 All right, everybody, it's 701. So I would like to get started. Thank you for being here. I'm going to call this month, this meeting of the city of Montpelier development review board order. The date is March 15th, 2021. It's 701. And what I'll do is just introduce board members who can unmute and say hello. I'm Kate McCarthy. I'm the chair. I'm the chair. Abby. Hi, Abby White. Thanks, Abby. Roger. Hi, Roger Kranz. Roger. Joe. Hello, I'm a Joe Karen. Thanks, Joe. Rob. Rob Goodwin. Rob. And Jean. Oh, Jean Leon. Thank you very much. And we're also joined by Meredith Crandall, who staffs the DRB. She is our zoning administrator. We are being recorded by Orca media with notes being taken by Tammy furry. And then in addition, hiding at the bottom of my screen is another DRB member I neglected to introduce. It is Michael. Okay. Last, but never least. Michael. Longest name probably two on the committee. So. Well, I organized it that way. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Last, but not least, and a good sport to boot. So thank you. Very good. So next, what I'll do is turn it over to Meredith to review our procedures for the evening. Okay. I'm going to share my screen. This is really for people who are watching from home. I think everybody who's on tonight was on not that long ago. So I'm going to turn it over to Meredith. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Live stream. If you decide that you want to actually take part in the hearing, you can connect via this zoom link here. You may also. Call into this number. And log in using this meeting ID number. If you're trying to log in and you're having problems, please feel free to email me. I'll leave this up for a couple of minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The zoom meeting is being recorded as well as streamed live via Orca media. Turning on your video is optional. All public testimony will be taken verbally during the meeting. And the chat function in zoom should be used only for troubleshooting or logistics questions. The chat will be added to the public record if it is used. Please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking. If you're not, please don't use your microphone. It's just for people listening at home. And if you do call in by phone, star six allows you to mute and let us see on zoom that you're actually muted versus just. Not, not, not saying anything. Same with using a star. Star nine. If you're on the phone to raise your hand. That pops something up on our screens for everybody using zoom. If you're on the phone to raise your hand. If you're on the phone right now, we have, we do have one member of the public tonight. So what I'm going to say is if someone is interested in speaking on a particular matter. When you're ready to talk, please raise your hand. If you're on using the video, you can use your raise hand button on your toolbar or like I said, press star nine. Or if you're just not getting through that way, you can actually just state your name and ask to speak. If you're on the phone to raise your hand. If you're on the phone to raise your hand. If you're on the phone to raise your hand. If you're on the phone to raise your hand. If you're on the phone to raise your hand. Okay. Then please unmute your microphone. Confirm that you can be heard. Make sure to provide your full name and address for the record. And then you're free to provide your questions or comments. We asked that you aim to keep those questions, initial questions or comments to two minutes. The board members will then have the opportunity to respond to questions or comments. When you're done speaking, we asked that you remute your microphone. The chair will then move on. And if you do have additional input later on in the hearing, you can add that, but we asked that you wait till the chair recognizes you. In the event that public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to a time and place certain. If anybody at home wants to look at the meeting materials. If you have any questions or comments, you can leave them in the comment section below. If you have any questions or comments, you can leave them in the comment section below. And is having problems being viewing them on Orca. You can download them here. This also works if anybody is having a, a slow internet connection and doesn't have the meeting materials already. And it's having a hard time with the share screen. They can grab it. If you're having connectivity issues, try turning off your video or closing other applications that are on your phone or computer. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I will now hand this meeting back over to this chair. Great. Thank you. All right. So moving through our agenda. The next. Item is the approval of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda agenda as printed. So moved. Motion by Roger. Is there a second. Okay. Second by Jean. I'll call the roll. Rob. Yes. Jean. Yes. Abby. Yes. Roger. Yes. Joe. Yes. Michael. Yes. And I vote yes as well. So we've approved our agenda. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is comments from the chair. I don't have any comments. And so that brings us to the sixth item, which is approving the minutes of March 1st, 2021. They are in our packets. So anyone have any changes to the minutes? Edits. Okay. Then I will accept a motion to approve the minutes as printed. Oh, move. Motion by Rob. Second. Second by Joe. I'll call the roll. Rob. Yes. Jean. Yes. Oh, you were present. Oh, sorry. I will not. I'll only call on the people who are present. So that's how we do it. Good reminder. So Rob was a yes. Joe. Yes. Michael. Yes. Roger. Yes. And I also vote yes. So that is enough to approve our minutes from the last meeting. Thank you. All right. So that brings us to our business of the evening, which is an application final plan for a two lot subdivision at four college street. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to start by swearing and swearing in anyone who's here to be heard on the application. And then I'm going to turn it over to Meredith. So if you are here to be heard, could you please raise your right hand. And I'll swear you in if you think you might speak at all. Okay. Okay. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to receive to provide is the truth that holds truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. Notting does the trick. That's fine in the video world. Thank you. Thank you all. I'll sworn in. Okay. So Meredith, could you please give us an overview of the project? Sure. Okay. So the project is the application for final approval for subdivision at four college street. The proposal is to take a single parcel and subdivide it into two parcels such that there would be a vacant standalone parcel of approximately 6,000 square feet on the corner of college and a single parcel of approximately 6,000 square feet on the corner of college street. And the only home would remain on its own parcel. And there's. I don't find any big controversies with this one. There are some public comments that are included in the staff report and have been attached to the packet. From in a butter. And, you know, there's, there's a few little things that one, one is that this application did have to be reviewed under two sets of zoning regulations. It doesn't really change the final outcome. But if anybody reads through the staff report, they'll see that when looking at the traffic criteria for the subdivision, it's had to be reviewed twice because there's two different provisions that apply. So I think that's, I don't really have much else to say about this one to be honest. All right. And I didn't note before, but for anyone who, who's watching or to refresh the memories of anyone who's here, we did review this under sketch plan review, but that was not a hearing. We didn't swear people in or collect evidence. We just had a conversation about what the application included and what some initial concerns or reactions might be. So this is the point at which we are having our hearing and discussion. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good evidence that will inform our final decision. So what I'd like to do next is. Turn to the applicants for, if they'd like to add anything, whether that's whether it's Don or Peter and Teresa. And then I would like to have a brief public comment period with an opportunity for follow up later. Okay. So with that, I'll turn to the applicant. For anything they wish to add. We don't have anything to add. Okay. All right. Thank you. So then what I'd like to do, it looks like the only, from what I can tell, the only member of the public here to be heard is Elizabeth Dodd. So Elizabeth, what I'm going to do. We typically do a kind of a two minute quick overview. I'm going to say that three minutes is okay tonight. You're the only member of the public. Okay. There will be an opportunity after the, after we walk through the staff report to ask any specific follow up questions. And I want to confirm that we've received the outline of your, your areas of concern in, in our staff packet, but. The floor is yours for, for the next three minutes. And I'll keep us all on track, including myself by just sitting a little timer here. So if you'd like to unmute and go ahead, please do. I don't think this would take very long. I just wanted to make an appearance to ensure that my concerns, which were stated last time have also been received by you. And I understand my presence here tonight would was necessary. I wanted to make sure that I had a good question in case I have any thoughts or concerns in the future should a subdivision. A development application actually come through. So thank you very much. Okay. I think you froze for a second there. So I wanted to make sure we got everything. You said that you've submitted your comments, but you want to stay in the loop in the event that a future application comes along and to ask any other questions that come up or you're going to do now. If anything should come up. I'll let you know. Thank you very much for listening. Yes. Thank you. Very good. Okay. Thanks, everybody. So what I'm going to do now. Since there are no major. Like flashing red lights around this application, I'm going to just go through step wise through the staff report. And we'll talk through the different items. And then we'll talk about the things that we're going to do. And then we'll talk about the things that we're going to do, and then we'll talk about the things that we'll spend more time on those areas that require. My notes here, organized on the other computer screen. There we go. Okay. I'm sorry. Is that. Approach okay with board members. Very good. So we're going to start on, I'm looking at the staff report that is 15 pages long, the standalone staff report document. So I'm looking at page. So that's, that's what we're going to talk about. And then we'll talk about the items that are required to. And then we'll talk about the things that are required to. These apply to all development. Including subdivisions. And so this is where we have our use standards, dimensional standards coverage, setbacks. And as noted in the staff report. The current uses permitted and no new uses, specific uses are yet proposed. The next set of general standards are demolition. I don't know if that's happening or aren't present. The next item, which we're all quite familiar with at this point is section 3007. And it is steep slopes. And again, there's nothing being proposed to be built right now. But it is noted that if there is future development on slopes, over 30% or slopes at other percentages that clear, that