 So this is the development review board for Burlington, July 20th. And do we have people in the audience, so to speak, out of curiosity? Yes, we do. OK. So we're going to take up items in the order that they are on the agenda. We are doing this as a hybrid meeting in person and remote. And at the moment, there's a couple of us on the board that are in person. The rest of the board is remote. The staff is in person. And at this point, I'm assuming that all the applicants and people who are going to participate are remote because there's nobody else here. That's not your thing. OK. So for the communications, there are no extra communications other than that one comment about deferral that was there. Yeah, everything's posted online. Everything's posted online. Minutes, we're going to catch up on those. We're close. Consent item. The first item is the consent agenda. That's 166 East Avenue. Is the applicant about? Yes, yes, Cindy Cook. Cindy Cook and Dave Lawn. Is there anybody else here to speak on 166 East Avenue? So please raise your hand and zoom if you're following in at star nine or raise your hand. OK, I'm pretty quiet, Rob. OK. I am going to say that I'm going to ask to treat this as a regular application because I have a couple of questions that I'm going to ask on this. So we will treat this as a public hearing. And so Cindy and Dave, if you're both participating, can I ask you to swear to tell the truth and hold truth and the pain and penalty of perjury? I do. And Dave's name is on there. He's a colleague and we were sustaining another meeting earlier today. So OK, so it's just nothing to do with this. OK, OK, thanks. OK, so since I asked to take it off, I'll just ask the question I have. Sure. We have a site plan that you submitted that shows. What was this thing? You have an aerial view along with a permit approval from sometime in the past from 2015, it looks like. And my question is the site plan on that approved application shows four spaces in tandem and the parking areas 18 feet wide. When I look at the aerial photograph, it shows cars turn 90 degrees and the parking area obviously much wider than 18 feet. So I'm trying to figure out what is the story there. Yeah, I don't know anything about the application in 2015, which was then abandoned. That was by some previous honors. So I don't know anything about that. One of my tenants suggested turning the cars 90 degrees because it just makes it easier to turn around. But that's the only reason for it. I don't know that you can fit four cars in an 18 foot wide space. Can you? Well, not a certain tandem, but that's what I'm trying to figure out here is what is an approved area on this property and how do cars need to park? Oh, I see what you're saying. Now, I've never seen this site plan before. So they're parking one behind the other. And when I acquired this property, they were not doing that. They were going further down to the east. And you can't see me yesterday, right? So to the end of the parking area, and they were parking side by side. So it would be possible but difficult to use this configuration. And I didn't know that I would be asked to reconfigure parking when I'm not proposing any changes to it. Brian's going to have a comment. This was an idea. This was a phone number. Sorry. Brian's got a comment. Yeah, I added that site plan as a reference to because that site plan showed an existing situation back when that permit was approved, which was subsequently withdrawn. Just as an example, what was previously acknowledged as existing, obviously today, you look at the aerials in the history of the property and nearby development, which altered that historic parking area. The parking area is whittled down toward is now in that area. Only obviously, the parking goes up to the edge of the property line, if not across it, who knows. But the condition of the permit, as you and I have talked about, has you reducing that parking area so it meets a five foot setback. And it kind of comes closer to what was shown in that 2015 site plan, which you've acknowledged and you're accepting, is my understanding. Well, I didn't know about this site plan until just now. And I don't see why I would be held to the standard or of a proposal by a previous owner that was never accomplished. I mean, I'm not making any changes to the use of the houses other than having shorter term rather than longer term tenants. I've spoken with my neighbors, the people in co-housing, and they don't understand and don't request a five foot setback. They're saying, we're very comfortable with things the way they are. I understand you don't want to have the parking space area get larger and larger. I don't either. But I just don't want to do a lot of work on this when it's just not in my budget. So that's the estimate of where the property line is. Is that what somebody's showing on the screen now? That's the tax map boundary, which is tends to be fairly accurate. It's not survey quality, but that's where the line is. OK, that's helpful because there's a pin up on the Western side. But I've spent a couple of different occasions talking with co-houser folks about trying to identify the property line because nobody here really knows. It's just, you know, it goes east. So I'm going to ask you, one of the conditions that was in here under consent was putting in curb stops. I'm thinking I'll make it to the ending part. There's just a tiny, yeah, I'm in the parking area, so I've met that setback. And obviously, they've