are on. >> All right. >> Welcome to the Danvers Conservation Commission meeting date for today, January 22nd >> 22nd uh 2026. We operate under the Massachusetts
General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40, the Wetlands Protection Act, and Chapter 26 of the Town of Danver's General bylaw, the Wetlands Protection bylaw. After the applicant presents his or her request and the board has had time to
ask questions and discuss the project, we will accept questions from the audience. Because this is a public hearing, it is required by law that you give your name and address first. Although we may disagree on issues raised, all persons present during the
meeting are expected to be civil to all other meeting attendees. This includes the members of the commission, staff, abutters, concerned citizens and property owners and project applicants. We also request that you confine your
questions to the project and only as it pertains to the wetlands act. We cannot handle nor do we have jurisdiction regarding such things as noise or traffic. All problems not related to the wetlands protection act and the town of
Danver's wetlands protection bylaw must be taken up with other boards. My name is Mary Height, present. And now we're going to go to Lorraine Drapek, >> present. >> Paul McNelte, >> here.
>> Michael Splain, >> here. >> Peter Wilson, >> here. >> Our first agenda item today is for 80 Water Street, notice of intent, D file number 14-1433.
The applicant is Peter McKinnon. And let's see. Um, could we have a representative come to the podium, please? >> The representative is tied in traffic, so we need some other. So, if you want to go to the next person. >> Okay. Do we want to switch over? >> Yep. That's totally fine. If the
commissioner is okay with that, then yeah, you can definitely jump to the next person. >> Fine with me. Y >> just give me a moment. >> Sure, it's fine with him. >> All right. Um, our first agenda today is 7 Chevier Avenue, notice of intent, DP file number
14-1448. Applicant is Joseph Roco. Thanks, Emily. Uh, good evening, commissioners. Devon Taber with Lucas Environmental. It's nice to see you all this evening. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Joseph Roco. Um we are here for a notice
of intent application for maintenance and repair of four existing um lawfully licensed piles out on the Porter River. Um we did have a sitewalk, I'd like to put that on the record on January 8th, I believe two weeks ago,
where we kind of ran through the existing site conditions, resource areas, but I'll briefly go over that for you um just so those of the public can understand what's going on. So, uh there are there is a licensed pier and dock
structure again out on the Porter River. Um what the applicant would like to do is just replace four of the outermost uh seawward piles um as they've degraded over time. Um they're over 30 years old
and he'd like to replace those in kind with green heart pilings. Now, for those of you who don't know, green heart pilings are um more environmentally friendly as they are not treated with any sort of like CCAs, copper, anything of that nature. So, um more or less
we're looking at this being an improvement to the area and to the resource area. Um we had some questions from Mr. Sandborn. We kind of ran through those during the site visit. really he said that he was satisfactory with everything as this seems to be more
or less appropriate for the stability of the pier and then we did receive um comments yesterday uh regarding uh from the town engineer Mr. King um for a storm water permit. So we did apply for that permit yesterday. Checks uh I believe were dropped off and the
application was submitted with the associated plans that are before you now. So really, I'm kind of looking for the commission to answer any other outstanding questions that you might have or answer questions to the public. But that kind of gives a quick overview of what's going on.
All right. Now is when I ask them to ask questions. Okay. >> Um Lorraine, do you have any questions? I >> was wondering if you could just give a um a quick review of how this is going to be done so that >> Yeah, absolutely. Sure. Um, so we're going to be they're they're going to be
using a barge there. Smith Marine is the contractor engaged for this construction. So they'll be using a barge. It'll take about a day um more or less. And they'll be doing one piling at a time. So as the tide goes
out, the barge goes out to make sure there's no grounding or anything of that nature. Um not to negatively or adversely impact the mud flats, tidal flats, all all the resource areas out there. Um, but really it's just kind of one and one at a time and then um
and then uh we will we'll be in and out. So very simple, easy. We're happy for happy with it. Of course. >> Paul McNelte, do you have any questions? >> Uh no, I mean we had the site visit as
you mentioned and uh personally I found it really helpful uh to do that. We should do them more often, I guess. But it was very helpful. So, no, I don't have any questions. >> Awesome. Uh, Michael Splain, do you have any questions? >> Yeah, just a couple. How are you? >> Good. How are you? >> Good. Good. So, on the, uh, pilings, uh,
are the pilings treated, but they just treated differently. Is that >> No, no treatment. No treatment at all. No. >> How are they able to do that? There's some They It's like some kind of swamp wood or something. >> It's It's a um It's a hard wood. Um they
are I I don't know where exactly they'll get them from, but I know it's a hardwood and there's no um issues with any sort of like leeching or that into the water column or water water quality issues anticipated. So >> Oh, good. Yeah. >> And the other thing u I note uh says
that uh >> that also because the work um the work is triggering um storm water. >> Yes. >> And why is that? >> It appears because it's in flood plane. So we're in land subject to storm flowage. That's one of the resource
areas we discussed. Um, so it looks like it is not exempt under the exemptions for the storm water regulations for the town. So that's where I believe the the comment comes from. Emily might be able to note on that a little bit better, but that's that's my
>> but it doesn't change the scope of the work or how the work proceeds. No, just the fact that you're in that area. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Thank you. Great question. Yeah. >> No further questions. >> Um, Peter, do you have any questions? >> That storm water permit. How does that
mess in with our decision? >> Sure. That's all done through um engineering. They've already applied for the permit and once that is granted like work will begin and we wouldn't be able to issue a COC until engineering has given the green light that all of all that has been complied with.
