Harpswell Board of Appeals grants floodplain variance for Bailey Island lobster wharf

[0:03] Ned Simmons: Welcome, folks, to this Wednesday, September 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Hotswold Board of Appeals. I'm Ned Simmons. I've just been sent this elect to act as chair of the committee. I'm not sure if the chair has been right. That's not good. [0:32] Margaret McIntyre: Ned, can you turn your mic on? [0:41] Ned Simmons: I'll introduce the board members starting from my far left is Ann Caldwell, Steve Bruhl, Ned Simmons. To my right is Pat Lawson and Steve Musica. We do have a quorum. Actually, Ann, you're an associate member, so I will appoint you to be a full voting member. For this evening, so we do have a full complement of five members which constitutes a quorum. On our agenda this evening we have a Application for a variance on the floodplain by Baumgartner Realty. We also well, I guess we don't have the minutes of our previous meetings available so we'll strike that from the agenda and I guess optionally we'll have a discussion about our workshop with the town's attorney from July 30th. I'll briefly go through our procedure in general the anyone who wishes to speak should step to the microphone identify themselves if you haven't done so there's a sign-in sheet over there if you intend to speak it would be helpful to the recording secretary to have your name on the sheet makes it easier for them to do the minutes. Any questions or comments should be made through the chair. In general the applicant will have an opportunity to present their case first. Any other interested parties will have the opportunity to speak many that would include any representatives of the town and so on. I would note that if you are an interested party and think you may have any reason to appeal any decision taken here tonight, you should at minimum step to the microphone, identify yourself, and state the nature of your concerns in order to reserve your rights of appeal. I would warn anybody that any verbal representations made here become a part of the application. I'll note that on Monday we had a site visit. Yeah for four of us were there. Pat says she went on her own and they were the applicants were there as well as I think some other interested parties. Application is for a variance in the floodplain zone which is a new thing for us. I don't think we've ever done one but I'll run through the application package. We have the application itself from Glenn's law Glenn's lobsters we have a description of the project. I think we have two copies of a justification for the variance. I think we have a more recent version that we received by email just in the last couple days. We have various letters of permission, a warranty deed on the property. We have a shoreland use application to the town dated, excuse me, dated 7-30-26, a flood hazard development application dated 7-14-26, a flood hazard development permit dated 7-14-26. We have various aerial photographs and layouts of the property and the proposed activity. The elevation of the proposed new dock. Some photographs of the property as it exists pretty much covers it. I think separately we did receive some other information from the town planner regarding the overall procedure for this, which I think did go beyond what we need to do. Do need to do tonight but laid out the entire process which included the planning board and various permits with the state and so on. I believe we also were provided with a copy of LD 2143 which is a alternative variance process that I think may be applicable to this project. Anything else I've missed here? I guess I give the applicant opportunity to speak and explain briefly what you're what you're hoping to do and the purpose and so on. Sean. [6:59] Sean Baumgartner: Baumgartner Bailey Island. We're just trying to keep an existing business and dock that's been there for 100 years and do renovations and upkeep that is pretty hard to do apparently. Just trying to put back an existing building to its you know same size pretty much same dimensions. Be a little bit taller, pier itself will be a little longer and about it. Changes for the pier would be to have access at all times on the wharf itself. The hardship is the building, the structure. It's correct. Yep. Yeah so. We're just trying to put back what's there. Yeah it'll be moved a little bit to the I don't know Northwest I guess on the exist it'll be in the same it'll be moved on the dock a little bit a couple feet further. It'll be everything will be existing where it's going so it is apparently the existing building is 27 by 27. What we're proposing is 28 by 28 so which i thought was what was existing by what i measured but it's not what the town had. So we're not trying to do anything out of the ordinary i. Don't think we're just trying to create a little more space inside the building for storage and bait and that's it. The. [8:39] Ned Simmons: Way I look when I looked at the tax map there's hardly any prop land is that correct? That is everything is the dock. They look like there was just this tiny little cookie. [8:56] Sean Baumgartner: Mm-hmm, there's, well, no, there's nothing there. Yeah, so that, you know, that's an [9:02] Ned Simmons: an issue then. That's the issue. So there is a, but you must have a right of way through. There's a [9:06] Sean