Planning Commission - Special Meeting

All right, it's 5:00 pm and we're at the Kenyan Community Center for the December 3rd meeting of the Springdale Planning Commission. From the town we have Robin Romero, Tom Dancy, N Connelly, and Kendall Sers. On the dis with us we have Matt Fank Z National Park, Melissa Labour, Jennifer McCulla, myself, Tom, Tom Kennston, Paul Zimmerman, and Kash Koshbate. Not sure what happened there. Um, because Terry and Rich Swanson are out, I'd like to ask Melissa and Kosh if you would vote in tonight's proceedings. Okay. Thank you. Uh, could I get a motion to approve tonight's agenda?

I move we approve tonight's agenda. All right. Motion by Jennifer, second by Melissa. All in favor? Melissa, Jennifer I. Tom, Paul I. Kos. Thank you. Does the town have any general announcements?

Okay. Thank you. Does any anyone have any conflicts, potential conflicts they'd like to disclose with tonight's agenda item? It doesn't look like we have any. Okay, we have four action items tonight. Three of these are public hearings. The first public hearing is a review to amend chapter 10-18 to add a requirement for enhanced buffering and screening on commercial properties when adjacent to residential uses. And Tom, I believe this is your item if you have an introduction.

It is. Thank you. Um, as you mentioned, this is an ordinance revision dealing with enhanced buffering for on uh for commercial developments that are adjacent to residential properties. The planning commission has been working on this in work meetings for the past several months. Um and the basic idea is that as a condition of of design development review approval when a commercial development comes before you um there will now be an additional enhanced requirement for that commercial property to provide um more more detailed and extensive and enhanced buffering or to to mitigate the potential negative impacts of that commercial use on adj adjacent residential properties. So this would only come into play on commercial properties that are immediately adjacent to residential properties. In that situation, um the property again as a as a condition of approval of the DDR would be required to provide enhanced screening and buffering. And there are three different options uh three different proposed options that the commercial property owner could choose from. a narrower option with more fencing and trees. Uh a kind of middle option that has a burm and fence and and landscape. And then a wide option which is just landscape with no fence or anything else, just more width and vegetation and landscape to act as the buffer. A property owner could choose which one of those three um to to put on the property, but in making that selection, they would be required to consult with the owner of the adjacent residential property. Um so that's basically what the what this ordinance does. The commission has reviewed the details of this again in several previous work meetings. Um and you you did receive one public comment letter that that came in um a little bit late this afternoon. So,

I just want to make sure that everybody saw the comment letter from Craig Hail about this item. Okay, that's all I've got.

Does anyone have questions for Tom? They do. So, in reference to that letter that came in, I was wondering if that would even apply because it it references not building commercial. So, there wouldn't be commercial adjacent to residential in that situation anyways, right?

Yeah. So the concern is that in in our commercial zones, our commercial zones are really more more more accurately mixed use zones because they allow both commercial and residential uses. And so the the have if we as a commercial property owner choose to develop that property with a residential use, is there a need to buffer two residential uses from each other? Um so for example in the village commercial zone you could develop multif family housing um or for that matter single family housing is would there be a need to to put one of these buffers up if you're developing residential in the commercial zone adjacent to other residential properties? The way the ordinance is currently written, it talks about uh development on commercial zones. So it doesn't it doesn't differentiate between the use that's proposed. It says it says anytime you develop in a commercial zone the buffer is required. So I think the request is to is to make that a little more nuanced to say well no only when you're developing a commercial use in a commercial zone is the buffer required.

So okay um so that does answer my question. um the way like our our notes or readings say commercial properties adjacent to residential properties. So would that mean we would potentially uh if we wanted to change that discuss that wording instead of zones?

If you if you wanted to respond to that public comment letter and if that was something a change you were interested in making then yes. here in um this introductory language it it says a landscape buffer is required on all boundaries of a property in the CC or VC zone adjacent to any property in the FR or VR zone. Again, it just talks about zones. It doesn't talk about uses. So that that property and then there's some other mentions down here about when they're required. you would want to to change that to say, "Well, no, we're only concerned about commercial uses adjacent to residential zones."

