Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2026

Okay, I want to call the meeting of the planning board of July 13 to order. This meeting is Oh, where's my little notebook here?

Um, the planning board voted to hold meeting virtually in accordance with the governor's extension to June 30th, 2027.

And this meeting is being recorded and is live.

I need a roll call vote. Kevin, yes.

Margaret, yes.

And Lori.

Um, Nick.

Keio is not gonna Keelio is not going to be on tonight.

Don't forget Nick.

What? Oh, Nick, where are you? Nick, I'm sorry.

Present how quickly they forget. See, Nick, I know. Tell me about it.

You missed one and you said it.

I tell you, between headaches and Hey, I don't have a patch on today at least.

That's good.

Okay. I need um I need a a mo a motion to go into exe uh public hearing for an application of the planning board special permit.

Motion made second.

Motion was made by Kevin and seconded by um Nick.

Kevin, yes.

Nick, yes.

Margaret, yes.

And Lori, yes.

Okay, Dan, you want to read the uh extension?

Yes. Um, this has been an ongoing project. Uh, we are still waiting for uh confirmation of the ability to tie into sewer for this project. I did hear from the director that he is expecting something in the very near future. So hopefully we'll have something for the next meeting. Um, so I have a letter from the applicant's representative stated, "We respectfully request a continuence from our scheduled meeting

with the planning board on July 13, 2026 to the meeting on August 10th, 2026." So that'll give a month. So hopefully that should have time to get that report done, reviewed, commented on, and hopefully um we will have somebody here at that meeting on August 10th if the board um so chooses to um continue the meeting. So we'd be looking for a motion to continue the meeting to August 10th

at 7:00 and return to the regular meeting.

I'll make that motion.

So moved.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor to continue the public meeting until August, what was that? 13.

August 10th at 7 p.m.

August August 10th at 7 p.m. And we will then return, we will be returning to our regular meeting. Kevin, yes.

Margaret, yes.

Nick, yes.

And Laurianne, yes. Motion carries.

Okay. Is I saw Susan. She was in in. So, we have an appointment with Susan Murray.

And I guess we could just give it right over to Susan to begin with, unless Dan, you have something to say.

I do not.

Okay. Susan, um, you have the floor.

Hi, thanks for having me today. Um, so I am Susan Murray. I live at 599 Elm Street and I own and run Flying Carrot Farm. Uh I'm also on the Agricultural Commission and as you may know the Agricultural Commission applied to the CPC for 1.5 million in CPA funds to be used for farmland protection. Um it it passed at town meeting and right now we're in the phase of setting up the systems around

um how we are going to make the decisions on on which farmland that we want to preserve and we're following. So this is a new it is the egg preservation fund that is formed under um chapter 40 um I think it's 8 L it's in it's in the MU sorry um and we used to have in 1998 we started an egg preservation trust fund which there the committee still exists um the

mechanism for forming this A fund that we're currently talking about um came after the A trust fund and so the state didn't recognize the A trust fund for accepting CPA funds. So we had to form a new fund to be able to accept CPA funds.

This is under the same chapter law that um the conservation funds um can be formed. So we we created the new fund.

The agricultural commission actually controls the fund and makes the final decisions.

But the members um that are on the ACCOM that were on the old um agricultural preservation trust fund that started in 1998 recommended that we create an advisory committee that mimicked that old trust fund because the collaboration across boards was really important to getting everybody's input on which farmland was most important. important to to preserve in town. Um so we've created an advisory

committee to advise the agricultural commission on how to spend these CPA funds. Um the way the fund is formed, the a commission has to be in control of the funds, but we really want everybody's input. Um and that's where thisou comes in. So, it is anou creating this um advisory group to help decide what we should preserve and then there's also some language in there um for how it's administered through the town

because technically the town holds the funds. Um so that's I'm happy to answer questions. That's kind of the short version of what thisou is. that work. We would love to have someone from um the planning board um to be on this um advisory committee. We think that's incredibly important. And I believe Margaret has been um has expressed some interest in in being on the advisory committee. Um so yeah, I'd like to open

it up if you have any questions. I'm happy to answer them uh through you, Madam Chair. Just a well may start with questions.

Anyone on the board have any questions?

Uh yes I do. Firstly, thank you for everything that you do. Um I don't I don't think there's anybody on the board that isn't behind uh the agriculture commission. I I sat on it uh unfortunately until just this year. Now that you get money, you have Margaret instead of me. Um, but uh uh I'm I'm I'm wholeheartedly supportive of everything that uh that you guys are contemplating and and uh

I'm I'm doing uh you know everything we can as a group to uh to preserve as as much uh land as possible uh that that suits the the nature of of our town. Um that said, I'm I'm just a little curious about the this memorandum of understanding. Did council write this?

No. So, um, this was written between the adcom and, uh, Buddy at CPC helped us a bit. Um, okay.

There's going to be our memorand our with the CPC will include the language that all the money has to be spent within um, uh, in in align with CPA funds. Um this is actually so we just we've been you know talking to Cody and Gary um and they are now sending it to town council. So that is one caveat is that we don't have the final till it comes back from town

council and I just got that notice this morning is that they've just sent it to town council. So So we'll just forget it's there.

I'm sorry.

So should we just forget that it's it was in our packet then? Uh, well, I think this is a this is a good way. I I'm not sure what they're interested in changing. I think there's going to be a little more structure around how money is spent. So, how the roles that select board, um, town administrator and finance director, I think their roles, they're trying to clarify a little more in this. Um, I

think this is a a great way to get questions answered and and to um, you know, once you've got all your questions answered, if we can possibly table it so that we're in the old business section and could come up when we do get that um, the final wording from town council, we can bring it up again for an actual vote. So sorry for the but I like I said just this morning I got the notice

not at all. I know how how it works.

Yeah.

Um so I shy of that I really don't have a whole lot of questions other than uh I applaud the effort to uh to keep an advisory council for all the different uh boards on on from the town. Um and uh you know it it's uh it's exciting to see. So, um I'm I'm all all for it. And uh yeah, I just had some just question like going like are we setting a a commit a

commit this does thisou set a commitment moving forward for future boards or for future PE uh participants in the planning board? I'm trying to I'm just trying to get the the the nature of theou.

Yeah.

Sorry. Go ahead.

No, no. The way it's set up, I think, Kevin, it's just like uh they they wanted to have one member from all the boards. So, I think in the future they will have one member from all the boards, different members every year.

Am I correct, Susan?

