Selectboard 7/6/26

Printable version

Selectboard Minutes 07-06-26 255 KB

Web version

Town of Richmond 
Selectboard Meeting
Minutes of July 6, 2026

Members Present: 
Caitlin Filkins, Bard Hill, Greg Rabideau, David Sander, Adam Wood

 

Absent: None

Staff Present:  Josh Arneson, Town Manager; Duncan Wardwell, Deputy Town Manager; Keith Oborne, Town Planner

Others Present: Recorded by MMCTV Erin Wagg, Alice Prince, Amy Demetrowitz, Andres Torizzo, Brett Chornyak, Caitlin Littlefield, Cara LaBounty, Chelsye Brooks, Connie van Eeghen, Danny Peet, Dave Marshall, Doug Thompson, Ed Wells, Fran Thomas, Frank Johnson, Franklin, Kyle M, Leslie Johnson, LiLing Young, Logan Brown, , Luther Kinney, Mark Hubbard, Mary Harrison, Mary Houle, Matt L, Matt Leonetti, Nancy Carlson, Nicholas Ponzio, Nick Neverisky, Noa, Paige Kaleita, Pete O'Neil, Rachel Jolly, Stephen Eichenberger, Steven Forman, Susan Wells, Tom Walters, Trevor Brooks

MMCTV Video: https://youtu.be/iFG5EwpDs9A?si=xsZ9_I1RJ740kb1r 

Call to Order: 7:05 PM

 

Welcome by:  Wood

 

Public Comment:

Houle thanked the volunteers on the Fourth of July Committee and the sponsors.  Sander stated that if anyone wants to help, help is needed.

Thomas stated that people are not following the rules playing Pickleball which is in a neighborhood.  Arneson stated that he will see if it makes sense to have a stop sign at the parking lot entrance/exit.


Additions, Deletions or Modifications to Agenda:  Arneson stated that the Housing Committee is not able to provide an update until next Selectboard meeting.


Items for Presentation or Discussion with those present


Consideration of using $966.08 from the Special Projects Reserve Fund to purchase a bike rack for Browns Ct.
Timestamp:  0:04
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3a1_Rolling_Rack_-_bike_rack.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3a2_2025.12.07_Browns_Court_11x17__3_.pdf

Thomas reviewed that the bike rack was in the plan for Browns Ct.  Thomas summarized the request for the bike rack and the need for a cement pad. Arneson stated that Highway might have a couple of extra sidewalk squares that can be used.  Arneson illustrated the 7-spot bike rack.

Hill moved to approve the use of $966.08 from the Special Projects Reserve Fund to purchase a bike rack for Browns Court. This will come from the funds earmarked for improvements to Town parks. Rabideau seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.


Update on changes to the Community Justice Center and search for volunteers to join the Community Justice Center Board
Timestamp:  0:08
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3b1_June_2026_Memo_to_Municipalities_re_Transitionv3.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3b2_Community_Justice_Center_seeking_volunteers.pdf

Jolly, the director of the Chittenden County Community Justice Center, provided an overview of the Community and Restorative Justice Centers across the State and the information provided in the packet. Jolly stated their attempt to involve community members as much as possible, both in volunteering in the restorative processes, as well as the advisory board.  Jolly summarized that the Attorney General’s Office conducted a recidivism study a few years ago, that found that the restorative process is about four times less than traditional recidivism.  Arneson stated that he can post an update on Front Porch Forum.


Consideration of approving a Priority Agreement for the Vermont Community Development Program (VCDP) loan, which is requested due to the Champlain Housing Trust refinancing the primary mortgage for the apartments on Borden St. with Mascoma Bank
Timestamp:  0:19
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3c1_Champlain_Housing_Trust_Priority_Agreement_request.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3c2_2026-06-___Fourth_Amendment_to_Second_A_R_Priority_Agr_-_Richmond.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3c3_VCDP_Mortgage_0071__RICHMOND_VILLAGE.PDF

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3c4_CHT_x9005_third_amendment_priority_richmond.PDF

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3c5_Richmond_HLP_Month_Ending_May_2026.pdf

Demetrowitz, from the Champlain Housing Trust, summarized the history of the 16 affordable apartments that it owns and manages on Borden St. They have had a primary loan on the property, with TD Bank since 2021.  That loan has become due, and they want to refinance through Mascoma bank which provided a better rate. Demetrowitz reviewed that affordable housing finance is very complicated and dense.  There's a private lender who has a loan on the on the project, and then behind that loan are all of these affordable housing sources.  Kinney, from the Champlain Housing Trust, stated that the overall indebtedness of the property over time pretty much stays the same.  The grant debt funding sources stay constant over the lifetime of the property.  The strategy with these properties is to use a pool of money to keep up with the capital repairs which get paid down every 10-15 years.  They are simply rolling over the existing balance. Demetrowitz stated that the outstanding lien on the property will be exactly the same after the refinance as they have been since 2021.  

