►
From YouTube: Planning & Development Committee Meeting 12/14/2015
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
C
Here
in
a
nice
community-
and
we
have
had
an
increase
in
noise
and
I
live
in
the
city,
and
I
get
it,
I
can
accept
the
noise,
but
I'm
worried
about
a
lot
of
vacation
rentals,
renters,
renting
to
renters,
which
I
think
is
sort
of
odd,
increasing
the
noise
level
along
with
a
new
private
dorm,
that's
going
to
be
going
up
in
the
next
few
years.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
D
E
F
F
The
concept
is
mostly
for
out-of-town
visitors
in
lieu
of
a
hotel
in
the
area.
This
be
a
nightly
guest
suite
that
they
can
rent
the
resident
would
be
responsible
for
any
damages
or
problems
with
the
unit.
We
picture
it
being
a
lot
of
parents
of
students
coming
in
as
well
as
other
out
of
town
guests.
Our
units
are
on
the
smaller
side,
so
this
is
going
to
serve
a
need
for
people
who
have
out-of-town
visitors.
C
Meetings
for
the
building
it,
it
was
sold
to
us
as
a
building
not
for
students,
but
for
people
who
are
working
downtown
and
when
I
was
there
and
believe
me
just
a
limited
amount
of
time.
But
what
I
saw
were
Kellogg
sweatshirts
walking
in
out
of
the
building
I'm
concerned
about
our
little
30
of
townhouse,
complex
being
caught
between
these
two
buildings,
one
that
is
going
to
be
a
private
dorm
and
one
that
might
be
construed
with
some
apartments
in
that
way,
and
the
noise
on
the
balcony
and
I'm,
I
give
the
concierge
credit.
F
It
is
a
apartment
community.
Anyone
can
rent
there.
There
might
have
been
thoughts
about
who
would
be
the
typical
renter
during
the
development
stages.
There's
a
large
University
in
evanston.
A
lot
of
the
multifamily
housing
is
going
to
be
heavily
student,
influenced
unless
it's
geared
towards
seniors
or
something
of
the
like.
So
we
can't
really
control
who
rents
there.
We
have
criteria,
you
know
criminal
background
checks,
income
verification,
but
as
long
as
someone
applying
meets
those
qualifications,
we
will
be
renting
to
them.
We
do
have
a
24-hour
doorman.
F
Concierge
I
do
recall
you
stopping
by
and
the
incident
in
question.
I
think
we
probably
would
have
expected
the
kellogg
students
to
be
a
little
bit
more
mature
on
some
occasions,
but
you
know
we're
there
24
hours
a
day.
So
if
there
ever
is
noise,
complaints
or
you
know
anything
of
the
like
someone
can
be
reached
at
our
property
at
all
hours
and
we
address
it
right
away.
I
think
in
general,
the
noise
or
the
partying
is
is
not
really
a
big
concern.
Is
there.
F
Is
a
person
at
our
front
desk
in
the
east
tower
at
eighteen?
Ninety,
we
do
have
surveillance
cameras
that
they
are
able
to
watch
on
that
monitor.
That
covers
all
of
our
common
areas,
some
exterior
the
garage
area,
so
that
you
know,
is
pretty
well
covered,
but
we
don't
employ
a
security
guard
per
se.
B
Well,
I
think
it's
some
of
the
coverage
it
sounded
like
maybe
the
neighbor
thought,
or
it
was
assumed
that
there
was
going
to
be
a
blanket
licensing
opportunity.
But
it's
just
one:
it's
it's
all.
It's
only
one
specific
unit.
So
it's
it's
pretty
limited
and,
of
course,
the
purpose
of
us
passing
the
licensing
ordinance
was
so
that
people
would.
You
know
if
I
advise
us
ahead
of
time
so
that
we
can
pay
attention
know
that
this
is
being
done
in
this
particular
unit.
F
Again,
to
reiterate,
it
would
be
for
residents
or
our
purposes
if
there
was
ever
a
unit
that
you
know
was
having
an
HVAC
or
plumbing
or
electrical
problem,
we'd
be
able
to
put
up
the
resident
there
as
opposed
to
displacing
him
to
a
hotel
again
out
of
town
guests.
It's
not
something
that
will
be
on
Airbnb
or
anything
like
that.
It's
not
going
to
be
marketed
outside
of
our
community.
