Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're calling. My name is Sarah.

Welcome everybody. I'd like to call to order this May 21st, 2026 meeting of the National Planning and Zodiac Commission. Tonight, we have Jeff Downs, Bob O'Connor, Mike Buck, and myself, Carol Silver, Chair, Secretary John Morgan, Vice Chair John Duzza, Michelle Clark, um, who I would like alternate and I would like to see you. That's okay. Yes. I think it's max not joining us there. Do you know. So, it's not come in place. Um, great. We have 1 public hearing on our agenda, which is the 1st item. And, um. The applicant is asked to have it opened and continue to the June 18th meeting. So can I have a motion to open the public hearing and immediately table it to June 18th?

I read the legal notice to open it. Oh, thank you. And then, um.

I wasn't going to read the whole process.

Yeah, don't do the whole process, but we should read the legal. Yeah. Brand for this legal medicine.

Thanks.

Uh, no, this is fine. Notice is hereby given that Madison Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, May 21st, 2026, beginning at 7 p.m. in Meeting Room A, the Janus Madison Room, Town Campus, 8 Campus Drive, Madison, Connecticut. This is a hybrid meeting, and attendees may also join via Zoom webinar through either the webinar link or call-in information below. Webinar ID is 915-8196-6735. Passcode is 452138. The dial-in number is 646-558-8656. The following application will be heard. Number 26-10, 397 Durham Road, Map 78, Lot 16, Zone RU1. Owner, 397 Durham Apartments, LLC. Applicant, David Klein. Special exception application pursuant to Section 4.1.35.1.10. to construct a 40-foot by 60-foot four-unit apartment building and associated site improvements, including driveway, parking, utilities, subsurface sewage disposal system, stormwater management system. Copies of these applications are available for inspection in the Land Use Office. Further details on how to participate in the webinar are posted on the Town of Madison website, www.madisonct.org. All written correspondence can be submitted to the Land Use Department via email. at landuse at madisonct.org. Dial 203-245-5631 for assistance. Day in the Madison, Connecticut, this 27th day of April. Carol Snow, chair. It's published once in the source on May 7th and once on May 14th, 2026.

Thank you, Erin. So with the legal notice read, could I have a motion to open and then immediately table this? I have a motion, Mary. I have a second. Michelle? Any discussion? All right. Check. Next, we have five pending applications, four of which we'll hear tonight. The first being 26-12, 61 Middle Beach Road West, Map 15, Lot 23, Zone R4. Owner applicant is Little Bird, LLC. Application for a coastal site plan review for the demolition and reconstruction of a single family residence. And I believe Michael Ott. the engineer will be representing the applicant?

Yes, good evening, Madam Chairman. Can the Commission hear me?

Yes, we can. Thank you.

I'm trying to get my video to work here, but just good evening. I'm Mike Ott. I'm a licensed professional engineer and land surveyor with Summerhill Civil Engineers here in Madison. Erin, can I share my screen?

Yes, if you have trouble, I.

Okay, I think I can. Can they see my screen now?

Yeah, yeah, as well.

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Yep. I'm actually in the. Old Sabre town hall doing this, and then I can go downstairs and go into another meeting. There you go. Hopefully this will work. So this is 61 Middle Beach Road West. We made an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for several variances, which were granted earlier this month, right, Erin, I think? Yes. Or was it late last month?

May 12th.

So in that process, We also submitted a municipal coastal site plan review application, which was approved by them. But we were asked to submit an additional one to your commission. So the project is pretty straightforward. It's the demolition of the existing single family residence and the construction of a new one. Essentially in the same place, although it's slid back landward away from the water. 2 feet, but it's essentially in the same place. There's also a garage, a detached garage structure. Close to middle beach road, which is, which is nonconforming and that's going to be removed. And that that's really the extent of the project. There's no, there's no. earthwork component the septic system remains the same the utility services will just get reconnected to the new structure so it's really the demolition the demolition of the garage which will go away completely and the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new residence

Michael, this is Janet Peckinpah on the commission. Is the garage there now? And you said you're not building another garage?

Correct. If you can see, I know this might be a little light, but if you can see my cursor, there's a small detached garage structure here. If you can see my cursor moving. That will be demolished. It's non-conforming. Uh, with a number of regulations, it's actually partially in the front yard. And which isn't a lot isn't allowed and it's partially in the side yard. So it'll be demolished and will not be reconstructed.

And yes, there's a 2 car garage on the ground.

