Council Meeting - Regular Meeting

June, 18. Yeah.

Will be led.

This City Council We pray Which is moral Nation in everything the public and not their

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We have before us the minutes from our May 14th meeting. Do we have a motion to approve? Move to approve.

Second.

All in favor? Yes. Those minutes are approved.

Who first and who second?

Mr. Fiocca moved and Mr. Barron seconded. Now we have our council public comment period. Would anyone like to give public comment? Seeing none, do we have any old business to return to? Mr. Feldman.

Yeah, I just wanted to bring up, I appreciate Council's support. We did the ordinance on e-bikes. I appreciate your help with that, Mr. Riley, and we did it very quickly, but there's a lot of stuff going on in other communities about e-bikes. I'm just reading something. Two 15-year-olds riding an e-bike were injured Tuesday afternoon colliding with an SUV at a Mentor intersection. I mean, I hope we addressed it, but I do think... maybe you know chief we need to keep an eye on what's going on because we're we're seeing a lot of the growth of e-bikes just it's everywhere so we i think we did our job and i appreciate council legislatively with the ordinance update upgrade mr riley thank you but i think uh we still need to keep an eye on it so thanks uh that was some old business thanks mr thank you mr feldman

next for new business we have the two items that came out of executive session uh first uh item a 26-115 will the clerk please read by its title 2026-115 an ordinance confirming the mayor's appointment of brianna lemley as amp programmer for the department of communication

and community outreach of the City of Stowe, establishing compensation for said appointee, and declare an emergency.

I move to suspend the rule.

Second. All in favor? Yes. The rules are suspended. I move for the adoption. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Mr. Wren. We had talked about the amendment on the effective date.

Oh yes, that's correct. Effective date, I think I've got it right.

June 22nd.

June 22nd, yeah. So it's line, do we need to make a motion? We'll make an amendment to the ordinance. Is that okay? Mrs. Mottram, you okay to change the ordinance we have in front of us? Make a quick amendment?

Yes, I was given information from the HR department that it might be changed, so I just. I'm ready for that.

Mr. Riley, do we need to make an amendment or is it okay?

Yeah, you would need to make an amendment because the version in front of you has the original, is it July 2nd date? July 6th. July 6th, yeah.

I make an amendment that we change line 36 on ordinance 2026.115 to say Monday, June 22nd, 2026. Second. All in favor? Yes.

that amendment has been approved.

I make a motion that we approve Amendment 20, excuse me, Ordinance 2026-115 with the amendment.

Second. Any further discussion? Will the clerk please call the roll when you're ready? Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

That ordinance passes and will take effect in accordance with the rules. Congratulations. Next, will the clerk please read 2026-116 by its title.

2026-116, an ordinance confirming the mayor's appointment of Jessica Simmons as Director of Parks and Recreation of the City of Stowe, establishing compensation for said appointee and declaring an emergency.

I move to suspend the rules. Second. All in favor? Yes. The rules are suspended. I move to adopt.

Second.

Any discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Congratulations to our new parks director. Next, we have our disposition of ordinances and resolutions. We have two items on the table. They are the zoning amendments that are scheduled for our public hearing on July 9th, but our planning director has proposed version two for each of them to address some concerns that were raised so we have the option to vote to remove them from the table in order to discuss them and we have the option to amend them to version two so that they can be the basis for the july 9 public hearing we just need to put them back on the table afterward

I make a motion to remove ordinance 2026-095 from the table.

Second. All in favor? Yes. That ordinance is removed from the table, so we may now discuss. Mr. Cowan, would you like to speak to your version, too?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Herman. So version two, there are two additions to this ordinance, which I think addresses a lot of the concerns heard by council and from the public. Again, I think the zoning code itself now, it takes care of itself with our additional regulations for building design, landscaping, access requirements that would limit the amount of units that can be developed on a property. However, based on the concerns that we've heard, we added Section B, which states that multifamily developments are allowed on lots with frontage on Kent, Kent Road, Darrell Road, Fish Creek, Graham, Stowe, Hudson Drive, and Norton Road. and on routes identified on the metro rta bus system map which is consistent with the other multi-family uses in our code and then this adds section c which limits the density to 10 units per acre except for properties that are zoned commercial and this does two things this brings us up to our average in the city which is about 9.4 units per acre currently and then it exempts properties that are zoned commercial so that does not affect mixed use development which again mixed use is permitted in the mixed use overlay but it's also allowed in certain commercial districts around the city in case those do come up in the future so i think this accomplishes um you know it focuses on the main corridors around the city but also doesn't affect affect mixed use so but happy to take any questions any questions mr feldman

Mr. Cowan, what was wrong with my revision? Was it too complicated?