Baumgartner: right of way that's been in place there for a long time. Yep, which is still existing, I'd assume. And at some point the property line, I don't know, I'm not gonna get into that. I mean, it would, I [9:24] Ned Simmons: guess where i'm going with it would be impossible to run a lobster wharf there without a building on the wharf. Correct. You have no place to put a building on land. No, I mean, no. [9:37] Sean Baumgartner: And it's not feasible really to be trucking your bait if that's what you're using it for anyways. So it's pretty necessary if you're gonna buy lobsters to be able to sell bait. And that's one of the, that's the biggest [9:52] Ned Simmons: reason for the building is for bait and storage. Correct. Yeah, I mean, it's all [9:58] Sean Baumgartner: mostly bait. Obviously upstairs we store minimal stuff, we have bands and a few other things, but it's all, the storage is downstairs in the first floor, and upstairs is a little office where we, but there is, I guess my point is this, there's nowhere else to put it. Correct. Yeah, [10:20] Ned Simmons: you can't go, you can't put it on the land because, you know, because there is no land. That's correct. [10:23] Sean Baumgartner: Yeah, I mean, it's a pretty unique piece of property. So, yeah, there's no land to, there's nowhere to put a building there. [10:34] Ned Simmons: The other wharfs there do own some property. Some of them. Yeah. [10:39] Sean Baumgartner: Yep. And, I mean, there's very few that have enough property for the town to put a building on, especially in Mackle Cove. I don't know if there's any that would be, you know, for the town to say, yeah, we'll let you put a building here. I'm not aware of one in that cove, so, and on the commercial side of it anyways, can you speak a [11:01] Ned Simmons: little bit about the bait situation? I mean, it's not just not practical to bring bait every day, [11:06] Sean Baumgartner: right? I mean, where we do get bait a couple times a week anyways, so in the summertime a lot of the baits caught locally here, you know, around the shores here in Harpswell, and that's another reason, that's a different part of the wharf extension, is so we could unload the boats when they come in instead of having to wait for a tide, which is what we've been doing for the past 10 years. So to be able to go out a little bit further, we'd be able to have the boats come alongside the wharf at pretty much Any tide unless it's extremely low, which is, you know, you'd have to wait a little bit, but yeah. So our daily bait consumption is anywhere is from us, you know, a lot of slow days it's 15 barrels, but in the heat of summer and part of fall we're 50 to 60 barrels a day. So it's quite a lot of bait, you know, you need storage for. If we could have 100 barrels, it's, you know, pretty much what we're trying to keep in there most of the time. And I noticed at [12:11] Ned Simmons: the site visit it looked like you wouldn't be, you can't use a forklift. We cannot use a forklift in there currently. And is that the plan that you would be able to correct? Yeah, so we'd be able to [12:21] Sean Baumgartner: the plan is to be able to have it in there so we can double stack on the back end, the west wall, and we'd be able to stack two pallets high of bait on that wall, and then all the daily use bait. So once the fishermen come in and bait up, we could unstack and single stack them so they could grab them in the morning for the next day, and then have the stuff in the back for the day after. Correct, yep. Anything else? I think we're good. Okay, thank you. [12:59] Ned Simmons: Anybody else wanna speak to this, or? [13:20] Hank Baumgartner: I'm Hank Baumgartner, Sean's dad. I worked and managed and owned Glenn's Lobsters for a long time, since 1981. And what Sean said is true. Some things to really understand is that, well, there's two parts to the bait thing. One, you have to be able to preserve it. Two, when it's available, you have to be able to buy it. And then you have to, of course, be able to store it and keep it refrigerated. Those two things don't always work hand in hand. And the ability to have quick and easy access to bait is crucial to the fishing industry to be able to come every day and know that they're going to be able to get bait and go. If you don't put it where it is, there are going to be days these guys aren't going to be able to go fishing, or it's gonna, they're gonna have to chase to town themselves in a pickup or something and drive down the roads overloaded. This is the only practical way to do it, and it is important to understand that it isn't, it isn't always predictable, it isn't always easy. You have to plan ahead, and this proposal is a brilliant idea for the working waterfront, for the fishermen to have more security to get the bait when they needed and that the quality of the bait is the best that we can possibly do at this time. That really all I wanted to say. I did want to have one more picture of avenue's work that you might want to put in your file so that you would understand the reason and need to quickly as possible perhaps get this wharf a little bit higher because that's been a good situation. [15:31] Ann Caldwell: This is a great photograph to have. [15:37] Sean Baumgartner: When was this photo taken? That was from the first storm. [15:41] Hank Baumgartner: I have