Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Only 15 minutes down the drain. So I'm going to open the meeting now.

Microsoft Teams is, yeah, it can be annoying.

Yeah. Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, September 15, 2026 meeting of the Chapel Hole Planning Commission. For those who aren't familiar with us, we're a citizen advisory board volunteer that advise the town council on growth and development decisions, but do not, are not empowered to make decisions ourselves in general. Our agenda today is pretty short, really just one item. I don't see any minutes for us to approve. Actually, one and a half items, and I'll get there in a second. Let me take roll call. So, Jeff Green. Present. Liz Losses is not able to make it. She's out of town. Chuck

And Mike. Mike, how do you pronounce your last name? Zibay? Zibay. Zibay. Yeah, I'm here. Okay. And I'm John Mitchell, the chair, so we have five out of six. So back to the agenda. The first item on the agenda is... And you MLUP, I forget what the acronym stands for, but I had wanted to remove this from the agenda because. It's kind of a weird procedural thing where whatever we. Say it cannot legally be conveyed to the Council who in our purpose really in general is to advise the Council so. this glitch is being fixed in the next version of the LUMO, but it hasn't been fixed yet. And staff ask

Sure. So some of you may know that There are also procedures called special use permits. You know, there are certain uses that are only allowed if you get a special use permit. And previously, the Planning Commission used to review those and give a recommendation to the town council, and the town council would make a decision. Same with these MLUPs, master land use plans. The Planning Commission would make a recommendation and it would go up to council. In 2019, when the state land use laws were updated, they were updated to clarify the procedure for things such as special use permits and mast

Okay, so let me just, are there any questions on that before we vote? I have to scroll through different screens to see because there's so many panelists here that the actual planning commissioners are spread out across three screens. Let's do a roll call vote. Jeff? Do we need a second? Second. I second the motion. Arguably for an agenda. Okay. Jeff?

Mike? Yes. Libby? Yes. Yes. Chuck. Yes. And I'm a yes. So that agenda item is stricken and I apologize if the applicant is here. I tried to prevent that from happening and maybe the applicant is not here. I hope not. But if you are, I really apologize, but I tried. So let's move forward to. I forgot to ask for announcements or petitions. Are there any? before we go to our main order item of business here. Libby.

Well, I know you're not supposed to, we're not supposed to be talking about the LUMO tonight, but I just have a quick question. I'm trying to catch up to the prior discussion and I know Taz discussed next steps and the workflow at the last meeting. And I'm sorry if I should know this and I don't, but will the zoning map be updated prior to the LUMO when it is adopted, actually going into effect?

The zoning map is going to be a separate project after the LUMO update. So it will be presumably sometime in 2027. Okay.

So the LUMO will be implemented to some degree but the zoning map will be changed later.

Okay. So let me turn it over to either staff or the applicant for 101 Weaver Dairy Road Extension to give any presentations that you'd like. And then after those presentations, we'll take any public comment. AND THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION.

Would you like to email it? Jeff, what do you think?

Can you put it up somewhere and place a link in the chat? Or you might be able to just share the file. I think you could just share the file in the chat if you had. maybe? I don't know. No, it looks like you can't.

Okay. So what I propose to do now, thanks for that presentation, is give members of the public a chance to comment if they'd like, and then we'll bring it back to the Planning Commission for discussion, which can include questions and comments. How do I tell or maybe somebody can tell me if somebody's raising their hand?

Okay. So let's bring it back to Planning Commission for discussion. Now, actually, one more thing. CONDITIONAL REZONING IS ONE OF OUR COMMON PRACTICES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS TO FILL OUT A COMPLETE COMMUNITY MATRIX AND DO OUR ANALYSIS SORT OF SYSTEMATICALLY THAT WAY I DID PRE-POPULATE ONE EARLIER TODAY IT'S NOT VERY LONG I THINK THIS IS RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD BUT I'M PROPOSING TO THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS I JUST BRING IT UP ON THE SCREEN AND WE KIND OF MARCH THROUGH ITEMS ONE THROUGH NINE their standard matrix and just take them off that way. And so they were sort of organized and syst

Okay. So I'm going to share my screen now.

Oh, Jeff, sorry. I didn't see you. Yeah.

That's okay. Um, I can, we, I had a question for staff or the developer or something.

