Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

April meeting of the Franklin Village Planning Commission. And we can start our roll call on our right here. [Music] Paul Bregman, present. Sarah Greslick, present. Pete Hock, present. Quincy Harrison, present. So, um I guess trying to look at the right time to let you introduce yourself, Quincy. And I think we can do that now. Uh our new our newest member. Maybe you could say a little bit about yourself. Um where you grew up, what you like to do, what your hobbies are, why you love Franklin. Um yeah, sure. Um in in less than 10 minutes. Yeah, less than 10. I'll I'll do a two-minute maybe. Yeah. So, I've lived in Franklin uh it'll be 12 years this summer. Um so, I went to school at U of M and then law school at Wayne State. So, I was talking about a patent attorney. Yeah. Um so, I work in all different types of intellectual property uh field of law. So, my wife and I, we have four children that are four, six, eight, and 10. So, we have two Labradoodles. Uh we have four chickens or one of the chicken people in Franklin. We we can have up to 18, I guess, but we're not going to get that close. Um, we have we have plenty of eggs. But yeah, um, native to Michigan, was born in Rochester Hills, so I've been uh local my whole life. So cool. Welcome aboard. Good to have you. Yeah. All right. Um, so we need to adopt our agenda. Um, unless anybody has something that they uh would like to add or omit or amend. Um, can we get a motion to adopt? Motion to adopt the agenda as is. Second. All in favor? I. Very good. So, I don't think we have Did

we get meeting minutes? Okay. They are they coming out of the oven pretty soon or uh will we get them next week? Next the minutes weren't attached in this packet. Yeah, I just saw the agenda at the So, we can do them. We'll add them at the next meeting if that's okay. We'll go ahead and uh make sure that's reflected in the minutes for tonight and then we'll make sure the March ones come back at the next meeting. Okay, great. I apologize. No problem. It happens. So, um David did say that David Sally said he wasn't going to be able to make it tonight. Um so uh could try and do a little bit of an overview of the council meeting and the relevant topics. Um I think for me um the most interesting thing was discussion of the the green project. I think that was the basically the moniker. Yeah. um and the possibility of doing um some um grant applications, improvements, upgrades, life to our green/village. Um and uh I I I I thought that was pretty exciting. I I hope that the planning commission can contribute to to something like that. I think it's in our uh wheelhouse. Um sort of in the master plan vein, land use vein. Um so possibly we'll be seeing more of that. I I hope it continues to develop. Um aside from that, the the premeating was the budget workshop. Um and um the burn ordinance um was essentially I believe given its second reading. Yeah. So the burn ordinance

from the draft that had gone from you guys to council. Council had two or three very small edits initially. they were mostly uh grammar or just a little bit of clarification. And then it came back to council this week for its first reading in which time um council member David Sally suggested adding in some enforcement to the burn ordinance under the permit which would allow us to collect a fine if you are you know uh violating and not and operating without a permit. So at the next meeting it will be technically its second reading. However, that change will be incorporated. So, you'll see the fine will start at $25 and increase there based on number of violations, but we're hoping that that will help encourage residents to continue to apply appropriately for the permit. In addition, they did their first review of the small cell tower ordinance that had you guys have put in a lot of work on over there because they're struggling a lot with some of the same obstacles that we had when it was in planning, which is most of that ordinance is guided by state law. There's very little that we have a say in in Franklin, but there were a few areas and where we could add a caveat or a little bit more regulation and we did. So, council had at the end of that meeting, they've uh requested that Chris just put together a small report that highlights those areas. Not all the changes that were made to bring it up to state law, just the little areas where we had some leeway or possibly had the ability to put in a firmer regulation. So, at the next council meeting, they will be the first reading. They're going to go ahead and look through those predominantly again focusing on the areas that we could kind of control and have oversight in that ordinance, not necessarily everything bringing it up to code because they trust the long discussions that you guys have had with and all the work Chris has done to bring it up to code. So, I would

think that those are probably some of the the biggest points from this week's council meeting. But um Pete and I were just talking a little bit more about this proposed green project. And basically what we're doing is just looking at this wonderful asset, all of this green space behind us, including the ball fields, thinking into the future about how we want to sort of program the green and how we can work collaboratively with the FCA and the ball league and everybody to get substantial funding, whether through a a government appropriation or through a grant. And we're thinking, you know, upwards of a million dollars to redo t tennis courts, ball fields, improve draining around the ball fields, potentially put in some uh work into the barn to maybe make it accessible for some sort of uh uh concession stand. It's all still in its concept phase. So, we're just brainstorming. At the council meeting, they decided to form a committee of council members to review that. And I talked to Pete about how as we move forward in those negotiations, I'll definitely be communicating with the planning commission because your input will be uh valued as we continue to collaborate and sort of get that narrowed in. So, more on that to come, but definitely exciting stuff and ways for us to all work together to make Franklin the best. I don't really have anything other than that. All right, good. I think that covers all the the bases as well. Um that I thought was noteworthy. Um and it is it is there was some discussion of the master plan and um you know a lot of new families coming in and and do they like the master plan and and have the has the master plan that um we've reviewed here boy went real deep five years ago um and then went again. Right. It was it was 5 years and we finally got it approved it was time to do it again. Exactly. So and and you know it when

Connie was here in 2012 2013 you know we all spent you know good months we she would give us our homework assignments and that meant we had a month to read each chapter and we we did it a little differently that time around. Um you know I don't think the master plan is taken lightly. I I feel like the things that have been there for 40 years are there because all we've all wanted them and we all feel they would be good positive things. Um so, you know, hopefully uh I think I think the the the green plan and things things of of that nature um I think they're they're they're things that we can contribute a lot to and boy the boy the council has a lot on their plate, right? and and Megan, boy, the amount of work you're putting in. You know, it's incredible. I think we have a lot of eager people here who are loving community members. And I think there are things we can do to help. Chris, I know you're, you know, got that in your heart, the love of planning urban centers and and develop them into the best that they can be. So, um hopefully we can do that a little more. Um, all right. Our zoning liaison and she is not here. Is there any zoning relevant matters? Quincy, do you have I mean, I was on zoning. We didn't have anything that we discussed the last time. I think the only issue ended up going away based on permeability of soil. Okay. Driveway stuff. So, um, yeah, withdrew his um request because it was detmined that he did not exceed what he needed. So they they thought his driveway had ashvault under the gravel, so it counted towards the impermanent surface, but it didn't. So once you took all of that out, he had plenty of space