Great parking underneath the house, Mike. yes yep yes on the on the low on the lowest floor at grade yes which is below would be a breakaway it's all breakaway walls it's below flood uh so it's not finished or or habitable space but they will be in the park in there and the existing setting is good and sounds like yeah i mike i just wanted to say too that um

The bad winter storm that we had that took out part of the surf club eroded away some of them all. Driving by this property during that storm and the waves were crashing in. on either side of the existing house, in part, I think, because the abutter to the west had a slightly elevated wall when they built that house. But are you concerned about that? I mean, I don't think you're adding any earth.

No, not at all. No, we're not concerned. So the architect designed the house to be in conformance with the town's floodplain management regulations of the state building code regulations regarding construction of flood hazard areas, as well as FEMA's regulations. So it's being elevated to comply, you know, with all those regulations. And as Aaron said, the area underneath the what we call the enclosed area below the base flood elevation can only be used for parking storage and access to the building, the upper floors of the building. I'm sorry, can you say that again? You're breaking up just a little.

We're smiling among ourselves that we've seen that in other properties as well. First floor.

Right. It's pretty typical, especially directly on the water.

I provided a staff report for the commission highlighting the coastal resources, which are just reiterated from the application materials. And also included the comments from DEP. This is a waterfront property. It is... Because of the statutory updates last fall to the coastal act, the application required a mandatory referral to DEP. We did receive a combined comments from. And most of the letter references a different project. So I just went ahead and gave you. The key points that you'll need to. look at mainly construction potential for coastal impacts during coastal construction activities and recommending conditions that the applicant include adequate sedimentation erosion control measures.

Thank you, Erin. Any questions or comments? It's pretty straightforward. It's on the Board of Appeals for DEF. We have a draft resolution. So would someone like to make a motion that we go ahead and approve?

The following draft resolution is offered. The Master Planning and Zoning Commission approves application 26-12, 61 Middle Beach Road West, Map 15, Block 23, Zone R-4, Water applicant, Little Bird, Little Sea. Application for a Coastal Site Plan review for the demolition and reconstruction of a single family residence as shown on the plan entitled Jeremiah, Jeremiah, Jeremiah, Resident Zoning Board Appeals Submission Site Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, prepared by Summerhill Civil Engineers and Reservoirs, D.C. David 4226 with the following conditions that the zoning enforcement officer be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of every regulated activity, that all erosion and sedimentation controls be installed prior to any site disturbance and be maintained for the duration of construction activities and until the site is sufficiently stabilized to the satisfaction of the zoning enforcement officer. In the event that changes to the approved plans are required as a result of other agency authority to support the proposed activity, the Mass Planning and Zoning Commission reserves the right to review said changes that may require modification of the approval. The Commission finds that with the above reference conditions, the proposal is consistent with all applicable goals and policies in the Postal Management Act. In Section 25 of the Mass and Zoning Regulation, No anticipated impacts of coastal resources in the expect. The effect of getting this approval was June 1st, 2016.

Thank you, John. I'll take a second. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, the next application is 26-13, 22 Flower Avenue, Mat 15, Lot 72, Zone 5, Owners, Applicants, Michael E. Zerrella and Rachel Norowski-Zerrella. Application for a Coastal Site Plan review for an addition to a single family residence. And I believe, Mike, you're on again. Is that correct?

I am, yes. Just again, for the record, Mike Ott, a licensed professional engineer and land surveyor with Summerhill Civil Engineers here in Madison. I'm going to try to share this site plan. This is 22 Flower Avenue. This is not a waterfront site, but there are tidal wetlands located on the parcel. And the proposal is, and this one may be even more difficult to look at, the proposal is to do this very small yellow addition at the southeast corner of the house. It's kind of an infill addition. There's a jog in the existing house today. And so this will be the full two stories of the home. But as you can see, it's about a 12 by 8 or so addition. And it's the presence of tidal wetlands, that coastal resource that triggers the municipal coastal site plan review application.

The elevation as well, so we can see.

Do you mean an architectural elevation? Is that what you mean? Yes, yeah. I believe... I think I have them. Bear with me one second. I believe I have the architects' drawings. Yep, here they are.

This is another application that went to the Zoning Board of Appeals this past month for variance. Oh, that's great.

Thank you. Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, exact. I'm going to reshare. I did find the drawings. Yes, I forgot to say that. Same thing. We went to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking variances, which were granted. This is the cover sheet of the architect's drawings. And where this bay window is, this is the infill addition right here. This is the southwest corner of the home. Let me see if there's a A better view of that. Yeah, there might actually might be the best view of it. Actually.

