here this evening, it's always where our firm, with the under consideration, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the demilitaries of hergery. So Meredith, why don't you give us an overview of this application. So I'm going to keep this pretty brief. So this is a renovation plan. The big reason that it's here before the board is because part of the plan is partial demolition of a portion of a contributing historic structure. So that bumped it up here immediately. It did also go through design review because it's in the design review district. And so you'll need to re-review that and look at the recommendations from the design review committee and confirm that those are all going to be included as conditions on any permit going forward. There are some minor site plan questions that came up during the review. That most of them, I think, deal with facts that the applicant will need to address, such as coverage amounts and an issue with regard to exactly how far the corner of the porch on the rear of the building will be from one of the site setbacks. But the big issue is really the demolition. And the application is for demolition of a contributing structure, not the main structure. Right, it's an addition and a shed that are attached to the back of the building that were added on after the original building. And this, for members who have been part of this board for a while, this is a revisit with a changed plan for the renovation plan. But that demolition of the rear portion was part of the old plan as well. Right, I was going to note that if you're being nature of this portion of the building, testimony to offer. The home since 2014, until very recently, demolition would be at the shed. Is there a reason why you dated that, not that late, but that different of a time if this is a sort of 19th century structure? I would then. Exactly when this was built. We can tell it wasn't original. We can tell, we can see there's some kind of ghost lines in the paint on that rear cable end that clearly there is some other little shed back there at some point. The quality of the construction is markedly different than the quality of the construction of the original house. The original house is a well built. Some of it is not finished space. The shed is certainly not finished space. The addition, maybe it was never finished space and maybe someone in the 40s kind of attempted to, or at some point along the way, attempted to kind of bring it into the house to increase the square footage of the house. It finishes in that space kind of screen. Sorry to interrupt. The intention is to renovate the house to still be three presidential units, first floor going from a three. And so what's lost by the demolition is that it goes from a three bedroom on the first floor to a two bedroom. Is there any impact on the second or third floor? There is an impact on the second floor. Currently the second floor addition, which would be demolished, houses the kitchen. The last four years as I've lived in the house and used the house, sometimes I've lived on each floor. So I've experienced the problems on each floor and the opportunities and I've rented out each floor. Of course, the second floor has been a two bedroom with that kitchen being in the addition section. And so this would move that kitchen to one of the bedrooms is currently referring to the addition on the back because I know that there's also a little bit of a bump out on one of the sides. Correct. Yes, I'm referring to the addition in the back. We had for some time assumed that the bump out, which is about five feet and is just on the first floor. Although the second floor addition is matches that bump out that was on the first floor. Suspected for some time that that bump out was not original to the house. More recently Dan's opinion is that it may well be that bump out on the first floor original to the house. And there's a couple of things to look at that hadn't considered in the past that indicated it may be original. So I'm looking at the drawings of the elevations. I just want to make sure I fully understand. And I'm looking at A3 and that's that seems to illustrate. So you've got the existing front porch of the house that's staying the same. And I'm looking at the existing elevation on that drawing. And then you've got the main house building, I would say. And that's gonna stay the same. Except for, looks like you're replacing a window, a door with a window. And then it's in the back really that the demolition's occurring. And so is that entire section in your opinion, Dan, newer to the house? Absolutely. Okay, so it's a distinctively different quality than the main house. From foundation to roof. Okay, so it's not as if you're taking part of the old house and deconstructing it. No, the original house will be, you know, would go under go the remodel, but that rear half is absolutely a different vintage. Dive into some of the other issues. So when that portion is taken out, you're then going to resize the back of the house and add that cupboard porch. Anything else? Anything else as far as kind of what changes on that? Windows siding, at least in the porch, yeah, that is all. I'm gonna jump to the provisions for the terrarium. So I think that before we talk about any of the setbacks or issues, I think we do have to take a look at the... Question page seven. There we go. I just want to make sure we do the right findings that we have to, because that seems like a threshold, because we don't get into any of the coverage issues unless we can make a sort of determination as to whether or not the standards have been met for the demolition. So to example, we have questions about that. I'd like to go through the findings that we do need to make. And so section 3004, section D2 states that the demolition or replacement of any structure or portion thereof listed as a contributing structure to the Vermont Historic Sites and Structure Surveys and the National Register for Historic Resources is prohibited unless a developmental review board approves the demolition and site restoration plan and the board makes the following findings. A rehabilitation of the structure or portion thereof would cause undue financial hardship to the owner. So if you could address that criteria, has it necessarily, I mean, I understand that it's above lesser quality than the main house that it looks like it was added on, but I mean, that's true of a lot of old houses. What makes this cost prohibitive to renovate as it exists currently today? I would, in no particular order, the foundation, it's not on a quality foundation. The rest of the house has a real foundation under it. This back part of the house has some rocks laid on the ground and it's like a little crawl space kind of scrambled to get in there. So I would say for starters, it needs a new foundation. The lot is very, very hemmed in. There is a significant ledge on the north side of the property that comes down right to the building such that you can see over the years that north wall system has been repaired and repaired again. And you can see it's just kind of undergone some pretty marginal quality repairs over the years has kind of debris and leaves and things just kind of have found their way into that kind of acute angle there. So would you call that a perpetual problem that is just always going to have either rock slides or leaves? It's impossible to detail that properly in its current state for sure. So you one cannot access the foundation repair from any side other than the driveway side and gets one would need to get access all the way around to do a proper foundation repair. What kind of foundation does it have? It's got, it's like some rocks just kind of you know, placed there. The original slab. It's pretty minimal in its current state which Theo kind of shared some stories about various critters getting in there and wreaking havoc within the house. I believe at least one picture was submitted that shows a shock within the shed, the foundation of which is just dirt. On the story issue, I think you did a great job with the mating skunks. I wish it weren't true. Better than fiction. I'm not far enough removed from that experience to think but fondly. I'll try to contain myself. So to put a real foundation repair in there would require lifting the building significantly up in the air so that we could excavate properly and we hadn't, that's an expensive proposition where we'll write out of the gates. And then the amount of structural repairs that would need to happen to the existing kind of structural components it really just kind of a significant portion of it just needs to be rebuilt. I'm certain that the sill all the way around the things that's sitting on those rocks is just completely shot and that rear northerly wall is also just completely shot. So again, so we start with the foundation significant expense. Structural repair is a significant expense. It needs the siding is in incredibly poor condition so new siding, new windows. I mean the whole thing just really needs to be rebuilt and then of course the interior finishes would need to be gutted. There's no insulation in anything over there. It's just a complete rebuild to the point where in my experience it would be an unreasonable amount of money to capture an otherwise fairly small amount of square footage that would not contribute much to the way of marketability or income revenue for that property. I'm noticing in the staff report that these repairs have been estimated somewhere in the neighborhood between 165 and 185,000%. That was a study that I did just kind of adding up all the things and then probably some more that I just kind of rattled off there. Known problems and the known unknowns. Right. There was a supplementing letter that the deterioration of this particular area was not caused by your neglect but just was inherent within the nature of this portion of the building. Is that? I don't know that I specifically stated that in my letter. I did include a letter from Ward Joyce who I purchased the house from and he had been upfront with me that this portion of the house would have to be demolished at some point. That's a conversation I had had with him at the point of sale and I had asked him why and he said it's in really poor condition. It's not original to the house. It's not a good use of space and he walked me through it and we looked at the various issues. Most of those being foundational. So I was aware that there were significant issues with it. I cleaned up the garage or not the garage but the shed. It's a two-story shed and used it sparsely for some storage over the last number of years. And fell out of favor of doing so because it was, it felt dangerous to go up the stairs within the shed. And a number of times I put my foot through a hole in the shed and hit the dirt below. So I determined that it was not good for the purpose of which it currently is standing. That's the shed. The addition is been used as living space. It's the kitchen on the first floor and a bedroom on the first floor. And on the second floor is just a kitchen, sort of a dine-in area next to it. The dam was describing the finishes on it were quite poor. I went ahead and lowered door test and had an energy audit of the home. Those areas red is particularly leaky. Although there were many leaky spots throughout the rest of the house too to be sure but my hope was that area was newer and perhaps had some insulation and that's not the case. But just so I understand, I can understand the shed portion seems to answer to all the issues but then the addition to the house is that to have the same issues Dan with the lack of a foundation? Okay, so it's of a piece even though it's a little bit more habitable. Yeah, the condition of the foundation that I described was specifically for the addition. I actually haven't crawled far enough back in there to know if what's going on is underneath the shed part. So the foundation conditions that I was describing were specifically for the addition. Okay, well I'll have any questions. Sort of for the reason. Yeah, I'll simply note that there's two standards. One is about undue financial hardship to the owner and the other is the demolition as part of a site development plan and design plan that if applicable would provide clear and substantial benefit to the community. I presume you're going to the first round which is the undue financial burden as opposed to presenting some community. I believe our project clearly qualifies for both. The benefit of the community being this blighted section of building being removed and creating parking spaces that don't currently exist on a very, very tight corridor in the city. I have a neighbor that is very optimistic and hopeful about there being more than one and a half parking spaces on my property that my three units would avail themselves of as that's been a challenge for him and his tenants to navigate as we share that space. I have no doubt that that's a