 We'll get started then back this Zoom format mostly but anyway so this is the Development Review Board for Burlington for January 4th. Do we have CCTV doing this also? They're on Zoom tonight. They're on Zoom. Okay just curious. So I don't know I assume there's some members of the public here who are going to participate in this and we take up items as they are on in the agenda and when we bring up each item we ask those members of applicants and other people who want to speak on each item to raise our hand identify themselves to Scott who will let people into the meeting to participate and also provide Scott with their physical addresses. Communications I don't believe we have anything that's not posted on the websites. That's correct everything's online. Minutes I think. Are we up to date Mary? I posted the ones assigned copy for December 7th and Celeste has posted the draft for the subsequent meeting. So that's it. I believe I was not at that subsequent meeting. Agreed yes. I think AJ was the chair for that meeting. Okay good. Other business actually we have that first on the agenda which is the change to the meetings to where is that? Yes there's a change to our calendar again and unexpected change. We're changing because election day must be March 1st. Is that what we're doing? We're changing to March 8th. The change was spurred by a confirmation from the human resource department that we will have a city holiday for Bennington battle day. We had understood that we were forgoing Bennington battle day for another holiday in June but that has not occurred. We had a meeting scheduled for Bennington battle day the date so we had to shuffle some the monthly calendar to accommodate that holiday. What is the date of Bennington battle day? Well it's a movable feast. So that's good to know because I'm always confused because it seems to come up randomly. August 16th. August 16th. August 16th okay. We had the city was moving to Juneteenth to be our new holiday. That is not on the calendar with human resources. Do we need a motion to approve this amended schedule? You do. Okay. Does somebody want to make a motion? I see Caitlin. I'll make a motion that we approve the amended development review board schedule for 2022. So second. Brooks. Okay. All in favor? Six. And I can't see if Jeff was that were you in favor of that too Jeff? Jeff also. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So our first now we go to public hearing. Our first item is 8688 North Winooski Avenue. There's a request to defer this. Is that true? That's accurate. Oh sorry that's accurate. Okay. And is that to a date certain or is that just deferred? Uncertain at this point they're back to the drawing board with some development plans. Okay. So we need a motion to defer this to a date to be determined. Is that So moved. My own recollection. This was the one that they did not show up to our last meeting and we deferred to this date certain without discussion with them. Is that correct? I know you weren't here Brad. So AJ. I think that's right. Scott is that right? That's the bunch of Ryan. No, no, no, no. This one hasn't been heard. Wait, which one then was it? And we know we went to the next meeting, didn't we? I think that's right. I think we went to the 19th. That one. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. I think I'm thinking it's the 72 76 Elmwood Avenue. It's the one there. That's the one. That's on the agenda for tonight. Right. So 8688. Can we have a motion to defer that to a date to be determined Jeff? So moved. Second. Brooks. Any discussion? All in favor? All right. Everybody in favor of that. Good. Scott, never mind. Sorry, never mind. Go ahead. That was a Ryan project. I'll ask you a different question later. Okay. Okay, the next one is 72 76 Elmwood Avenue constructs three unit detached residential building. Okay. So I see Michael Alvenos. Is that how you pronounce it? Yeah. So Michael, is anyone else speaking to this tonight with you? As far as I know, I'm the only one here to speak unless somebody else from the public that I don't know about. Is there anybody from the public to speak on 72 76 Elmwood? Sharon raised her hand and then lower head. So we'll take that as a no for now. If anyone raises their hand in Zoom, I'll just speak to that. So Michael, I have to swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty of perjury? I do. Okay. I think this was pretty straightforward to recommend it for approval. So how would you want to proceed? Do you want to present and talk about it a little bit? Sure. Sure. That's what you guys like. I'm happy to make a small presentation. I think just an overview of the project would be great. There you go. So this, as many of you may know, a number of years ago, churches just sit on the site and unfortunately run down. Recently, the sites changed hands and the owners looking to put a new structure, roughly in the same location, you know, plus or minus a foot or two on maybe some sides for a new three unit town home design on this property with associated updated parking lot. And the idea was to, you know, put in some, you know, three town homes on the property. I don't know if you want to scroll down a little bit, just to kind of show an elevation, you know, roughly in the same, you know, massing of, you know, in the character of the same neighborhood, clad in, you know, a hardy board siding to two different colors, keeping, you know, a little variety in the color scheme. And then we decided to do, like, sort of a asymmetrical