>> We're we're voting on doesn't have to wait for that. >> No, no, no. You don't have to wait for that. >> We can vote today. Right. >> Right. >> All right. So, I'm sorry. I just need one question at a time. um they wouldn't be able to get the storm water permit without the order of conditions. So, they kind of need the order of conditions first. Otherwise, a storm water permit would be a move point.
>> So, we can make it subject too though. >> Yes. Yep. These are always subject to getting additional permits >> or necessary departments. >> And what are the uh the different colors highlighted on your your drawing? >> Oh, yes. Okay. So, um I don't have a
pointer with me, but let's just start from plan right here. So, outermost blue color is the I believe the 200 foot riverfront area. Um, if we could just scroll down a little, I just want to make sure I'm accurate in my Yep, that's 200t riverfront area. And then we have
the yellow line is the 100 foot buffer zone to Coastal Bank. Um, and then the orange is the 50ft no build zone. The 25 ft no disturb zone is the red. And then we have green highlighted and delineated as salt marsh. And these resource areas
and their associated buffer zones were approved under a previous order of conditions. So those should still be valid and set. >> Okay. And there's enough clearance of that. >> Yes, absolutely. >> That's not even in this project. So that >> Yeah, we're not we're not going anywhere
near the bank, the salt marsh, any of that. So >> Okay. And the chapter 91 license has been just renewed. Is that what I >> That is correct. >> Somewhere. Yep. Yep. So, we'll more or less go through the administrative process of letting
waterways know that we're going to be replacing and performing maintenance as it's conditioned in our license. So, um that's usually just they have a e kind of like the EA portal that Emily would use to file order of conditions and stuff. We use that for state permits as
well, um including waterways licensing permits. And one of them would be an administrative just, hey, this is what we're doing. And then more or less we'll need to go for I believe an Army Corps permit as well just general maintenance which is like I I think a GP2 but those
might be changing as of March. >> And the harbor master always asks for certain signage. Is that >> um >> that wouldn't necessarily be relevant to this because this isn't a modification or new structure. This is just >> correct >> maintenance of an existing. So any order of conditions that had already been issued, those would still apply, but
this wouldn't necessarily require that because it's just maintenance work. >> Okay. And finally, what's your planned timing on? >> Well, once we get your permit, we'll we'll we'll shoot for uh Army Corps and then hopefully, you know, >> chapter 91. Do you need
>> We do already have a chapter 91. So, that's all set. >> But you need something additional besides the chapter 91. >> We'll need the Army Corps. Yeah. So, we'll need that federal maintenance permit. Just letting them know that we'll be out there. >> Okay. And then you'll come back pretty
quick to >> Oh, yeah. I hope I that usually they're a little quicker. I would say the federal agency seems to be >> I just ask on the on the army core permitting is that just a notice requirement or do they come out and do
anything? Um, I guess it depends on the work, right? So, in this case, they might not need a sitewalk, whereas like larger, you know, commercial, industrial, multi-residential development, they might want to go to the site and walk the site with those um
with those other boards or those the applicant itself, you know, that sort of thing. So, >> and that would be in any application such as this that >> it depends on what you trigger. So what if you're triggering a threshold under
the the federal permitting? >> Do you know what you triggered involved where they >> This is so we're we're in um that we're in the river itself. So that's kind of the m and we're performing maintenance. So that's what >> that's the trigger. Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> Of course. >> Yes. >> My only question was how long does it take to put one in? Like if I know there's He's only putting two, right? >> He's doing four. Four. Four in a day. >> Um in one day. >> Yeah. Four in one day. Yep. That's it. >> Cool. I think I'm good with that.
