 We review and make decisions on subdivision site plans, conditional uses, variances, and appeals of the zoning administrator's determinations. The DRB has authority through the state of broad statute and ensures due process, protects the rights of applicants and the rights of the public to participate in proposals for land development within the city. Appeals of the decisions made by the DRB are heard by the Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division and the Vermont Supreme Courts. Kevin Lumpkin is our board chair, I think still. He is not here tonight. My name is Matt Basowitz. I'm the vice chair. Harland and Dave are with us in person tonight. Also, Aaron Gayet is here online on Zoom. Our alternates are LC Goodrich and Caitlin Hayes. Caitlin will be joining us shortly. Next up on the agenda are changes to the agenda. I will entertain any changes if anybody has any at this moment. And here you are. Okay, hearing nothing, seeing nothing, we'll move on to agenda item number three, which is public comments. Vermont's open meeting law grants an opportunity for public comments at every public meeting. If anybody in attendance would like to comment about anything that is not on a current agenda, this is your opportunity. So we do have an attendee online called Zoom User. So if you're a Zoom user, if you're interested in providing comments on items that are not on the agenda, you can raise your hand and we can recognize you, including your actual name for the record. Otherwise, you're welcome just to tune in. And not seeing any activity, I think it's safe to say we can move on. Next on the agenda is the approval of the previous meetings minutes, which I was not in attendance for, but I did read through. I don't have the knowledge to make any changes if any changes need to be made. But if anybody on the board sees a reason to make any changes to the previous meeting minutes, please speak up right now. And I will entertain a motion to approve the previous meetings minutes. I'll motion to approve the previous meetings minutes. That sounds like Parlin and I will, any seconds? Seconded. Yeah, that sounds like David. All right, all those in favor of approving the previous minutes, please raise your hand or say aye. Aye. And Aaron raised his hand too that the motion passes unanimously. We have two substantive agenda items on the table tonight. The first is a public hearing on an appeal of the decision of the zoning administrator. It's a violation that was issued at 41 Orchard Terrace. The second item is a public hearing on a site plan at 11 Taigen Street. And the third, which is, will be the election of the officers which should have taken place last month, but there was, we're not enough people in hand to make that happen. So next on the agenda is the hearing on the appeal of the ZAs decision about a violation issued at 41 Orchard Terrace before we begin. I need to swear everybody in that's in attendance or we'll be speaking online. I would just need you to verbally say or raise your hand that you affirm that everything you are about to tell us is the truth under the pains and penalties of the perjury. I do, thank you. Yes, can you swear or affirm? Oh, yes, I do, right here. Yes. Okay, I think I might be getting on. I represent this. Very good. So next we will hear from the appellant on the violation. So I'll do a quick introduction here just so that you're all aware. I am not actually going to be staffing tonight. This will be handled by the city capital, Bob DeCombe, who is to my right. I will be for the purposes of this hearing, running and handling the same windows. So I will be here for that purposes, but any comments or questions should be directed to Bob as you have done in a year. Thank you. With that, we will invite the appellant to join us on the stand. Or the desk. I'm not sure of the lay of the land there right now. Matthew, real quick, the document you wanted me to present is a shed hearing handout. Correct. Just to be clear. Correct. And I'm going to be referring also, basically what I did was print out. So for you all online, I printed out, as you can see, this is part of the... Sorry, I'll be back while you take care of that. Right back while I sit there. So what I just handed out was, so Eric, I guess is, are you putting it in the files or in the chat or something? Or you're going to put it on the screen. Okay, so I've got a two-page handout here that Eric's putting on the screen. And then the other document that I'm going to read, I guess relying on it, but not as much, is this document is within the materials that, I'm not sure what they're called, the meeting materials. Is that... What are the agenda items as well as... And we'll mark this as exhibit Q. Sorry, the two-pager. Exhibit Q. Two-pager, yes. Okay, thank you. So you can refer to it as exhibit Q. I appreciate that. Shall I go right ahead or... Eric, are we good? Yes, all right ahead, sorry about that. Mr. Chair, I apologize. That's all right. So thanks everyone for being here. So basically I was hoping to make a PowerPoint and I essentially ran out of time. So this is like an outline of what my PowerPoint would be. You know, if you really want to spoil the ending, you can skip ahead, but stay for the ride. So I'd first just like to thank everyone for being here. And I'd like to thank Eric because obviously we're sort of on opposite sides of this issue, but he's been professional and courteous throughout and I really appreciated that. So, and then also to the development review board, I don't want to pander, so I'll keep it brief, but I just appreciate your public service. So I'll just say, and I know it takes time to serve and having educated myself on these regs more than maybe one ever would want to. I'm not volunteering at this time to join you, but I appreciate that you're here. And sorry, I'm figuring out where everybody is and where to look. Okay, so I had a brief correction to the record that I asked Eric if he would correct and he's sort of respectfully declined. So on page two of the city's memo, so that would be page two of five. So this is the agenda and this packet is called the agenda. Agenda attachments. Okay, so it's labeled as page two of five on the agenda attachments. I think it's the fourth page of the packet. It says in the, so if you see where it says notice of violation, the second paragraph down, it says Ms. Bloom indicated that she had requested the contractors performing work as outlined in the building permit, put an addition onto the side of the primary structure to provide a place for storage. So I understand that the city's argument is that it was an addition, but I just wanted to point to the actual email which is in the packet, which does not say that she requested they put an addition on and it is on page, it says in the outline, page 10 of the, sorry, it says of our brief on this outline, but which should say of the appeal letter. So it says 010 in the bottom right. And the actual Ms. Bloom, who is my mother-in-law and I'll get to that in a second. What she did say was, yes, last minute, yes I did last minute ask for a small storage shed. And I just don't see the word addition anywhere in here that she or we use. So I just wanted to put that on the record as a preliminary map. So I'll just proceed unless anyone has any questions. Okay, so again, I don't want to pander, but I just want you all to know a little bit about our family because we just moved here and now we're in a zoning issue. So I am an attorney with Vermont Legal Aid. I do not do zoning. I know just enough to be dangerous. I've self-educated myself on this. I do know a little something about statutory interpretation. So our whole family is public servants. I was a high school teacher. Since I become a lawyer, I've done only public service. Sometimes I like to say I took a pay cut. I was a teacher and I took a pay cut to become a lawyer, but my mother-in-law is a career preschool teacher. My father-in-law was a side judge in Montpelier. My wife is an occupational therapist and works with kids with disabilities. So that's who we are. And we came to Winooski intentionally partly because, well, I'm a city person, but we came here for the diversity and we came here to have a multi-generational home. And that was the genesis of the initial renovations that are mentioned in here. So our, my wife's parents live with us in the same house and we do a bunch of, there's multi-generational, there's caretaking going in every direction. Okay, so the shed, you can see a picture here in full color. It has no insulation. It has no heat. It has no plumbing. If we're allowed to finish it, it will have a lodging door. It is 12 feet long, but it's got a division that's solid wood in the middle. And right now there's snow tires stacked on one side. It's basically just big enough for snow tires. And then the remaining, I don't know what it is, a couple of feet. There's no space for living. There's no space for anything aside from bikes, camping gear, lawn equipment, et cetera. So I'm sure you all are busy and I'm sure you dedicated hours of your day to read my amazing brief here. I will just highlight this because this is within the packet. It is not, so I initially wrote an appeals letter and then I sort of boiled everything down