got the room and the lot size to accommodate some alterations to the parking area. So if they did the tandem as shown on that previous pan, that's not even approved anymore because it was withdrawn. They've got some wiggle room there as to how they want to configure their parking, whether it be tandem or if they just pull in 90 degrees to the driveway. So they've got some wiggle room there. Five foot setbacks, and that's in the zoning regulations. That's not a challenge. I couldn't hear you, sir. The five foot setback is in the zoning regulations. That's just an oral application. So it would always have been a five foot setback on this property. And this is part of the tweak that people try to avoid. Right. But is that the case that one has to go to a five foot setback on any property for any use? I mean, I understand not wanting to encroach on the other property. Yes. So my neighbors on the other side have a parking area, their driveway that comes very close to my property line. I don't mind that. I think that a five foot setback, frankly, is not a great use of space, particularly in this area, which is a fairly dense area. So I'm just not understanding the purpose of it. And then let me just go on to explain why I'd rather not do that is that a lot of people from co-housing come through that parking area pedestrians walking up to UVM and downtown wherever. And what I suggested to them, and they think it's a great idea, is to use some area along there to make a more formal, nicer, permeable pavement kind of a walkway with hopefully some nice landscaping. And I would prefer to do that rather than pavers or, I don't know. Those are options we do not have. What's that? We don't have the option to approve you to use somebody else's property. I understand. And the issue here is that we don't know when did your driveway move from your property to the adjacent property. It seems like it was probably never approved, so it's something that just happened over time. What we try to do is at least get back to what it might have been, Stark. We don't know where it was. Should drive a parking area creep over the historical photos, you could see where the changes had occurred over a period of time. The current layout as shown in that area is not I haven't seen any plans that supported that. So hence, that's why we're recommending the condition to at least bring it toward compliance with the five-foot setback. OK, so I understand that there's a five-foot setback requirement and that you'd like me to make that permanent somehow or other. Plowing is a serious issue here. So what I would propose is that I rotate the cars so they park back the way they were when I first came here, which is four abreast facing east. And then there wouldn't be any encroachment on the neighbors. And then I can put up something quasi-permanent, but plow that can handle a plow to prevent people from backing up when they turn around or they back up. They wouldn't cross the neighbor's property. Is that something that would work? Yeah, it's not where the cars are, to say. It's this parking, the gravel parking area is inconsistent with previous sidewalks. Now there's a process for determination if you think that structure has been there for a long enough period of time so that it's essentially we can't touch it, but that's not before us right now. And that would require a showing of a 15-year parking has been in place for more than 15 years. And we don't have any evidence to that. So what we're looking at is the parking lot that's inconsistent with prior site plans. And we have a pretty clear regulation that there has to be a five-foot setback. Whatever you're doing with your neighbor is a private property right. If your neighbor wanted to give you easements to let you park there, by all means they could, that's not really within our purview. And so what we're looking at is a parking area that is inconsistent with a prior approval and extends into a setback. And all we're asking is that you basically put a five-foot strip of grass down or take out. That's really it. And I think what you're talking about, A, have the authority to do. And B isn't exactly what the point Brad was raising. It's really hard to hear you. I'm a little bit garbled. But what I would like to do is something that ensures that I'm in compliance with the five-foot setback, but also is not grass and isn't affected by a plow. Because there's quite a bit of a slope there. And towards the east side of the oval that's circled in red is where snow needs to go. So having a barrier there would be problematic. Well, plowing can be done in a number of different ways. And that's, again, not something we can really take into consideration. So I don't know what options are available for me to five-foot setback other than grass. You probably want to talk to planning and zoning about that. We can't design that. So would it work to, would the board be comfortable with my committing to doing a five-foot setback and coming up with something that's a little bit more creative than a grass strip? Because grass is sort of not an environmentally great solution here. And I'd like to do something that's, you know. We don't care what goes there. It doesn't matter what. It can't be within five feet. OK. So if I put in a barrier along the southern end, five feet from the property line, would then we're good? We're good. Well, the barrier is different. I mean, it has to conform with what a setback actually is supposed to entail. I haven't