to add his patio in the backyard. I see. Okay. Well, all right. Fair enough. Um, our budget and expense report. Um, looks like we're we're fairly Oh, wait. Communication. Communication. I actually have over there. I know cuz normally there's not. I know. So, yeah. Here we go. The one time. I know. It's okay. So, I watched the council meeting and I was really impressed by how uh Meg really talked about how great of a job that they have done. I think her working with council and coming up with their own sort of communication plan and working at how to look at that. So, I don't really think that we need the communication subcommittee here. But in the same vein, I think that we have said as um commissioners that we are hoping to communicate more with the other groups within Franklin. So whether it's historic or Main Street, I know you did a lot with them during the Pickering situation. And so I think going forward there won't be a whole communication subcommittee, but I am going to make a concerted effort going forward to try to attend some of those other meetings in order to bring some of that knowledge back. And I think otherwise you have it handled on your end for sure. You did a great job explaining all of that. So I think that is how I would like to handle it going forward if everyone is cool with that. Yeah. If I could add Sarah, I think that's a great great input there and uh I was actually just talking to Pete a little bit about Main Street. So Main Street as a board I can pass along when those meetings are. you're all welcome to join um just as you know contributors but not necessarily board members right unless you want to become a board member then I can find some space for you but I really think that um moving forward and my vision for the village is to really bring all the silos together so we can start collaborating better on projects moving forward so I

love to hear that you would be interested in you know as a group getting more involved in some of these other groups or relaying message back and forth and then I would say that I already attend HDC meetings. I'm at CBA. So, if it comes if there's something in planning and we're like, you know what, this is important. We want to know what HDC's thoughts are. If somebody here wasn't able to make a meeting, I am more than happy to incorporate that in my administrator report at any time. Um, I'm really working hard to be better glue between council and planning, planning and HDC just so that we can be communicating a little better. So, in any I'm open to suggestions if you have them or if you have things I want you want to communicate that I can help you with, I'm here to do that. Yeah, that's great. Yep. And I think um yeah, so much of it is you could have a lot of systems in place um emails, um newsletters, but a lot of it really is, you know, tell us what's going on, go talk and tell and have conversations. So, um, that's great. Thanks. I I think we'll, uh, be able to, uh, turn it loose into the environment and not have a report every month on it. Yep. All right. So, now the budget and expense report. Um, I see our last um, update here shows February 25. Um, I mean it certainly looks like we're on the correct a good tra trajectory. Um, anybody have any comments or uh observations on our budget right now? Only question I had was the $90 just for the master plan like that in February that was just being sent out or that was probably related to was did you work on the master plan at all? maybe with the memo in February.

Um I don't recall. I'm only asking because I thought we were done master plan is still in its review period. So then when it's done there, I want uh it will go back to council for its adoption. Once it's adopted though, I want I think it's really important that we do some community engagement around the master plan. I want to add a different section to the website that has a master plan there. where I want to, you know, pull out some key highlights from it. Maybe do a one pager on it and that type of stuff. I'd like to have printed copies of the master plan, just a few available at the library, available over here. So, in regards to your budget, as we move into our next fiscal year, which will begin on July 1, I am going to continue to keep some space in your budget for the master plan. Even though it's not due for another update, I'm going to keep some funds there so that while we're moving through, keep start thinking about different ways we can engage the community around the master plan and use it. And then if we have an idea on how to distribute some information, we have a little pocket of funds to do so. Uh I think the master plan, especially in Franklin, is so important and it really helps frame the way that we do things over here and why we're doing them and that it has this vision, especially since we have these historic roots. I want to make sure that copies of that are available and that we're engaging the public with it. So, it's not like we spend all this time doing all this work and then it just sits in the bottom of a filing cabinet type of thing. So, um that speaks more to your budget moving forward, not necessarily this one, but just know that I'm doing budgets right now and I plan to keep funds available for us to creatively think of ways to integrate the master plan into the community. Okay, that's great. Perfect. I have one quick question on the budget. So I did read through the packet and in this future planning activities document I saw this part about the capital improvements plan. So is that going I mean I haven't heard much about it honestly. Um is that something we need

to be considering or thoughtful of when we're making our budget just terms of anything else that we have to do for next year? I budget for all of the capital improvements in my main budget not in your planning budget. So, but I'm really happy that you pulled that out. So, historically speaking, Franklin hasn't really um put a lot of time into a capital improvement plan. Last year was the first time that you can see in our budget. We have a little spaceholder for some potential projects. This year, those projects are changing, but the detail in the capital improvement plan is staying the same, and that's based on timing from when I got over here and the amount of time that it takes to build that. However, my goal is to start in the summer building uh a traditional capital improvement plan and that will be something that I'll definitely want planning commission's involvement. It might be something we form a subcommittee on or just take uh or I provide updates and we share we can figure out the logistics of that. But I think it's really important for the village to start thinking strategically to the future. I think that there's a lot of good insight here on the planning commission. uh just in order to do that to the level that I think that we should. I didn't have time to incorporate it in this budget, but I'd like to start working on it so it's ready to go for the next one. So, I'm happy that you brought that up. More to come on that and I'll definitely be looking for feedback and involvement way to work on that. Um but any uh funds that would be necessary would come out of my general fund. Awesome. Thank you so much for that. Um I read it and I was this is really an exciting idea, but I hadn't heard much about it. So, thank you so much for that update. And Sarah, where where are you finding the capital improvement language? It's under It's on future planning activities. Yes. For the planning commission annual report. It's on the future planning activities. It's on it's the other side is the master plan activity. Okay. Cuz Yeah. I don't know. Chris, do you could you tell us a little bit? So, right now in our in our master plan, do we have a capital improvements?

No. That's um Well, we're going to get to that under new business, but Okay. Uh I I can tell you that um under state law the the uh when a community does a master plan Yeah. Uh they're supposed to do a capital improvements plan. It's the plan commission's responsibility. Okay. And then they pass it on to the village council. Obviously they can't do it themselves. They have to have the involvement of the village administrator and others. Yep. Because uh you can't do something like that in a vacuum. But it is the responsibility of the planning commission to sort of pull it together. Yeah, that's what I happen to be perusing some planning commission YouTube videos. Oddly, I don't know what's wrong with me, but yeah, and I'm I'm looking and the importance of having the capital improvement section in your master plan. And it occurred to me that just just having a document out there that you have over the years, you know, people can look back and say, "Yeah, this been this has been, you know, it's supposed to cover a six-year period and then the the first one is always the hardest one to do, right? And then uh if you if you do it the first one, and then you update it annually, right, you can see how it evolves. Easy to do. Yeah. Yep. Once we establish this, it'll just be in our routine to update every year like Chris said, but to get it started takes a lot a lot of heavy lifting. We got to think really strategically and um assess uh the state of our current um infrastructure and kind of provide values for that. So, it does take some time. So, in my head, I passed the budget through council in June, maybe July, August, we start talking capital improvement. Great. All right. So, with that,

