Joyce if it's you press star nine which will indicate that you want to speak but please continue and we'll wait for the person to press star nine if they wish to speak oh the person's raise their hand. All right. Yeah all right Joyce. Phone number ending in three eight three four three four three four. Can you hear me now?  Because it's echoing. Okay so it turns out I'm so sorry that it sounds like the microphone on our computer is not working. That's fine. So my name is Sam Gladstone and my wife is Joyce Duncan and I got to try to calm down with trying to get to talk to you because this is a big thing for us. So I'd like to start off by giving you a little history of this property because a good question was asked by Mrs. Mr. Maxfield and I don't think the full story was given. So we moved here in 1986 and we were actually sold the house by Greg's mother Ellen Stutzman was our realtor and when we bought it she told us this the property that Greg is now wanting to develop would never be developed because it was actually owned by five people. So there were five people along Southeast Street that had chipped in to buy this lot so it would never be developed. Greg bought as he said he bought the house on Southeast Street in 1210 and then unbeknownst to us there was never a for sale sign never any information anywhere that I saw that in 12 in 2012 the property was actually divided up in five as far as I understand Greg would know better and Greg this I know in 2012 he bought from Sonya Sofield who lives across from him across Mount Pollack on Southeast Street for $8,000 this the property so that now he could do what he wants to do. There was I surely would have paid more than $8,000 and again there was no information about this. Then in 2014 while Greg was on the zoning board on the planning board the zoning planning board recommended to the town council to create this supplemental detached dwelling unit as accessory to a one family detached dwelling which is now what Greg is using to do this project. Now I've been on all night watching and surely this presentation is very impressive. You know surely if we all have seen you know saw the previous one it was completely different. So this is a very beautiful project. And but the problem is if you if you go back and look look at the overall project it is like at our house it's not by the house that it's supposed to be a supplemental to and they have chosen you know I've been told by someone who was on the zoning board with Greg that he knows the rules better than anybody in town. So there's nothing that they're planning that is not within the rules. So the building is 800 feet but there's two porches and there's two decks and there's an office over the garage. And the whole thing could be sited much closer to his house. Now it might mean that some of the a tiny bit of his plantings might get shaded by the screened in porch that's going to be over the terrace in the north side just a little but it would get it away from our house and it makes no you know Tom really says that cars he's worried about the fire and cars parked on both sides of the street cars are never parked on both sides of the street and if they were it's a huge street there would be no trouble getting fire trucks up there so that the idea that you have four spaces two of them which are basically you know right up to the property line why because you have no laws about parking you don't have in any law laws about about the driveway you have a law about building so the building is 25 feet from the side. So I would request that you make this whole project move set move towards the east. He's decided he wants his house 38 feet back from Mount Pollux. So it could be nice for him but dad and but he's pushed that you know let it be 25 feet away from Mount Pollux and and he can move the whole project much further west. I came out when you did the site visit. I didn't know it was you Maureen. Maureen said I couldn't be there so I just asked if if the if people would look on the other side of the cedars that's the property line. I don't know if you did. It's a very unusual house where we live. It originally was 14 sided that and and it turns out unfortunately that the part that is closest to our property line is our bedroom and my wife loves to sleep with fresh air so the windows are open and she often likes the blinds open and we are very concerned and object very strongly to to it being so close because we're worried about noise and I'm very thankful for what Mr. Langsdale said about the lighting. We're worried about lighting. Already it's unusual but sometimes people trying to get up to Mount Pollux come come on the street and if it's nighttime and we're in bed and they go around the circle we will see the lights in our bedroom and we can only imagine what's going to happen when if you allow this parking turnaround and I want to reassert that nobody turns around in in a garage. There's completely no reason. This is a there's only two houses past what Greg wants to put in. This is not a main street. This is not like strong street or East Pleasant Street or South East Street. So it seems totally unnecessary to have it have those two extra spots and I think I would like the driveway to be at least 25 feet away. Our house is actually 49 our bedroom is 49 feet away from the property line. I'd like the closest thing that Greg builds the 49 feet away from our property line. Let me like you Chairman said I've got to try to settle down and look at some of the notes. It's interesting that the Miss Chow said it's a small modest footprint. It's a small modest footprint because the maximum allowed is 800 feet and that's what it is. But I would like someone to be able to tell me how much is the footprint if you include the two porches the garage and the the two decks. It's outrageous that this is what's been done with what as again I'm sorry I don't know all your names. Someone sort of suggested that usually what you see is this is a dwelling attached to the to the dwelling that's already there. You know you know as if you know my kids own this property and we got too old and they wanted to help us out and have us close to them. That's not what's going on here. We are very concerned about the privacy. If you allow this to go forward we're worried that there's a window in the garage that looks right onto our property. And if you allow it to go forward we would like you even though it's not allowed but we would like allow them to have an 8 foot fence and aesthetically before I would agree with the forest green that it be 8 feet. So you know to try to protect us as best we can from the noise and the light that we're really concerned about. I just want to uh I'm almost done. Just kind of sum it up if you would please. So the proposal would not constitute a nuisance due to noise and light that's 10.382. The proposal would not be a substantial inconvenience 10.383. The the proposal protects the adjoining premises against detrimental or offensive uses that's 10.385. The proposal provides protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of lights including parking lot and exterior lighting that's 10.393. The proposal may the the view the zoning board may improve sit back side and rear yards graded in the minimum required by the borrower 10.4. So you know Greg is a very nice person he would he is a good neighbor he will be a good neighbor I know but but he should be closer to the house that he owns not closer to my to our house. So I'm going to give this over to my wife Joyce Duncan. Oh she says I've said it all she's gave me notes. So I really want to just thank you I'm amazed you know that you give your time to serve on on this important board and you've been at it now for two and a half hours just thank you. Thank you. I guess we give the app kind of a chance to respond and then we'll have questions from comments from the board. Sure so I guess Mr. Kerr if I could I we've got maybe one slide to show where Ms. Chalf has overlaid the proposed site plan with the with the GIS map I don't know if everybody can see it up there but effectively this just gives a little bit of context I think to proximity. I'm going to thank you. Thanks Maureen. Just gives a little bit of context to proximity to the adjacent dwelling and topography and I think you can see just with the topo lines you know what this site asks for and I think the way that Maria Tom and Greg designed it is to give the site what it asked for I mean this is just this is the natural place for this supplemental dwelling I'd have to disagree with the abutter that you know if it was my parents I might not mind having a little bit of yard in between us so I think you know folks are changing how like supplemental dwellings will exist. I think the lighting is probably something that we should talk about you know I don't know where the board's at on it I know where Mr. Langsdale is and Mr. Chairman I don't know where you are but maybe it's if you know is the condition going to do it I guess is the question. Yeah I'm not sure I'd like to get some more information as to how the one abutter who's not next door but who's I think across the street is impacted by that the wash of light on the front of the house that's what I I seem to understand that that they were concerned that they would see this big broad piece of of a flat space that would be um lit up and I thought that was their concern is that did I understand that correctly and can you respond to that. Is it this abutter here where my mouse is? I'm not sure I think so because I thought they said they were next to I thought it was that house across the over if I could yes it is that house 25 uh Mount Pollock's Drive had the concern about the lights as well. Yeah okay and their concern was more about how it washes the front of the house more so than um and more more than washing up the uh the ground and I don't know how you can solve that problem with that form of lighting. It kind of sounds like we're we're stuck between a rock and a hard place where somebody doesn't want it to illuminate the ground somebody doesn't want it to illuminate the the front facade of the house and so you know who wins here does it does it help if is it better to put them straight down is it better to reduce to maybe three of them on that south side just to reduce the number because I think you know the deck area here that's pretty well shielded I think what you've got on top of the garage is is really functional and if there's anything frankly I think it's that on the south side and and what do we do there and so I guess you know condition was our first suggestion save for that not working is it reducing it to to a lesser number like like three or something like that. I'm not sure if that's but that's something to consider the board will consider in terms of conditions here conditioning to not to wash or to reduce the number okay um is