah, seriously. Yeah. I think I remember saying that. That's my, that's my criteria for, uh, for voting in favor. Unless there are other suggestions, go through in chronological order. Member McLean.

Yeah, so I had comments on three of them, but including the first one.

I had a small comment there too, yeah.

Where did it go? So the roll call... Only has two names in it, which seems unlikely. So, and then it said the roll call passed, which I'm not actually sure makes sense, but. Oh, sorry. Vote. Sorry. Not, not the roll call. The very first vote only has two names in it, which.

That was, I also had that, that observation.

Yeah. Yeah. And given that we were opening a hearing, I'd be shocked if it wasn't unanimous.

Well, it's interesting because it actually says it passes 2-0-0. Yeah. So it's not like a cut and paste, you know what I mean? It's fascinating. Was I late?

So just would like to make sure that that was actually 2-0-0 or adjusted for what it was. Other than that, my only comment, I had a minor edit. It said Mr. Kitten's comments that he has an issue with the planning board being able to grant waivers because there is no criteria not being defined and just delete the not from that sentence. That was it. Anyone else with comments? Are we good to move to approve conditional on investigation and adjustment of the 200 as appropriate?

So moved.

Seconded. All right, moved and seconded. Member McLean? Aye. Member Crowley? Aye. And the Chair votes aye. Minutes of January 27th, 2026, approved. I'm moving on to minutes of February 10th, 2026. Comments? Look good to me.

Move to approve the February 10th, 2026 minutes.

Seconded. Moved and seconded. Member McLean? Aye. Member Crowley? Aye. And the Chair votes aye. Minutes of February 10th, 2026. Approved. Moving on to the minutes of February 24th, 2026. They look good to me.

Move to approve.

All right. Seconded. Moved and seconded. Member McLean? Aye. Member Crowley? Aye. And the chair votes aye. Minutes of February 12th, February 24th, 2026. Approved. 3-0-0. Minutes of March 10th, 2026. I had nothing.

Move we approve these minutes too.

All right. On a roll. Actually, hold on.

All right. Just confused.

I don't get a second.

Well, it says members absent, none, but the roll call. It says Chris arrived later. Ah, thank you. Okay, thank you.

Okay, I'm good. So moved and seconded. All right, Member McClain?

Aye.

Member Crowley? Aye. And the chair votes aye. Minutes of March 10th, 2026. Approved. I'm minutes of April 14th, 2026. I had no comments here either.

Move to approve. Todd, this is your cue.

Seconded. Moved and seconded. I'm McLean. I am. Member Crowley. Aye. And the chair votes aye. Minutes of April 14th, 2026. Approved. So I'm going to pause here. Do either of you have comments on the remaining four minutes? Otherwise, move to approve all four because they all looked fine to me.

So I have comments on the two in May. Okay. And I wasn't at the April 28th meeting. At least according to the minutes, which I vaguely remember being true. So, I mean, I could vote to approve them, but by tradition, I would abstain.

Tell you what, why don't we, since I've deviated here a little bit, why don't we discuss the changes and then we'll, or the suggestions, and we'll go back through.

Yeah.

Well, and the last one, there's only one person here that was there.

Ah, but I did watch the video.

Sure.

Sure. So I am confident that that is the best available record of the meeting.

Nice.

Okay.

But that would still only give us two votes, right?

Unless Todd wants to... No, you can vote to approve if you believe that it is an accurate record.

I skimmed the video. I did not watch it all, but I had it in my background. So, yes.

Okay.

Okay. Sure.

Carry on Mr. Good. But I remember playing I have comments on minutes of I'm May 12 May 26.

Yeah, May 12. Let's see. Can I think there's a typo? And uh, One, there's a typo, and then the other, there was something about tack. I am looking at the right minutes. Can I find them? Of course not. Sorry. Um, okay. Yeah. So on the February, sorry, not February, May 12th, um, and the board liaison updates, Mr. McLean knows Tamlock lane traffic coming project went under a slight change. Um, blah, blah, blah. Tack is considering speed bumps instead of roundabouts. Tack was not considering speed bumps instead of, uh, And instead of roundabout staff was considering additional speed bumps instead of a roundabout. So DPW, well staff, I mean, it's mostly DPW, but it's also police and fire, but, but tack doesn't really consider anything.

Yeah.

And you had comments on the 26th as well, or you're good with that?

Yes, and hopefully I can find this one quicker. Yeah, so in the discussion about extending, maybe I just misread it. Never mind. I withdraw my concern.

All right.

I misread hoses as horses. Okay.

So we can have a motion to approve the minutes of April 28th, May 26th, and August 25th as is. All right. So do we have a motion to do so?

Yes. So moved.

Seconded. Moved and seconded to approve the minutes of April 28th, 2026, May 26th, 2026, and August 25th, 2026. I'm Member McLean. Aye. Member Crowley. Aye. And the Chair votes aye. So minutes of the April 28th, May 26th, August 25th, approved 3-0-0. And for the minutes of May 12th, 2026, we can move to approve those subject to the corrections identified by Member McLean. So moved. Seconded. All right, moved and seconded. Member McLean? Aye. Member Crowley? Aye. And the chair votes aye. All right. Thank you for all of those minutes. That was a major undertaking. Really appreciate it.

But wait, there'll be more.

It'll be good to have those as a matter of public record. With that, we're at the end of our agenda.

Move that we adjourn.

Do we have a second? Seconded. Moved and seconded. Member McLean? I could vote no, but I won't.

Aye.

Member Crowley? Aye. And the chair votes aye. Motion to adjourn passes 3-0-0. Thank you very much for a productive evening and enjoy the rest of the night.

night everyone and we're ahead of schedule yeah a tight meeting chairman