um, do we have any public comments? Um, feel free to speak now or wait until we get to the topic, but would however you'd like to do it. Uh, yes, my name is Natalyia Shupe, 32334 Franklin Road. And before I get to my public comments, I would like to ask um is there going to be a discussion under old business for uh setbacks and regulation of the fences in R3 historic district? Yes, that is on our agenda. So that is on the agenda even though it was already uh motion passed in November. Right. Okay. It's a different different uh it's different. Okay. I don't know how different. Sorry. Um, so I I I'll just then go with my public comment. Okay. Um, so um I would like to address this issue uh that is currently on the agenda uh and uh accompanied by report uh by McKenna. The planning commission serves an important role including reviewing matters and directed by the village council. However, after the October 2024 council meeting, there was no direction given to broadly examine all zoning regulations related to single family residents detached garages and fences in R3 historic district. In fact, during the most recent council meeting, it was clear the council members were unaware of this item titled consideration of the zoning regulation for historic R3 district. When Mr. Helock asked for clarification. Only the village administrator seemed to know what it referred to. She appeared visibly upset and stated she would explain later. I have reviewed the meeting's minutes and watched the videos. The only two uh directives from the previous council were in September 2024. The council

requested that the planning commission determine whether sections of the ordinances might need to rule for R4 lots, not R3. In October 2024, the council requested a review of fence setbacks in historic R3 district, and that was the extent of it. The newly elected council has not issued any directive regarding further review of R3 zoning regulations. Following that October directive, the planning commission did review the fencing regulations and setbacks in historic R3 district. At November 2024 planning commission meeting, McKenna presented a comprehensive report with findings and recommendations. A motion was passed supporting McKenna's conclusion that no changes were needed to the fence regulations. Their for report found no defect in the existing regulation that would warrant an amendment. The commission then instructed Mr. Den to send a letter to the council summarizing their this decision. Today I received a copy of that letter through for a request. I have a copy for everyone. We know this letter was received by the village administration at December 2024 meeting uh when Mr. Hik asked asked if the council had seen it. The village administrator responded not yet, stating the agenda had been full. However, the letter has still not been formally provided to the council. Without receiving that letter, the council has not had an opportunity to discuss or issue any new directions to the planning commission regarding fans setback and regulation in the historic R3 district. You may ask why this has happened. The answer is concerning. The village

administrator appears to be attempting to present this issue as an old business to the planning commission without the council's knowledge. This could be a way to cover up prior failures to enforce ordinances and to stop the recent construction of illegal fences in historic district. Those who attended the October and November 2024 planning commission meetings may recall the statements made by my husband and me. On March 31st, 2024, our neighbors tenants at the corner of Franklin Carroll Avenue completely removed a 6-foot privacy fence and constructed two new 6-oot privacy fences, one facing Franklin Road and one on a lot between uh our properties. Some panels and po posts exceed six feet. The fence between our homes was built less than two feet our house and windows. Natalia, can I ask I I would like for you to be able to finish, but we we do have our three minute time limit that we'd like to observe. Um if you're able to wrap up fairly quickly, if you could do that, that would be appreciated. We will be addressing this on the agenda. So we will have time to talk a little more about it. But um okay. Uh so I then I'll go back this when it's on the agenda. Right. As my comments. Okay. So I'll go then really uh to the um uh this is the first time actually someone has been interrupted at the planning commission uh in regards to the minutes but okay. Um then it my concern is to McKenna reports. The original report provided at the November 2024 meeting was dated October 29th, 2024 and included fence related findings and recommendation. I

have copies for everyone. Some of you have not seen it. However, the new version of the report now being provided also dated October 29, 2024, contains no such recommendations. Curiously, the maps and calculations within the new October report that you have now dated February 23rd, 2025, indicating that this report could not have been created that last fall. It contrasts the original report presented in November including a map creating on October 7, 2024. The timing makes sense. So you have a completely two different reports, two different conclusions and suggestions. Um so uh please see those dates. So the question becomes why wasn't the newly revised report presented at the November meeting since it was dated October 29th uh same date as the other report? The answer is clear. This version did not exist then. It was likely prepared early 2025 and withheld until new planning commissions were seated presumably to confuse and misled them. the village administrator may not have expected our family to attend the council meeting last Monday or for Mr. Hock to raise the question as I stated uh the council was confused. Um so Natalya we do enforce the rule. We have had cases where we try to keep our um you know time observe the the time limit that we have established for a long time. Um any if you could make a final closing comment that would be appreciated. We will be moving on and we'll have an

opportunity to contribute more. Okay. My final just few um uh sentences. It seems the village administration very actions for me to end this. In conclusion, the village administrator does not have the authority to direct the planning commission to review the act or matters. the village council can provide that direction. Uh there was no direction provided to planning commission by the council. Therefore, this should be postponed until they review that letter since it was not provided to them since November and then uh they can make a decision what to do next since we have a new council as everyone is know and at the council meeting my husband provided details. This is the last uh s two sentences and formally requested a full investigation to this ongoing issues. For everyone who wants to truly understand the situation, I urge you to watch the recordings of the October and November planning commission meetings as well the most recent council meeting whereas this concerns were raised. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Natalia. [Music] Um so with that we can move on to old business. Um perhaps so this is where we'll be discussing the uh zoning regulations for the historic R3 district. Um I feel that uh maybe you could give us some background. All right. And then we can I think we can continue to move forward and absolutely. Okay. So the first thing is is that this came back to you at request of your village council of President David Goldberg who had quite a lengthy conversation with Chris Duen regarding the first time that we did the

analysis of the R3 the scope of that project due to um so you have to think about who your council liaison and we went through a transition there we got a newly elected council so uh during the time when this R3 comes to planning commission for review is actually before I start working with the village. So it would have been I don't know say September August somewhere in there. um it comes over and planning commission understood it to be looking at fence regulations. That was a breakdown in communication and that was really the result of you know a um a liaison a council liaison who was a little um unable to articulate the council's wishes. So they received the report and all the analysis that was done in the fall to fences and that was great except that wasn't exactly what they were looking for. They wanted to expand that scope of work. They were trying to look at R3 in general. So, the reason that this comes back has absolutely nothing to do with me as an administrator. It is your council that decided that they didn't quite get the scope of work they were looking for initially. Had a long conversation with Chris Dusen, our planner here, about what they were looking at. And that's what leads us to bringing it back today and this updated report from Chris. I'm going to turn it over to Chris since he was on the conversation with David and see if there's anything else there that you'd like to add. No, I think you pretty much summarized it. I I think what the council was looking for was a a broader view of the R3 regulations and how they affect development in the R3 district. And uh it's a unique situation in the R3 district. Yep. and um and it's explained in my letter. So before we get to your letter, I would