That's helpful just to see what the existing is.

Yeah, this is again, this is the southwest corner of the house. If you were standing at these front steps, looking at the house, you'd be looking north. So this is the front right corner. Hopefully that helps the commission.

Thank you.

Again, I put a staff report in for the commission. This is, again, because of the legislative updates, this is a mandatory referral to DEAP because of the presence of title Lutlands on the property. Both applications were referred to our analyst and he provided one set of comments to both zoning board of appeals and commission. his memo is included in the attachment documents um and basically indicating uh that the original property was developed uh with variances including variances of the critical coastal resource um and it did require coastal site plan at the time and the original construction of the house was found to be consistent with coastal management uh goals and policies and um is summary is that essentially that is an impervious sleep patio already existing on the property and the infill of the structure would cause no further impacts to the coastal resources again recommends that work within the special special flood hazard areas comply with flood resistance standards storm water discharge for the addition is going to drain similarly to the existing house surface drain and that adequate E&S controls be installed during construction activities and remain in place until the site's stabilized.

When was the first part, the original part of the house built that we knew?

I think it was about 2011, as I recall.

It's newish.

It is newish. It is. Yeah, it's not there.

Yeah.

It's just interesting that they could do it on Bible webinars. So ZPA approach. Thank you. Thanks, Mike. Any other questions? We have, in addition to the staff report, we have a draft resolution.

Thank you so much.

Take a motion to approve by the resolution.

Thank you. Well, the following draft resolution is offered. The Madison Planning and Zoning Commission approves application 26-13.22 Flower Avenue. map fifteen last seventy two zone or five owners applicants michael lee sorella and rachel norowski sorella application for a coastal site plan review or addition to a single family residence as shown on plan entitled Zarella Residence Zoning Board of Appeals Submission Site Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, prepared by Summerhill Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, D.C., dated 4-6-26, with the following conditions. 1. That the zoning enforcement officer be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencement of any regulated activity. 2. that all erosion and sedimentation controls be installed prior to any site disturbance and be maintained for the duration of construction activities and until the site is sufficiently stabilized to the satisfaction of the zoning enforcement officer. In the event that changes to the approved plans that are required as a result of other agency permitting to support the proposed activity, the Madison Planning and Zoning Commission reserves the right to review said changes and may require modification of this approval. The Commission finds that with the above referenced conditions, the proposal is consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the Coastal Management Act in Section 25 of the Madison Zoning Regulations. No anticipated impacts to coastal resources are expected. The effective date of this approval is June 4th, 2026.

Thank you. That's Bob O'Connor making that motion. If you don't have a second, click it. And if not, any further discussion? All in favor? And unanimous. Thank you, Michael.

Thank you very much. Thanks for doing that so quickly for me. Thanks.

Next, our agenda, this is not, I don't think this is Michael. 26-16. 166 there should plan and 7 sacks road that 40 months, 2117 zone on ones on the job of joseph's even Sarah and John McCallum and Stephen Jay Sarah applicants in Sarah application for lot line of revision.

So. Even if you make a mission, everyone. My name is Thomas. And they use mission and the draft person that will be designed in Madison. We are a land use development firm. I am an agent for the African, Sarah and John for the properties and Wilson, Bishop and 7th Sacklin. Please, thank you. I don't know why it doesn't share on the screen. I think we've had a meeting set up earlier.

Yes. Okay. Please.

In regard to.

You want me to bring the paper up for everybody? Yes. In case.

You can put that on, please. Yeah.

Got a good view over here. That's fine. It's about service. Absolutely.

In regards to the application for lot line revision of The owners, Steve Serra, John McCollum, and Steve Serra, have started some talks with possibly doing improvements on the properties. So the process had started with an A2 survey for both properties. Our licensed surveyor and professional engineer, Thomas A. Stevens, worked with Matt on the locations and record research Both properties are from Clover Acres, two different phases, phase one and then phase four. Different times they were accepted by the town. And modern, we go to map each property, holding the geometry from deeds and reference maps, and then from field locations that we found during survey work. holding seven Saxon, whereas physically, and then holding 166 Bishop, physically, something came to note about the gap between the properties, assuming it was from the prior subdivisions, one being from the first phase that was done across the street, and then later, section four, this property was done say, adjoined, we're showing both properties at the same time. Given the talks with the owners regarding possible improvements is why specifically we're looking at both lots, we're looking at areas, we're looking at possible improvements down the road. When the gap came up, it was also a good idea to do a lot line revision. The gap A LOT LINE DIVISION, BOTH AREAS WOULD BE GOING TO 166 BISHOP FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS DOWN WIDE.

