 Welcome to the February 6th meeting of the Development and Review Board. We are going to let Meredith review the remote meeting procedures and then go over the meeting agenda. Okay. So this is more for people who are attending remotely, as well as people who might be watching tonight's Development and Review Board meeting via Orca media. Because this is being streamed live. Sorry, I keep getting interrupted by people wanting in. Okay, so for anyone who is viewing tonight's Development and Review Board meeting via Orca media, you can participate in tonight's discussion via the Zoom platform. You can either type this link into your web browser and it will bring you into the Zoom platform and I will then admit you into the room. Or you can dial this phone number and when prompted, plug in this meeting ID and again I'll get a prompt and admit you into the room. If you're having problems using these ways to get into the tonight's Zoom meeting, email me at mcrandall at montpillier-bt.org. I will be monitoring my email throughout tonight's meeting. Just have a little patience because I'm monitoring a lot tonight. But I will get you in as soon as I can. So for those who are attending via Zoom tonight, please know that turning on your video is optional. Also, please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking. This reduces background noise and lets everybody be able to, everybody who is speaking to be able to hear themselves and hear each other. If you're calling via phone, you can use star six to mute or unmute. Please reserve the Zoom chat function for troubleshooting or logistics questions only. If any actual questions or comments on tonight's agenda items should be done verbally. And so we ask that if you have a question that you either raise your hand physically if you have your video on, or you use the raised hand button on the Zoom platform. If you are calling in via the phone, you can press star nine and that will show a little raised hand picture on Zoom for us and then you can do star nine to turn it back off. Once you have been asked to speak by the chair, we ask that you please especially for the first time you talk, state your full name and address. That way we have those for the record. And to do, let Sharon go into those items in the event that the public is unable to access tonight's meeting. And I would get access to notice of this email. We would need to continue the meeting to a time and place certain. And I will now hand this meeting back over to the chair. Okay. What I want to do is approve the agenda is everybody to read the agenda. Okay. What I'm thinking is that we are going to the only applicant we have on here is the VC FA applicants application. And what I thought I would do is just review a couple of things and then we'll hand it over to Meredith. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All in favor. Hi. Okay. Moving right along. Sorry. So tonight is a continuation of the January third hearing on the VC FA application with campus PUD. The DMV did hold a deliver session on January 17th and sent the CFA a request for revised and clarified application, including a narrowing of the uses that is requesting to be changed to permitted a designation of the land meaning the reserved open space requirements and baseline traffic data for the surrounding area. Numerous public comments have been received since that meeting. And BC FA has requested that the hearing continue for at least another meeting until February 21st. Oh, I'm sorry. BC FA has requested that the hearing be continued to another meeting that February 21st to allow them more time to provide the information that we requested. And then we'll move on from then as a result of the deliberative session. At this point, when I'd like is we're going to ask Meredith to do a summary of all the comments that we've received so far. We've received a lot of comments. I would really encourage people to listen to what Meredith is providing us so that any testimony that we have tonight is new testimony and not repetitive testimony. I have clarifications. After that, if the, if the applicant has any new information, I'd like to hear from the applicant. Then the board will have an opportunity to ask any questions that they might have of the applicant. And at that point we'll open it up for the testimony from neighbors concerned individuals. So having said that, it's your turn. So I have, I'm going to try and keep it short, but there's a lot of stuff to just sort of briefly run and run through. So first is the overview of public comments that have been received so far. Generally, the neighbors and and neighbor members. Don't want the board to convert any conditional uses to permitted uses. That's a big thing we've been hearing a lot of. There's worry over increased traffic and general bank tax on neighborhood character with those changed uses. And there's also a desire to continue to receive public notice and have a hearing process when the college or future owners make changes on that on those properties. There's two letters of support as well as in testimony and support in person. There has been concern expressed over maintenance of existing fences plantings and other screening features around the edges of the campus. There's been a desire expressed to continue having access to the college green as a public resource. There's also been a question about whether the proposal complies with the campus development requirements section three four eight. That is specifically the one the question is whether the buildings or parcels involved form a campus as defined the section three four eight B. And do the part buildings or parcels quote accommodate primarily late industrial office and institutional uses that have a similar shared or common purpose. That is both to section three four eight a the definition of campus and three four eight B and the table of uses categories that are in the zone regulations. All right, hold on a couple more people. The