 Well, seeing as it is 7 p.m., we'll call this May 16th, meaning of the development review board order. This evening, we have present, introducing board members from my right here, Abby. Hi, Abby White. And on our Zoom platform, we have Gene Leon. Hello, everyone. Michael Azorchik. Hello again. And Claire Raugh. Hello. OK, which gives us a number of five, which is a quorum for this evening. So we can proceed. I will turn this over briefly to Meredith for a overview of our remote meeting procedures and related questions. Oh, and you know what? I'm going to do our backup recording. Give me just a second. Zoom recording backup from recording in progress. Give me one second. I got to go adjust what we're seeing on the screen. So I am going to share my screen for anybody watching at home via Orca Media. So anyone who is viewing tonight's development review board meeting via Orca Media, you can participate in the meeting via the Zoom platform using this link here and type that into your web browser. Or you can call into the meeting using this phone number and meeting ID number. If anyone is having problems accessing the meeting, please email me at mcrandl at montpillier-bt.org. And I will do my best to help you get in. Don't think John's done this before. We don't have any members of the public on, but just in case somebody from watching at home decides to log in, if you do get on via Zoom, turning on your video is optional. And we ask that everyone attending, please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking. This will reduce background noise. If somebody does log in when I see log in, when there's a good break, we'll check and confirm who you are. We're assuming that you're going to want to speak on the only application that's on the meeting tonight. Alrighty, I'm just going to skip on through this stuff and just remind everyone that in the event the public is unable to access the meeting and I'd get notified via email and trying to get them logged in, the meeting will have to be continued to a time and place certain. All right, I'm going to hand this back over to Rob. OK, thank you, Meredith. So with that, I will accept a motion to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting. So moved. Motion by Abby. I'll second. Second by Jean. OK, Abby, how do you vote? Yes. Claire, how do you vote? Yes. Michael? Yes. Jean? Yes. Rob, myself votes yes. We have an agenda. Yeah, well, keep it brief. I have no real substantive comments this evening. We will discuss at the end, I did just receive notice that we likely will not have a meeting on the 1st of June or the first meeting in June, June 6th. So that's that's news for us. And with that, we have to approve the minutes from April 4th meeting. However, it doesn't appear that we have the right amount of people that were in attendance that meeting. So we'll wait like since we don't have a meeting next month, should we just approve them? It's it's OK. I mean, it's just the minutes, the draft ones are up on the website and the videos on the website. So anybody who's really nitpicky about it, it's not that they have a way that to find out what happened at the meeting. And then we can wait to approve it. We'll wait to approve it until we have a quorum of those that were present. OK, so on to the main item of the evening, we have an application for sketch plan, a subdivision at 579 Gallison Hill Road and leave. John, we have one individual here to present on the application. Meredith, do you want to give a very brief overview here before turning it over to John? Yeah, I'm going to keep this really simple. So the application is for subdivision of a parcel on Gallison Hill Road into three parcels, almost. I think maybe we've had one of those since. These rakes took effect, but they may have all been two parcel subdivisions so far. So this one's slightly different than what we've been dealing with before, but very, very similar. It's a fairly simple subdivision. It's a little different in that you're you're more developable portions of the two kind of new quasi vacant parcels is more kind of it sort of wraps around the parcel that's going to be left with the current single family home. So there's a few little bits in red and the staff report about some items linked to that, but it's really it doesn't seem horribly complex compared to what these regulations are originally drafted for, which is more of your large typical, you know, what people think of as a subdivision with new roads and big development. That's not what this is. It's just going to be three parcels. And you can take a look in the staff report for where I see there might be some additional information for the final application, but there's not a whole lot of that either. That's where I got it. OK, well, I believe we have John on here from DeWolfe Engineering. So we'll just turn it right to you to give us a little summary of what's going on here. OK. Do you mind if I share my screen, folks? That would be great. OK, let's see. Let's look over view here. So this is a ortho photo background showing the parcel kind of in with Gallison Hill Road. This is going downhill and it's going downhill fairly steeply in this area. But this is the parcel overall, overall. And it is in residential 9000. So that there could be significantly. I mean, if you just look at it area wise, there could be significantly more lots, but but it is, you know, fairly