roof on the project, just to add a little bit of flair, since it's the last building on next to the graveyard. Give anybody in the graveyard something good to look at, I suppose. Yeah, so that's, I think it's a pretty straightforward design, nothing, you know, over the top, just, that's what we got. I don't know if you guys want to take any shots there. Was, maybe I missed it in the staff report. Was there exterior lighting indicated? In the staff report, I think next to the rendering Scott in the final page, there's some under-mounted lighting below the, below the cantilever, sort of above the, above the doors. So that's the only exterior lighting you're going to have, is down lighting in that area? That's proposed right now, yeah. Yeah, no, there's no parking lights, you know, or, you know, any light for parking or anything like that. So that's, that's, that's essentially pretty straightforward. I don't know if there's anything, you know, too, there's an existing building on the property that the owner in the back of the property that the owner's been sort of working on too. You know, we could have, I suppose, I think we're allowed to build four units on this property, but I think we're just, you know, we're kind of containing the development to where the, where the existing development was. You know, bicycle parking sort of parked in the back. There's going to be some improvements to that bicycle shed to make sure it's, it's, it can, it can accommodate, you know, necessary biking requirements, new screening along Elmwood Avenue to prevent, you know, parking creep, you know, anyone, you know, trying to try to get the parking lot up to today's standards to make sure, you know, people park accordingly. Yeah. I think that was one of the conditions of approval is limits on the parking, I think, putting bumpers or something. I'm remembering, right? We're, we're proposing on curbing, you know, the parking lot to ensure that I think of the DAB level, there was some critiques about, you know, the ability of people to kind of randomly park where they choose on this property. So I think it's in our intention to curb most of the curb as much as we can on the, on the, I think all of it actually. Yeah. So. And what, will you change the finish on the bicycle shed? What's the exterior finish on it now? I think it's just a wissiding at the moment. I think our intention is to, you know, to, to provide a, maybe a larger shed and make sure we can fit the appropriate bicycles in there. Probably in the same hearty plank as the, as the building through color wise and as the building. And then we wanted to, I think for us, we were trying to, you know, we, we sort of kept the idea of those stone pavers in front of the bicycle shed to, you know, not do any hardscape per se, but just something more patio pavers to, to place in front of the bike shed so people can access the bike shed. Just going back to your lot coverage. So you're decreasing it from 71.5 to 63.5%. So if you enlarge the bicycle shed, you might increase that 63.5 by being enough to keep track of that. Okay. Do you, do you see that as a significant increase? No, no, I don't, I don't think so. I, I can't imagine it would be, well, I mean, as proposed at this point, we're not, we're not increasing, we wouldn't increase the footprint of the bicycle shed. I think unless, unless we had to, I think at this point we're trying to keep it exactly the same size as, as is currently there, or I'm sorry, as, as we propose. Any questions for other members on the board for the applicant? I do. Yeah, John. Yeah. Michael, I was just looking at the, the not to scale rendering from Elmwood Avenue. I'm not sure the scale, but it just occurred to me that you might, when you get your building permit, it's possible that they could request a handrail from that, from the Elmwood entrance, or am I just not seeing the elevation right? There could possibly, yeah, I think you might be right. There might need to be a handrail going down the steps. Is that what you're saying? There may need to be a handrail there, and I'm just wondering what that would look like. I don't think it'll change much. I like this project, but it's going to just change the front way it looks a little bit. I would prefer that it's some type of, you know, darker material that sort of matches the same color as the, as the building. I don't know, something, something simple, I would say, nothing, nothing overly, you know, but I don't, I don't think it would be, I don't see it going all the way down the line if that's, that's also a concern. I don't think we were, I don't know, something, something that would just sort of mark it all the way up the steps and then down maybe a foot or two into the, into the walk path, but that's, that's as far as I can see it going down. Yeah. What, what, you want to mention a material? Metal? Okay. That, that, that works. Yeah. That works for me. Okay. I just want to have something in there that is a painted metal handwriting. Good. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Yes, we're, we're good to go on this one. I wouldn't mind different things in arbor vitae, but I know they do the job, so I'm not going to object to that. Unless there's any other questions from the board or some, some member of the public is piping up, we will close this application, close this hearing. We will probably deliberate at the end of the day, end of the meeting tonight, Michael. Yeah, no worries. Thank you very much. Okay. Thanks. I'm on the agenda again, so I'm going to stick around here. Yes, that's right. You're next. 111 North Manuski. So we know Michael's here. Is anybody else here to speak on 111 North Manuski? Any member of the public wants to comment on 111 North Manuski? If so, raise your hand, please. I'll share and raise your hand and lower it again. There we go. So sharing your hands down, so I assume that means you don't want to speak to this item. So no one has a hand raised. No, she has it up. It's down. It's down. All right. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to allow Sharon to talk. Okay. So I'm going to swear Michael and Sharon both in. If you would each swear to tell the truth and hold truth out of pain and penalty of perjury. I do. I do. Okay. Some similarities to this project and the other, and I don't take that as a negative at all. I think they're both good looking buildings. So I want to make this a presentation. I'll do another quick presentation. This project has similarities to Elmwood. What's the owner has a existing structure in the back. It's a barn that I think you guys were provided with this, maybe a code enforcement report, maybe predating the current owner. So this barn has seen better years and has unfortunately reached a point where the owner is looking to remove it and place a new structure of, I would say, similar, again, similar size and scope to what it currently sits there. And along with that, the idea is to put some new housing units towards the rear of the property, update all parking requirements and any associated landscaping with it. We're not at this very moment. There's no improvements to be made to the current house. I think over the years, the owner has made small, subtle improvements that improve it and now has shifted their eyes towards this barn. So the idea is to remove the barn and, again, dimensionally put a new project onsite and I think scroll down a little, Scott, just to kind of give them up. You can see the associated parking. This district, I think, favorably does a great job where in a parking district that doesn't, I think it doesn't require, it doesn't have a parking standard per se or it gives the discretion to the owner. I think that's where we're at. But so we're proposing six new units to be placed on the property with, again, updated parking requirements. At the DAB level, they discussed the idea of maybe moving, shifting, adjusting where the location of the current building is, but it was our determination that where we've placed it, I think, is the best location. You know, we have, we also updated the idea of moving or how people go from the proposed building to North Noosky Avenue if they're walking. At the DAB level, we didn't show a sidewalk, sort of adjacent to the existing structure. We sort of left that off. We're a little bit nervous about the amount of lot coverage we were going to tip on to. But as you can see, we've placed it there. I wouldn't mind hearing what the DRB has to say about that a little bit, just because I think from our perspective, I don't know how much it's going to be used, but we're going to do it no matter what, if that's what we have to do. The building, again, has similarities to Elmwood. It has two different materials, two different material choices. One, we've decided to do a brick on the first floor. The upper levels are that hardy board, or I'm sorry, is like a vertical board and baton. So the front of the building sort of has that board and baton with the brick. We've also proposed a, the way to get to the upper level here is obviously there's four units on the second floor. On this particular building, we've had a detailed staircase. I think it looks pretty nice. Make your way up to the second level and sort of has an exterior path to get to each of the units. On the back of the building, there's another stairway for ERS requirements. That's sort of a wooden slot, painted wooden slats that we're proposing there. Lighting is similar on this one is on Elmwood. We're only proposing under canopy lighting at each of the doors. No proposed lighting at the parking levels. I think if you want to go to the rendering, Scott, you'll see sort of the side, sort of what the color scheme looks like. Scott left. Scott, you there? Can you hear me? Can you scroll down to the rendering? You lost your audio, Michael, for a little bit. Oh, I'm sorry. Can you guys hear me? Yeah. Okay, I'm sorry. I just wanted you to scroll down to the rendering, my fault. Okay. So, you know, you guys get an idea of what, you know, the color schemes that were sort of proposing sort of a gold color scheme with black, like a darker gray color with vertical board batting and a darker brick. I also show a sort of a scale contextual model to give sort of an idea, I think, at the neighborhood playing assembly. There was some discussions about seeing this building in context to all the other buildings that were in the area. But I think what you can kind of get is the scale of the building, I think, is in very, very similar to what is around the neighborhood, tastefully in the same size and scale as what's in around and behind the building. So, I just wanted to sort of throw that into the equation and let you guys see what you guys' thoughts about it. The staff report, I think, looked pretty good. I don't think there was anything that, you know, shot out at me that I think we're pretty good to go unless you guys have other objections. So, if I understand correctly, is it handicapped accessible along the, we have that canopy on the, I'm losing