public has also we've also public comments with a claim that the application has to meet the standard applied to amending zoning permits and request for clarity on whether the applicants or owners are one of two actual entities. The Vermont College of Fine Arts Incorporated or the Mont College of Fine Arts Foundation incorporated able to hear. Sorry, I'm going kind of fast. Okay, I will start from the beginning. No, no, no, no. Oh, you're on the back. Right. Right. But I have to start from the beginning if you didn't hear the other stuff. Okay. So that generally neighbors don't and people can also email me, but I know you want to focus on the comments. So one, don't want the board to convert any conditional uses to permitted uses. So there's a lot of traffic and general impacts on neighborhood character with those changed uses. And there's a desire to continue to receive public notice and have a hearing process when uses are changed. When those conditional uses come up or changed letters of support, as well as testimony and support in person of the application. There's concern over maintenance of existing fences, plantings and other screening features around the edges of the campus. There has been a desire expressed by members of the public to continue having access to the college green as a public resource. I have a question about whether or not the proposal complies with basic definitional this development requirements. So this goes to the definition of campus. And the, the similar shared or primary common purpose, the common purpose. This is part of the definitions of what is a campus and so what can apply for this particular permit. And the application has to meet the standard applied to amending zoning permits and a request for clarity on the actual name of the entity that is applying. So, those are the general topics that have been discussed presented as public comments so far. I just wanted to just sort of clarification on a few points that have come up during the hearing process so far, as well as a little mea culpa on my part. Anybody who's reviewed the staff report. I referred to three for section 3406 throughout it should be section 3408. We have some discrepancies in the actual zoning regulations. When we added to new provisions to that chapter at the top it moved everything down. So incorrect searching replace so the staff report has some incorrect citations, but it's all in 3408. So, there have been a lot of concerns expressed around the college green and the open space requirement in the campus development. I want to make clear that that open space requirement is as one requires that the designated open space area be reserved for passive recreational use by the campus development property owners and tenants. No requirement that the current owners or future owners make that space publicly accessible within the zoning regulations. It's actually unconstitutional for the development review board to require that privately owned land be made available for public user access. So, there's that point. Now, second point is about there have been a lot of questions about what changes are actually being approved with this campus development. And I want to be clear that this campus development zoning permit, if granted by the board is full of a plan. It doesn't actually grant a permit for any new construction of any sort, buildings, additions, walkways, ramps, all of those things would still need additional permits. Those permits might not necessarily go through the development review board, but they would all need permits. Also, most exterior changes to buildings or property parcels up there would continue to need to go through the design review committee. So that's another layer of approval. Even for administrative permits that don't go to the DRB so the design review committee will still have a say in a lot of the exterior changes. And even should the development review board grant any approvals to conversions from. Good morning. Sorry, people weren't muted. Even if the development review board does agree to convert some conditional uses to permitted uses where just that change of use wouldn't come to the board for approval when they came back for that permit. So is there anything that triggers major site plan, or is a way of request for a waiver or a variance of some exception to zoning regulations include subdividing land, or there's other specific triggers in those any regulations there's still all sorts of things that would bring it back to the development review board. I don't want details on what those are, I'm happy to talk about them but I don't want to take up a lot of time but there are lots of things that would still bring those projects back to the development review board including construction of new primary buildings, or even a massive renovation of an existing building that involves a lot of changes to the exterior shell. Those things would have to come to the development review board. Okay, I think that's great. Is the applicant here. Katie was online hold on. I'm here. You're here. Okay, great. Do you have anything that you wanted to add I don't know. We had sent information request to you. And I don't know if you had a chance to get any of that information or if you've had any additional information you wanted to share this evening. No, I don't have anything additional to share at this point I did want to thank the DRB for the memo and we are working on the request but we don't have information ready to share tonight. Just to reiterate what you said earlier that our plan is to present at the February 21 meeting and we appreciate the additional time in order to provide the board with the information requested and to really also sort through the feedback from the community and hopefully give paint a much fuller picture of our plans. Do you have any questions for the applicant? I guess I would I guess I would just add that that the information that we asked were in the from the memo and then from the