there any and maybe a Rob more I could tell me is there any limitation or is there any restriction on how close a driveway or a parking area can be to the lot line or to the neighbors I I I don't think there is but Maury do you have no have to know uh no there there is no setback for the driveway or parking area all right thank you all right um are there any other questions from the board and then we'll move to um we'll close the hearing Mr. Chair I do see two people raising their hand well actually one's Joyce but um her microphone doesn't work but Michael Morgan is raising his hand I think he spoke already did all right let's should we Mr. Morgan can you let me press it all right hon I'm you Mr. Morgan I think he is taking himself off oh okay Mr. Maxwell uh yeah I believe Mr. Duncan suggested uh he's okay with an eight foot fence there um I guess my question would be to uh most Mr. Duncan and Mr. Stutzman um would an eight foot fence uh along that area between your house and the property line would would that resolve the issues of that that property or that structure being built where it's built is would and if so would that be something that uh Mr. Stutzman is amenable to so I'd be perfectly amenable to it unfortunately we're putting in the largest fence the bylaw allows the maximum is four feet in the front setback and six feet beyond that front setback when it's along the property line as this is so we're proposing the maximum that the bylaw allows I will say that um in the probably four years I've had those arbor vitae they've grown about four feet and I'm happy to provide some tall arbor vitae to supplement that fence height I think it would be a nice amenity for us and it would help to increase the intensity of the screening. Mr. Chair um Michael Morgan is raising his hand hello hello are we there yeah okay this is Fanny Rothschild um I want to explain where we live I still don't feel like it's clear outstrive and it is not the access to mount pox conservation area so people do not come very rarely do they come very hardly ever mostly walking they they do not come and park and go up mount pox it actually is private property to walk up that side there are signs that say private property people do not come that we do not have a lot of cars there we do not have cars or people parking to walk up mount pox mount pox conservation area is about four or five houses further south on southeast street there's an access road and it says mount pox conservation area you drive up that and you park so people do not come and park on mount pox drive they may occasionally come and drive on the drive looking for the parking area and then they leave so we do not have not as I said nine cars parking we have one or two at the most and they're usually Sam's and Joyce's family um so again I do not see the need for a turn around we back onto this quiet street where we have two houses and now we'll have three um again I feel like the turn around is incredibly close to Sam's house Sam and Joyce's house the Gladstone and Duncan house um I do not see why the turn around is needed so so there's it's not there will be access to ambulances and fire engines there's not other cars parking there it's not an access to mount pox conservation area the other question that I did not get answered is will these lights these floodlights be on all night how often are they on how often are they on I don't understand that question in a second we're still talking about the lights so I think you appreciate your comments and I think we uh many of them we've heard before and it's good to hear them again so I did have a question about the the lights of where they'd be um motion sensitive or um how there would be what's your plan for the lighting door so kind of through the the beauty of technology we're able you know our side of things is able to speak um I guess as far as the lighting goes the I think the garage would be a switch and those wouldn't be on all night you know the soffit lights at the garage the same thing with the soffit lights on the easterly side of the garage and the westerly side of the house illuminating that deck in in this area if you're still looking at the screen right in there I think those are on a switch as well uh and wouldn't be on all night and then for these soffits here I you know hopefully this helps get across the finish line hearing that you know Mr. Langsdale had a concern um and that the neighbors are having some concern why don't we scrap those soffit lights and put two sconces one on each side of that entry door to make sure that it illuminates you know the stairs and the path sufficiently identifies the house and just get away from you know Mr. Langsdale's concern about it being high get away from the neighbor's concern about it washing against the building and just put more of a traditional sconce slide and and call it a day if that's okay all right we could make that you can change that on the plan or make that a condition yeah if it it would be great if that's a condition and then we can submit it to the planning department prior to a receipt of a building permit sconces all right um and is there a limit on is our eight foot fences permitted by special permit or is it the hard and fast but we cannot permit an eight foot fence I think we need a variance I think but I'm wondering as well uh under 6.29 I was looking at that myself here and we're not doing a variance uh well we're all correct me if I'm wrong but I believe uh I mean 6.29 is not listed in this application so it wouldn't be applicable for this public hearing but seems that um yeah so 6.24 is the section that has the um the limit on the size of the fence the height of the fence but 6.29 does a lot of modification of that if the board was interested in exploring that yeah for a higher with that have to be done in a separate um special permit it's not referenced yet Rob I sense uh I think that's up to you I think I think in this case the fence was part of the application and if the board felt uh modification was needed one way or the other up or down I think that they can make that adjustment so I would I would be okay you know suggesting that you could modify the height under 6.29 in this application all right thank you mr maxfield um yeah before we you go down this route um I just would like to know if it's possible get an answer from uh mr mrs duncan uh would an eight foot fence uh solve their concerns it's actually Gladstone oh I'm sorry that's uh they have oh I thought they had raised their hands they expressed up uh press star nine um Gladstone's because I I can't remember which I think I'm just gonna go for it Sam Sam Sam's here okay Sam can you hear me yes oh hallelujah so I want to go back to you we're all looking at the same thing now I think of the plot right in Mount Pollock's Drive in southeast street can you hear me yes we can hear you we're looking at that but I want you to uh focus your comments on the eight foot fence no no let me just that's not fair please let me just because Tom I totally disagree with what he said you can see that if he they were willing to move the house south and east then you would be able to move the house further away from the property line we it's just that they want to be 38 feet back but that puts them right against our property so and you haven't addressed that the driveway even though it's allowed is closer than 25 feet and these extra spaces are closer than 25 feet you're dealing with lighting which is great and I'm thankful for that and yes having an eight foot fence would surely be better but there's no reason that the whole project can't be moved southeast and it would not if you look at the lay of the land it could easily happen thank you mr gladstone dr gladstone thank you dr gladstone um did that answer your question mr maxfield uh I I believe so I guess it it doesn't solve all the issues but it would help it solves the effort helps all right any other comments or questions from the board I'd like to move to the public meeting on this if the board is ready to Maria chow are you go ahead Maria tonight or yeah if that's fine we're moving on to a motion or decision that's fine I was just going to answer mr gladstone's question but what were your next steps mr judge what were you proposing no I might is to move to the public meetings and make some decisions but if you have something pertinent to respond to mr gladstone you should do it now and before we and then we're going to move to the public meeting section gotcha okay very quickly um we can't we can't really move the house south what happens is with the grading we're not able to have a walkout basement we would have to excavate significantly there'd be a lot more cut into the site in order to have the basement to go to grade on the north and so that's the reason why the house is actually situated that far back in order to reduce the amount in order to balance the cut and fill that was the ideal location that tom benjamin and I found as far as not having to create a lot more fill that needs to be accounted for on the site so that's it okay all right I think we should move to the decision-making aspect and what I'd like to do is leave the hearing open while we while we open up the public meeting so if there is a need for further comments we can do that but I'd like to open now the public meeting on this and this in the public meeting is principally a way for the board to discuss what they would like to do and the questions they have and to identify conditions that they want to impose should they support a should they support the the application so I think we hear a couple of conditions that are important one the conditions I'd like to go run through those first in addition dealing with the the lights that there are there are fewer lights and that you're knowing the exact wording of that morning there were fewer lights and that they would be they would not they're gone from the front of the house is that right the lights have gone from the front of the house so the condition that they would not wash or the front of the house and they would not be lighting but instead there'd be two sconces on the side of the door yes how Mr. Langsdale you have some strong feelings about that does that satisfy your concerns yeah that's that's good thank you all right secondly we have we've talked about an eight-foot fence which we would have to which we could permit under 6.24 that seems to me that would minimize or at least reduce the problems with the neighbors is there general support for that and is there any problems with any member of the board on an eight-foot fence miss parks I thought mr. Studsman was talking about perhaps putting more arbor vd so that the fence didn't didn't need to be higher I I don't know what his position on that is if he prefers is does not want to do an eight-foot fence as that's a more imposing structure fine eight-foot fence