read the definition in some places. Brian can inform us a setback sometimes can include certain impervious surfaces. And sometimes it can. So maybe some walkways are in. Maybe some are in. We can't say we're good. You have to approve that through the staff process. I would say the other thing, Cindy, is that at this point it sounds like we have sort of an understanding we're going to do something where we're going to ask you to recognize that five-foot set back to the parking area. How you solve that to some extent is going to be your call. We'll probably have to deliberate on this and do a formal approval, which you're really asking for the ARP and B approval, I think, as much as anything. And so at the end of the meeting, we'll deliberate on this. And then you can get the findings from Brian or the staff. And we'll probably have a request for you to just work it out with him in that final detail. OK. And it would be really helpful to know what you guys mean by a setback, sort of what the criteria are for that. So if you can help me without or somebody else, that would be useful. I'd be happy to help you with that. Good. Can I ask a question of Brian? Yes, that's Jeff. Yes. OK, Jeff. So Brian, if the applicant's proposal to park the cars, I guess, facing east now, there's a little unclear to me. She needs four parking spaces. I'm not sure there's adequate space with a five-foot setback to park four cars, not in a tandem arrangement. So are we going back to, is it allowed to do four cars in a tandem? I think we get into this parking attendant problem with tandem cars and a B&B. You're muted. I mean, it's currently a duplex which allows for tandem parking. The parking requirement remains the same by running out two bedrooms in the second unit, so they can still potentially use a tandem parking layout. Well, what Jeff was getting at is that it's a three-vehicle unit, so we need to have the hose on site. All right, yeah. Move cars in the event they need to be moved because they would have three tandem. And that's easy because I'm here in a version of the park. And this is the kind of, just to be clear, I've voted against this exact arrangement in numerous times because it's just we're fitting a square peg into a round hole with air B&Bs in this having the attendant to check parking for tandem arrangements. This does not feel like a site to me that is currently designed or adequate to manage the required parking for the uses that are being proposed. So I'm confused because this has been a duplex for, I don't know, 50-plus years. And if I've gotten approval for the apartment a number of times, I'm just not sure what's changed. Parking requires a duplex is different than parking requirements for the two-bedroom air B&B that you're proposing. So that's the difference. You're proposing something that has a different parking requirement. I thought the parking was four. Same number of cars, but the duplex arrangement is allowable for one but not necessarily for the other without an attendant. And that's something we can discuss that at deliberation whether we're going to. Yeah, others may feel differently, Cindy. This is the challenge here and it's not your fault, but we have a zoning ordinance that has not yet been updated to allow for air B&Bs. And so we're trying to define them as bed and breakfasts and the current zoning ordinance has requirements for bed and breakfast that I just think are not practicable, not doable, for air B&Bs. And so I personally am not inclined to vote in favor given that challenge. Cindy, give us a minute here. I'd like to see if there's any other questions from other board members. Any board members or other questions on this? Maybe this is a question for Ryan, but the proposed site plan shows 32 feet by 59 feet. So we're saying with a five foot setback, we still have 27 feet by 59 feet. So I do think, I agree with you, Jeff, that they probably can't be for next to each other, but that does still sound like a pretty big space of angled parking or something to that effect. But I just wanted to check, Ryan, that those dimensions, we don't have any issues with those dimensions. It's just a matter of five foot setback. Five foot setback is important. What's represented in her site plan, the 50 plus foot by whatever was 32, I don't have it in front of me, that is going to be large enough to accommodate four spaces, how you line them up perpendicular, slanted parking or diagonal parking spaces. It's possible. That was the intent of that condition was to really define that parking area and get that five foot setback in there to where you could possibly still fit in four side by side parking spaces or look at the aspect of the two rows of tandem parking. Or possibly three side by side with one tandem. I don't know, but do you need the configuration of where the cars will park or just of the parking area? And then we'll ensure that the dimensions are sufficient, as Kailin was saying, to allow for four cars. And we're going to be discussing that. I'm not sure we'll look at that. Any other questions from members of the board? I think we have everything understood from your concerns, Cindy, and I think we have it from the board. I said, we'll deliberate on this at the end of the meeting and we'll get a follow up. OK. And thank you. And I just want to let you know that I'm just confused. I want to work with you. I'll comply with whatever needs to be complied with. I just don't know all the rules. And we understand. So we'll try to be