steep terrain and more lots would require building a roadway and other things. So the property owners were looking for a simple way to subdivide the property. They the current intent is for them to retain parcel a build a new home for themselves. And this is an existing barn behind the existing home. And they wanted to retain that existing barn. So they would retain parcel a sell the existing home on parcel C and sell undeveloped the third parcel for sale. You know, just to make a little reward here and selling a bacon parcel. Just we'll note that there is a natural community layer that I've discussed with Meredith that just encroaches slightly on this extreme corner of of the parcel, which is in an area that is really undevelopable anyway. So I don't foresee any future development of these lots impacting that area. And I think that if you look at the staff report, Meredith indicates that you should be getting some more information from the Conservation Commission on that. So the parcels are set up such that each parcel would have their own driveway and their own utility connections to the municipal sewer and water, which is available on Gallison Hill Road and in this residential 9000 district. If we look at a little bit closer in view and I guess there's a couple of things that Meredith highlighted in the in her staff report that I will probably be discussing. One slight thing that I wanted to touch base on, Meredith, is that I think that you said you indicated that you believe that the barn was 10 feet from the parcel line or from the proposed parcel lines. I this is going to sound really awful, but I just checked in the packets that were prepped for me. And I don't actually have my staff report in front of me. I have to pull it up on screen. So I don't know what I said in the staff report. Well, anyway, always take everything I say with a grin and saw first off. But but anyway, the parcel lines are set up such that this building is more than 15 feet. So this I am showing a 15 foot set setback line here. And then that brings up the other subject matter, which was in this district, the front setback is 20 feet, 20 feet, the side setbacks are 15, 15, 15, and the rear is 30. So if we look at parcel C, I'm showing 20 feet here, 15 feet on the sides and 30 feet on the rear line. And that that line is set such that it is exactly 30 feet from the house. And it's to see that like there's an existing like porch and stair structure, which doesn't crouch into that. And that's my understanding that that's that's allowed. But then this is the setback that Meredith, I guess, wanted to bring to you folks attention and that I am showing 15 feet here. And the question is, is should that be 15 as a side setback or should that be 20 feet as an extension of the front setback? I think you referred to it possibly as. Yeah, and it's it's sort of a point for the board to weigh here. And where you're getting that 10 feet from is. So here's here's here's the issue. So when you first drafted this and when we first discussed about the subdivision, the side setbacks for res 9000 were 15 feet. They just got changed. Effective May 5th side setbacks and res nine are now 10 feet. So that was that's why in the staff report, I had to I evaluated this application, even though it came in in between when both both the old regs and these ones that were just adopted were supposed to be reviewed. I reviewed it all under the new regs because that's what will apply for the final application. So all the side setback boundaries can be adjusted in the final application to 10 feet. Thank you for explaining to me. Yeah, I just sorry, it took me a minute to catch up to what was going on. But I mean, we still have, like you said, these little Jags here. It's a it's an issue with the way. The front setback is measured. It's measured in reference to the front yard. And technically, neither of these parcels have a front yard because front yard is defined as in front of the front line of the house of the primary structure. Right. I mean, that would be all of this. Well, in really technically, there's no primary structure really on that parcel at all right now. Right now, great. So it's a and it seems weird to have. It seems like it could be odd to have something way back here. Have to meet the front setback when it's nowhere near a road. Right. I guess that goes to what was the intent of the front setback? Is it to protect something from encroaching on the roadway? If that's the case, it seems like it wouldn't. Be. Jermaine or sensible to apply the front setback to this line, which is like a hundred feet or more back from the. Road. And that's the going to the what's the purpose of the front yard be a front setback part of it is also to have a. Sort of a neighborhood development that is consistent so that you don't have all of these houses some way up front, some way, way, you know, to make sure that they aren't pushing right up close to the road, that you do have some level of front yard. And so the when the regulations were rewritten in 2018, the different districts were actually surveyed to try and come up with setback requirements where at least I want to say it was 75 to 80 percent of the parcels existing in that district would meet the setbacks. So allowing, you know, having this little stretch and the little stretches in the back behind parcel, see. Have a, you know, 10 or 15 foot