to this brief here. It's got a lot of, this is sort of more legal than the initial letter. And I'm not the kind of lawyer who likes to speak in fancy languages, I hope you can tell. And in fact, I don't understand a lot of the fancy language. But the reason why I cited lots of legal authority and did a bunch of legal analysis is that I just think that's germane in this case because it's essentially, there's not a huge factual dispute here. It's really a dispute about what the meaning of the regulations and the ordinances are. And by way of sort of procedure, I confirm this with the environmental court. Some, I guess as the way I understand it is some towns are, they hear the case with deference and some towns they hear it de novo if it goes up to the environmental court and de novo essentially means they start over. I know some of you in the room, I think some of you in the room are lawyers. Do we have any lawyers here? Oh, good, okay. Sorry. Online? No, but anyone? No, but we have talked about this de novo. You know some lawyers? Many times, yes. Okay, so here's the heart of our case and it's outlined in here and I'm gonna try not to read through this. I'm just gonna try to summarize this as succinctly as I can. So our argument is that the shed is an exempt accessory structure under 6.13A7 on page 81 of the race. So if you look at page 81, it says 6.13A, the following uses and structures have been determined to impose no impact or a de minimis impact on the surrounding area in the overall pattern of land development in the city in accordance with the act and unless otherwise regulated under the flood hazard area overlay district are exempted from these regulations. And then it says outside of special flood hazard areas no municipal permits or approval shall be required for. And then number seven is one accessory structure per lot with written notification does not exceed 100 square feet in the floor area 10 feet in height and meet setback distances for the district in which it's located. So basically our entire argument can be summed up there. It meets those requirements and therefore it's exempt from regulation. And that's kind of, that's it. Like if I had to boil it down into this little space on the page, that's it. There's a sub argument is the shed incidental and subordinate to the main activity or structure on the lot. I've outlined a lot of reasons in here why that is. I guess I'll just say that I did go down. I spent, I did my time in legal encyclopedias and in Westlaw looking at other uses of incidental and subordinate and other uses of accessory buildings. And so when I say in this brief here that the use is what defines an accessory structure as opposed to any physical characteristics. It's from spending hours looking at cases from around the country. So that's it. And I think that, so I'm on page two now. The reasons for the exemptions are important. This impose no impact or a de minimis impact on the surrounding areas or the overall pattern of land development. I mean, the regs specifically recognize that there are some things that landowners can do that just don't fundamentally impact the neighborhood and viewed in light of the specific zoning, right? And ours is RA, that those things are so small that the city does not need to take an interest in them essentially, that they're exempt from any zoning. And in fact, the DRB doesn't have authority to, it has authority to hear and appeal because it says specifically it does, but that it doesn't have authority to hear, I don't know, a variance or something. Because those things are just, the statute itself says they're exempt. They're too small. They're not impactful. A person can do it without going before the DRB except for that they have to meet those characteristics, right? And those characteristics are not insignificant. I mean, the 100 square feet, the 10 foot roof, the notice of the DRB has to be subordinate incidental. So, I think a lot of the city's concerns are about what this case might, the implications this case might have for other people and if people are gonna try to get around the regs through some monkey business. I guess I would just say to that, I mean, number one, it's, and I'm sort of going off script here, but number one, that is a hard, like I could see, again, I'm not as running expert, but I can see why that's an issue and I can see why that's a stress, right? It's like, how do you write the rules so that they're not too constraining, but that they also make sure that no monkey business occurs? Monkey businesses and the lawyers and then let me know that that's a technical term of art. So, you know, I just think that that's not this, like I can see how that's a concern in general, but that's not this, that's a concern, period, but this case and that concern are, I mean, sure, it triggers those thoughts, but I don't think there's a worry with this case in terms of other homeowners and I'll get to some more detail in a second. So, to look at E on the top of page two, the purpose of the residential A district is to accommodate a safe, livable, and pedestrian-friendly residential neighborhood with low-density development and an inviting streetscape and I realize I should have a citation there. Maybe there's one in here. That is from, you all probably know where that is and I think it's from in the ULBDR somewhere early on. I can get you that citation, but, so, I mean, that's a pretty basic purpose, right? And this shed, you know, if you walk by it from the street, I mean, Eric is free to disagree, but if you walk by it from the street, you know, you honestly don't really notice it and I think you will notice it a lot less once it's finished because it will blend in much better with the surroundings. So, it's not like this is a, you know, I mean, our house is on a big sloped hill and so even this picture that I took is from a lot closer, you know, than the street. So, it doesn't stick out, you know, the neighbor on the side is fine with it. I included a letter from him. They're very kind people. And, you know, and it doesn't affect negatively this purpose. It is de minimis, we would argue, and it is either de minimis or basically creates no impact. So, I kind of already talked about F. So, G, to go into more detail on why, you know, I think you all don't have to worry that if you uphold our appeal, that if you hold in our favor that, you know, others are just gonna sort of use this as a loophole to run, you know, to do all kinds of, you know, to create garages, you know, whether we could would convert this shed into a living space, I tell you on the record, we would not. I'm a lawyer and I'm obliged to be ethical and that is not our intention and we will not do that. And honestly, I would be willing to sign an affidavit. I mean, like, I don't know if these, you know, the extent to which, I mean, I guess I was just sworn in, right, so this is a, I do have, you know, I do have a duty of candor to you all and, you know, I am, we are willing to sign an affidavit that like if we ever converted it, we would, you know, I don't know, apply for a permit, whatever, we could talk about it. But, you know, it's not an issue for us. It can't become a garage. It can't become a living space. It's just not physically capable of doing that. But more than that, you know, I think that in the end, zoning rules, you know, it is impossible to put every word down to make it, to make them be, to make them do what you want them to do. But the words that you do choose are the words that you do, not you all, but the words that the city chooses are the words that the city chooses and those are the law. And, you know, this notion that like the city has long interpreted, has long held this interpretation. You know, I don't know. I mean, I guess to that I would say there is a public notice requirement, you know, in that the people have to know what the law is. There's not like, to my understanding, and people in this room maybe can educate me if I'm wrong, you know, like a set of precedents that, you know, are easily accessible to the public that govern this stuff. There's not, you know, sometimes like if you get court rules, there's annotations and they have like questions to sort of, they're not part of the law, but they kind of help you interpret it. There's none of that. And so, you know, it is a hard situation, but the rules as written are the rules as written. And the rules that, you know, the rules that govern the flood district, and I do appreciate that, you know, Eric pointed out that the specific wording in his brief about, I forget exactly what you said, you can articulate it later, but basically that, you know, the city's claim is that those flood definitions that do talk about attachment could apply to our shed. But, you know, this is where the rules of statutory interpretation come in. And if there is a definition in the applicable section, a written definition, then that's the written definition that applies. You, you, you, I just, I, you know, I strongly doubt that a court would be willing to pull that definition from a section that does not apply. And in fact, the words I wanted to cite too, if you could just give me a second, sorry. The words, are you looking at the flood portion? Yes, I am. Just give me one second, I will