Yes. Um, so there's no, and maybe this is part of uh where town council will weigh in. Right now, the term is set as taking effect upon execution and then terminated by mutual written agreement of the parties. So there's no there's currently no term limits. Um, and it also has a clause in at the very end, the non-binding nature of it. So, um, you know, that's a it's a good question of legally

what I mean, the intent is to have someone from each of the boards always on it. There's no set meeting schedule.

It's there'll be a meeting at the beginning to sort of set up the rules and talk about what properties might be coming up. And so I think there'll be at least a yearly meeting to prioritize properties and talk about how you choose which properties. So some sort of metrics. Um and then it would be meeting um when a property when we do hear property's coming up, we would bring the advisory committee together to say,

"Hey, this property is coming up. It's on our list." Um but you know we yes we would like to have current board members sitting on it um so that we're kind of ready to go at any time. The whole idea of getting this money is to act quickly when it comes up because these properties just move so quickly.

Right. And are you buying conservation restrictions or are you buying the actual property themselves?

So we can do any of that. So we can actually buy and hold property.

Buy property. Um, our intent really is this. We all know this 1.5 million isn't going to go very far in the town of Dartmouth. Really, the intent of the money we have so far is to get a seat at the table. So, it's meant to bring together a lot of partners. We're working with DNRT. We're working with MDAR, which is a Mass Department of Agriculture. We're working with Buzzards Bay Coalition. Um, so the idea is that

we'd be working with a partner to put a conservation restriction on or an aggricultural preservation restriction on it so it' be preserved to bring the value down to help farmers be able to afford it. So there's definitely going to be I don't think there's going to be a property in Dartmouth that we're just going to all in all out buy ourselves and not work with partners to conserve

it. So, yes, the the idea would be to work with partners to conserve it and we'd be bringing a piece of the money to the table.

Got it.

And what whatever the seller or the owner, you know, some people might be motivated to sell completely and some might say, "No, I want to I just want to I'll I'll sell a restriction on it."

So, it's it's property by property. I imagine you is your approach. Yes. And I think those properties where um the owner wants to stay on it, they just want to say sell the conservation restriction to it. Um those are probably better dealt with either DNRT or Buzzards Bay. They're both doing a lot of that work. We're really focused on getting farmland preserved in the long term. So

something called an a covenant. So an a covenant would bring the value down. Um, and it would also mean that the farmland has to be farmed in perpetuity.

Um, and so that's a little bit different than just putting like a conservation restriction on it.

Um, so there's when you put an ad covenant on it, there's a lot more restrictions on it. It holds the value down. So you can't sell it for as much as if you just had a CR on it. So it those tend to be people who are either just really determined to preserve their land or they're selling the whole piece. it in general, you know again to another farmer though.

Yeah. Yes. Yes. So that I mean that is we want to get other farmers onto the land and it going in perpetuity. In general, farmers who want to preserve the land but they're not ready to sell it are less likely to put an ad covenant on it because it just limits their sale later on.

Right.

Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you very much. really uh appreciate everything you guys are doing.

Appreciate what you guys do.

Anyone else have any comments or questions?

I do. Lori through you.

Go ahead.

So, I'm I'm responding as a planning board member today with a lot of emotion as if I was chair 3 months ago or a planning board member in 2004.

You talk about adcom where this idea of the memorandum of understanding and advisory like council but yet the adcom maintains the your word the controls and also your words makes decisions.

Yes, which I respect and I respect your effort. And contrary to many public opinions, I'm a firm believer that if we could preserve any and all square inches of a in Dartmouth, it would be great because our buildable opportunity is sufficient everywhere else along the commercial corridors we've talked about.

But as a board member, I don't know that I'm I'm just I'm gonna be blunt.

You want to have control. You want to make decisions and you and if I if I was if this is to the chair because it's the planning board. You want to have control and you want to make decisions and you want my name on the memorandum. That would never happen. If I was chair and it was a chair that that needed to sign this, I would refuse to do it. So it is

it's not that that is what we want.

That's what the law says.

We don't have a choice. So it by law it has to sit with the adcom and the adcom has to have the final control of the decision. That's by law. If we had our choice we would have set up well we would have loved to just use what we set up in 1998.

that group decision, the decision sat with the full group, but legally we can't have that and accept CPA funds.

So, it's really a legal issue.

So, let me ask you, is the memorandum of understanding an instrument that the adcom has decided to employ or is that a legal requirement? or better yet spoken. Could the AGCOM simply have said in their approach without something as strong as memorandum of understanding asked for the advisory council to be created.

There's a big I think I think there's a big difference legally both binding and the implication of in the phrasiology memorandum of understanding and what it means and the signature thereby and what that means moving forward for future planning boards etc a precedent by by by some point being set compared to an advisory council that is separate and distinct and more importantly not legally binding regardless of how

enforcable or not in the absence of a transaction that the memorandum of understanding can or can't be not legally binding advisory council. After all, why would it be legally binding if you or he or she members of that council have no control? I wouldn't do anything I have no control over legally binding, right?

Nor would nor would I want any younger members of this town that become part of this planning board in the future to come to this crossroad and ask themselves, why are we legally bound to make this decision? That's my concern.

And I understand it's got to go by town council, but those are my big concerns about how it was proposed and what the perceived implication is at this point.

Right. So, I guess let me talk through it a little bit because I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your question. Um, so we don't have to have an advisory committee. We don't have to have anou.

We don't have to have anyone else involved. We do have to have final say.

Um and that that's what the um chapter law says. We want to have other groups involved. Um so Sue Gaduchi, as you know, she's been involved in the A and Fred Debbney in the A preservation trust fund. Um the one that was formed in 1998 and they really valued the input from the other boards. Um, so you know, listening to what ComCom thinks should be done with a particular piece of land, what planning

thinks should be done with a particular piece of land. That's all incredibly important to having the people on these boards, but also the town behind what we're trying to do and preserve and make sure that there is input from the town on what we consider to be the most important farmland to preserve, what we think should be. Okay, maybe that's not it doesn't have farmland soils of importance, so maybe that would be

better suited to ball fields. And so having the input from all the boards to really decide and not just a committee of seven farmers coming together and saying this has to be farmland and not anything else. So that communication and that cooperation amongst boards on deciding what we do with a particular open space is really important to the agricultural commission. And so that's why we decided

we were when it came down to we want other groups involved legally. We're not allowed to have the same structure we had before.

we were uh it was suggested and maybe it's because the CPC uses for all the CPA funds, but theou was suggested to us at that point um and we've just gone with that.