I think we might want, if we were going to do that, I think we might want to I mean, the way that's worded, you've got to have a buffer yard on all boundaries, whether there's a neighboring property that's um residential use. Um, I think we might want to make it more explicit and say all boundaries that join a residential use. Yeah, that's a good point. And and it I I think it is it does try to be more explicit um later on uh in this um uh does that yeah A2

A2 tries to make that more explicit but if we can make it even more clear then then certainly we adjust the language accordingly as well. I was curious where pod three is. Um, so Craig Hail represents the the owners of the property like the Hampton Inn, the the Hyatt, the Spring Hill Suites. Um, they also own the six acres, five and a half, six acres that are undeveloped at the at the very end of Big Springs Road. That's what they refer to as pod three.

Any more questions for Tom? Excuse me. Now's the time for questions from the public. If Ryan doesn't have any questions, we can um go into public hearing. Uh, could I get a motion to go into public hearing? I move we go into public hearing. Second. Motion by Jennifer, second by Paul. All in favor? Melissa I. Jennifer I. Tom I. Paul I. Hash I. Motion passes.

Now's the time for public hearing. All right. Not seeing anyone. Uh, could we get a motion to close public hearing? Move we close the public hearing. A second. Excuse me. Motion by Paul, second by Jennifer. All in favor? Melissa I. Jennifer I. Tom I. Paul I. Hash I. We're now moving into planning commission deliberation. Does anyone want to start discussion?

Yeah, I can start. I um the current plan we have with the three different options seems like a a good one. Um there was one other thing and I guess it's something we could discuss or this could have been a question for Tom. Um I'm just always reminded when we're dealing with um boundaries and setbacks and stuff if um with the considerations of the House Bill 48 defensible spaces and any of these instances where we're requiring like trees and stuff would that be impacted by this or do we need to take that into consideration even at this time? I think Tom Tom probably knows this better, but I think the the the recommended um plantings that could be put in and they wouldn't recommend a juniper. I know that.

Okay. But um Tom, is that true that there we'd use need to use the planting from the town list? Yeah, that that's correct. And and so certainly plant selection could could resolve that concern. The other two points to to note are that one trees are allowed in the defensible space. They just need to maintain such okay and the other is that um based on on the latest information we've received from um Chief Decker at the Hurricane Valley Fire Protection District, it's likely that the majority of the commercial zones probably will not be in the wildland. Right.

Okay. So that um wouldn't be necessarily applicable to them anyway. That's true. Thank you. Overall, I think this is a good um addition to the ordinance uh that we have in town u to protect the residential areas from the effects of commercial development. So I I I don't see any issues with it. I I don't know if anyone else has any. I just wanted to talk a little bit more about um the language of adjacent to residential properties instead of just referring to the zone. Does anybody else think that say that again?

So when two when it ends up being two residential properties in a commercial zone Yeah. the way it reads now is it is required. Right. I don't I don't feel that it needs to be specified like it's still required. I guess I mean I guess I take the I sort of agree with the letter in that you know if if it's a residential it's a commercial property if it's under residential use then

there isn't necessarily need for the buffer zone but we but when it goes to a commercial use then they would need to put the buffer zone in and and I think that the buffer zone should only be uh buffering areas where there's a residence next door. So you know if if on the side there's so behind there's nothing there right what's the point of so

so we can and you know Tom pointed out that A2 uh I think covers that it you know it says uh they'll be located on the outer perimeter of property where the property is adjacent to a property in the FRVR zone um maybe we should say the property line is adjacent to or that property would would exclude the ones where there's no residential property be next to it. But we could also add in there um landscape buffer yard located on the outer perimeter of a property with a under a commercial use where the property line is adjacent to a property in the FRVR zone. I guess my concern in reading this um public comment from Craig Hail is that we could have a development um housing related which could be nightly rental.

That's true too. And so we could I'm less comfortable not having a bumper if it's a nightly rental if it's commercial nightly rental place. So in that case I think the buffer zone would be good. So I think if it's long-term residential, it's okay. Even if it's okay, right? Like longterm could be, you know, 90 days. So yeah, not be a problem. if there's, you know, rented out to six or eight people when there's a lot of activity from so so if it was a commercial so if it's a property with a commercial use including nightly rentals or short-term rentals.