>> Great. >> All right. Um >> what just a followup question? So you can you can do this work uh what's the tide schedule, I guess, is can you do the work up to low tide or do you have to stop at a certain amount of
>> So the barge will have to move out right with the tide. Um, obviously they're going to work around that. And then they're going to work around the time of year restrictions imposed by DMF because we're um in a fish run out here, >> right? >> So that's just what the contractor will have to work with.
>> I trust he he knows what to do. >> Gap somewhere. >> What was that? >> They'll have to have some sort of gap, right? and that the tide is too low for them to be in close enough to >> I would anticipate that they they should be able to get this work done if if for if
>> if the tides are I I don't know. I mean >> I'm not I'm not really following kind of what you're saying. I think more or less you mean that they'll go out with the tide cuz that's >> Well, when the tide gets out the tide is going out. >> Yeah. They'll have to move their their barge back.
>> Close enough to drive pile. Yes. Yes. cuz they're going to be on if you move Emily, if you don't mind, move the plan up a little bit. They'll be on the other side. Um, so plan top like north, >> but I think I answer your question.
>> Everybody good? >> Yes. >> Good. Okay. Um, is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> Just want to say I'm invol. >> You have to go to the podium. >> You can't hear me.
>> It's to guidelines. >> The public can see you. >> Yeah. It's just how we formality. Thank you. >> You can do it. >> A decad. That's all. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yeah. You have to identify yourself. Yeah. >> Jim Bartlett, 8 Chevier Rev. I'm in favor of Joe's project. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Paul Kevin five hus and um I also am in favor of the project. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Just check. Hold on. >> Make a motion. >> Motion to close the hearing. I make a motion to close the hearing. >> No, you don't. You have to ask.
>> Make a motion to close the public hearing >> for 7 Valley Avenue D14-1448. >> I second. >> Okay. >> All in favor? >> I >> I Where is that? >> And um entertaining a motion. I'll make
a motion to issue an order of conditions for seven Shiovalia A D file number 14-1448. second >> with addition with the additional conditions >> which are >> I think it's the storm >> which the only additional conditions are
that you get the >> storm water permit >> the storm water permit and army corps of engineer obviously >> you got it >> all right I'll seconded >> seconded yeah >> all in favor >> I >> thank you guys so much it was very nice seeing you all and have a good evening
good luck hope to see you again >> thank Now we're good to shift over to >> Can you turn these off or on? So we're Is it always on? We can't talk. >> Oh, you just hold that down. >> Hold it down. >> Yeah, that's okay.
>> H >> That's okay. It's not a big deal. What did he say? >> Press the mute. See? Press the mute. Whatever. >> Okay. Our second agenda item today is 80
Water Street, notice of intent, D file number 14-1433. The applicant is Peter McKinnon. >> She's good. I got to get someone like her. >> Thanks. Thank you.
>> Good night. >> All right. Um, hi everyone. Uh, again for the public record, David Cowell. I'm a senior wetland scientist with Hancock Associates. This is a continued matter um in request for an after the-act notice of intent for um 80 Water Street.