Yeah. Um, I'm just curious the, uh, neat project. I'll talk more about that later, but I'm just curious about the configuration of the site and the thought about. pushing the multifamily development as close to, you know, if you look at the site as a whole, you know, there's a segment along Weaver Dairy, there's a segment along MLK, and the multifamily building and, you know, half of the residents have been placed as close to the highest volume part of the site as possible. And all of the traffic noise and air quality impacts that being immediately adjacent to the road is going to have. And I

was uh we did work through our priorities and um that was ultimately where we landed with the site layout jeff any other questions you want to ask or yeah i mean that i get that with the fire station and of course the stormwater um but there's a lot of parking um and so i i don't I think you could take the same shape of a building and reconfigure it. I know we don't, you know, in an ideal world, we don't have parking between a building and a street, but MLK is a very wide road. I believe this is a segment that's going to be even wider with additional lanes for the BRT. I may be wrong. Town sta

Just point of clarification, Jason, were you saying that the concern about the fire trucks being unable to get out because of your queuing at the light or at the intersection, that's about Weaver Dare extension. It's not about MLK.

Yeah, no, I, yeah, I totally understand that. Chief Medman has his hand raised.

Do you see the people thing? Yeah, I do now. Yeah, yeah.

Since Jeff raised these issues, I was thinking along the same lines and that what the chief just said. seems to offer a lot of constraints. But I was just wondering, for the purposes of the calls that the fire station makes, do they more often go north and south on MLK or go east and west on Weaver Dairy? And I understand right now it's planned for the BRT stop to go right out front, but with these, Anyway, I agree with Jeff's comments about putting people close to that. It's already seven lanes. I think it'll be nine lanes after the BRT. So it's not becoming a more pedestrian-friendly environ

OK, Chief or Jason, feel free to respond to that now. We could also save it up, but why don't you respond now? If you'd like.

All right. Yeah. It's a tough, tough scenario. So my other question was, does access point two on your plan apply to the housing block or is that Does that apply to the fire station access as well?

Oh, that's interesting. So you might have people driving across the fire station

Yeah, John, I think this probably is for Jason. I think, you know, with the significant amount of new buildings going onto this four acre, there's certain, you know, everybody knows stormwater is an issue. It's going to be a reduction in canopies as well, definitely as part of the project. I heard the wetland on the slide that you had with the four section that the wetland is supposed to address that. I was just wondering if there was a study that was done to say, hey, yeah, that's the case. This wetland is, based on this engineering study, is going to handle the additional stormwater that's g

Thank you. I'm sorry, before we move on, I'm just curious how, a little background on how is a project on town-owned land initiated? Can you give us a little background on that? In other words, do you just put out a call for proposals? That's exactly what the town did.

Yeah, put out a request for bids. Okay, gotcha. OK, I'm going to put out on up on the screen this matrix and let's just take through it. You see it now.

OK. Number one land use efficiency, so it's 50 to 105 units in that range on. I think the footprint of the multifamily is less than two acres. Just eyeballing it. That's not counting the fire station or the stormwater control measure. So that's at least 25 units an acre, which is fairly high. That's like around oral level, actually. I think it's like a five story building we're talking about, so it could be, you know, pretty dense. Does that make sense just factually? So I didn't think we would have any sort of recommendations here unless we do. Any comments on this from the commissioners? OK.

Sorry, I had a question about that because the ordinance itself only mentions the 80%. So I'm confused what is meant by the base zoning. Is that for this district? No, no, you're right. I mean, I read that too.

Catherine can clarify for us. Yeah. Does the 25% at 60, is that overridden essentially by the 100% at 80%?

Well, let's go to Maggie and then we can clarify from there. We'll go to Jeff after. Maggie, please go ahead.

Yes, but would it make sense to have some small amount at least at 60% mentioned in the ordinance?

Yeah, because those are generally 60 or below. Jeff? You're muted, Jeff.

Yeah, thanks for the explanation. I JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M READING THROUGH THE MATERIALS AND ONE OF THE REZONING NARRATIVE THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND ONE OF THEM, YOU KNOW, COMPLETE COMMUNITY GOALS UNDER COMPLETE COMMUNITY GOAL ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL DESCRIBE HOW THE PROPOSAL INCORPORATES THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT. A MINIMUM OF 25% UNITS WILL BE RENTED AT OR BELOW 60% OF THE AMI PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT. But based on what we've been said and also my read of Ordinance A approving the conditional zoning application, that's not the case. That it's actually, there's a req

My recommendation here would be to make clear, you know, add a Section in the modifications to regulations clarifying that these. The 25% at 60 rule for the district does not apply because it's it's a little bit of mixed messages. Honestly. You know the the presentation states zoning requires at least 25% of units affordable for households that earn at or below 60% area median income. Which is true about the zoning district, but is not generally, but is not true about this particular conditional zoning application.