Yeah. Then you say to keep it in Is there still changing the language changes? Okay. On A2 on on A2 which you just

Yeah. What I what I suggest is we take A2 and say u you know landscape buffer yard shall be located on the outer perimeter of a property under a commercial use including short-term rentals where that property line is adjacent property in the FRVR zone or whatever False. So, it only puts a requirement on a commercial property that's under commercial use, including short-term rentals, and on the property lines are adjacent to residential use. I mean I think this is the right place for the the language. Another thought was we could have the we could change the transient loging overlay logic to require buffering, but I think this is the best location for

Do you have anything or Jennifer anymore? I agree with the change of the language for A2. Um, any more discussion or are we ready for a motion? Um I would be happy to do the motion. I just would like a little more clarity on um this language. I followed you for the most part, but I think if we could just walk through it one more time to get it right. So um landscape buffer yard shall be on the outer per perimeter of the property on the FR zone. So that stays right. VR zone or any overlay zone with a primary residential use. Um, and then this is where it changes after that landscape buffer yard.

But I do. So what I did is I put in these words right there and then added the word line right there

including short-term rentals. Okay. So the property line is adjacent to with the commercial use including short-term rentals is adjacent to the property. Yeah. So if you read through this looking on the outer permit of a property with a commercial use including short-term rentals where the property line put where in right here. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Uh, anything else? I don't think

I didn't see anything else. One thing we could do is that we could do a motion, get a second, and then go back and discuss and and Paul could help.

Okay. I'll give it a I'll give it a go and then if we can do that. Okay. Uh, the planning commission recommends approval of the proposed ordinance revision to add buffer yard requirements for new commercial development adjacent to residential properties as discussed in the commission's December 3rd, 2025 meeting. The motion is based on the following findings. The ordinance revision fulfills land use and town appearance sub goal F1 of the general plan for the planning commission develop enhance screening and buffering standards for new commercial development adjacent to Russ residential uses with the following condition. Um, on item number A2, language is to to read, landscape buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a property with a commercial use. Um when the property line is adjacent to a property in the foothill reser FR zone VR zone or an overlay with a commercial use included including short-term rentals um or or an overlay zone with a primarily residential use and then landscape buffer guard shall extend to the property of the boundary. Okay. Well done. Could I get a second?

Second. Just put a mill. Okay. Now, is there any additional discussion or proposed changes? All right. I think we're good. All in favor? Meliss. Jennifer. I Tom. All I. Thank you. Motion passes. This next public hearing is a zone change from Valley Residential to public use parcel S1 137C 2 acre parcel adjacent to town hall. And Tom, I believe this is yours as well.

It is. Thank you. Um, this is a a requested zone change on the parcel that you mentioned 137 C. This is a twoacre parcel that the p that the town purchased um recently with the intent of developing public uses um specifically including a medical clinic and the town's intent is to develop this parcel kind of as an extension of the existing municipal campus that houses the town hall, the community center, the town park um and to provide additional space for some of those um public uses and other public uses to to be developed to serve the community. The property is currently in the valley residential zone. Um it's the town's practice to place property that it owns in the public use zone and that again allows for the development of these public uses to to serve the community. Um so the commission tonight should consider whether or not this 2acre piece of property um meets the requirements for a zone change in the town code. the the code establishes the criteria for changing zones criteria, any one of which needs to be met in order for the the town to or for a zone change to be justified. Um, and those three criteria are first that the zone change will promote the goals and objectives of the general plan or the and the town's land use ordinance. The second criterion is that the zone change will accommodate substantial changes in conditions. And the third criterion is that the zone change will correct some kind of manifest error. So the zone change doesn't need to meet all three of those criteria. It just needs to meet one of them. So again, your job tonight is to determine will placing this twoacre piece of property in the public use zone achieve one of those three criteria.

Um now again it's the town's intent um to develop this parcel with public uses specifically including a medical clinic. Um and so that's that's the kind of the immediate um uh proposed development. However, the commission should consider the public use zone in general um independent of the of the medical clinic itself. Is this property a good fit for the public use zone? Um, the commission has received two public comment letters on this property and just want to make sure that you had a chance to review those as well.

Questions? Looks like there are no questions for you. So, any questions from the public? Ryan. No, I I failed to mention Ryan is here to represent the town as the applicant in the zone change.

Oh, I see. Okay. Um, would he like to make a presentation of any kind or just available for questions? Um, looks like there's no questions for Tom or Ryan. Um, so, um, could I get a motion to go into public hearing? I move we go into public hearing. Second. I think Melissa Beach that time. Um, motion by Jennifer, second by Melissa. All in favor? I. Jennifer I. Tom. All I

Hashai. Now it's time for public comment. I'm not seeing any comment. So, could I get a motion to close public hearing? I move we close public hearing. Second. Motion by Jennifer, second by Paul. All in favor? Melissa I. Jennifer I. Tom. I. Paul. I. Hashi.