setback allowance isn't going to somehow make them very greatly from a bunch of other parcels in the neighborhood. But I mean, one thing is it would effectively make it so that you couldn't subdivide it as as is because we couldn't maintain 30 feet plus 20 feet. And then, you know, and separate those two structures onto two separate parcels. If that were if this were to be called a 20 foot setback. Because I've only got forty five, forty six feet between the two buildings. Well, what do you think, John? Could you do you think that you could have a side setback given that it's an interior line to a new subdivision for that rear line of lot? Is that B? Well, yeah, it's B and. Wait, so the front here, B and A would both be sort of the sides when they're there behind C, right? That's what he's proposing. Yeah. So would you have a rear setback on one side of line and the side setback on the other or they both be sides? So like for the confused. So parcel C. You have a setback, you know, between the house and the property line. Would that be rear yard or that be side yard? This I'm showing is 30. So I mean, that that's the rear line for this parcel. So that's 30 feet setback there. And on the other side of the line, I guess, what's combination of what you're saying in the staff report, we're saying would be 10 feet because it doesn't really make sense to do a front yard site back if there's not a road, given that the regs sort of define the front yard set of setback is so many people from the road, feet from the road. That makes sense to me. I think that that makes sense to me, Michael. Do you have any thoughts on this? I'm carefully examining this. I mean, the setbacks look OK to me as on the sketch. Now, that barn is going to remain, correct? And the potentially future development will be right behind it? As far as that's yes, this is the existing barn, which they would like to maintain. And they would like you can see this a more level area of the lot here than like steep slope up front, where they intend to build a new home. This on this lot, there's my ample room to, you know, build a structure. You could put one there. You could put one here. You know, there's there's a lot of developable area on on parcel B. Right. Well, I'm not seeing any objections. John, here from the board, as far as like how you have it proposed with see how you have it proposed with the sort of addition of the, you know, measurements in the new regs for the side yard setbacks. So I don't think we have an issue there unless. Can I ask one question? I don't have an issue. I think it makes sense. I was just curious, John, did you consider it just a two parcel subdivision? Or is it just complicated by the fact that they want to maintain that what's essentially parcel C to sell that off as a separate house? And you would just come up with too bizarre of a parcel format? We considered a number of configurations. And the owners settled on three lots because, you know, it would be a good eight. First off, they wanted to maintain the barn and build a new home. Second, they wanted to, you know, get some income so that they could, you know, roll that into developing the home site for themselves and make a little extra money and to, you know, only only two lots would minimize their their gain and then, you know, that ideally would have liked to have done four or five lots, but then they would have to, you know, basically couldn't do it without building a road. And, you know, there would be more upfront costs for them. So the three lots seem to be the threading the needle for them and as far as how they want to develop the property and you, you know, the three drive driveways all meet the standards, meet the separations between the existing driveways and the proposed driveways. Each lot would have their own utility connections. So there would be no shared utilities or driveways, you know, making the lots less complicated and therefore hopefully more marketable. Yeah, it's great. Yeah, it's a good cover, Max. Thank you. Yeah, well, I guess you mentioned the shared driveways in the spacing, which, you know, I don't want to come off as having any opinions either way on this, but just to make sure that we're checking the boxes in the, you know, in the regs here, you know, it seems like there's a leaning of language in the reds, regs for us to sort of encourage shared access, you know, driveways and minimize the curb cuts onto arterial streets. And, you know, maybe you don't have too much information on that now if you didn't get too much time to review the staff report. But, you know, it just seems like, you know, maybe some sort of sort of analysis as to, you know, shared driveway versus not shared driveway, extra curb cut on the street, you know, might be worth, you know, pulling together, you know, for the, for the final application, unless you have any more info on that now. Kind of you want to pull it up and discuss it now we can, but you feel like you're not prepared. That's OK, too. Yeah, I guess that I would prefer to review the regs and respond if that's OK. Yeah, it seems like an issue that's one of those things where it's like we're stuck between, you know, regs written for like a 20 lot subdivision, you know, and a three lot subdivision. And at what, what aspects of that on this scale do we, you know, adhere to and what just doesn't make sense? And I think that, you