If I just added that to recommendations, maybe make sense. OK, so let's go to the next. Row not see any hands with walkability, bike ability to daily needs such as housing, jobs, schools, recreation. I mean, Yes, yes, is my answer here. Close to two major strip malls. You got Timberline and Chapel North just up the street. BRT is going to bring a multi-use path on the east side of MLK up and down this corridor. Continuous sidewalk on the west side of MLK corridor. Homestead Park is not far away. So folks will be able to take the Greenway or also I think there's a planned route or existing rout

So I know BRT is working toward 90% design at this point, but never mind. I'm sure it's... You want to know the timing?

The timing is... SAF is hoping to get $190 million at the end of the month is the answer. We'll see whether it happens.

But if there could be some shifting of that and allow the fire trucks to come out on MLK, you could coordinate the signal with your fire truck.

Good luck with that. Good luck with that. That's been negotiated for 10 years.

So for parking, oftentimes we'll ask, so as I understand it, The town and actually the entire state of North Carolina does not have parking minimus anymore, which is great. The town does have parking maximums. They're not very restrictive. When we brought this up a couple years ago with respect to J Street affordable housing, I recall the response we got was, look, this is a LIHTC project. In order to get the funding, the tax credits, we're going to have to satisfy North Carolina Housing Agency and are there program requirements regarding parking? So it's not like the developer has free reign

Right, of course. But the exact amount is probably TBD at this point. I don't, because the site plan isn't fully evolved yet, right? It's a little premature for that.

I see. We don't even have the final unit count yet. So question to the Planning Commission, what if we just put a recommendation that the eventual parking ratio consider the transit-oriented sort of location of it and just sort of leave it at that?

You could mention the possibility for a waiver that she just discussed. Okay. Include that.

Something like that. Okay, so let's go on to row six, quality design, placemaking, prioritization of the pedestrian realm. So we heard that the parking is going to be behind the multifamily building and not right on the road, which is good for the pedestrian realm. I also saw in the materials that there will be street trees Seems relevant here, but I don't think there's a requirement to have a detailed site plan. We don't even know whether it's 55 or 105 units at this point, so I think we're not really in a position to evaluate the quality of the design. I also know that the town's urban desig

Yeah, I think this is as good a place of any. I would like to suggest that we recommend that the during the development of the site that they consider ways to prove to pull the building back as much as as much as is feasible from the nine lane and five lane roads that it is that the site borders.

I support that and adding more trees, as many trees as possible.

I think, Libby, respectfully, my issue is that if it's a multi-story building and you're on the fourth floor and you're facing the road, you can have 3,000 trees and it's not going to make a difference.

We'll shelter the people who are outside.

Yeah, but not the people who are living there.

No. Well, when they're accessing whatever, the street or their cars.

Well, I think the trees tend to be like standardized distances from each other.

It's been my observation. Okay, other comments on number six? All right, let's go to seven. Respect for surrounding neighborhoods. So this is something that comes up when a big building is proposed to go next to existing single family neighborhood and their issues are on transitions. I didn't notice any issues of that sort here, just looking at what's around it. It's well insulated from existing There's an existing single family neighborhood to the south, sort of below where the fire station, proposed fire station will be, but it's not close. I mean, there's a lot of woods between the two site

I just wanted to comment that I think it's great that it has that access to the 1701 North or whatever that development is to the South. I appreciate that.

I didn't see the access. Should I describe it here? You mean like a walking, like a pedestrian?

No, the access through that other building. I don't think we need to mention it. I just wanted to comment on that.

Vehicular access? That's access point number three on the plan. Oh, okay. I didn't see that.

I'm curious whether there were any comments from that community to staff about that.

Well, it helps them too if they want to go south on Weaver Extension or if they have a fire.

OKAY. SOUNDS LIKE NO. JUST TWO LEFT HERE. NUMBER EIGHT IS MAINTAIN NATURAL LANDSCAPES, TREE CANOPY, GREEN SPACE, including protected natural areas. I saw in the materials that there's a request for a variance here, reduction of required tree canopy to 6%. I don't know what the starting requirement is. Is it 20%?