okay and can I just ask one additional question so you are building a basement and but it's not counted in the square footage and it's only going to be for storage and so I guess that makes me want to go why do you need a basement so again 800 square feet is a pretty small house so we have minimal storage on the main living floor really minimal I'm not coming from a huge house but I'm coming from one where I have a space for storing lawn equipment and whatnot and I plan to be needing more of that as we have more to maintain with Tom Benjamin's great plan there's going to be a lot of maintenance to do so I think your main question is is that finished habitable space down there the answer is no and I think a condition to that effect was discussed okay okay we do not need to make that a condition it's not it can't be habitable space can it all right we'd violate then we'd violate the don't want to be ordered more than 800 feet and is there an office above the garage I had considered one but it's not part of this proposal all right um so I'm going through other conditions that we discussed on the prop in the uh project application report um there's some standard conditions first of all that things have to be built to plan as provided by to the staff that's provided to the town all rooms have to be labeled on the following approved floor plan 810 um no one family which is supplemental apartment is constructed or upon the property of which the supplemental dwelling unit is built maybe you simultaneously for an accessory lodging under any provisions of section 5.010 or any supplemental unit built upon the property such one family dwelling is to be so used um one of the properties one of the units on this property is going to be owner occupied um the unit shall not be occupied by this new unit will not be occupied by more than three adults the management plan the complaint response plan shall be followed and any changes to those you return to the zoning board of appeals for a public meeting um we still want to have the lighting restrictions that they be downcast and dark staff compliant we don't want to move that remove that condition any dwelling unit of the property rented shall be registered permitted in accordance with the residential rental law street numbers for both dwelling units shall be clearly marked with reflective signage parking shall occur on improved services only the parking area shall be maintained and parking and drive area shall be constructed in accordance with the apartments of 7.1 this would be the place to see if there is any if there i am not in favor of forcing the applicant to change the parking lot and access parking but i want to keep that open i want to hear the opinion of other board members on that if they want to move if they want to reduce the parking area as a condition of the of the application they say i'm not inclined to do that i think there's a lot of a lot of buffer to the neighboring property and there's no zoning bylaw that requires it individual parking spaces shall be painted marked or otherwise delineated you must have a line down here to delineate your parking the maximum number of overnight visitors per unit shall be three people with a maximum stay of seven nights the maximum number of people in the on the premise at any time will be 15 people that's both for your house and for the the main dwelling correct Greg do you want to take that i i thought this was just for just for you so a little bit of question on that i think the context we spoke about this wording with staff was in the lease context and so the lease would be for the property that we intend to rent so that that both the limitations you're referring to would apply to the least premise but is the least premise you know is that that is before us because the other because the supplemental unit is before us is that i guess all right i suppose that's a way to get there um so we have three people overnight unit of three people seven consecutive nights for the best yeah so the the maximum number of overnight guests per unit shall be three people with a maximum stay of seven nights so that the existing house is one unit so the maximum they could have is three people staying for seven nights and then the maximum at that existing building that the premises associated with the existing building would be 15 and so as long as it's for 13 and 14 on your list as long as it's called out that for the existing residential structure or the existing one family dwelling because that's the rental property correct um firstly the board could um or alternatively the board could consider you know the maximum number of people on the premises total and Greg could come up with a suggested number of what for the entire property or as mr reedy uh suggested um just focusing on this one unit for how many people can be on the premises it's just that uh these are two different ways that the board has handled this in the past so something to consider we can either we can limit the least we can limit the total or we can limit the total property mr maxfield i'm sorry maybe i just don't quite understand um the need for this or where this is in the in the bylaw uh why is it that we have to mandate how many people can can be on the property at any given time would that that not be the discretion of the landlord to write that lease is there something the bylaw i'm unaware of that that puts a limit on this we typically do this in order to reduce the likelihood of large parties and disturbances in the neighborhood for rental property now we have owner occupied rental property in the neighborhood and it's almost we almost always put the limitation on the number of people that can that can be there for an event or that can stay overnight in order to avoid having people living there beyond what they're what's supposed to be living there was action permitted so it's pretty standard that there's some number of which we work with the owner with it's what they're comfortable with and they include that subsequently include that number in their lease um so if i if i understand this correct that if it would be the case that if i were to simply purchase my own house there would be no limit on how long i could have guest stay number of guests or how many people i could could have an attendance and an event on that property obviously if i were having a a a party that was a nuisance whether or not i own the home that is an issue with the police and and we have laws in place for that but it's the zoning board of appeals it it's been our standard practice that when it comes to renters that we have hard and fast rules about how many guests are allowed on the property how long they're there for and how many people maximum can be there rather than that simply being a landlord's discretion i i just think of something of if there's a tenant living there typically i know in my lease it says without express written permission from my landlord so if in the case i say you know want to have a graduation party or a birthday party here i could write my landlord let my neighbors know hey i'm doing this and have a party with a large number of guests that would then be held in a responsible way that wouldn't be a nuisance but we i i don't understand why the zoning would do in order to in order to increase the comfort for the neighbors to reduce the so they they they then know if they if there's been too many people beyond the amount permitted at the property if there's a party that there it's a party or other kind of gathering that is causing a nuisance there's there's the ability for the neighbors to to report that and to get some some satisfaction and it also it also is a way in which to maintain to try to reduce the impact of um rental property on neighborhoods and so it's been one that has helped with the ability for people to have rental property because it reduces the amount of concern in the neighborhood and that's why we've done it but there is there is no no hard and fast rule on that and this isn't something that would apply to somebody who simply purchases a house and they'd be free of those restrictions well there be i'm not the i can't speak on that but i think there'd be some restrictions even on your own house for how many people could would you be able to live there if they're unrelated folks not part of a family there would also be restrictions on the part the party and how many people can be in the house even if you're not renting to them i guess there'd be a limit there's there's health and safety limitations but this has been used effectively by the zba to try to to manage rental housing expression in a in a student of a university town oh yeah i guess just kind of my my last question i won't hold it up because you know we can always certainly vote on that in a condition but uh i guess my last point to that would be if there there are limits on uh the same that would apply to home ownership in any condition that we're putting here wouldn't that be redundant because those laws that apply to homeowners would apply the same to uh renters so if there is a hard and fast limit then that would already exist without the conditions that we would put on there are there are limits and restrictions on owner on rental housing owner-occupied or non-owner-occupied that are different than than owner then family housing or single-family homes that you occupy and don't rent to so there are differences in the zoning laws but maybe either mr mora or mr reedy can explain that if we want to go down this road farther we can or we can talk about it when we we can vote on the on the conditions you know we can save for the discussion on this of conditions so we can you know kind of keep this moving okay um other conditions change of ownership the new property shall be required to return to the zba at a public meeting for review and approval of the management plan the property shall be free of litter and debris um the color of the fence shall do you want to condition the fence the color of the fence or is i i think we said it's you're you're happy with hunter green it or the hunter or forest green so maybe hunter or forest green hunter or forest green that's all right um the fence shall not exceed 14 i think we could move that the fence shall not to probably not exceed four feet on the front lot line and the the fence the part where the fence can go to eight feet is along the portion of the side lot line between the minimum front setback and the rear lot line so you don't have an eight foot fence right along the right along the roadway which would look kind of awful you have the four foot fence and then you can go to the eight foot fence at the after you pass the setback yes right we'd be okay with a six foot fence and the start there if you'd like that i feel like we talked about an eight foot fence i wouldn't want my neighbors to feel slighted that they got a four foot fence