my coordinates right now on the north side of the building. The lower levels are of our handicap accessible. The upper levels, you know, wouldn't have, we wouldn't have wheelchair access. It's a little unusual to have those two doors on the south side without any lights next to them. Doors that one can go outside from with no exterior lighting? Or am I misreading the elevation? It looks like there's two sliding doors there. Oh, okay, okay. Yeah. I suppose that's a good observation. I didn't see. I think you're right. There probably would be some exterior lighting there that we should be able to put in. You're right. So, you might want to come back to staff with that. Okay. Some criteria for that. Any other questions from the board at this point? One question about the, like a concrete wall for the light blocking. Is that to scale in the, in the rendering? Oh, it looks, I'm assuming you're proposing that to block the headlights from the cars. That was, that was the idea. You know, it's been my experience that as cars pull into, you know, these, these, if you have buildings in the back and these cars are pulling in and you have units in the back there. The idea was to try to limit, I don't know if you can completely block any of the headlight glare that sort of dives deep into the property. It's about 36 inches off the ground. It's proposed to be made out of concrete. So I would say it's, it's in scale. I mean, I model, model is pretty accurate. I don't know if you considered adding any, you know, evergreen plantings to help with that behind it as well. On the, on the other side, you're proposing maybe some, some trees and I think I'd be happy to talk to the owner and see if they'd be interested in adding some landscaping or I don't know if the board sees it as something they want to add as a condition of approval. I have two questions, Brad. Yeah, go ahead. Kailin, if you're done. Michael, can you, maybe pun intended, can you just walk me through the access out to North Manuski and looking at the site plan? It looks like the sidewalk is sort of not continuous that there's a, I don't know, you've got it described as a parking stripe. I don't know if that's intending to mean sort of where someone crossed parking in front of the trash recycling to get to the sidewalk. That's, I think you're exactly right. The idea was that as you exit the building, you would walk, you know, towards the parking lot. We, you would cross the parking lot and end up at the next sort of side, the sidewalk that sort of follows the, the outline of the parking lot and makes its way to North Manuski Avenue. Okay. And I see you've got a, I guess maybe it's close enough. You've got a curb cut for the handicap space. It looks like there's a curb though on the sidewalk with that parking stripe. Someone, a handicap person was accessing it from the sidewalk. They would just have to go to the parking lot to that curb cut. No, I think you bring up a good point. I think that should be indicated as a, as a curb cut. Okay. Being great at the parking lot. You're right. Yep. Okay. And then my second question was about renewable energy resources. And one of the photos in the staff report, it looks like the building to the north of you all has stanchal solar installed. Yes, I see. Is there been any discussion or any analysis of whether the height of the building will impact that solar facility? Initial answer is no. I haven't taken into consideration the, whether or not this, this building would impact the solar capabilities of the building, the building to the north. Okay. It's a little higher than the existing, well, I guess I would say how much higher than the existing barn is it? I don't, I think it's within, I think it's within like eight to 10 feet of the, the pitch is probably within eight to 10 feet of the current, the current barn. But I don't see, they think my, I'm not sure. I don't, I don't, I think the only time was, well, I'd have to do an analysis to see whether or not the barn shadow would, or the, the proposed building shadow would impact the, the neighbors, the neighbors. Is there, they haven't raised it. Is there any conversation with them about it? It sounds like not to my knowledge, Jeff, I, I haven't had no, I've had no interaction with the neighbor and they've, they're, they're primary, I think, I think it's, I think it may be a series of condos that people have rented out over the years or, I'm not sure if any of them, you know, no one has objected to the, to anything at this point. Okay. And I've had no interaction and I don't, to my knowledge, I don't believe the current owners had any interaction with them either. Okay. Great. Thank you. Yeah. The numbers of the board have questions. Is there a, a reason why the handicapped apartment space is furthest away from the driveway rather than the space directly in front of it? So that'd be space five, I think. I think the location of the handicapped parking was placed as close as I could to the access to the apartments. I hadn't considered placing it at number five. That was sort of my reasoning behind why I designed it that way. I don't know, is there a reason why you would want to end number five? I was just thinking, is it to get in and get out? I think, but, but that's a drug issue, not a mobility issue afterwards. So, okay. Yeah. I hadn't thought of that, but I'll be, somebody to think about. Sure. Question. If there's some existing trees shown on the north side of the addition and the south side of the parking area, it looks like the