disturb a certain threshold of land. That type of development comes back to the board. And so that's what we're talking about. And so that's what we're talking about. That's what we're talking about. To ensure public safety and erosion control and things like that. Speaking of which section 3008 is erosion control. Nothing's being proposed. Stormwater. Access and circulation parking. Stormwater and access and circulation. We can't evaluate because the site is not being developed. I'm repeating myself, but I'm just trying to be. I'm just trying to be clear. I'm just trying to be clear. I'm just trying to be clear. I'm just trying to be clear. I'm just trying to be clear. Okay. So then I just do want to pause a bit on. Section 3011 is parking and loading areas. And the applicant provided on the sketch, some ideas about where parking can go. For the sake of our understanding of the site. But it is not up to us right now to evaluate the suitability standards that the parcel could be developed if created. Okay. So those are the, those are the general standards. And I just want to pause there and see if board members have questions about any of them. Was that a yes, Joe? No. Double no. All right. Got it. Thank you. All right. So now we're going to move on to chapter 350, which is the more specific standards that we look at when a piece of land is being subdivided, which is what we are doing now. So the first standard is in section 3502. And it is the capacity of community facilities and utilities, making sure that they're, that by approving this, we're not creating a situation where there's going to be a disproportionate or reasonable burden on the city's ability to provide services. And those are services include local schools, police, fire protection, street infrastructure, parks and recreation, water supply, et cetera. And what we see in the application is that even if these were developed to the greatest density allowed, the anticipated impact on these city services would be only modest talking about three or four or five homes, I think. Total four to six homes. So the staff recommendation is that a two lot subdivision is unlikely to cause our disproportionate or unreasonable burden. That's the standard we're looking at. Do board members want to talk a little more about that? Or are there any questions about, about those burdens or the intensity of development? Okay. So then the next thing that we want to ensure is that this land is suitable to be subdivided in its own law in section 3503. The suitability needs, needs to be suitable in that it says not, it's not endangering public health or safety or causing undue adverse impacts on the environment, neighboring properties or the character of the area. So the first thing we're looking at is sort of the physical qualities of the land, whether it's subject to periodic flooding, poor drainage and adequate capabilities, support development. If you're looking at the staff report as I am, you see that there is some slope on the site. Future development, as I said earlier, would need to go through sections 3007 and 3008. It's not a flood hazard area. It's good and high up. And it's noted that the land in this area of town is, is generally sloped. So it's, it's similar to other areas. Any questions about the suitability of the land from board members. Okay. So the next thing we're taking a look at is traffic. And this is the section where you'll see in the staff report, there's the new ish regulate, the new regulations as of February, and then the previous regulations. And it looks like the main change between the two versions is that we're not using level of service anymore. As the standard Meredith, is that it? So level of services and engineering term. That has to do with how well a intersection or a roadway operates and what we have now instead are just some descriptions of what the road, how the road needs to function. And this, this is also, I mean, this is also making sure that when we're looking at traffic, that we were using consistent and now it's actually the same standards for both subdivision review and conditional use review, whereas before there were differences in how we looked at the traffic, depending on which kind of application. And that really didn't make sense, especially because if somebody could potentially come in with a big multi lot subdivision that was also a conditional use. And you'd have two different ways to look at traffic. So that made no sense whatsoever. If, if when things reopen again, there's a trivia night down at one of the pubs in town and zoning is one of the categories. Make note of that because that might be one of the ones that comes up is 2021. Did we change the standard? We'll all be there. Don't, don't deny it. Very good. So what we need to ensure is applicants must demonstrate that the proposed subdivision will not have an undue adverse effect upon the traffic in the area. And that has to do with the volume type and timing of traffic generated by the proposed development. So that's what we need to ensure. And that's what we need to ensure. And that's what we need to ensure. And that needs to show that reasonable measures have been taken to minimize or mitigate the amount of vehicular traffic generated. And then this also explains the circumstances under which we would require a traffic, traffic impact study. And this is a class three road. So a traffic impact study is warranted. And it says the D.R.B. may require an applicant to submit a professionally prepared traffic impact study as deemed necessary to determine compliance with this section, particularly if traffic is anticipated to impact an intersection with a level of service ear off. Excuse me. So. What I would, what I would like to do. Is just maybe have the applicant, whether it, whether that's, Peter entries or Don, just