deliberative session that it seemed like the important the important things that needed strengthening the application where I believe is item number six in the list of what's considered use and then the first one also that I that when we looked at the application previously there was some sort of generic talk about condominium association or some other function but it seems like that's a really integral piece of campus development is what the under underlying partnership is and how that would be managed so I just encourage you to look at those as you as you further develop your application. Thank you. Yeah, we will. Thanks. Okay. Are there people who would like to testify who have something new to add? I would like to encourage that it's new. Let's start out with and this is a hearing so we need to swear people in. Yeah, anybody anybody who is new who has not been sworn in previously will need to be sworn in again and I know that there's people both online. I don't know about I think in person but there's definitely people online who were not at the last hearing. Okay, maybe let's do that now so that we can get everybody on record so everybody has any interest in testifying please raise your right hand. You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. I see nodding online. Okay. Okay, and if for some reason, you know, well, I'll try and keep track of who's on in case we have somebody new pop in then talks. Okay, let's let's maybe start in the room. Do you want to approach the microphone and view please state your name and address. Ellis Rubinstein 15 College Street. Thank you for the opportunity to speak I actually I thought I was going to be asking questions is that appropriate also. You can direct questions to me. Okay, the board. And the first comment that I have is, I also reviewed the public comments as of January 31. And I just wanted to state that what I read was that there were a total at that point there were a total of 48 comments including one legal response from in a butter that wasn't in the form of a letter it was more like a legal response. So those 4847 did not support the application the one comment that supported the application that I had read at that time, specifically referred to the need for housing. So although they supported the DRB's approval of conditional uses to permitted uses, it was really focusing on the housing need. Certainly as a as a neighbor is a resident in the college street area, I support housing as well. The questions that I have first of all when, when we were at the last meeting, and in the DRB memorandum, the applicant was requested to submit certain information by tonight's meeting and I recognize that the applicant requested a postponement so that is the next deadline for submitting the traffic report or the traffic study and the other answering the other questions that the DRB had requested for clarification. My understanding is that the applicant is prepared to have things ready for the 21st. Okay, thank you. The, the question that I have that was not clarified at the last meeting and the question might not have been directly asked, but the applicant has requested approval for angled parking on both college street and West Street and traffic is one of my big concerns. And what I would like to know from the applicant is how much of the street will how much additional footage in the street will be needed for the angled parking and how much of the college green will be needed for the angled parking. There was a question at the last meeting or a statement about the trees that the tree board had planted. And I believe that Miss Gustafson had perhaps Mr. White had stated that the trees would not be compromised but I then went back and looked at the location. And the trees are relatively close to the curve line. And so I just wanted to know what those dimensions would be what the cut out would be in both the green and in the street. Well, I think that the app might be prepared to address that I do think that that the Department of Public Works has not approved any or any of those changes and that that's on. I would think that that is under their purview to kind of say what what exactly will be needed there. And Katie, do you want to respond to that. Um, so I believe it's eight to 10 feet that we would need to take away from the green. And there would be at least one if not a couple of tree islands because there are not many, but a tree or two that is closer. Um, from where the cutback would need to be. But I would like to say that we have no plans to do that immediately potentially or ever. It is just contemplated as if down the road at some point additional parking was needed. We wanted the DRB and the community to know where additional parking could be added to the campus. And I, there is a memo from one of David White's colleagues who is a certified landscape architect with the exact numbers so I would just say my recollection is it's eight to 10 feet but I could be wrong about that and I would need to go back to double check. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have someone on zoom who would like to testify. So far I'm not seeing any hands on zoom if there's anybody on zoom that wants to testify please do the little raise hand button or well actually I actually see Danny, say again, and Alisa do have their hands up sorry I was looking for the little yellow button. There's lots of people on here today. Okay, we can we can go ahead with that as long as this is a new testimony. Yes. A couple of things. I'm going to respond to something Meredith said today. Well first of all I want to thank you for your time and the extra time to be able to look into regulations and understand this matter more thoroughly so thank you to the board. Meredith brought up today something that was in the testimony January 3 from Katie and white, which is this doesn't. Generally, she generally implies that it doesn't affect any building in the future but it does this is, I just