It was pretty complicated. Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, there's a lot in there. But I think these two versions, the one that you sent me, I think they meet the same goals. It focuses on the corridors, still caps out the density for residential properties. It won't affect any interior neighborhoods, anything like that. It still allows for mixed use. So they still accomplish the same goal.

So increased density, we're tying to mixed use according to the comprehensive plan on only certain corridors?

No, this... This language allows for multifamily on those certain corridors, those main streets around the city. It caps the density across residential zone properties at 10 units per acre, but that does not apply to commercial districts.

So I'm just trying to understand. So density on version two is corridor focused, I saw what you added, and not neighborhood focused, for lack of a better language.

yes yes but the it's going to be clear there's not density cap in a commercial district where mixed use is allowed yeah okay thank you thank you mr this is coffee

I this is better than before but I still have concerns with it and then I have several questions my concerns with it are mostly the same as my previous concerns which on you know in my ward on Fish Creek on Norton so in front of Partridge Highlands in front of Laurel Woods in front of Bayside you could still put a multi-family apartment building. It would be capped at 10, but Hidden Lake Apartments is 10 units per acre, so you could still put an apartment building in front of those neighborhoods which abut to those properties. one of my concerns. My other concern with the commercial districts, I do like the idea of mixed use, incorporating it with mixed use projects. And again, I always go back to as long as the residents in that area are okay with it, but the H corridor between Graham and Kent, be okay increasing it there. And for future mixed use projects, my concern with just allowing it in all commercial districts is that I feel like you could, someone could propose to bring an apartment building in instead of residential where obviously they're generating income tax. And so it wouldn't necessarily have to be tied to a mixed use project. So I guess those are my concerns. My question is, obviously, we could, if we updated the section of the code, I mean, because my thought is, I'm fine with amending to this version. I probably won't support this version. I would say starting over and changing the section of the code which talks about mixed use, I would be a proponent of increasing the density in that area if they're okay with it, and then for future mixed use projects. But how would verbiage work, Mr. Cowan, with future mixed use projects? Is there a way to do that in commercial areas?

So you want to do it specifically just for mixed use developments?

Yes.

There's, I think there's ways to do it, if that's something that'll be supported. I think this is a simpler method to do it, just not restricting the commercial area. That's where we would see mixed use developments, but it's something that can be discussed. If that's what would generally be supported, just focusing on strictly mixed use, then we can look into that. Your other comment about restricting it from Fish Creek, I think you said Stowe. That's where the code allowed them previously. That's where there's a lot of existing multifamily developments. And if we take those streets out of this language, then that would make them all nonconforming.

Sure, no, I get that. I'm fine with it being, I mean, it was just previously capped at six. It has been for the last, what, 20 plus years. And I just, I mean, the way I look at it, we're looking at the future. I know that we're talking about, you know, previous properties also, but there's not much green space left and we want to protect the limited amount of green space. So I don't see, with a city that's mostly developed, I don't see a need to increase the density i mean a lot of cities are decreasing it for their future because they're mostly developed and i think we are and so i just i don't see the need to increase it except for mixed-use districts but thank you that was my question is if we could tie it specifically there is a way but it would be another section of the code which would require going to planning commission and then coming back to council correct you could do a version three you know i mean we can Could we, or would it need to go back to, would that be a different section of the code if it's mixed use?

From what I understand, if you would rather have this changed from the density of a multifamily development to exceed dwelling units per acre except for property zoned commercial, if you want to change it to except for mixed use development,

yeah that's a potential i can talk to the law department about that but yeah i'd like to get council's feedback on that yeah just real quick i i don't want to say definitively yes or no and having not looked at the language about whether or not we have to go back to planning commission if it is a simple change like like zach said they're changing commercial to mixed use development It probably doesn't need to go back, but we'd want to look at the section of mixed-use development overlays as well to make sure there's not any changes necessary there. And then it might have to go back to planning. So it's something we can look at, but it might have to. I don't want to just say definitively yes or no here.

Sure. Thank you.