helpful, too. Thanks very much. OK. Thank you. The next item is 164 Willard Street. There's been a request for deferral. Is that? You're recused on that. OK. Agencies were recused on 160 people. North Dakota, do we need that for a date certain, Scott? Or is that just deferred because you think you're going to work it all out? He sought a determination. So boy, I don't know. I would leave it open-ended rather than say I want that because the determination might take a month. It might take 60 weeks. We just have to re-warn it. So is deferral the right response to this? Yes. OK. So I think I see at least one person in the queue Brad looking to talk if you want to open this at all. I simply defer. And that's your call. I'd recommend just defer. We have no, I don't know who's speaking here, but a request to speak. We have no real information that we're going to take this up right now. So this will be extended as the applicant tries to work out the details of this issue. That's great. So we're not going to open the hearing at this point. Can we have a motion from somebody on the board for a deferral on this to an open-ended date? Brad, is this one where we have a time limit? It's an appeal. I just want to make sure is there a time limit for us to rule on this? I don't think so. But the time limit is to bring it before the board. And tonight is within that time limit. But the appellant has requested deferral and since they've actually applied for a determination that's relevant, staff can now support that deferral. So I move that we defer item ZAP 21-11, 164 North Willard Street to a time to be determined in the future. Second. I see Brooks second that. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? And AJ is recused. OK, thank you. Next item is 1-7 Church Street, alternate compliance for sign installation. Is this on the record review? No, good. OK, is the applicant here for 1-7 Church Street? Monique, you can come. Hi. Yep, sorry. Is there anybody else here to speak on this application? No, just myself. OK, well, I meant from the public. Thought we can't really hear you. OK, so Monique, I'm going to square you in. Do you square and tell the truth and hold truth with the pain of penalty and perjury? I do. And you are with? S-speak signs. OK, and I see this is looks like it's fairly straightforward that you need a request for a very alternate compliance method since you don't have the distance from glass. Is that right? Correct. Right, and this is for that blade sign. Anything you want to add that wasn't in the application or clarify anything in there? No. No? OK, I'm going to ask if there's any members on the board that have questions for the applicant on this. The nice little sign. It's a rather modest blade sign, actually. It seems given some of them. OK, so I think unless there's anything else you need to add, Monique, I guess we've sort of exhausted a self in the previous item, maybe. No problem, I'll set. OK, and like I said, we will probably deliberate at the end of the day here. So I will close the public hearing on this application. OK, thank you. Thanks. Hey, the next application is for ZP2145028 Sunset Cliff Road. Is the applicant here for that? Hi, can you hear me? Max Garrison and the property owner. Is there anybody else besides Max speaking on this one? Are there any anybody in the public wanting to speak on 28 Sunset Cliff Road? OK, so Max, you by yourself, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. OK, so do you just want to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? Yes, I do. Didn't know it was that type of meeting, but yes, I do. OK, that's part of the deal. So this is recommended for provosts. You're creatively working on over an existing footprint, existing setbacks, and maintaining your riparian zone within certain limits, sounds like. Is there anything you would like to say in presenting this? Not too much unless there's questions. I worked pretty closely with Mary to try to design within the zoning ordinances. One of the new ones that came up kind of mid-cycle was the new LOMO ordinance. So we did follow that and ended up pushing back the house about 16 and 1 half feet from the current setback so we could get that in. But yeah, otherwise, I don't think there's any variances, but happy to answer any questions. And this one before the conservation board, right? That was when they approved it. They would be the ones who look at that rather closely. It's an interesting amount of area that you have to work in. But it looks like you've got to fit it in there tightly. Are there any questions from any members on the board on this application? Yes. And the one that had the comment on the ADU and the findings, the ADU is supposed to be 30% of the main house. Is that in the findings on this one? 1,900, yep. It's the S237 line, you're talking about? Yeah, yeah. The statute has allowed up to 900 square feet. 30% of the main house is square feet, whichever is more. Right. OK. Good, well, I think, yeah. So you heard that, Max? That's in the findings here. I did. Yeah, I think it's 100 and change. So I think we comply with that. Yeah, it looked like you did. So then I think I guess I'm going to look at just the outside specification sheets. It does look fairly complete and tidy little house. And it's a very efficient plan, it looks like. Anyways, if there's nothing else on the board or anything you want to add, Max, we will close the public hearing. Again, we will deliberate at the end of the meeting