intention is for them to remain. Reintention is, is for them to remain. Yeah. We hadn't, we hadn't proposed any removal. Thank you. You'd say what those are? I don't know. I, I know we've identified the ones closest to North Manuski. Unfortunately, I don't think I identified the ones to the rear of the property. Suppose I could get that too for staff. Well, I'm just thinking that if they, there's a good chance, I mean, given the canopy on the ones, especially the north of the building that they could get damaged by construction. And I guess I would like to see them, something replaced there, some kind of shape tree happening there if they were damaged during construction. Okay. One of those drawings shows that particular tree to be a hickory. Two on the north are box elders and the one on the south is a hickory. Aren't the two, oh two on the north are box elders. So those are sort of weed trees, I believe. And then the hickory is near the parking area. So it'd be nice to keep that one. I would just suggest that if those box elders get damaged that maybe some other maples, a better maple would be put in its place. Is that something you guys can do as a condition or is that something? If you're okay with that. No, I think, like I said, I think the trees are good to have. So I don't mind. On the other side of the question to the board, I think I'll see if Sharon, do you have some comments you want to make here? Sharon's still able to. Yeah, I'm still here. Sorry, I was muted. So I was, I don't know if this is the section of North Winooski Avenue where on street parking is going to be eliminated. But I'm glad to see that there's a handicap space included in this project because one of my biggest concerns is as we go and eliminate parking on street parking, that we in essence make it impossible for anybody with a disability to live in that section of the city if there isn't off street parking. So I'm glad to see that. I wasn't clear about, this was not what I had planned to speak on, but I wasn't clear about the trees that potentially could be damaged in the development. But and I understand the desire to have maple trees, but I don't know if those the trees that we're talking about are of size, but because trees and their canopies are so important, I would hope that no trees would be removed unless they had to be. So that's my other statement. The last thing is and and the applicant, I think this is a good project and but it it is just a series of events where this the Development Review Board has been asked to approve the demolition of a carriage barn. Now understand the history with this is that the current owners inherited a barn that was in such this repair that it couldn't be salvaged. But it just speaks to something that I feel the city needs to address because I feel recently there have been three or four proposals, one with the University of Vermont asking to demolish a carriage barn that was in decent shape, but they had another desire for use. And I'm just very concerned about this this trend because I feel pretty soon there'll be few and far between left in Burlington, but understanding that this applicant shouldn't be burdened with what someone in the past was negligent about. I just wanted to highlight that as a concern an overarching concern for our city and the historic structures. And I think that's it. Thank you so much. Hi Sharon. Thank you. Any other comments from the board at this point? Michael, does anything else you want to add at this time? No, at this point I'm feel pretty good. Thank you guys. Okay, and we'll close the public hearing. The next application is 22 Park Street application for a bed and breakfast for three or four. Hey, Brad. Yeah. I have to recuse myself on this one. Ralph's asked us for some advice on his project. Okay. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Is there anybody else besides the applicant who's going to be speaking on this? So raise your hand please. I don't see anyone, Brad. Okay, Ralph, can I swear you in? Do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? I do. Okay, so it seems fairly straightforward. You've got a few exterior changes happening. So if you want to present what you're planning to do. Yeah, so I needed an extra parking space and fortunately there was room in the garage for that. Actually the garage was an old carriage barn that had a fire and they chopped off the half, but there were two bays to it. So I'd be opening up the second bay. There's no changes made to the house itself, I take it. No. And you're continuing to live on site? Yes. Seems straightforward. Any comments from other members of the board? There are pretty simple garage doors going there. Yeah. Changing that. This is any other questions? I think the staff report was pretty straightforward on this. Keep it simple. Ralph, we will deliberate tonight. Thank you. Okay, the next item is an appeal of a deck permit at Two Tower Terrace. Is the appellant here and is anybody else besides the appellant going to speak on this? So we have the owner's representative here, and I see another owner online. The owner representative of the applicant for the deck? Yes. Yes, okay. So if the appellant is here on Zoom, raise your hand please. Go and see the appellant. I thought maybe you have a phone number, but that is actually our city attorney. I don't see the appellant, Brad. We have the owner of the deck property, and we have the owner's representative. Now, it's the owner, Kellan Brumstead. I see that Mark Stevenson and Linda Jones