Good evening, Rockville. Today is Wednesday, September 25th, and this is meeting number 15-24 of the Rockville Planning Commission. I am Shion Salahuddin, the chair of the Planning Commission. I'm joined today by commissioners Meng Sun, Eric Fulton, Susan Pittman and Jamie Espinoza. We are, as always, coming to you live via the internet and on Rockville Channel 11. Today we've got a relatively light agenda in front of us. We've got a public hearing on an amendment to the Lincoln Park Conservation District Plan and zoning text amendment associated with that as well as recommendation to mayor and city council on the adoption of a resolution to approve the draft town center master plan. Of course those two items will be followed by our regular slate of commission administrative items. And that's that'll be do it for today. So with that, I will hand it over to Mr. Wazalak for our first agenda item which is public hearing on zoning text amendment are sorry public hearing on an amendment to the Lincoln Park Conservation District and zoning test amendment TXT 2024-00267 to revise the Lincoln Park Conservation District overlay, zone, and implement the Lincoln Park design guidelines. Mr. Was like. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. As you stated, this is a public hearing item, which is required for comprehensive plan amendments by state code. And without further ado, I will pass it over to senior planner Christopher Davis to give us a brief presentation. Thank you, Mr. Rossillac. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission Christopher Davis with community planning and development services department, bringing this item back to you again. We have a brief presentation just to recall some of the basics of the project and outline some items that the mayor and council would like your feedback on. And then with the chair's commission, we can proceed to the public hearing. So the overview of this plan amendment and zoning text amendment, these are the two major components needed in order to move the design guidelines project forward. Specifically, the plan amendment looks to revise existing building standards to make updates and specify that the new design guidelines will be specifically applicable to detached homes and other standards applicable to non-detached homes and non-residential buildings. These updated standards will then formally be included into the zoning ordinance via the zoning text amendment. So looking at the design guidelines, there are 10th proposed specific design issues. They cover a range of building elements that look to influence the look and fill of homes in the neighborhood. The design guidelines are intended to promote flexibility of development in the neighborhood and to that effect there will be an alternative compliance process proposed that will allow property owners to propose alternative designs to the guidelines if they meet certain criteria. So these are the 10 specific design issues. As you can see, they vary from orientation and footprint of the actual dwelling to more specific items like building height, articulation, and materials. These were considered in consultation with the design consultant that was brought onto the project and with feedback from the community. So moving on to the specific feedback that the mayor and council is looking for from the commission. There are four major points that was outlined in the staff report and staff would seek your feedback either at this meeting or at your following meeting for these items. So the first item that was outlined was the requirement for consistent building materials on the front and side facades. There was some concern from the mayor and council but that this might be overly burdensome on property owners and staff would like to clarify that this requirement is only applicable to corner lot properties where the facade faced the street and that's really intended to promote a consistent aesthetic to facades that face the street and as was outlined in your staff report many of the homes in Lincoln Park already implement this type of design key. The second concern that was raised was a requirement for larger garages, notably two car garages, to be set far back behind the detached home, which could potentially be a large cost to the owner. Staff would like to clarify that the design guidelines aren't requiring or proposing any specified setbacks for detached garages. The design guidelines would only implement a setback if the garage is attached and it would be five feet in front of the front facade. So there might have been a miscommunication in the graphics that were proposed in the guidelines and staff proposals to update the guidelines and the graphics to clarify that point. Additionally, there was some concern about multifamily buildings and their consideration in design guidelines project. As noted, again, the design guidelines specifically focus on single-family detached homes and standards for multifamily buildings would be covered in the updated standards to the conservation district as previously mentioned. And finally, there was some concern about potential costs of the guidelines, particularly in relation to routine maintenance that property owners might want to consider. And staff would clarify that the design guidelines would only be applicable to new construction of homes and additions. So items for routine maintenance such as replacement of windows, siding roofing would not be applicable or the design guidelines would not be applicable to those types of projects. effect in the city and did not note any major additions in cost. Furthermore, some of the design guidelines including requirements for simple massing may actually help to mitigate expenses of extensive designed homes that can steps in the process include tonight's public hearing as well as your formal recommendation at your October 23rd meeting. Following your