Sorry Aren't the only residences allowed in commercial districts already part of mixed-use? Like my understanding is that like apartments freestanding apartments without mixed-use aren't even allowed in commercial and that the only possibility is mixed use anyways right okay uh and also aren't any multi-family developments also conditional so that if council has any concerns about infrastructure anything like that council can just reject them on a case-by-case basis yes okay thank you uh mr baronet uh yes i just wanted to comment just on the overall process of doing this because i know originally uh councilman

Feldman and I were looking at some sort of compromise to come up with a meeting point in the middle, and I think this gets us part of the way there. I would like to see what Kelly has brought up this evening, if there's a way to do some of that to see if we can get closer to what people are really looking for and what the community is looking for, and have the law department look it over and make sure that we get it in the right form.

for you know approving the overall uh legislation for it thank you mrs coffee um so um a developer could not propose an apartment building in a commercial district if it's not mixed use potentially through a use variance uh but that's reserved for cases where it doesn't make sense to rezone a property so it shouldn't come up often but you know there's There's those flexibilities in the code that we built out for, so it's possible. But right now it's for mixed use in the commercial.

Yeah, I would appreciate looking into language just around mixed use projects, because I don't have a problem with that. I actually really like mixed use projects where they make sense. And I do understand the conditional allowance that it has to be approved. My concern with that, I think we just want to have it as close as possible, because I'm just looking at future councils 10 years down the road. None of us are here. and future planning commissions if something passes obviously it takes five to two you know five a super majority to overturn their recommendation so just want it as close to to what we all want as possible so thank you any other discussion or motion mr herman real quick procedurally mr raleigh if we uh

we look at version two, would we have to approve version two for a second reading tonight? before we get to July 9th meeting? How does that work?

So yeah, it's already had its second reading. So procedurally, the reason that it was untabled tonight or brought off the table tonight was to, I believe it's the intention is to amend it so that the version two is the version that is discussed at the public hearing because the public hearing will happen first. um procedurally council can amend it and then amend it to version three after the public hearing um and there's nothing to stop council members from saying at the public hearing this is version two but there is also discussion of amending it to include this as well but that sort of thing so i need to make a motion to uh amend this ordinance to version two correct that gives us a starting point for july 9th yeah based based on what i'm hearing from the comments it's probably best uh best uh best case or best recommendation is to amend it to version two tonight with the caveat that there's probably going to version via version three discussed at the public hearing but it sounds like what i'm hearing is version two gets you closer to what you ultimately want to pass so that's probably it's probably a good idea to amend it tonight to version two have the hearing on version two, explain that there's probably gonna be a version three in there.

Thank you, Mr. Riley. I'd like to make a motion to amend ordinance 2026-095 to version two.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Yes. The motion carries and we have amended to version two. Do we have a motion to put this ordinance back on the table.

I move that we put this ordinance back on the table.

Second.

All in favor? Yes. That ordinance has been returned to the table. Our next, okay.

Thank you, Mr. Riley, for keeping us squared away on versions and amendments. They're never easy.

Okay, next we have 2026-096. Mr. Cohen, would you like to introduce your version two?

Thank you. Yeah, version two, simple amendment, again, based on feedback.

Sorry, we need to vote to remove it from the table.

I make a motion to remove ordinance 2026-096 from the tape. Second.

All in favor? Yes. The ordinance has been removed from the table. Please proceed, Mr. Kempner.

Thank you. Yeah, again, so based on feedback from City Council during this process, again, these are these modification standards that we're proposing to put back in. There's something that we, you know, identified back in December that we needed to fix. So to work with the council, we just struck out number two, modification standards, which is the affordability standard. So it's just the environmentally sustainable design, accessible design, and the other category for the modification standards under the minor plane development overlay. Any questions or comments?

Mr. Feldman.

So Mr. Count, when I reread this a couple of times, all you did was take affordability out?

Yes.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ehrman.

Mrs. Coffey.

Just a comment. I'm just not a huge proponent of actually the whole minor plan development section, just because, again, going back to where STO is at, that we're mostly developed. We don't have a lot of developable space, and I'm just not a huge proponent of allowing a developer to circumvent the code for any reason. I do understand the standards, you know, getting something back from a developer, but I would actually be a proponent of removing the whole section. I just don't think I don't like the subjectivity to the number three either where it says the applicant may propose an other objective. I'm not a huge fan of the major planned development. I mean, that one is greater than 10 acres, but with that one, I mean, just looking at like Miller's Landing, you could put more houses in. I mean, they could apply to put more houses in. Obviously, it would be conditional, but with minor planned development, you know, you're just allowing things that aren't allowed in the code, and you're allowing a developer to circumvent those. So I just am not a fan of this whole section, but those are just my thoughts.