are the ones making the appeal. And the property owner is... That's correct. The owner, the owner is Mark Stevenson and Linda Jones, and we have Gary... Guy. Oh, sorry, I did it again. Guy Marshall here. Kellan Brumstead is the appellant. Can I do the appellant or representative for Kellan here in person or on Zoom? I guess I'm a little confused. So who are we missing here then? We're missing the appellant. The appellant is the... I'm assuming a neighboring property. That wasn't super clear to me on the... The neighboring property... Sorry, the neighbor is the pipeline. He isn't here. That makes for a fairly brief hearing, but that's up to you to decide. I guess I'm a little confused on this thing. In terms of the property owner for the people with a deck, that's who's here. That is correct. Okay, and the neighbors are Mark Stevenson and Linda Jones, and they are not here. The property owners are Mark Stevenson and Linda Jones, and they are here. Oh, they are here. Okay. The property owners. The appellant, the neighbor, is not here. It seems the only question that came up in the... In terms of without having the appellant here, it seems... Well, the only question that came up was whether there's any question about the property line and the setback at that... I don't know what the corner is, but what they maintained the five feet at that point and how they determined the property line is. And that's been addressed in a revised site plan, Brad, that I have posted. It shows a setback of six feet. Right, which makes one sort of curious as to how the old setback was 4.66 and a new one is 6. something feet. So, and they just got a more accurate survey or something? I do not. That's something you're going to have to be wondering about. Which setback are we referring to? I'll bring it up on the screen. Okay, well, I guess I'm just going to pull the board for a second here. We're having an appeal for an approved application, and the person who's making the appeal is not here. Do we want to consider this application or not? No, the appeal, you mean? Yeah. Well, the person who made the appeal isn't here. Right, I mean, I think our rules are pretty clear. If the person who made the appeal isn't here. Right, so I don't think there's much for us to look at here. If the person making the appeal isn't here and the application was originally approved by staff, I don't think staff, was there any communication with the appellant about night's hearing? Yes, through the online portal and also through the traditional mailing of notice. Okay. So, I mean, I think we deliberate on it. We have a statement from them and we can, you know, they've had an opportunity to raise other issues. They didn't take advantage of that. Well, I just want to ask the property owners. I mean, if they're, my tendency is not to even have a hearing, we'll go into deliberation tonight, unless the property owners have some comment they want to make at this time. I just feel like I should give them the opportunity to do that since they're in the room with you, Scott. Yeah. So, we are repairing and replacing an existing fee on board so the camera can see it, please. Thank you. And introduce yourself. My name is Mark Stevenson. Yeah. We are replacing an existing deck that's 40 years old, so kind of running or doing work around the house just to sort of fix it up. So, that was, that was our application to. Well, our tendency right now, Mark, is basically to end up denying the appeal because they're not here. So that's where we're at at this point. So I think we're going to be ruling in your favor. Fair to say. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Okay. So that is the last item on our agenda. And let's do something else on the agenda that I don't know of. We will close the hearing for the Development Review Board and move into a deliberative session. Okay. On ZP 21-509, which is 7276 Elmwood Avenue, I move that we approve the application and adopt staff's findings and recommendations with the only modification that if a some sort of railing is required that it be as indicated by the applicant during the hearing that it'll be a painted metal railing on the front steps. Second, you see Brooks? Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Okay, pose. Ask unanimously. Recording stopped. This is ZP 21-606, which is 111 North Moorsky Avenue. I move that we approve the application and adopt staff findings and recommendations with the additional condition that the applicant, Brad, I'm not sure exactly how you want to phrase this, but that many of the mature trees are removed as a result of construction activity that they be replaced with shade trees of similar kind and that the site plan be amended to indicate that the sidewalk access from North Moorsky will have curb cuts at the parking lot crossings to provide for handicapped access from North Moorsky. Eight seconds. Sounds good to me, Jeff. Any other comments? All in favor? Okay. Good. Recording stopped. Russ. I'll second that. Any discussion on this? Brad, I think you have to say it again for the reporting. I move that we deny the appeal for two tower terrace. ZP, ZAP 21-19. Second was? AJ. AJ. Okay. All in favor? Opposed? Okay. Recording. Recording in progress. Start again. Okay. On ZP 21-762, 22 Park Street, I move that we approve the application, adopt staff findings and recommendations. Second on that? Caitlin. Any discussion? All in favor? And AJ is recused. Okay. Recording stopped. Leo, it's nice that you came to represent us in person. Last one.