just add that you know in my review of this um I I feel that it does have merit on itself and these are worthy uh issues to to address and uh you know gives gives some thought about you know this special part of our village. So um I guess you if I got comments as well because I I read the report like this is very good. is very well thought out and I understand the fence analysis that was done. I understand the breakdown the communication on that but what my understanding now is this is not about fences. It's about being able to grow the historic district by reszoning what it currently is. not not reszoning but it's uh taking a look at the regulations like the setback regulations and saying well do we need for example uh on the side setbacks a total of two 25 okay foot setbacks because that's uh hindering people from developing their property their ability we need a 40ft rear yard set back okay developing where they currently are but that Being said, majority of the residents have lived in this these homes for a very long time and I'm saying now it's becoming an issue. Why need to be brought up? Why we need to expand like their their boundaries? Not just that. So, you have to think about how small these lots are. They're very small, but they they were purchased as is. They were. But when these homeowners try to make improvements to their lots, whether it's even just, you know, improving a structure that's already there or adding something new, they find that they run into a lot of issues. So, I'd like to stop you right there and say no zoning ordinance has been suggested. This is a study. Okay. Your council is just requesting information about an

observation of the current lot sizes, what sort of obstacles we see in those, how consistent they are. But with as isolated as those things are, the people that want to do more to develop their properties, wouldn't that be a request for zoning for variances to do that versus rewriting or re-evaluating the current? Absolutely. And that is the process. So So why is it coming to us as opposed to Well, that's what we can discuss. you have. Okay. I I just want to get the whole picture because like I said, I read it. I'm just like we're not suggesting this is a data. It's a study. It's a data gathering and no one has proposed any zoning changes. Okay. So, this would have came to you before I was an employee of this village and it's just to try and understand the difference in these tiny lots and R3s. No zoning ordinance has been suggested and at this time if anyone needed to make a change that would be a ZBA issue. Absolutely. Because when I as I was reading it was like I don't Okay, we're anal. Yeah. But on the other hand, let me say that when you do have multiple nonconformities. Yeah. That related to a particular Yeah. Well, the nonconformity that suggests there might be some sort of a defect in the ordinance. Okay. And that's what the data sort of points out in some cases. But were these non in these cases that are here? Were these non-conformities existing prior to the ordinance? That I I don't know. Were they exist? I wouldn't know that without Right. Many of them were pre they were pre-ordance like some are pre-church. Some some of these properties are for the church. It's like still it's a nonconformity. It's a nonconformity. It's right. Right. Okay. So, we're looking to see what's broken because the isn't sensitive. If anything is broken because why fix what's broken? Right. I mean, we do have some say in how our community develops using good practices, what makes it

desirable. The very fact that you do have a lot of nonconformities, um, doesn't mean that they're wrong necessarily. In fact, that's how it grew organically over the years. And um ultimately we can decide as a community uh you under the the planning enabling act you know if if this will make our village a better place and make our uh make you know both aesthetically and uh in from the point of view of the people living in the houses that kind of thing. But one thing I do agree with the public that was mentioned today was why are fences back in here? We already ruled on fences and sent that to council just to create a comprehensive but that's fine. I want to take a look at it but I don't want to present anything to council that has fences related to it because we already have done that. Oh I disagree with that. Yeah I've raised some additional issues. This is a new report on that. I mean we can always choose not to change anything anything but that's fair. I I I uh specifically with fences I have not made any recommendations. I have raised some additional questions for you. Okay. Answer. Yep. In debate and uh maybe you'll come to the same conclusion, maybe you won't, but I think it's worth having the debate. Yep. Agreed. Okay. Yeah. If you if you'd like then we could walk through it. Yeah. Sort of. And uh then well in terms of the setback analysis um on page one of my letter March 21st letter um the first thing I do is I uh convey what the current setback regulations are um for um the principal dwelling it's 30t in front on the side it's a minimum of 10 feet on both either side but the

total of both setbacks has to be 25 ft. So in essence, it has to be 10 ft on one side and 15 feet on the other side minimum. And on the sideyard adjacent to a street, it has to be 30 feet. And then in the rear, the minimum sideyard set uh rear yard setback is 40T. And then um for garages, the um setback is 10 feet. So that comes into play as you'll see as we get through this. Now, uh I tell you a little bit how I I did this analysis. I basically used Oakland County aerial photographs which show property lines. It's not a perfect uh way to do it, but it's good enough that it does show nonconformities. It's not exact down to the tenth of a a foot or anything like that, but it's it's good enough to show where there are nonconformities. Yep. Um, in terms of the findings going on to page two, uh, the residential side side setback analysis. There's a lot of stuff here, but it's just, uh, the tables are there just to show you, uh, where the the nonconformities are. Nine residences or about 24.3% do not comply with the 10-ft minimum side setback on the left side. Eight residences or 21.6% do not comply with the 10-ft minimum side setback on the right side. and 10 residences or about 27% do not comply with the 25- ft minimum total of both sides

requirement. So um basically we have about looking at an at an overall perspective about a quarter of the residences are not in compliance with the side setback requirements. So that's a pretty high percentage really. um in my mind. Then when you look at the rear yard setback analysis, eight residences or 21.6% do not comply with the 40 foot minimum rear setback requirement. So, um, what it suggests to me is that, uh, there may be property owners in the R3 district who wish to make improvements to their homes, but they're constrained by the setback requirements. And um there are options that exist and I suggest a few like maybe eliminating the total of both sides se side setback requirement and another option is to uh reduce the the 40 foot rear setback requirement. So for example, a reduction to just 30 feet in the rear um would have a um really substantial impact. It would affect um immediate effect for six properties where the existing rear setback is between 30 and 40 feet. So, it would give a a really um substantial impact because a lot of people when they do make improvements to their house, they're usually going to the rear uh most often. And we did we didn't address the front setback uh for a couple reasons. One is uh we thought that the 30-foot front setback is appropriate for the

district and secondly the likelihood that property owners will want to make um improvements that it would expand towards the front is relatively small. And then we uh looked at the uh garages detached garages and we found um um 12 detached garages in the R3 district. Interestingly, uh quite a few do not comply with the rear uh 10- foot rear yard setback and the um four of them, 33% do not comply with the rear setback requirement and nine or 75% do not comply with the 10- foot minimum uh side setback requirement. So, um, the concern with detached garages is not necessarily expansion or renovation, uh, as it is with the principal dwelling. It's what if they want to tear down the garage or what if the garage is destroyed by some means, um, and they wanted to put it in the same footprint. Um, they would have to get a variance or relocate the garage. and to relocate the garage. Obviously, they would be taking up more of their rear yard, which they probably wouldn't want to do with the garage. And that would leave 10 ft in the side and then in the rear of dead space. Do you see what I mean? Uh the setback is basically behind the garage and on the side is just unusable dead space, right? So, in my mind, um, a reduction of five feet, uh, since we've been living with these