Mr. Cowan, does this process for the city to be able to negotiate with developers mean that developers can just ignore the code and do whatever they want if they do one of these things?

No, it does not. There's still a review process. It's still subject to approval by planning commission and council. Again, a big part of this code was to allow for more flexible design and development since we are built out and not every Property is going to be it's going to fit you know redevelopment or repurposing properties. So we know that we need to make room for more flexible development, which is what this minor plan development does. It's also what the major plan development does as well. We had similar codes in the old one. We have tons of subdivisions that were done under a PDO or some type of plan development. This is very common to have in zoning codes and it's needed. So know this is in the early versions um since we started the code drafts it's been here for two years now um it's something that we need to have in our regulations but you know just because we have these modification standards doesn't mean that developers can just circumvent all the code requirements is meant to be used as a um you know kind of a negotiation with the developer to allow for more interesting and unique designs and developments that's what this is intended for the other category you know again we know that this is going to work for every type of project so we want the developer to be able to propose something else beyond the code requirements that we can work with and that planning commission and council can work with to create a uh you know a unique design that fits with the area so that's why this is built in

mr cowan or maybe our law department could you discuss the legal liabilities that the city could face if we don't have a process for to be able to negotiate with developers

as as we explained at the uh first reading of this as the amendment was made back in december removing the standards for the minor plant overlay it opened us up to potential legal liability because we still had the ability for developers to apply for the for this without any requirements on them obviously if council decides they want to remove the whole thing you know that's going to have to go back through planning commission because that's not what's been discussed by planning commission but honestly when council made these amendments back in december We are lucky that we have not received any applications for this and put us in tremendous legal jeopardy. So I hope that we are able to move forward on something that's going to protect the city and protect our residents. Doesn't sound good if we're not able to get something done to protect our legal liability. Mrs. Coffey?

So question, so if the standards are removed, that whole section would need to be removed, which would need to go back to Planning Commission.

The standards are already removed.

Right, right, if they stay removed, then, I mean, depending on what happens here.

Unless we want to have massive legal liability in our code, yes.

Sure, another question. Could someone, I know we have a height restriction, so three stories, 35 feet, could a developer apply for a,

higher than that you know five-story building with these yeah with this yes but if they do so then they have to provide some benefit some modification standard and that would have to be determined by planning commission council whether that's a justified standard and you know to trade off for the height increase They could apply for that now under a variance also. There's nothing stopping them from people applying for it. This just gives a way for the city to benefit something from it.

Okay, but if we don't have this section, then they could still do the same application with a variance?

If we don't have any modification standards and they apply for a 70-foot apartment building, whatever it is, There's not really much authority for the application to be denied at this point.

Thank you.

Mr. Feldman.

So Mr. Hood, let me just get through to the facts. We need this in the code. We've already removed the complaints I received for affordability. We need this to protect us legally as a city.

Absolutely. Thank you, that's all I need. I don't need, I'm good.

Do we have a motion?

I make a motion that we move to version two for ordinance 2026-096. Second.

All in favor? Yes. That motion carries and the ordinance has been amended to version two. Do we have a motion to put ordinance 2026-096 back on the table?

I move to put ordinance 2026-096 back on the table. Second.

All in favor? Yes. That ordinance has been returned to the table. Okay, so now we will move on to our disposition of ordinances and resolutions on their second reading. Item C, Mrs. Mottram.

2026-100, an ordinance establishing compensation for the mayor, law director, and finance director of the city of Stowe effective January 2nd, 2028.

Any discussion? Mrs. Coffey.

Yeah, my concern with this, and like I said, I'm a proponent of putting it on the ballot, the increase, but the COLA increase and the automatic increases, I feel like that conflicts with our charter, which says all increases must go to the ballot.

I believe we've addressed this before, but it doesn't conflict with the charter because council is approving the increase and then the ballot measure will have that included as well. So they will still be approving the increases because there is a mechanism that they are approving.

