Standish Appeals Board Grants Special Exception for Water District Chemical Storage Building

[5:16] Chair (presiding officer): All right, folks, we're gonna get started. So welcome to the September 21st, 2026 meeting of the standards zoning board of appeals. This meeting will not come to order. This is a public proceeding. Unless the board specifically votes to go into executive session, you have the right to hear everything that is being said, and to look at all the exhibits that are being offered. Please notify the chairs person myself. If you are unable to see or hear, or need some type of an accommodation, the board works from a prepared agenda will be considering tonight's items in the following order under old business. We have nothing under new business. We have an application for a special exception. The applicant is the Portland water district. The location is on map. 1825 addresses to white rock road. Applicant is seeking to build a 6400 square foot storage facility within the property of the existing water treatment plant. This area is considered part of the rural residential zone for the special exception request. The applicant will be asked to proceed 1st, and then be available to answer questions from the board after the applicant has spoken all other interested parties may make their presentations and then be questioned by the board. This is considered the public session after all interested parties have spoken. Each side will be given an opportunity for a brief rebuttal if required. And once the public comment session is closed, the board will deliberate decide the matter. This meeting is being recorded and it is very difficult sometimes to hear what is being said, especially when multiple people speak at the same time, or do not speak into the microphone at the podium. So please refrain from interrupting other speakers. Questions should be addressed to the chairperson. We ask that each person offering testimony come forward to the podium tonight, give their name and address or where they're from. As a reminder, the burden is upon the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the applicable ordinance or ordinances the applicant must demonstrate the proposed seeking use approval meets each of the defined 7 criteria for special exceptions. For a special exception application, the Board acts by majority of the five-member Board. For a special exception to be granted, you will require at least three members voting in favor of each of the seven criteria. A tie vote on any of the seven criteria is insufficient to grant a special exception. We typically have five Board members. There are four present tonight. We'll need at least 3 of us of the 4 to vote in favor of each of the 7 criteria. I always ask if you prefer to wait for a full member board, you can postpone, or you can ask for a stay and we can reschedule it. If you feel that would be more to your advantage, or a preference you don't need to, but I just offer that up if you don't. Let's just proceed. I,, I, don't I can't answer that question. I just can tell you that you're going to need at least 3 members of the 5 to vote in favor. We have 4 present tonight. [8:33] Board member: Just last question. Sure. If they get part way through the 7 items that we have to vote on, and they realize that might be prudent to reconsider this, could they ask midway through our voting for an opportunity to come back at a later date? [8:48] Chair (presiding officer): We could ask and we can make a motion. [8:52] Board member: Did you understand what I just asked? I do. I did very much. Okay. Yeah. Does that answer your question? Very much? So thank you. So, let's proceed and okay. Good. Good. So, yeah, let's run with it. Thank you. Until the ship starts sinking, start going on your decision on an application or repeal. [9:11] Chair (presiding officer): The board will prepare a written decision indicating its findings of fact conclusions of law that will be made available to the applicant within seven days of the board's vote if your application or appeal is granted you must obtain a billing permit from the code enforcement officer and if anyone wishes to appeal the board's decision you must do so to superior court within 45 days any questions all right as a matter of housekeeping i do have to ask anybody serving on the board that's here Tonight have a potential conflict of interest or a bias with regard to the applicant the portal portland water district no hold on [9:51] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): I have a minor thing I worked for the Portland Water District three for three summers running the security boat on Sebago but I don't think that should they shouldn't influence me okay thank [10:05] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you for that disclosure. I don't believe that would serve as a conflict, but I would be entertaining anybody else's thoughts. No, I do not see those conflicted folks. Good. All right. So we're going to proceed. So, what I want to do is have the applicant, whoever's representing the applicants and I come to the podium and please address the board and give us sort of an overview what your proposal is, what you're requesting and why you believe a special exception