for the area near the parking area so i'm happy with it it's a six foot or an eight whatever you deem if you think it's too high that's fine too i i think i'm i'm comfortable with four feet i think it looks it's imposing to have a a fence right a six foot fence right on the on the street and potentially maintain a good condition are there other conditions that we want to consider those are the ones suggested by the staff and those are some of the ones that we've talked about in the hearing so with that i'd like to i know that i'd like to move that we that we adopt these conditions with the exception of the um we'll have a separate vote on the limits on the people there because i know that mr maxfield wants to to maybe talk about that some more but i would move that we approve these conditions as laid out in the in the project application report of october 10th with with a mod of october 1st with modifications that we've talked about aside from condition 13 and 14 which we can discuss separately do i have a do i have a second to that motion second um is there any discussion this part so if so it tell me what these if we vote yes what does that mean we then we'll come back to 13 and 14 next and we'll discuss those okay but and then after 13 and 14 so if we're voting yes we are approving the project no no reporting on the conditions and then we'll have and then we'll have to discuss we're voting on the conditions and then we'll discuss uh we have to make certain findings of 10.38 we make those findings then we'll come back and vote on the okay with conditions yep so you know where we were okay here you may want to just hold off uh approving the conditions until after you go through the findings just in case um for whatever reason maybe one of the findings could affect one of the conditions that you disapproved it might probably won't happen but i don't know but it might be possible to get a rent uh this is Sharon will then a rendering or a drawing of what a four foot to an eight foot or a six foot to an eight foot fence would look like along that property line it's hard to vote on something you really can't see it and the pictures we've gotten have been great but i would sure like to see what that would look like i mean we could certainly provide that i would just suggest that it be as a condition of approval so that hopefully we can get the approval this evening and then we can come back at a public meeting and then the board can decide between four to eight or six to eight because it sounds like everybody's fine with either of those and it's really up to the board with aesthetics to say here's what we want but given the balance of everything else that we've talked about it um i would hate to hold up the whole thing for that if you will Ms. Walden are you comfortable with that if i could think about that while we are deliberating i would appreciate that you got it okay um so that marina i don't think there's a i don't think there's many of the um findings that are going to affect that are going to affect the um conditions oh can you hear me this is sam glider am i allowed to talk we're no we're we're in up in the public meeting section mr langsdale um i think there there's a standard condition on our about uh like a project has to be done within two years or it has to for the permission i mean the right come back yes normally it's yes substantial construction has to be done within two years it's normally a condition of any special permit so two years to substantial as it's the wording is substantial construction isn't it so the motion before us is for um the conditions except for 13 and 14 and i think mr langsdale has asked would ask that an additional two years for substantial construction to take place would be another condition but we're so i'm looking for any other discussion on that or a vote on those conditions not 13 and 14 mr chair if miss waldman is going to decide to accept the suggested condition i think that this is probably where it goes because it would be good so that we'll we'll construct this up marie you can construct a condition that they the applicant come back with renderings of a four to six and it's four to eight foot fence various renderings that we had a public meeting that we can decide which is appropriate to us does that work for you miss waldman yes and i think it would be four to eight and or six to eight i think those were the two things we talked about the one right at the the difference being the fence that's budding right if it gets in streak perfect right and and i i didn't hear quite i'm not sure i heard quite clearly is mr langsdale asking for four years for substantial completion of project no it's two years to have substantial substantial work done i think substantial construction okay i just heard something so thank you all right any other discussion on the conditions or any other all right i just uh if the applicant needs to come back would that be at a public meeting for the fence elevation okay yep all right the question occurs on adoption of the conditions not 13 or 14 which we'll discuss next uh it's a roll call it's a roll call vote i vote i mr langsdale hi miss parks hi mr maxfield hi miss waldman hi the motion is unanimous and it carries then the two areas that we're still discussing is the maximum number of overnight visitors number 13 and number 14 the maximum number of people in the premise at any time be 15 people um these have been these are typical and often we use almost often almost always we condition rental property with limitations on the amount of people that can be there at any one time with a total number of people that can be there overnight as guests um mr maxfield do you have i support this and i would continue it but you have an opposition to it and please state your opposition and we can yes but my uh my opposition to this comes primarily from uh i think it puts uh renters essentially into a different class than than home owners of what they are and are not allowed to do where i can think of especially in this case where it's an owner-occupied house with mr stutzman living there with is not an absentee landlord um and i very much believe it would be in his interest to put in the lease this condition uh and then and there without express written consent from the landlord something like that would be typical and the reason i wouldn't want to put something like this in there is for the reason i suggested before it's something we want to have a graduation party something during the day something like that that that isn't intrusive they now can't because they're renters and another case i could think of with overnight guests we're talking about a time right now where we're in the midst of a pandemic and a lot of people are going homeless around the country i can imagine a case where there might be a tenant living there who might come to mr stutzman at some point say a friend of mine has fallen on hard times i'd like them to be able to stay with me for two months three months whatever that might be and then mr stutzman will be able to consider something like that where if we've gone ahead and put on a condition like that then mr stutzman would have no discretion there would simply have to say i'm sorry but you you can't help a friend in this this uh type of case where again a homeowner would be able to do that where we're now putting renters in a different class where they wouldn't be allowed to do that and i i'd be more open to to yeah the realities we are a college town a lot of this is to prevent partying things like that and so we're strictly a rental unit non-owner occupied i'd be more amenable to it but where we have the owner uh occupied there he is the direct neighbor he himself has an incentive to not have parties there i don't think that's the real concern i just don't want to tie mr stutzman's hands on this to say hey i'd love to help you but legally i can't because of this condition that's been put on here by the town and it's for that reason that i i really don't support this type of condition i um i'll be voting no on it and i and i hope uh i i hope the the rest of the board can can see that point of view and can can go along with that as well because i think our concerns will be addressed by by the lease um any board member with comment mike miss parks what if you add or with permission of the homeowner but have those conditions there i think the concern is whenever you change property or somebody else is managing it it's it's trying to not let it get out of hand i mean i understand what you're saying that you don't want to restrict uh you know how someone lives their life um so would that work for you um mr maxfield if we added that or with permission of the owner yeah i i'm certainly amenable to that because i i can't imagine that uh anyone any landlord would write a lease that doesn't limit number of guests without their permission um so the we go yeah go ahead i'm sorry yeah so i i i think if we mandated that condition where mr stutzman would have that discretion or rather any landlord would have that discretion um if we mandate that specifically i think that's that's no different than us making no mandate because any landlord would put that condition in their lease no my concern is that we're starting to but we've that we're setting a precedent and i don't want to i don't want to move away from the precedent that we've set for a long time for as long as i and i'm not a long-term member but as long as i've been on the board that we've had limits on rental property either owner occupied or non owner occupied i'm up with a number of people that can stay visitors and have people that can stay and i and because we don't want to allow um the good landlords it's not going to be a problem a lot of these rules are because landlords are either maybe aren't may not be there or they may be they may be very um they may not be good landlords but but and i don't say that in the case of this gentleman mr stutzman but i do think that if we start making exceptions because we think that um this one we probably don't have to in this case because it's a good guy or he's nearby i think that we then make it difficult for us to do it in the future and that has been an important part of making people comfortable with providing rental housing is these kinds of limits and this kinds of accountability and these kind of conditions make it easier and give the neighbors the ability and and perhaps not in this case but in other cases to ensure that there's not abuse of the rental housing in their neighborhood and i i would really be concerned about setting a precedent that we that we not impose these kinds of limits in this case could i add something really quickly yes mr stutzman sorry i was just there's a little bit of ambiguity about the premises so and this may be your intent but could it clarify that it's the least premises or clarify that these