want to reiterate this is affecting the underlying zoning for private property effectively in any renovations or future building going forward so I think that's a little misleading, and I wanted to address that. Also, she mentioned Meredith mentioned that this would bounce back to the development review board if there are any major changes to the exterior most of the buildings are under historical preservation. So that may not happen in any significant way because of those restrictions and yet the need for conditional to perfect uses to remain conditional remain very relevant. Finally, I wanted to state and that Meredith mentioned two regulations and spent a lot of time looking at them 340B and 3408A, but she did not mention specifically 3408E, which states that any use permitted or conditional zoning district shall be allowed into campus development as a permitted use if listed in the campus master plan as incidental or supportive of a primary purpose of the campus development in their application VCFA says their principal purpose is designed to allow flexibility and addressing the future of the campus and as an important part of the city neighborhood the principal purpose is to create mixed use campus. And that is when you use words like mixed use, or flexible, that's not a clear primary purpose. That's very general and broad and therefore there is no primary purpose under 3408E. It is impossible to establish that any conditional uses would be supportive of a primary purpose if no primary purpose exists. So that disqualifies this application in my view, under the reading of that element. So I just wanted to clarify that for the community I know it's very technical. Thank you. May I speak as the next speaker? Sure. Again, thank you for the time. Thank you for the hard work that this is involving. I do want to say that one thing that was not mentioned by Meredith and her synopsis is that it has been stated that the Vermont College of Fine Arts is reducing its footprint in Montpelier to administrative offices. And all academic, if you go on their website, it is declared that all academic functions are being offsite to another state. So again, this is not a campus. Also, I will say that something that Meredith also didn't mention is that the fact that there is an ambiguity about these regulations and what defines a campus makes whatever them to be on too ambiguous to remain durable. And therefore, the design review board should vote no, because this application is too ambiguous and will be easily challenged in the future. Thank you. Anyone else here or on zoom? Okay. Hold on. Somebody was in the waiting room. There's a lot of people on the zoom. Michael Sherman, who I just led into the room. We're looking to see if anybody has anything that they want to any comments that they want to make new on the application, preferably new testimony that I think you were attending at the last meeting as well. So if you have anything you want to comment on the Vermont College of Fine Arts application, could you let us know. I'm hoping you were your speakers were on and you could hear that. You know, he's just give me a thumbs up if you heard and you don't really want to talk. All right. Um, I think. Nope. No, I've got a hand. Okay. Christine Lily question. Hi, Christine. You wanted to test story. Okay, I just, I have two questions. Can you hear me? Um, for Ms. Gustafson. What is meant by administrative offices. I think it's, I've just never understood how you could have. You could separate your students and your professors from administration. So what is meant by administrative. Secondly, how long do you feel that administrative branch would be here in Montpelier. Hi, Christine. So what we mean by administrative offices is that college hall, which is right in the center of the green is where the majority of our administrative offices are at the moment. So our admissions offices, our student service offices, our program offices, our finance offices, and so all of that administration. We plan to keep in that building and because we are a low residency college, our faculty and students only come to campus. Every six months for seven to 10 days. So it's our, it's always been sort of a very spread out organization. So the vast majority of our faculty live and teach in other states and other countries around the world. So keeping our administrative offices where they are is a fairly easy thing to do. And we plan to stay there. That is our plan and that's how we're moving forward. How do you, what do you do in Colorado then we do that. So we're going to be doing that seven to 10 day residency. So for the first time, we're going to be able to run our residencies simultaneously. So our six MFA programs and writing writing for children, visual art, graphic design, film and visual art will all hold their week long residencies at the same time on the Colorado College campus. Our campus was not big enough in order to accommodate all six happening at one time. So we had 12 semester start dates throughout the year. And we are now going to be able to for the first time, move to just two semester start dates a year. Of the short duration, I guess. It's always, it's always been that length. It's always just seven to 10 day. We need to keep it one person at a time here. Thanks Katie. Thank you Christine. Was there another person who wanted to speak. Fred was saying something, but. Christine says it's just your hand up again, or she just made it herself. Thanks Christine. All right. Does anybody else have anything to say. Oh, Donna Ackerman had. Let's. Donna, your hand was up. Did you want to speak. Because I think Donna hasn't spoken yet versus Danny and Lisa. So. Hi, thank you. I just have a quick comment. I'm in a butter and I did speak at the last hearing also. I just think it's important when we look at changing the news. And the. The basis of what a large property is going to be, and that property is over 15 acres. I think we need to pay attention. And not talk about less restrictions, but more restrictions or at least keep the restrictions the way that they are. I think it's really important to have community input when a 15 acre parcel is changing hands. And it's right in the middle of our city. And it, and it makes a difference. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Appreciate that. I guess I would, I would like to just state. That I hear people continuing to talk about the. I think it's a great question that campus design purpose that whether there is one or not. And then the board has also asked the applicant to think about that aspect of its. Of its application and that they have said they're going to provide more information about that. And so. I would encourage us all to listen to that. So, yeah, it looks like Alisa has her hand up. Okay. Great comment. I have a quick question to Katie or to the board is that I've heard that the property, the VCF property may be under contract. Can anybody, has anybody asked VCFA is VCFA willing to confirm or deny whether that's the case. It's not under contract. I have a quick note that's not really relevant to the permit application just as an FYI. Yeah. If the applicant decides to present that, then that's. That's great. But under the regulations, that's not something that the board actually has the authority to ask about under these regulations outside of needing to know what the plan is for how. The property will be commonly managed and don't double check the chat and make sure. I don't see any hands online. If you could come up to the microphone and identify your name and neighborhood. Hello, my name is Dan boom power eight Kent street month to your Vermont. I'm not here today because I'm interested in a little bit more of this process. But as we're talking about cutting into the green, if we're talking about 10 feet on either side which make talking about 20 feet. When you add that on both sides that's a big substantial part of the green that's going away. I'm interested in also hearing about as we go through the campus design purpose, if they're the present owners or whomever may own it if there's a process that they would be willing to write. Into this, where they could be or the development rights of the green to keep it as it is as they move through it seems like that would be a really helpful thing for everybody in this process to know because that would at least substantiate alleviate some of the concerns that people have about what's going to happen here. So, I think Meredith addresses in the beginning and I think it's very important to understand that that is not something that this board could ask. No, it would be no would be appropriate. I realized that but as part of that, getting through some of the other aspects essentially have to be helpful. Thank you. Joe. There's been a number of comments on the parking and there actually is a depiction of the parking and how it would look in the campus PUD, which is part of the There's a depiction of the parking like the theoretical parking that would be installed in the campus PUD that's part of the files that we have that Meredith linked on the agenda here. Sure. Okay, so just for clarification purposes that goes back to one of my earlier comments. Um, even if this campus plan as proposed were approved, the whatever owner system was set up here would not be able to build that angled parking without going through the appropriate permit process. So what this campus master plan does is say, here's some theoretical areas of parking. If it gets approved, then the future owners are allowed to come in with a permit application to add that parking. It does not mean that that permit application must be approved, because future parking standards may change it just says that in this area, you can come to ask to add parking. And so there aren't going to be specifics on measurements and exact designs in the campus plan because engineering standards or Department of Public Works standards or V trans standards could change between now and then. All it says is that the future owners can come and apply for something there without having to go through this entire process again to change the campus master plan. Versus if they suddenly decided to add parking in somewhere that on the campus master plan shows is green space completely is green space. They have to come back. They have to amend the campus master plan and then go through the next stage process of still getting a zoning permit to be able they have to go through a two step process again if they decide to add parking anywhere where the concept of parking isn't shown on the current campus master plan. Does that make a little more sense. So, so we're not looking for all the details on how that angle parking would be designed. We're just looking for a good idea that let that let's them then move forward with potential design for that in the future, if they think it's needed. Thank you. Anyone else. What's on remote. Ready for that. Peter Kalman. Peter Kalman. Peter Kalman six Mountain View Street. What Meredith just said is very important and it's important that people understand the problem with this entire process. Not just this one, but many of the cases that are brought before the development review board Danny or you guys buy kept saying design review board. This is the development review board, the design review committee is only for properties, which this I think is part of that are that are under that completely different process, but the development review board. As you can hear is being told by Meredith and by the planning commission. This is appropriate. You can do this. You can't do that. What Meredith said is true. Whoever buys this or buys parts of it is going to have to come back and ask for things, but some of those things can be approved by staff by Meredith without any hearing. Some of those things will have to have a hearing, and those kind of hearings will be just like this one. Right. There'll