should be granted this evening. [10:38] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): How are we doing this evening? My name is Scott Bickford. I'm the Chief Plant Operator of 2 White Rock Road, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility. We're here tonight to propose a new chemical storage building at the plant. The maps you had before you show the location. It's tucked away in the back of the plant next to what is currently the clear wells. This is for the future of the Portland Water District and the ability to be able to change out chemical storage tanks when they reach their life expectancy. This building will allow for future expansion and the ability to access chemical storage tanks when needed. The special exception I guess we're asking for tonight is because of the location on the property and it's not really embarking on any new territories or asking for anything exceptional for land or approaching on anybody else's land I think that's pretty much what I am here to present this chemical storage facility that you see located on the map and I'd like to field any questions Maybe, yeah, great. [11:54] Chair (presiding officer): Thanks, Scott. Anybody else want to add anything before? Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And I'm the project engineer come before the podium state your name and where you're from. [12:04] Tamara, project engineer (applicant's representative): Please Tamara. I'm a project engineer working with Scott and also with Mike Leonard from PC construction on this project and we're not proposing to change. Change anything that we do, we're just proposing to move and upgrade our existing chemical storage facility. Scott mentioned the tanks that we have are up to their, anticipated lifespan. And they need to be swapped out. Unfortunately, we've been there for a while and tanks have gotten kind of built in. So it's very difficult and expensive to operate the plant and change the tanks out. This new design will be a safer design, and it'll be built to support operations and support easy change out of chemical storage tanks in the future. So, we're not changing anything that we do. We're just making it better and safer and more supportive of our operations team. So, and it's special exception because we're in rural residential. Right? Right. [13:12] Chair (presiding officer): Okay. I'll entertain you guys want to just sort of hang. Sure. We can hang and just go through the 7 questions. We'll just start with some general questions, I think, from the board and then we'll field some of those. And then if there's anybody here tonight, based on those questions and answers that would like to speak, I'll give them an opportunity to start. [13:38] Board member: Yes. Yes. Okay. So you currently treat with aqueous ammonia. Correct. So there's no, there's no change in the current process that you're using at your facility. [13:48] Tamara, project engineer (applicant's representative): Well, what we're studying is converting from aqueous to liquid ammonium sulfate. And I think we mentioned that in here. And I'm going to ask you another question about that in a minute. It's a safer alternative. Do you know about it? I know, but I'm going to ask you some questions. Absolutely. Okay. [14:03] Board member: But so, where are the aqueous ammonia tanks currently located? You currently have a quiz ammonia storage somewhere. Yeah, we have we have it inside the chemical storage area. Okay. Which building Scott can help. It's behind. Okay. So it's actually in this. Okay, so it's ready to study. Okay. Okay. Gotcha. Oh, yeah, it would be kind of a challenge. You got a couple through there. [14:34] Tamara, project engineer (applicant's representative): It would be a challenge. [14:39] Board member: I'll get you right here. Currently, or maybe it's an old photo, but there are tanks located. Correct. What are those tanks for? [14:46] Chair (presiding officer): Oxygen tanks for the ozone. Yes, those are oxygen for the ozone. Sorry, but you have to step back because folks that are listening are going to have a challenging time. Okay. Sorry. Come up there. [14:58] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): So, we take in a liquid oxygen supply to provide oxygen generators, which is our primary disinfectant for water. Okay. So those tanks are liquid oxygen storage. Okay. [15:08] Board member: So, I'm talking about the tanks at the immediate front of the disinfection building, which is built in 1994, because it appeared from what I'm seeing. Is it do those tanks have to be relocated for the ingress? [15:21] Chair (presiding officer): No, those are in the front of the plant towards Chad. Okay, good. And just so I'm clear, and I think that go a little bit of what Steve's asking, you're basically going to replace the existing waste or chemical holding storage, right? Right. So, and the chemicals, especially the one that he just mentioned, you've always, you've always been managing these type of chemicals, especially aqueous ammonia, right? It's always been part of the treatment of the facility or the water or whatever. [Scott Bickford: Since 1994, yes.] Right. Okay. Since 1994. Has the volume increased with the use of any of the standard chemical that you