garages at a 5-ft setback for probably a hundred years, it would make sense to reduce the 10-ft setback to five feet. uh for the garages. It might not make much of a difference except in those few cases where the garage is replaced or damaged beyond repair and has to be replaced for that reason. And your suggestion is just for the garages, not for the main dwelling. Keep the 10 ft for a main dwelling, but a garage can go to five. Right. Okay. Right. And that's just to make um the best use of the ground really of the land. And then um on page two, at the bottom of page two, I uh talk about the lot with analysis. And I really uh this is just uh here forformational purposes more than anything else. Um I did a a lot with analysis to uh and found that [Music] um let's see here. Um 16 lots or 43.2% do not comply with the minimum lot width requirement. Um this is probably a key reason that many residents do not comply with the minimum side setback requirements. And um it's it's revealing because on lots that are very narrow, some are only 50 or 60 ft in width, the existing setbacks allow a maximum building footprint of only about 1375 to 1925 square feet. So this is imposes a constraint where

the land is so expensive where you have such a small building footprint. Um people want to spend money to to you know build their houses uh out and and make it and uh get value out of their land. So that's where the rub comes uh and and they're they're hemmed in by the uh setbacks to some extent, I think. So we we don't recommend any change to the lot width, but I I'm just presenting it here to give you some perspective of where the some of the problems come from. And then um the fence analysis on page three um is um stuff that you've already seen. Uh Quincy, you haven't seen it, but uh um I present some information from the ordinance. The difference between a fence and a privacy screen. You may be familiar with it from from zoning. It's Yeah. This is the original report. You have not seen that. and conclusion. This information's already in here. And um um Dana, yeah, that needs to go to Dana. That needs to go to Dana first. Order. Thank you. Goes to Dana and then Dana sees it to us. Yeah, we'll distribute that. But anyway, um Thank you. Mhm. Um fences are um basically 4 feet in height. Privacy screens are six feet in height. That's a a big difference between them. Privacy screens

um are not supposed to be located in the required uh yard setback area, whereas uh fences can be located in the side or rear yard of a residential district. So there are some important distinctions between what's termed a fence and what's termed a privacy screen. Um so we went out um in the R3 district we uh located or identified um where um fence slashprivacy screens are located within the R3 district. And those are mapped on a map that's in here. It's the map that's um on the historic district. It's labeled historic district map. And um there are six of those fences uh identified and I've uh numbered them on the bottom of page three and top of page four. And um all the fences appear to be uh six feet in height. So using uh that criterion alone they would be considered privacy screens. But uh all the fences are uh on the property lines, but privacy screens are not supposed to be in the required setback areas. So um there's that conflict between the height and where they're located. So there's a a conflict there between where the privacy screens are and the height and so forth. So anyway, um all six existing fences were likely constructed before the current fence regulations were adopted, so they are legally non-conforming. Nevertheless, their

presence in the R3 district raises questions that the planning commission should consider. And here are the ones that I think that are worth uh debating. Given the small size of many of the lots in the R3 district, does it make sense to allow privacy screens on the property line? This would be just in the R3 district. On some lots, there simply is not a smaller quote selected use or area unquote to carve out that is not within the required setback area. Um, secondly, if the village were to allow privacy screens on the perimeter of lots in the R3 district, what restrictions would be necessary to avoid a co compartmentalized look that would disrupt the cohesiveness and character of the historic district? And third, should the excuse me, should the style be regulated if privacy screens are permitted on the perimeter of lots? And this may be a historic district commission question. Um, I raised this question because I'd be concerned about the appearance of the U historic district if a multiple multipitude of uh stock eight fences were erected in the district. So, um, I throw those questions out. I think they're worth debating and um I don't come to any uh conclusions with respect to the fence/privacy screen issue at this point. Okay. All right. So, I guess we can have some discussion on this. Would anybody like to uh make any comments? Well, I was just I don't know if you look to see if there how many actually legally conforming privacy screens are

there. Are there a lot of privacy screens that are within the current ordinance or are the only privacy screens really these ones that you find on the private privy line? I don't think there are any legally um legal privacy screens in the R3 district. Okay. I think they're all on the property line and they're all uh non-conforming at this point. Right. So, no one's putting up private you see privacy screens otherwise except keeping ones that are essentially legally non. That's correct. Good question. It is correct. It was it's not a back and forth conversation. So, let's stay focused on the discussion related to it. Agreed. Yep. Paul, we're going to say something. So, yeah. No. So with that new information with these questions, given the small size Liz R3, it doesn't make sense to allow privacy screens on property line. So it specifically focused on these three questions for our discussion. For the first one, I kind of would say no. It does not make sense to me to allow privacy screens because it disrupts the natural look of what we have in the village already. To put a privacy screen at 6 feet, that means you have to be above six feet to look down on the street and see like all the house is there. Um, next being the village were to allow them in the R3 district, what restrictions would be necessary? They'd have to be 4 feet. And at that point, they're not privacy screens. So, again, my opinion for the same reasoning. It disrupts the natural beauty that we have with the nature in the village, which is why to keep its historical characteristic part of the master plan that we have there, keeping things natural. And lastly, the last question. I agree. It should be a question for the historic district if we do allow it because designs and like that everything that's up to them. Now the only workaround I can think of

through all of this is if you want to have a privacy screen put up our vetes I didn't put put up our provides agree because it keeps the natural look keeps the natural look. You can get a 10-footer for 200 bucks. Y and you can put it along your property line regardless and it doesn't have to have a setback. It's a natural green and it's there year round. So I I definitely, you know, like the points that you raised, but what if we had more of a middle ground thought of 4 foot fences have to maintain what's the opacity like 60% opening. What if we have a 4 foot privacy fence that would still allow, like you said, you could still view, but because of the additional limitations of those lots, if you mind sitting on my patio, I can sit in my chair and I'm not going to look at my neighbor doing whatever, but you can you can look around and you can see everything, but maybe there's like a middle ground area. I would love to find a middle ground. Thanks for bringing that up because the only thing I was concerned about is at least they can't be the white picket fence. If you're going to do something like that, it has to be natural wood colors, right? Because I think the fence that's like rod iron, wood, stone or something stylish. But again, that's a decision. I think we should leave the historic district. Just we won't have to I don't think we should have a say in that because of the district of the material or of the material, the style, the size. I think it should be four feet. If we're doing anything, I think four four and 1/2 ft is perfect because again with the sit down right there also with a without having anything over four feet. Let's say you have a bonfire in your backyard. I have to tell the police department or the fire department. they'll know you're getting burning that. Cool. If there is an issue, your neighbors can see it. You can see there's a fire issue. If there is, if it's above six feet, you won't see it till it's too late. Do we have now, Chris, um the existing, you know, opacity shadow box fences? I I believe