know, during the final application, we'd be sort of just like looking for that, that analysis as the regs are written there. I missed it. Are there more questions? Should I continue sharing my screen or? More questions or comments? Wanted to talk about this plan that I have in front of me here. Just so you know, I think Mary just came on to the meeting. I just let her in. Hi, Mary. Hi. Hi. So we have John on from DeWolf and he's been giving a presentation to the board on on your project. All right, thank you. I'm sorry. I tried to go in with a link from the email that was sent to me and I was able to get in through your email finally. OK, so I'm sorry I'm late. That's OK. It's OK. We're glad you're here now. Thank you very much. OK, so John, did you have any more of your presentation? Sorry, we kind of jumped back and forth, but we think we took care of the two of the major issues in the staff report can keep going if you'd like, or we can just. No, I think that that pretty well sums up what the. The Gomes family wishes to do with the property of the three lots of division with, you know, separate utilities. And I don't think that I have anything else to add. I think that, you know, I have reviewed Meredith staff report and will respond in the final application to all the areas she's highlighted. Requesting, you know, further information on. If you don't have any if the board doesn't have any more questions, I think I'm all set, but I'm happy to answer any additional questions if there are any. It looks like Claire has her hand raised. Hey, Claire. Hi. Thank you for sharing your screen and then sharing the information. I guess I just wanted to kind of echo some of the board's discussion regarding the the setback there with the barn and do agree that that it makes the most sense to consider that a side yard setback rather than a front yard setback. The other area, I guess I was there was already kind of identified. Yeah, it was like the number of driveways in that short span of the road there. And I guess just seeking some confirmation on. That there would be, I guess, the house currently appears to have like a horseshoe driveway and just kind of firming that that other kind of where the horseshoe would kind of come out on the lower side of the hill, that that would be abandoned and just confirming it kind of looks like maybe that was an old garage or maybe it's a porch now. And so I just wanted to get some confirmation that the other half of that driveway would be abandoned and kind of what the plans were around kind of reverting that so there wouldn't be any kind of confusion there. Sure. Yes. So you're correct. There this is kind of a horseshoe shaped. I believe that this like gray shaded area is pavement. But then this is gravel here. And if you look at the contours, this existing driveway is very steep. Um, the as it goes down here and it's steep and narrow. And according to Mary, the owner that they basically only use that as one way out now, but the yes, the intent would be for this not to be shared because they would in order to make the new drive to the this lot work, there would be, you know, some fairly extensive earthwork required to make a new drive, which meets the B 71 V trans driveway standard. You know, coming back off the road at the proper slopes and then having a much gentler grade than that existing drive, which is why I'm showing it kind of looping around to the side to develop some length to have a better grade on the driveway. But anyways, to answer your question, yes, I'm I've discussed with Mary like abandoning this portion of the existing loop road and then just making sort of turning this into a hammerhead instead so that you could pull in back around and then go back out to the same driveway. And so again, what that would end up having is that each property has its own driveway. You don't have to consider, you know, who's paying for plowing? Who's paying for maintenance? Everybody would be responsible for their own driveways and they wouldn't have to worry about coming to agreement on the cost sharing of maintenance. Thank you. John, the driveway for lot C would would probably be similar to the one on. Lobby, like, is that what you mean by hammerhead? Yes. So like, yes, so this, you know, it would come up and you I'm showing like abandoning the gravel at this point and then adding gravel here. So there would be a hammerhead shape so you could pull in. Forward that way, back up that way and then drives out or more vice versa, you know, we'll in here, back up there and then go back out to existing driveway. It's similar to, you know, this kind of all of them, I'm showing you this. Not a lot of variety there, is there, you know, not a lot of variety there, is there, you know, we're all different hammerhead configurations, right? Where are the just point out sort of like the utility connections? Or I guess you have a, yeah, so, you know, in considering the, you know, and this is, you know, what am I trying? These are conceptual, you know, nobody's necessarily proposing these locations and utility connections. But if you were to put and that's a fairly large footprint house, if you were to put a house here, you could have gravity sewer connected to the existing sewer main in the street and, you know, and a sewer and a water line, which would meet the separation distances between the sewer and the water service lines. Similarly