recommendation, the project would then move back to the Mayor and Council or their consideration, including an additional public hearing. So with that staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing, receive feedback and provide any additional questions to staff. And specifically staff would like provided before here October 23rd recommendation. And with that, Mr. Chair, that concludes session presentation. Great. Thank you so much. Like, what's the logic behind that? Why does there have to be a requirement? Is there a thought that a flush garage would be inconsistent with the character of the home is because the garage takes up so much of the facade. So the requirement for that setback or it can't be a test, just that it's slightly set back. And my other question was around engagement. So it looks like we've, we estimate that we've engaged probably in regard to this, this zoning text amendment, is there, can we just talk a little bit on the record here on, you that included many of the residents and community leaders. public meeting efforts we've had five public meetings with different numbers of participation but I think the best method of communication we had was through mailings to the community that informed folks of when we had public meetings and feedback. We've also tried to go into the community on several occasions there several several community events that we have attended and passed out flyers as well as directed folks to our Engage Rockville website that's been established since the beginning of the project. It included opportunities for online surveys. We've also had paper surveys at the Lincoln Park Community Center that we've sent out postcards to let folks know that those are there. So we've tried to engage in different methods of communication with the community as well as our standard public meetings and hearings on the project. So we feel like we've tried to employ a robust method of communication. There have been questions from the community at the meeting about what the guidelines are more information and so we've done that through subsequent meetings and I think we've gotten to a point where folks have a good grasp on what the guidelines are. Thanks for that clarification. I have no other questions. Anyone else? Kira, Chairman? So these are very similar to the Easter Aqual Design guidelines. And my only concern is that in Easter Aqual, it's been a problem with implementation. There's been instances of new infill housing that completely violates not just the night, though please do these things, but the must do these things, which are actually fewer in East Rockville than in the Lincoln Park plan. And the whole spirit of the plan was to not make people angry, right? Not build something so tall that it blocked out someone else's solar panels. It was to provide some balance between existing residents and new residents. And that's been a real struggle, any strokeville. So I guess my question is, how is this, or do we have that in hand? Are we planning for implementation? How's that all working out? Yes, Commissioner. We have thought about that with these to design guidelines, specifically from lessons that we've learned in East Rockville. And I think on the implementation front, one of the things we can help folks with at the time of permitting doing a better job to inform them that the design guidelines do exist, that they are applicable to a resident that might apply for a permit there. Also, we've established meetings with residents that have questions about the design guidelines rather than having them try to figure them out themselves, you know, establish a process where we can walk through them, explain the guidelines specifically so that residents are aware of what's needed. Also, what we've tried to do with Lincoln Park is try to clarify the guidelines so that most of the elements are must. So you don't have to go through that interpretation of what should I do versus what must I do. So that it's clear to residents what they need to do. So I think we've really tried to figure out the best approach to implement the guidelines in a way that's measured, that's easy for homeowners to understand and go through the process. Okay, thank you very much. I haven't looked since the last meeting, but at the last meeting we talked about how the East Rockville, the 2004, this isn't the design guidelines, but the design guidelines are not there and then the 2004 neighborhood plan is still there even though the new neighborhood plan was incorporated into the comprehensive master plan so I don't know if there's been an opportunity to update that on the website and put post the design guidelines and direct people to the CMP. I'm not sure if we've had a chance to do that, but I do know that there is a specific East Rockville design guidelines, a web page separate from the actual planning document. So I think we can do some updates to direct folks so that they can connect the two together. Very nice. Thank you so much, Mr. Davis. Thank you. much, Mr. Davis. Thank you. First, Mr. Davis, in our packet, you provided a table that we discussed at the last meeting, comparing city requirements with the current conservation district and the proposed design guidelines. I just want to thank you for that. I found that very useful and helpful. So I appreciate it, and I hope others did as well. And just carrying on the chair's point about outreach, I also think the city did comprehensive outreach to the community, though I think the numbers of residents who engaged themselves in the process is small, which is concerning, though apathy is certainly a valid response. I think that widespread community awareness when you're implementing standards and requirements above and beyond the cities is very important. So all of this to say that when this goes to mayor and council for recommendation, please consider another comprehensive outreach to the community just to make sure that all residents are aware that this is kind of. Understood. Thank you. Well, do. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Davis. I have reached through all the plan and the actual design line. I think it's very comprehensive. Address all the elements. And so my question is just regarding one of the concerns the mayor and council has regarding the multi-family elements. And so my question is just regarding one of the concerns the mayor and council has regarding the multifamily elements. And I see like in the final recommendation items, the action for. So there are dimensions. So in the future there might be an opportunity we can re-evaluate the non-residential constructions. So, if there are any actions, or maybe there's a question for my fellow commissioners, too, should we consider also evaluate the standards for the non-detached residential, which is a multifamily portion of this? Yes, that's something that we considered when we were updating the plan. And because this effort was specifically Spoke focused on design guidelines for single-family homes. That was the direction that we that staff was given to pursue that project We didn't want to go into evaluating the multi-family or non-detached building standards at this time particularly in light that the city will be going through the comprehensive rezoning process coming up and we thought that might be a better opportunity to comprehensively look at those standards to align them with future updates to the zoning and other development requirements. Okay, thank you. It Seems like we have opportunities to evaluate that in other process. Okay, thank you. So on a follow-on from that, where would it fall if a developer would have buy one or more single family detached properties and turn it into a multifamily property. What what what regs would that end up falling under? They would currently fall under the current zoning regulations for the area as well as the conservation district standards, the current standards. So does that say it wouldn't be possible to develop as a multifamily? No, not necessarily. It would depend on the actual zoning of the area if it would allow multifamily. Well, so like the proposed standards have a maximum of 1,500 or 1,800 up to 2,100 in certain circumstances of footprint and then a height restriction of I think it was 40 feet or something like that. It doesn't really leave a lot of leeway to turn a single family home into a multi-family project, right? That's correct. Yeah, so it would depend on the specifics of the project, but they would still have to follow those standards. Okay, thanks for the clarification. Just to add on to that, Mr. Chair, I think most, if not all of the single family homes in Lincoln Park or Zoned R60, so multi-family use is not permitted other than an accessory dwelling unit. Commissioner Aspinol, is there anything like that? I think we can bring those back to you for the next meeting on October 23rd. I think Mr. Davis was asking if we needed any more information that they might need to research prior to coming back on October 23rd. Oh, okay. That's great. So, all right. Thank you. What? What? Or that just kind of playing off with both of you just said. I watched the recent mayor and council work session on All matters of housing if you have two and a half hours. I recommend it There was talk among that body of Upzoning beyond what's in the comp plan Duplexes triplex is in in areas that That aren't necessarily designated in the comprehensive plan But in order to to jump sort different parts of city, you don't have to answer this now, but it's kind of an interesting question is do these design guidelines prevent or preclude the will of that body if they wish to up zone certain parts? What takes precedence? The design guidelines that the city's putting in place or possible rezoning by the mayoring council. So one of the things that's important to remember is the way that these design guidelines are incorporated into the code. The way that it currently works, and it may not work this way, and the new zoning ordinances that the design guidelines are specifically incorporated into the building permit review within single-family zones. So although it looks as if we're sort of regulating the entire area, if the mayor and council were to up zone a particular property outside of the single-family of zones, those properties would no longer fall within the review process mandated by the guidelines if that makes sense. The other thing worth noting is, of course, any zoning action that the mayor and council takes would have to be consistent with the comp plan. And so to the extent that these design guidelines are being implemented as an amendment to the plan, the mayor and council's hands would be tied to a limited extent to ensure conformity with this document as well. So kind of the chain of events is sort of the comp plan which then has to be implemented by zoning and then to the extent that design guidelines are in play it's just in the single family set of zone. Any other questions or thoughts from the commission? Okay, this was just a briefing, right? So do we have any other points of clarification that we'd like to step to take back before we make recommendations on the 23rd. So. OK. This is it. So yeah. I'm sorry. We're going to do a call to the key bill. And so we. It's a comment. And so we're going to go ahead and take a look. OK. Can you turn on your mic please? So what commissioner has been as I was saying, this is a public hearing. So we will leave this public hearing open so that we can get. So the public is. Is able to submit any additional testimony that like we they're written or via one of these planning meetings between now and October 23rd. And Mr. Jim. is able to submit any additional testimony. They'd like either written or via one of these planning meetings between now