G
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I,
understand
this
is
on
a
very
limited
basis
and
and
that
you're
going
to
be
doing
some
due
diligence.
How
are
you
going
to
know
who
is
going
to
be
occupying
the
unit
when
they
make
the
application
they'll
be
saying
my
mom
and
dad
are
coming
and
and
and
what
how
much
are
you
charging
per
night
for
the
unit
correctly.
F
The
resident
there
will
be
an
application,
they
would
state.
You
know
the
nights
that
they
want
it.
We
haven't
determined
what
information
they'll
have
to
give
us
about
the
guests
with
their
guests
in
general.
Anyone
can
come
stay
with
them,
so
we
were
not
able
to
control
their
guests,
but
this
would
be
they'd,
be
renting
it
for
a
particular
reason.
There'd
be
language
in
there
that
says
they're
responsible
for
everything
in
the
apartment,
as
well
as
the
behavior
of
the
guests,
I,
believe.
F
G
I
still
have
a
problem
with
us,
taking
away
from
our
hotels
and
in
in
evanston
I.
Don't
understand
why
they
can't
walk
around
the
corner
and
go
to
the
hilton
garden
inn
for
example,
and
also
paying
hotel
tax
is
another
thing
that
I'm
very
concerned
about
so
I
understand.
We've
talked
about
this
in
the
past,
but
those
are
still
concerns
that
I
have.
H
You
mr.
chair,
this
is
exactly
the
kind
of
place
where
my
husband
and
I
stay.
When
we
visit
my
brother
and
his
husband
in
Atlanta.
His
building
has
one
of
these
hospitality
room
suites.
He
simply
books
it
for
us
means
we
can
be
in
the
same
building.
It
means
that
we
can
still
the
convenience
of
it
for
somebody
who's
visiting.
Is
it's
really
nice
to
have
so
I?
Don't
see,
I,
don't
have
an
objection
to
this,
and
I
also
worry
about
lumping
all
students
into
kind
of
one
category
of
students.
I
H
H
J
I
have
one
question
for
the
staff:
do
we
require
hotel
tax
to
be
paid
on
vacation,
rentals,
I,
don't
remember.
A
E
A
I
lived
in
a
building
complex
once
with
a
several
guest
suites,
and
it
was
an
amenity
for
that
building
because
a
lot
of
us
were
had
family
out
of
town
and
they
were
so
booked
up
in
advance.
It
would
be
hard
to
really
you
know:
just
have
a
sudden
surge
of
a
party
or
someone
who
wanted
it
to
just
hang
out
for
a
low
around.
So
I
think
it
was.
A
It
was
a
real
convenience
being
under
one
roof
with
my
family
when
they
visited
and
since
they
had
since
the
department
they
had
was
bigger
than
the
studio
that
I
had.
It
was
really
nice
to
have
a
place
to
be
a
family
together.
So
it
was
a
true
amenity
and
I
think
it
was
done
very
well
and
certainly
can
be
done
well,
any
other
questions.
J
Right
and.
J
I
are
the
applicant
is
here
and
I'm
mr.
lip
app
and
I
met.
I
think
this
is
a
terrific
use
of
this
space.
This
is
where
hand-me-downs
used
to
be
located
and
is
now
an
empty
retail
space
and
what's
a
terrifically
busy
business
district,
it's
a
standalone
building,
it's
next
to
the
L
on
one
side
of
it.
It
has
an
alley
and
the
other
side
has
the
L
I,
don't
think
we're
going
to
run
into
any
noise
problems.
J
G
It's
ordinance
154
00
15
as
or
a
zoning
ordinance
text
amendment
the
addition
of
rentals
to
the
automobile
and
recreational
vehicle
sales
use.
The
plan
commission
and
staff
recommended
option
of
the
zoning
ordinance
text
amendment
to
add
rentals
to
the
automobile
and
recreational
vehicle
sales
use
and
update
automobile
to
motor
vehicle.
The
proposed
amendment
will
ensure
that
motor
vehicle
and
truck
rental
uses
are
accounted
for
within
the
zoning
code
and
allowed
in
the
same
manner
as
motor
vehicle
and
recreational
vehicle
sales
uses
its
for
introduction.