guys treat? [16:11] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): We have the same storage tanks that we had in 1994. Okay, but are you using has the volume of chemicals increased through the years? Yes, the demand for water is increased. So chemical usage has increased. How substantial has that gone up? You know, I wouldn't say it's more than probably 5 to 6% over. I mean, I guess, depending on the span you're talking about, if you're talking 30 years, 35 years, maybe an 8% increase. [16:42] Board member: okay so insignificant increasing yeah okay now i have another question but i want to make sure i'm not gonna go ahead okay you are i'm assuming that from what i read you're envisioning a conversion from aqueous ammonia to last in the near future okay so you are currently unable able to so part of your plan is to accommodate the change over to last yes we'd like to do that and you might want to say what las is and why you're doing that and sure liquid ammonium might [17:15] Tamara, project engineer (applicant's representative): be a safer material, for instance. Sky, if you want, it's liquid ammonium sulfate. It's much safer than aqueous ammonia. So right now we have an aqueous ammonia tank that we've had since we started up, but it's it's a smallish tank. We're building for the future, so we don't want to make any additional volume of aqueous ammonia. And honestly, we'd like to convert. A lot of other water districts have. So it's a safer chemical than the aqueous ammonia, and it's much more [17:47] Chair (presiding officer): conducive to, if you're, you know, to for the future use. Does it have its own tank specific to it? Okay, yes. And will you be with the new storage facility? Will you be? Will you be replacing that tank or keeping the existing 1? I'll be all new tanks, all new tanks, every tank, every type of. [18:11] Tamara, project engineer (applicant's representative): And the plan is to convert to the at that time, and that's a really good question, because part of the strategy and the analysis for building a new facility was that. That if you try and Scott can speak to it, operate and swap tanks out in the existing space, it's very, challenging and very difficult. And just really getting your head around that. What we can do is we can build a new storage facility, put in all new tanks, put all the controls in and have it ready to go, turn that on and then decommission the old one. [18:51] Board member: Now, that kind of comes. Oh, go ahead. And if you have more to share, I'm all ears. So as I understand it volumetrically, the amount of LAS that would be required volumetrically is significantly greater than the volume of aqueous ammonia. Is that correct? [19:10] Tamara, project engineer (applicant's representative): That's correct. We're working with the University of New Hampshire. They're doing pilot testing to help us figure out exactly how that difference will change because it does depend on the water chemistry. But you're correct. [19:22] Board member: Okay so the reason I'm asking that is one of the questions refers specifically to traffic increase and if I don't know how many trucks how many truck what does the aqueous ammonia truck look like is it is a big 18-wheeler or is like little small truck that nobody knows? Tank a truck 18 wheelers. Okay and so and [19:40] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): do you see that how frequently? Ammonia it depends on the season summertime obviously is a little more frequent than weekly, monthly. Ammonia is probably once [19:51] Board member: Once every 3 weeks. Okay. So I just want to, I'm trying to establish that you have for all intents and purposes, insignificant traffic due to the chemicals being delivered. There shouldn't be any increase in traffic and the size tank that you're sizing right now. For the 6,000 gallons, so maybe it's a little over 5,000. It's what I'm getting at is probably a double or triple the amount of vehicle traffic in to drop off last versus. [20:17] Tamara, project engineer (applicant's representative): No, 1 of the problems we have now is that our vendor is we have to take a minimum delivery. They would rather have a full tank and they come in delivery. And so yeah. And Scott, yeah, we're undersized right now for our equally as ammonia tank. [20:34] Board member: So, we have to take more frequent deliveries because we can only take 18,000 gallons at a time. Okay. So, if anything, it would decrease the number of even though volume metrically last by volume. you might need two or three times more yeah we'll use more i'm not sure it's two to three i don't know that's why i'm asking the question estimates of ten percent but okay i don't [20:56] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): expect any more frequent deliveries we have more storage so i would expect it to wash out to less [21:02] Board member: less deliveries actually okay but because we're not talking about a guy going from one truck a day of ammonia to five trucks a day of laughs so that's what i'm trying to get at yes wouldn't expect it's not a traffic issue I wouldn't expect it okay that's what I want that's what I want to know and that's what you told me thank you for [21:20] Chair (presiding officer): Answering