Thomas stated that she was on the Selectboard when this project came to fruition and went to the State to get the grant.  Thomas thought the Town would be paid back the $300,000 which could then be loaned to other projects that could use that money.  Demetrowitz stated that back in the day, they thought the projects could be able to pay that loan back but that has not been the case.  The Vermont Community Development Program (VCDP) staff at the State administer the program and have asked them to go town by town to request a dismissal of the loans.  The primary goal is to keep housing affordable.  If they paid off the $300,000, that would increase the rent to the current tenants.  Sander summarized that before he was on the Selectboard there was a 15-year deferment in interest with everything being paid after 15 years.  When he came on the Selectboard 15 years ago, the Selectboard was asked for another 15-year deferment which would be paid with interest. Wood stated that his understanding is the funds would be constrained to affordable housing development.  Demetrowitz stated that someone from the VCDP could help answer the questions of how the Town could use the $300,000 if it were paid back.  Wood stated that the Housing Committee would understand the nuances of that request and the Town's options going forward.  

LaBounty stated that when the parcel was sold for the development to occur, it was the understood that the community would get affordable housing and would benefit down the road.  This project was supposed to pay for itself by the fees they were collecting.  Affordable housing should not be built if it cannot be maintained.  If they are getting a better interest rate for the next three years, they should start paying back the difference in the interest rate.  Affordable housing for the community also means don't tax out the people who are here.  Houle observed that it is a lot of money paying interest on $300,000 for 27 years and she wants the Town lawyer to make sure they don’t lose standing.  Rabideau stated that it is perplexing that after 27 years of mortgage payments that they're not close to retiring the debt on this project.  They have a fiduciary responsibility to the Town to at least dig in on this a little more. 

Demetrowitz stated that the property is perpetually affordable and the other funding sources require that the property will always be affordable rental housing.  Kinney stated that the last piece of the approval process for them to close with Mascoma is the signing of this priority agreement with Richmond.  The deadline to close with Mascoma is July 19. All of the issues that have been raised tonight, can be discussed thoroughly because it doesn't change the term of the original note with Richmond.  Kinney confirmed that the total loan with TD Bank is $638,000, which includes two other Champlain Housing Trust properties and two other municipalities.  The balance that's attributable to the Richmond property is $286,000.  Demetrowitz confirmed that the three properties will be impacted if they are not able to close on the refinancing.  Kinney estimated that the savings with the refinance would be ~$4,000 per year for the entire loan but he will email that information once he double checks it.  

Hill suggested modifying the motion to include language about the expectation that the Town would get the $300,000 plus interest with discussions ASAP about the payback that would occur by March 2029.

Kinney confirmed that the closing costs associated with the loan are going to be paid by the properties’ operating accounts involved by the loan.  Kinney summarized that they have to refinance the loan regardless, because it's a five-year term.  If they stayed with TD or went with Mascoma, they would still be renewing a new mortgage for the primary debt service.  

 

Filkins moved to approve the Priority Agreement for the Vermont Community Development Program (VCDP) loan, which is requested due to the Champlain Housing Trust refinancing the primary mortgage for the apartments on Borden St. with Mascoma Bank, and to name Town Manager Josh Arneson as the duly authorized representative to sign the agreement on behalf of the Town. This approval is granted without waiver of any of the Town's existing rights and remedies under the VCDP loan and mortgage, and with the clear expectation that the Town of Richmond will be repaid the Town's investment and interest, and that discussions between the Town and Champlain Housing Trust to achieve this will be initiated by September 30, 2026.  Sander seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.


Discussion with the Housing Committee - TABLED


Consideration of approving the 3-9050 3 acre permit documents for the Notice of Intent for Southview for submittal to the State Department of Environmental Conservation
Timestamp:  1:08
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3e1_Southview_EFA__6-26-26_.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3e3_Southview_Cost_Estimate__6-25-26_.pdf

Filkins recused herself as a resident of Southview.