speak a little bit about the maximum developability of these lots and anticipated. If you've thought, if you can talk to us a little bit about those anticipated impacts from traffic. Peter, would you like me to cover that? Yes, Don. Thank you. Basically that the new law, actually there's not going to be any significant impact. So I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to cover that. Yeah. Yeah. So basically that the new law, actually there's not going to be any significant. There'll be no increase in traffic on the existing lot. The. And so the conditions are, are the same on the new lot. With zoning, you could. Potentially have two. Duplexes. So four units. But again, even with four units. part of town or anywhere in the city for that matter, they might generate, you'd expect sort of worst case six, six trips per unit per day, which 24, which isn't significant, but even more importantly, that most of the traffic concerns are addressed as increases during the peak hour. And the peak hour is an hour between basically seven and nine or I think it's five and seven at night. And even those four units that even each of them had two trips or the two trips during the peak hour, you wouldn't come to anywhere near a standard that would generate a traffic study. And nor would it really have any impact, because it's, as I say, it's similar to the rest of the development in that part of throughout the city. So I don't think that traffic would be, there's no way you could consider the traffic as having a potential adverse impact on either the streets, circulation, current patterns, or have any sort of adverse on a health and welfare of our citizens. Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from board members about traffic circulation? Okay. I know that we're not really able to factor this in too readily. I don't know what the formula is, but the location might lead to walking trips as well, which would have a different impact on the, and a lesser impact on the intersection. Okay. So in that case, I'm going to go to 3505, which is on page 10 of the staff report is the design and configuration of parcel boundaries. And the purpose of this is to kind of continue the pattern that is existing in the neighborhood to connect existing walkways, greenways, pathways to configure the site, the parcel, so that there shall be no foreseeable difficulties in obtaining zoning permits. Of course, we cannot guarantee about it is ultimately up to someone else have to develop and that proposal will be permittable, but we are maximizing the opportunity for successful use of the parcel. So in order to do that, there are lots of lot dimension criteria that are required. They have to meet the minimum standards front to street in general. There need to be a lot right angles and not a lot of dog legs, not a lot of wiggles. Doesn't say wiggles in our zoning, but that's the idea. And our zoning has a provision in it that says in it says generally, we meet these standards of perpendicular or parallel to the front street or straight lines, but that there are circumstances that it acknowledges that some variability may be desired to respond to the site's topography and natural features. So I know that this site is not a perfect rectangle or it's not drawn, this parcel is not drawn as a perfect rectangle. And I wonder if we could get just a little more information about the jogs in there and why they're why they're necessary and how it might affect future maintenance of the site and deed research and these sorts of things that you know what are we going to regret anything 50 years from now? And if not, why? I can guarantee I'm not going to regret anything 50 years from now. All right, 15, 15. The lot, as you've seen from the layout, the lot is an odd shape, but there's a purpose for it to best use the land in this part of town where it would promote a subdivision and a subdivision that would be able to support up to four units. The lot layouts were developed to provide the minimum five-foot setback from the existing house. But then in order to allow some flexibility with the development of the existing house where Peter and Theresa had anticipated and had they'd stayed there, they anticipated constructing a 20-foot deep addition straight out the back of the property. And that would be a nice way to expand or make bigger kitchen or whatever. But with that desire in mind, and they'd be able to afford a future owner of the new lot or the future owner of the existing lot to create the new lot with setbacks that would allow that 20-foot addition. So that's why the line comes out right next to the existing house, but then jogs a bit to the south and then back turns to the west. And that provides for the current setbacks for a potential addition of the existing house while still providing just over 6,000 square feet for the new lot. So we think that you could call it wiggly, I couldn't deny that, but I think it's it's logical and justifiable in this case. Yeah, I would just like that two things. The reason why Theresa and I wanted to build an addition and why almost anybody we would sell it to and all the people we've been talking to or interested in the house would do it is that there is one bathroom in the house and it is on the second floor. And there is also no real entry to the back to come in to the kitchen. And both of those for anybody who is of a certain age, that's why we moved. We could not be in a house where the only bathroom in the house was on the second floor. And so we want to make sure that there would be room to put an addition back there should anybody want to. And the as far as the 6,000 square feet, that for the lot two, that was so that we could sell that land to somebody who could develop up to two duplexes. Unless now it leaves always leaves open the possibility as