A
D
If
you
have
a
truck
rental
facility
that
you
know
just
has
been
approved
for
whatever
reason
in
your
ward
and
especially
in
a
business
district,
you
will
know
you
do
not
want
trucks
added
to
I
realize
it's
now,
a
retail
service,
which
has
always
been
a
problem
for
me
in
the
zoning
code,
because
retail
service
takes
in
to
account
everything
from
you
know:
selling
beads
to
renting
trucks.
It
is
a
very,
very
intense.
D
There
is
one
on
Howard
Street.
There
was
14
years
on
the
corner
of
howard
and
chicago
avenue.
They
are
parked
in
every
which
way
they're
parked
at
meters,
they're
parked
and
lots
they're
parked
in
the
alley.
They
are
a
nuisance,
and
I'm
going
to
move
that
we
amend
this
to
remove
the
see
district
and
leave
it
only
for
the
I
district
I
will
support
that.
One
hundred
percent,
but
I
will
not
support
in
the
eye
and
I.
You
know
just.
B
K
J
I
I
grew
salzman
rainy
seat.
The
to
see
to
district
is
most
of
Chicago
Avenue
and
I
and
I
as
I
read
through
this.
It
I
wondered
whether
the
enterprise
that
there
is
an
enterprise
rental,
our
budget
scuze
me
there's
everybody
used
to
be
enterprise.
Now
it's
a
budget
rental
along
Chicago
Avenue
in
the
811
building,
and
that's
fine,
that's
a
terrific
convenience
for
people
in
the
community,
but
I
do
think
that
I
would
be,
and
the
residents
would
be
very
unhappy
if
that
turned
into
a
truck
rental
location.
J
D
You
know
if
there
are
those
that
would
be
grandfathered
in
probably,
and
that's
okay
with
me,
but
any
new
ones,
any
any
pop-ups
I
just
I
am
I
was
surprised
to
read
how
insensitive
the
board
was
in
determining
that.
Oh
of
course
we
should
do
this.
You
know
I
mean
it's,
it's
a
motor
vehicle.
It's
a
truck!
You
just
can't
stick
truck
rental
any
place,
and
I
will
tell
you,
because
I
have
Howard
Street
I
get
lots
of
calls.
I
would
like
to
do
truck
rental.
D
You
know
at
723
Howard,
it's
it's
vacant,
no
you're,
not
you
know,
I
mean
so
there
is
a
great
desire
to
put
a
truck
rental
wherever
they
see
vacancy,
and
I'm
just
warning
you.
If
you
have
c
districts
in
your
word,
you
don't
want
a
truck
rental
in
an
I
district
funny
I
mean
I
have
no
problem
with
that.
Mr.
A
E
To
all
the
minute
Wilson's
question
you
know,
the
the
I
to
district
is
primarily
in
in
West
evanston
and
in
the
industrial
areas.
C2
again,
this
is
for
just
see
to
not
all
C's
c2
is
there
is
some
on
Chicago,
it's
predominantly
that's
scattered.
A
lot
of
it
is
green
bay,
road
that
has
a
large
stretch
of
C
to
you
that
we
can,
you
know,
do
more
research
and
come
back.
If
that's
what
the
desire
is
all.
K
D
G
D
Don't
have
a
problem
with
that:
there's
I
district
behind
the
target
jewel
best
buy
shopping
center,
there's
a
an
I
district
over
by
Gordon
foods
on
oakton
and
in
other
places
of
that
of
that
kind.
So
the
districts
that
we
want
to
look
at
our
DC
district
and
I
I
support
holding
it
in
committee,
not
okay,.
D
I
Good
evening,
mr.
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Matt
Rogers,
chairman
of
the
ZBA,
also
a
resident
133
Clyde
Avenue.
It's
kind
of
interesting,
because
the
other
two
people
who
are
here
to
speak
are
the
people
who
brought
this
case
to
zba.
To
begin
with,
and
the
whole
issue
became
a
question
of
how
decks
should
be
treated,
whether
they
should
be
treated
as
impervious
surfaces
or
permeable
surfaces,
and
for
the
nine
and
a
half
years
that
I've
been
on
the
committee,
we
have
always
treated
them
as
an
impervious
surface.
I
When
the
applicants
are
appellants,
I
guess
brought
it
to
our
attention.