we do have material uh requirements uh in our ordinance, right? Yes. And I think the historic district does or the historic guideline booklet does as well. Yes. Um do you recall, Chris, what our see-through factor is a 4ft fence? Um I'll look it up. For some reason, I thought it was like 60 or something like that. I don't know if that I'll look it up. 60 what? 60% of it is open, but you can see through it. Okay. Right. So I think that was the or maybe it was the other way around. Maybe it was 40. Some people get around by that by doing the picket like the big pick of fence. It's alternating planks on each side the slots cuz technically you can look through it and so you only see through kind of one direction. Yeah, sure. Quincy, just to clarify, you're saying if we do the four feet on the perimeter, right? That's what you're saying, right? I just want to make our eyebrows. Well, I mean, we can do 4 foot on the perimeter right now. You just can't do a privacy for on Okay. So, that's where we're saying full a fully full. Yeah. So that would be the change. Yeah. By privacy. I'm against anything that's opaque like that. You cannot do that in the historic district of of like any any height solid. That's what I was just asking for clarification on. Is is that your opinion? Capacity of a perimeter feature uh shall not exceed 40% except that the opacity of perimeter features uh constructed of stone or other natural materials. What was it? 40%. Okay. But this why I was saying the workound is doing something like a 10 foot arpeggio because that sure can move with the wind, but it's pretty opaque in the summer. Yeah, for sure. I mean, you don't have your looking neighbors to see a fire. You don't have your view further around, but it is natural and it's that's the

natural thing. Yeah. So, I agree. Like, so when I read this, I agree with Paul that I sort of read it as like a historic and a zoning thing. Like that's how I read it. Yep. And like I understood like seeing the percents were like a little bit like 75% don't, you know, comply with this. Those are very large percents. We definitely need to look at like making sure we're being mindful. But I I thought for the same questions I was on the same page of I thought a lot of this for this district. I would at least want their feedback on how they are viewing it in terms of that communication because I do think they have so much more of that historic knowledge of of all of that that that would be something I think super important to incorporate into that thought process like actual some type of feedback or uh I think their knowledge base is so important in this scenario especially like I would love to hear from a resident who's lived there for 40 years right basically Yeah, same thought. Ultimately, it's about um of course as a it's sort of like, you know, Supreme Court looking over um what's good for everybody um and individual states being able to have their their freedoms. um you know what are these overriding or generally accepted guidelines to make aesthetic qualities be favorable for a historic district um while giving them the freedom to do things that they want to do. And obviously with these high levels of nonconformity um you can see that these have benefits um you know they they they provide um quality of life for the people who have them.

Um, so the the the sort of h having some I guess one thought that we could do short of a um a full-blown um folks group or something like that would be that we familiarize ourselves well. Um I've had the good fortune of working many times in the historic district um intimately with the properties. Um, to me it's always been pleasant and um I like that Ferndale you have 35 foot lots. They're very they just reduced it from 40 to 35 and you have five foot setbacks. Um you know real tight your the houses are real tight and you know the way that Franklin grew the history of Franklin it was it was very organic and uh um so we have a lot of nonconformities and a lot of uh v variety in in the historic district. um you know trying to understand what makes a historic district special um is a is very subjective and subtle and perhaps we could get some input uh from our from our historic district commission. Um I could make efforts to invite Gary or yeah, one of the representatives there uh we could have a bit of a mutual discussion. Um that's like that. Yeah. Okay. Okay. that kind of casual discussion outside of our regular meeting or invite Gary to a regular meeting to have I think I think both. I I agree I agree with both just because him having if if Stuart's good with that. Uh I'll I'll chat with him and I I think we could try to arrange that. I can talk to Gary and see what his thoughts are who who would be someone who could represent here to help us help us with this. Um, but I also think yeah, whatever. I I

I I would recommend maybe that we begin by um taking a stroll individually on your free time and and and taking a look. I I've always felt that um it it's, you know, nothing nothing ever jumps out at me when I'm down there. Uh I've I've had folks ask me, "Can I do something with this little structure?" And I'm like, "Boy, you know, it's right on the property line. I we got to talk about that and think about it. Um and they're getting rickety and they're charming, you know, they're charming little structures. Um and you'd hate for them to have to forego rebuilding something like that. So, uh there there's a lot of points to be sitter considered. I I think maybe um if we can we can revisit this at our next meeting. I agree. I think it'd be better to revisit this after we get input from historic commission. uh have other other commissioners join us in the discussion as well get on the same page and then move forward from there. So really have an answer for council by July. Yeah seems realistically I was thinking the same thing. Yeah, I think that that's absolutely fair. Um and like I said there is no like motiv single motivating issue that leads to the study. you know, as Chris expanded it from just fences, it really just became they became it's my understanding that they became more aware of how many non-conformities were existing there. And it's our our job to make sure that, you know, the ordinance is is doing its job there. Um, so I don't think we're on any kind of time crunch to get back and I think collaboration between HDC since this is their district too could be really helpful. Also, you know, Gary himself is a wealth of knowledge, longtime Franklin resident, has that great perspective. So, I can see that being really healthy in adding to this conversation. So, um maybe like we're

moving forward. I would have you uh circle in with Stuart and then we'll coordinate. I'd love to sit in those as well just so I can communicate back up through council to kind of where we're at. So, and then maybe you or Stuart or all of us and Gary meet and sort of talk about Chris's um findings here and invite Gary to come back to a meeting and sort of share his input on the record. But I I I did want to mention I I was not kidding about the deadline of trying to do July just so we don't have this on our docket until December. I like I really I really want there to be a deadline in July. I like that. Okay. I do have one quick I guess maybe Quincy you can offer some information on this. So I was looking at the um garage setback analysis that Chris did. Yeah. And I know that you can go through the zoning process and I know that you had looked at you know some of the sort of reducing some of the setback requirements. What if I guess if something happened I'm just thinking we have so many trees. If a tree fell in someone's garage and they had to replace it, what is I guess the likelihood? Do we need to really address this? Because I can't imagine if I had to do that. What a night. I I can I know you ask. I can answer this. Currently, right now, as is. It's the house is destroyed. It needs to be rebuilt. It needs to be rebuilt as is with the materials as best you can. Otherwise, they can request a variance to move it if needed. Just like a just the garage. Just the garage. just if they so it would be asis in that exact location as is in that exact location unless they ask for variance like hey we know it's right here we know they would be required to get a variance but regardless I think if they do anything that is current that would be within a setback even if they're changing a roof direction they would still have to get a variance and we recently had one where um so it would be right at the corner of what is it um Carol and what's the first street over there but they wanted to add they a