tonight. Yep, nothing else to add. Thank you. OK, thank you. OK, we have one more sunset cliff, 136 Sunset Cliff Road. Is the applicant here for that one? They're both part of the applicant. Is there anybody else in the public to speak on this one? OK, so I'm going to ask Brad and do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty of perjury? Yes. Yes, I do. OK, this also is, again, sort of a very creative reuse of existing footprints and existing property on the lake. It's like I designed this thing. Maybe when I put the presentation on this one, Brad? Yes, sure. Is Adam Ginsburg on the list of people that you can see as he's the architect? I do see Adam. He didn't raise his hand. I'll let him talk anyhow. Adam, I need to swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty of perjury? Yes, I do. Yeah, sorry. Sorry, I didn't raise my hand there. Yes, so I can give you a little bit of an idea about how we have arrived at where we are. And again, I'm Adam Ginsburg of Agendsburg Architects. This property was purchased by Edward and Joanna Reed of Burlington in 1952 for the use of their two daughters, both of whom were young Vermont mothers at the time. And since that time, it served as a beautiful gathering place for the extended family. And a year and a half ago, the grandchildren solicited opinions from a structural engineer and several reputable builders who all concluded that the 1920s understructured building would not enable a cost-effective renovation. So they decided to rebuild. And what we're looking at today is our proposal or how to do this. It's a very unique site with a number of limitations. It's small and largely triangular. The west leg of the triangle is a stone cliff down to Lake Champlain. On the southwest leg is a steep hill of rock ledge. And vehicle access is via right of way through the neighbor's property on the northeast leg. And in an effort to get the house a little further away from the lake shore and allow views of around the garage from the driveway, we're proposing to move the house five feet or so to the north. And to move the garage towards the northeast and rotate it slightly counterclockwise. Is this the same family owners or is this different owners? It's the same family since 1952. Nice set of drawers there. Any questions or members of the board for the applicant? Happy board. I'd like to find asking you some challenging and difficult questions, but I think it's pretty nice set. Looks like it's pretty well put together. So I don't have other questions on it. And there are no members of the public here. So unless there's anything else you want to add. Well, it may be worthwhile to just take a moment and respond to a couple of the Scott's thoughts about a couple of things maybe that he found lacking in his report recently. I think one was the question of the patio, which we hope we've addressed by ensuring that it's pervious surface. So that maybe that will speak to Scott's questions about that. We also on our landscape plan, which could also be included there, have attempted to respond to this question about what the fence may be, that in the landscape plan is shown at the tree edge there. There's an existing fence there, but it's in pretty bad shape. And so we're proposing to replace it and Scott had asked for some details, which show up on the most recent landscape plan. And the last thing I think was the meter socket of the electricity, which shows up now in the garage plan next to the condensers for the heat pumps. So we made some efforts to kind of respond to some of Scott's questions and the notes that he provided in his report. I'll take your word for it. I just provided a fence detail. It's, I have the Zoom meeting right on top of what you're seeing. So I don't see it. If it's in there, awesome. Brad's going to need to be out. Perfect. The patio, I talked to Tom about this. The patio is a lot of coverage, whether it's pervious or impervious. And because of that, it needs to be removed because it's within the waterfront setback. A walkway is expressly allowed and those are all fine, but the patio isn't. Increases the degree of non-conformity into the setback, not as to a lot of coverage, it's the setback, a lot of coverage, et cetera. Additional development of the setback. That is not in the recommended. Yes. You guys are talking in the hearing room. We really can't hear you. But we actually haven't been talking. I had to read something here. Brad asked whether or not the patio was in the conditions of approval. And I said it was, it's in condition one, deletion of proposed patio. Corrected luck. I'd be on the right side of the project. Yeah, that was fine. Okay. But I don't have any other questions. Let's just question some of the other members of the board. And I'm not, I can't see any members of the board at the moment. Brad, I do have a question. This is Sean. Okay. Sean. I have a question for Adam. I was looking at the third floor and I don't see it in the specifications where we can find it or whatever. I'm just wondering how you address the, any fire and safety requirements for an area like that. Can you tell us how you address that? Other than egress windows, we haven't provided anything at the moment. So it's just egress windows for each room. It's one big open space. Okay. I'm not sure that will pass. I'm not sure we need to decide that, but it looks like your window sill is more than 20 feet off the ground. So you're probably not going to satisfy the requirements there in the building