It
appeared
that
there
seemed
to
be
very
contradictory
language
in
our
ordinance,
which
was
a
lot
of
if
this,
then
that
if
this,
then
that
and
kind
of
directed
people
to
a
bunch
of
different
places,
I
feel
that
the
solution
has
been
brought
before.
I
I
think
we've
swung
the
pendulum
too
far
from
treating
things
as
an
impervious
surface
to
treating
them
as
a
permeable
surface,
but
at
the
same
time,
considering
them
part
of
building
lot
coverage,
because
traditionally
building
lot
coverage
has
always
been
a
impervious
surface.
So
by
by
having
it
be
both
I
think
it
creates
another
layer
of
confusion,
I
think
some
simple
solutions
would
be
and
I
know
these
were
discussed
through
Plan
Commission
and
with
staff
would
be
to
look
at.
I
Size
you're
allowed
a
percentage
of
your
lot
size
to
be
your
deck,
so
we
don't
have
people
over
building
decks
going
into
the
fact
that
you
could
actually
deck
your
entire
backyard,
which
is
what
the
attempt
of
the
building
lock
coverage
is
hoping
to
to
reduce,
but
I
think
there
are
better
solutions
and
I'm
happy
to
discuss
any
of
them
with
you,
but
I
think
you'd
probably
be
better
off
to
hear
from
the
other
people
first
if
they
still
want
to
make
a
statement.
Yes,
that.
L
So
you
know
what's
really
interesting
about
this.
Is
that
if
you
read
the
ordinance
as
it's
written,
it
says
if
you
have
a
deck
with
a
roof,
it's
impermeable.
If
you
have
a
deck
with
with
a
solid
floor
or
you
cement
under
it,
it's
impermeable,
but
if
you
have
a
deck
with
slats
and
dirt,
underneath
it
it's
permeable
and
what's
interesting
is
not
only
did
the
department
never
interpreted
it
that
way,
but
they've
been
doing
it
for
many
many
years
and
I
think
it
wasn't
until
we
came
before
it.
L
We
requested
a
permit
last
summer
that
anybody
really
even
kind
of
looked
at
this
I,
don't
know
how
many
other
people
didn't
get
to
build
their
deck
and
didn't
request
of
earrings,
and
it's
just
the
plain
kind
of
obvious
thing
that
if
you
have
a
deck
with
slats
the
falls
into
the
where
the
rain
can
fall
into
the
ground
under
it
that's
a
permeable
surface
and
when
you're
talking
about
lat
coverage,
you
know
so
they're
trying--
they
couldn't
do
it.
L
A
M
Let
me
explain
well,
first
of
all,
let
me
say
this:
we
went
to
the
plan.
Commission
Matt,
wasn't
there
the
night
we
had
our
hearing,
you
know
we
were
going
to
lose
and
we're
going
to
lose
mostly
because
they
had
interpreted
the
statute
one
way
for
nine
and
a
half
years.
We
thought
that
was
wrong.
We
thought.
Actually,
if
you
carefully
read
the
statute,
that
we
should
be
allowed
to
build
a
building,
we
cut
a
deal
with
the
zoning
department.
M
We
had,
we
got
a
variance,
we
just
got
the
building,
permit
I
guess
tomorrow
morning
we're
going
to
get
it
so
we're
not
it.
This
is
not
about
us
we're
going
to
build
our
deck
and
we're
going
to
tear
out
the
sidewalk.
They
want
us
to
tear
out
we're
annoyed
by
that,
but
we
bet
the
bullet
we're
going
to
do
it,
so
we
get
it
done
before.
We
all
pass
away
to
understand
this
issue.
M
What
we
wanted
to
do
was
build
a
deck,
no
roof
slats
in
between
the
boards,
so
the
water
ran
through
the
boards
and
I
told
the
building
department
at
the
zoning
department.
I
said:
yeah
we're
going
to
put
gravel
under
it.
If
you
don't
like
gravel
will
do
dirt.
If
you
don't
even
want
me
to
disturb
the
dirts,
there
will
won't
disturb
the
dirt
de
ser,
so
we
won't
change
anything
about
where
the
little
raindrop
goes.
M
It
goes
down
and
hits
the
deck
runs
through
the
boards
and
into
the
ground,
and
that
was
not
allowed,
that's
impervious,
and
we
said
why,
and
they
said
well,
because
some
people
cheat
later
and
they
put
plastic
under
there.