Um, as of the last hearing, um I think uh most matters had been resolved. I I think the commission had since had an opportunity to to visit the site. I don't know how many of you made it out there. So maybe you you you've um can envision now the scope and scale of of
of this dock. I think the one proceeding is more of a real doc. Um so to no avail since that hearing um we were we were coming in for the the last hearing. In the day of the last hearing um division of marine fisheries finally commented on
the notice of intent and they afforded comment. was their recommendation that that any dock that's in mud flats or indoor shellfish habitat should either maintain um if you guys will recall we we proposed 18 in of separation from the
floating dock to to to surface. They had recommended 30 in of separation and or moving the duck so that it actually gets out to to mean low water. And I had responded to those comments explaining systematically why it's impractical in
our circumstances that we have this this munuscular dock on the edge of of outer water and we're actually outside of shellfish habitat. We're on the marginal fringe of mudflat. If you guys went out there, I didn't know if you observed mud flat or stony substrate underneath that
dock. Um, so our comments were just that it's it's impractical that if if we were to elevate to 30 in that it it wouldn't be a floating dock. It would it would be standing out of water all all time. Peter as it is barely gets to use this
at high at high tides when it when it does rise and and come back down again. Um again impractical if we were to to attempt to to extend this out to low water. You guys understand that that that cove there and just how far out it
would need to be. I think it's another 120 linear feet and and again we're looking at a 120 square foot dock. So, um impractical. So, I responded um uh kindly enough DMF actually responded and and said um that they weren't in
disagreement with me. They said it was a boilerplate um best management practice that they they any doc that doesn't have uh uh 30 in um it's a blanket comment but not a not a mandate best management practice. So um and also in those
dialogue um Emily had had brought to my attention that the town has a 24 in I think of separation mandate in your bylaw for shellfish habitat but then we verified um that we're outside of shellfish habitat. So sorry if you guys
can still hear me. This this line right here is shellfish habitat and this is the extent of dock. So we we're still far away from it. So with that, we are um sticking with the 18 in as we proposed. The only
modification that we've made since we last saw you was for the anchoring. Um we they were helical piles. We asented to the harbors master's comments to change those to concrete and since then we've been advised that 500 lb minimum
weight um should suffice. So we've just added the concrete stalls in in those rocks. Um, we are in the same boat. We have a storm water permit needed on this, but that is under review and I think they're just waiting for commission decision um before they issue
it. So, it's kind of concurrent. Um, I sent Emily and uh uh engineering department um updates there. And uh I think that's it. Um I I think we're really in a point where we've uh I don't want to say figuratively beat a dead
horse, but we're we're we're we're there. And with that, I would turn it back to to the commission and see if you guys have any remaining questions for us. >> Thank you. Um Lorraine, do you have any questions? >> I don't. No. Uh Paul, do you have any
questions? >> Um just two general questions. I want I guess one is for Emily, which is that you would reference an email from DMF. >> Yes. >> Do we did that get read into the records that there's that they've confirmed that 18 in is okay?
>> Um it doesn't have to be. It's part of their electronic as well as our paper file. We have that all documented in there stating that. >> Okay. So, it is documented. >> Yes, it is. Save all that documentation um for our records. Yeah, >> that was one. And this is just again some education for me. Who who figures
out where in this case the shellfish habitat line is? Where does that come from? >> That is it's I don't know where I'm looking at Devon if she knows where it's a GIS data layer that's that's maintained by MassJS. I don't know how they determine okay it before they establish
>> GIS data for that >> that's it y it's uh uh I would use the analogy natural heritage habitat where does where does natural heritage determine where to clip their polygon and stop it why doesn't the polygon go across the street but in the confines of regulation it it's it's what falls in
inner outside of that polygon >> I don't have any other questions >> sure >> uh Michael >> yeah I I I have some questions about the minimum distance because um I mean we had this letter we had this letter January 8th from uh the division
of marine fisheries y >> and they said um they recommended uh a minimum to maintain the minimum they considered 30 in the minimum I think we vote we at a vote agreed to 24 at some point >> right but since there's no shellfish
habitat their minimum would be 18 and then DMF's most recent email that we got I believe it was two days ago It was. Yeah. >> They agreed that the >> But I mean, it's just an email. I mean, we have a letter and and I had the same concern that that my associate had here that it
was ju you're just referencing an email. I mean, is there a hard copy of something or >> it's I can >> there was Yeah. Oh, sorry. I know Emily can answer. I'm not trying to stop, but there was um um when DMF commented shortly thereafter, we we provided a
response to comments via email to Emily and DMF at the same time. And two days ago, DMF sent an email in return to both Emily and myself as well, saying they don't disagree with my comments. And >> how does that work? Are you allowed to
contact them directly or do you have to go through Emily? >> No, they have to contact DM. they have to and then you have to be uh brought in >> and then DMF shares whatever gets shared with the applicants with us. >> So do we have language it's so we have a 24 in minimum right
>> 18 for since it's out of shellfish habitat and the minimum is 18 >> and that's u that's carved out the shellfish habitat. >> Yes. Yep. It's marked right on that. >> That's can you show me how what it show what says what up there designates it as shellfish habitat?