benefit to you. I just think that at least the second part when it talks about clear and substantial benefit to the community raises a slightly higher standard than I mean I think that's true of any downtown property if you tore down the backside of French block, you'd have more parking spaces and fewer units that you need to occupy with such parking spaces. It is an or in our determination. Right, right, that's what I'm saying. I mean I think I'm just trying to understand to make sure that we're doing the right analysis with the undue, because I think I'm just one board member but I mean I think the undue financial hardship is something you presented a great deal of evidence on and more than sufficient. But I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything through that there wasn't some other plan. Anybody else have any other questions Meredith? I don't know if you were going. I think I was sort of going the other way just because the actual full, the list of things to be considered for undue financial hardship under the current regs versus the 2011 regs is so extensive. We do have, well actually. But I mean there's as long as there's not an and in there. Right. And so this is one of those things where I was, it might require a little board interpretation because I don't think we've dug into the financial hardship quite so much so far in demolition under these regs. And the, because we're talking about an income producing. Right, the standard for income producing is that the building site or object cannot be feasibly user rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or free abilitated and denial of the application would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the property. Yeah, and that seems a much higher standard to me. And that's why I was going more in my analysis in here of sort of the not just focusing on the benefits to the applicant but the benefits to neighbors also. I mean, you're almost talking to public health issue if you're talking about pests. Yeah, I think so. Berman and the safety of that rear structure. I don't know, you know, this is just my staff process. But that's why I didn't go into the full financial analysis in here because it seemed that we did not necessarily, couldn't necessarily get enough data. Well, what is the current value of the property on the grand list? Two hundred and nineteen thousand five hundred dollars, which was the sale price of the. Maintains. It's maintained its value on the grand. Kidding. Heron Lynn.  Four years, five years in April. So Dan, the hundred and sixty five to hundred and eighty five thousand dollar estimate is to remove it. No, that was okay. The new foundation, the structural repair, is deciding the roofing the whole thing. Maintain just the addition of the addition and the shed. The ladder, the addition of the shed. Do you have any sense of how removal of that or how rehabilitation of the structure would affect the value of the property? I mean, you're not adding any actual square footage above now. You're essentially just making what exists safe. Yeah, I don't know that I'm qualified to answer that. Do you own of the property of any sense of whether you think that it would greatly increase the value of the property to rehabilitate as opposed to demolish standpoint or from a marketability standpoint? Maybe two different questions from a granular standpoint. I'm not sure it does. It, I can say in the eyes of a lender as it doesn't add square footage, the argument that it adds value is limited to rehabilitate that space. But from a marketability standpoint, certainly those units are more attractive if they're fresh and that space can be used without the current issues that you face in using those spaces, particularly the vermin. It's a problem that I've never been able to stop or lessen in any way. I grew up in New York City and I joke with my family and friends back there that they don't know what mice problems are like until they've lived. Might have some court street. No, I think that does. And so one thing is if you increase the number of off-street parking spaces, it would theoretically increase the value of the property. Theoretically, it's also, I mean, smaller square footage for the units. Right, but I mean it. But the off-street parking lure maybe may get more marketable, especially in a town that has had so many winter parking bans this year. I would say that I've definitely encountered tenants, prospective tenants, for whom that was a top-level concern, as it is for me. I mean, I'm looking at the standards for determination and one thing that the statute doesn't, by the laws, don't say is that the applicant has to hit each and every single standard squarely. And I'll just note that the first one talks about the applicant's knowledge of the property's historical significance at the time of acquisition or of its status subsequent to acquisition. And I think the applicants met that burdened by showing that subsequent to its acquisition or at the time of acquisition, he knew this was the portion that needed to be torn down or that was in rough condition as opposed to the other portions of the house. And that this was always had different historical significance. The second talks about the structural soundness of the building and I think we've heard a lot about that and their suitability for rehabilitation. And both of those do not seem like a workable solution here. C talks about the economic feasibility of rehabilitation over use of the existing property in the case of gross demolition. As Ryan pointed out, we're talking about a demolition that's close to equal the entire value of the property. With an end result of if the renovation was done, the value of the property would not double because we're just talking about a small portion in the back. And then it talks about the current level of economic return on the property is considered in relation to the following. The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, a substantial decrease in the fair market value of the property as a result of the denial of the permit, fair market value of the property at the time of the application has filed real estate taxes previous three years, annual gross and net income from the property, remaining balance on any mortgages, or finance secured by the property and all appraisals obtained within the previous three years and any state or federal income tax returns. I think these are all things that possibly could be considered or used by an applicant to raise a financial viability issue where the other factors aren't there. I don't necessarily see a reason to go deeply into those. I mean, what it seems, if I'm understanding the testimony correctly, it's that your property hasn't decreased in value. And if this permit is, this demolition is denied, it's not that the, it's not that you'll be denied the right. I denied it will not be decreasing in value, but it will just simply hold at this sort of consistent level. It's of a particular type of quality and what you're proposing is essentially to rehabilitate and renovate. And there's some evidence that that would increase the value with off-street parking, better fixtures. I mean, you have would have a moderate kitchen, at least in two of the apartments. And so then subsection E talks about the marketability of the property for sale or lease, considered in relation to any listing of the property for sale or lease. Again, this is not something that you've attempted to do to market or sell or lease the property. F talks about the feasibility of alternative uses that can earn a reasonable economic return. It's not the key here isn't that the economic return is such you're affording the apartment, you're continuing to be able to live in it. It's just you've now built up a certain amount of money to invest in the property. And presumably once these renovations are done, it's a tighter, more efficient house. And those payments pay off over time and then your rate of return increases. Right, at the end of it. I think perhaps related to this is we might conclude that if you spent the money to rehabilitate the additions on the back, you would not be able to charge rents that would allow you to pay back whatever you borrowed. You would not be able to achieve a reasonable rate of return to cover the costs of the rehabilitation of the rear. And this rear section is not an acute problem. It's not as if it's falling down right now today, but what you're testimony is also that it's on its way. It's a perpetual problem. It's knocking a better. It's been on its way for a while. It's been on its way for a while. Certainly at the time I purchased the house, it was clear that it was on its way. It's a slow walk. We don't want to let it get there, especially not in that location in the city. So again, studies and evaluations. I don't think are relevant here. Any input from community organizations, preservation groups, other associations, or any private citizen may wish to evaluate and comment on the submission made under financial hardship provision. Again, is there anyone here who's here to testify about this renovation project? I will say that my time spent serving on the DRC with Eric Gilbertson taught me that if someone was definitely going to flag concerns about the demolition of any historic structure in this town, it's my friend Eric. And I was curious how he would review this project the second time. And I was pleased that he focused on aspects of the exterior of the renovation of the original house, and it was quite quick to dismiss any potential concerns about demolishing the shed in addition. That's just because you never met Marco George. I don't know them all. Well, God rest her soul. But she makes Eric look like a pushover. That's an accomplishment. Yes. So when we talk about the determination of undue financial hardship, which, I mean, and I'm pushing the board to go in this direction, I'm not hearing a lot of pushback is, I just think that the community benefit, I mean, obviously any property that's cleaned up has some community benefit. But I think that's just, it talks about clear and substantial. And it talks about community as opposed to neighborhood or property, which suggests something larger than the property itself. And so I think we fall under this undue financial hardship. And so the determination of undue financial hardship may be granted only if the project fully complies with one of the following requirements. So this is income producing property. The building site or object cannot be feasibly used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition, or if rehabilitated, or if rehabilitated and denial of the application would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the property. The way I would read this particular provision is that the building or site cannot be feasibly used or rented at a reasonable rate of return. It's present condition or if rehabilitated, which is Kate's point that you would never even come close to capturing the amount of money that's necessary to rehabilitate the existing structure on the back. And you really are faced with a situation where do you either tear down, I mean, do you either let it continue to rot and maybe let that rot transmit to the main part of the house or make the business unfeasible because of frost issues, foundation issues, structural issues that your expert is testifying to? And I think that in that respect, the denial of the application would basically deprive you ultimately of the reasonable use of the property because you're faced then with the situation of either letting this rot into the earth or to pour ungodly amounts of money into a fairly minor portion of the property. Makes sense to everyone? Yes. OK. Let's not forget the health effects of the no action option. Right. And I think that's where the pest and vermin really do impact the quality of life inside the residents of the house. So while, yes, it's better not to have pest and vermin are going to, I mean, they're going to scurry back up the cliff and hide out. They're not going to go away. They'll just wait another decade or two and come back down. Exactly. But they're not going to. But I think it will have a huge impact on the quality of life. I say that having renovated my house and listening to the mice who have gotten up into the. We've all been there. Yeah. I agree with the chair's approach to talk about this in terms of the financial hardship test rather than the clear and substantial benefits of community test. I think that's important for us to do in terms of setting up how we think about future demolition applications. I do note that in our new zoning regulations, and this is the first time I've used them for demolition review, we have a much higher standard for financial hardship than we did. I think on balance, we have met that standard. And I hope that we can continue talking about those standards and whether they're going to help us achieve our goals. But in the old ordinance, they