single car garage. They wanted to add a second car garage. Okay. So, one of the things that zoning board always seems to look at is par with the neighborhood where there's I think three other houses on that small little cut street and each of them have twocar garages. Mhm. So I think that then kind of speaks to the issue of like if all the existing ones are already non-conforming, maybe there is some issue there because you want to look to be in parody with everything. So like you don't want to have one house as a sixcar garage and you're all a sudden limited to a twocar garage or whatever, but they're all roughly similar because like you go through and you mentioned you walk through the neighborhood, nothing sticks out. So like if most the houses have two car garage shares a one, you make it a two. it doesn't really stick out. Okay. Um, so those were some issues that we had. Okay. I just want to get in the mindset so that way I had it. And then also with that to address historic district came, they always weighed in on anything that we could to address Sarah's uh question a little bit more detail. When you have a non-conforming structure and it's damaged, uh there's a provision in the ordinance that says should such structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50% of its estimated cash value, it shall be reconstructed only in conformity with the provisions of the zoning code. Okay. Right. So if a piece of wood is rotting, you can replace it if it but right you get to a thresh what you guys had. It was like piece by piece and there was a barrier as an outcry that was that old horse fence. Well with the fencing issues is where that comes in because you have you had several issues where people wanted to replace the entire fence. It was legally non-conforming. It allows for repair. At what point is repair replacement? And it's the 50%. Is that the general? Well, that that was for damage. So, that was different than

that's damage. That's like where the tree falls on your garage and destroy. You're allowed to maintain a legally non-conforming fence, but at what point are you no longer maintaining it if you're replacing it? And we've been looking at that extensively and just rooting it up through state law is where we are because our ordinance is unclear. So, in 1264.04, it does allow you to have a non-conforming structure. you can repair that structure and it even says replace as long as it doesn't change in size, nature or material. And then but that but then also in the nonconformity there's a line in the ordinance that says that you know it's not the intent to encourage the survival or whatever those so that is fishy there. So when we look at those specific issues, we often have to root it all the way up to state case law to see at what point are you actually abandoning the structure and then that's considered a brand new replacement versus a repairreplacement, right? So So if you're replacing pickets on a fence, does it do you do 50% value before you have to talk to anybody? We've this discussion's kind of come up. There's really no Well, it sounds like we have a 50% value. That was the only disruption. Fences are kind of different. It's kind of Yeah. Well, it's the kind of part that Yeah. And that that's why people come to get variances because they want to do some replacement, but at that point, if you just get a variance, you'll be okay. Yeah. And that was kind of how it was going. So, in your mindset, is this something that maybe we look at then to address? Well, it seems like you're eliminating the ability of people to have any sort of privacy fence in the historic district if the only or at least most of the only ones that are existing are legally non-conforming.

Well, so if no one else is taking any action, do they not want privacy offenses or are they so limited by the ordinance that they're not allowed to take any action unless they seek a variance? Yeah. And they don't want to seek a variance because then So, that's a question we asked. Do you not have a privacy fence because the ordinance or because you just don't want one? So, a discussion with people from the historic commission I think could provide okay, you know, some right and that's where like maybe they do want a a privacy fence. Um maybe it is it would it would require a variance. Um, and does the historic and aesthetic character of the village weigh upon that calculation? That's a difficult one. It's an important one. I do think it does have a significance on it, but um I feel like we need to get all the other input before we move down. And that's where the uh let's cut it. You know, try try to take some special attention to our own little village. And boy, if you if you venture out into other areas, um, you know, take a look, try to try to think about it. I think it would be helpful. Like I said, the closest place I feel like we have to find Franklin is downtown Farmington. Yeah, that's for me. That's it. Hop, skip, and a jump. Yeah. Parts of uh um trying to think. I don't know if we're done with fences, but I don't know if this discussion also warrants discussion about the um sideyard setbacks that we mentioned with like garages. We discussed the fences, but we're also discussing open on that or close the fences first and then No, that's a really good point, Quincy. I think that I'm under the impression that the the with the memo to now expand the scope of what we were looking at when we continue down these conversations. We'll be addressing not just fences, but also side setbacks, the garages, everything that Chris has presented here to kind of get a comprehensive Yeah. And there's no reason why we can't do it right now. If you have something if you have something you No, it seems like yeah, there should

there's I just don't the board has expanded that we can at least touch on these and see. Yep. Like we want his we want more feedback. We know with fences we can't go much further. So well and so so we may want something similar with grades probably to include those both those discussions together. Absolutely. Um so I agree. Yeah. All right. All right. Thank you Chris. Good information here. Yeah. Very good. Good stuff to think about. So, Natalya, I I want to have you have your full opportunity to to give us your thoughts, but you know, keep it keep it quick. I'm happy to happy to hear you since I'm the only one who I'm assuming living in historic district, so I can provide some feedback. Um and because our property has one of the smaller lots in historic district. So um we know um all of this difficulties but at the same time um I I want to point out at the uh fence ordinances obstruction of use of adjoining property that's a very important one when you consider the changes. Um as of right now uh we have um new fans less than 2 ft from our property which makes difficult to maintain and um even engineering company could not uh place the proper equipment when they need it in that uh space. And that therefore uh we have ordinances that says no fence shall be erected where it should prevent or unreasonably obstruct the use of or access to adjacent property. Um the building official may require a fence to be set back up to 2 ft from a driveway or property. So um that's why when our neighbor went three times to ZBA it was denied because for

one this was an important reason why because it was so close to our property and um they have uh deta determined the neighbor had enough of setback per um ordinances uh which is 10 ft which not every property have to do 10 ft. They can ask ZBA 53 what that ZBA will look at each case separately and they will make determination how many feet uh that setback should be. So this is one important when you look at all of that and um uh and consider uh when you do your review at the same time. Um I we my husband and I we invited uh village officials uh ZBA commissioners to our property to see for themselves what what it's like what is how it's going to prevent our family to escape when there is a fire safety concern how because we have windows there main windows actually family room kitchen uh bedroom I mean dining room and um unfortunately no one um had a desire to do it. I will give to a clerk since this is a procedure some of the pictures. So you will take a look uh maybe this picture will show you uh what our view from the windows how this is all living in historic district with this close proximity of sixoot privacy fence especially when the wrong side is facing you. Um so I will give that but also uh please keep in mind another thing is um for those who has

this such a small space to maintain the side of the house and everything um and um but mainly it's safety as we spoke at the last meetings you probably remember it was ma major concern of ours And as you just discussed when there is open burning um you know you cannot open the windows burning fire you know people doing in historic district you cannot open the windows it it the smoke just goes even if it's four homes away from uh your home. So this is another concern but uh that's separate issue but when it there's a wooden fence so close to your house and then there's a grill which we don't have uh also ordinances in the historic district for that how many feet from a structure we should have it uh and smoker then it's an issue for the fire hazard and let me just say if god forbid there is a fire historic district, one of the homes, it's going to be a disaster for the whole historic district. So, that's why I'm speaking. I just I just have a few questions. I don't mean to cut you off because I know we're getting We've had this discussion before. I know. Yes. Um, have you requested the village to send out the building enforcement for that fence behind your house? Behind? You said f next to your house where that fence is. Has the building enforcement have come uh ordinance enforcement come out to look at that fence? Yes. Okay. What was the determination? Remove the fence and build as per uh go to ZBA. Okay. Uh and uh at every ZBA meeting, building officials stated that fence reached the point and you'll see in the pictures