Torizzo, of Watershed Consulting, provided an overview of how he has been engaged by the Town to prepare a Notice of Intent.  Torizzo stated that the State changed their interpretation of one of the standards, specific to these orphan permits.  The so-called 10% language says that if designers feel comfortable with the flows and the soils and can confidently say that the things are occurring on the site are close enough to the rule without specifically having to discreetly lay out all the practices.  They don't need to identify anything specifically outside of the Right-of-Way that is going to be highlighted within the permit. The only things within the permitted treatment practices are two underground chamber systems (originally there were four) which basically utilize other areas of the site where natural treatment is occurring.  Torizzo stated that a professional estimator estimated that the two-chamber system would cost ~$358,000.  The two they are left with are the two most complicated ones.  Torizzo stated that they are ready to submit to the State and the Town has already paid the application fee.  

Marshall, from Civil Engineering Associates, summarized that they demonstrated how the intent is being met without having to get into fine detail which would create encumbrances on individual property owners. 

Eichenberger stated that the actual schematics were missing some important infrastructure items.  It includes an 18-inch pipe that comes underneath our driveway but does not include a 24-inch pipe that runs down our property and takes the large amount of water that flows off Joan Avenue.  Torizzo confirmed that the chamber is very large and planning for a full collection area, but he would double check and field verify to make sure the area is correct.  Eichenberger stated that they should not approve a plan that does not contain all the current infrastructure.  Marshall stated that neighborhood area does come through that 24-inch pipe included as part of what is called a contributory watershed area.  What's not shown is how those drops of water are conveyed to this particular chamber.  It is not depicted on the plan that's on screen, but shown on one of the planning documents that is used to model how much water comes off.  Carlson stated that there are two additional 4-inch pipes that run into that lower culvert.  There is an upper catch basin that has not been included as well.  Carlson has spent hundreds of 1000s of dollars creating this system to avoid having a lake at the bottom of the front lawn and doesn't want that to be compromised.  Torizzo confirmed that the design hasn't manipulated the drainage area at all, so there's no diversion of additional water to that point.  Marshall stated that they're not changing anything about how the drops of water are moved to that particular central point.  They are tapping off that first inch of runoff, so that it can be treated before it gets into the stream, because that's where most of the contaminants are from.  Marshall stated that the map is hard to interpret, but Chamber A, is the one that we're talking about, and they can research it further and get that on the plan. Torizzo confirmed that the plan needs to be accepted by the middle of August to get the grant money. Torizzo stated that they will coordinate to look at the pipes on their land.  Torizzo stated that he will have to confirm the survey timeline.  

Torizzo confirmed that the State has accepted modeling tools which is the standard accepted practice, but every single rainfall is going to be different.  It is more of a treatment study and not managing stream flows but wanting them to pass through the system.  Torizzo illustrated how the western side of the site is much different where a culvert and a really low area where water collects.  There is wetland type vegetation, the water is absorbing into the ground and not getting the same capacity as on the other side. Torizzo stated that there is split between private and public impervious surfaces which would be a discussion with the Town in regard to who pays.  Wood clarified that there will be no encumbrances on individual properties, but there will be on the Town owned property where the chambers are located. Marshall confirmed that the State has morphed their policy in a way that allows for a more generic review of the properties.  Marshall stated that these permits issued by the State are good for five years, and then an engineer has to recertify that everything that was included in the original permit is all operating appropriately.  If property owners add more impervious area, then it changes the ability of the systems to manage those drops of water, and somebody's got to figure out how to mitigate that.
 
Hill moved to approve the 3-9050 3 acre permit documents for the Notice of Intent for Southview for submittal to the State Department of Environmental Conservation as amended by further refinement prior to submission.  Rabideau seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Filkins recused.  Motion approved.


Discussion of a request to develop a Town owned strip of land off of Mary Dr. to rural road standards, including review of road maintenance agreement, and consideration of request to convey the strip of land to one of the two people who have made an offer on the strip of land
Timestamp:  1:45
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3f1_Lot_K_Transfer.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3f2_Roadway_Maintenance_Agreement_clean_5_28_2026__3___4___1_.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3f3_SH.2_-_PLAN___PROFILE.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3f4_JORDAN_TO_RICHMOND_ROW_MARY_DR.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3f5_memo_Greg_Rabideau_to_Selectboard_re_-_Mary_Dr..pdf