NEW SPEAKER SO THE Y AREA GOES BACK?

NEW SPEAKER SO THE SHADED AREA IS RIGHT HERE.

NEW SPEAKER THAT'S THE ORIGINAL.

NEW SPEAKER SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'VE GOT HIGHLIGHTED IS THE GEOMETRY FROM THE SUBDIVISION MAP THAT WAS IMPROVED Saxon has its geometry and it's going to there and then coming and falling back in over it. When you take the two maps and you combine them, this grayed out section is a point of, it does not connect. It is essentially just over 10 feet of a gap. It is all along stone wall. It is in the intersection of the stone wall. So it does make reason that during the 70s of nuance, that one subdivision recorded several phases later, a gap to profits. Who made the error? Well, I think J. The original subdivision is from 76. Since that subdivision, there had been resurveys of this property in the 80s by Anderson. This property actually had a right-of-way that facilitated a rear lot. That's... That math clarified it or removed this particular right-of-way on giving it back to 7 Saxon. And in respect to that, could you switch to the second machine? Sure. Does that work? Yeah. Maybe slide up just a little bit. We can zoom a little bit more. There you go.

Are you looking at the bottom?

Yeah. So this particular area, you can note how the edge of the road and the edge of the road, it's very wide. So the original subdivision mapping, is that also, I might be able to show folks that.

What map do you want? 2467?

That sounds, yeah.

Or base. 2467.

If we could, 13, 5, 7.

I'm going to show you the series in the reference.

And I just want to add that the Saxon Road property has surplus area, so it can afford to give some.

It's a whole need for requirements. And there is an abundant, comparing it to, there's an abundant amount on 7th and 6th, before and after the exchanges. The original subdivision is correct. So 7th Saxon had been essentially a corner lot, providing a right-of-way access to that rear lot. Since that time, this section and that curvature have essentially gone tangent. 7th Saxon increased its property. removed the access was then on for this particular property on getting back to the roadway this geometry as it comes back and around is something of note in regards to restrictions for 166 um bishop if you can go to the first um So while respecting 7s, lot 7s, Saxons, geometry, and field locations, and subdivisions approved, and respecting 166 bishops, we're also showing the area on it. that is needed to the town. This property right here is the towns and the driveway based on our lot line vision is also still going to be compliant with the restriction based on deals. If you go a second, sure. And if you slide up, you want to buy them again, please. This is that restricted area of deeded allowance into 166 Bishop. So again, our mapping is respecting that. So there's going to be no issues with a previous longstanding 40 foot section of restricting their driveway area. Moving to health. We've obtained B100A approvals for both lots. Testing, deep test pits, and PERC tests are done, showing compliance for both properties. So they have a compliant area to repair. And once... Land is swapped. We'll be able to potentially do improvements on 166 Bishop. We've allocated, we've shown on both properties, setbacks increased to their coverage. And we've also shown as a display on compliance with the lot line revision. So when lot lines do change, we're still in compliance with zoning and we're also in compliance with settings.

Okay, that's why both property owners are in agreement.

Both property owners are in agreement. They're also business partners on other avenues.

And we know the obligations of exchange that would be involved.

No, as I see it, both entity and individual combined... They own all the properties that night. It would be a matter after filing my law and other information, putting in new Schedule A records.

So that covers it. Thank you. It's this administrative approval by the commission. These are the subdivision regulations require that any lots created by subdivision is not like the commission has the authority to review those maps and for the protection of property owners have that provision. So the chair will sign that my law.

prior to file a moment we call it clover acres again we like that it's a good name the following resolution is offered voted at the medicine planning's learning commission approved application number 26 166 bishop lane and 7 saxon grove And 40, lots 21 and 17, some part of one. Owners Joseph, Stephen, Sarah, and John McCallum, and Stephen J. Sarah, applicant Stephen Sarah, application for lot line provision. Effective date of this approval shall be June 4th, 2026, and upon some bylaw.

Jeff and the discussions in favor. Great. Thank you.

All right.

We move on to 26-17 for Longview Ferris, map 49, map 26, unit 4L, Michael Porton and Amy Slosson-Porton. Is that TRS? Yes.

Yeah.

Applicant Phillip Lendroth, application site plan modification and council site plan for moving existing rear deck and construction 17 foot by 17 and a half foot, three season porch.