didn't even mention financial, undue hardship is my recollection. Mentioned economic feasibility, I think. And it was squishy. Or sort of have it here. But I do know that this is much clearer. The all reasonable use of the property standard is extremely high. I think on balance, we can probably make a determination in that area. But maybe let's keep an eye on that in the future too. I agree. I appreciate the chair's approach on that as well. Because the factors for consideration under three, if really all you're talking about is this high standard of deprivation of all reasonable use of the property, then why did the regulations have eight considerations that we're supposed to do if it's really as simple as, do you have any reasonable use of the property or not? So I think you have to read those into 4A and look at it in this more holistic approach that we're adopting here. I also think it's not clear in here, but I think we do have to consider the value of what's being demolished. Because I think if this were the main part of the building, it could certainly be the case where the cost of rehabilitation is exceptionally high and may not be easily recaptured through rents. And yet I still think in situations that economic hardship alone should not be sufficient to demolish a historic building here. And this is why I personally think that it would meet either tests here. You're talking about removing a later addition that was poorly built. You could make the argument that that would actually enhance the actual historic part of the structure, which would be a substantial community benefit in addition to the parking, in addition to removing an unsafe situation that was not created by this applicant. So I don't know. I'm comfortable doing either, but I do think that the approach we're taking here could be read to, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with the economic hardship analysis if we were talking about the historic portion of the building, like the front section of the building. If you could just say, there's no way I could recapture this through current rent rates, the cost of rehabilitation, that's a different analysis. I think there's two things embedded in that observation, which I would agree with, and one of which is there is a balancing, the difference between a shed that was tacked on and expanded sometime in the early 20th century or mid-20th century versus the original historic structure itself. As well as, I think there's, and it's not called out explicitly, but I would argue that there is at least an implicit understanding about good faith and bad faith in maintaining the property. And I've been around long enough to have seen these regulations come into play in Montpelier, which didn't exist. And in part, they were done for the purpose that. There were a number of historic buildings where the owner would just simply wait until the property rotted into the ground and rehabilitation was no longer feasible. And I don't have the sense that this is from the testimony that this is the case here. All right, so I think we've, unless Rob, you want to chime in, which you don't have to, I'm not asking you. So let's move back then. So when we talk about the rear setback, which I think is the next question. So my sense here is at least a weather report is that we all seem to be in agreement about the demolition, that it meets the standards that have been set out. But when we talk about the rear porch now goes into about five feet into the setback area. And the Meredith, we're talking about this is, this is essentially a waiver, right, for the setback. Yeah, so you, there's, the problem is that, what the waiver allowance is for the porch, sorry. I think is, sorry, I don't have that right in front of me at the second. I think the max waiver is five feet. Yeah, the new, well, that's how much is supposed to be. The new rear porch is closer than. Right, that's what I'm saying, the allowed is five feet. Okay. When we're talking about the porch, are we referring to the item labeled deck on drawing a 1.0? Yeah, it's for a plan. Yep, so it's labeled deck on the, on the, the elevations and the floor plan. It's just that in our regulations, my understanding is that a deck cannot be covered once it's covered, it's a porch. Okay. I guess I have a question. The fact that it's inside the footprint of the existing building, how does that? It's unclear. There isn't that. So yes, it's inside the existing footprint. However, it is a new structure being added. You know what I mean? So, so you've, it's not like, it's not like the porch is technically a nonconformity. Right, because the nonconformity, you can allow something that's currently there to remain there. But once you remove that completely on your own and it hasn't fallen down by itself, you can't rebuild it. But if you were proposing to rebuild, to tear down, put a new foundation in and rebuild the same addition just such that it wasn't falling down, that would be a permitted. Well, you wouldn't, wait, you wouldn't be rebuilding it from scratch. You would be, right? You wouldn't rebuild. You'd be rehabilitating. You wouldn't completely tear down the addition piece by piece and take all the sticks apart. You were talking about lifting it up to put the foundation in. I thought that's a catch 22 but I wouldn't do either one.  They haven't filed a written request for the waiver because the analysis that they would actually need a waiver was on my part was a little too late for that. So no, it would be oral. I tried to put it as much in here as I could. Okay. So, so we understand. And is this on the east side that the, where the five feet non-conforming? Western. Western elevation. Yeah, so it's the western elevation. So if you look at the site, yeah, the site plan. Yeah, if you look at the site plan that's really the best view. So that's on A1.0. Oh, site plan. But it's just the portion of the porch that sits behind that little bump out that's already existing. So they're not extending the line of the house closer to the setback. It's flush. In that respect, then, okay. Right, so you have the issue with the accessory structures in figure three dash 07 in that, you know, it's porches. Even if this counted as a deck, the. Is it three or two dash 07? It's, sorry. So it's on page three dash eight. So it's figure three dash 07 under section 3003. Yep. So even as a deck, your minimum allowed rear or side setback is still five feet. Okay. And for a waiver of a side setback, your maximum waiver limit is not less than five feet. There's just no, at least administratively on my part, I see no way to allow. They don't allow something closer than five feet from the side setback from the property line. Side property line. So if I could just restate that to make sure I understand it, when you say the maximum is five feet, you mean that any waiver cannot let something get closer than five to the property line. Right. That's the way I would not mean that we're talking about five feet here or five feet there. Right. And this is just for waiver as opposed to a variance. Right, but a variance would be based on the physical nature of the property and having no, I believe it's reasonable use of the property. We've done some creative analysis in the past. My understanding is that was under the old regulations where you didn't have specific waivers. Yeah, but the variance was, I mean, that's a statute. So, okay. So the question is, I mean, so the actual portion of the house is already existing. That's not seeking the waiver. The question is, does this small five feet by, how deep is the porch? Five to the sixth. Okay, so really five feet by five feet, 25 square feet. Actually, a little less than that because we are some amount back from the property line there. So, really it's a problem. You're talking, sorry, Dana, are you talking about the total size of the entire structure? Well, no, just what we're focused on with the waiver, which is the, you know, I want to make sure that we isolate what we're not looking at, which would be the building, and then the portion of the porch, the only portion of the porch that we're really talking about is this little 15 square feet. Okay. We're two feet away from the property line. Thank you. So, so long. Go ahead. Is that approximate or is that an unknown fixed line? That is approximate. No less than two feet or it is, you know, we, it is no plus or minus two feet. Okay. So it's essentially based on what we found from the city and then my repeated conversations with the neighbor, Steve Rivolini, that we both understand it to be in the property line, being at the center of the tree. We both understood to be the point to which. And we went through records and, you know, plotted the property, plotted the property corners based on, based on those archives, those records. To me, this is still, there's a preexisting non-conforming structure there now that's going to be removed and replaced with a much smaller enclosed porch. The whole approval of this will decrease the level of non-conformity. And as such, I don't even know that we need to grant a waiver. Also, I'm looking at the non-conformity section. 1203E provides that a non-conforming structure may be enlarged or expanded without waiver variants provided the addition does not encroach beyond the existing non-conforming building line, which this deck would not with regard to that side yard setback. So I'm not inclined to worry about granting a waiver or anything else. And as one board member, I'm happy to approve this without, as presented, without any of these other hoops that we might try to jump through. And certainly without requiring them to cut off three feet of deck to tuck it back in from the existing property line. I have a hard time reviewing it as an existing non-conformity because it doesn't exist, the porch, it does not exist. Wait, but the house does. So is the porch an extension of the non-conformity, non-conforming house? Even a new structure you can expand onto a non-conformity such so long as the addition does not encroach beyond the existing non-conforming building line. Okay, thank you. So you're building up the non-conformity that is the house? Correct. Thank you.  I missed that one. That makes sense. Well, that's much easier. Well, I think you're right on that track. I think it's important for us to explore these new aspects of the ordinance, but I don't know if we can carry that through and complicate. No, I'm perfectly happy substituting Ryan's analysis for this whole waiver because I think, you know, a part of what I was wrestling with was that I think the waiver makes sense as Kate was saying, it's just when you have a completely new structure. And we can waive some of the setbacks, but only so far because that's when you have total control over where you're planning to situate this. Whereas here, we're talking about an extension of a non-conforming structure, which is just the classic problem we've always dealt with. This is a board where we have a garage that sits on the boundary line that somebody wants to build a second floor to or, you know, continue to have a reasonable use of it. All right, well, let's move on. Sorry, I've complicated that one. No, no, this is how we learn. Apologize to everyone sitting here as we stumble on through some of these newer provisions. So then you have the coverage, I believe, I'm hoping applicants have some new data for so we should get the new data for them, the exact measurements. Yes. Please. Dan, if you just want to, for the record, go for this. So I took Merida's template, which I appreciated it being organized as it was in this document and the staff prepared documents and dialed in the numbers so that they were more accurate. So we've calculated that the total square footage of the lot is that top number 4687. When we combine the footprint of the house and all area that consists of the driveway, the front walkway and all parking areas, total 2,860 square feet. Based on the 4,678 square feet of the parcel, 70% of that would be, 70%, which is my understanding of what we're allowed to take up, take up with it, is 3,275 square feet. We are proposing, oh, I'm sorry, there's a typo in there, isn't it? That second number, that line down towards the bottom that's supposed to be 2,860 to be consistent with that upper number. At 2,860 square feet, I believe, we're within the allowable percentage of coverage. The building footprint includes the front porch. It's the existing front porch? Yes, existing front porch. I don't believe I did include that front porch with the, and if that's an error, I mean, I guess, you know, I guess, how does it show it? I guess in my mind, it was a little, maybe that was unclear, but I still think even, I'm confident that even if we were to include that front porch, we would still be within, we would still be within that 70%. Because the front porch is probably less than 30 feet long and less than 10 feet deep, right? It is absolutely less than those numbers that you just said, yes. Because that's what you basically are working with is 300, right? 