Wood summarized that this is a continued agenda item.  Peet is one of the people who has proposed purchasing the land.  The Selectboard has mulled over how to establish the value of the land as there is inherent value with the possible access.  Rabideau reviewed that the proposal is to improve that private driveway up to rural road standards, as far as the first house, after which the two remaining houses, plus one additional house, would be served by a private driveway.  While building it to the Town road standards, it allows Peet to add an additional residence. If the Town doesn't want to own a private right of way, then Lot K could be sold to Peet.  At the last meeting, LaBounty made a verbal offer of $10,000. A contract with terms and consideration would be required.  Consideration can be cash, something of equivalent value, a promise to do something in the future, or a promise to not do something you might otherwise have the right to do.  Peet has proposed an upgrade of about 350 feet of private driveway to road standards, to provide ongoing maintenance, to preserve the rights of the existing three homeowners who currently use the driveway, and to create a new house lot to be sold in Richmond.  Peet stated that he doesn’t have any cost estimates for the road and driveway improvements.  Rabideau estimated at least $100/ft for 350 ft would be $35,000.  If the Town maintained the road, Rabideau estimated that it would be $4,000/yr.  Rabideau estimated the property tax payment of a median house in Richmond as $10,000/yr. Rabideau stated that it is not good policy for the Town to turn this kind of transaction into a bidding war.  Rabideau does not envision another use for Lot K that preserves the rights of the people currently using that driveway. There's no room for another house. There's no room for other development and it wouldn't access any other lands.  Arneson confirmed that if they do not turn over Lot K then there would be no access to Lot 12 unless the Town developed and maintained the rural road.  A few years ago, the Selectboard thought the cleanest way would be to convey Lot K to Peet, so he owns it and takes care of it in conjunction with current property owners.  

Houle stated that Lot K belonged to the Jordan Building Company who gave it to the Town.  Peet stated that Mary Dr and Lot K were deeded to the Town at the same time. Arneson confirmed the Lister’s information that a number of things would increase the value of Lot 12 depending on assets, permits, or other things in place.  Houle wanted to know the current assessed value of Lot 12.  

Brooks stated that a decision cannot be made tonight in good faith until the Selectboard understands the answers to the improvement on Lot 12.  Brooks stated that Mary Dr is currently under a stormwater permit and the Town is the current permittee with a reported impervious surface of ~2.5 acres so it could be dangerously close to a 3-acre site with improvements being suggested on Lot K.  Brooks stated that the plan for the improvement to rural road standards shows the 10% grade for a rural road but for full compliance that will grade away from Mary Drive for ~20 ft, a 3% grade away.  Brooks summarized how it is going to cut into that hillside significantly. Peet stated that the stormwater has been figured out and he has met with the neighbors to understand the situation. Wood stated that Peet would need to show that works on Lot 12 and K.  Peet stated that they must go through Act 250, so they need to provide all that detail.  Rabideau stated that the ultimate proof is the issuance of a stormwater discharge permit from the State of Vermont.  Arneson suggested reviewing the plans to look at how much improved use would increase the 3-acre stormwater requirements.  Peet confirmed that he had those emails.  Wood stated that Oborne and staff would be the plan review experts so they would want a report from them.

LaBounty stated that her offer was a legitimate offer for a reason. This is a Town asset that should not be given away. LaBounty stated that she is revoking her offer and coming with a legitimate offer with a lawyer writing it, so the Selectboard takes it seriously.  LaBounty stated that she represents some of the Richmond taxpayers who want to keep Richmond affordable.

Filkins summarized how putting up the property to sell is a very different story than transferring the property. There are open questions that need to come up on this topic.  


Consideration of replacing one or more of the speed humps on Cochran Rd. with speed tables and consideration of adding advisory speed signs for the speed humps on Cochran Rd
Timestamp:  2:32
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3g_Burlington_Speed_Tables_design.pdf

Arneson summarized a cost estimate of about $1,500-$2,000 in material cost if Highway installed the speed tables but they would not be able to do it this summer.  The Town would need a contractor estimate to pursue it sooner.  Hill stated that the speed advisory sign spots on existing speed humps is simple.  