Does that No, I I I just let me back up and I should have made it more clear. I a appreciate you and the ad commission's efforts, b as a father, a coach, someone who who coached and mentored youth in our town and also grew up in our town and used the very fields that someone cared for once before they existed and created them. I applaud you and I'm with you. I

I am there's no disconnect between your intent and my interest as it relates to town and preservation. The only problem I'm having without town council here is that why is a memorandum of understanding the instrument by which you folks the a commission are going to gain our presence. I feel like that memorandum of understanding is an instrument um that quite frankly will carry on and might implicate other

boards. Although we think the reasons today are all fine and good, I'd like to know from town council if there is another way for each board to play their role, maybe without such legal instrument. That's my that's my greatest question, right? Is it that you're worried that a decision will come back and harm the planning board?

No, I to be transparent with you, I don't want I don't want if if if I was chair and it was the chair's signature that was required.

I quite frankly don't want my signature associated with any instrument whereby I have no ability to contribute to the decision-m process.

I will make sounds. I will provide input, but I will have zero effect on the go no-go decision.

Right? And I and I quite frankly from a business perspective I just wouldn't do that.

But I'm one. So I'm I'm one and I'm not an obstacle. I'm happy for you.

Yeah. And I I'm not sure I can speak for everyone on the adcom, but it as a farmer in town, um I also run a small farming nonprofit, um CAP. Um farmers tend to be um of each other of other farmers tend to be very trusting and uh we tend to play well in the sandbox with each other not necessarily with government but with the with other farmers. Um, and I think theou comes out of that

general feeling of we want to play well in the sandbox with everybody and we trust um, and we want your input and we're also not lawyers and to us anou was the just was a logical thing. We don't know.

I don't know of it. Personally, I don't know of any other structures. So, I don't know what we would do instead of anou.

That's fair. And neither do I. I'm just sharing my initial reaction to reading the packet and and just doing my own homework as to what it means today and what it could mean to future boards later. And I just personally, if the board chooses to do something without town council, that's all fine and good.

We'll vote individually. I think it's a great question for town council um to advise us on what the implications are now and future.

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions.

Sure. Um, I was on um 15 years ago I was on the old preservation committee and maybe I got to tell this stupid computer not to restart.

Oh, okay. Um, and my question is those those funds were voted in by town meeting, not through CPC or anything like that, but just through town meeting.

Now, yeah, it was an override which is it do you have to set it up this way because the money is coming from CBC versus just an just an override? Is that the difference?

Yes. Now, that's a shame because I think the old committee worked phenomenal. I was on there when we approved two different farms. They're acting farms.

They've stayed acting farms. And my problem is is I don't want any of these funds going to just to preserve farmland versus preserving something that's going to be a continuing productive farm. And I've seen some of these farms not producing. Um, you know, they got funds 30 years ago and now that they're they're not producing. And I think that is a big problem. We need farms that are

going to continue to produce and stay producing. And if the farm no longer produces, I think they should pay the funds back. I mean, I'm sorry. This whole idea is to produce our farms and to produce product. We're going to need local product in the future as some of these areas dry up and hopefully we still have enough water to continue feeding our farms.

Um, is there any mechanism in in this new quote way of doing things to make sure that these farms continually produce?

Yes. So there is something that what I talked about earlier that a covenant um that is a legally binding um tool that you can use to make sure that the farm is actively farmed in perpetuity.

So it is who's going to who's going to inspect that and and enforce it?

So it's it's the equivalent of an APR.

So the agricultural preservation restriction um you can do MDAR usually holds APRs but you can also do a private APR. So it would be like a CR but there would be an entity that holds that APR. So that private APR if it was a public APR MDAR would hold it. So if MDAR holds the APR, they would be the ones in charge of um inspecting and making sure that it is and enforcement

and making sure that it isn't agriculture. If it was a private APR, then um it would be it would likely be held jointly between the town because the town now has to have especially with CPA funds, they have to have some sort of uh paper trail where they hold on to it.

So it proves that town money was used. So we can hold on to an APR but have a partner that does the um monitoring and the enforcement.

So we could work very we work very closely already with DNRT. So, we could jointly hold the APR with them and they would do the and we can ask we can actually ask for CPA funds to set up a a fund that would help pay for that um monitoring and enforcement. So, we can go back and ask for more CPA funds to do that.

Okay. I like the old system better. I think it works better, but there's not much you can do about it. It's a it's a different funding mechanism and that's what brought this about and this this fund can actually accept all sorts of funds. So we can get private donations um like I said we can get APR funds. So there is a lot of opportunity to leverage the money that the CPA money to get

more money into this fund and use it for different things as part of that preservation. So, you know, one one goal I have in in my day job, which is that farming nonprofit, is to do to go back on some of the properties that have a CR conservation restriction, but no a covenant, and see if the owner is willing to put an egg covenant on it, which would keep it farming in

perpetuity. if it just has a CR that is a friendly um they you know it's called an aforward CR it just means it can be farmed it doesn't mean it has to be farmed so if we bring in some private money we could actually go back to some properties and put that that egg covenant on it that would make sure that it's farmed in perpetuity um and it would also bring the value

down more so it's more affordable for that next generation of farmers as Well, so there is although I know it's new, different, and a little bit scary on the commitment, there's a lot of potential with this fund and we're really excited about what we could do with this fund going forward and how we could really help farmers coming into Dartmouth. We have no young farmers coming into Dartmouth.

Land is too expensive. Living is too expensive. Um, and it's really hard to attract young farmers. it it's really nice if we have egg covenants, but if we can't attract young farmers, then it's really hard to keep it in farming. And I I'd also like to say we are the first in the state to do this to have to form this egg preservation fund to get this level of CPA funds. There's

one other town that's done this. It's Gardener. They got $15,000. We got 1.5 million. So, we are on the cutting edge of farmland preservation in this state, which is already a state that's ahead of the game compared to some other places.

Um, so it it actually there's a lot of opportunity here.

Madame Chair, can I ask a question through you?

Yes.

Um, so, um, I was on the CPC when we voted for this, but I have a question.

um because it's come up in the past on CPC on monies that we have given for farmland.

Mhm.

That million five that we that was given to to the egg commission.

Mhm. If you were to buy a farm with that money, are any monies that you get from CPC, will there be restrictions in that?

Because of we've had past experiences where we've had problems with some of the farms for the use for the use.

Right. Define restriction.

that has to be used for agricultural or uh animal husbandry, right? So I we don't have ourou CPC's meeting tomorrow. We don't have ourou with CPC yet. So I I can't fully answer that until we see ourou with CPC to see what restrictions they're they want to put on it. I can say that these CPA funds will be used in line with how CPA funds can be used.

Um, and the intent is to have these egg covenants on the land so the land is farmed in perpetuity.