300 or 400 extra, okay. That answers my question. 400, 415, okay, okay, yep. Okay, thanks. So I think we can, at this point, move on to the DRC comments. And the DRC found this by a vote of 5.0 to be acceptable, but they had, it looks like approximately four recommendations. That they recommend one of four options for the front south facing door. Oh, right, yeah. And were those out of four options that presented to them for the front? Those are the four options that the DRC provided to the applicants is what was acceptable to the DRC. Oh, okay. Because the applicants were going to just replace the front door. And so the DRC had some specifics with what they would like to see that actually replaced. Oh, okay, okay, I see, sorry. So one is the repair, reconstruct the existing double doors. The other is to repair or reconstruct and attach existing double doors so they function as a single door. The third was to replace the front double doors with a new single 42 inch door with an appearance and profile which matches the design of the existing double doors and four to replace the existing double with new in kind. Recommend not changing the single window on the south face of the attic level. Alternative single window on the south face of the attic. Sorry. Oh, do you have a type? Yeah, I have a type, it's easy to read. Absolutely. Gibberish to me. I'm trying to read Steve's handwriting. I am trying to read Steve's handwriting. Okay, so not changing the single window on the south face of the attic level. The alternative recommended is to add either A, an additional skylight on the east or west side of the roof or B, increase the size of the existing skylight with either a fixed or operable skylight. And then I think the third was raising roof support brace for the rear porch to allow headroom for accessibility. No, were you acceptable to all those changes? Have you made a decision on the front south facing door? Number three. Number three, which has replaced the front double door with a single 42 inch door with an appearance and profile which matches the design of the existing double doors. Just can I just ask a question out of curiosity? Were you able to, was the gentleman that was recommended to you to build that? No, that wasn't relevant to me because we do that. Okay, great, yeah, but you made sense to build it yourselves, cool, that's awesome. I'm going to ask a clarifying question on one of the design review committee's recommendations and that's number two about the single window on the south face of the attic level. It says that alternatives could, it recommends skylights as alternatives and was it your sense from the DRC that that was optional, that you would not be required to put in a skylight? They were just thinking with us about since they kind of take it the way they were trying to add back in should it be desirable. Okay, because I wouldn't want you to be required to put in a skylight. There will be no additional skylights. All right, thank you. It makes no difference to me, I just want you to have the choice. Best decision you'll ever make with a house in Vermont. Thank you. All right, and then the roof support brace racing that, is that something that you're amenable to? Doesn't cause radical changes. Great. Then there was the last thing that came up during design review was that, it was determined that there will be new lights on the back. So lighting is discussed further on in here to get some details on that, but the DRC was happy with giving the applicant options for either a recessed light in the ceiling of the porch or something on like a wall sconce back there. Either one was fine, especially because it's on the back of the building. Right. Okay. Any questions on the board about those? Alicia, one staff comment is about erosion control where the project doesn't disturb an area greater than 10,000 square feet. So no erosion control plan is required, but the staff recommends that the board include a condition of approval or the applicant to follow erosion control practices that's outlined in our bylaws. Is that a condition that's acceptable to you? Absolutely. I think it is important in this respect because obviously as the melt comes and as the work starts and the demolition off of the cliff, there may be some issues. And I know having walked down Court Street, the way water flows off of the properties does have a direct impact onto those streets. Okay. And then Department of Public Works reviewed the application and indicated no concerns regarding the plans that's presented. We have a requirement to determine whether the project complies with storm water management is this is hooked up to there are storm sewers and other drainage improvements that are, there's no, I'm sorry, there's no drainage or storm water improvements that are being proposed in this project, right? That's correct. But this is a property that's served already by storm sewers along the street on a relatively small lot. Right. All right. So the question is do we find that complies with 3-009 for storm water given that the director of public works finds it in no issues? All right. Sorry guys, just sort of a technicality. No, this is, so one thing that I did not see and I'm happy to understand if I missed it, you've talked about adding parking spaces along the back there, is that part of this application now? Have you outlined? It's in, yeah, it's in the site plan. I missed that. This shows, so that's all detailed. That's why it all seems to comply. So I put that all in here, but there's no red. Oh, I see the parking, okay. Sorry. It's okay. Okay, so parking one, two and three you've got the snow storage area marked approximate line of the ledge. Any questions from the ward? So we find that the parking conforms to the requirements. They're past the front line of the building. The use is residential, so the one per unit standard is met. This is a minor site plan. One question that we do ask people, however, is bicycle access and circulation. Is there a spot for bicycle storage planned for the property? Yes, and hopefully we could use the full length of the porch in between, the back porch in between the door and the end of the porch because my bicycle will fit by six inches with the plans as they are. Okay, well with that extra 15 feet. That's a good thing we didn't do something. Right. Okay. All right, so no landscaping is proposed. And I'm skipping over most of the other pieces that are largely acceptable such as sidewalks, pedestrian circulation as an in-city lot. So we're still working with 3203G landscaping? Yes, we're still working with it. Trust me, I'll let you guys know as soon as, if hopefully city council approves the interim adoption of a new landscaping provision. So this is a new provision. And it talks about site landscaping. It requires one shrub for every five feet of building perimeter and one tree for every 30 feet of exterior, the principal building exterior. And so Meredith has done some calculations based on the scale, not including the barn or storage areas, approximately 168 feet. So, yeah, 33.6 shrubs and 5.6 trees. If we got down to it, I was gonna let you guys decide if you were gonna round those up or not. Sorry. Oh, no, we might as well round them up before. Oh, no, no. Round them up to zero. I want six tenths of a shrub and six tenths of a tree. So you haven't proposed, do you have any rough count as to what's existing on your property as far as trees and shrubs go? Yes. Okay. There is one large tree in the front.  All the little volunteers growing up in the crevices and cracks. Yes. I know that we have a definition of shrub in our bylaw, but do I remember correctly that there is extensive landscaping in the front in the form of the lilies, black-eyed seasons, or both? This house is somewhat well-known for its rather wild flower. I like it, that was a compliment. Putting the wild in the wild flower front yard. So perennials. Yes. Large number of perennials. You know, one of the ways we've gotten to work with this landscaping and screening is that it talks about the purpose. And I'll just simply read this. I think it's important, although we have, as a board heard it many times. Oh, you got it. In brief, it's there. I keep putting that in every time we have to go through this landscaping provision. So the purpose of this section is to protect the quality of life and community character by one, enhancing the appearance of the building environment that's viewed from public vantage points, creating shade alongside walks and walkways within parking lots, providing landscape buffers between residential and non-residential land uses and screening land uses and development to create visual clutter and distraction. And one purpose that's stated in sort of the longer definition is that this is not meant to hide houses or developments. It's not to create like the cedar screen that your neighbors down the street used to have. It's intended to enhance and to soften. And so is there room in the front yard for another tree or would that crowd your existing tree and gardens? There is room for several more small trees in the front yard. One large, one larger tree. But actually trees aren't the issue because you have the 50 in back, right? I, yes, that's my count. Okay. I mean, you only have to get to 5.6, so. Yeah, I think I'm splitting hairs between what is a tree and what is a twig or on its way to being a full tree on some of those, but. I mean, I'm just looking. And again, this is, I think what we're trying to do and we're not trying to play games necessarily, but we're trying to under, you know, this section here really talks about the enhancing this appearance and, you know, generally landscaping should be designed to fit into and enhance the site's natural features and setting landscape plants that feature a mix of plant materials arranged in informally shaped and space groupings are strongly encouraged. So I mean, what you're saying is you have a tree in the front yard. You have extensive perennial gardens in the front yard. In the back, you have more wild growth picturesque as it would be. They have leaves.  And then the rocky soil limits them. Okay, any questions from anyone? Mr. Chair, I would just want to, we're trying to meet the intent of creating an improved environment type of situation through landscaping and perhaps we could, we could approach this a somewhat different way which would be to say that the applicant has provided evidence of existing landscape which meets the intent of the ordinance and that the board is approving the application with the existing landscaping and no further landscaping is necessary. And we can create that as a waiver if necessary or some other, it's also a way to add a level of practicality to an ongoing discussion. Right. No, I think, and I think that's well phrased, Kevin. And I think that's where I'm edging towards. So succinctly put. It's fine with me. Good, all right, so let's move on. When we talk about outdoor lighting, which is what we started to talk about earlier, is there a proposal for your outdoor lighting? We don't have light fixture specified, but it would be more than happy to comply with the standards that are presented here. Okay, so if there were. So really the lumen and the energy star requirements. Understood, fully shielded. Pardon? So we fully shielded. Oh, is that, was that? Is that, if that's a required, oh right, yeah. Yes. I mean, one thing is that where it's situated underneath a porch roof may affect how it's shielded, right? So as I understand the DRC's concern or allowance was either recessed lighting or a sconce and you're comfortable with that under the porch. Okay. All right, so a condition that they comply with the energy star shielding and lumen requirements is acceptable. All right, I don't know if I have any more questions. I can always create more, but we have a couple of different things. So we've got minor site plan review, which we've conducted design review, which we've conducted demolition of a contributing structure review. So there's three of those. I would propose we make three separate motions. And I would suggest we start with the demolition contributing structure. So who wants to make the motion? I'll move that we approve the demolition of a portion of the contributing structure as presented in the application. Okay, a motion by Ryan, do I have a second? I'll second that. Second by Rob, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. Okay, I'll take a motion about design review that would incorporate the conditions that the applicant has said they're amenable to. Move design review approval at 27th Court Street with the following conditions. The applicant shall choose from one of the following options regarding the front south facing door is it necessary to list them? No. As recommended by the design review committee. The next condition is that the applicant shall leave a single window on the south elevation of the third floor instead of the proposed additional small windows. The applicant may add a second skylight on the roof on the east or west side or increase the size of the existing skylight. The next condition is that the applicant shall raise the bottom of the connection location of the rear porch roof support to allow head room underneath for accessibility. And as well as the last condition pertaining to outdoor lighting as recommended by the design review committee. Motion by Kate, do I have a second? Second. Second by Kevin. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. All right, and minor site plan review. And I think we'll have to include the conditions in regards to the erosion control. I'll make a motion that we approve the application for minor site plan approval with the condition that the applicant shall follow the erosion control practices outlined in section 3008D of the regulations. That is the only condition. Second. Motion by Ryan, second by Kevin. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please raise your right hand. All right, you have preliminary approval and just so you know, that of course is subject to the 30 day window once the decision issues in its written form. But you have nothing more for us tonight unless you wish anything else. Thank you all for your thoughtful consideration. Thank you for your patience. Thank you for your patience. All right, let's take a quick two minute break, but if the second applicant sitting you think want to come forward and get set up. Ready to go back on? All right, thank you all very much. We're back on the record here at the Development Review Board. Sir, if you'll introduce yourself. Hi, my name is Samuel Newara. Okay, Mr. Newara. We're gonna do sketch plan review. So just so you understand, we're not gonna put you under oath. This is really an initial opportunity for us to ask questions for you to present your subdivision plans. Nothing we, we don't determine anything that's binding tonight. It's an opportunity for us to say, for us to raise questions or issues that we think you may have to address going forward and to get a general sense of your application so that when you do the, do the final subdivision, you have the benefit of this opportunity to have sort of vetted through some of these issues. Is anyone else here to be heard on this particular application sketch plan review? Maybe heard, but I'm here to listen. So just if you could indicate to me if you have any, if you have a feedback, it's a very informal process, but I would ask you to step up to the microphone when you do, if you do want to speak. If you're here to just simply listen, that's fine as well. Obviously, as I said, nothing tonight is decided. It's just simply an opportunity to listen to hear. But if part of what you're hearing has a concern for you or you think needs to be addressed, one, you can raise it to the board tonight, put it on our radar to the extent that our bylaws would consider it, but two, it's always a good opportunity then if you have a concern that you think the applicant can meet by making alterations or changes to start that conversation. So I'll simply put that out there as a way of trying to help foster a successful application process. So Meredith, do you want to give us just a quick overview? Sketch plan in general? No, of this particular application. Just wanted to make sure. So this is a fairly basic, to me, two lot subdivision of our residential parcel, such that the new parcel won't have any structures on it. All of the current structures will remain on the initial lot. There's a few factual matters that I've highlighted in here that the applicant needs to clarify. Some of them are minor, like whether or not utilities will be underground. One of the biggest items, I think, for the applicant to get feedback from you on is whether or not you have any thoughts about driveway possibilities. The current, they've included a potential house and driveway in here just to show that it's doable, that it can meet the zoning permit requirement later on. And the potential space for a driveway is pretty small. It meets the requirements. That was one of the Department of Public Works issues too, just because it is a very, it's a small parcel. But in general, there's not major issues that I have seen. A few notes for final subdivision application and things to include or things not to include, such as the house outline. One question along those lines. As I'm looking at the sketch in back, the blue dotted lines, is that the building envelope? That's, there's like a red highlighted that looks like the boundary. There's a footprint of a proposed house. But then. Is this? Yes. Yeah. So the black sort of dotted line, I'm just trying to understand, because one of the issues about the driveway might be ameliorated by pushing the house a little bit further back on a lot. It is going to go further back. This was, we've been going back and forth with the architects. And that was one of the first things that I discussed with them when they brought this to me, because part of the main issue is going forward, not just to address the driveway, but our intention is to make it fit as well as possible within the existing space. When you're actually there and look at it, pushing it back will allow better sight lines for everybody and avoid more of kind of a cramped look. So that driveway issue I think will more than be addressed. And that would be at the zoning permit stage versus the final. Right. I think it's just, and I understand that you're not proposing a house or specific development, but I think illustrating that often is a way of meeting these concerns because obviously, driveways are a necessity and likely in a house like this to have more than one car. And while we don't have to permit, I mean, we don't have a requirement to show more than one car, showing that adequate space is helpful. Okay. So was there any sort of initial direction you wanted to show us for this two-lot subdivision? No, I think it was pretty self-explanatory as far as the sizing issue, trying to get them relatively even because you want everything to fit as well as possible within the existing community that is avoiding any major issues for anybody in this surrounding area. So let me jump then to some of the questions that the staff has raised and I think are relevant. One is, we've talked about the driveway. The utilities, will those be underground? If that's a requirement of the, I mean, I'm more than willing to meet any potential requirement that's proposed, obviously. I'm trying to remember it. Is that on this street? Underground utilities as well? Just in subdivisions in general. Okay. New subdivisions. The request is that utilities be underground so we're trying not to add. So that, I mean, if there's a line, you'd want to go underground, probably from the nearest place that you're already, or the street to the house. Yeah, underground from the street to the house. If there's already a line at the street. I just, I haven't driven down here with that in mind. Okay. Well, again, if that's something you're amenable to. Yeah, I mean, if that's what it takes. I'm sure there's a way. I'm sure there's a way to get it done. It's a requirement. It's like they shall be located underground unless preventable by ledge or other physical conditions. Okay. No, there's, I mean, it's just on a regular street. I'm sure there's a way just to, although the poles are on the other side. I'm just thinking of it now, because the one runs to the existing house and then runs to the neighbor on the other side. It would have to be. It would be helpful before your final subdivision is just to maybe inquire, not looking for a commitment or anything like that. But it's helpful to us as we're making this decision if there is an impediment or something that would limit to raise that now just so we know that that is a restriction. You either can or cannot meet it and that's helpful. So I would look a little bit closer, and I don't know if that's a matter of talking here. If you've hired an architect or an engineer to have them have that conversation or they may be able to direct you to the utility company would be able to, because really what we're talking about is, your electric and your phone and cable.  I presume you'll have either a propane or a oil system for heating. So it's not as if it's running off the street. You're, it would be, this is served by city sewer and water, but that's already underground. Except for those of us who have fountains. Yeah, the only issue I can see is that the falls are on the other side of the street. So I'm sure there's some. Right. I'm not sure how that would work on the ground underneath. How has the existing house served? From across the. So the wire comes across the street. Correct. Above this, above the street. So the question is, can it be run off of, you know, what you, you know, and that that's a, I think that's an important question in part because these are relatively new, these requirements for running underground utilities. So it's helpful for us to understand. It's not as if six other of lots on your street have done this and have all run it underground. Sorry, you're the canary in the coal mine. But it may also be, you know, coming down to our office to have a little discussion and bringing department of public works into it. Yeah. And just to make sure that, you know, you know where all the potential, you know, sewer and water connections are for the new, as well as the electric and, you know, you and I can walk through some of this together because a lot of times for subdivisions, I've been lucky enough to have engineers on board. And so they just give me this lovely survey with everything already on it. I don't have to go and help the applicant find it, but I'm happy to help you with that one too. So one, go ahead. I was just gonna say, what's the area of the existing lot and what are the two proposed lots? The existing, the existing now, what was previously, I actually just finished a survey. So some of the numbers will change, but the existing now is 15,438. Okay, yeah, I see that. The proposed, there's one that'll be 6,400 approximately and then lot two will be approximately 9,000. 9,000, yeah. I would just observe as we're all getting to know the new zoning regulations, the new minimum lot size in this area is 3,000 square feet. So the new lot is two lots, according to the zoning. And it's actually slightly bigger. It comes to the next application. Some of those numbers are gonna change. It's slightly larger. Covered the driveway. The one thing that the staff has noted is that there's a chapter of 350 subdivision standards and these really are the sections about capacity of community facilities and utilities. So as the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed subdivision shall not cause disproportionate or unreasonable burden on the city's ability to provide community facilities and utilities, including local schools, police fire protection, ambulance service, street infrastructure and maintenance, park and recreation facilities, water supply, sewage disposal, stormwater systems, infrastructure, solid waste disposal, services and facilities. I don't, and then it has other sections such as suitability of the land, traffic, design, configuration of parcel boundaries. These are just things that I think your application is going to have to touch upon just to answer or be prepared to testify to why they don't. I mean, I can say that capacity community facilities, I just listed off, I listed them off because I don't think this application touches upon any of those, it's an infill, it's existing within the city limits, it's in a tight urban area. It's not going to, you're not gonna bring in 300 kids that will change how the school functions. You're not forcing police to go in an area where they don't usually patrol or fire for that sake. It's, there's no park or it's not gonna impinge upon the gateway to a park area, those kind of things, but just having those answers and there's a number of sections in here so that just take a look and I think a brief narrative, Meredith can certainly help you address those, but we'll obviously be looking at those as we go into the final subdivision. By brief narrative, sometimes people will just take this list of what's in section chapter 350, subdivision standards and for each of the standards, sort of list the standard and how you met it. So it can really just be that simple. We have some templates, oh great, we have templates. Okay, sorry. And then one of the last, there's a few more, but existing mature trees on the lot, whether or not your proposed development is going to affect those trees and you may want to provide information about potential privacy or screening. This is one of the rare, flat open areas in Montpelier where you don't have a cliff providing natural screening, such as the last applicant. So certainly