provisions go in the least because i was asked to come up with the numbers that seem we mentioned that you mentioned that before and it was for the least premises not that not okay property we had we had a couple of options and did not do the entire property so i think we just have a difference of opinion on this one and i think probably we just ought to vote um and whether we adopt these or not we can miss parks has an has an amendment if she'd like to offer that as an amendment to uh 13 or 14 that would be fine is it the time to do that and we could adopt that adopt the amendment and adopt the two conditions if that's what people want to do i would like to add that amendment okay so your amendment is would be to add the words without the owners of the permission of the of the owner all right and that'd be for both 13 and 14 yeah okay um be a discussion on the amendment mr. lion today yeah um um miss parks what her amendment is or by permission of the owner is that right um yeah we're with permission or with permission yeah okay this or with her permission yeah right so could we read 13 and 14 with the amendment so we know what we're voting on so miss parks it would how would you construct that sentence the maximum number of overnight visitors per unit shall be three people with a maximum stay of seven nights in the least if we want to add the at least add the least premises good good catch or with the permission of the owner or maximum or if you want more you'll need permission they would have to get permission from the owner so in other words you want to have a party with 20 people you need to get the the owner to say that that's all right i think mr maxfield had some good language when he said without the consent of so you've got to put in a negative so otherwise it's kind of a left out there so say the maximum number is at the least or these um without without permission of the owner that would then allow them to it's in unless the owner says yes you understand that understandable mr line kill yeah could we just read both of them now with the maximum number of overnight visitors per unit shall be three people with a maximum stay of seven nights without the permission of the owner in the least premises in the least premises there's gotta be a better way to say that there's gotta be a better way we got we got lawyers here that can do it out the maximum number of overnight visitors shall not exceed three people with a maximum stay of up to seven nights in the least premises without um the express consent of the way that's the express consent of the owner all right good it's definitely late yep it's definitely without the express consent of the owner yes my lawyer brain left me some hours ago yes well we're not getting the nine o'clock um same and the same with 14 all right so that's the discussion is there any other discussion on that amendment all those yeah just just just the last pet before we go in there uh yeah i understand the uh the precedent and i think it would be a different discussion uh if it's not owner occupied but i i hope everyone will consider this condition because i i do think this condition puts renters into a different class than than homeowners and uh there's a wrench in myself i don't i don't like that idea that i i have to be a different class of person and what i'm allowed to do on in my dwelling because i don't own the home so i certainly hope uh people can will be amenable to this condition vote occurs on miss park's amendment to 13 and 14 and we then will vote on adopting the amendment but first we adopt the first we will vote on the amendment it's a roll call vote um i vote no mr langsdale miss parks i mr maxfield hi miss wallman hi motion carries four to one now the vote is on the um the two conditions as amended by the parks amendment is there any discussion if not uh the vote occurs it's a roll call vote i vote no mr langsdale hi miss parks hi mr maxfield hi miss wallman hi vote carries four to one um and the motion is adopted as amended so we've adopted the we've adopted conditions and now we need to go through and make our findings findings can be found on the project um the project application report it is late i mean hard time with that this is a on page six of the of the report this is a supplemental attached dwelling unit um shall we free stand small freestanding accessory one family just permitted to co-occur on a residential property a supplemental incidental to a new to a one family detached dwelling a supplemental detached dwelling unit may be the result of new construction rehabilitation of an existing structure you shall not and um then we have general requirements 5.005.0112 it's it meets these it's less than 800 it's 800 square feet um may not be used for lodging simultaneously as point two point three is the dwelling unit shall be occupied by the owner of the principal one family residence which requirement shall be made a condition of any special permit which we have done notwithstanding perversions of article 12 a supplemental dwelling unit shall be occupied by no more than three adult residents which is a requirement design and principal established in this section shall be applied to all access from the use as under the section the proposed supplemental detached dwelling unit is located within the outline that residents our own zoning district which requires a special permit approval by the zoning board of appeals therefore the applicant is requesting a special permit to construct a supplemental detached dwelling and we it meets it meets the requirements of we the findings that we have to make under 5.0112 parking in access we find that parking in access regulations um four parking spaces two spaces inside and two spaces outside this is um in um it exceeds the amount of the minimum required parking spaces dimensional regulations we've dealt with a fence 6.24 um it there are several um sections on fences and we're um you operating under 6.24 to allow us to have a lot a higher fence in six feet um the proposed the proposed planning and struggling the applicant proposed this planting within the front setback along the southern lines there's no public sidewalk there therefore the proposal meets section 6.23 of the zoning bylaws the fence we've discussed um four feet high the color we've discussed and we had a specific condition on the fence height and color and uh dwelling units you intend to occupy we've done that so now we have so we've met the requirements of of um section 5 section 7 and section 6 now section 10.38 specific findings required the proposal is suitably located in a neighborhood to which it is proposed the proposed detached supplemental dwelling unit is allowed within the outline residential zoning district with special permit the site has adequate space for our main house in a supplemental dwelling unit with 800 feet of habitable space the site will have sufficient room for open space and required parking 10.382 383 385 387 the proposal will not constitute a nuisance due to air and water pollution flood noise order dust vibration lights or visibly offensive structures or site features would not be substantial inconvenience or hazard to others considering the the conditions that we placed on the lighting and the on the fence I think we've met those requirements the proposed planting also provides visually shield opposed parking garage and dwelling unit from the adjacent properties to the west north and south the property owner intends to reside in one of the dwelling units on the property which would be a condition of a special permit the proposal provides dark sky compliant lighting the proposal provides convenient and safe vehicular pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent trees property or improvements 10.384 adequate facilities for proper operation of proposed use utility services are there 10.386 is in conformance to the parking sign regulations has four parking spaces two parking spaces for each dwelling unit so and so we've met 3.8 10.3.86 10.387 the proposal provides convenient safe vehicular traffic no vehicular and pedestrian traffic is found on the site 10.388 the proposal ensures adequate space for off-treat loading and unloading this is not applicable to the project 10.389 the proposal provides adequate methods of disposal and our storage for sewage refuge recyclables and other waste trash recycling been to locate in the garage water and sewer connection oh you know we did not I did not update that yeah I think we it is on town sewer isn't it so so well the applicant has been in contact with the town engineer and the town engineer is satisfied with you know their their intention to connect to the town sewer and water town engineer satisfied yeah we need to be that again do we have to make that a condition no it's going to be done all right but we and we we've referenced it in the discussion so it's locked in methods of drainage for water service the proposal includes on-site stormwater management creation of rain garter's rain gardens etc a copy of the applicant's submittal was distributed to the town engineer and provided comments regarding the proposal on september 29th he does not have any issues with the proposal submitted 10.390 flood hazards the proposal is not in a designated flood zone and it provides adequate drainage 10.391 protects the extent feasible unique or important historic features this finding is not applicable to the project 10.392 it provides adequate the proposal provides adequate landscaping for residential uses provision of street trees landscape violence parking lot is not applicable but non-residential uses is not applicable generally the proposal provides significant new landscaping to the screen from adjacent residential uses 10 plus it has a fence to also screen 10.393 the proposal provides protection of adjacent property by minimizing the inclusion of lighting parking lot and exterior lighting through the use of cutoff luminaries light shields lowered light poles in short lighting includes architectural sign lighting all must be dumb dark-scarred compliant and dumbcast we've changed the the lighting through the through the conditions and we find that they meet with those conditions they meet the dark-scarred compliance and they meet 10.393 10.394 avoids steep slopes is not applicable 10.395 the proposal does not create disharmony with respect to the terrain and to the use scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity the proposal detached supplemental dwelling is found to be in harmony with that which is currently existing on site and is found to be lower in height than the existing home 10.396 the proposal provides screening for storage areas trash and recycling shall be stored in the true car garage 10.397 the proposal provides adequate recreational facilities this is not very sufficient open space on the site 10.398 the proposal is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the