But again, until we get ourou with CPC, I can't fully answer that question. So, you haven't seen one from them yet?

No.

I also full full disclosure, I'm also on the CPC, so Well, yes, I know that, but Oh, so so nobody has seen anything from um CPC.

Uh something dropped in my inbox um today, but I was at work all day, so I haven't had a chance to look at it. So, they might be they might be there, but so far I've not seen anything.

All right. Thank you.

Can I further ask a question?

Absolutely.

This is taxpayer money and I can tell you as a taxpayer I will be very very very upset if this money is used by anything other than a working farm. And you just made a comment that made me think this may not be a working farm.

And what was that comment? I u something about um just farmland.

Mhm.

I think theseus and I think all of this should have been done before it went to town meeting. So town meeting could have understood exactly what's going on now that I'm seeing this and you're talking to a person who's very farm friendly. I I want farms. I want my food produced in Dartmouth at all possible. Um, of course I can't get pineapple here, but you know, I want whatever I can get out of Dartmouth.

And to think that this could be used for possible farm property, which may never be farmed, but because it's got the good soils, it's got the water, it's got everything available to make it a good farm, but it doesn't get ever farmed. that would upset me to a point where I would be going to CBC and having a first class fit with them. Um I I'm just sorry that

none of this was done ahead of time so that town meeting would have the ability to say wait a minute I want a I want a comment in there that says this will be a working farm producing either a e either you know vegetables or f uh cows or sheep or whatever. I and I don't see this in here and this upsets me very much. I can tell you the old preservation

would they always had producing farms and I don't see this in here saying this will always always be a producing farm.

There is no mechanism to really follow through. Number one, it has to be a producing farm. Number two, there has to be a mechanism to make sure that it's followed through and it's not just a showcase.

Um, and I don't see this in thisou and I will be the meeting is tomorrow night with CBC. If I can make it, I will be going to make sure that this is in thisou.

And I don't mean to sound rude or or anything, but that's how important this is to me. You have a farm. You know how important this stuff is.

Yes. and you know how and you know how hard it is to work and you know how the hours you put in and you know a million five is probably going to get us three working farms if we're very very lucky.

Um so I do believe that some of the farms that the former egg preservation fund purchased they're not they don't all have a covenants on them um unfortunately. I believe that was in the past.

Yeah. So, our intent and I can talk to I can bring this back to the adcom. Our full intent is to only preserve working farms that have a form of a covenant on them that would make sure they're farmed in perpetuity. And that's from lessons learned from the previous group that did not have that.

Yep. That was before I got on it. And then the last when I got on it, we approved two farms which are definitely working. Um and they're still very active and I was glad to say I was involved in those two.

Right.

But in the past you've had farms that have not they've Yes.

It's just not open land now.

Right.

Right. And that's our intent is working farms. We are all working farmers.

Um, we want farmland to be farmed in perpetuity. Um, and so I can bring it back to the adcom and we can talk to um, when it comes back from um, the lawyer, we can talk to them about adding some wording of that in. But I would like to say that yeah, that was not in the previous egg preservation fund. So I think we've learned from that and want to move

forward with making sure so I just want to be clear that like we actually are trying to have more stringent than what previously was done.

I agree.

I haven't but I'd like to see it in writing.

Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

Yeah. It's also Let me say one more thing. Not every farmer that is preserving land is willing to put that egg covenant on it. So if something comes up, you know, like John G, you know, everyone talks about John George's farm, there's no protection on it.

These are these are really long-term relationship building, long deals that take a long time to make sure they're done properly.

there if if there's an opportunity to preserve a farm like that and the deal breaker was that we put an egg covenant on it. I mean, would you say, "Oh, no. We can't do it because there's no ad covenant."

So, I there there's a lot of complications in this um and these and these deals. We want to make sure that we do we want to put ad covenants on everything, but there's also a negotiation phase with the land owner.

Um, and I I can't see if someone's actually selling the farm. I can't see why they wouldn't want to put an ad covenant on it. They're going to get they're going to get more fun money up front with an ad covenant um than they would if they just put a CR. But I think you'd be really surprised at how many conservation restrictions on our farmland right now with no a covenant in Dartmouth.

You're right.

More farms in Dartmouth just have that conservation restriction and don't have the egg covenant which doesn't protect the town in the long run.

Right.

As far as bombing is concerned.

As the bombing. Yeah.

Yes.

This is chair through you when I can.

Yes. Yes. Go ahead.

So, Susan, you're going to think I'm the en enemy, but I'm not. I promise. Um, I was going to save this for the followup, but I can't help but share it with you now.

Mhm.

Where is We're using the word farming the way most people 50 years old or older use the word farming. And the word farming is going to be used a lot differently as it already has.

Where is or isn't restrictions as it relates to vertical farming, biointegrated farming, aeroponic, hydroponic, all indoor farming, steel structures, big buildings, but they are still farming. Key word there as an instrument farming.

Is that possible or are those going to be restricted? Because a this and CR that and we love Dartmouth and we're still farming and they're 6,000 square ft or 30 foot tall steel building does nothing for everybody that supports the concept of farming. So is are there any implications of that kind of farming andor restrictions going to be spelled out?

So if you're getting money for the conservation piece of this, right, and I've said we 1.5 million is not going to buy a property on its own. We have to have conservation partners.

So if you're getting either a conservation restriction or an APR from Buzzards Bay, DNRT, Wildlands Trust, MDAR, so the Mass Department of A, all of their funds come from something called AL, AL, and that is from the federal government. That is through the NRCS which is the national national natural resource conservation service and that is federal funding. That is the federal funding that does the

conservation piece. There are very strict rules with that funding that does not allow you to build to have uh impermeable surface for more than 3% of the property. So that doesn't allow high tunnels. It doesn't allow you can't have a poured concrete slab or you could but it couldn't be more than 3% of the property.

So there's very strict there's other limitations as well. There is very strict limitations when you accept that federal money and almost all the CRs and APRs well all the APRs do it. All the CRs do it. So, unless you're having something that's being purchased with 100% private funds, and I don't know who has done that, almost everyone has a CR or an APR on it. Those again, if you get

that federal money, there are very strict limitations on what you can do with the land. It has to be uh no imperous structures or that would create like again even a a high tunnel greenhouse that has no concrete slab you're growing in the ground but the plastics's on it for more than 6 months of the year that's not allowed even on more than 3% of the area.

So, I'm going to ask this question because it's who I am.

That structure that you just described has a footing, not a foundation, because they're still using the soil that they're protecting by that structure in the plastic wrap, hypothetically.