and October 23rd. And Mr. Chair, just, I know we mentioned at the beginning, if we could again confirm for the record that there's nobody present in the hearing room or online that wishes to testify. Yeah, okay. So right now we have nobody online or in the room that wishes to testify, but we would welcome any test if anyone that would care to testify between now and the 23rd. Okay. So with that, let's move on to the next agenda item, which is a recommendation to the mayor and council, including adoption of a resolution to approve the draft town center master plan. Mr. Was it like we have a staff presentation on this one? Yes, Mr. Chair. We do. Once again, we have the conference planning team with manager Katie Gerbis and principal planner Megan flick to follow up on the discussion that you had at the at the prior meeting on the town center master plan. And without further ado, I will turn it over to Miss Gerbis. Let me just one moment here to pull up our slide deck. All right, there we go. We are back again, and our goal for the end of the night tonight here is to receive approval from you all as a body on a draft town center master plan that we can then transmit to the mayor and council and begin their formal review and approval process. So just as a reminder, a couple of slides here of what we've done so far. Our last meeting was two weeks ago on September the 11th. And at that meeting, you all as a body confirmed several changes that were incorporated into the draft plan presented that evening. Those changes, there were many of them, but kind of the biggest ones here are incorporating 400 North Washington Street as a focus area, eliminating parking minimums, and then adding in an adequate public facilities chapter, but also noting that we weren't planning on making any exemptions to the adequate public facilities ordinance in this plan. At that meeting, you all as a body proceeded to direct staff to make two specific changes so we'd like to present a couple of slides and talk about those changes and how we've responded to your feedback. So the first is relative to height limits. For the September 11th meeting we introduced this third character area which we're calling the transition that's in like the bright pinkish kind of color that's also outlined with the red dots. The draft that we brought to you on September 11th had proposed 100 feet of height in that transition character area based on feedback and discussion from you all on September 11th. The plan before you tonight has reduced that height to 75 feet. That is consistent with the height that's allowed in the edge character area. So everything along that western boundary of the planning area would be consistent at 75 feet of height. At that meeting we also shared with you kind of some conceptual images of what different heights would look like relative to the existing conditions we have in town center. So this is one of those images that we saw, the area that's outlined in orange. It's a little hard to see, but it's sort of over to the left of the page here. That would be that transition area and you can see how that fits in with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood. At our meeting last time, you also directed staff to make some changes to the bonus height program. So, this table shows what those changes are and what's reflected in the current draft before you this evening. So, in the core, we have our height limit at 200 feet with the option for a maximum 50 additional feet of height. As currently drafted, there would be up to 35 additional feet of height proposed for additional MPD use and up to 15 additional feet of height for additional green space. We're going to pin the green space. We have a slide to talk about that as well. In our transition area, we have that height limit of 75 feet also allowing a 50 foot bonus following that same kind of distribution as in the core character area. And then in our edge, we have a height limit of 75 feet with up to 25 additional feet of bonus height. And you can see the breakdown here, a 15 feet for MPD use, and then 10 feet for green space. Specific to green space, we also received direction from the commission to change the language and how we were defining what that green spaces that would qualify for this bonus height program. Knowing that what was in the draft presented on the 11th wasn't consistent with the spirit and intent about the commission wanted to see. So as a result, we've modified that you can see underlined here is how we've adapted that language. So we still say 5% or more open or public use space that are required by the zoning ordinance, but added in improved with climate resiliency features to green the area and address climate change impacts. That is something that we would like some feedback from you all as a commission on tonight to see if this meets your expectations or if we need to continue to tweak this section. Staff also have one additional proposed edit that we'd like to bring for your consideration tonight. This is a fairly minor edit to Action 3.1.1, which is within the Land Use chapter. This action is talking about establishing building design standards for town center. And based on the feedback that we've received at our September 11th meeting, both in person with folks who testified as well as emails. We'd like to add a phrase to this that talks about having these standards also address appropriate transitions to adjacent properties with the hope that that will sort of help calm some of the concerns of we don't necessarily want a 75-foot tall monolith of a building next to a property that's much smaller that might only be 15 or 20 feet in height. Maybe it's a single family home or once was a single family home and is now used for a different use but still has that size and scale. So staff are recommending that we also incorporate this edit into the Planning Commission draft. So in