spy law and the goal of the master plan section four demographics and housing of the Amherst master plan states that a mix of housing be provided to meet the needs of and is affordable to the broadest possible spectrum of the community with the applicant providing supplemental red dwellings as infill on existing property the proposal has met with the intent of the master plan by providing a mix of housing within the neighborhood in addition the proposed supplemental detached dwelling is in harmony with the zoning bylaw in relation to section five point zero one one and other applicable sections those are our findings we've we've gone through the findings and met them we've adopted the conditions what remains as the final vote on the project and the application as with conditions so is there a motion to approve the project with conditions mr maxville moves is there a second second miss park seconds is there discussion on the motion to approve the application with conditions if not the motion occurs on the vote but the vote occurs on the motion all those in favor of um approving the application with conditions indicate by a voice vote aye vote aye mr langsdale aye miss parks aye mr maxfield aye just wallin aye motion is unanimous motion carries um thank you very much thank you the last the last item of good luck the last item of business is um the ability to open up the for any member of the public to discuss anything they want except for those items before the the board tonight um this is required by town rules and so we open up the floor for anybody in the public to discuss anything they want except for issues before us tonight is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak so please raise your hand yes please raise your hand star nine there being no other comments um the next meeting marine is on wednesday wednesday night on 132 north hampton at six o'clock we'll start at six o'clock and we'll have we'll be dealing with um some conditions and waivers for next next week you'll have material before you before the meeting so you can study it all right gang we didn't make that we didn't come close to hitting nine o'clock tonight i'm sorry but we dealt with a lot of stuff mr langsdale yeah i have something to say about this we're two hours over the nine o'clock every application that comes up they are told that we will make a decision if we can this evening i'm not doing this again i'm not doing two hours over the night if we can't make a decision even because it's going way too long then we say you'll have to come back we'll have to continue it but i'm not doing this again i understand no and if that's a problem i can resign but i'm not doing this again this is ridiculous i apologize we should it's not your fault but but no it is to be able to say look they they wanted to get it done tonight that's great that that's the first thing to do but that wasn't my it's too much i agree with i agree with you it's long and shouldn't have happened and i that's my fault i guess we could have but we would not have had it wasn't to get it done tonight we just have so much of other stuff we have to do this wouldn't be up until i probably until november by the time you get this stuff you know that's not our problem that's right miss parks i was just going to say also the the thing about getting materials so late is is also a little frustrating because it's you know it's kind of like i work and so i'm rushing home from work to read the latest thing and then you know and then we'll get public comment you know after i've looked at things and so i feel like i don't i don't have everything so i don't i don't feel as prepared as i would like to because a lot of applicants are just sending stuff in you know 15 minutes before the meeting yeah that's why i asked you about the fence i didn't i had no idea that they sent it in because i couldn't go through all that much i didn't have time to go through all that material a lot of it coming today or yesterday it and we've talked about this before well and if they don't submit until the day of the hearing i think we should tell them right up front we're probably not going to decide this tonight because we haven't been able to look at all of the materials we haven't been able to ingest it so that we know what we're talking about i don't want to look foolish saying well why don't you know we need a picture of the fence well we have one we sent it to you oh okay great you know it's just it's not the way to run the board i agree with that the way to run the board we should enforce the rule change that we made earlier this year on the material to us a week before yeah yep all right i'm glad to know that other people feel strongly about that and we will insist on that with our applicants in the future we will mr maxfield not fair to us you know our pay grade doesn't uh doesn't uh i'm getting rich off this especially on these already you're getting rich uh i i don't know if anyone else is is amenable to this and if they aren't that's totally understandable but even for something like this where we might want to continue something where we know where we're getting near the end of something we can kind of see the goal line i am certainly open to doing an off night where we know it's going to be a one hour meeting where we're finishing now that ain't going to happen that ain't going to happen because then suddenly we're making we're making adjustments for them this is the board when we meet is when we meet we get the business done as fast as we can with the materials in a timely manner or or are we continuing and they have to understand that it's their responsibility to get the materials to us not our responsibility it's not our responsibility to rush home at like after work and run through all this material so that we can start talking at 6 30 it's just not the way to run this board it's not the way it's been run before and it can't be run like this and i'm this 11 o'clock shit is you know mark and i dealt with this a long time ago and i'm not going back to it frankly again i think we've been really good in my in our defense we've been really good until tonight was trying to get it done by 9 9 30 this one went long and that is my fault i agree and we won't have it happen again but all i think the two points number one we're going to enforce the get substantive material to us ahead of time so we can read it and study it and two we will have we'll have a more firm limit on when we're going to when we'll be done 9 o'clock at night and we'll try to and we will strive to be as good as we've been until now this was the exception and and and with with all of this i'm amenable if it's 9 o'clock and we're you know going through one sort of thing that we need to figure out we go to 9 30 okay but to keep going on is just it just so that they can get it done you know no it's not why i'm here i understand that's not all right that up for it all right folks i move to adjourn second should we discuss this more oh yeah let's do that all right um i vote i mr. Langston i mr. Barton we just thought i by hitting leave if it's faster mr. maxfield and miss waldo hi hi all right we'll see you next wednesday all right goodnight everyone


Sometimes people want to change the partner first instead of connecting with self. Sometimes people will choose the repetition pattern. Sometimes other people, though, will choose the oppositional pattern. Well, it can look a couple of ways. Sometimes people swing in romantic relationships, so they choose somebody who is super-compative in communication or conflict, and then the next person they date is the total nice guy or gal, like you said before. And then they swing back, and then they swing back. Or you grow up in a family system where high conflict is really charged, maybe high conflict means a lot of yelling, or it might mean abuse, or it can mean so many different things to so many people. But this idea that because this was so painful for me, I do a 180. So instead of being attracted and drawn to what is familiar, I 180 it, and I am drawn to the person who will never bring up anything. And even though the latter may be enticing, because no conflict sounds good, looks good, right? But the reality of it is, is that when we are existing in repetition or opposition, we are not existing in integration. And I think it's really important because to the public, I think we talk about repetition a lot. Oh, it's the same thing as when you grew up, and we don't give opposition enough of a spotlight. And so I'd like to just give opposition a moment here with us, be like, you have to look out for that part too, because that is not resolution, right? That's an avoidance of something. And an avoidance isn't the resolution that we're looking for. And that opposition can come in many forms. So as a parent, you might say, well, my parent's abused alcohol, so I'm never going to touch it. Right. You can look for opposition in behaviors that don't actually heal you, but you're acting in a totally different manner. So you on the surface think, OK, well, I'm not doing, I'm breaking that pattern. I'm not doing what my family did to me. So therefore, I'm healing and moving forward when in actuality, it's surface level. It's not meaningful to the wound that was caused. But it's so subtle, right? Because no one's going to argue with you if you choose not to drink. Right. They're not going to say, you should be drinking. Right. They're not going to be like, oh, that's a bad decision or low conflict. No, tisk, tisk, right? It's like these are the ones where it can feel like, oh, you can get away with it because you're making a choice that objectively looks pretty good to the observer. Right. And so it's so important. Right. This is such a nuanced conversation of, no, if you just choose that path without the resolution, right? You are not actually addressing and healing it properly.


The Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, Gardner and Mayfeele, Ekiji State Governor Kairi Fiami, former National Chairman of the Party, Adams Oshomale, and others declared presidential ambitions, bringing the number to about 27, 17 of whom had picked a hundred million Naira form. And Section 84, subsection 12 of the Electoral Act as amended, does not exist, says Minister of Niger Delta Affairs Gotswil, Aqabiu. Well, this is Plus Politics. I am Mary-Anna Corn. The race for the presidential tickets of the all ruling or progressive Congress APC continues as Ekiji State Governor Kairi Fiami, the Central Bank Governor, Gardner and Mayfeele, former National Chairman of the Party, Adams Oshomale, Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Senators of Gotswil, Aqabiu, and Jigawa State Governor Mohamed Baduru Abubaka, have individually declared their intent to be the standard bearer of the Party for the 2023 general elections. Altogether, over 15 individuals have declared their intentions to run and have picked up the required forms. Yet, the Party has now extended its deadline for the sales of nomination and expression of interest forms. The ruling party has made about 1.23 billion Naira from the sale of expression of interest and nomination forms to 17 presidential aspirants. Well, joining us to break this down and more is Bola Obahi and Biodu Shomi, who both are political analysts. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for joining us. Thank you. Great. I'm going to start with you, Bola. It's very interesting when we see these many aspirants, many people declaring their intentions to run, and who knows, many more might just, you know, in the coming days, continue to throw their hats into the ring. But then, let's start by looking at the quality of the people who have so far declared their interest. Yes, I'm asking, what do you think about the people who have joined the presidential aspirations so far? What do you think of the quality of these men, including the woman who has also joined? So, also, the question speaks to the fact that we are in a silly sitting, we're in a silly sitting of politics. And to be honest with you, our issues must tell to me that the incumbent must have dumped down the quality of the allowed office so much that every riffraff believes he or she, in so much as he or she could cannot perform, can go for it. Very pedestrian. When you say every riffraff, I'm looking at the people who have so far joined that race in the APC, by the way. Can you really qualify them with that term? I mean, we've had former Senate presidents, we've had former governors, we've also seen former party leaders. Do they really qualify as riffraffs, or Tom Dix and Harry? Former party leader was decapitated in the manner brought in on a chemical production. You've forgotten I was decapitated from the seat of former Senate leader in another party. I guess you're not talking about the ruling party. And the Senate leader, whilst he was still on the allowed seat of the Senate leader, even lost his state. So if that does not speak to something to you, for you, it does for me. Interesting.  Let's look at the quality again, like I asked, of the people who have thrown their hat into the ring so far. I mean, Balaba has said that he feels that it's a come one, come all a fair for the APC. Many have said that this is some form of money-making scheme for the ruling party, and this might empower them when it's time for the main race in itself. But what are your thoughts? Well, there are different ways you can win this issue. In the first instance, is the party delicately encouraging the aspirants to come out with a view to make some money, making money. That's the other way. Is it about the backing plan? When it comes to the quality of the candidates, it depends on what you mean, and on the understanding of governance. Many of them are well-experienced in part of governing Nigeria, and I would call it by that, in the sense that they've been holding political offices, and some are still holding offices still now, and we have so many of them interested in protesting for the president. One thing which I found strange is that we've never had the lot of presidential candidates in our political history. Even Pyro to 1999, we've never had it. So therefore, we need to understand exactly what is really going on. Is it about the political party wanting to make money, or about something else? In my view, I think it's about something else. I don't think it's about making money, because at the end of the day, for example, money they are making, or not, people within that set of amongst those who are applying can donate that amount of money. So I don't think it's about... I think it's about a different game plan. You need to go look at the issue from an historical perspective. Look at the situation when the 17th South-Hang Obnus declared that the presidency was going to start, and then look at the rehearsal of the North-Hang Obnus PMs, and then we find a situation where APC, as a political party, decided that the chairman, chief of the party, should be zoned to the North. Knowing that once a North-Hang Obnus is approved, then there is no way a North-Hang Obnus would be the first stage. Now, when it comes to the South, so many people have been encouraged to come out, and also people from the North have been encouraged to come out. What I see happening is a situation where the president is becoming, you know, to have a consensus country. If you have so many candidates out, who are holding their own territory, it will be difficult for anyone to have 50% of the votes in a particular zone, because if this situation has actually broken it all down to zones, and if we increase the local government, the delegates from local government from 3 to 5, so therefore it could be impossible for any particular aspirant to win the vote zone. So this will compare negotiations, and that is when the presidency will come in, the leadership of the party will come in, and then choose to whoever they want as a consensus candidate, and then they will be able to get the necessary backing for that person. But we should not forget what the electoral axis is. If one candidate is a candidate, then the consensus option they're working on will not work. In terms of what they are trying to do, what I see is something we are doing. I don't see it as a money-making venture. I see it as part of the gate plan on choosing the next presidential candidate from the APC who may be compliant to the interests of the party. Okay, let me come back to you, Mr. Oba. Show me saying that this might be a tactic of sorts to finally get all the aspirants to come to a consensus. But do you see some confusion erupting as a result of this game plan if it does not necessarily work? Being that, we're seeing more and more people emerge from the South, and less people from other regions. Like he has said, they have zoned the offices to the North, of course. Now the South, obviously, are the ones who are at play. But do you see a smooth sale in this particular game plan? Or are there other things, other permutations that you see in the future? I want to congratulate Mr. Oba for the over-stretch of his public intelligence. He tries to rationalize the badness that is happening in the APC now. The best explanation for me is money laundering. The party needs money. They go out to encourage every character who they believe could be used to articulate the money laundering exercise. And basically, this is the festival of plutocracy. That permutation consensus. There's no consensus mechanism in the APC, in the presidential convention constitution. In the constitutional APC, there's no consensus for their presidential convention. But this is how President Bohari emerged in the first instance. So, I mean, are you saying that the party will get to the left? No, no, the fact that you know madam, go check your facts. But it was some form of a consensus. There was an agreement of sorts for President Bohari to be the flag bearer of the party. You are historically unfortunately wrong. Go and check your facts. In 2014, at the Slim Barokun, there was a contestation. In 2018, there was direct, although it didn't come out, but there was the Rebus Nigeria, so-called direct primaries. You go research it, or get your research places to do it for you. There is no consensus instrument in how its presidential candidate is not in the constitution. I wonder how that could be articulated. I'd also like to correct you that there is consensus within the APC's constitution. There is consensus in the general convention. Listen carefully. There is consensus in the general convention. But in the presidential election convention, there is no consensus. The two are different, my sister. Go check it. The two are different. So you're saying that there will not be any consensus at the end of the day.  Or we will all fall back to direct primaries, will we? My sister, you don't necessarily have to have a confusion. There are two outstanding mechanisms that have ruled out one. They said they are not using direct primaries, but they also have indirect primaries. Indirect primaries is an electoral college mechanism where delegates elected from their wards to their local governments, to their states, under, we know how this thing works in Nigeria, under the control. And the states would have gone now under the control of somebody with a deep convention center, a presidential convention center, not general convention center, go to a convention center to cast their votes for the president of their choice. And we know that that is the bazaar. From when must you add the use of money at the just convention in 1992, presidential conventions of parties, delegates are going for bazaars and they want to come in with money. Okay. Back to you show me, it's interesting the position of Bola Ho, but he's saying that this is, it's going to boil down to indirect primaries. Now, we know that the congresses are coming up in a bit. They're getting ready for that. But then they have also pushed back the dates for the sale of forms. Even though INEC has come out to say, well, the primaries, the dates for the primaries aren't shakeable, it's sacrosan, they're not going to move it. What do you think the primaries, the congresses are going to, what shape and form do you think it will take? Yes, there will be. We should understand one thing. When we're talking about consensus, the part of the electoral act, as amended, allows for three methods of choosing candidates. One, direct primaries, two indirect primaries. The third one is consensus. This was repeated in the whole country. The president actually insisted on having that consensus inserted before the electoral act was actually signed up. So therefore, any party, including the NEPC, that chooses to adopt the consensus of them, will not be violating the electoral act. And I think that's the most important point in this matter. Because the party constitution is not superior to the electoral act or the constitution of the federal public constitution. That is a statement of fact. Now, back to your question, they will have congresses. We know that we are Australian, we know that so many candidates will have that, but why are they all coming up? You begin to ask it, sir. Even those who are sure that their tentacles will not extend beyond their states are also coming up. The reason is there's a game platform. Well, the NEPC is harvesting money from that, including PDP, all the parties are harvesting money from me, the major parties. But the fact of the matter is, I don't see this just about making money. I see this as part of the process that will lead to the congress, whereby a form of negotiations can take place. I don't think that will succeed, in my view. I don't see all the candidates agreeing on doing this, but they are all out to represent different