Is that 3% the result of the square footage that that that structure occupies? I'm I'm being literal here. Or is that 3% the footing the the 2 ft wide by 2 feet deep by 300 ft by 150 ft by 300 ft. And I'm just curious, do you know the answer to that?

Define what a footing is.

Well, you're going to put that structure up. You're going to have some kind of footing around the perimeter to hold the structure.

And you're going to say we're not pouring. We're not pouring concrete. We don't have a floor. We're actually using the ground. So that I and the rest of the people that are following, does that 3% imply the land that that plastic wrapped building is covering, although it's just soil, or impervious in the sense that Oh, no. The only thing that's impervious here is our footings, our concrete poured foot.

Oh, I I can just say there's no Well, one, there's no concrete footings. Um, it's just banged into the ground. Um, and two, it's the full plastic cover.

Okay. Thank you.

Like an open roof is still impervious.

Like a a roof with no sides is still considered impervious.

I I No, I I understand that, Kev. I just This isn't about today or tomorrow. It's it's about down the road what we didn't ask, what we didn't learn and what we signed off on and what we what we implied.

And and quite frankly, and Susan, with all due respect, I want to protect the talent. I just want to make sure we're not passing something on that we didn't fully understand, especially if it's an instrument like the memorandum thereby signed by acting as the planning board.

that I'm just that's all. My intent is to preserve the town. I promise you.

Thank you.

I I'm going to say something if it's okay. Uh just my my own personal comment. Um we've had a problem with one farm, a major problem with one farm. Uh I don't want to ever see that again. one and two um when now that I would be maybe appointed to this commission now um I'm surprised that I will have if if I'm opposed to something if I'm opposed to a p a purchase I really don't

have any kind of authority to say you know I really don't think this is good I don't want you to buy it blah blah blah it's kind you know, kind of useless, I think. But that's just my opinion off the top of my head. Okay. Because I did not realize that Susan.

I think there's got to be trust building in this. There's got to be some level of trust. You trust your farmers in town or you don't trust your farmers in town. I mean, the intent, I've told you what the intent is.

um you know, we didn't have to do this at all, but we really value everyone else's input and we really value in making decisions uh that benefit the full town. And like I said, if if it could have been set up the way the other one was, that's what we would have done. Um, but at some point you you have to know a person and build trust with them and build trust with a

group. I mean, I don't know what else to say until we get it back from town council and they have um, you know, they put their stamp on it or make some changes. At the end of the day, yeah, the the decision is still going to sit with the adcom because that's what the law tells us. Um, but you know, I it's interesting if you'll um let me tell a little story. Um, as as the

executive director of CAP, which is a Southeastern Mass Agricultural Partnership, I know I've mentioned it, but that's what it stands for. Um, I often have conversations with land trusts and land owners, and they often talk about, "Oh, I want to I want to have a farmer on this land, but I don't want to sell it to them because I don't trust that they're going to make the right decision.

Only I could make the right decision for this land. I've been the steward of this land for a really long time."

And for a farmer that has been and most farmers that I know has been investing in making the soil better than when I left or better when I came for a farmer who sacrifices uh income for doing the right thing via the land and my employees.

Um, I don't own the farm that I'm in. I don't own the house. I don't own the land. I farmed land all over Dartmouth.

I've never owned any of it.

And it is it is sometimes hurtful to hear that those with the land and money think that those and I'm not saying some farmers own a lot of land, but for those of us that don't own and don't have the money that we can't be trusted to steward the land, um that doesn't bring a lot of faith to the farming community to stay in Dartmouth. And I know some farmers that have left Dartmouth because it's not

necessarily the most friendly to farming. Everyone says we want farms, but I'm just I'm being fully honest right now. Um that Dartmouth isn't the easiest place to be a farmer. No one wants to be next to a farm. No one wants to smell it.

You know, it's not easy to be here. So, if we want to attract new farmers, we want to keep farmland. If you want to eat food that was grown here, at some point we have to build trust in each other. We have to have open and honest conversations with each other. And at some point, once you've built, I'm not saying right away, but once you've built that trust, then you can actually do some really

great things for this town. Um, but I I can't I don't know what else to say, but there's going to be some level of trust and that goes both ways, you know, it's I'm going to make a comment again and not to anybody in particular. Um, I wanted to be on this. One of the reasons is, and I have said this at CPC and I've said this uh when the agricultural commission has come before the planning

board. I live out here. When I first moved here, it was all farms. My uncle owned a UTRA. Okay. I used to go there as a child. I know what hard work it is.

And I'm not saying I don't trust you.

The reason I wanted to get on is as my experience as a real estate agent on pricewise. That's that's what was my intention. Okay. Not that I don't trust the farmers that I work with. I don't trust you or Fred Dabney or that's not I never even thought of that, Susan. Okay.

I just thought that I would be helpful when it came to purchasing farms because of my background in real estate. So trust has nothing to do with it. Susan, I think your opinion would be invaluable, which is why we would love to have you. But when you say that it's worthless because you don't have the final say, there's that trust.

No, I don't think that's I don't agree with you, Susan. I think that if if I don't agree with you, I'm not going to spend the night arguing because I it's not worth arguing with you. I've always gotten along and I still hope to get along. But my feel uh my feeling is that these people that are on this committee now from all the boards, they should have some say.

That's just an opinion and I have a right to an opinion. I mean, this is the first board that we've been to with this memorandum of understanding. So, I mean, obviously, I'm taking away a lot from this about what different boards may or may not want in this. At this point, I can't while it's at town council, I can't really change it. I can take all the information you're giving me and I can take it

to the town administrator. I can take it back to the um uh adcom and we can, you know, decide whether we need to have like a whole conversation about what theou will and won't say. Um but at the end of the day, we're going to have that trust and I have that trust for you, Margaret. I know you. We talk about 61A land. I really value your and I experience

and I trust you and and I I I talk about how wonderful I think you are really I do but I I might bring a different point of view Susan than you have okay as a farmer that's all I'm saying okay yeah and that's why we're doing this we want that opinion but if you're not going to listen to the opinion if if if there's five of us on the board and let's say four say we

don't like it and you people can still say well we're going to buy it anyway.

Okay. So that's, you know, and we have to try it out. You know, we're just going to have But what I'm saying is that we trust you and we value your opinion so that we wouldn't if everyone on the um advisory committee said, "Don't buy that. That piece would be better used for something else or we don't think that we see that as a long-term farm. Maybe it's too small. Maybe it's flooded more often than not."