Rob brought up last time that the person who bought it could reapply for PUD and change the line so it's more regular. This is this arrangement that we've done gives a buyer the most possibilities. They can keep that top lot and use it the way we used it just as open space and gardening. They could put a single house on that top lot, whether it's a duplex or not, or they could put two houses on it, or they could subdivide it again and have a house on each. In order to sell this, we want to give potential buyers the opportunity to make their decision about it. And anything else, we would be making a decision for them. Yes, they could come back and apply and say, oh, no, no, we really want it this way, but this gives everybody potential buyers the greatest flexibility. All right. Thank you, Peter. Are there questions from board members? Yeah, I just wanted to ask about the rear setback there between 11 and 10. I just noticed the change from the sketch plan to the final plot here from five feet to 10 feet. And I'm guessing it was your determination and maybe planning partners to determination that that was also a rear yard instead of a side yard setback, if I'm correct. Yes, that's correct. This is Meredith real quick. I didn't make a determination one way or another that. The setbacks in a final plot, as noted in the zoning regulations, really mean nothing because the setbacks are telling somebody like where the buildable area is. What that buildable area is, isn't put in set and stone by the final plot. It's all determined when a future zoning application is filed. So they're in here just for informational purposes only as to the general buildable area at the time the plan is filed. So I wasn't going to niggle about that one particular line on this. The board could even if they wanted to say, well, we just don't want the setbacks in the final plot. It's good enough that they're on in the file. It's up to the board. And actually, I might add is that I think the setbacks are not on the survey plat that will be recorded. The setbacks are actually on our site plan. So we were trying to do it with sort of an abundance of caution so that we don't leave someone astray. I think you actually left them on the draft final plot too. At least the one I have in front of me with the February 23rd date that was in the file. I'm mistaken then. Again, I guess. Don't worry. We could go either way. I mean, we just wanted to be clear that we knew that if they were building there that they would need to observe the setbacks. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from board members? So the staff recommendation is that we find this proposal meets the requirements related to design and configuration of parcel boundaries. We're not creating a non-conforming lot. We're not setting it up to have non-conforming uses. We've talked about the conditions that the applicant says merit a non-straight line. So if there aren't any other questions from board members, I'm going to go to the next section. Section 3506 design and layout of necessary improvements. Streets and streets are already there. Pedestrian and bike facilities are already there. Water and wastewater facilities are already there and any new development will be connected to them. There's a note about firefighting facilities. There's a fire hydrant currently up hill. Fire department hasn't requested any new fire hydrants. Public and private utilities, existing power and data lines are overhead and would be connected from the same side of the street on which any future development would be proposed. Okay. Any questions about that, about design and layout of necessary improvements? It's an infill lot so a lot of this is already fixed. Okay. So that brings us to landscaping. Our standard here is the applicant shall design the subdivision to maximize the preservation of existing mature vegetation and provide additional landscaping which may be installed when lots are subsequently developed as necessary to maintain and provide privacy for both adjoining property owners and between lots within the subdivision, enhance the appearance of street frontages and straight shade and shade streets and sidewalks, maintain or establish vegetative buffers along waterways, utilize green stormwater infrastructure practices and the narrative is that landscaping would be part of a subsequent development proposal which is something that we typically see. Often with subdivisions we will include a condition that any future application for development on the undeveloped lot will include a landscaping plan addressing these requirements. Would a condition of that nature be amenable to the applicant? Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Parks and recreation areas doesn't click in when there are fewer than 10 dwelling units. Monuments and corner markers are shown on the final plan and these requirements appear to be met. Are there any questions from board members about this section? Okay. So just there are a couple more sections we're going to go over. So section 3507 is the character of the neighborhood and settlement pattern and the applicant I'm just going to go through these just carefully because I think it's pretty important. The applicant should demonstrate that the proposed subdivision shall be compatible with or extend the city's traditional settlement pattern as a compact urban center, not contribute to a pattern of strip development, be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. And as far as what the character of the neighborhood is, we've got a description of that in our zoning. This is the College Hill South neighborhood and it's described as a quote primarily residential with homes located on small parcels along narrow tree-lined streets. Proposed development should protect the historic character and appeal of this