Okay. I mean, personally, I'm okay with the increase, I'm not okay with the COLA increase. For the other reason of an elected official, thank you for the clarification on that though, Drew, an elected official could essentially get a bigger increase than, like Mr. Real pointed out, than a police officer, because they're getting the highest increase that anyone is receiving. I also think, and I've spoken briefly with Mr. Riley about this, but I also want to discuss, you know, we could, obviously it would have to go to the ballot, but we could change those positions, because I get that those are high level, they require high qualifications, you know, law director and finance director, but discussing those as appointed positions, then they would no longer be elected. So this would not apply. And I think there are other benefits that they wouldn't have to leave their firm or practice for a definitive amount of time. But in that case, I think it would be different. And then they would be receiving the automatic increases. But as elected officials, I feel like it's different. I feel like it should be A flat number, I feel like it shouldn't be higher than a police officer or someone else, the increase. So those are my thoughts on that.

Mr. Baranek.

Thank you. My thoughts on the issue is these positions of mayor, law director, and finance director, they're positions that are administrative positions and they're people required to be here throughout the work year and cover that. And to freeze the positions like they've done in the past is definitely unfair to the people holding those positions because if the people were treated as people are in the real world, you would be getting an increase of something whether it's a cola increase or whether it's a one percent increase or whatever uh... that it would be you know would be tied to so uh... i'm not uh... you know unless they would become you know appointed positions which then you'd have to change the charter to move them to appointed positions so i held the position of finance director here uh... for many years and probably for half of that, there were no increases involved. So I'm in support of 2026-100.

Thank you Mr. Baranek. I think it's important to point out that these cost of living increases are tied to inflation and that otherwise these positions, any increases would have to go before voters every time there is inflation in order to increase them. which for a police officer, they have a union that determines their cost of living increases, and we don't have to go to the ballot every single time, but inflation surpasses people's salaries.

Mr. Riley? If Council is interested, the Law Department can also put together a version of this that ties the COLA increases to the same increases that the collective bargaining agreements would get. I've seen that in other communities that they tie those COLAs to an average of the collective bargaining agreements. That way you're not going to have a situation where the CPI is higher than the collective bargaining, so therefore the increase doesn't increase more than say a patrol officer would get so if that's something council would like to see we have the law department would be happy to put together a version of that that ties into it i'm i'm seeing a couple nods so that tells me that we'll put together a version for the next meeting that that ties the uh those automatic increases to the collective bargaining agreements thank you mr riley any other discussion okay

That constitutes its second reading. Will the clerk please read item D by its title?

2026-102, an ordinance providing for separate amendments to the charter of the City of Stone, Ohio to be submitted to the electorate at the general election on November 3rd, 2026 to amend section 3.06 to clarify the procedure of acting mayor and declare an emergency.

Any discussion? That constitutes its second reading. Will the clerk please read item E by its title.

2026-103, an ordinance providing for the separate amendment to the charter of the City of Stowe, Ohio to be submitted to the electorate at general election on November 3rd, 2026 to add section 6.08 of the charter creating a provision for an acting finance director and declaring an emergency.

Any discussion? That constitutes its second reading. Will the clerk please read item F by its title.

2026104, an ordinance providing for a separate amendment to the charter of the City of Stowe, Ohio to be submitted to the Electorate at the general election on November 3rd, 2026 to be added to add section 9.07 of the charter creating a provision for an acting law director and declare an emergency.

Any discussion? That constitutes its second reading. Now for first readings, will the clerk please read item G by its title.

2026-111, a resolution calling on the Ohio General Assembly and Governor to pass legislation allowing for creation of a community energy pilot program in Ohio.

I move to suspend the rules.

Second. All in favor? Yes. The rules are suspended.

Move to adopt. Second.

Any discussion? Will the clerk please call the roll?

Baranek?

Yes.

Dioka?

Yes.

Harmon?

Yes.

Feldman?

Yes.

Coffey? Yes.

That resolution passes and will take effect in accordance with the rules. Will the clerk please read item H by its title?

2026.112, an ordinance amending Ordinance 2025-238, increasing authorization of expenditures with East Ohio Gas Company for a gas service project without the necessity of public bids and declare an emergency.

I move to suspend the rules. Second.

Any discussion? Oh, sorry. All in favor? Yes.

Motion, I move to adopt.

Second. Now, any discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Baranek?

Yes.

Yoga?