I think it was 30 to 11%, but wasn't it 11%, not 6%? Oh, I saw six somewhere. I saw 11 somewhere.

Catherine, what are we getting this right? There is a variance related to tree canopy.

30 30 OK. And will any of that be by preservation of existing trees?

So I'm, oh Libby, you're on mute. Go ahead. You're still on mute, Libby.

Does the 11% include that little triangle across Weaver Dairy Road? Or is it all on the same side?

That's a little disingenuous. Yeah. So maybe it is more like 6% or 5% on the same side of the road.

Let's see how it's disingenuous. It's all part of the same plot. They're keeping the trees over there.

I'll say just two things. First of all, the requested modification to regulation states that the minimum tree canopy requirement is 40%. I'm not sure if that's wrong. But I think we need to think of this in context of what it's providing. And it notes somewhere in the narrative that it's adjacent to town-owned land that has additional trees in it. Um, so, you know, the goal of these minimum tree canopy requirements is to obviously preserve the tree canopy in the town. You know, the town could include as part of this project, some other piece of land that include that they don't plan on develop

yeah i think it's just confusing and so um catherine i'm wondering if you could um help us understand and maybe i'm not asking the right party maybe i should ask the developer help us understand the rationale for this variance i mean i can use common sense here that uh the trees don't fit if you're going to do this scale of affordable housing next to a fire station which inherently involves a lot of impervious you have to literally turn around fire trucks all day long it just doesn't and then there's the storm water you can't leave mature trees above a storm water facility of any sort um

Chief Mevin. Just like to add one more thing, Mr. Mitchell.

desired uses for the site. Right. And this sort of leads us into number nine, the last row. As I understand it, the project is required to comply and is complying with the 100-year storm standard. Is that about the level of that detention-retention facility, or are you suggesting you're going sort of beyond that?

Okay. um so commissioners on uh planning commissioners on eight and nine are there any uh recommendations that you would want to make um i'm okay with the the trade-off uh with the trees understanding that uh clearance sightlines needs of the fire station and also the um kind of brutal trade-off between having using the house for then the site for dense affordable housing versus having trees there it's It's a tough trade off, but I'm not. I don't think it's unreasonable personally, but others may have different thoughts. Libby.

No, I'm just I know you don't have the site fully. All of these issues worked out about the wetland and the ephemeral stream, but I'm just hoping that they will interact a little bit on the site somehow that natural flows that are coming both onto and off the property will be considered as you go forward. That's all. I guess that's more of a comment than a question because unless you've worked out more of those details at this point, I don't know.

Next. Thank you. So bringing it back to the Commission, I tried to keep up with the discussion and the notes here. Is there anything that folks want to discuss that we haven't touched upon or you want to circle back to? And if not, maybe we could move toward a motion. Now, there are two things that we have to consider. One is consistency with the comprehensive plan, and the other is the ordinance, ordinance A. And sometimes what we do is combine it all together in one motion. You don't have to, where you could propose, you know, yes, we feel it's consistent with the comprehensive plan at the s

Could I ask one more question? Yeah. About the buffer, the five foot buffers along. I think there's no buffer along MLK. Is that right? And a five foot buffer on Weaver Dairy. Am I remembering that right?

Would you put anything other than grass in a five foot buffer? Or is that where the street trees will go? Or help me out.

Thank you. So I don't know the best way to proceed, John. What you outlined sounds reasonable We have I don't I don't know what Jeff thinks about the. The model that item two.

Yeah, no, I think that's. I'm fine with that.

Yeah, I mean we can't make anybody do anything so everything is a recommendation.

Well, it seems like Catherine is probably receptive to it. It's sort of a technical informity point.

I just don't, you know, I don't want a council member to say, well, you said it was 25% under 60. And, um, but the, this as, and it, it just, it was unclear to me. So I have no issues with, with limiting the requirement to under 80%. I just, yeah.

Well, now it's in here, so if they read our work product, which is an if, then they won't be misled.

John, on that point, did Megan agree to the clarification? as well i know jeff i i thought it was great point there you caught you caught this correctly but did the staff or or megan agree that that was the case that that the 25 of 60 really is being overwritten i think that's a question for catherine before she answers i just want to comment it was libya that figured it out not me

Well, we have under recommendation now that that 25% of the 60% MII has been overwritten. Okay. So, um, Is that true? Is that true? Is that your question? Is this true?

Oh, I thought that there are mixed messages here.