And now we're in planning commission deliberation. I guess we can start with the location as being a suitable location um for public use and then as the or note staff notes read and specifically including a medical clinic. Um and I would say I believe it's a suitable spot for it. Um, it was nicely laid out in the application as being basically a continuation of other town services, which to me sense. Yeah.

Especially considering other properties um that have been looked at in the past.

Yeah, I agree. viously a good location for something that's public benefit like a medical center or um you know a pharmacy something that's not I think not a strictly commercial but something to provide services uh to the residents and and others in in need through the medical center. And then if we wanted to touch on the next two questions um about the impacts of traffic increased traffic potentially due to the development and the transportation network. Uh I don't see any reason um that that the transportation wouldn't work in that area. And during the busy season, I mean, there's tremendous amount of traffic. It's the it's going to be a negligible change in traffic in my opinion.

And then also as far as the impacts go, uh I believe that the existing town structures here fit in nicely with the area. Um the impacts are very minimal um from everything that's in the plan. Um, and then through the design and the examples given, it looks like it would pretty much blend right in with everything else that's happening here currently. And mentioning the architecture and um being in alignment with the town character.

Yeah, I agree with with what with what you said. Even the neighbors in Stone Mountain condominiums I don't think would be unduly impacted by the light commercial activity that we're considering there.

Yeah. So to me then you know what it really comes down to is if it meets the requirements of a zone change and I clearly see myself as it it it meets two. So not even just one. But in either case, whether um the zone change accommodating substantial changes in conditions or um promoting goals and objectives of the general plan by comm community by promoting community health and wellness. Um I think that it's appropriate for a zone change.

Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I think I think the it qualifies on on at least two counts. You know, one is one being the substantial changes in in situation given the in you know the fairly recent change in in visitation um and the need for that type of facility to accommodate visitors to to the park. So with five million visitors a year and having to drive to St. George to get care is probably not the best solution for for our tourists.

And I guess I understand the concern regarding, you know, technically it's not being used as mixed use. Uh but it is a substantial business benefit to the community and not out of character with the neighborhood, you know, given that the town offices are right next door. So, are we ready for a motion? Everybody ready?

Uh, let's see. As discussed in the December 3rd, 2025 meeting, the planning commission recommends approval of the proposed zone change from Valley Residential to public use on parcel S137C located immediately to the east of the town hall property. This motion is based on the following findings. In accordance with section 1032A of the town code, the requested zone change meets not only one necessary requirement, but meets two requirements for a zone change. One, the zone change will accommodate substantial changes and conditions due to growing community of residents, businesses, and visitors providing needed services as a result. to promote the goals and objectives of the general plan by promoting community health and wellness and facilitating first class medical facilities and care.

All right. Can do we have a second? Is there any further discussion or proposed changes? All right. Um, all in favor? I. Jennifer I. Tom I. Paul I Ashai passes. All right. This third public hearing is to consider an amendment to 10-7A of the town code to add medical offices, drugstores, pharmacies, and medical clinics to permitted uses in the public use zone. And Tom, I believe there this is your agenda item as well.

Thank you. Um the town code contains a definition of medical clinic, medical or dental clinic. Um but that specific use is not identified anywhere on the permitted uses chart in in section 107A2 of the town code. That's a section of the town code that establishes permitted accessory and and prohibited uses. So although we define medical clinic or dental clinic, we don't specifically allow it in any zone. Um there has been a medical clinic operating in the public use zone on the town hall property for over 40 years and um that is that is has provided service to the community and a benefit to the community, but it's never been officially sanctioned by the zoning ordinance. Um, and it's it so it operates as a as a legal non-conforming use. Um, so what this proposed ordinance change would do would specifically allow medical clinics as permitted uses and they would be permitted uses in the central commercial, village commercial and public use zones. Um so while we define the the use now we would also be placing it in a zone in fact in three zones CC, VC and PU. So the the main issue for the commission to consider is um do we want to specifically allow medical clinics in the town? And if so are the central commercial, village commercial and village, excuse me, central commercial, village commercial and public use zones appropriate zones for that? um for that use of medical clinic. Um there is an associated change um having to do with drugstores andarmacies. The definition of a medical clinic includes a pharmacy. However,

currently in the public use zone, the table in 107A2 prohibits pharmacies in the public use zone. So, if the commission were to um make a change that would allow medical clinics in the public use zone, there would be a conflict between that allowed use and pharmacies being a prohibited use. So, um an associated change would be to specifically allow pharmacies and drugstores as permitted uses in the public use zone. That would clarify that inconsistency that could be created. Um, so that's that's another change that this proposed ordinance would make. Um, you have received one comment letter on this item tonight and just wanted to make sure that the commission had a chance to review that. Any questions from the commission?