Good evening. I'm Phillip Lendroth, House of Construction, the applicant and the general contractor, Michael Fortin. We're looking to put a little addition on the back of the house. We can look here. This is an existing house. Right now, there's a deck. That's going to be removed. We would like to build a 17 by 17 and a half foot addition. Concrete foundation. It's a four-season room, so it's an addition, but it's going to have a mini-split for heat, but it's still going to have the existing sliding door going into it, so an additional room on the house.

Three-season or four-season? Four-season.

I called it a four season. Maria's like, well, it's really not four season because it has heat. So it's, but it does have, it's not, you know, open through the house. So, but it is going to have, yeah, we can split units all out of the NAC. So it's, it's conditioned. It is. Yeah. It's usable all year round. Yeah. Yeah. So I think we're here because the property is large and it has some coastal stuff on it. We're away from that. That's pretty close. The Coastal Law, everyone's at the title.

Yeah, so this development was a special exception application, and they're not individual lots. These were individual lots. This parcel in the project is more than 25 feet from a coastal resource, so it would have been exempt. But since it's one other lot, this is a site plan modification, and the application of Making a site plan modification in a coastal zone triggers the requirement of coastal review as well. Otherwise, this would have just... for review and our CEO would have issued the approval for that. So this kind of shows you the distance from the tidal wetland system on the Hammonasset River way off on the east end of town.

Oh yeah, I'm sorry.

This is the tidal wetland system. This is an open field. If you drive up River Road, you can kind of see this open meadow with the split rail fence. No, This is another one. That's a different property. Got it. This is part of the open space of this development. It's not a separate parcel. I quickly can share the elevation of the addition. And then included in your application documents are the minutes from ACCA with a favorable recommendation.

Basically, you're using materials that don't match.

Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All exterior materials are going to be in some order. Yeah. Yeah. So, flat board on the window side is going to be a little different. It's still going to be a composite trim like the wood trim, asphalt shingles. There'll be a stone facade, which is...

So, from a coastal perspective, the resources on site, although on the opposite side of the property, our title wetlands, coastal waters, special flood hazard area. But the building itself is outside of this zone, including in addition area. Yes. So there's no flood compliance requirement. They're all located in the Excel. So there are no anticipated coastal resource impacts. I did not refer this to deep because. Just didn't seem to make sense.

I thought we could handle that on our own and it's not a mandatory. Right.

Thank you. Yeah. What size was the deck that you're going to remove?

The deck I think was 12 by like 30. So it was wider than this. Yeah, it was long and narrow. Yep. Okay. But it's narrow.

Not much more.

No, yeah, correct. Yeah, we've got a downspout from the existing house. We're going out that way to that open field.

Okay.

Are there questions or comments? We're all in favor. So, Michelle, do you want to read the resolution?

The draft resolution? Sure. Following draft revolutions offered, the Madison Planning and Zoning Commission approves application 26-17.4 Longview Terrace, Mat 41, Lot 56, Unit 4L, Zone R-1, owner Michael Fortin and Denise Lawson-Fortin, trustees. applicant philip bedrock application per site plan notification and postal site plan to remove the existing rear deck and construct a 17 by 17 and a half but three season porch is shown in application materials with the following provisions one that the zoning enforcement officer be notified that he's 48 hours prior to commencement of any regulated activity two that all erosion and sedimentation controls be installed required to any site disturbance and be maintained for the duration of construction activities and until the site is sufficiently stabilized to the satisfaction of the zoning enforcement officer. In the event that changes to the approved plans are required as a result of other agency permitting, To support the proposed activity, the Madison Planning and Zoning Commission reserves the right to review said changes and may require modifications in this approval. The commission finds that the above reference conditions, the proposal is consistent with all applicable policies in the Postal Management Act in Section 25 of the Madison Zoning Regulations. No anticipated impacts to postal resources are expected. The effective date of this approval is June 4th, 2026. Second.

Second. Second. Any further discussion?

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Great. Another pending application is 26-15 Garnet Park Road. Owner-applicant of the Town of Madison application for a coastal site plan review for replacement of Garnet Park Road bridge over Bailey Creek and I think We had previously scheduled it for the June 4th meeting, but now there's a request to table it through the July 9th meeting. We still need approval.