Filkins summarized that replacing speed humps with speed tables allows vehicles to pass over them at the posted speed limit and does not cause damage.  LaBounty stated she requested the speed tables as the speed humps were a pilot project, and they have no data showing how many tickets or data presented. Littlefield stated there are other dangerous intersections that are of higher priority and they should not spend any time or resources replacing these highly effective speed humps with speed tables. Littlefield summarized that driver convenience should not be put over community safety.  Littlefield stated that most of the folks on either end of Cochran Rd have kids, pets, pedestrians, runners, bikers through Cochran Rd before dawn till after dusk who support those speed humps.  Wells stated that there is National Highway Federal Highway Association data that a speed table allows cars to go 30 MPH.  A speed hump is meant to slow people down below the 25 MPH speed limit, and that's exactly what they do.  Wells stated that if people are having a problem with their cars, it's because they're going over the speed humps too fast.  Neverisky stated that the speed humps are fine as they are and the extra time worth modifying them is not worth it compared to the safety and Town resources.  Young appreciated the addition of signage recommending a slower speed as people hit the speed humps not knowing the appropriate speed.  Kyle M stated that the speed humps are working and if it's inconvenient to drive a residential road then go drive Rt 2 at a convenient 50 MPH. Brooks stated that she has to slow down to 16 MPH otherwise people in the third row of an SUV complain that their head hits the roof.  
  
Sander moved to add speed advisory signs to the speed humps on Cochran Rd. with an advisory speed of 15mph.  Filkins seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.


Consideration of setting the FY27 tax rate
Timestamp:  2:54
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3h_FY27_Tax_Rate.pdf

Arneson summarized the total amount of money that needs to be raised from taxes and the Grand List Value changes which results in a tax rate of $0.5799.  That is a 6.46% increase from last year’s rate.

Filkins moved to set the FY27 tax rate at $0.5799.  Hill seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.


Update on deteriorating condition of concrete blocking on east wall of Town Center along Post Office ramp and discussion of issuing a request for proposals for repairs
Timestamp:  3:01
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3i_Post_Office_Concrete_Block_Work_summary.pdf

Arneson summarized the condition of the ramp and foundation and crawl space underneath the Post Office lobby.  Hill suggested replacing it with something like granite or concrete.  Arneson confirmed that the $50,000 estimate does not include removing and resetting the ramp.  Arneson suggested a formal RFP for this project.  


Consideration of using $9,744.91 from the Town Center Reserve Fund to change the hydraulic oil in the Town Center Elevator
Timestamp:  3:10
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3j1_QTE-002443061-Otis_T-Order_Proposal__EN___1_.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3j2_email_on_cost_with_details.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3j3_2026_Standard_BIlling_Rates.pdf

Arneson summarized the contractor expenses for the Town Center elevator.

Sander moved to approve the use of $9,744.91 from the Town Center and Library Reserve Fund to change the hydraulic oil in the Town Center elevator.  Rabideau seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.


Consideration of approval of liquor license and outdoor consumption permits for The Big Spruce and Vermont Fine
Timestamp:  3:12
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3k1_Big_Spruce_-_First_Class_License_Application.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3k2_Big_Spruce_-_Outside_Consumption_Permit.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3k3_Vermont_Fine_-_First_Class_License_Application.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3k4_Vermont_Fine_-_Outside_Consumption_Permit_Application.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/06/3k5_Vermont_Fine_-_Third_Class_License_Application.pdf

Sander moved to approve a first class liquor license and an outside consumption permit for The Big Spruce. Filkins seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.

Sander moved to approve first and third class liquor licenses and an outside consumption permit for Vermont Fine. Filkins seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.


Approval of Minutes, Purchase Orders, and Warrants
Timestamp: 3:13

Minutes:

Sander moved to approve the minutes of June 15, 2026.  Filkins seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.

Sander moved to approve the minutes of June 29, 2026. Rabideau seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Hill, Rabideau, Sander in favor.  Filkins and Wood abstain.  Motion approved.

Purchase Orders: None

Warrants:

Hill moved to approve the warrants as presented. Sander seconded.  
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.


Executive Session - Evaluation of an employee
Timestamp: 3:16

Hill moved to find that premature public knowledge about the evaluation of an employee would cause the Town or person to suffer a substantial disadvantage. Sander seconded
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.

Hill moved that we enter into executive session to discuss the evaluation of an employee under the provisions of 1 VSA 313(a)(3) of the Vermont Statutes and to invite Town Manager Josh Arneson into the executive session.  Sander seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.

Sander moved to exit executive session. Filkins seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.


Adjourn

Sander moved to adjourn. Hill seconded. 
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Sander, Wood in favor.  Motion approved.

Meeting adjourned at:  10:32 PM


Chat file from Zoom:  
00:51:04          Trevor Brooks:            The town is in the second position?
2:25:14            Keith O.:         I apologize for my technical difficulties!  I can hear but not respond.
02:27:10          Keith O.:         The current permit will need to be revised regardless.
02:42:21          Kyle M.:          What damage has been caused?
03:21:25          Trevor Brooks:            Thanks. Night.