come back to go here and say, I promise. That's okay? Oh, I know where it is. Okay, I'm lost in packets here, I apologize. Okay, so I cited this on page, it's page 004. This is the agenda and attachments. And so in our part, it's page 004. These aren't, the whole packet isn't numbered. That's where I'm sort of fumbling through numbers. So the exact words of, you know, that about the flood district are, it says in the ULUDR, there are other definitions unique to the downtown court district, Gateway Districts and the flood hazard areas. So it says that those are unique to those areas, which would to me imply that they are, that they are to remain there. And then also that the definitions in this, or the main residential section, don't apply to the flood district, that it says specifically. So, but honestly, regardless of that, I mean, you know, there is a clear definition of what an accessory use, et cetera, is in the applicable part of this, the part that applies to our house, and that is what is controlling. Okay, I feel like I'm losing some of you, so let me land this plan. So, you know, and also I think that you all could hold, if you are really concerned that upholding this appeal would open the flood gates to other people for getting around these rigs, I don't see any reason why in your decision, and again, I'm not an expert, why you couldn't hold the, I mean courts all the time, you know, issue decisions that hold the decision to the particular facts of this particular case. So in other words, you could say, you know, this appeal that the appellant, you know, shall win, but the, and the shed can remain, but you know, our holding in this case is limited to the particular facts of this particular case and just leave it at that. So, you know, in other words, that would mean that, I mean, a future board or a future court might, and I don't, to my knowledge, courts, again, if they're heard to no, I don't think that they look at precedent of zoning decisions. So, but a future, a future, you know, if it came up again, if someone came up here and said, hey, look, I can do this, you could say, no, it says right there, it's limited to these facts, it's limited to a shed like this, it's limited of these particular dimensions, you can make it as narrow as you want, you know, as a body, as far as I understand it. So, and I think that you could, you would also be free just to hold the, just to do this hearing all over again. I don't know if there's precedence in these hearings. So I just don't think that this, our particular case will open the floodgates to this happening again. Okay, so I'm on number six now and I'm almost done. So, a few practical considerations, so I guess I just did six A, six B is, you know, Winooski, I know it's a pain, but the next time you'll revise your regs, you could just make the definition how you want it to be. And then I talked about these precedential issues. You know, I think if the city is worried about a precedential effect, taking this to the environmental court, where it becomes a legal decision, is probably not the best idea. Because, I mean, again, I don't know what's gonna happen, but I feel like we have a strong case. And if you, you know, bad facts make bad law, right? So then all of a sudden you go to the court, if you lose, sure you could win, but if you lose, then there's a court decision holding that this interpretation is correct, and then you are much more bound by this, right? So, and again, I think you're, well, not again. I think I see your role is sort of to sort of, you know, again, I respect what Eric's saying, and I respect the city's position, and you know, I guess I can see are there's a dispute here? I'm a little bit biased. But I see that the DRB's role is to sort of head off just issues that are maybe disputes, but that just, that would take up unnecessary resources if they continue. And this little podium shed is one of those cases. So, and lastly, I would just say, you know, we sort of made some, I guess what you would call, like admissions in our initial appeal letter, and you know, we, again, I'll just say like, you know, we did not set out to like make this an issue. You know, like the last thing I wanted to be doing, it was sitting before this board in an appeal, you know, I've spent a lot of time on this, as you can tell, I don't have a lot of time. You know, so it was not, and I'm not saying like, well, it was me, I'm just saying like, this was not the best situation, and we admit that we didn't handle it the best. That said, we really want to keep our shed, and you know, like there's concrete in the ground, and you like to have to tear it down would be, just seems totally unnecessary. And we have all our bikes and stuff on the porch, and you know, our house will look much more livable if we can, you know, finish the shed and finish moving things into it. So, with that, I don't know if I can reserve any time if you do a rebuttal here, but if I may, I shall do so. Yes, but you don't need to reserve time. Okay, thank you. Well, I don't want any of us to be here all night. We're quasi-judges, right? I appreciate quasi-judges. As far as presidential effect, we've never, we've never considered that. Maybe you should wear wigs, and then you might get some presidential. We do have a gavel. So in all seriousness, does anyone have any questions? Sorry, you all online, I'm sorry, I know I was trying to look over here, but does anybody anywhere have any questions? I do, sure. Or maybe you do. I'll start it off. Just kick it off. The biggest thing is, for me, is it's attached to the building. It's not accessory. It's not an accessory building, right? It's part of the building. It's not part of the building, right? What makes it an accessory? So we, since there is no definition of attached, I don't concede that it's attached. I don't know what that means. If you can tell me what it means, then I... I mean, when I take one Lego and I put a Lego on top of it, they are now attached. When I have two separate Legos, there's one over here, and there's an accessory Lego, they are not attached. You know, it's funny that you're using Legos, because I almost brought Legos here. I was working with my son, and I was like, I think this would be helpful. Right? So I guess to answer your other question, I would again point back to the use. It is subordinate and incidental. And you can look up a dictionary definition of those words. And in the brief, I've gone into detail with those definitions a little more. The use of the house is as a living space, right? And as Eric pointed out, the previous renovation we did, or the renovation we did, was converting, I don't even... Actually, you can talk about whether it's... I honestly don't understand fully the way that permit worked. I wasn't really part of it. But the point is that the use of the house is for living and for residence. And the shed is subordinate. I guess the other thing I would say is, it seems like the position of the city is that, if there was a one inch gap between the house and the shed, right? They would not be attached. I understand that. But if you're focusing on the use, why then in that logic is it okay to have that? And how does it prevent us from all the monkey business? How does it prevent us later from putting in a threshold and knocking out a door? Because then they would be attached. Or just not putting in the... To me, again, you have to think about the purpose of this. And the purpose of this, you can drill down and try to do that. And the other response I would say is, it's not in the law. If it were in there, if it said that, and again, it says that in a bunch of other sections, it says that for dex, for example, then this would be a different case. Like I admit that, but it just doesn't say that. And it does say that in other places. So I hope I answered your question. Yes, you have. Still... You respectfully disagree. I respectfully disagree. Yes, yes. And in Eric's note, he did include the language that does include the flood zone language, which I believe is the only definition of an accessory structure that we have, which does state, it means a structure which is one detached from and clearly incidental and subordinate principle use of a structure on the lot. Located on the lot. But there are two other concerns with this. Sorry, on that little point, could I just say something and then let you make a point? Yeah. So what I'm looking at is the definition of accessory in article nine on page 88. And in accessory, it says a use activity structure or part of the structure that is subordinate incidental and main activity structure in the law. Right, so that's the definition that we're saying is applicable. And again, I would just say like I really strongly, I like, you know, the lawyers in the room, I think will agree that, or I would hope that that flood zone stuff, it, you know, I think it's a real stretch to say that that definition applies. But anyway, sorry, you had a couple other... I have a question. So there were two other... Go ahead, man. There were two other, sorry, sorry, Katelyn. The other is that because this is attached, it now, I believe, does violate setback concerns, which could be solved with us issuing a variance, but procedure was not followed in that