that it's no longer can be repaired. So it and that's another I I'll answer but before I forget this is another point. why this uh fences were not taken care of. There's not enough space. It's on a property line to go on without trespassing to your neighbor. It's got to be reported by neighbors. Otherwise, enforcement doesn't know when to come out to look at it. Enforced. It has to be reported. If it wasn't reported when it was disrepair, it won't be fixed and enforced. Right. So, come out there. I don't mean to cut you off every I'm just trying to say if enforcement has come out there and reviewed it and made a declaration then the fence hasn't been repaired by the owner then that's another report you need to make as a resident to the enforcement to have them come out again and issue a ticket to the homeowner sir it was ignored four years I we have all documentation because when we do we we have already done the fence ordinance like rever review incented we understand it's just we can't do anything more regarding this specific subject. We've already sent it off. It's been reviewed. And I hate to say it, but it's almost like we're beating a dead horse here. No, no. I that part I agree, but the the neighbor replaced the the fence without the going with the permit or uh completely new fence without going with the permits uh ZBA or HDC approval. Okay. So again that and and again we emailed and nothing happening. Right. So with that being done I've responded to Natalia's emails multiple times. I have given we get a foyer request every two weeks and I've furnished all the notices and everything that we can over there. This is not the appropriate venue. No. So that being said, I did agree. That's why I asked what was done. It'd be better for the complaints now to be

done at the village council meetings. Yes. We we have we have no authority on No, no, no. And I'm not saying I Sorry, sir. I'm not right now bringing up what you should do about this. I I I know we we what you're asking and letting us know we have no say in it anymore, right? We've already been sent off three months ago. It's been referred to the council. I And it just agree. I empathize with you. I really do. I understand cuz I the safety issue is a big thing with me as well. We can't do anything right. The only thing I had an issue with with McKenna reports between the now and before where the I'll read just one two par two sentences where it's stated based on the above observation we do not recommend changes to defense regulation. This desire to preserve the character and the look of the historic district should take precedence over the desire for a taller fence. And that is correct because if the change happens then the change that is affecting you will stay in place. So the recommendation of not changing lens is is good right now. So all right. So we got there but yep we got to move. Any closing comments? I please consider um uh that um part of the ordinances that I just read. Um and please consider how someone if a new fences will be built whatever you decide 6oot privacy fence 4T every fence going forward regardless where it is has to have a v permit and a variance approved by zoning no matter what. Okay. All right. Thank you so much. Not in our case. Thank you. Okay. I'll just give this Okay. Please do. And she'll send submit it out to us. All right. So, I think we can go ahead and move on to our our next item. Um, this is our new business and our annual report. Uh,

maybe Chris, you could walk us through it. Well, this is, uh, something that also is required by state law and Yep. Um it basically says what you did in 2024 and um if you're comfortable with what's reflected here, the proper action to be taken would be to forward it to the village council because that's what is uh called for. Yep. All right. So, um, in my review of this, I thought it was very thorough and and well done. Covered all the ground that I was aware of. Um, does anybody have any comments or thoughts on the presentation or the content? No, I think it was very like very well organized, very concise, very clear and cut. Yep. Yep. Uh the only thing I would say is the addition of I know we have Daniel Ferris appointed council 25 Albert Lwig also left in 2025. So true. That's a good catch. That's the only thing I could see different. And then for sake of that for adding that I guess we add Quinsey for 2025. Well this is actually reflecting 2024. Oh that's a good point. Oh, 2024. Okay, there you go. Thank you. Can I just say, you know, I wasn't with you guys your whole year last year, but after reviewing your report and looking at some of this, I mean, for a planning commission, you guys have really looked at some big ordinances and done a lot of work over the last year, we all know that we don't amend propose amendments to this in one night. It takes multiple sessions, a lot of discussion at times, a lot of community feedback. And when I

look at some of these rather meaty issues that you were dealing with last year, I think that it's impressive the way that you've moved that through a a volunteer planning commission here. Um definitely providing a great service to the village. So, we're really thankful for all of that hard work and I know that it doesn't happen overnight and that a lot of times it's on an agenda and back on an agenda and again and again, but I appreciate this. This is it's it's great to see it all in one place. um when we present it to council, I'll make sure that uh either Chris is there or that Stuart is there so that we can actually walk them through it a little more than just attaching it because we I think it's important to pay homage to some of the work that was done in the past year. Great. But yeah, um the only thing I didn't see and I didn't know if he wanted it included, I thought that Pete did a really great job just bringing in the knowledge about pickering whether or not, you know, we actually took action on it. I think it led to a lot of knowledge that was grown not only about the importance of historic structures but sort of it got the ball moving also on thinking about how we can use spaces in our village and that was the only thing I saw that I was like I don't know if we can include this or where it would fit but I thought that the work done on it in terms of looking at it as a collaborative and community engagement thing was actually it was really cool and I wanted to spotlight it because I know I was really inspired by a lot of the that came out of it. But that was it. I thought otherwise it was very well presented and I learned a lot and was really proud reading it. So thank you for putting it together. Except your point about with Pickering that's his despite the fact the outcome of it you're 100% correct. He was able to do the uh working together for multiple different boards putting it together and a lot of community outreach surprises. You did great. A lot of collaborative work within the community too. the way that we were able to get different factions of community working together rowing in one direction. It's

not something that always happens in Franklin and we saw that with Pickering Barn and they're really using that model to look at the green. So, I agree with Sarah's point. You know, that's a huge engagement that we had over here. When you get started on the green unofficially, I want to jump in and on that. Okay. I played baseball in that field for 20 years and soccer and I fell off the play structure there multiple times. I got trapped in that barn in the way back corner when I was a kid. Like a lot of horrible memories of Oh, you're not a younger? Oh, of course. Okay, good. Have they like hit by a tobogen? You always get hit by somebody or we friends and I were talking like you're not a real Franklinite until you get hit with a tobogen going downhill. Yeah, we we use tubes, though. So, at least when we hit people, this was a metal this was a wood metal tobogen and we're coming we're talking we got blood like it was '9s were rough. So, all right. Well, that's great. Thank you, Chris. Yep. If you if you wanted to add the statements that Sarah brought up, I would I would full fully support it. Um motion to adjurnn. Yeah, I think uh do we have a second? Second. All in favor? I All right. Wonderful. Great meeting. I got five minutes. Make