Like that is why we want your expertise and your opinion on this is so that we can say, "Oh, hey, wait a second. Like we thought like on the map it says prime conservation or prime farmland soils. We know there's a farmer that's been there, but we want concom to come in. We want planning board to come in and be like, whoa, whoa, wait a second. Like maybe this isn't the best use of The idea is

to bring that expertise and that information into this conversation so that we can make the best informed decision using that expertise and that knowledge. That's the intent of this. I don't know. I'm not a legal expert. I don't know how to put that intent into a memorum.

I don't know what legal structures or what agreements can be done besides anou.

That's for town council to let us know, right? That's not your job. That's town council's job. So, we'll just wait and see what the um you So, we'll just wait and see.

May I share one more comment with Susan?

Glory.

Yes.

Susan, equally respectful as Margaret has been to you. I I applaud your effort and everything you're doing. The memorandum would have come across completely different to me had there been something associated with it. This is a very hypothetical such as a small paragraph with eight font italics andor you describe the outcome of all of these signatures and and their effort that decisions will be

based on the majority vote and in any tie ad has an additional vote to break any tie. Now all of a sudden Margaret and company feels like they have a voice. The way it's presented to us, it's we want you. We want to associate your name with our effort. You have no say, but trust us, which which might just be the case, and maybe everybody's that trustworthy. And it's that much of not a

problem. I need town council to clear it up for me to comfortably make a vote, not only for today, but for those tomorrow.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Madam Chair, just just as a point of clarification, so what on on the the signature page, assuming this gets okayed by town council in some way, shape, or form, what are they looking for from the planning board? Are they looking for signatures of the board? Are they just looking for who the representative would be? We've already you've already voted back in May um to have Margaret Sweet be our

representative. So what what is the intention of what this preservation fund is looking for from the planning board?

Um that's a great question and we hadn't voted on Margaret. Um nobody's nobody on this has been voted on by the ACOM. Um, the planning board did the planning board voted to ever be the Oh, okay. Okay. Sorry. Um, no problem.

Yep. That that's a good clarification.

Now that I'm looking at it, it just has one spot. I would assume that it would be the representative's name and title and signature. Um, but I will I will make sure that I raise that with town council.

Okay. So, it wouldn't be a vote of the board. It would just be Yeah. So, Buddy Baker Smith did indicate that the board it would need to be on record that the board is supporting theou.

So whether that has to be a signature on thisou or that's in your meeting minutes, I need that clarification from uh town council.

Okay. Thank you, Dan. We're gonna have to vote on this tonight to approve Margaret because this is something different than what we voted on before. This is a preservation fund. This is not just the ad commission. This is preservation fund.

So, we need to approve and vote for Margaret to be on this.

Well, this is something brand new.

Madame Chair, if if the um item could get tabled to a future date so that we can sort out some of these issues and have town council um give us their changes. For me, I think that would be optimal. I would hate for you to vote on anou that may change in the future.

No, I'm not talking about anou. We need to approve Margaret to be on this. This is something different than what we approved before. We need we need to vote to put her on the Dartmouth Agricultural Preservation Fund.

That's not what we voted for because this is brand new, right?

Okay.

So, is it the Dartmouth Agric Agricultural Preservation Fund Committee?

Um, let me see what the actual wording is. It says administration of the Dartmouth agricultural fund preservation fund.

It says agricultural preservation fund advisory group.

Okay. So that's what we would need to vote to do.

Aggregational agricultural preservation fund.

Advis what was the last two words?

Advisory group.

Advisory group. Okay.

Okay.

Different than you, Kevin.

Yeah.

Okay. So, we'll need to take a vote on that after. Susan, thank you very much for coming this evening and I hope we didn't scare you off, but I mean, we just had some I think very good concerns and um I I'm hoping you just take them back to whoever you need to take them back to.

Yes. Thank you. I really appreciate again. You're the first board that we've been to. I'm hearing you. I'm listening.

I'm taking it in. and I will take it back to the adcom. Um, and I appreciate your time tonight.

Thank you.

Now, you say you're going to tomorrow night.

Yes. That's uh Yes. But also, um, I have a conflict, so I probably won't be there. I the new water board I have to attend. So, I'll be in town hall, but not at CPC.

Okay.

Um, will someone be there to represent this or uh I I will definitely ask someone from the adcom to be there.

Well, I think they there should be because that way they they'll have questions and they can ask them. Okay.

Thank you very much. I think it's been very informative, but I hope we didn't scare you away.

No, absolutely not.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay. So, we need I need uh someone needs to make a motion to appoint Margaret to the Dartmouth Agricultural Fund preservation fund advisory group.

There you go.

Should Should we hold off until we get this whole memorandum?

I kind of like to see the memorandum. I really I think I think a couple of them. I mean, it sounds like you want to see the one from the CPC to Yes.

there.

And you want to see theou from us to them.

You know, uh, without mentioning names, everybody knows what farm was speaking about that we've had so many problems with. When I was on the CPC, buddy said that would never happen again. So, I I want to see in that kind of money that we're giving that that never happens again. Um, Kevin, you're on the CPC now.

Did you get a a a me?

I have not gotten any communication yet.

You haven't? You There's a meeting tomorrow.

That's what she said. I don't get any.

I I have gotten no communication because it usually is. I used to go on Mondays and Tuesdays. I'm I'm I'm on the same water commission that that that she's on. So, I I will be equally uh busy.

Well, if you have a chance, you should send an email to Michelle, okay, from CBC and just ask her because you should be on I'm not getting anything, so you should start getting that stuff. K.

Yeah, I haven't got anything.

Okay, I'll I'll ask too.

Thanks, Dan.

Thanks, Dan.

Okay, Dan, can you find out if the meeting is tomorrow night and what time?

because um if I can I will attend.

Yep.

So just you can just send me an email.

Well, it'll be on the agendas, Lori.

I'll find out for you.

Thank you.

Okay. Um, next up, minutes of the We need to I need a motion to approve the planning board meeting minutes of May 11th, 2026.

Motion made.

Actually, I can't. I You can do Nick. You can do the 11th.

You can't do June 1st.

Okay. Motion made.

Uh, I'm wondering which one I was out from. I I think No, you can do this one.

Okay.

Yeah, everybody can do the um May 11th.

Everybody but Nick can do June 1st.

Okay. I I make a motion. I second.

I have a motion on the floor. Any questions or comments or corrections?

Hearing none.

Nick, yes.

Margaret, yes.

Kevin, yes. Lori. Yes. Okay. Now I need a motion on the floor to approve the minutes of June 1st, 2026.

Moved.

Oh, second.

Okay. I have a motion on the floor. Any questions? Any corrections?

Any questions hearing? None.

Who Who made the motion? Okay, I'm just going to do it.