>> That's this that's this here. This is shellfish suitability area and this is again this is a polygon that's that's generated from SGIS that we import into our map. >> Oh, that's the polygon. >> Yep. So that's that's this line right here is shellfish habitat and this is
the extent of our our had our dock gone out if the dock wasn't shellfish habitat out here we would need to maintain 24 >> even if you were out of the water again. Well I think >> it's a it's a town standard. I
understand that you guys haven't if if you're in shellfish habitat 24 is the standard. >> We're outside of shellfish habitat and that's why we're we're staying with 18 and 18. And again I >> I wish I'd show I shared a couple of just exhibits that show you at a at a
greater scale of just how far out we we need to go to if if this were >> Yeah. You said 120 ft. I get it. >> And and as it is this this um uh it already rests on on >> it's not that big. I know >> it's an improvement over the existing conditions. But even looking at how how
we're at the very far reach of high tide that even at 18 in if we were to go from 18 to 24 the floating dock wouldn't float again. It would it it it the water would would rarely ever elevate to the point. >> You at all times will be 18 though. >> Yes. At all times 18 will be the
minimum. It'll have 18 inch. It'll come down. And >> and what could you say about the concrete piling? So she was talking about a type of wood that uh doesn't require pressure and you guys chose concrete. >> It's again for the you have to consider the
scale and magnitude of this dock comparative to maybe the dock that that um was presented previously. This is on much larger scale and in existing condition. Again this is a a a small dock that sat there for 25 years not encumbered. Um but you know it's
retroactively people are chasing permits these days and and here we are trying to get it. Um but at this scope and scale this was um held with uh helical piles and it was our intent to just maintain the ones that we had. At the comment of
the harbor master we has sented to concrete piles instead. And I wouldn't call them they're not piles. Forgive me. I I say I I kept saying piles. They're not piles. They're not driven in. They're anchors. They're weights. It's uh the analogy would be uh on your fishing pond when you you you have the
swimming dock that you'd have uh concrete blocks that you just chop on ropes and it floats around out there. But these are 500 pound concrete blocks and a pair of them at at crisscrosses. So as tide comes in and out, >> it'll it'll hold the dock in place. >> So I was thinking pilings.
>> No. Yeah. Sorry. And I if I had used the term piling, I meant anchors. Yeah. Sorry. Forgive my vernacular. >> Okay. and the other the overall condition of the dock will be good then when it's all done. I mean >> it'll be an improvement over what what he has now. Yeah, it'll it'll it'll gain
separation where none exists today and um and certainly stabilize this. >> Well, I thank the applicant for stepping up and uh taking care of that. >> Yeah. Thank you. And from here we do need a chapter 91 waterway license. That's the very next step is with issuance of of a finding or an order of
conditions. We're we have the application drafted and and just ready for um once you get that we'll submit to the state. >> Great. I have no further questions. Thank you. >> Um Peter, >> uh how many anchors will it be? Four.
>> Uh two two anchors. That's the red the red dots here. >> And the anchors are at a the anchors go at like a crisscross. So it it it it >> Okay. And it's just going to be four legs. The applicant was >> Oh, yeah. The the the anchors are the
two the two blocks outside, but the Yep. There is uh footings that are detailed along the the rope. And this is where the the separation is >> the post for lack of a better word. The applicant was saying that we should have a skirt, you know, like it was like a
2x8 or 2x10 that was parallel to the to the floor of the river. >> Which applicant? >> Oh, Peter. >> Oh, >> that's what you have there now. Correct. >> And that's not what we wanted. We wanted just four.
>> I wasn't on the sidewalk. Was this uh And again, we're apart. I'm sorry. Can you please go to >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. >> Get your steps in. >> I think this shows there's eight floats. Peter McKinnon 80 Water Street. I believe the design of the float right now meets the requirements. It's built
on 4x4 legs. It stands off the rivered and it has a support that goes across the bottom that just helps them from supporting the weight of the of the float. So the float already sits 18 in above the w the rivered because that's the way it was
designed 39 years ago according to the guidelines in which haven't really changed that much. Does that answer your question? >> No. >> My my concept of this is that there's posts just they have a rectangle. You
have a post on each corner. >> I do. Yes. >> Yours has you have that plus you have a 2x10 running parallel to grade from one post to the other. >> It's a 2x6. >> Other docks have that. >> I I can't speak to other docks. I'm not sure.