my questions, there's sidewalks over there, sidewalks inside the plan on [21:26] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): the outside, on the other side during the plant, not in front of the plant, on the other side where the resource center is, some short sidewalks, but there is very [21:37] Board member: extensive trail system inland slightly, and there were parking lots provided there for that purpose. [Speaker E (unidentified): It was] very challenging to get into your facility to take a look around, yeah. [21:54] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): Oh, anytime you'd like to come by, certainly show you around and give you a tour. [22:00] Board member: I'll grab your card before you go. [22:03] Chair (presiding officer): When this was first, when the special exception for Or a storage facility was granted 1994, and this is, I don't know if this, if JP has an answer this 1, but was there any special conditions applied when that was granted back then for this, for the facility? [22:21] Speaker E (unidentified): I don't believe nothing. Okay. Nothing out of the ordinary for fine facts. [22:27] Board member: You had to add the ozone generation facility specifically to meet EPA requirements at the time, because otherwise Portland City water was considered clean enough for anybody? [22:39] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): Yeah, we went with that. We didn't have to go with ozone. They decided to because we could use hypochlorite as our primary, but studies of long-term health issues and whatnot show that ozone would be more efficient without introducing any other long-term issues for drinking water. If that answers your question, we weren't required to do ozone. [23:02] Board member: I kind of had heard a rumor about that, yes. Anybody drinking pore-loaded water should be very happy without drinking any other city. [23:13] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): We're very lucky to have the source of Sabega Lake. [23:18] Chair (presiding officer): You mentioned, or I read somewhere or something about the most significant hazard is the vapor release for the ammonia. [23:26] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): Aqueous ammonia, that's true. [23:28] Chair (presiding officer): Is that at the exchange of when they're pumping it out of the tanks? [23:32] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): Everything is enclosed when we offload. It's if anything was opened up or a hose leak or a break or something uncontrolled would happen, there would be a release. And the fumes from ammonia are quite overwhelming. And we do a, what's the name of that thing? I file every year and we pay and we look at what areas we be affecting. If there was a total release for the storage that we have, and we file that with the state. [23:59] Board member: What is it that you're to report to report? Yes. Thank you. Is it reasonable to assume that any safety measures in the new building will exceed the current safety measures for the existing facility? [24:13] Tamara, project engineer (applicant's representative): Facility? They should be less than if we go with the LAS. Yeah. Because everything else [24:19] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): stays the same but so yeah. Okay. But for the same chemical receiving process and safety measures, it'll be the same or greater. Okay. I mean more sensors that'll alert us. Have [24:42] Chair (presiding officer): you ever had a chemical incident at the plant since 94? There was one many years ago before [24:49] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): my time with the district. You may remember that, may be why you're asking, but it was before my time and I don't know the year exactly, but yes, there was a wrong chemical that was put in the wrong tank and it was a reaction, it was reaction, and there was some smoke and steam. From my understanding, there was a lot of hazmat and fire departments showed up and neutralized it. Everything was okay, but I did generate a lot of concern and steam, and we put a lot of extra measures in place since then. And I'd really like to show you our chemical receiving system, what we use today, what our operators go through before we ever begin to offload one drop of chemical from a tank or truck to F-7 to ensure that we have the right capacity and the right tank and the right chemicals. [25:36] Speaker E (unidentified): It's a two-lock system, isn't it? Sorry? Two-lock system. Two-lock system? Yes, we [25:43] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): have locks on each one. Everything's color coded to each one. We schedule a lot of deliveries so we know which chemicals coming. We have the flack and number matches that, but yeah, I mean anytime anybody would like to come by, take a walk through free where [25:59] Chair (presiding officer): the proposed building is going to be constructed. What is, what's that property now? Is that, it's basically the backyard of the plant, so [26:10] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): So if you went to the back of the plant, that adjacent structure that you see that's a square rectangle is what we call our clear well. Clear well is treated water