summary, staff's recommendations that we do go ahead and adopt a resolution approving this draft. If that resolution is passed by the body tonight, there's a process behind the scenes where chair we're going to have to get your signature on the document so we can formalize the transmittal of it and that will start the approval process before the mayor and council. The schedule for that has shifted a little bit because we added in an additional meeting before you all as a body. If we adopt here today and transmit this along, we're currently scheduled for a public hearing before the mayor and council on October 28th. It worked session before that body on December 9th and then adoption likely at the first meeting of January in 2025. That exact date is a little bit to be determined at this point in time. This timeline would keep us within the requirements that we have in the state land use article for the length of time that can elapse between the planning commission transmitting the plan and the mayor and council adopting it. So with that, that concludes staff's presentation and we'll turn it over to all of you. Thank you, Ms. Garbous. That was very informative. I have one question that's on the bonus height program. Sure. And forgive me for not remembering this in as much deal as I should. But I think we ended the last meeting with a determination that the bonus high program didn't need to be sequential. That it could be an either or thing that you could do MPD use or you could do the green space climate change impact space and they're independent of each other. So is that spelled out clearly in the recommendation? That is the intent of what is currently in there. We can go and look over it again to make sure that it is clear, that it is some combination thereof. Okay. Because when I was reading through what we have in the packet today, it didn't come out that clearly. Okay. We can definitely look into that. I'll open up the floor to anyone else. Anyone else have any thoughts or concerns questions? Commissioner? Right, I have a question related to the language of this. Maybe can you put to the language page? Yeah, so here I see like the languages 5% more open or public use space. So I recall like there is a requirement for the open space and within that there is a public use space in percentage. So that means that 5% can be either usable or non usable? As currently written yes. So that's kind of up to you all as a body, but yeah, as currently written you could choose 5% more of that public use or 5% more of that open space Depending on what the intent of the development as I know we've had a conversation here in the past of maybe something akin to an urban forest That might not be considered public use space depending on how it's developed so as currently written it could be either Okay, I'm covered I am too and I think that the clarification, I'm satisfied with that clarification that you added to it and I think it also leaves some flexibility if a developer chooses to go this route. I agree. I have a little hesitation about this sounds horrible coming out. Like focus on the climate resiliency versus the neighborhood placemaking that we talked about in the first meeting. But I think one to your point, Ms. Garbus, a couple of meetings ago that is probably financially incentivizing to do one versus the other and violates the intent of the program I get. And I think that this is probably a great outcome for what we were trying to do. So I'll just say to this body, and those who come beyond us, be on the lookout for those neighborhood playsmaking opportunities that may or may not be slipped in. And if no one else, Chair or Commissioner Espinoza, do you have more on this? Can we go to the transition language you added? No, I understand and appreciate this. The word appropriate is doing a lot of work in this sentence. And I just want to know process by which appropriate would be determined. I think the process would be the design guidelines, which is a process in and onto itself. Yeah, at this point I don't have a definition. As long as there's something further coming, yeah, that would more clearly spell that out. That's fine. And like many of the recommendations within this plan, there's gonna be separate projects and separate processes that happen to implement a whole suite of these items. So that's something we would definitely need to determine at that time. That's good, that's all. I think everything is wonderful that we got to this point. Just to answer the question regarding the language. If it's clear that it's a choice, I think initially we did have ore, but since we expanded, it's now a paragraph. I don't think we do have ore, so we can make that more clear before we take it to Mayor and Council. Thank you. I think that would be helpful. Thank you. Any other questions or thoughts or concerns, clarifications? From the council at all? In my case, once again we don't have anybody online still or in Chamber here that's looking to provide testimony. There, there was no one online. Okay. Perfect. In that case, I don't care to make a motion on this. I move that we transmit the plan to Marin Council as written. Are we all good with that? And we should also specify that the adoption of a resolution. So this is, we're meeting the state land use article requirements. And so technically what you're doing is approving the plan, approving the planning commission's draft plan, and you're doing it in this case by through the adoption of the resolution and attachments see, so that's at the end of your brief book. Okay. And commission commitment, if I can jump in, I would propose that that motion not be for as drafted, but to incorporate the two changes that we talked about, which is the transition area in 3.1.1, and then amending the language in the bonus height program. Okay. Okay. So I move that we adopt the resolution to approve the plan with