how you, understanding that you don't have to propose actual landscaping, but addressing, it would be helpful to identify what the trees are or where the sort of landscaping exists currently, as well as identifying areas where such screening could exist to prevent. Suddenly I'll use this example that worked on a house once when I was a landscaper that just sat out like a big open house in a farm field with no landscaping anywhere near it. And I think we try to avoid that because we don't want that sort of thumb architecture. We want it to sort of blend into the neighborhood and this is an existing neighborhood with mature trees and transitions between and that's really what we talked about in the last applicant is making sure that the landscaping helps those transitions. So identifying those areas will be helpful. Just one quick thing, that tree in this picture no longer exists. I don't know when this picture was taken and I just got here last summer and I've never seen it. So I don't know at what point it was taken out but the grass is grown over so. It's been a while. I don't know, but that one is no longer there. This is just a Google Maps image. I don't have time to drive around to every single house we get an application for. Yeah, no, I'm just pointing it out. Thank you, no thank you. There's two, there was one here and then you'll see on some of the drawings there's one major one that's actually the boundary line on the other house. Right. And that one's staying obviously. And I think that's just what yeah, I don't feel a need to necessarily get into at this point lengthy discussion about the landscaping but I think for the final just to have that indication so that and I think that obviously, frankly a lot of these things help neighbors understand too how this house is gonna look. As infill, is it going to disrupt what's an existing sort of flow between the houses or is it going to fit in as the zoning regulations and tend this type of infill too, which is to be of a piece so that when somebody moves in like you did, they won't say, well, where's that, where'd the house come from, you know? Understood. I just want to note there is something that in ending, I failed to put in red at the top of page 13. When we're considering the renewable energy and energy conservation issues, there is a requirement that you not be impinging on general issues with appropriate protection for each bot's solar access within the subdivision. Because I know this might have been an issue, I kind of went a little step further in that page 13, if you look and considering the way everything is oriented, a new house in between 19 Pearl Street and 27 Pearl Street could potentially have some solar impacts on the neighbor on 27 Pearl Street. That picture is shown with the North-South portable orientation. So just something to think about, even though I know it's not the left within the, quote, within the subdivision, I think these, our current subdivision regulations are really written for larger, multi-lot subdivisions, not two-lot subdivisions infill. Yeah. I would agree with that. So in that case, this calls for appropriate protections for each lot, solar access and appropriateness may take into consideration the fact that it's infill in an existing neighborhood. But it's something for you guys to consider when the regulations don't quite necessarily apply to this situation. Oh, I'm saying that they could be. Yeah. But you'll need to interpret them. Appropriate protections. That would be interpretable. Right. In this context. Yeah, great. But definitely something for you to interpret, not me. Yep. Well, I'm always happy to interpret. Okay. Do you have any questions about that?  And I think that's very similar to the way in which the solar, you know, because if a solar rays on a roof and you build something that's gonna overshadow. But same time, you know, part of this is just, and again, I think this is where, you know, if there's concerns raised, shifting building back and forth, you, it seems, I think you have some play in where the proposed house could be. Yeah, we do. Okay. And then I think the other, the only other staff comment was really about whether or not there was a survey of the existing parcel and did you say that there was a survey? Okay, great. Fresh off the presses. Excellent. So I think that that will take care of that issue. Moving away from the staff report, are there any questions from other board members as to concerns about this? Do lots of your vision? Any questions? A lot. I just had a discussion about the utilities and that underground and that maybe something that could be identified on the plat is where sort of rights exist, you know, if any to four utilities access to the parcel. If that's determined that. Well, that's actually a great point. And I think that's, that wasn't expressly said, but I'm glad it was, which is, you know, obviously that impacts how these two parcels relate if there's a need for utility easement across parcel, what you're describing as lot two, which is existing house to benefit a lot one. You know, that's one way to, that will be helpful to identify that, whether there's going to be a need for one, because if there is, we don't scrutinize the language of the easement, but we do require it. And if we require it to a certain satisfaction so that we can review and approve it. Great. Any other questions? Any questions from the public or comments or feedback? Great. So from here, we don't take a vote or make any decisions. You've gotten some feedback from us. And really, I would characterize it in terms of just more detail and addressing some of these looser issues. I'm not seeing any setback issues or boundary or size issues. Yeah, some of that was, you know, some of the further details were, you know, had to wait for the survey and go forward with the architects and so I think any. Any questions for us this morning? Not this time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next applicants, please come forward. Come on down. That's what Rod Roddy used to say. Price is right. Who's the announcer on the price is right? No, he was a host. I think Rod Roddy may have done. I, neither, neither being ill or, yeah. What's that? We're unemployed. I have not watched a price is right. No, I'm not. Sure. Sure is. That's two weeks. Yeah. A couple times. So, you could do, do, do, do everything. Dr. Gary, Dr. Gary really, you know. He does. He's picked up the mantle. Does he, does he have the long thin microphone? The Bob Barker microphone. All right. Please introduce yourselves. Matt Womski is from Global Partners. And Jeff Velaski with Catamount Consulting Engineers. So raise your right hands. We're gonna put you under oath. You solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration. She'll be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains of penalties of burgery. I think we'll do. Very good. Actually, I'm gonna just have you guys just jump right into it. I think that's.  Yeah, yeah. So, very similar application we've submitted to the 367 River Street Project with Connors last month in that we've got our previously approved site plan development for new gas station that was approved in 16 or 17. And where essentially the property's been buyed out by new ownership group. And they're just looking to make some very minor renovations to be approved planned. As such, in our discussions with staff, we've made this application and attempting to permit this amendment to the previous permit. So we're back to a situation where we're still reviewing under the old regulations. So all the plans, the development plans that are presented to the board still relate to those zoning requirements. So if it pleases the board, I'm happy to provide a brief rundown of the changes that we've done since the previous approval. Hope that makes sense. Yeah. Okay. So similar to what we've done, we've taken the proposed site plan in again. We're talking about the existing curly fuel gas service station on route two in 366. I think he's about to go your road. Sorry, Jeff, just so we understand this is you have a sheet number C2. I do, I have C2. And that's the one with bubbles again that show us. So C2.0, the rev four with a small date, 1, 9, 19 that has your parking, your 1, 9, 19 revision references with the bubbles around the different changes that they're making. This is giving the one you're probably gonna wanna refer to through most of this and included everything. But this is the one that really helps. So similar before, we've provided the existing conditions plan as a site still operates now. We've provided the proposed conditions site plan. And then we've also done the proposed site plan with these revisions to kind of annotate what the changes were that we're proposing. But I do have a full plan set here if anybody wants to look at the existing conditions. I also brought another big one. Yeah, so I think everybody's probably familiar with the property right now. There's three structures there now. There's a small gas station with a canopy is the kind of mixed use. Right now they're in the middle. There's kind of the existing canopy that's along the frontage. There's a mixed use office building on the south side of the property. There's that kind of large storage barn in the back of the property now. And as previous before that the design plans call for the removal of everything essentially and reconstruction with a new proposed gas service station building, convenience store, small deli inside. And then canopy located to the north of the proposed building. The building footprint and location have not changed at all. The general overall access, flow, the majority of the utilities have not changed. So really the changes I think are relatively minor and more utility oriented than anything. But again, I'll just run through them really quick. I think the primary one or the biggest change is probably the one that we can discuss the most tonight is we've relocated the fuel pumps and canopy. I'm not sure who here on the board was part of that original review and process, but right now there's an existing canopy. So this being the front property line or the right-of-way line and back in 2011 regulations, there was a 50 foot front yard requirement. So this setback line here actually bifurcates a large portion of the existing canopy out there right now. So that whole existing canopy was more or less nonconforming as part of that review process back then essentially it was determined that we could not remove that canopy and rebuild it even if we were making it less nonconforming and that we actually had to just maintain it or truncate it and add on to the back end of it in order for it to be allowed to be grandfathered in, so to speak. And based on conversations with staff and the desires of the new ownership of the property, that existing canopy structure is just unsalvageable, financially unreasonable, it's just not good practice to build something that's kind of falling down anyway, so what we're proposing now is the removal of that canopy and then the new canopy to be built substantially further back and I'm guessing we're talking maybe another 15 to 20 feet further back from the property line, although it still would not fully comply with the old zoning regulations and that the new canopy would still stick out into the front yard setback. I believe staff did note a comment though that the new front yard setback from the zoning district for what that's worth, it would comply. I think it's a 20 or 30 foot front yard setback now, so if we were looking at today's under regulations it would comply. So we just shifted this back and reconfigured the pumps and we weren't bound by needing to work off of the existing stanchions and the structure layout of that canopy and it just freed us up to use this space more effectively and efficiently. The second change was just the relocation of the underground fuel storage tanks. We shifted these to the north and kind of get them out of the majority of the driving course of the general public that'll be using both the standard canopy and the parking along the building frontages. Change three involved the relocation. We had three landscaping new disjewished trees planned along the north property line here and to accommodate both the new underground storage tanks and still provide what we thought was a represent amount of snow storage, we just shifted these a little bit in location, same number, same area of the property just shifted. Same thing with the dumpster enclosure. And we can talk a little bit more about this because I think there was a staff comment on it but this still fence trash recycling enclosure was just a little further shifted to the north on previous design plans. Understanding that the proposed traffic pattern will still have two curb cuts but we're narrowing up the southern curb cut pretty substantially and making this an entrance only so that large trucks, deliberate trucks, tractor trailers, the