that's ready to go out to the distribution system. The next stop from there would be a throttling valve. But that clear well is treated water ready to enter the distribution system. So we have a fence perimeter around the back of the plant. It's all fenced in. And that building site is right next to that clear well. [26:38] Board member: Is the clear well open? [26:39] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): it's a concrete structure that's completely enclosed. Okay. But you will be [26:45] Chair (presiding officer): constructing a road, an access road. The road is already a dirt or slightly [26:51] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): gravel road that goes back there. It would be improved, it would be paved, and enough room for a turnaround and, you know, any fire compliance that we need for access around the building. We actually met with chief Karen, I believe, leave his name, and he discussed some of his concerns where he'd like to see as well the [27:16] Chair (presiding officer): Closest of butter, according to this, is a Kelly Hughes. Otherwise it's 142 acres. It's pretty substantial. All right, and it looks like uses property isn't very close to the facility. It's quite a ways down the road. Questions from the board. If there was, let's say, a spill, whether it be that from the tanker truck or on the exchange or whatever, I mean these holding tanks are underground. There was a spill, there's [28:18] Scott Bickford, Chief Plant Operator, Sebago Lake Water Treatment Facility (applicant): no risk towards Sebago Lake? Yeah, we have also containments hold that back and go into a holding tank, which we'd have somebody come pump that out, and we would contain everything they have. We wouldn't want anything running out in the environment, whether it be the lake or soil. [28:36] Chair (presiding officer): Yeah, that's the closest body of water really. There's no other, doesn't look like there's any streams or wetlands back there, right? No, not that I'm aware of. Didn't seem to be. And you're not, you're not having to clear any trees? Nope, the site's already cleared. Yeah, and that's the only thing I really noticed that the environmental protection agency, or the actual from, in terms of species habitat was just the Eagles. Right? The only thing I'm concerned. Yeah, this is a few other birds, but I think the ego is the big 1, right? From the U. S. F. W. S. correct. But there's no Eagle nesting sites that they identified. Right? [29:21] Tamara, project engineer (applicant's representative): Right and I, there's a little, it's not close to the project area at all. Just a clarification where the chemicals are stored inside in the tanks. They're in containment firms that. Don't have drains, they have some so that we would be making this decision to pump into a holding tank. So there's nothing that just happens without anyone knowing about it. [30:00] Chair (presiding officer): Any other questions for these folks from the board? I'm going to ask. Go ahead, Steve. JP had expressed support from the town planning department. [30:17] Speaker E (unidentified): So, the reason why it's a special exception, it's an auxiliary building for the current use is how we determined that we had to go to get a special exception when they did the walk to treatment center. That's why it's coming back here. It's just an auxiliary used to the current condition, which is a special exception. And it has to go to the planning board after this anyway. So this is just the 1st step. [30:47] Chair (presiding officer): Anybody have any other comments that like to speak in favor against, or just ask questions? No, everyone public session. Good. Good. All right. Thank you. Make a motion unless folks have any other questions. I make a motion to close the public session 2nd discussion favor. Okay, public sessions closed. All right. So now we're going to, let's talk about this application and let's talk about the criteria. Is there any particular criteria that folks in this board have a concern about? I don't want to talk a little bit more detail, especially have to give a review of the materials that have been submitted in advance of the meeting as well as some of the testimony and questions that have been answered tonight. [31:39] Board member: I had raised my questions already about the issues that I had, or the items I had issues with potentially, I would say that unlike some applicants that may have ulterior motives. I think that this applicant is probably more than likely above board on everything and trying to do everything in excess of the required, safety, because any mistakes they may are reflected very poorly on the entire city of Portland at the greater Portland area. And there's enough people to complain about anything you do to make things very challenging. [32:15] Chair (presiding officer): And this isn't new, it's a new building, but it's the same. materials that will be housed is just they're basically operating. Right? Right. That's how I understand this. It's an upgrade and they're also doing it with an eye towards moving to a less hazardous chemical as I understand it, which I would be supportive of. [32:34] Board member: Although not really, I don't have any problem with any