>> Okay. Um, in my experience of being on the water and building docks for >> that's just it's inhibiting. We want the water to flow. We want that >> fine. Then all I have to do is remove that bottom board. >> Excuse me, let me speak. >> Yes. >> We want as little interference with the mud as possible. >> Mhm. >> And these are just that much more
surface area that's lying on the mud. >> So in my mind, that's not an acceptable uh design. >> So are you suggesting I simply take off the 2x6 across the bottom and then I have the 18inch clearance? have the four posts that hold the dog. >> Well, there are more than four posts. There's
>> eight post. There's four on each side. >> So, yeah, if I take off that one skirt board um within your requirements. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I'll take that off. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Good. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Excuse me. Could could your representative speak to that as to is
that feasible? >> Yeah, that's feas. I I I've been forgive me. I I wasn't on the sidewalk so I was trying to from recollection remember what you're talking about but yeah I understand that those those I don't know if you call them skids or that it's it's not there's there's eight posts but
rather than eight individual posts there's actually a skid that that that maybe distributes more of the weight around it. Um >> I'm hearing there's both right. >> What's that? >> There's both. You have post and the skid right. >> So if I take the ski off >> you'll still have eight posts. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Yep. We we happy to ascent to that. Yeah, we'll we'll get rid of the the the >> and that should Yeah, as your concern was unabated flow and and transport. >> Yeah, they can be written in the condition. I I think I don't think we
need to modify the plan, but it can be conditioned. Sure. >> Uh and the timing on this I I think I heard you say that after we were to issue a you a certificate of conditions, you have to apply for chapter 91. >> That's right. Yep.
>> And how long will that take? >> Yeah, we I you know, as these things go this it's uh we'll we'll get it filed as soon as possible, but it really is uh um one of those we're going back years. What 15 years
since this has been here? 25. So >> 38 38 years it's been out there. >> I'd like to see this closed up, you know, ASAP. Oh, we >> that's why we want some uh >> Yeah, we we want to get behind this enclosure as well. >> The essence.
>> Yep. The the the work is is like I he doesn't even need to hire a contractor or schedule a contractor. As soon as we have chapter 91 license in hand and recorded at the registry, he could be out there the following day taking those
those skids out. And that's >> okay. >> So, so hot hot on the heels of that permit. Yeah. We >> keep in mind that we can we want this done ASAP. >> Yeah, >> please. >> All right, I'll do. >> Yes. >> Okay, I'm all set.
>> You guys all good? >> Okay. Um, is there anyone present remotely who would like to speak or anyone present here? >> I don't have anyone remotely. >> Okay. All right. And we do we have anything else to say? Are we good to vote?
>> I could make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Go ahead. >> I'll second. >> I'll move to close the public hearing for 80 Water Street D file number 14-1433. >> I'll second it. >> All in favor?
>> I >> I'll make a motion to grant a waiver to allow work in the 35 ft no disturb zone for 80 Water Street D file number 14-1433. >> I'll second that one. All in favor? I >> I >> I make a motion to grant a waiver to
allow work in the 50oot no build zone for 80 Water Street D file number 14-1433. >> I'll second that one. >> All in favor? >> I. And finally, I'll make a motion to grant an order of conditions for 80
Water Street DP file number 14-1433 with additional conditions as discussed and uh additional condition as my associate said, Peter Wilson, that the work begin as soon as practicable
thereafter. Uh this is granted and that the uh affforementioned skid uh be removed uh upon approval. I'll second it. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Thank you very much. I almost said so
moved like >> Thank you guys. >> All right. Good job. >> Yeah. >> Take care. Good night. >> Good night everyone. Okay. So, next thing is the minutes. >> Um,
have has everybody read the minutes and approve and are you ready to vote for the minutes? >> Yep. Yeah. Save the date. January 8th meeting. >> Oh, January 8th meeting 2026. >> Everybody good?
>> Y. >> Can someone make a motion? >> I'll make a motion. I make a motion to accept the minutes from January 8th, 2026. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I was pretty. >> Now it's just motion to
>> the only thing that bothers me is that email. >> She'll she'll send it to you. >> Um what do we what's the next meeting? >> Oh, so the next meetings are February 12th and February 26th. Um, we haven't received any applications yet. The cuto off day is this coming Monday. So, I do
anticipate some things coming in. >> Um, we'll see what the weather does, but >> Oh, yeah. >> I do expect some applications coming in um for the February 12th meeting. >> You do? >> I do. Yeah. >> But the cut off is Monday. You said >> the cut off is Monday. >> So, there is a possibility you might not
have. >> Yeah. If I get everything electronically, then I can start on my end with getting the legal ad processed and everything. So, as long as I have everything electronically on time, um, we can get that ball rolling for sure. >> Okay. >> All right. >> We just adjourned. >> We have to have a motion to adjourn.
>> Yeah. Do we have a motion to adjourn? >> So, second, >> do we have a second >> to adjourn? Yes. >> All in favor? >> I >> I Good job. Okay. Oh yeah.