Yeah, I mean, Condition five states that 100% of the affordable units will be reserved for those households earning 80% or less of the AMI. And there's no indication of the fact that there's that 60% under, 25% under 60. So I just think that needs to be more clear. If the intention is that 100% will be under 80% and 25% will be under 60%, that should be said. But I thought the discussion, I thought the conclusion of the discussion was there might need to be some flexibility. And so the town didn't want to commit to hitting that 60% AMI mark.

And if so, we could just put in the, or the staff could just put in the modifications that you don't have to hit the 60% mark. The planning commissioner would be fine with that. We just wanted to remove the ambiguity.

Okay. You are going to be meeting, and that's good. Okay.

So you're comfortable with leaving that in, that you'll meet at least 25%. Okay.

I think my only point, and I'm happy. I personally am satisfied either way. But if the 25% at 60% is... is going to continue to be a condition that the development will meet. I just think that should be clearly stated in the ordinance because as written, it's ambiguous. So, John, that change you made, I would change the weather to that because we're hearing from town staff that, no, no, the change clarifying the ordinance, that, yeah. Because we're hearing from staff that they do intend to have that condition in the conditional zoning district.

Yeah, right now it sounds like an exception, even though it's not clearly stated. I think that's Jeff's point. It seemed because they're asking for a lot of exceptions and so it could come across that that is an exception.

Right, I think that was, yeah, that was the part, but it sounds like we've cleared this up. OK, anything else we need to sort out and if not, Maybe somebody could make a motion.

And let me know if you want me to scroll. I had just a question. I didn't understand something. Libby asked about the five foot clearance, I think, on Martin Luther King. And then I understood that the green is going to go into that five, you know, uh, five foot, uh, clearance, I think. Or trees that are going to go there. Right. So what I just didn't, I can't see the map, but is, is that, where is the, the, the sidewalk in that picture where the pedestrians are walking? But we have the canopies, but that five foot, if it's going to be where the trees are going, then where is the sidewalk?

And Mike, there is no buffer shown on the map on the site plan on MLK, but only on Weaver.

But there will hopefully be a buffer between, I think they're designing buffers between the greenway and the street. That's in being planned now.

Okay. But the greenway is on the opposite side of the street.

The multi-use path is on the east side, and the sidewalk is on the west side of it.

Okay, so there should be some green, a green sward, a small green sward between the sidewalk and the street. But that's public right of way, not on the property.

Right, like the grass strip or whatever. Thank you.

Yeah, I just want to. I don't know if I should share. I don't know if everybody has had a chance to see the. Resolution of consistency with the comprehensive plan that was emailed to us. I could share my screen and throw it up or.

No, but I you know if people like to see what they're voting on.

That's in your emails as an attachment. Sure, I can stop sharing if you want to throw it up there.

I mean, it's what we expect. But I thought it would be good to show it. So I would move that the Planning Commission recommend that the Town Council adopt Resolution A, resolution of reasonableness and consistency for the proposed conditional zoning map amendment at 101 Weaver Dairy Road extension?

Okay, we'll start with that. Jeff, please vote. I think we need a second. Oh, we haven't had a second yet. I'm sorry. Is there a second?

I said. Okay, that's Chuck. You got him first. So just to be clear, Jeff motioned for us to opine that this proposal is indeed consistent with the comprehensive plan. Chuck seconded. So Jeff. Yes. Chuck.

Mike. Yes. And I'm a yes. So that's five out of five. Okay. Now for ordinance A. which is what the council would vote on to pass the project or not.

I will move that the Planning Commission recommend that the Town Council approve Ordinance A, approving the conditional zoning application. subject to the recommendations included in the complete community matrix that we will attach to the recommendation i second that okay mike seconds so let's do a vote jeff yes um chuck yes libby yes mike yes

And I'm a yes, so that's five out of five again. And that is it. So thank you to Catherine, Maggie, and also thank you to the development team and to the fire department team that was here with us tonight. We appreciate your time. Sorry about the technical glitch for the first 15 minutes, but good luck with the project. Very exciting.

Okay. Now, um, just to give a preview of what's going to happen, uh, next month. So this was our last September meeting, but we had a meeting October 6th, I think, and then one October 20th is optional. I can count 14, 6, 14, 20. Yeah. So, and the council is going to start to meet on, I think they're starting to meet on Lumo, like within the legislative session being open on the 21st of October. So we had two meetings. that some of us were able to attend the first of this month, and then there was one in August. And when we take up the LUMO again on October 6th, the idea is for us to not just

John, just a question. Has the feedback from the last few meetings, I know these were conversations, has those feedbacks been folded into the LUMO by TAS already? So we have a sort of finding more updated copy that we can look at?