Sure. The state bridge project still requires the applications to be submitted. But those approvals have not yet been received. And we have not received the TANF's preliminary feedback if any modifications are going to be necessary to those plans. So it makes sense to push off the local review for the coastal site plan until we have feedback from the state. To avoid having to come back with a notification, so 65 days. To make a decision, and then the tab has an additional 65 days to grant you. So the July 9th meeting is just the 65 days. So we'll see if we get some feedback by then. If not, we may get into granting some of the extensions.

Yeah, just to buy some time. Great. Let's see what that looks like. But that one, we do need a motion to table. Okay, can I have a motion to table it to July 9th, 836? We'll introduce it. Thank you. Second. Yeah, that's a quiet second. Sorry. And any further discussion? All in favor? So that's set for July 9th with the possibility of another extension. Okay, so seats we have. The 26 dash 18 text amendment applicant Madison planning and zoning commission text amendment to article C summary review definition and proposed section 9.5 little housing to address legislative changes pursuant to special session public act 25 dash 1, formerly known as HB 802. um.

We have a public hearing scheduled, you scheduled it at your last meeting. This is really on because after the discussion and the commission decided to schedule the public hearing and move forward, I just formalized that in the permit software. So that we gave ourselves a number and can begin all the referrals that were required. So there's no action necessary. On that, except to independently kind of look at that and. come forward on the 18th of June with any recommendations that we can do for credits.

The clock won't start.

There's no discussion until the public hearing at this point. So the draft document that you reviewed at the last meeting is the document that's out for public hearing and comments. And then as you know, during the public hearing, you can discuss all the aspects of that and make changes as necessary. And you can amend and adopt changes during the public hearing. Sure.

Great. Okay. Next, 26-19, 69 Soundview Avenue, Map 7, Lot 4, Zone R4. Owner-applicant Ray Pantolina. Application for a coastal site plan to construct a 2-foot-wide by 80-foot-and-5-inches-long flood and erosion control structure. This is a tiered retaining wall. to stabilize the existing upland and prevent erosion over topics. This is a house right in the water. It suffered some damage, I guess, over the winter.

There was some landscape damage. Based on the timing of the application, this allows for a 35-day referral. It's a mandatory referral to the waterfront property. So that's why we're requesting that you table to June 18th.

I have a motion to table to June 18th. Does that matter? I don't know. discussion on favor so that's set for june 18. this sound view is awful yeah it is yes and this is not the same one that we did some time ago there was another one i think it was the one right next to it poverty there there were repairs this this house had um

There was a coastal site plan on this, and it was like just a little curbing. And because of storm events, they're back because of the washout. So it's adjacent to other properties that have seawalls, and there's sort of that void in the middle.

And so these... Yeah, that's seawalls.

Fortified granite blocks, the main seawall, and then there's a smaller 1 and so you'll be able to see through the photos, the damage that they sustained on the property to wash out. And the reasons why they're asking to build that portion of a lovely road and control structure. Right? That's another reason why it's a mandatory referral to.

Thank you. All right.

It's pretty good minutes and motion to approve the May 7 2026 motions. Second. Second. I did not have any changes. I did.

I did make an announcement at the beginning of the meeting that Andy Rubin had resigned from the commission. And we thanked him for his participation on the commission and service to the town. So we want to get that on there, Edward, if we could. Thank you. Anything else?

Vote to approve.

that change thank you right um remarks um just a quick remark from me i'm going to be out of the country in june um for that june we've just when we spliced your plan this time where are you going this time i'm going back to greece So, John, are you okay? I'm very close.

Yeah, talk. I'm supposed to be going to.

Okay, then it might go to. It might be John.

Oh, God. The 18th, I'm on a plane that evening. June 18th? It's the one meeting I'm going to miss also. We have to post one meeting. No, we should still have a meeting.

I don't, do we have a board meeting?

Yeah. All right. Missioners and that would be great. He's in attendance for a session. You said you are available. Nice job.

Everything.

I need to correct what I just said. Jeff also isn't going to be here.

No, I isn't going to be here. The following week? I'm so eager to get out of the country, but no. I'm actually leaving on the 19th. Because when you started saying 18th, 19th, I thought, wait, I think it's Juneteenth. So everything's private.

So you guys can all leave. So no, John, do so. Okay, so that's fine. We'll be sorry. Sorry.

Yeah, I'm not going to be. Yeah, I'm also not even in the 20 years.

No, Jeff. No, Bob and no, John. We'll still have a quorum, so we don't have to amend any of our schedules.

All right, Erin, did you have anything you wanted to add? No, thanks. In that case, do I have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. Second, Mike. Any discussion? All in favor? Adjourned. Adjourned.

Amazing.

That was great.