Yes.

Herman?

Yes.

Feldman? Yes. Coffey? Yes.

That ordinance passes and will take effect in accordance with the rules. Will the clerk please read item I by its title?

2026.113, an ordinance amending certain sections of chapter 951 of the Codified Ordinance of Stowe entitled Municipal Cemetery, particularly section 951.12 entitled Indigent Burial.

I move to suspend the rules. Second.

All in favor? Yes. The rules are suspended.

Move to adopt. Second.

Any discussion?

Mr. Feldman. Mr. Hood, I heard you talking about, I understand Ohio Advice Code, and we have to be able to do this. Who will be negotiating with, so I hate, respectfully, I know we need to negotiate, who will be, leading that negotiation, I guess.

It'll be a combination between Mr. Wren and myself that we negotiate with the various funeral homes and to get that contract across.

Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Wren. Mr. Baranek.

Yeah, I'm in support of this and having the law department negotiate. I know that where I'm at currently, we have we pick up the whole tab for indigent burials. And it's requested and you're required to do it.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Will the clerk please call the roll?

Baranek?

Yes.

Fioka?

Yes.

Herman?

Yes.

Feldman? Yes. Coffey? Yes.

The ordinance passes and will take effect in accordance with the rules. Will the clerk please read item J by its title?

2026-114, a resolution in support of the City of Stowe master plan for public art and declare it an emergency.

I move to suspend the rules.

Second.

All in favor? Yes. The rules are suspended. Move to adopt.

Second.

Any discussion?

Um real quick thank you Mr. Riley I know you've been working with Sabretooth and um I'm looking forward to seeing something we can get excited about in civic engagement and our all our gathering places so um good job moving forward it's a pretty big document but I get it thank you Mr. Riley yeah I just want to thank council for uh passing the uh the grant and the contract last year um

Yeah, it was a lot of work, but everyone up here at this table did their share to get this document across the table. So thank you all for considering passage of it tonight as well.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Will the clerk please call the roll?

Baranek? Yes. Bianca?

Yes.

Harmon?

Yes.

Feldman? Yes. Coffey? Yes.

That resolution passes and will take effect in accordance with the rules. Next, we have the bill of listing approval.

I make a motion we pay the bills.

No. Second.

Oh, sorry. I gotta make a motion that we cover June, right?

Yeah.

I make a motion that we give the president of the council or designee to sign the bill listing for June 25th, 2026. Second.

All in favor? Yes. That approval has been made. Now we have our scheduling of standing committee meetings or any other announcements for the good of the cause.

Mr. Cowan. Just real quick, since this is my last meeting, I just want to say I appreciate you guys. It's been great working with you over the last four years. Also, this is the, I just wanna say, I've said it before over the years, I've worked for five different cities across Ohio. This is the best administration I got to work with, and that's across the board. It's engineering, public service, law, police and fire, finance, I mean, across the board. The best people I've got to work with, which is what made it so hard to leave. And I feel like we, my department's able to accomplish a lot in my four years, It's not because of me, it's because I got a great staff between Sarah, Jamie, and Molly. They made my job a lot easier than it should have been. So I just want to say thank you. I'll still be around. I don't live here, but I'll still be at the meetings. I'll come and complain about something just to annoy you guys. Also, just because Nick hates it, this is birthday Saturday, so happy birthday, Nick.

Happy birthday.

very quickly mr callan thank you for all your work um a couple of us up here elected officials have been through a couple of planning directors and uh we uh we want to thank you for the code update was huge i know we're going through some changes but that was big for us to get back into the 21st right the century we're in because it was old so uh thank you for everything you've done and good luck with uh where you're headed stark enterprises thank you

Anything else for the good of the cause? Mr. Baranek.

Yeah, I'll mention something earlier that the mayor talked about is that I'm a trustee in the Stowe Historical Society, and this Saturday, this is a one-day event that they have out at Heritage Barn, actually the Heritage Reserve. There are four Historical houses you can visit three of the four because the other one burnt down but they give tours to those and also we do have It's a small fundraiser for the Historical Society and they do have they'll have food food to be that they sell out there for for that uh if you're out there for the afternoon so come out and see what we have in the historical houses there's a lot of you know a lot of history there and so that's all i have thank you mr baronek any other announcements i will entertain a motion to adjourn move to adjourn second all in favor yes yes we are adjourned