traffic pattern is really gonna be to come in on the southern access, go to the back of the building and move around the front, deliver the gas and then exit and all traffic from the site regardless of where it comes in will exit on the north curb cut. To make this turning movement a little more functional we just wanted to get as much room there as it could so we shifted it five or 10 feet. There was previously as part of the proposed building here the previous owners were gonna maybe do some second floor office space I believe as part of the building layout and that use has been removed from the proposed design now this will strictly just be a gas service station in the deli. As such we just updated the parking and design flows this is the ocean with the water and sewer and things of that nature and that's kind of reflected in the summary down in the bottom left corner. So that was the next two revisions five and six. Revision seven at the new owner's request we've added a few more exterior light poles and light fixtures. We didn't have much on the site plan previously beyond the building mounted lights and the canopy. We just thought giving the space along the back and the perimeter and some of the parking areas some additional exterior lighting would be necessary. Still all LED downcast shielding cut off fixtures. And then the other couple are very minor just utilities just where the underground electric and water come into the building based on the new current design building footprint light in the mechanical location we've just had to change the utility sizes and location to accommodate that. I think in general that's a quick rundown of the changes we're proposing. So I'll hand it over to the board of questions or we can go through some of the staff comments as well. Sure. Any initial questions off the top of the lineup? All right. So I think let's dig into the real story and we're not the first issue which is the canopy within the setback. How far within the setback is the canopy still going to be? Are you scared? I thought it might be around here. So as proposed, it's probably about 15 to 18 feet into the front setback of a required 50. And it's for this point. At its furthest point. Yeah, it's kind of a just triangle right here. So here's the setback line and so at its furthest point currently we're talking, you know, 35 feet or so of encroachment, this again being the setback and then this dashed line being the approximate existing canopy. And that's about where the permit approved before? Correct. So before they didn't want to lose this, you know, shifting the canopy all the way to the back was going to make a, just giving away the right away sits here with a 50 foot setback. It was going to make a big chunk of that parking area unusable. And so what we did is we had to maintain some component of this. So we actually held this corner and we just, instead of going three by two, we wanted, because the tires lay out of fuel pumps. You don't like having three in a row because you always got one in the middle and you're trying to parallel park into or get to. So we, all we were doing before on the originally approved plans where we were just lopping off of ourself the end of the canopy and maintaining the two by and then just extending it further. So now we've still had the two by configuration. We've just pushed the whole thing further to the south or west rather. When you say two by, you're meaning two here, two here, two here. Yeah, exactly. So that means people are going to drive in here and then make their way across the front where people are parking and kind of in like this and then out like that? Correct. Or they'll be able to enter on the north as well. So the north curb cut will be a traditional kind of two-way curb cut. Yeah. We lobbied to have this maintained as a two-way but in our, essentially our discussions with public works as part of that first process. Understanding we're very close to an existing driveway here. The compromise I guess I'll say was made was to narrow this down to an entrance for me. So they'll be signage here, do not enter signs and even whatnot. Right. I'm just trying to envision the internal circulation of the side if you've come in here and then you need to exit out here. I would imagine most people are probably going to be coming in here just getting gas and then moving back out. Or coming in if they don't need gas and just parking in, we've got 10 spaces here, five and three. That actually reminds me of one other staff comment was the discrepancy in the parking spaces and you're accurate in that number here needs to be 32, I'm not 30, so that's an update we need to make. So the circulation is going to be really similar to the barn in Randolph? Yeah, yes, yes. We're just trying to picture it in my head. Thanks, I just had to figure out how it was going to work. Thank you. So as far as looking at the, I mean we've already approved the fuel canopy that was further into the right of way, but that was really a, I'm remembering correctly, that was just essentially allowing a grandfather who were proposing to keep the old canopy whereas now that's going to be removed. This is a brand new canopy entirely. Yes. What's the pleasure of the board on that canopy issue as far as questions? Because it doesn't quite, with the non-conforming, the non-conformity issue we had before. We also don't have the new wrecks. The new wrecks. Right, and this is, it's a bit of a conundrum because it ends up with a much better design. Well plus it's, I mean under the old wrecks, this specifically said you could only reconstruct it if it was damaged by fire, flood, explosion or other casualty. I don't think there was any testimony that the old canopy was met any of those. So it's not clear to me that how it was granted to reconstruct a larger existing canopy under the old wrecks in the first instance. No, I don't, we weren't, the old wrecks and I don't know if anyone else was on this application before other than Kevin and I who, but my recollection was it was just keeping the old canopy. I believe the argument previously was that yeah, as long as the structural support's maintained, we were making an existing grandfathered nonconformity less nonconforming by removing a portion that was within the setback. Right. That was, I believe, how it was justified or however language you want to use a previously. I mean this is the old, I mean, so keeping in mind that if they were to apply fresh today, they would be allowed to do what they're doing without any limitations. So when we talk about nonconforming, we're really only talking about sort of procedural hiccup where we have an existing permit. Shouldn't have to necessarily redo the entire permit, but the old bylaws don't part as generous as the new bylaws. But to the extent that there's an issue created, it's one that dissipates given that in the future, it's a new bylaw, so moved. Was re-application under the 2018 regs contemplated? Yeah, it was contemplated. I guess it was at the, in discussions with staff, this appeared to be the path of least resistance, I'd say, or that, you know, given the minor scope of the change that we're looking at. Sure, because what we're reviewing is only the delta, like only the things that are. And because of the flux with the new regulations and all the changes happening with them, we didn't want to invest a lot in landscaping. And I think there were also some questions about then needing to apply for a new floodplain application for potentially the whole site as well. Okay, they'd already been approved previously. Yeah, so we have to pick one or the other. Yeah, I don't know. Okay, there's no saying that they can't then re-apply under the new regs. They have problems here, but this seemed like, even though I know we have the canopy problem, it seemed like potentially the best way to go forward. This is still gonna result in less canopy within the setback than was previously approved. By a fair amount, yeah. By quite a lot. And again, I realize that the current regulations don't mean anything, but the current canopy wouldn't comply with the current regulations, whereas this proposed canopy would. The other conundrum we found ourselves in was when, so the company I work for bought this project as approved by the, you know, the curlings got the project and Jeff got approved. So when we came on board, we started looking at it and we were like, they got approval for, to keep a portion of a canopy, which you can't really do that, because a canopy, each individual canopy is designed by a structural engineer as that structure. So when you try to keep this corner up here in these two columns and then try to tack on more, you're gonna have a hard time finding a structural engineer that's going to want to do that, you know. And they're all gonna say, no, you can't do that. You can't, it's impossible. So what got approved was almost not workable in that sense. So that's when we started digging deeper and went, uh-oh, you know, we can't, doesn't work very well. What's the pleasure of the board? It may be just simply the hour that we're at this evening. My sense is this, is that the non-conforming structure reconstruction, we're not really talking about a reconstruction because it's, it's that that's really intended for damage by fire, flood, explosion or other casualty. At the same time, it's not the same type of non-conformity that was envisioned by the old bylaws, which is to say something that the bylaws have moved forward and understand, we can't sort of toggle back and forth between new bylaws and old bylaws at the same time it seems ridiculous to ignore the reality on the ground as to what we have today for regulations governing this. So I'm comfortable seeing this as a, not necessarily a reconstruction, but as a essentially a continuation of the non-conformity in a manner that makes sense given the structural limitations of the existing, what was approved originally back in 2016 and the structural realities of this particular canopy system, which is you can't have a canopy that you cut in half or tack onto, it has to be to allow the canopy to survive. As we've already permitted, we have to look at the non-conformity in a larger sense. And in this respect, given that these are the older bylaws that if they were to come today sort of a blank page, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I think that the bylaws, the old bylaws have that flexibility because they weren't as complex or as laid out as the current ones are. So the idea of creating, keeping a non-conformity or having, this is really a technical problem, less than letting a reconstructing a non-conformity because nothing's happened to it. But the reality is that we've permitted and allowed this and that means in some ways, rebuilding it. We're obligated to act in a way that makes sense and I think you've just put that in the proper context. And as we're transitioning from the old to the new regulations, we're gonna have to continue to be light on our feet for the type of thing and be able to address it from two perspectives. So I agree with your reasoning. Any uncomfortable with that? Mr. Chair, you're saying that because we've permitted and allowed a larger structure, assuming it was an existing structure, it would now be irrational to say that a smaller structure that is less non-conforming, even though it's built anew, should not be permitted. We're talking about this as though we have approved a footprint and you're saying it's a technicality as to whether that footprint is for something that is existing versus something that is being built anew. Yes, I think the footprint in this respect is the concept. And we're trying to discuss or conclude perhaps that it would be irrational to not allow that footprint just because something is being built anew. Right, it's a proposed amendment to the footprint which will decrease the amount of non-conforming. We're already getting a benefit because the original permit talked about reducing the footprint and now there's been an additional reduction. But that comes with the idea that the materials to be used are not reducing the existing materials because to have any cut down in the footprint, there has to be an entirely new structure. Right. Just another way to look at the, I'm not sure if it's necessarily case law oriented but that what we're looking to amend is the prior permit. So the starting point is the prior permit and what was previously approved. So in a sense that previously approved footprint is a non-conforming structure, not what's actually there right this second potentially is one way to look at it. I mean, I remember going around about this Jeff, were you on the earlier one? I was, yeah. I'm trying to remember.  We did. Exhensively. These old permits never fade away. Eventually, eventually, please.  