I did.

Nick.

Kevin.

No, no, not Nick.

I was asking.

Kevin.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I second.

Margaret.

Second.

Okay. Nick, you didn't attend that one.

Correct.

And Lori. Motion carries.

Okay. Next on the list, um I need a motion to acknowledge and file um correspondence, please.

Moved.

Second.

I have a motion moved by Kevin and seconded by Nick. Any questions or concerns?

Hearing none. Kevin?

Yes. Nick, yes.

Margaret, yes.

And Lori, yes.

Okay. Now, we have incoming zoning, board of appeals, applications, legal ads, Dan.

Nothing new for that or decisions.

Okay.

Zoning Board of Appeals decisions.

Yep. Nothing to say.

Nothing. Nothing. subcommittee reports, planners report.

Um so a few things in the planners report. Um we've internally at concept review looked at um potential bylaw updates, amendments for fall town meeting. some of the items that are brought up that we've spoken briefly on here um is updating the use table that was um just brought in last year. We found a lot of discrepancies, a lot of errors in that.

We've been working with the zoning enforcement officer to try to get that table corrected. Um it might be a little much to to get it on for the fall town meeting, but we're going to be working on that. Um I'm trying to get the specifics on the timeline for the fall town meeting. So that will dictate that as well as we've also talked about um battery energy storage bylaw whether

that could be incorporated into the same bylaw as the um groundmounted solar.

Also, some definitions have changed in in the state standpoint to break out canopy solar as a different item. So, we we've talked about that. Again, this will all dictate on what kind of timeline we're working under to to bring these before the board to have discussions, have town council weigh in on them, have public hearings. Um, so these are on on the books still. the site plan review that we talked about

and we're were close with for Springtown meeting, but due to proposed legislation, we kind of put that on hold. Um, in the packet, we included the latest update on the bill that incorporated um site plan review changes into MGL. Um you can see based on the latest approval um by the House uh Ways and Means Committee that a lot of that seems like it's going to carry through.

So it seems like it was a worthwhile bet to hold off on that. Um I've been in contact with town council as well discussing all of these. The most likely scenario seems to be that this is going to get done before the house goes to recess um at the end of the month. At that point, it'll be a determination of when these regul when this these changes to MGL will go into effect. Um, and at

that point, we'll probably see draft regulations, regulations review and all of those components before we would want to do our our final bylaw amendments, but whatever goes through in Mass General Law, that'll be in effect. So, some of the things we were concerned about will be in effect whenever um that date happens to be, whether it's sometime this year or if it becomes effective January one. Um we are still

waiting to see how that all plays out.

Um so, that's what we're looking at um from the reports on all of those um potential bylaw changes. So, um they're fluid right now. I will keep the board posted as we move through. I checked today. I didn't see anything new today, but I will definitely anytime I see anything new, I will um keep the board up to date.

Dan, I have a lot of words. So, any questions?

Yeah, Dan, how many changes do you think is going to happen to this before it gets to final vote?

Well, the thing I was looking at from what I had sent to you last week, I just got just to squeeze it in to get it in the packet. It was it was a comment.

Well, any amendments have to be before 5:00 pm today. Me thinking, all right, you know, maybe we'll see a few things.

I believe there was somewhere in the vicinity of 680 amendments proposed.

So, there's a little bit of work still to do. Um, obviously, I didn't go through 688 amendments. I was waiting to hopefully see a final document posted.

It still hadn't been as of earlier today. Um, but I will keep my eyes peeled and look for any correspondence on on when we get the final the final bill to the governor's desk.

Amazing that the people the people of this community and the people of the state of Massachusetts, I don't believe, have seen any of this. No, I most likely I'm in I'm in a few groups of other planners and it's just trickling out.

Um, and I think a lot of people are a little shocked with everything that's in there.

I I am.

I am.

Yeah. And and it goes into our discussions on potential zoning changes, right? A lot of the things we want to do might be taken away from us and the state will dictate how we do anything from from commercial conversions from using religious property for residential use. There's there's provisions in there that basically turns every religious own owned property into basically a 40B development if they right

if the religious groups so choose. So, there's a lot of um there's a lot of changes. There's still the referendum vote that's planned for the fall for the 50 foot of frontage, 5,000 square feet. We're still on hold on what kind of traction that gains. So, it's as town council said when he is was before us one time, unfortunately, we're under, you know, a moving target for the goalpost. Every

time we think we have something we can work with, it's drastically being changed at the state level. So, just something we got to keep an eye on. Town council is keeping an eye on and we will do our best to keep all the board members updated and when we have some more concrete information, then we can try to try to work with it.

Just for the record, Dan, I I I think it's 5,000, not 50,000.

Oh, did I say 50? I did mean. Yeah, 50 feet of frontage. 5,000 square feet.

Yeah.

Sorry.

No worries.

We do.

We did.

We did.

Maybe it's too shocking for me to say.

Yeah. Like I I can't believe that more people aren't talking about this.

It is.

I don't think a lot of people know about it. Uh I don't think a lot of people really I think that might be what everybody's hoping for that wants this to pass.

I I Kevin, here's what I think. I think a lot of people don't read anymore like they used to. Okay. They go online maybe, but they're not reading things like this, okay? Because this is this is horrible. That's all I can say.

Doc Dartmouth will be changed forever for I've talked I've talked to every town and city.

I know, but I'm Dmouth, Kevin. So, true. I've I've talked to the selectman's office that if you know something like this is looking to get to a vote that we will use our communications department to look at putting information out there to the to the voters of Dartmouth. Um so hopefully that might help make people aware, but we need to know what the rules are before we know how to how to

attack it. Well, uh, the the the binding referendum is is already set in stone. I don't think that can move. A bill might be able to move. And and by the way, that that this binding referendum was also presented as a bill, right?

Um, it so it's it's coming at it from two different directions. If the binding referendum fails, the the the bill may survive and or if the bill passes before November, then they may just take it off the ballot because they already have it as a bill.

Well, they're going to they're going to go on they'll go on their summer recess at the end of this month. Have you seen it in in a bill that's been before any committee? I haven't seen it. Maybe it's just slipped through my channels. Have you seen it as a numbered House bill or Senate bill?

I will double check, but I believe so.

Yeah, if it's something you can get to me, I can put it on my radar with the other ones.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Well, it's getting to the point that uh uh all a lot of the power uh is taken away from the cities and towns in this commonwealth and people ought to start getting smart about it because not everybody knows what's best for everybody else just because you're in Boston. Okay.

It's it's ad it's administrating zoning across the whole state. That's right.