never in all the years I've been there working seen that much water. [15:56] Ned Simmons: I've got stakes in front of my house. Every time I see a higher tide, I move it up. And the one from that storm is 18 inches above anything else I've ever seen. Well, I think the first thing we need to decide is what criteria we're going to use to evaluate this. You know, we've got the existing variance in the floodplain ordinance, which is virtually identical to the standard variance in the regular and the basic land use ordinance. and then we've got this relaxed criteria which I'm not exactly sure how to apply it that was recently passed by the legislature. I guess you probably saw the email I sent out today. I questioned whether we can use this since it's not been adopted by the town. On the other hand, it seems to me that you know the legislature intended for us to have the opportunity to use it. As far as using the existing variants, I know we've rarely, I can only remember once giving out a standard variance. And all the time that I've been the chair on this board, and because it's like the reasonable return criteria is so strict, but if there was ever a case where I could make the case for it, I think this is it. You know, I think. [18:10] Ann Caldwell: There is no land. [18:12] Ned Simmons: Well, there's no land. The place, the only, the exercise we often go through when somebody comes to us with one of those is what else could you use the property for and there's usually something you know you can have a camper on it you can you know picnic on it you can park there. This property I can't imagine any other use for other than a commercial lobster really. I don't see how they could be and I guess falling on from that if the only use is to have a commercial lobster wharf then you have to have bait and you Have to have fuel, and you can't, you know, the fuel doesn't depend on the structure. No, the bait does, the clearly the bait, but the debate is the, you know, I think, I think is the argument. So it seems to me that we could probably make a case for using the regular variance procedure and grant this application. [19:32] Steve Musica: Steve, I don't know if we discussed this before, but we talked about it with Sean when we were at the site visit. So with the reconstruction, the dock height of the dock is going to be what, a foot and a half or two higher, and sort of what the, next adjacent dock is about the height it's going to be. And yeah, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg with shoreland zoning, knowing floodplain variances we're gonna be getting. [20:10] Ned Simmons: Yeah, I get the impression we're gonna be, there's gonna be more of these. I mean, have you folks, have you read this? [Steve Musica: LD 21.3?] Yeah, the LD, you know, it, I mean, it does clearly,, it addresses this hardship directly. [20:51] Ann Caldwell: Ann, yeah. I'm a little confused here because I read this, which says signed by the governor April 6th, 2026, but there was also a law signed by the governor in 6-12-2025. Oh sorry, 2025, and they're not exactly the same, and I don't know if one supersedes the other or if they addressed two separate issues. The one signed in 2025 was an act to facilitate reconstruction of storm damaged commercial fisheries facilities and infrastructure. That older law exempted the need for a reasonable return, you know, the economic phase, reasonable noble return standard. So that I can read it, the main revised statutes section 4353 subsection 4 paragraph 8 does not apply to a petition for a variance from one or more provisions of the shoreline zoning ordinance and floodplain management ordinance of the town of Harpswell if A, the property that is subject of a variance is located within the town of Harpswell. A petitioner demonstrates to the Board of Appeals that the petitioner suffered substantial damage to the dock, pier, or wharf or structure thereon as a result of severe storms and flooding that occurred on January 9th and January 13th, 2024. The damaged dock, pier, or wharf or structure placed thereon under Paragraph B is proposed to be reconstructed or replaced in kind and is functionally water-dependent structure or has a functionally water-dependent use and then D, the variance petition under Paragraph FA is considered complete for processing by the board of appeals. This is an emergency clause and will become effective immediately upon passage. That is June 12, 2025, and issue here, oh it's sun, it's sundowns on December 31st, 2027, so this was only supposed to be in effect until 2027, but that exempts this and again this is not in our ordinance, right, and I think both of these were meant to be guidance for consideration as there are some drawbacks to the floodplain ordinance as drafted by because it comes directly from FEMA, from FEMA, where they never ever even considered in that law, which is our floodplain ordinance, the issue of commercial seafood industries. It was absolutely not considered at all, and I think therefore these both of these are meant as guidance even if they don't appear in our ordinance and I think it's appropriate to use both of these which address a little bit different issues in evaluating this application [25:48] Margaret McIntyre: Hi, I'm Margaret McIntyre, the town planner. After the January, 2024 storms, it coincided when with Harpswell