But I mean, I, but I think that's sort of what's important to me is that the prior board did all that push and pull and said we're gonna allow this canopy to exist in this footprint in the setback. And now they're proposing to amend that approval for a decreased level of non-conformity. So I don't, I'm with you that it doesn't make any sense to deny that under the regulations that previously allowed it, right, the bigger one. Right, and the fact of the matter is, is that if they choose to get a new permit going forward, they already start out as a conforming structure, so. I think I'm comfortable with where we have landed on this because it's fair. And I look forward to not having more of these overlapped formatures staffed us as well. But I'd just like us to note for ourselves that this is something we're doing because of an exceptional situation and these types of rationale or contortions in the future, not for you, just in general, are something we would want to be cautious of. Right, and I think they're. I think that goes that same, but agreed once again. No, but it's so the applicants who've gotten a permit under the old don't have to either go redo completely a new or get stuck in some sort of limbo. Right, I know what we're doing in that, but I'm just saying, in terms of the typologic that we're applying, I just want to make sure that it's being applied because of the, to avoid limbo. All right, so let's talk about the garbage enclosure. So you're proposing the same type of fenced-in enclosure to, for the dumpsters. Yeah, the fencing detail hadn't changed. We've just shifted it, like I said, five to 10 feet closer to the south to provide more turning radius in the back. Right, and is this still within, is this still outside the setback or is this? It's in with, I don't know if it constitutes a structure per se, a fenced-in area. There's not going to be a shed or anything. It's literally just a fenced-in area for them to put the trash recycling enclosures. But it was previously within the setback and it's still within the setback. One thing I did bring along with me, it was pointing out in the staff notes that one of the conditions of approval previously was that the applicant was to provide letters of support for the project and maybe specifically the enclosure to both the property owner to the west and south. And I actually have copies of both of those letters that we were able to locate and I'll provide. She's willing to take them now, but for the letters from Kasella, which is the property owner to the west, as well as Chuck and Paul Haynes. Paul Haynes, actually the audience tonight, just more or less, both of those letters pretty much just saying that they're in general support of the project as approved and presented previously. Unfortunately, they don't call out the enclosure specifically, but I thought those might be helpful in the board's assessment of us complying with that condition that we used previously. Well, the Haynes do call out the trash enclosure. Oh, they don't, there you go. Actually, both of them do. Just so I'm, and I'm sorry, it's just the lateness of the hour. How far further back have you put the trash from the original permit? So what, this way, the shaded box here is the concrete pad, the enclosure and the fence around it. That box was always within the bubble. So, it wasn't like way over here, it was just from, we just shifted it. Again, I don't. It's like, it's just a couple of feet. Yeah, it's just a couple of feet or something. The big issue I had was that I could never find, I couldn't find the letters to that condition. And that's one of the things that's required if that's within the setback area. So now I have those. Okay, now you have the letters. And Mr. Haynes, have you been appraised of the change in the garbage location? I wasn't aware of it. Okay. I don't see any issue of it. I mean, I feel the letter from previously still maintains. We're fine with that. Yeah. And it would be a great irony if Cassella had an issue with it. Well. Couldn't just throw it over the fence. I don't know if we can require that. Okay. But are you gonna move it? The Cassella is the, they're here. Yeah. So it's not moving any closer to their property line. Just slip. So the proposed dom, underground storage tanks, new tanks. Those are permitted to be within the 20 foot setback. Yeah, they have the ground storage tanks. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, they have the ground storage tanks. Yeah. Yeah, those can be there. And it's actually location there that they were up front. The reason we moved them just so you know, is they were located under the canopy.  We don't want you to drive over those things all the time. And they're usually humped up pretty good to shed water and they were all laid under the canopy, which is just not in the position form. Plus, when the tanker comes to deliver fuel, he completely blocks everybody off from using them so he can instead come in and go right over where they are and keep the fuel humps open. Right. So when I was talking about front, I was thinking about the first proposed revision you wrote. Yeah. And just so I have a larger overall sense, the building is just going to be a convenience store at this point. So it's going to look like the traditional gas station layout, canopy pumps, setback, convenience store. No office buildings. Nope. Just one story. One story. They are proposing a spa deli inside with a few seats. Yeah, yeah, but did you, convenience store? I mean, not unlike any of the other convenience stores that shall not be named at this evening meeting. Okay. So one concern about the, so the red maples have shifted and how far off are they from sort of the, the sight line from before, from route two. If you're coming, if you're heading east on route two. So again, I don't have, I don't think I have the previous approved. There's the previously approved. Oh, here's the previous. You have a second C2.0 in there. Thanks. So. Oh, it was. C2.0. Yeah, there you go. So here's the original approval. This is the originally approved one. So essentially we've just taken these three trees. This one was very close to prop line to begin with. We've just farmed a little close together and shifted them, you know, to this location. This one maybe moved down. I think the biggest impact is this one moving down maybe 15, 20 feet. Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to remember, but part of the reason for those trees there were to create some visual break up of that. Now I understand that if you're moving the underground storage tanks, then you don't want to put a tree where it's going to die. But I'm wondering if there shouldn't be some other sort of landscaping there to visually break up. You know, just because that is closer to the road as people come see it. Yeah. I mean, I obviously can't speak for a matter of the owner. I mean, we can certainly investigate doing something here. I think the only reason we didn't want anything, we want, obviously it's a relatively built out site. There's not a lot of room for snow storage given the lack of room on the back property line. So this kind of triangular piece of the area is probably constituted a significant amount of the snow storage and understanding that any type of planning or small shrub probably won't survive there very well. Which was the intent to make this location of three of the larger deciduous trees and then get them as far back to provide them as much opportunity to survive long term. There is quite a bit of bushes and shrubs going along on the front of the area here as well as a couple more trees in the back and then there's kind of landscaped grasses and shrubs between the building and parking. If there's an interest in maybe supplementing with some bushes along the property line, I don't think it would be a problem necessarily. So the plan is to have the snow storage, but those are gonna be, the snow storage is gonna be behind the fuel tanks in the back corner there. So I mean, I'm not really concerned, especially if you're putting those trees there. You know, I'm not looking for any more planning there. I'm thinking just more where the tree would have been located. So if there's any type of like shrub and berm type. Start to get a little outside of my area expertise here, but if the point is to lessen the visual impact for someone traveling like this, could there seems to be an existing tree that may be on the neighboring parcel, would it make sense to put one? Is that way? The immediate neighbor to the west? North? Yes. That's that way here. One thing to keep in mind with this whole thing, I'm just recalling it now because it's been so long since I've looked at this, but if you see this dashed line here that kind of goes around this tree, it encroaches quite a ways onto the adjacent property. Right now that is all existing gravel parking lot that is kind of an encumbrance on this, there's actually a strip of property here that's the old railroad bed right away. And that's still a right of way. And that's still a right of way. And we actually located some train tracks as part of the survey you can see here, but a part of that original plan is we're reclaiming all of this and turning from gravel to grass landscaping essentially as an additional benefit to just reducing the footprint. I think the only potential issue is we just between the property line and our pavement, we get very narrow there. Okay. And I didn't realize how little space there was, so I think I planted a tree on your neighbor's property, which I'm not supposed to do. So thanks for walking me through that. No, and that actually, if we're talking about Agway, I mean, they already have that fencing line too, so it's not the visual. Yeah, some of the commercial use, and I think that if the parking lot picked up some edge of pavement it kind of comes to right up to that area as well. That's my curiosity. Thanks. Any other landscaping questions or issues? I think that the answer about the relocation of the fuel tanks and storage tanks, I'm satisfied with that, unless anybody wants to do deeper than that. And we've gotten confirmation on the parking spaces that it's 32. It is, yeah. And that's what's shown on a plan, it's just that we need to, somewhere in the transition, the parking summary, that we not get updated appropriately, so we'll make that correction. Somebody needs to get on the ball. Someone dropped it. All right, so what's the pleasure of the board? Would you want to adjourn to the deliberative session? That's the pleasure of the board. I'll throw that out there. I might, I guess that's already right. I'm not feeling it's necessary. I think it's a pretty straightforward amendment. And I don't feel like we're putting on any particular conditions. I mean, it took a little while to walk through. And this may be something where the final written decision should be circulated a little bit wider. That's really what I was thinking more than deliberative session for the second deliberative session. Well, I think that makes sense. Okay. I think just probably the conditions one and three. Yep. So I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve the amended site plan at 360 East Montpelier Road, as presented in the application, and supporting materials subject to the conditions that this approval does not result in the issuance of a new permit. And so any expiration dates of the original permit are not affected by this approval. And additionally that all prior conditions of previous DRV approvals remain in full force and effect for the property. Motion by Ryan. Do I have a second? Second that. Second by Rob. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion and stated, please raise your right hand. All right. So there's approval. And as I said before, we'll write up the decision. We have to do that within 45 days. And no, actually we don't because we've already voted to approve it. No, you still have. No, no. There's actually some case law on that. Anyway, we aim to please get that out. That then starts the clock ticking for the 30 day appeal period on any amendment, but further at this point. Because we have to have our building in by September 15th. So. Yeah. Some stands to be complete. Yeah. I thought it was your time. Thank you. Thank you. There's a case law that you. Well, let's say. Okay. So. Yeah. All right. I will simply note that our next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday, March 4th, 2019 back to the Mondays. And we will be here because there is an application. We will start at 7pm. Mr. Chair, I would like to know I will be absent from that meeting. Julie noted. So we will, and I'll be sending out an email to the board just to remind everyone that if you are not going to be here, let us know as soon as possible. I think we, we have five out of seven. And that's, I think we are capable board, but obviously we do better when we have seven. I'll take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Motion by Kevin. Second. Second. All those in favor, please raise your hand. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much and good night.