I'm reasonably confident that nothing has changed. but I don't know for sure.

Jeff? Yeah, I think it would be helpful if, I don't know if town staff know about the plans for the public hearing. I assume there will be some sort of presentation because they will be, you know, giving a presentation to the town council because this is a pretty big legislative undertaking. But I don't know what the plans are or if we will be getting an updated version. of the LUMO. I mean, at least I know there's a few typos in there which are inevitable, so I don't know if they're going to try to fix those and how much time we'll have to review before the meeting. I don't know if either of

Yeah, so that's the question. It would be good to know if anything has changed since the version that we were looking at as of a couple weeks ago. I don't think anything has changed, but if something has, it would be good to get a heads up on that.

Yeah. Okay. But yeah, Jeff, good point. I think now Ted probably is going to want to make, now that you mentioned that a presentation, um, on the sixth. And also I think we are obligated to take public comment for now a third time on the Lumo, which is fine. Um, which could consume, you know, a bunch of time, depending on how many people want to want to show up to that one. Um, Doesn't matter, just setting expectations.

Well, that seems like a good plan to me, John, to have that meeting for a discussion and kind of seeing if we can identify where we're going and then make assignments, writing assignments or whatever, circulate that in the intervening two weeks. And then hopefully, yeah, we'll see where we can get it.

So I'll have, I'll come prepared with a couple ideas of my own in terms of what we might, things that we might want to, um, advise or recommend to the council. Uh, and, uh, I anticipate Liz will probably have a thing or two and Jeff may have some things. He may have a large, longer list of technical things, uh, for all I know, because he does this for a living. Um, I don't, Liz doesn't. And Libby, Mike, Chuck, if you have things that are important to you that you've sort of noticed over the last couple of hearings or otherwise, just come with them because I'm sure that the rest of us would lov

John, October 6th will be The only time I'm going to miss the session because it's my vacation. I'm taking, you know, it's planned vacation time. But so just procedurally, how do we do this if we have feedback? Number one, I would love to see if there is an update, what that update looks like. So I'm not going back looking at things that we already, you know, provided feedback. But number two is, do we use email to send you things with everybody copied on it? Is that the appropriate way of doing it?

No, don't do that. If given that you're not, I don't need folks to send me things in advance, but if you're not going to be at the meeting, then just send me and only me what you want to introduce and I can be your mouthpiece.

I may distort and twist your words, but that's a risky take.

I'm used to it. This is on public record. I'm used to it. Thank you for that.

Okay. So it sounds like we have a plan. And I guess that's it. Josh, anything else that... Are there going to be other agenda items besides LUMO on the 6th? not that i know of okay no i think we've preserved that okay so tentatively we're going to plan on having the optional meeting on the 20th which is the day before the council starts meeting just for the purpose of wordsmithing and doing a sort of final formality type of vote on the stuff that we're really going to be working through on the 6th this is good Is there just a random thought that popped into my head? Is there any procedural ave

But could we do that on, oh yeah, I guess we can if you're going to open it that day.

Alright, I mean, you see what I'm going for here. Maybe there's not a way to do it. But if you can see a way, let me know because that would kind of streamline things for us.

I mean, we can always have the public hearing and then close it. We're required to have a public hearing, but we're not required to, you know, who knows how many people will come. There have been a number of emails about some of the, to town council about some of the changes in the draft update in LUMO. These people may want to only come speak to council. They may decide to come to us, who knows. But I think after they, after the public hearing, we can close the public hearing if we choose to or continue it and then have whatever discussion we want to have.

Right. But, you know, when we open the public hearing, I think we have to take public comment probably. Yeah. And then even if we keep the hearing open, we don't have to take more comment.

Yeah, right. And so we can have, I think we'll be able to have that kind of discussion at the meeting.

My thought. Yeah, I think probably we'll just do it the way we originally planned. Open the public hearing, take the comment after Taz's presentation, assuming he makes one, and then we'll just have our own discussion. I don't want to prevent people from the public from speaking to us at the first public hearing, given that the last two meetings we had weren't officially a public hearing. So I don't want to do that. So maybe I should just um not make this suggestion okay good so i think that's it uh meeting adjourned and see you all in um a few weeks okay thank you thank you good night everyon