neighborhood while allowing for a moderate increase in residential density through compatible infill development, particularly with compact buildings and conversion of existing buildings to multi-unit occupancy. And we've received testimony that this is consistent. But before we move on from it, I just want to pause and give board members especially a chance to kind of envision this, think about the character, think about compatibility and raise any questions or concerns. All right, so we are talking about an increase in density with a pattern that is comparable to what's there already. And then renewable energy and conservation, energy conservation, the applicant said that this site's been evaluated for solar by a couple of different companies and is deemed quite suitable for it. So we're not prohibiting that. Natural resource protection, there are no mapped natural resources on the site. And then the next is not, we're not talking about a lot line adjustment. So do board members have any items where you want to go in more depth or if you had any outstanding questions? Okay, Elizabeth, I want to give you the opportunity if you've, if you've, if some questions have been raised for you, I would like the board members to hear them and the applicant as well. So if you want to just take a, again, just a couple of minutes and just raise any questions you might have. Not at this point. Should an applicant come forward for development, we'll see what questions for any eye of that time. Thank you for asking. You're welcome. You're welcome. And Don or Peter or Therese, is there anything you'd like, like to add as we wind down our collection of information? I don't, we don't have anything to add, but if you have other questions, we'll respond. Thank you. I have nothing to add. Okay, thanks Don. Board members, is there, I don't want to be extra sure, is there anything else that you'd like to discuss? Well, I'd just like to thank the applicant for the additional narrative on the description of the, you know, the setbacks and the shape of the line. I think it was helpful for me in my, you know, my review. I know I, you know, I had some concerns and I think this has been an eye-opener for maybe some of the bigger issues that the planning commission should take up about zoning and sort of its impact on, you know, situations like this. I sort of wish we had maybe some more leeway for you to straighten that thing out and still get your, you know, 6,000 square feet. I think it's a logical way to do it, but unfortunately it seems like the regs don't provide us that avenue. And so I thank you for your, you know, patience in walking through it. Thanks, Rob. You're welcome. Rob, by the way, your suggestion was a good one and it made us really think more clearly through and when we had some people looking at the, at the property, it became very clear, very clear to us that we needed to leave the greatest flexibility. So, which I hadn't known about the PUD before we brought it up. So thank you. All right. Well, thanks everybody. I appreciate the conversation. So as some of you may know and some of you may not, as during this time period when we are conducting these reviews via Zoom, we have opted to do all of our deliberations in a deliberative session that is for board members only. And we have chosen to do this for all applications, whether they are small, medium or large, or whether they are simple or complex. So our decision to do this does not reflect on, does not necessarily reflect on, on this application or indicate concerns with it. It's just the process we are trying to do in order to provide very thorough decisions in the Zoom environment, which is what it is. We will go back, we expect to open deliberations when we, when we come off the computers. So I, I believe that based on the number of questions from board members, we do not expect to be requesting additional evidence. And so that means that we can close the public hearing on this application and move to a deliberative session after the public meeting is adjourned. Is there a motion to that effect? So moved. Moved. Motion by Joe? Second. Second by Roger. I will call the roll. Michael? Yes. Joe? Yes. Roger? Yes. Abby? Yes. Gene? Yes. Rob? Yes. And I also vote yes. And so we have a motion to review this in deliberative session at the close of the public meeting. So thank you all for participating, for thinking through these things, for sharing what you know, and for giving additional thought to what you thought you knew. Appreciate the conversation very much. Thank you all. You're welcome. All right. So the next item on our agenda is other business. Our next meeting is April 5th. Are there other announcements? Right. Just a reminder for any board members that want hard copies of the new regs, you need to shoot me an email and let me know and give an indication of how you want them sent to you. If you want the mailed or if you want to come pick them up at City Hall, because you can't make an appointment to just come and do that and meet us. We usually have somebody here in the office so we can just meet you at the side door and hand them off. We just have to know when so that we can figure out who you're meeting. Great. Thanks for that reminder. Very good. Any other announcements? Okay. I will accept a motion to adjourn to deliberative session. So moved. Motion by Roger. Second. Second by Jean. I'll call the roll. Michael. Yes. Has anyone else received the link for the... Yes. Okay. Then I'm good. Abby, you have it? Hold on. Let me check. Let's get through the vote. Okay. All right. So Michael said yes. Joe? Yes. Roger? Yes. Abby? Yes. Jean? Yes. Rob? Yes. And I also vote yes. And even though we've just closed the meeting, it is now acceptable to check and see if you've got the link to the executive... the deliberative session.