adopting new floodplain maps and a new floodplain ordinance. And so there was a lot of discussion over, you know, what happens in the floodplain at that time and Harpswell recognize this need for a larger than 200 square foot fish houses. We use the Baumgardner's wharf as an example, when we brought FEMA here because they have zero square feet of land. We drafted, working with our town attorney's office, we drafted language, submitted it with Maddie Daughtry. It went through the legislature and was signed. Then I think the floodplain office and some of the, i can't remember what this lady's office is but some of the land use people at the state got a hold of this and wanted to amend it further we were advised when we made the original bill to make it to make it more palatable at the state level to make it very narrow and try to make it as specific to our situation as possible and then as it when it was a revised it 's a lot broader we had no control over that so the one that hand-sighted was the [27:21] Ned Simmons: original one that was right that Harpswell introduced or pushed more [27:26] Margaret McIntyre: right this more recent one is that we had nothing to do with that but that but [27:32] Ned Simmons: it sort of took that and extended it to the rest of the state right without the [27:36] Margaret McIntyre: sunset you just have to prove standards from any storm that one was from a very specific right and that's what we were advised to do to make it more passable at the state level because we didn't want it to fail I think it was superseded by the new law superseded that's my impression still in effect but [28:02] Ned Simmons: but this one really takes the place of it. It does everything. It sounds like in 2027 they'll just let it go away. Right. [28:08] Ann Caldwell: They didn't want it to go away. [28:13] Margaret McIntyre: When I was at a training one time, I ran into this woman who works in the main office of community affairs, and I brought up this 200 square foot limit and how Harpswell had done this law and how we really wanted to discuss it further, and she was like, oh no, we have all kinds of issues with this law. we're gonna amend it at the next session and that's what they did but we didn't get that feedback when we when we submitted it the first time so that's [28:42] Steve Musica: some of the context everyone within 500 feet it'll be 500 for the Planning Board site plan amendment yeah was did the town receive any kind of [29:07] Margaret McIntyre: negative responses from anybody thank you yeah oh dep had to do a thousand there's a lot of there's so many layers here they had to notify dep requires a thousand foot notification board of appeals requires 250 which is what i did and site plan review rev requires 500 so we'll do that at the planning board process yeah a lot of a lot of postage [29:40] Ned Simmons: My inclination is to review this as if it was a standard variance as provided directly in the floodplain ordinance and take into consideration this guidance. But I think I don't see any issue with approving it under the standard variance. I think to me that's the safest thing to do. It eliminates the question of whether this is really incorporated into our ordinance or not, but at least we have it as... It's pretty straightforward. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, [30:20] Steve Musica: the motion would have to cite under what... [30:27] Ned Simmons: I don't know if we even need to cite it. I mean, I think... I guess we can discuss that and get to it, but I think it's all... To I said before, if there was ever a, if there was ever a case where there was no other way to get a reasonable return, then this is it. Just there are, and I did mark this up, or there are some additional hoops that were in the floodplain zone, which I tried to put into this form. So if you're, this is any more comments from the audience or from the board, I think we're ready to start evaluating this. I started, I filled in the boilerplate ahead of time here, and I'll run through that. We can go through this whole thing. This is dated 23, 23rd, right? The, I'm addressing this to Glenn's Lobsters, 12 Senate Drive, Bailey Island, Maine. Findings of fact. The name of the applicant is Glenn's Lobsters. The mailing address is 12 Senate Drive, and please folks, if I make any errors here, speak up so you can fix. Dixon, city or town, Bailey Island, Maine. The name of the property owner is Baumgartner Realty, LLC. The location of the property is 43 Abner Point Road. It's in zoning district CF1. It's map 22, lot 53. The applicant has demonstrated a legal interest in the subject property by providing a warranty deed dated 12-30-2022. 