instance. So sorry, do you have a question about that? Sure. You're saying that's assuming that it is considered the principle structure, right? Correct, yes. So I just want to clarify that our argument is and I understand you disagree or people disagree that it doesn't violate the setbacks as an exempted accessory use because those are five feet and it is five feet one inches from the property line. Can I just make, like I guess a question slash a point, I think the definition of accessory that you're really leaning on right now applies to a lot of other things that can apply to an accessory dwelling unit, which also has a definition right below it. So I think it's very broadly applied, but it doesn't mean that there's not a need for a permit or it doesn't have other restrictions that would also apply to that term. That you would reach out to the zoning administrator and seek, okay, so for this accessory use or structure, like I think that accessory is a broad term that's described in the ordinances, that then an accessory structure is the full term that is then used in this instance because it is an accessory structure and there is a full definition for that. It's just not in this section that you are- Yeah, I think I understand what you're saying. I guess my response would be, if you look at 6.13, it says the following uses are exempt and if one agrees that it meets those, then it says you don't need to get a permit, et cetera, to do all the things you just said. Like if this was in our backyard, for example, right? Nobody would be arguing, right? If it was freestanding, otherwise completely the same, right? If you'll notice the zoning administrator, you would get feedback on whether or not that needed any other permits or whatnot. And you would make sure that the setbacks and also wasn't aligned with the rest of the zoning regulations. Right, and so, but assuming that we did that, like so I'm just saying that it seems clear that it meets the definitions in every way except for this argument about attachment. So I guess maybe I have some confusion about the notice. So was there notice supplied to Eric that you confirm that there was notice supplied to Eric for the accessory structure? Yes. And that's something that we, that's not, Eric, you feel differently, that's- What form did that take, the notice? It was in an email once we figured out- So after the fact, after the story? Yes, it was, yes. Okay, so, okay, so that's- Again, there's no, I mean, it says notice and it says exempt, like I understand what you're saying, but I mean- I think we can just- Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, sorry Matt, I think I cut you off from your third question. Oh, no, that's okay. So yeah, I think a lot of it comes down to the definition of accessory structure because if this was a, if you'd run to Costco and got a four by six prefab resin shed and installed it in the corner of your lot and as long as it was, you know, outside the setback area, totally fine, go for it. But the fact that it is attached and it can be constituted as an addition and there were no permits issued for it, there was no variants issued for it, that's where, that's where, that's why we're having this discussion. And I will also just say that we're not in the business of trying to, you know, mess with homeowners lives or mess with developers lives. We just wanna make sure that the rules are being interpreted properly so that, you know, we did say that typically we don't talk about precedent, but we don't want somebody seeing this online or seeing this on channel 17 or whatever channel this is on saying, oh cool, I can put a lean to on my house. So that's why we're having this discussion now. And I hope that we can resolve it in a way that works for everybody. You appreciate that, I totally appreciate that. So I think, sorry, question in the room. There's more, I can't see the room, so. Yeah, I'd like to sort of follow on with what Caitlin was asking. I'm not sure if you were involved in the original decision to build it or not, when the original decision was made, were these consulted? I mean, it seems like somebody knew that this rule was in play and the permit would not be required. I guess I'm asking why it's five foot one from the property. You're not suggesting monkey business, are you? Well, I'm not, I appreciate the question. I appreciate the question. I'm just curious how it ended up meeting this setback requirement. I will be 100% honest with you when I was not involved in the initial decision and as a, as the family lawyer, when I saw the email to Eric with the dimensions, I was like, stop emailing! Like, you know, because as a lawyer, you don't want to just like gush out information. But that had happened, like, you know, and I'm certainly not saying anyone would lie, right? I just wanted to, as soon as we were like, oh shoot, like, oops. Well, I just think you spent so much time after the fact it seems like if you hadn't been involved before, you could have actually given a written notice. Could you come over? Could you just come home with me after this and I'll feed you dinner and you can make an argument? Hi everyone. No, I mean, and plus, you know, my mother is currently helping put my kids to bed. So, you know, so I say all that only to say, like, I know you would think that, but that is the honest truth is that it's kind of a coincidence. You know, so I, yeah. It kind of makes sense because you would think if someone did read that, you, I mean, you would read notice to the ZA and you would not think it would happen. Trust me, if I knew about this, I cannot tell you how differently I would have done this, but here we are. And then the last, I guess the last, we're taking your word, I guess, that it's five foot one from the property line because we don't have a plot of that, a plot of that. If that's the issue, then, you know, we can talk further about it. Is it also the case that there are no other structures on the property? Yes, it is absolutely. No sheds. Correct, yeah. Correct. Yeah, in fact, our neighbor, Jim, I'm sure some of you know, he's lived here a long time. He's a great guy. He was like, why don't you guys just put it in the backyard? Thanks. Trust me, yeah, maybe. Yeah, any other questions? I'm good. See anything else you'd like to fill us in on before we have anybody come up? Yes, you, sorry. I know that's okay. You reserved some time. No, you said I didn't have time. No, I mean, I guess I would just say, yeah, I would like to resolve this. So, you know, we, yeah, we would like to continue to work amicably with all of you. And that said, like, you know, I'm not super litigious person, but it's kind of like convenient that, in fact, I'm not a litigious person at all except for my day job. Even in that, you know, good lawyers avoid going to court because it's expensive and it's a pain, right? The unique, my unique role with the family means that it's cheaper for us to go to court, you know, because we don't want to hire somebody else. And I have, you know, I have people who are smart about this stuff that I consult with. So, you know, I don't want to do that, but I, you know, I do feel like we have a really good case and I feel strongly about this. And yeah, so, but that said, I guess I should end on a positive note. I really appreciate everyone's time and thanks for being here. And, you know, I would be having much more fun with this if it wasn't sort of real life. And I guess I would just say at the end, it's again, I just want to say like the purpose, like I think I know you guys, like you all said, you know, you're in charge of enforcing the rules. And I guess just on this one, I would just ask you to sort of zoom out. And, you know, I think you're covered on the rules. And I think, you know, the way to think about this is just to zoom out and be like, can this silly shed stay there and, you know, be, you know, just can life go on and just leave it at that. And, you know, whatever protection you all want to do for other people, I think there's plenty you can do. But I think just zooming out, looking at the purpose and the sort of the purpose of the neighborhood, the purpose of these regs and the purpose of the exemption, I think, is the way to think about this. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, thank you. I believe it would be calling Eric next to chat about the city side. So I have nothing specific to add with the side from the two-mine memo. There is a participant on the line. Again, Zoom user, I'm not sure if they have anything you wanted to add, but I think, or Bob, if you had anything you wanted to add, Zoom user, if you did want to provide any comments on this matter, feel free to use the chat or the raise hand feature, and we can recognize you. Otherwise, you can just stay on the listening. Not seeing a hand raised. So, before you close this hearing, I do have a list of the exhibits, which I will give to the appellant. It includes exhibits A through P in the pre-printed form. I've added exhibit Q, which is the two-page outline from the appellants, which will all be included in the record of this hearing. Okay, thank you. So just to let the appellant know, we will, we typically make decisions in deliberative sessions. Usually that happens right after this meeting tonight. If things run long, we may delay for a little while and determine a date and time later where we will deliberate and make a decision. But you will obviously get the results within the legally required a lot of time. So, thank you so much for being here. Thank you, I appreciate your time. Certainly. Next on our agenda is a public hearing for a site plan that is in addition to a building already existing at 11 Tygan Streets. We would invite the applicant to... I'll take this one real quick in one second though. Okay. Okay, so this is a site plan review for you all tonight for a property of 11 Tygan Streets because it's in the industrial zoning district and because it is a use that it's over three residential units or in a non-residential district. It comes before you all for a site plan review. As part of this review, your role is your role is to look at the site conditions, to provide any input, any information you all see fit related to the site. There's an existing building on the site. This is in addition to that building. There are comments that were provided by the Department of Public Works that were included with the agenda. There were also comments. Sorry, I also sent the information to the fire department and the police department. They did not have any specific comments, so none are included with your agenda's information. Specifically though, with a site plan review, you're looking to impose appropriate safeguards, modifications, and more conditions related to the standards. So the applicants does have a request in that regard that's based on the standards of site plan review. So with that, Greg Dixon representing the applicant is here tonight to discuss. Thank you. How's it going everybody? Like Eric said, I'm Greg Dixon. I'm with Kribs and Lansing Consulting Engineers. I am working with Faith Holdings, specifically Fred Wall and his son Dwayne Wall, who own the building and also operate their business out of it. Their business is called Clove, which is creative label of Vermont. What they do is they take in sort of industrial stickers and print on those stickers and those stickers then go on labels for anything from food to a lot of stuff, but I think it's mostly food. So mostly like syrup, milk, local stuff like that. So that is what they're doing. They have had other tenants in the buildings over the years. I think originally when it was created back in the late 70s, it was actually for I believe a makeup at the time. And it's been used for many different things over the years. I'm assuming it will be used for many different things after they either use the building for a while or have different things in and out of it. It's your pretty normal bade industrial building. It can be broken up into three 10,000 square foot units. Each have 2,500 square feet of mezzanine space. Like I said, they're using it as one and the addition is actually to put on another 1,000 square foot bay onto the end of the building. This addition was always planned. It's actually in the old 1978 plans as sort of future. As you can see kind of looking at the existing site plan and my site plan it kind of was laid out in order to do that over the course of life if they wanted to ever add space and stuff like that they would do it. This is part of the Meadowland industrials park. So it is heavily regulated by active 50 which I do plan and going to. This is kind of the first step in the project. So we'll also have to go through there. I've already talked with Stephanie Monahan about this slightly. Just sort of introducing and seeing what steps she needs. It'll be a full submission to active 50 as well. Sorry, just real quick. On the screen here is an aerial of the site. This will give you another perspective. The site plans are included that are oriented slightly differently just for layout purposes. But entrance off of Hyden Street here on the north end, the area where the additional go is proposed here on the south end closest to the Cemetery in St. Francis property. Also just as a real quick note, the properties along this northern part of Eaver Street while they're residential nature as the development right now they are all, they're in the gateway zoning district. So they're not in a residential zoning district. This northern part of Eaver Street is part of the gateway. This property at the corner of Eaver is hiding in the industrial district as a web. So just wanna give that context for you also. Yeah, and that was actually a question that I had because it would need to have a larger step back if that was a residential use. But so I did ask Eric about that and that's sort of what we came up with. Not that we're looking to encroach it any further. We're actually kind of staying at the same distance as the roadway and the parking is right now. There's obviously a lot of information on the site plan. Probably too much, but like to give everybody a lot of information to look at. This will be an increase in previous area, increase in coverage, pretty much increases across the board, kind of with the only one that we don't plan on increasing is our allocated WW. It already had a pretty substantial amount of allocation to it. I know there might be some aspects of that with the city, I still need to work out, but I don't know if we'll really be increasing flows on a state permit wide aspect. I know that the city engineering did bring up stormwater. That is probably the biggest part of this project. The existing Meadowland Industrial Park has a stormwater permit. It has been changed, massaged, touched in so many different ways that it's very confusing on how I'm going to melt into it. I think the biggest conversation I've already had with state stormwater is basically if I can treat and maintain all of the new impervious, then I think they see a path forward. And so that is the intent on kind of the small basin that's shown on the little strip of parking up kind of on the top of this page and the larger basin sort of on the edge close to the cemetery. This is all on a giant sand lens. We actually went up there and we've already performed some test pits as well as some percolation tests. We, it is all sand. So we poured water in it and that water disappeared. So our intent for stormwater is to just put it in a hole and let it, they're called infiltration basins, but all they are really is just holes that let water sink into the ground. I'm still working on that, probably hoping to get both that permit and Act 250 in towards the end of this month, maybe the beginning of next. The point that Eric brought up earlier to is about parking. I'm here in front of the board sort of asking for waivers on parking. Right now, I don't know if any of you have been up to this part of Tiger Street. The current user of this building, there's 76 parking spaces on this site. They have never come close to using that many parking spaces on this site. They have right now about 45 employees, but those employees are also on shifts. So at any one time, there's normally about 20 people in there. The most I've seen it is probably actually pretty close to 40. So I don't know if they were having a party or they just needed everybody in on that shift. But with this expansion, it's not really needed for more employees at the time. It's more just needed for extra space. They take, like I said, they've taken a lot of stickers on these big wheels and they just kind of need spots to put that. They might have some more manufacturing in the new space with kind of the new age printing for these stickers, but the increase in employees, they do expect to have some, but it's not really expected to double or triple the amount of employees. And the required parking for the use and for the space is, I don't think we even meet it currently now. And then obviously we wouldn't meet it with the increase. And that's based on sort of the 10,000 square feet, the new 10,000 square feet plus the mezzanine because we're gonna be doing that as well. But it basically would have enough, the existing parking was probably designed without the mezzanine space for the existing building and kind of with the mezzanine space we are over. So what Eric and I came up with was sort of showing locations where parking clearly could exist on site. It would take some retaining walls and some fun grading and stuff like that. But that is sort of what we're showing on the left-hand side of my print. But right now our plan was to increase the parking to, I think it's 108 total spaces, which we sort of one felt was still more than we needed, but it was at the same capacity that the building's increasing is sort of how I did it. So sort of a percentage. 