There
are
things
we
said:
well,
we're
not
going
to
cheat
we're,
not
cheaters.
Well,
it
doesn't
matter.
Well,
we
just
know
it's
impervious
or
we've
always
done
it.
M
That
way,
which
none
of
which
I
thought
were
good
answers,
so
I
don't
know
what
you
want
to
do,
but
some
people
can
have
reasonable
decks
to
comply
with
everything
else,
not
too
big,
not
too
anything,
and
if
the
water
can
run
through,
maybe
they
ought
to
be
allowed
to
do
it
but,
like
I
said,
doesn't
apply
to
us.
Thank
you.
A
If
I
could
speak
to
this
first
place,
I
know
that
this
has
been
going
on
quite
a
while
and
I
learned
to
this
in
July
believe,
but
hitting
go
and
much
before
that.
A
But
I
would
like
to
pursue
this
with
the
help
of
mr.
munzer
to
just
understand
a
little
bit
about
the
process
when
something
that
is
complicated
does
arise
and
I
think
that
would
be
in
the
best
interest
of
everyone
going
forward.
I'm
glad
to
understand
that
its
result,
and
that's
all
I'll
say
on
old
man
win.
Yes,.
J
I
think
we
have
another
instance
here
where
we
need
to
change
this,
to
what
most
normal
people
would
view
as
a
deck
being
a
permeable
surface,
because
I
would
think
that
if
your
deck
is
made
with
slats
and
you
have
gravel
or
dirt
underneath
it,
the
water
is
going
to
run
through
and
percolate
right
into
the
ground.
Just
like
we
wanted
to
so
I
I
need
to
understand
this
a
little
better
before
we
move
on,
but
I
think
what
we
need
to
do
is
make
this.
B
Thanks
and
I
guess
one
of
the
things
that
kind
of
resonated
most
with
me
is
mr.
Rogers
point
about
the
about
the
lot
coverage
it
is
going
to
create
I.
Imagine
I,
don't
really
know
what
the
numbers
would
be,
but
it
would
create
a
lot
of
non-conforming
a
lot
of
non-conforming
uses
and
that's
gonna.
Let's
say
the
storm
blows
down
part
of
the
deck
or
somebody
wants
to
replace
it.
I
know
that
that's
a
difficult
hurdle
to
overcome,
so
now
it's
if
it's
legal,
non-conforming
and
you
take
it
down,
you
have
to
go
through
specific.
B
You
know
calculate
stiff
as
to
whether
you
can
replace
it
index,
don't
last
forever.
They
all
have
to
get
replaced.
They're
like
the
wooden
and
all
that,
so
I
think
we're
probably
setting
ourselves
up
to
even
further
complicated
a
little
bit
down
the
road.
I
guess
my
inclination
is
to
maybe
you
have
the
staff
we
you
know
for
more
time
into
it
and
then
maybe
refer
it
back
for
I,
guess,
reconsideration
and
one
other
thing.
This
is
just
now
occurs
to
me
when
we
were
having
the
conversations
about
affordable
housing.
B
We
were
having
a
number
of
comments
about
looking
at
you
know,
different
alternative
types
of
housing
arrangements
on
properties,
and
this
is
probably
going
to
be
even
much
more
restrictive
and
preclude.
That
kind
of
you
know
forward
and
open
thinking.
As
far
as
the
coach
houses
and
other
types
of
more
affordable
housing
units.
H
A
E
E
I,
don't
know
if
he'd
like
to
speak
to
it,
but
the
idea
behind
this
was
that
we
do
believe
that
we
were
that
the
interpretation
of
decks
needed
to
be
revisited
that
we
that
the
way
it
was
being
interpreted-
and
I
agree
with
you-
alderman
win-
the
assumption
should
not
be
that
everybody's
going
to
cheat.
Yes,
some
people
do,
but
that
shouldn't
be
our
default.
E
So
we
in
working
with
the
Planning
Commission,
wanted
to
revisit
this
issue,
and
the
plan
commission
also
and
staff
felt
that
by
this
compromise
of
considering
them
now
permeable
decks,
but
then
adding
them.
The
building
lot
coverage
was
was
a
compromise.
That
being
said,
I
understand
your
concerns
and
we'd
be
happy
to
look
at
it
again.
Thank.
N
Jim
Ford
I'm
sure
of
the
plan
commission.