2022, the applicant has proposed the following building structure activity on the subject property, a replacement of a storm damage structure on a commercial fishing wharf. Is that fairly described? And the applicant seeks a variance from the following ordinance standard, which is the 200 square foot limit and single story restriction on structures seaward of mean high tide per floodplain management ordinance article 6 R 9. A land is being used as commercial fishing. The conditions and character of the neighborhood are developed mixed commercial fishing and residential. Conditions of the property are the property has improved with a long-standing commercial fishing operation serving multiple boats. The dock and structure sustained substantial damage in the January 2024 storms. The applicant has requested the following type of variance from the floodplain management ordinance article 10. And then on 23 September 26, the board of appeals conducted a public hearing on this application for a variance, and the board of appeals also met on 9 23 26 to deliberate on this application. Additional facts, any other facts relevant to ordinance criteria, anything else? I think it's pretty, I mean, I think it's pretty straightforward. It's just the just that very specific Restriction on the floodplain ordinance and so run through the standards here and some of these are unfamiliar. These are things I've added in from the floodplain. It says, variances shall not be granted within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. I don't think there's any evidence that there's any, there's no, so I've, I would move that there's no indication that the activity will affect, will affect flood levels. Second. Second. Discussion? All in favor? Motion carries 5 to nothing. And then B, variances shall be granted only upon showing a good and sufficient cause, which I think is pretty clear. So I would move that the continued use of the property for commercial fishing commercial fishing requires the proposed structure discussion the determination that should a flood comparable to the base flood occur the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights additional threats to public safety public expense or create nuisances cause fraud or victimization of the public or conflict with existing laws or ordinances. So I would move that there's no indication that the proposed activity will result in any of the above eventualities. Second. Discussion? All in favor? Motion carries five to nothing. The applicant has to make a showing that the issuance of the variance will not conflict with other state, federal, local laws or ordinances, and I guess I will maybe – and I think we can, I think, address that in our conditions of approval that, you know, that the applicant will meet with all the appropriate – get all the appropriate permits and so on. Is it fair to say you're in the process of getting all the other permits and so on? They have – you haven't finished all the other permitting yet, but – you're in process I [Hank Baumgartner: would] move that the applicant has met this standard by demonstrating they're in the process of obtaining all the appropriate state federal and local permits second discussion no in favor okay now we're into the old familiar stuff the land in question can or cannot yield a reasonable return unless a variance is granted that the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless a variance is granted and to justify that i'm i've written one there appears to be no alternative use of the property Other than commercial fishing to that use requires the storage and refrigerate refrigeration of bait. Three, there's no place on the property other than on the war for a bait storage structure. For 200 square feet is in it is inadequate for such a structure. That's a motion. Second. Discussion. All in favor. Next standard is the need for a variance is due to the circumstances of the property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. [48:25] Steve Musica: Can I [48:42] Margaret McIntyre: ask you a really quick question? Yes. Sorry to interrupt. I maybe missed this, but we are discussing a variance for not only the square footage but also two stories. I didn't hear you mention that in the last thing you said, but that standard that requires 200 square foot also requires only one story. So I don't want that to get lost and have to come back. Okay, sorry to interrupt. [49:07] Ann Caldwell: That's a good point. Okay. [49:11] Ned Simmons: Yeah, where's the? [49:13] Margaret McIntyre: It's in that conditional use criteria. It's 200 square feet and limited to one story. Yeah. Just want to make sure we cover exactly. Yeah, I've covered it. We're cool. I just [49:29] Ned Simmons: want to make sure it's probably ought to be specific in here where to put it, I guess, is the question. Make sure I don't forget. We'll get it in there someplace. [49:49] Ann Caldwell: That was part of that original item that they want to vary. [50:03] Ned Simmons: Yeah, and I've noted that, 's what they're asking for, but I think Margaret's right. We ought to make sure that it's in there, that we've actually granted that. Yeah. [50:23] Hank Baumgartner: The existing structure is two stories, right? Yeah. [51:09] Ned Simmons: I'm kind of at a loss what to rate this. The need for variances is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. And all I got here is that there is not adequate land area to locate the structure. Anybody got anything else to clarify that? That's a motion. That's a case. [Margaret McIntyre: Okay, second.] Discussion? All in favor? Aye to nothing. I suppose we could put it in the conditions of approval to the next is the Granting of the variance will not will not alter the essential character of locality. So I would move the granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Since there are several other commercial fishing wharves adjacent to the property. Discussion. No in favor. Nothing. The next is the hardship is not the result of action