over here, you could put a house here and have a gravity sewer line connected to the existing sewer main and your own private water service to the municipal line, which would meet the separation requirements between those utilities and, you know, it would meet all the city and state requirements for the utility locations. And you wouldn't have to have pump stations or any of the properties. Yeah, I mean, the one kind of piece of the regs that has come up and I guess you'll see it in the staff report is the requirement for underground electric lines. Yes, and I'm not showing those. But yeah, that certainly can be done. Trying to see where the power. Looks like you got here. There's there's a utility pole here. So the utilities are on this side of this side of the street. Yeah. Sorry, I didn't show the overhead. But that there is overhead utility there. And so I would imagine that they would come off of this. It would be very easy to come up this pole for this lot. Yeah. And this law would probably come off of this pole come up the right away a bit before it then came up of a parallel to the water line. It's like the time we found that a peak kind of a, you know, an issue was when it's on the other side of the street. And we've tried to shy away from, you know, boring underneath the street, right? Sounds like that. So I think you should be good there. Yes, they're fortunate here and that it is on their side of the street. Yeah, all I have. I think that there's some comments in there that, you know, we don't necessarily need to get through everything. You're going to, you know, review it and come back with a, you know, lead application at some point. Or members have any other questions or comments or topics of discussion? This will be so the Conservation Commission is going to look at. I look at this as well. Yes, so that's I believe it's on their agenda for their meeting. This this week next week, it's I put it in the staff report when their their standard meeting is. And so this has been forwarded to them. They just they couldn't hold a special meeting to review it before tonight's meeting here for the Development Review Board. So they will be reviewing this sketch plan application and giving their comments on it. And I think the the plan is to go forward from there based on what their comments are, you know, if they if they don't feel like they need to see it again when it comes back for final as long as the same, you know, the same concept, the same general plan is used for the final application. Then we'll go from there. They just they haven't I haven't gotten official comments from them outside of what's in the packet about them having a tentative identification of what this natural area is, this natural community is. And so we'll we'll learn more before the applicant and I will learn more after the Conservation Commission meets. Sounds like a good plan. If I can just add one more thing, you know, I didn't have this plan up when I discussed it previously, but you can see that the area where that the natural community intersects with the property is in this like really acute angle, which is completely within the setback setback line. And, you know, it's a super steep area. So it there is no reason for, you know, the owner or the potential owner of this that's property to ever do anything there, because there's really nothing you can do with that portion of the lot. So I wanted to add. Thanks, John. This is Claire. I was just looking over emeritus stop report and then mention of a landscaping plan. And I guess I just throw out there the suggestion for consideration of retaining vegetation along Gallowson Hills as you're kind of coming up up the road. It looks like there's some larger trees in the area of some of the proposed driveways and and just. Putting it out there as far as kind of consideration of either a landscaping plan for screening or kind of maintenance of any of that kind of mature vegetation or on those sites. That's a good comment, Claire. Thank you. Well, without any further questions, I guess we could. John, could you stop your share screen just so that we can make sure I can see everybody all at once to make sure there aren't any other questions. Thank you. It just makes it a little easier that we can also make sure to see if Mary wanted to say anything in closing as well. Yeah, Mary, do you have anything you would like to add? No, I don't. Thank you. All righty. Thank you for coming out. Well, thank you. Sorry again that I got here so late. I kept drawing and finally it dawned on me to go to Meredith email. I guess this is why there's two meetings to get one to practice. And then the real the real one on the record is, you know, the next time around. So we'll be good. All right, great. Thank you. OK, well, thank you very much. I think that's it. I don't know that we need to close any hearings or anything like that because they're not on the record. Right. Right. Well, so John and Mary, you'll get a copy of the minutes from tonight's meeting. That's sort of your report from the sketch plan. And if you would like to, we can also set a meeting to discuss. But I think that the staff report probably does a pretty good layout of what should go into the final application and then what you heard tonight. So if you want to meet with me between now and submitting the final application, you can. You don't feel like you need to. You