I
live
at
2658
central
park,
as
mark
says.
We
did
consider
this
for
quite
a
while
and
considered
this
a
way
of
reducing
the
burden
on
homeowners
who
otherwise
were
faced
with
the
problem
under
the
rules
had
been
that
the
entire
deck
was
considered
impervious
and
that
any
excursion
beyond
the
required
maximum
impervious
surface
was
a
major
variance,
which
meant
that
if
you
wanted
to
do
significant
deck
work,
you
had
to
come
to
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals.
N
Nobody
would
believe
me
if
I
said
we
were
trying
to
help
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
reduce
its
workload,
but
we
were
trying
to
take
some
pressure
off
homeowners,
and
our
judgment
was
that
if
we
could
change
the
rules
with
respect
to
imperviousness
to
a
definition
that
sort
of
matched
what
everybody
thinks
a
deck
wood
slats
is
that
this
would
begin
to
solve
that
problem.
There
is
this
disjuncture
between
the
size
of
the
impervious
surface
and
the
size
of
the
lot
coverage.
N
I,
guess
and,
and
a
couple
of
people
have
commented
that
traditionally
lot
coverage
and
impervious
surface
have
been
treated
as
one
and
the
same
I.
Think
what
we're
suggesting
here
implicitly
is
that
those
to
be
separated
and
that
impervious
surface
be
treated
in
effect
as
a
vertical
characteristic
of
the
lot
and
that
lot
coverage
be
treated
as
I
mean
as
a
horizontal
curve
and
that
lot
coverage
be
treated
more
as
a
vertical
characteristic,
a
deck,
because
it
is
raised
above
the
ground
and
is
effectively
living
space
impinges.
N
If
you
want
to
call,
it
impinges
visually
on
the
neighbors
in
a
way
that
a
patio,
for
instance,
does
not,
and
I
would
argue
that
it
is
that
fact
that
qualifies
this
as
lot
coverage,
so
that
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
address
this
fact
that
some
lot
coverage
may
some
built
lot
coverage,
maybe
pervious
as
to
whether
the
zoning
the
Planning
Commission
would
like
to
spend
more
time
with
this.
If
that
is
your
wish,
of
course,
we'd
be
glad
to
spend
more
time
with
it.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
J
I
The
way
our
but
the
way
the
ordinance
is
currently
written
is
confusing
and
backtracks
on
itself,
so
I
think
that
might
be
able
to
be
addressed
through
staff,
making
that
be
the
way
that
it's
always
treated
or
reinterpreting
that
in
a
certain
way,
but
I
think
that
that
question
I
don't
want
to
see
that
question
come
back
before
us
again,
because
we
did
not
review
this
couples
particular
deck.
The
question
was
whether
or
not
the
deck
was
a
permeable
or
an
impervious
surface.
I
D
How
do
other
communities
treat
the
deck
that
has
space
between
the
slats
and
then
I
have
a
second
question,
and
that
is
I
have
been
to
a
home
that
has
a
second
floor
deck
that
has
no
roof
over.
Would
you
consider
forgetting
that
it
would
be
in
the
face
of
the
neighbors
it
if
there
were
a
second
floor
deck?
Would
that
be
considered
pervious
or
impervious
with
no
roof?
It's.
F
G
I
D
I
D
E
D
A
D
A
B
You,
okay,
yeah
I'm,
having
her
the
comments
and
and
having
a
reasonably
good
idea
of
what's
gone
into
it.
It
seems
like
most
of
the
heavy
liftings
already
been
done
as
far
as
the
research,
the
materials
so
probably
holding
it
here
would
make
the
most
sense.
It
looks
like
what
we
really
need
to
do
is
just
make
some
tweaks
and
adjustments
get
some
clarity
on.
Do
you
have
enough
questions
from
us
to
guide
you
in
a
direction
that
will
get
you
to
a
point
where
you
can
make
the
adjustments?
Yes,.
E
A
Thank
you.
It's
been
held
a
second
as
we
all
been
assigned
to
different
boards
and
commissions
committees.
There
must
be
someone
who's
assigned
to
the
the
plan.
Commission
me,
maybe
that
older
person
would
like
to
be
involved
in
the
discussions,
as
well
as
a
liaison
to
back
to
the
Commission.
Thank
you
are
there
any
other
items
for
discussion
or
communication
is.