taken by the applicant or a prior owner. Okay, the hardship is not the result of action taken by the applicant or prior owner. I'm writing the hardship is the result of storm damage, rising sea level, and changing pressures on commercial fishing. Second discussion, one favor. Vote on the overall decision on the basis of the above findings, facts. Well, I will make a motion that we grant the applicants. Second. Appeal or a request for a variance. Second. Discussion? All in favor? Well, then the decision, right? No, other. Other is a good spot. [57:54] Ann Caldwell: He's looking for a place to insert. [57:56] Ned Simmons: The two just to make it specific. Well, maybe under the decision. Okay, so the conditions of approval are all state, local, and federal permits must be obtained. Then the board grants a variance from the 200 square foot area and single-story limits in the floodplain management ordinance article six are nine a. And the variance is limited to the plans as depicted in the variance application. Anything [1:02:25] Steve Musica: else seems to cover it. [1:02:37] Ned Simmons: Margaret, you get anything else you think we ought to be doing here? The Baumgartner, anything you're worried about that we did or didn't do? Maybe next, maybe next time it'll be easier [1:03:20] Sean Baumgartner: for anyone moving forward to boost the infrastructure because this vision of unity is old. And that situation where I am raising it is really a way to rebuild one wall at a time, so to say. [1:03:45] Ned Simmons: How did these come about? I mean, was that just that piece of property just split off with the wharf at some time in the distant past? I'm just wondering how you got to the point where there's a wharf with no property, you know, and apparently there are others, plenty of others that are sitting similar. It just this [1:04:23] Steve Musica: is kind of like a community doc. There was not a lot of permitting [1:04:28] Ned Simmons: 100 years ago. Yeah, I mean at that it was probably there was no, it was. Just agree. Yeah, I mean not nowadays you could not take that dock and split it off and have a this hundred square feet of land. Yeah [1:04:48] Steve Musica: 1925 was [1:04:53] Hank Baumgartner: wow [1:04:57] Ann Caldwell: okay [1:05:00] Steve Musica: what was the hundred year we were talking about? I thought I heard a hundred years it's been there. Is that right? Cool [1:05:50] Hank Baumgartner: All the way up the coast of Maine, you go to different towns. Some of the town wards and the wards that are built are absolutely amazing. They're much, higher. The access to allow plastic trailers, trucks, and forklifts, and, you know, modern pieces of equipment to speed up and to make this process safer in the long run. It's surprising that there is no soil like that in the Archibald River. [1:06:37] Steve Musica: Okay, you're doing a lot with a little over there. Good going, good going. [1:06:43] Sean Baumgartner: A lot of boats that are accessing the waterfront daily. [1:07:09] Ned Simmons: Well, I hope this is one hurdle. [1:07:16] Sean Baumgartner: I hope so, thank you. [1:07:19] Ned Simmons: You're welcome, I'm glad we could help. What's next? I think so, this is the new one down there. Do we wanna, we don't have minutes. The other item on here was the BOA workshop recap, but should we wait till everybody's here? David's there, yeah. Any other business? [1:08:04] Margaret McIntyre: So as far as the workshop goes, we just don't do minutes for a workshop, so I just like to always mention that we had one at the meeting so that there's at least a written record. We were you guys were there the town attorney was there. I was there and we just talked about procedure. Yeah, that's it, that's all I want, I just wanted to be in the record because I'm not doing minutes. Anything else we just have to, we still have to schedule the next applicant, the administrative appeal. We have three people who can go on the 14th of October. So I think we're gonna go with that and I just haven't heard back from Daisy. Yeah, I wasn't planning on it, but I will if I 'll reach out to MMA and see if I have to and if we do need to then we'll do it. Yeah, be good to know one way or the other, you know I never even had thought of it of it. So thank you, so we'll plan on the 14th and that's but that's the last day in the 35-day window. Yeah, but that's when it works best for the applicant and there's a there'll be a quorum and yeah. [1:09:29] Ned Simmons: Are the barely are the folks who are building the septic system? Are they in a rush or? No. No, I mean, because I think in the past, Amy has corralled folks into looking the other way if we went another week. [1:09:46] Margaret McIntyre: Oh, yeah, or you guys could meet and continue it too. Yeah, I just didn't want to put it on this agenda to meet and continue it because the neighbors would be unnotified and it would be confusing, so. [Ned Simmons: Okay, anything else?] All right, we'll see you guys in a moment. [1:10:02] Steve Musica: So I'm not gonna be, I'm gonna be gone, but yeah I may or may not be but I think Margaret said there was a quorum yeah. [1:10:12] Margaret McIntyre: For the 14th there's three people but hopefully Dave you'll be back next week and he can weigh in before I have to send out a butter notices or anything. [1:10:25] Ned Simmons: All right we're adjourned.