code. I don't get dealt with by as you go before the building permit for, Yeah. Can you, can you guys hear me? Yes. So I have yet to take Brad Biggy out to the site. I'm suspecting that we're into a residential sprinkler. We're also more than 75 feet from the road frontage which is sunset cliff where, as Adam mentioned, we're through an easement through the property to the north, which puts us greater than 75 feet from sunset cliff, which is also another key indicator that we're going to need a sprinkler residential system. I'm planning on bringing Brad out there in the next week or two so that we can resolve it and make sure that we have what we need in place to satisfy the life and safety code. Any other questions from the board? Thank you for participating, Tom, Brad, and thank you. Okay. I am going to close the public hearing. We will be deliberating at the end of the meeting on this one. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys. Okay. We have one other item on our agenda. It's our annual organizational meeting. Spring it on us. I guess you said that last time. There is. I can't hear you at all. Can you hear me now, Caitlin? I hear you just fine, Brad. It's just Scott. Oh, Scott. Well, usually it's easier to hear Scott. So this is our organizational meeting, which means we elect chair, vice chair, and appoint people to various committees, which is the long-term planning goes on to. And right now, who was on? Hey, Brad, could you just repeat what Scott's saying? Because we can barely hear him. Okay. So we have the long-range planning committee and the ordinance committee of the two committee appointments that we have on the board. And how often do they meet? Scott? Approximately once a month. Long-range. Long-range? Okay. And then we have to elect a chair and a vice chair. So I guess we'll start with the chair and vice chair. I've been doing it for three years. Is that right? I'm not going for Orson's record. So I think that this is the process where having a vice chair become the chair at some point is one approach. I don't know if you have any in that. Well, Brad, I guess just to be clear, are you saying you're not putting yourself, you don't want to be chair any longer? No, I would do it again. I thought it was far enough away in my work. No. Well, since you guys are both in the same room, why don't you arm wrestle? That's up to you. If you want to be chair, that's fine. No issue for me. If you don't want to do it, I'll do it. Vice chair, one more chair. Yeah, sure. I will do it one more year if that works for everybody. And then I think that will see somebody else do it after this last year and do it. And I would nominate Brad to be chair. Second. Any other nominations? All in favor? Opposed? I'll abstain on this one, okay. I'll nominate AJ as vice chair. I'll second. Any other nominations on that? Hey, all in favor? Opposed? Okay, so we, no change in the top. Who's on the long range? Who's on the long range committee right now? And I'll keep doing it because we haven't met in three years. I nominate myself to keep doing it. That sounds great. It's a great kind of committee. That's what the planning commission, right? Yeah. But we haven't met in years. We did plan BTV South ended and we ran out of things to do. That sounds like a motion that I'll second. Okay. Okay, so AJ, the other one is the, so AJ would be the long-range planning representative. You going on that? We're gonna vote. We're gonna vote, yes. All in favor? Opposed? Okay. The other committee is I think an important one, which is the ordinance committee, because there are issues that come up on every view applications and it's members from this board planning commission to signed advisory board and somebody else. That's it. Okay, the three boards. And to see what issues and the processes for new changes in the ordinance get initiated really by the planning commission then brought to the city council I think that's the process, right? Basic. So who wants to be on the board? Caitlin, aren't you currently serving on it? Yes, I've been there for a solid two months. So I would love to keep doing it. I'd like to second. I'd like to nominate Caitlin. Okay. Not good. Okay. All in favor? Opposed? Okay. Caitlin. Great. All right. So we have, maybe at one point we have to vote on the clerk. I don't want to hear. I don't want to stop here. No, we definitely did. And I don't know why we did. Okay. We're happy that you're here, Allie. Great. Thanks, Allie. Okay. That completes the business of tonight for the hearing and we will close the review board hearing and move to deliberation if everybody's okay with that. Yeah. Okay. So- The recording has stopped being recorded. On ZP 21-4791 to seven church street, I move that we approve the application and adopt staff's findings. Second, I see Brooks second and you're quick. Yeah. Yeah. You got to pick my daughter up at La Crosse. Okay. All in favor? The recording has- ZP 21-Move that we approve the application and adopt staff finding and conditions. Okay. Hey, Caitlin. All in favor? These are unusually- The recording has- Adopt staff's findings. Second on this one. Chase. Any comments? All in favor? That's it. The recording has- ZP 21-4791 to seven church street, I move that we approve the application and adopt staff finding and conditions. Second on this one. ZP 21-4791 to seven church street, I move that we approve the application and adopt staff finding and conditions. Second on this one. ZP 21-4791 to seven church street,