the changes that the staff made. What else do I need in there, Mr. Dume? I think that should be fine. If you wanted to add, you know, an authorize the chair to certify the resolution that's fine, but I think that's kind of implicit in the motion. So I'll leave that to you. Okay. And we authorize the chair to approve the to sign the plan and transmit. Okay, a second. A second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, well, that passes. Thank you. I would just want to add one thing. I really appreciate the very robust conversation we've had about this over the last, however, lifetime. And also to this staff for your really hard work. And thank you for listening. I looked through, and you brought up some big things, but you really, Ms. Garb, there were little things in here that you went through and very thoughtfully edited and adapted, and I really appreciate that. Thank you for listening and facilitating such a great conversation with your colleagues up here on the day us. We appreciate you. Thank you. I appreciate it. I second that. And I appreciate all y'all. Thank you, Commissioner. I'll post out a little text in there for you. Thank you, Commissioner Pittman. I feel wholeheartedly the same way and I appreciate you bringing that up. Okay. I feel wholeheartedly the same way and I appreciate you bringing that up. Okay, so then with that we will move on to our administrative duties. Right, so first things up is the staff liaison report. Mr. Wasley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Looking ahead to your meetings in October. We have a number of things lining up for those. The next meeting will be October 9th and there are two site plans that are will be on the agenda. One is the site plan for the 5906 Halpine Road property, which you've seen the project plan and the floating zone map amendment, which has been approved by Marin Council. And then there's also a site plan for 850 Nelson Street, which is the Whirley Gardens Wind Center and School. So those will both be on your agenda next time. Following that on the 23rd of October, we're looking at the recommendation on the Conservation District Plan amendment and design guidelines ETA that you heard this evening. A review of the annexation plan for the Shady Grove Metro Station. And also the Level 2 site plan for the Rockshire Village Center. So that should be a relatively robust agenda. I did want to add that on the 9th, we'd like to have Holly Simmons, who is our new project manager for the zoning ordinance rewrite, come to talk to you about kind of where we are with that process. We are going to be having some outreach meetings beginning in October to provide some information to the public and property owners as we move further into the process. So I have more information to you on those coming up. And one thing I did want to note, there is another session that the Mayor Council or discussion that the Mayor Council are having this coming Monday and that is on the fast 2 process. This is a process that is kind of running in parallel with the zoning rewrite but really looking and focusing on the development review process in the city. And that is being managed by John Foreman or a development review manager, sorry, development services manager. And so we're looking forward some initial guidance and feedback from the council at this point. And if you're interested, I would encourage you to tune in on that session. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions, but that concludes my report. So for my fellow commissioners on October 9th, I'm performing reserve duty at a town. I don't know if I'll be able to join the O'WebEx until the last minute. I'm bringing it up for quorum purposes to make sure there will at least be four other people here. Anyone else plan to be out? All right, I think we're good. Yeah, I mean, what's like, what is the mayor meeting talking about the last two process? That is Monday, September 30th. This is coming Monday. Oh, okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. I was like for this actually is a report without coming to old business. Anyone have any old businesses that I talk about? All right. On new business I do have one thing and that is on October 7th. The mayor and council are going to proclaim October 2024 as National Community Planning Month. And we'd like to provide, we'd like to present the commission with a commendation, which I will be unable, a proclamation of sorts. And so I'm going to be unable to attend that meeting. I'll be out of town. Can I get one of the commissioners, one of the other commissioners to agree to attend that meeting to receive that proclamation? October 7th, and I believe it's at 5.30. Yeah, I believe it's at 5.30 pm. You can do it. Unless somebody else is dying to do it. No, thank you. Okay, perfect. Thank you Commissioner Pitman. So Commissioner Pitman will then if you could let Miss Schnap know that Commissioner Pitman won't be in attendance. Yeah I'm right here I'm online so yeah as long as I know that I will let the clerk stop this note tomorrow and I'll make sure that they know Susan that you are going to attend but like Cheyenne said it is starting earlier apparently the new schedule is that the first meeting of every month that has proclamations is start with proclamations and it starts at 5.30. Okay that's no problem. And I'll copy you on that email. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah. Perfect. We have no minutes to approve this week. So we can move straight on to correspondence. I don't think I received anything this week in terms of correspondence. Did we have anything you need to highlight? No, there was nothing received All right, perfect That gets us through our agenda folks so Anyone make a motion to adjourn. I'll make the motion to adjourn I'll second all right all those in favor say aye Any opposed perfect., thank you. Good night, Rockville. you