108 and what's the requirement? How short are you? I think it was 153. Yeah, 153 is required based on the square footage for the industrial district. We require three spaces per thousand square feet of floor area. We do allow some relief in our parking standards for transportation demand management strategies or shared use parking for certain spaces several other options. So they have indicated that they're interested in taking advantage of the transportation demand management strategies, which would get the parking down to I believe the 138 number. Yeah. So the site plan shows the ability to do all 138 spaces. One of the asks that Greg is coming to you all with is to be able to not build all that parking with this proposal. Because it's shown, the feelings that they don't need is all that parking because of the shifts that are there, but if in the future the use is changed for whatever reason, the ability to put that parking on site is there. And I also feel that parking is also an involving thing in general. And I think to put that much extra parking, that much extra pavement, that much extra need for stormwater in at this time when the need's not there just didn't really make sense for the current project. Obviously I'm asking for that. So I'm happy to take more questions about that. But that is sort of what we're coming to. So the ask is a waiver on the parking? It's a waiver on the parking with the understanding that it's evidence that we could put it in if needed. And I think it could even be written into the permit if you saw, if the city saw that it was an issue that could come to us prior and sort of force our hand a little bit. But I have a question about your calculation. It looks like your existing building is 30,550 and you're adding on 10,300, is that right? Yes. So that would be 40,850 and you have said it's 50,850. I think you're 10,000 over in your calculation. No, all the buildable areas right on the plan that the straight square footage of the building. Yes, are those numbers, but due to the mezzanine space that's the additional 10. So basically each of those bays has a little over 10,000 square foot and then each also has 2,500 square feet of mezzanine. I see, yep. I think, sorry, just for clarification, I think it's less of a, on the parking side, it's less of a request for a waiver from the required parking and more of a request to not build on the required parking until it's needed. Because they're still able to show it all on site. So the parking is there. So the ask is not to reduce the total parking that's required. The ask is to not necessarily build it all right now because they're saying it's not currently needed to have those additional 40 spaces, 35, 40 spaces. This has been a very metaphysical, philosophical. Is it attached? Is it not? Is the parking there and it's not really built? So just to confirm, so it wouldn't be just to not build the parking spaces. It's also to not include the impervious area from those potential parking spaces in the stormwater calculations. So the stormwater permit that's attached to this parcel will include all of those areas or it'd be something that you would, that the applicant would have to go back. Yeah. So is there assurance from the stormwater division that this site does have a means to handle all that capacity, even if it's not fully permitted right at this point in time? So I doubt the state would ever give you sort of that assurance. I could write a memo stating that just because of the sort of the soils that I'm seeing on site plus the ability to possibly use pervious pavement or something along those lines. I do think we could get, we could get a permit. I feel very confident we could get a permit to put those on. I know the city still classifies pervious pavement or pervious anything as coverage. If we were to add all this, we would still be fine coverage wise. So I did do that calculation. But again, I didn't really go through and do a full out design for that at this time. I guess I could, if the city felt like they needed some sort of proof, we could look into actually doing something like that. Yeah. How many square feet of pavement would not be built if that was? I think it says about 6,500 square feet. Okay, so that's not insignificant. No, it's a, it would definite anything in this entire industrial park, if you were to create one square foot, I know people do what they do, but you're supposed to adjust the permit because this permit has been around for so long that it's sort of 5,000 square feet that they allow you to do on the fly, doesn't exist anymore. So when we would go back if the parking lot, if the parking was needed, we would have to redo a permit. We would also have to redo Act 250. And I imagine at that time we would also still have to come before you. So that was also a conversation I had with Eric that it's not like we can just, I can meet with Fred or their representatives any day out there, and we'd be like, oh, well, Winooski passed us to build all these, let's go for it and just go for it. It would be another substantial project to put them in. What I was just illustrating with this is that there is clearly space on site under your regulations, which it could exist. Would you have to add additional basins? We would definitely have to add additional basins and or work within the overarching permit in order to find space. Yeah, I think that's my concern is it doesn't seem like there's a lot of extra space if you did have to put those parking spaces in to then also site more basins to manage that storm water. Well, so that's what I'm saying with the pervious surface, which pervious surfaces is very expensive. The other thing that we could look at, which we could definitely do on this side just because of the water table as well, we could put it underground. We could do underground infiltration tanks. So there are more expensive ways to deal with storm water than basins on the surface. I'm not doing it right now because we don't need to. We have the ability to put some surface stuff up there. And I'm still not done with the design. I've only really done that kind of halo at the top so far, those two basins are designed. I'm still working on the rest of it. That may require some underground tankage, but there's definitely opportunity for that as well on site. So like I'm saying, I'm very confident that we could do something with storm water to get those in. And I wouldn't be worried about that at all personally, but I understand the question and then asking about it. Does the additional impervious surface that is proposed in this plan kick this into a three acre site? It's not a three acre site because it already has a permit. It's all permitted impervious surface at this time. So it is over three acres, but because it already has a permit, they will have to redo their permit to get a 9050 because right now I think it's a, I don't even know what it is. It has a very long name, but I'm not here. I've not been hired to evaluate that. At this time, I'm sort of just evaluating this one project. Not to get to in the weeds, but is there an association of the whole industrial park and they manage the storm water permit? The association does. They do. I have to work specifically with a company called Fitzgerald Engineering, Evan Fitzgerald. So I, they're the engineer for the industrial park. They were the last time they built something. So they, I think in 2009 or 2008 there's a few new ponds on this parcel actually. You can kind of see them. I know it's tough to point out from here, but there's a little one that's kind of in the crook of the parking on the northern side. There's actually one on Mark Ferrell's property. There's another one in the corner. Here, I'll just, here. So 2009 or 2008, they designed and put a pond here, here is one up here, and then there's one actually down in between the biotech buildings. And at that time, they did that in order to increase one to get under the new regulations, the 2002 regulations, as well as add additional capacity. That capacity was actually sucked up by 25 Tygen, another project which I did. And as well as the people who make soap, Twin Craft, yeah. And so they, Twin Craft also has a little, you can kind of see it when you drive down there, a little, I believe it's rain garden or something like that. And so do they have, there's a new, and again, I'm sorry to get off of them, there's a new store model rule, right? And they have to come into compliance with that one now, the whole industrial part? Yes, but because they're already under the old regulations, I think it would be a lot of trouble if they didn't have to come into compliance with the regulations, I think it would, it's going to be a pretty seamless transition. I'm not hired to do that. Right, yes, yes, I'm sorry, this is just background. I may become hired to do that because I've done so much work on this project, but I'm not at this time. And I don't know if they've already had discussions with Evan, my personal conversation with Evan about this individual project was, hey, this is what we're looking to try to do, my understanding and is it your understanding that if we treat everything new on site, it would be permittable by the state and he agreed with that. So that's why we're kind of just positioning new stuff. And I will have to do some other weird things, like we are putting in the bikes that are required by the city. I'll have to do a 35 foot disconnect on that, not that it means anything, but I'm just gonna show a 10 foot stormwater disconnect. Right now it's actually easy to do because that's just grass, but I'll have to show all that, all those calculations as well. It's literally every new piece of impervious on this site, we have to somehow find a way to make it treated. So again, just to wrap up the parking discussion unless there's any other questions, it's about 150 with no mitigation, with the transportation. Demand management. Demand management, it's down to 130 something. I think 130. And you're proposing what? I'm proposing 108 spaces. And then what we're also showing as new additional, which is kind of the dashed, I think was an additional 35. So we are over the 138, even with that. With the optional. Yeah, with the option, right. 