interests, which is very clear to me. We cannot remove the influence of the presidency in what you are beginning to see, because the cabal behind it all in the presidency also have their own tickets. Not all these candidates. Obviously, this is to enable discussions. There is anxiety about what would happen after Buwari, would they have restructuring, anxiety about the fate of the country and all that. And the powers that be would only swing their support towards their own interests. I think there are a lot of other issues which are playing behind this break. But in order to have a... In order to have the major... Who really needs to have so many people in the race, and people whom you can count on their votes, in order to influence whoever the president wants, as they can... I don't see the whoever that would emerge would be a true reflection of what all the delegates want. Polova is right on one point, that the fact that money would exchange hands, that's the fact that the delegates would get monetary still market infrastructure from it. That's the fact. All the delegates are comfortable enough to do that. But I don't see that as a major issue. I think the major issue is actually a little agenda which they're trying to post. It's not about financial returns or money going into APC. Quickly, before I go back to Polova, I want to ask a question about the presidential aspirants meeting that was supposed to take place. The Southern presidential aspirants meeting that was supposed to take place, that was all of a sudden cancelled. There are people who had said that, look, this meeting would have given the Southwest some form of a vantage point of sorts, looking again at all of the people who have come out from the Southwest. Let's also not forget that we've also had some people from the South-South, like the Minister for Transportation. We've also had the Minister for Niger Delta. We may not have so many people from the South-South, but then the Southwest meeting, cancelled abruptly. In looking at all of these Southwesterners, now let's look at votes. Let's look at how the handshake across from here to other regions. How powerful or which candidates do we think that if that meeting were to hold, would be able to spread its tentacles across, right across the country to be able to win that seat for the APC? Is that for me or for us? Yes, it's for you. Oh, yeah. When you look at the handshake plan across the South, what's the essence? The essence is to pull down candidates in a way that it will be managed and Southwest would be able to present a common vote. And I think it's exactly the same thing that the South-South is intended to do. Now the one for South has been cancelled due to distrust and questions are being raised by some of those who speak for Mr. Vice President while others welcome him. In the Southwest, the agenda is very clear. The candidates are very clear. I think nobody can deny the fact that Chinungu is a major factor in the Southwest and is in the rest. So we also have the Vice President who also is a city-run Vice President and when it comes to those people with tentacles across the whole country, I think Chinungu probably, given the length of time he's been on the scene and given his role in the past, and being the national leader of the APPC, I think he's in a very good position. But at the same time, a city-run Vice President cannot be dismissed as not having influence across the country. But I think it does have influence across the country. So I can see both of them as probably leading candidates in the Southwest. Same question for you Mr. Oba. What do you think was at the... Before I go to that question, let me put this emphatical. The Electoral Act as amended or the Electoral Act, the amended Electoral Act 2022 took on sensors as one of the instrumentalities of choosing party leaders and choosing candidates of parties. But I will say that the Electoral Act does not overrule the constitution of the parties. If the constitution of the parties as in the case of the APC defies the mechanism selection or nomination of their candidates and it overrules consensus the fact that the position is in the Electoral Act does not automatically impute it. So let's put that aside. Now, in the case of your specific question, I want to ask is the most resourced Southwestern candidate indeed at this juncture who is the most resourced Southern candidate? Plus including the vice president. The person that has no trust the networking asset over the years, the person that has the most ideal candidate but you know what, your question as framed is actually slanted in favor of whom personally, from the south. And we are talking to a man who indeed believes that we should be microzoning at this juncture to the southeast of Nigeria because since 1960 when we attained the flag and anthem in the south as an accident on circumstance for only six months, six months, six calendar months and we have this opportunity to subsume its majoritarianism its natural instincts for majoritarianism subsuming for rotation because of equity obscenities if you are a Southwestern intellectual, well-exposed in respecting the fact that for Nigeria to be subsequently prosperous as a single political entity we need to find a mechanism such as 930 since we are talking about the APC here since we are talking about the APC here and let's zoom into the South Eastern candidates who have so far declared interest I mean, Ajiz Akalo pulled out midway so all we have left is the I think a branch state governor at some point had thrown his hat into the ring and I think we have a former senate leader I don't know the combat minister the combat minister of science and technology who was once a criminal yes but then let's look at those people the caliber of the people that have come out from the Southeast and of course their voting power the block power that they have in terms of swaying the votes if the party were to say well let's zone this to these people and I'm not in any way making a case against the Southeast but I'm saying we have more people from the Southwest and then less people from the South-South and the Southeast if we were to go by the numbers if the APC were to go by the numbers how encouraging are the people from the Southeast within the party to want to run for that office I'm basically telling you that at this juncture at this juncture there are about six characters from the Southeast who do this for me a comical character as the minister of state and then the parties form Miss Abba I don't think you answered my question but because we don't have too much time let me quickly go back to show me quickly he's making a case for the Southeast yesterday we had two days ago we had a guest from the north who said that the people from the Southeast are not ripe in his words exactly that they're not ripe for this office he also said that if we were to say let's give power to the Southeast who are the people to be given I asked him why he also said that the confusion in the Southeast is also making them unprepared for the position of presidency and he said well if we were to say let's donate to the Southeast where are the people exactly I'm just asking him a question now that we're all asking and angling for the Southeast how many should we not have a million just as we're having as many people from the Southwest also vying for this office and showing that they're really interested in this office we have about six presently how much can you have when you have Africa this question is for show me quickly before we go well the way I see it you post taking the broad principle of a PT that should be no nationality that should be ruled out or ruled him from 13 for any post in this country because if we say we're a country middle of ethnic nationalities we have to ensure that we have an agreement that would encourage everybody to have a sense of belonging that is the primary reason why in the constitution we have the principle of federal character so that all the states would have a sense of belonging whether the president likes it or not he has to appoint a minister from the state of the federation so when you're talking about the political leadership of the country it is not the exclusive preserve of any ethnic group that should also have a right to aspire and nobody should deliberately work against them on account of being from southeast now I understand that democracy is a game of thunder we've had agitations about people wanting to be nitrous particularly in the southeast yes to some extent in the southwest the fact of the matter is we cannot say we want them to be president but at the same time we don't want them to go that's a contradiction but then all we see within the parties we see all of the movements within the parties are not necessarily looking like it's going to favor the southeast and this is why I ask that question we're not seeing that much attention towards the southeast we only hear agitations you need to give your ticket to people in the southeast but the parties in themselves don't seem to be going in that direction the APC and the PDP in fact the PDP has thrown his party ticket open so really are we just paying lip service to this issue and again the people from the southeast how eager are they to run for these offices it's not enough to say we want power but are they showing that they want to grab hold of this seat yes for our policy if you look at the APC what he said when he came into office I can't recall whether you remember when he was freshly elected in 2015 I think he went to the US where he said he spoke about those who gave him 90% of the vote and those who gave him 50% of the vote something along that line more or less in the southeast it's going to concentrate his attention on where he got more votes from than the southeast and that's precisely the situation so since then if not for the further character principle I doubt whether he would have appointed you know self-system and has into his government so one would expect that they are not well-fated is supposed to within the APC even the disposition of the president certainly has had a change of mind but that's just it it doesn't resolve any problem because no matter what we do we must assure justice and fairness is we see a section of the country is taken from political power there it's going to be a problem at the end of the day well out of time I want to say thank you to Wala Oba and of course thank you very much both our political analysts thank you for being part of this conversation I think that the conversation about the southeast presidential ticket needs to be continuous but thank you gentlemen thank you very much alright thank you all for staying with us we'll take a short break now and when we return the minister of delta says that section 84 subsection 12 of the electoral act as amended does not exist well this is up for discussion right after this break