be lawyers and people talking on both sides. I think this entire process is divisive art, and it's Byzantine. It's like, almost like arguing about how many angels are on the head of a pen. What we really need is dialogue. And I call upon both the members of the community and the college to enter into that dialogue outside of this Byzantine process and really have a frank discussion about what is being asked for and why. Because it's actually not going to simplify the process and make it easier for them to sell things because the community is going to be so angry that they will do everything they can. And we saw this happen with the parking garage. Not enough discussion, not enough dialogue, and it blew up in everybody's face and the, and the city lost a million dollars because of that. I counsel you all please talk to each other outside of these, this crazy process that ties everybody's hands from being able to say anything that's reasonable. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Please, can you approach that microphone and your name. We're just in response to this, but he's talking a lot about dialogue and I'm thinking the whole purpose of this was to comment or to give our thoughts about the application which is going to stifle comment it's keeping information away from us. So the way I understand it. Things are now so that we're the public the neighbors are informed of information that's going to happen at the college you know I've lived there for 40 years and when something's going to happen, the neighbors are informed and we know what's going to happen. So, I'm just thinking this application, the way I understand it allows the people who are, you know, going to purchase college to just do something. It's permanent, or we were not going to be informed the way we used to be. Am I not getting this right. I mean, I think I have to respect the process that we're going through that the applicant has been asked to provide more information that the board has had questions about this that those questions reflect a lot of the concerns of the community. And then we need to let applicant have time to respond to those and I hope that people think of this as an inclusive process, rather than a, we'll just let you know. Okay, well, that's why I, you know, I mean, when I look at it, I think, Oh, how does that really benefit me. I live right but the college more information I have the more I can actually process the whole thing so hopefully there's more information coming. Okay. Thank you. I have a hand up the movie. Bill Barrett. Are you there bill. Well, it looks like you're unmuted so sound is off it looks like. Sound is off. Oh, he's gone. Or maybe he has. Mr reminder for anybody who's on remotely. If you are having problems of my understanding is I mean we haven't officially done it the plan is to continue the hearing to the 21st right so so you can email me comment thoughts that you have. If for some reason you're not able to give them verbally tonight, and those will get passed on to the board before the meeting of the 21st bill has his hand back up but now he's muted. Hi, Bill, if you would like an opportunity to speak now is your time. If you can unmute yourself and speak bill then go ahead. I think you must have something wrong with your microphone though because we can't hear you. I have gotten emails from you so feel free to email me Meredith Crandall. And I'll all forward your comments on to the board. The testimony that's been given is available on the city website. So if you want to see what other folks are saying. Yay, nay and otherwise what questions have been raised. It's all available there on the on the website. Yeah, and the pending applications page has been was updated through. Last Thursday, everything we got through 2 o'clock this afternoon there's one copy of it there on the table and that will get updated along with everything that I get through the rest of today. Hopefully tomorrow we'll get posted on the website. So, I think that I could entertain a motion to continue this hearing. The second second. All those in favor. Hi. Do you have to clarify continued to. Sorry, Tuesday, February 21. Friendly about them. Yeah, thank you. I can't make the friendly moment because I'm not actually bored. I'll make it friendly. Okay. Then we are going to move along to our next agenda item. Do we have minutes. Yeah, we do. January's are skipped over it. Yeah, I have to get to this. Any discussion about the minutes. Someone like to move to approve the minutes. To move second Catherine seconded. All those in favor of approving the minutes. Hi. Any other business from the board. Okay. All right. Yep. I don't know if the board got my email about the 14 Liberty street appeal and the decision from the environmental court. So the appeal of the board's decision on the demolition of the shed and moving of the barn. The environmental court did approve the permit because they stood in the city of Montpelier. They however approved it on alternative reasoning. Saying that because there was testimony that the barn was an historic carriage barn, which are rare in the city of Montpelier and preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures is one of those items. Mentioned as a priority in the city plan. So they took that alternative route that we weren't sure was going to work. And tied it right back into the city plan. So there is a 30 day appeal period. We'll see if it gets appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court or not. I should know by the end of this month if that's going to happen or not. And hopefully it doesn't, but that'll guide the board. In administering that provision of zoning regulations going forward, as well as. Are the planning department's thoughts on how to amend that demolition provision. Because, you know, it's still an issue. Thanks for the update. Thank you. Welcome. Entertain a movement to adjourn. So move. All in favor. I. Thanks. Thank you. All in favor. Aye. Aye.