108 is what we are showing on the plan as built. That's what you would like to do right now. Yes. Soon, not right now. To continue our theme of strict interpretation or regulations, do we have a mechanism to do that? I think you do, based on the standard, because this is through site name review, you do have some leeway to grant relief in those situations. Specifically, the section on site plan review talks about imposing appropriate safeguards, modifications and conditions related to the standards. So you can apply modifications as you see fit and appropriate through the site plan review process. Do we have a letter from the town, the city, talking about parking or what were the, you said there was a letter from Public Works. Oh, sorry. Yes, there are comments from Public Works that were included with the agenda. They're primarily related to storm water though. That would that mean concern? This is a, they specifically referenced the properties in the Morehouse Brook watershed, which is a hair, it is a hair watershed. So, but they also mentioned that because of the existing storm water permits on the project, it'll happen most likely go through furthering there again and through Act 250 which should cover most of the concerns from, not our property, from the city. So can I ask if they're not anticipating using even the parking they have, including with the addition, why are you proposing a new parking at all? I guess that's a good question. I did it because it fit in and I'm assuming as I mentioned in the beginning, things do change with these properties. I work with a bunch of other developers who have pretty much these exact same metal fab buildings. They break them up all the time. Yes, this current owner does not need it. I don't know any owner of this building if you walk into these spaces that is ever going to need 150 spaces for this building that might only be needed if you actually turn it into like office building, which is not even allowable in this district. So I was trying to, as I mentioned, do a percentage increase, which made more sense to me that we're increasing the building by this percentage. I increased the parking by that same percentage in order to give them leeway if they do decide to section off another, one of these bays to try to rent out to somebody else. The owner is on board with that. I'm not saying we would do this, but if we said you don't have to build any more additional, would he just leave it off? I have not approached him with that question. I do believe they want more parking and they also want to get their parking into compliance, which it currently isn't. So that is also why I'm adding a footstrip to the north of that parking and better orienting it. As far as the size of the spaces themselves. Yeah, it was kind of designed, I don't think it was built to the design originally, either that or it has degraded over the course of 40 years. Either or they want to kind of have a new parking lot so it will look new is the plan. And each time they paved it over 40 years, they just pulled it back a little bit. I guess the real only answer is I sort of designed this and I liked the way it looked. And the added parking was kind of a plus for them. No more questions for me. And there are no issues with setbacks the neighbor, since it's in the gateway district, right? It's like the neighborly, I'm forgetting the language. Right, yeah, so there's no buffer requirements against the gateway or the other industrial properties. However, there is a buffer requirement against the residential property, which is currently the cemetery. So there was, I believe, a differential request for relief from that aspect as well. I'm offering up that area over there. It's in the gateway district walking to the cemetery. Basically, it would be this property here as part of the San Francisco Cemetery is adjacent to the industrial property which would require at least a 50 foot buffer based on the regulations. The way the building, the new building will be oriented. It will be closer than 50 feet, I believe, is that right, Craig? The building wouldn't pay. There would be a corner of the parking lot, that would be. Oh, right, yeah. But the building wouldn't be anywhere close. And they were notified? They were notified, yes. They were actually notified with both cases. The diocese? Yes. Catholic diocese. Yep. They received an application on both of these matters because they're adjacent to both properties. I'm not sure if all the residents were notified of that. That's the job I was looking for. I just think they were coming here. I honestly did not know that that was residential. I was concerned about the properties to the top of this, but Eric told me that those could be developed and put some pretty substantial buildings on them. Yeah, the way that the regulations are written in that regard is, I believe it says something to the effect of the more intense use needs to buffer against the less intense, but it's based on zoning districts. And so in this case, the industrial and the gateway don't draw the distinction. They're the highest. And there's also the gateway has buffers built in already as part of the regulating plan. And in this location in particular, there are no, there's no buffer that they call the name of the manager in the gateway district. Perfect. So it would only be against the residential, the residential use zone property which is currently the subject area. And I do know that I believe, Eric, you brought it up in your notes about possible screening. And I do not think that my, my client would have any issue with that if that was desired. Right now, as you can see, there's kind of a corner of the woods that we don't intend to change. And there's actually some pretty decent screening on all the properties kind of up towards Weaver Street. So it really is kind of a very small opening onto the cemetery and the cemetery, their access road kind of cuts pretty close to that, to that fence as well. So I think that would be one concern is just what are the lights from that and then parking, just impacting those folks that are residential, just making sure that those don't impact them. But there's adequate screening. There is, I mean, you can see kind of the trees in there right now. The other thing is that all those residential houses sit, I believe almost 20 feet higher than our property. And all of our proposed lighting is only, I think I have it at about 16 feet, might not even be 16 feet high, and it's down shielded. We could also put that on motion detectors and stuff like that if that was the desire. But I have a, I was sort of thinking about lighting. I'm not a lighting expert, but it was definitely a thought process that if you have light that are only 16 feet high, but then the building, all those residential buildings on Weaver Street are sitting 15 to 20 feet higher than that. The hope would be that it really didn't broadcast that light onto their property or in a way that would disturb them. Oh, sorry. I was gonna say, in our regulations, we do require that lighting be outcast and not still off of the property where it's located and that it has a maximum height of 16 feet. Yeah, I think the 16 feet was because it's not fully designed yet. So I think I just quoted 16 feet stand in regulation. There are currently lights around the existing parking lot. As you can see in the existing condition plans, they have some pole-mounted lights that will actually be removed. I do think those sit quite a bit higher than 16 feet. But I did not measure them, but they look closer to 20, which might have been the old regulations. But those are kind of off to the right on this plan right now. And they cast over those few parking spaces over there. So those will be removed and we don't propose any more pole lighting. It would just be building-mounted. All right, hearing a lull in conversation, all of my questions have been answered. I was gonna bring up lighting and thank you, Caitlin, for doing that. Are there any other questions from any members of the board or anybody else in the room or from the applicants? Anything from Zoom user too? Zoom user is no longer with us and there's no other people in the room. Oh, all right. Okay. All right, well, Greg, thank you so much for being with us. We're gonna meet into Liberty session in a little bit just to chat and give our feedback here. And we look forward to checking in with you again. So before we close that, Matt, real quick, before we close this out, similar to what Bob did, I will be entering exhibits A through K into the record on this matter. And we'll be giving a copy of the exhibit list to the applicant as well. Okay. Thank you so much. Really appreciate your time. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Next up on our agenda is the election of officers. And we are missing, who are we missing tonight? Elsie is the only one we do not have tonight. Okay. Elsie, I guess. So technically on the agenda tonight, it's not here at all. This was a carryover from the July meeting where we had fewer people at the meeting. So we, with Kevin, no longer on the board, Matt, you are the vice chair, obviously. As you've been on the meetings, Harlan is currently our secretary. Annually at the first meeting in July or thereafter, we elect officers to serve a one-year term, officers being chair, vice chair, and secretary, including with the agenda was a memo that outlines the roles of each of those positions. Our rules and procedures indicate that only regular numbers can be officers, not alternates. So sorry, you can't be an officer in this regard. We could, you all can nominate officers individually if you so choose, or a slate of officers to represent you all over the next calendar year. So I'm sorry, are Elsie and Caitlin still considered alternates at this time? Elsie is not. Elsie, what has been elevated to a regular number? So we have one opening still on the board, which I've been waiting to get a formal chair position to interview a candidate for that role. They would come in as an alternate, but. Are you, wait, so will you become, is Kevin off? Elsie is off. Elsie was elevated to fill Kevin's position. So I'm first alternate now. Oh, okay. We have a full board. We have a full board, that's correct, sorry. Oh, that's okay, let's just start with me. Who wants to do things? I do not. I'd like my secretary role. That's the perfect amount of responsibility. Matt, do you have any interest in becoming a chair? I expressed my concerns to everybody at a meeting a few months ago about my, where I may be, literally in the world, or several months during the winter. That being said, I will have internet and a computer with monitors. So I'd be happy to jump in and do whatever needs to be whatever role I can sell, I'm happy to sell it. Yeah, indeed. I am really eager not to have a leadership position. I really have a lot going on. I would even be willing to become an alternate if you are interested in taking one of those roles. I know they're not very involved, but I'm totally overwhelmed with other stuff going on. Erin? I was just kind of, kind of, kind of say something similar that I'm comfortable in the role in it. I went first, I went first. I'm up for whatever. I do think Matt would make a great chair and even being, you know, away for a few months, I have no concerns with that. Maybe we vote Elsie in as Vice-Chair, oh, we did that? I think that's how Harlan, the Secretary, you can, I think it would be best to consult with her on that, but yes, that is possible. So we can also tonight just do Chair and Secretary, since we have two people who are interested in those positions tonight, unless Erin, you were interested in being Vice-Chair, and we could do it as a slate or just do those two positions and hold the Vice-Chair to see if Elsie is interested. If not, then, then it's okay. If nobody will do it, I will reluctantly. Maybe you weren't asking Elsie, yes, let's talk to her next meeting. Is that okay? Yeah, that's fine, that's fine. I think that makes sense too, and it's kind of the same as Harlan was saying, if nobody wants to fill that, I'm happy to fill one of those roles, but don't need to. Well, so then maybe what we do tonight is we just elect a chair and then hold the other two positions until the next meeting, or at least until Elsie's available with the weigh-in on whether or not she's interested, and in which case, Harlan, if she is, if she's interested in one one, you could fill the other one. That would not put you in the position of having to put you in a different position later. Perfect. So as long as we have a chair for the next meeting, that's going to be important. To that point, quick, our next meeting is September 15th, and we will have two items on that agenda. So Matt, are you available for the 15th? How's it right now? As of right now, I believe I am. Let me just check. One thing real quick. I mean, the other option is we could do a chair, a place chair, as Harlan, Aaron, and then just point you to the next meeting. You sign stuff. I sign stuff sometimes as secretary. I acknowledge receipt of appeals. That's a very important duty. Yeah. That's more work than the chair. That's pretty good, if you can get it. Yeah, I guess so. 15th is the Thursday. The only thing that might be standing in my way is if I'm going to Michigan for the weekend, I might be flying out at some point, surrounding that, but I would like to hear that if I'm not there in person or on a Zoom, I will have a computer with me. So maybe it makes sense to do chair and whatever position you're interested in, Harlan, we at least have an officer available for the next meeting and then we can always re-appoint you. Perfect. Can the secretary run the meeting? Yes, actually, Harlan may run our last meeting. That's right. Yep. Capably, that's what it might say. Yeah, I did it. So whichever role you're interested in, Harlan? I'll take the secretary again. So if somebody wants to make a motion to that effect, we can do a slate with Harlan the secretary and that as chair and go from there. Can I go make that motion? Second. Perfect. What's your slate called? The reluctant something. I don't know if I conduct this vote or not because I'm on it, but so we've had a motion and a second for me as chair and for Harlan as secretary. All those in favor of that slate? Raise your hands, say aye. Aye. Good. Can I have some? Yep, okay. Aye. Aye. All those not in favor, please say no. Any abstentions? If I'm voting, I'm abstaining. Okay. Motion carries. So what will be the effective date for these offices today or at the commencement of this hearing or next hearing? That's a good question. I think our rules and procedures say it's a... Hmm. Yeah, that's a good question. Well, the normal, I think probably the acceptable practice is that it starts as of this moment and doesn't apply to the two hearings you've had today. Nice. Thank you. No win for the lawyer. Goodness, he's here. Matt is currently the vice chair of Harlan's the secretary. Yes. For those hearings. Yes. Harlan is going forward. Mm-hmm. Matt will be chair. Yeah. Right. And Harlan would be secretary. Okay, that's fine, let's ask. Thank you. You're serving. Thank you, Matt. Okay, yeah, thanks. Thanks for your vote. So moving on to city updates. It's very good to go. Yeah, I have no specific updates unless you all have questions about anything. I do. I heard a rumor about the St. Stephen's Church property. So far, it's still only rumor. No, there's been no official word on that. But I believe they have indicated that they have chosen a group of bullying alley. A purchaser for the property. Okay. But I just have a question. How would that sale have taken place? Because I was looking for it on all sorts of commercial sites. I don't know if it has. I don't know if they formally closed the deal. Okay. I think the diocese has accepted an offer, but I don't know if they finalized everything with my hairstyle. Okay. I don't think it's been officially, I don't think it's officially happened. That's why I think it's all still just rumor at this point. It's all hearsay. Yeah. So my wife is now the chair of the finance committee for the city. So I'm just carrying a conversation that I heard from Matt over there. Nothing official at this point. Okay. Anything new on the Dunkin Donuts at the end of Tygen? Well, I could, we are, it's funny you bring that up. We are looking, we have a window of dates for trial. I don't believe one has been determined yet. Sometime before Thanksgiving. So sometime before Thanksgiving, that should be on your trial. Okay. And that is entirely a city thing. We don't, we won't be called to testify or talk. No involvement with that, correct. Okay. Okay. Bob, will you be representing us? Yes. Okay. Excellent. We're in good hands. Wait till the outcome. Okay. Moving on to, we'll talk more about that later until we're forever. Other business, any other business to attend to? The only thing I had again was that our next meeting was on September 15th. So please mark your calendar for that. We have a conditional youth review and potentially, I will see that today, potentially a request for a variance, which would be an interesting discussion. It'll be a, I'll just say that. Potential request for a variance that I anticipate coming in tomorrow. The deadline for that meeting is tomorrow. So as long as they get in by tomorrow, we can make that a no. Okay. Well, thank you. Last up on our agenda is to adjourn. Before we adjourn real quick, I want to ask, is everybody cool jumping into deliberative session as soon as we're done with this meeting or do we want to move forward instead of date right now on the record? Nope, let's deliberate, please. So what we'll do to that point, what we'll do is I will set up the Zoom link and leave the room and you all can deliberate on the appeal first with Bob. And then when you all are done with that, he can leave and I'll come in and deliberate with you on site now. Great. Okay, great. So that's the plan. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Seconded. I hear a motion, I hear a second. All those in favor of adjourning, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries. We are officially adjourned.