of the chemicals, which have to be used. From, but, yeah, certainly it's easier to handle the material that they're considering switching over to. Although that decision has not been made at this time. Correct? Okay. [32:49] Speaker E (unidentified): Okay, all right, you know. [32:53] Chair (presiding officer): As far as the real estate piece, too, they don't have neighbors. Yeah. And the land's already cleared. So, I'm not, I don't see anything here that gives me great pause concerns, especially after the questions that were answered tonight. I would have no problem that I wouldn't, you know, I would, I would not hesitate to move right to the vote on this topic as long as there's no issue from the public. [33:19] Board member: If some neighbors had a big issue, I'd have a real problem. Sure. To think about well, [33:26] Chair (presiding officer): Unless anybody has anything else you want to talk about regarding any of the criteria for the applicant in general. I agree. We can move right to the vote. [33:35] Board member: Okay, so obviously there is also the issue of dust and debris, but we're only considering in the final, the final. Dusty boys, et cetera, and that would be substantially during construction, but that would be compliant with construction requirements. Okay. Which are not, which are not something we're considering at this time. Correct? [33:59] Chair (presiding officer): Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right, I'll take a motion or I'll make a motion that the proposed use on a criteria. 1 will not create or aggravate hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the roads and sidewalks. Both off-site and on-sites serving the proposed use as determined by the size and condition of such roads and sidewalks lighting drainage and the visibility afforded to pedestrians and the operators of motor vehicles on such roads second have a second any further discussion all in favor unanimously approved on the first one I'll make the motion under criteria number two 2, that the proposed use will not cause water, pollution, sedimentation, erosion, contaminate any water supply, or reduce the capacity of the land to hold water. So that a dangerous or unhealthy condition results. 2nd, and the 2nd, any further discussion all in favor. Unanimous approved on criteria. Number 2 criteria. Number 3. 3, but I have a question that I heard something. Sorry criteria. Number 3. I'll make a motion that the proposed use will not create unhelpful conditions because of smoke dust or other airborne contaminants. 2nd, the 2nd, any further discussion. All in favor unanimous approved and number 3, number 4 criteria 4, I'll make the motion that the proposed use will not create new senses to neighboring properties because of voters fumes glare. Hours of operation noise vibration or fire hazard or unreasonably restrict access of light and air to neighboring properties second any further discussion all in favor criteria number four is unanimous approved criteria number five will make a motion that the proposed waste disposal systems are adequate for all solid and liquid waste generated by the use second the second Any further discussion all in favor. And he posed on a post 3 in favor that motion is approved passes criteria. Number 5, I just point out that we don't have a plan in front of us for us to, for me to evaluate the statement. So, therefore I cannot vote yes on it. That's fair. I also know that what I, what we understand of existing systems. I think the testimony has showed that those are currently adequate and that the planning board will do this. It's fine. So we have 3 in favor for that. 1. I want to pose that motion passes. Criterion number 6, I'll make a motion that the pros use will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, or other wildlife habitat. And it's located in shoreline zone and serve showing visualization, visual points of access to partners as viewed from public facilities and actual points of access to waters for the discussion. All in favor of criteria number 6 unanimously approved and lastly criteria number 7, I'll make a motion that the proposed use has no unusual characteristics, a typical of the generic use. And the proposed use will not appreciate the economic value of surrounding properties based on evidence provided by main license, real estate broker or appraiser. 2nd, the 2nd, and further discussion as nobody's come forward with it with alternate information. I would be supportive of this motion. Correct. I would agree with that. All in favor. Janimus approved. All right. Congratulations. Your special exception will be has been granted this evening and it's been approved, but we will have 7 days to create the findings of facts and that will be deliverable to you after the 7 days. Meantime, you can move forward with JP code enforcement officer in terms of next steps for the planning board. Thank you. Any further business that anybody has sign signatures, we'll get to meet signatures before we depart this evening. All right. I'll take I'll make a motion to adjourn the September 21st, 2026 on board of appeals meeting the 2nd. 2nd on favor 3. 3, 4, unanimously we have approved to join. Thank you. Sorry. Best time ever. That's pretty good guys.