don't have to. OK, thank you. Thank you, Meredith, and thank you all. Can I ask one quick question before the applicant jumps off? And this is from Meredith on 3,506 E. The utility services. Yeah, because I'm I'm guessing. Well, I mean, I want to guess, but I'm presuming they're not going to put an underground conduit if they don't need primary underground. Like if they can just pull secondary off the poles. Then. I just want to make sure we're telling the applicant the right information because I don't want them digging trenches and putting a conduit for underground electric service that they may not need. Yep. Yeah. No. And that's the this that's one of the thank you, Michael. So this is one of those provisions. And this is for John and Mary to know as well. When we've had these small subdivision applications, it's it's the board has a history of saying that you don't necessarily have to run the lines underground the entire way. And usually that has more to do with running from across the street. But here with especially with some of the slopes you've got on parcel A, it might be worth just looking at it. Like I said, in the staff report to investigate to see what kind of you know, distance and how far underground you would need to go. And what that that price comparison is and whether there's, you know, if there's any notice of ledge in there, things like that to make the case that running even those individual connectors underground just doesn't make sense to run them a long way. But, you know, just investigate it a little bit, reach out to the utility company and see what they're going to what they what the price differential is. Because it's some cases it's it's easier in some cases it's not, especially with that really sloped parcel. Does that make sense? It does. I can assist Mary in deciding how to how to develop that. OK, great. Yeah, that's that 3506E1 that's a little has been a little troublesome along the last couple of years for subdivisions. So the more information you can provide, the better. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. So for members, I guess we have no meeting on June 6th. And so our next regular scheduled meeting would be on the. Sorry, I didn't read it down on here. The 20th. Yes. Yes. Yes. Monday, June 20th would be the next regularly scheduled meeting. OK. OK. Thank you very much, everyone. Have a good evening. Did you before before the board adjourned? Did you want to discuss the discuss in person versus remote discussion? So just John and Mary, you can sign off at this point unless you had any further questions for the board with some sort of administrative stuff before they adjourn. All right. Thank you. See you later, folks. Thank you much. Bye bye. Bye. You can just be sort of an informal. Yeah, we can have an informal discussion. What do folks think with kind of this in person format? I guess maybe I can jump start the discussion as a chairperson. I will say that it's much easier to have everyone here in person and not be doing this hybrid format. But on the other hand, I also understand that folks have, you know, various commitments and whatnot that make it, you know, much easier to be an attendant. So that's easier to get a quorum if folks have a remote option. And so that's kind of like where I'm at on, you know, we're moving forward with this and also COVID rates are also are still pretty high. So I don't, you know, don't want to make anyone if they don't feel comfortable either. But those are my thoughts. I'm interested in yours as we move forward, if any changes need to be made to our process. And what do folks think? I can jump in. I think that with the rates in Washington County high, I think we're it's probably smart to keep hybrid as an option so that people can feel as safe as possible. If, you know, when it if and when it drops down to medium or down to low, then I think that's I'm open to being in person. Yeah. Well, and I mean, just to throw this out here, my first thought would be to try to transition board members to more in person before trying to take away the standard zoom option we haven't pulled. You know, the thought was that once we got a sense of where board members were leaning and Kate, you know, rates and hospitalizations went down again a little bit, we would be pulling a bunch of the applicants we've had over the last couple of years to see what they would be comfortable with and what they liked or didn't like about the hybrid so that we would get some information from our applicants before we made any any real final decisions on how we were going to go. But we definitely wanted to have the discussion with board members first. I think for me, it's just too convenient to be remotely. But when I'm told to come in, I'll come in. I'm not that concerned about, you know, I mean, I'll do respect everybody else. I'm not that concerned about the COVID thing. I'll get the other booster and I'm going to assume that no one's going to show up with symptoms. I mean, I'm just going to trust everyone else. But yeah, it's just too easy for me to roll straight from work into the online thing and go home. Same here. I feel the same. I mean, if I have to come in person, I will be no sweat easy. But I have a double screen here. I have one screen with all the regs and the genders. It's just a convenience for me right now. And if I would have had to go in today, I would have been late. So coming home and turning on my, you know, having it right there, pop up my screen or just I also need to get a laptop. A new laptop if I'm going to come in person. But that's just personal convenience is about to come in for sure. Definitely. I mean, I don't mind. Just got to adjust. Not used to this. Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, part of it, it's just it's that what type of application and what's the agenda like, you know, it's like there's, you know, 20 people in the room, you know, public commenting and another 20, you know, online. And it's a conscious thing. Like, yeah, I think it would, our running the meeting would be a lot easier to have a quorum of board members, you know, in the in the room to keep things moving. But a meeting tonight, obviously, it's like, well, yeah, like I'm very much, you know, OK, we're doing it this way. It's no big deal. So I don't know. That's just information to consider depending on the application of what's what's easier for, you know, for me and what I think sort of makes things run a little bit smoother. Well, and the other thing to think about is that deliberative sessions, if we're trying to do private deliberative session, deliberative discussions, that gets really tricky because we have to get rid of Orca and I'll be on one laptop to continue to do the Zoom. Anybody who's here in person. So, you know, if we continue the hybrid option to make deliberations easier, it's a question of whether or not we want to start doing those deliberations in public motions or not, if that would be a way to smooth that aspect out, at least for the non really controversial ones. I don't know. It's like you said, it's sort of a balance between the easier applications and the more contentious applications, potentially. Yeah, we'll see. Any thoughts, Claire? I am of similar mind to my other virtual colleagues, but also understand, you know, that that it does help kind of facilitate a probably an easier discussion when people are in public. I, you know, I am an alternate, so I don't come as often as you all do. But I'm happy to do what the majority of the board fills is best for the process. And it did also as a side note, I was just looking on the website. And I did see, I think my term is up this month. Is it this month? I think it's May of twenty two. OK, I guess I just if it is the case, I'm happy to stay on as an alternate with the recognition that I do have other work commitments where I'm not able to kind of come all the time. But I'm happy to continue unless you feel like you would like a more active alternate. Thank you for looking that up, Claire. I need to put in my reminders for everybody. Who else is anybody else on there? His term is up as a May. Yeah, my my term in Claire's is fired May 1st. They expired May 1st? So did mine. Term expires May 1st, twenty twenty two. So did mine. OK, I guess it was good that we were making a decision tonight. Yeah, we've had stuff like this happen before. It's OK. But yeah, it's a good thing. Sorry about that. It's just one of those. All right, so yeah, if the three of you are interested in continuing, we'll need new applications. Good thing we don't have a meeting June 6th. All right, so Claire, Rob and the application and I will also double check that that actually matches my chart. It should. So that was just my not having the reminder set in my calendar. I will send out an email with the link to the application to get reappointed. Do we still have vacancies one? Yeah, we still have one vacancy. Yep. OK, we have one vacancy for a regular seat. And, you know, the the the hope is to maybe try and find somebody comfortable taking one of the leadership spot, if possible. I know that because we're going to have to reelect chair and vice chair in August. And Rob took it and Kevin actually took his spot sort of in a. We couldn't get anybody else to take the spots. So everybody is going to need to have a little discussion again about about the chair, vice chair positions. And if anyone has any one that they think might be interested in serving on the board, feel free to give them, you know, email them, copy me, do an introduction. I'm happy to give them a little rundown. And that's not just so the DRB has one vacancy. Design Review Committee has two vacancies. The Historic Preservation Commission has like three vacancies. So anybody that might have some extra time on their hands, send them my way, please. Or just, you know, civic mindedness with no outlet for it. Please send them my way. I spent time with them. You should do something like, don't just comment on front porch forum. Yeah, what's it like? You know, just go to like once a month only, you know, go to once a month. Takes that much longer to get application to go to two months. But you know, it's like you have to step up. Anyway, OK, all right, it looks like I have homework. And everybody else has a little bit of a break. Thank you for for giving me some input, giving us all some input on the meeting type that's appreciated. Absolutely. All right. Anyone have a motion to adjourn this meeting? Motion by Jean and second. I'll second that second by Claire. I was going to say it sounded like Catherine for a second. All right, Jean, how do you vote? Yes, Michael. Yes, Claire. Yes, Abby. Yes. And Rob is. Yes. Meeting is adjourned. Have a good night, everybody. All right. Thank you, everybody.