As a blanket without any kind of reference or care to individuality in between the towns and and cities, right? We're not all the same, Kevin.

You know, everything's different. You have a community, one community's farming, maybe another community this or that. And you know, those kind of decisions should not be made without any input from our from the 351 cities and towns.

Gets me very upset. Okay, I I'm I'm with you.

Dan, anything else under planners report?

No, that's enough.

Master plan master plan information.

Nothing. Nothing new.

Okay. Under planners planning department updates, we do have something new.

Yep. So, I got something from the town accountant department. Um, this is something I haven't seen and apparently we haven't seen um, talking with Lori for a few years now. But, um, all the we haven't seen this since Donald Perry.

So, I I I need all the board members to come sign a document. And what we needed to discuss tonight under this is um they're looking for a threshold dollar amount that I can sign without bringing to um to the board and I need all the board members to come in and sign it to to authorize this threshold number. This number would represent um any bills to be paid if if we you know bought office supplies,

advertising for any any notifications we got to do in Dartmouth week. Um expenses that we might have for um computer programs we use here. Uh we use Blue Beam as a PDF program.

um different things like that. Uh do we pay for Mass Mapper?

No, Massmapper is free and that's through the selectman's office, I believe.

Okay.

This this is just specific to us. Um so I spoke with Lori about this. The the number we kind of came up with was just a roundabout. um anything under $1,000 that will cover most things. There could be if for somewhere down the road I I wanted to attend a conference and it was going to be more than a thousand, then that would be something I'd have to bring before the board to get

authorization to to spend that money.

There's line items in my budget that have certain aotments for these various things. Um but basically through the accounts office they need a document that outlines what that threshold is is to be if anything or if the board wanted to sign off on any expense which would mean anytime you know we had to order a rea paper or a pen you'd have to you'd have to sign for it like I said up and

as far as it's been going on I've been just signing off on those information.

Um, other boards, you know, look at a number whether that's 500,000. So, that's basically the input I would need from the board tonight if they were comfortable with me continuing to sign off on the expenses and what threshold number you'd be comfortable with me signing off.

So, what number?

Yeah. $1,000. Background on this is in the past when I was first on the board. At every meeting um that there was any expenses, we would have to sign the checks for them to be paid or sign for the authority to pay them. And it got to the point where we said, "This is ridiculous." So this was during Donald's administration.

We finally said, "Look, anything under this amount, you just do it and go ahead with it." Well, evidently, this was something that's supposed to be done.

And this we just had a um u an audit. And this particular audit picked up that this hasn't been done and it hasn't been done for years. And it's not just this department. So now in order to get an audit and to get everything approved, we need to sign off that we allow our department head to write any amount to sign off on checks for under a certain amount. And I

suggested a thousand being that if we have to run maybe four ads in one one swoop and that's could happen, you know, we could have four public hearings.

they'd have to come before us to sign this off. You know, I personally think we have staff that we can trust and staff can sign off on this. I mean, over $1,000, then yes, we're going to have to sign off on it, but under a thousand, um, I feel that we have staff that can sign off on this. So, input from the board. Mara, you wanted to No, I I you know, I'm fine. I mean,

different boards do it different ways.

you know, CPC, every every time you have a meeting with CPC, they have invoices that all the board members have to sign.

But that's that's that. Um, but I'm I I trust our staff. I think $1,000, Lori, is a very fair amount. Anything over that, then they'll have to get our signatures, our approval. I'm all all okay for $1,000.

How's the rest of the board feel, Nick?

Hello, board.

Same.

Yeah, Kevin. Okay. Um, do we need to mot Dan? Do we need a motion for this or?

Um, if you can, if you want, if you want to make it official, like I said, I will need all the board members to come in and sign this form to give to the town accountant. Um, so if you want to I don't think if we have to sign it. I don't think we need a motion, but we can have one just to cover the Yeah, it's just some extra

proof that it was done in the minutes.

Okay, sounds good. So, motion made.

Second.

Okay. A motion was made to allow um Dan as our department head to sign off on um any expenses under a thou $1,000 or under. Um Kevin.

Yes.

Nick.

Yes. With the fact that I think we should reference that the planning director, not necessarily Dan. This way.

If for some reason Dan hits the lottery tomorrow, the next person comes in. It's still in effect, right?

Okay, fine.

I'll give you I'll give you a few months.

Thanks for the notice, Margaret.

Yes, Lori. Yes. Okay. So, everyone needs to go in sometime this week and sign off on this so he can get the letter down to accounting.

Thank you. Great.

Anything else, Dan, before us tonight?

Um, that was that was it. Um, just follow up just to remind everybody our new office hours. Um, we're 8 to 6:30 on Mondays. Um, that's why I'm from a different office today. I'm still in my office. And then Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday is 8 to 4:30 and Friday is 8 to 11.

How's that working out?

In my opinion, I like the old schedule, but we're giving it a shot.

So, I have a question.

People who are on salary aren't going to lose any money, but what about the people who are elderly? Are they actually losing pay?

Nope. They're still they're still they're still getting the same amount of hours because of the extra hours on it's an extra half hour Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.

Um, so is that an hour and a half? So, an extra two and a half hours on Monday for the four hours they miss on Friday.

Okay.

So, it's still Still 35 for those 35 and it's still 40 for us that are 40.

Wait, is this town hall wide?

Yes.

Yes.

Wow.

I think it's tough for somebody like Dan though who has a meeting on Monday night.

I I really do think it's kind of tough.

And maybe we'll we're going to play it through the summer, but maybe we can think of something to help Dan out because that's miserable to stay there all day till 6 till what time? What time is it now? 8:30. That's a long day.

Really?

What's to stop him from doing that remotely?

Just by the time 6:30 comes around, I don't have time to get home to to get set up. So, it's just again, if it helps you at all, I'm in the Wata building till 9:00. Just come here before the meeting.

Yeah, perfect. Perfect. I can probably make it there by before.

You could I'll take the probably out.

Well, maybe nickel by your supper.

Oh, now we now now we got I would do that.

Okay. Anything else um to come before us this evening? I don't have anything under chairman's report.

I've never done this. I've never done this. Can I do it?

Yes.

I make a motion to adjurnn.

I second.

I have a motion on the floor to adjourn.

Um and our next meeting is going to be July 27th, 2026 at 7 PM. And I do have um just on that on that point just real quick I do have um Tim Barbara the director of public works coming to that meeting to discuss um the sewer concerns that we spoke about at previous meetings.

Wonderful.

And I have some water concerns for him too. Um uh Nick, yes.

Margaret, yes.

Kevin, yes.

And my Lori votes yes.