Just clarification of that. So, um, by definition it states that pharmacies are included in medical clinic. So, it doesn't need to be specified separately. Is that correct? Well, yes. Yes and no. So, if you look if you look at um the the definition of medical clinic is um right here um a building in which a group of dentists, physicians and allied professional assistants are associated for the conduct of their profession. The clinic may include dental and/or medical laboratory and pharmacy shall not include inpatient care or operating rooms. So that's the definition of yeah, you can have that in the public use zone. We're essentially saying yeahies as a component of a medical clinic are okay in the public use zone. However, if you go down to the table in 107A32, um, under drugstores and pharmacies, currently there's an this is the public use zone column, this far right column. Currently, there's an N there, which means not pro permitted. So the this line of the of the table would be saying no you can't have a pharmacy public use but this line clinic dental or medical would be saying yeah you can have a a a pharmacy in public use as a part of a of a clinic. So this change is just to to remove that inconsistency.

I'm a little confused by this because everything's underlined on the first line up there. Did it change somehow or is that a new line added? That's a new line added because because we don't currently allow medical or dental clinics anywhere. Got it. Okay. Though we define it in the code, it's currently not found in the table. All right. Now, the other question I have with respect to your table is there's in the lefth hand column there's a line that usually indicates a change and most of the upper part of the table's got a line next to it. Did it get reformatted or something? Is that why it's there? Yeah. And I apologize. I probably should have just accepted those those changes. Okay. It's just there's no change no other changes made.

There's no change to the content. It's just some kind of weird formatting change that happened when I when I downloaded the document. So my my um concerns on this are are um I think if you know I think we ought to do what is being proposed um with one possible exception. I think for the town to put in a clinic on a public Go ahead. Am I not supposed to talk now? Well, you you might want to have your public hearing and and and that and then do your deliberation. We're still in public hearing. Well, we're not even in public hearing. We're not even there yet. Yeah.

We got away from ourselves here. Yeah. My bad. Um so, any more questions for Tom? Okay. Um, any questions from the public, Ryan? No. All right. Uh, could I get a motion to go into public hearing? I move we go into public hearing. Second. Motion by Jennifer, second by Paul. All in favor? Melissa I. Jennifer I. Tom. I. Paul. I. I. Now it's public comment period. Um, looks like we don't have any comments. So, if I could get a motion to close. Thank you. Can I get a second?

A second. Motion by Paul, second by Jennifer. All in favor? Melissa I. Jennifer I. Tom I. Paul I. Kosai. Now now we can go into deliberation. Let me continue if I can remember what I said that far back. Um the concern I have is that I think it's appropriate to have a clinic there and to allow it to be used on public use property. I think it's also appropriate that we have an in-house pharmacy associated with that clinic, but I don't necessarily think that we want to have a pharmacy popping up on another public use zone that's unassociated with a specific, you know, town sponsored clinic, if you will.

So, if we can articulate that in some fashion on here, that would be beneficial, I think. Would we want to continue to tie drugstores andarmacies and make them like ancillary to the medical clinic? That we could do that. That's what so change drug stores and pharmacy sees as being ancillary to the um whatever dental and medical um so they could be allowed but they're just as a part of the the medical center. Yeah. Right. And I guess the one letter she may have been concerned with her opening like a Walgreens on Yeah.

the public use standalone Walgreens. I don't think that was ever the intent. I don't think we should allow that. Right. I agree. Yeah. Ask a clarifying question. Would that change be for all for for drugstore? Because currently we allow drug stores in the VC and CC zones. Would that change be for all drug stores andies or just for drugstores andarmacies in the public use zone? Just the public use zone, I think. I think so. So we probably have to add another line to the table.

Yeah. So what I would suggest is we have drug we we keep drugstores andarmacies as is as a non-permitted use in public use and add another line that saysarmacies in conjunction with medical clinic and have that as a permitted use in the public use.

Yeah, I'm I agree. Does everyone think that's a good way to go? I do. Um, the other alternative you have is you could put where it says clinics, dental or medical, you could put commas drugstores andarmacies and leave that line the way it's drafted. And then the one down below just say drugstores andarmacies associated with the town clinic. Either way, I don't care. Would that allow the drugstores andies to be in the commercial zones? No, never mind. Don't do that because that makes it different. just add another line. Yeah,

I think that's the cleanest is just to to again leave the current drugstores andarmacies line as is allowed in village commercial and central commercial not allowed in public use at another line that saysarmacies in conjunction with medical clinic as a permitted use. Agree. Any other um items to discuss on this? Are we in discussion still? Yeah, I think we're in deliberation.

Okay. Um so just as far as the uh ordinance revision, we don't really need to detail out the changes in the chart, right? Just as long as we're saying ancillary umarmacies and drugstores are ancillary to a medical clinic and public use zones is the what we're saying, right? Yeah.

Are we ready for a motion? I am if she's going to make it.

The planning commission recommends approval of the proposed ordinance revision to allow dental and medical clinics and pharmacy and drugstores that are ancillary to a medical clinic in the public use zone as discussed in the commission's December 3rd, 2025 meeting. This motion is based on the following findings. The purpose of the PU zone is listed in section 10-121 of the town code. The public use zone is established to provide for the location and establishment of public and quasi public facilities. Section 10- 22 of the code defines quasi public use as a use operated by a private nonprofit educational religious recreational charitable philanthropic institution such as having the purpose or primarily of serving the general public. Medical clinics provide a service to the general public as private nonprofit organizations providing services to the g general public. Medical clinics fit the purpose of public uses therefore are appropriate to be included in public use zones. The revision supports the directive of the general plan vision statement. Amenities and services public health general goal public health sub goal goal A public health sub goal A. uh 1 C and the definition of clinic dental or medical includes pharmacies. In this case, the the change will include pharmacies that are associated with the medical clinic.

All right. Could we get a second? Second. Motion by Jennifer, second by Paul. Is there any additional discussion or proposed changes? All right. Not seeing any. All in favor? Melissa I. Jennifer I. Tom. I. Paul. I. Hush. I. All right. Motion passes.

All right. This final item is discussion and possible recommendation for the appointment of planning commission chair and vice chair for 2026. Um, I'd like to just quickly say that there's a lot of good choices on planning commission now for both of these positions. U. I've I've been doing chair for two years. I'm going to opt out on chair and vice chair. Um I discovered some time ago that the chair position is not one of prestige, but it's about preparation, facilitation, and communication. In the last year, in my opinion, Jennifer has taken a lead role in our agenda item discussions and also in handling most of our motions for our group. I talked with Terry Kruski yesterday and he expressed interest in potentially staying on as vice chair, but he's not interested in the chair position uh at this time. I think he'd be a good one in the future as as would Paul. Um Cherry also believes that Jennifer would be a good choice for chair. Uh that said, I believe there's a lot of depth and knowledge on the planning commission now. Um so um what discussion do we want to have?

Do we want to go straight to recommendations or any any discussion comment? Okay. You want to recommend Jennifer? Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion by Melissa, second by Paul. All in favor? Melissa I. Jennifer I. Tom. I. Paul. I. Kos. I.

I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I believe we've passed a motion to um uh put forward Jennifer's name for consideration to town council for the position of chair of the planning commission. And in terms of the vice chair, uh does anyone have a recommendation or any discussion about that position? I recommend Terry. I'll second that. All right. Any discussion? We want to go right to I I was just wondering how is his health currently? Is he doing okay? I haven't seen him in a while.

That That's a good question and and valid in this case. I did talk to him most recently yesterday. He's two months from his his injury and the doctors told him two two months ago that he'd have a a recovery period of about three months before he could get to the point where he could not wear the brace any longer. He's he's now um you know he wears the brace some, but three months he should be able to get rid of the brace. At that point he'll be mostly better, but for a full recovery it'll be more like six months. In six months he he will be um I think it will be a longer term but in six months he'll be clinically healed or whatever from his injury

and at what point will he be able to join us with that being six months? Planning on coming back the first meeting next month. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion? All in favor I Jennifer I Tom I Paul I thank you Terry for vice chair. All right I believe that's it for tonight's agenda. Could I get a motion to adjurnn? I move. I second. Motion by Paul. Second by Melissa. All in favor? Melissa I. Jennifer I. Tom I. Paul I. Kashi. All right. Thank you.