 So I will call this August 7th regular meeting of the DRB to order. Thank you all for coming and being flexible with us being remote. I will turn over to Meredith for a view of our remote meeting procedures. And we'll go from there. Awesome. I have to excuse me a little bit. I've got. Slightly different setup than I'm used to. So I won't always be looking right at the camera. Um, okay, so. And of course we're going to put my script. Here we go. All right, so for those who are viewing tonight's development review board meeting via Orca media, you can participate in the meeting via the zoom platform through either video or telephone access options. So for the full video experience, you can type this link into your web browser. And it should bring you right into the meeting. I'll get a little notice to let you in. Hopefully you can dial in using this phone number and this passcode meeting ID actually, you know, put that in when prompted. If you're having problems accessing the meeting, please email me at mcrandle at Montpelier hyphen vt.org. I will be monitoring my email throughout the meeting. For those who are already participating in the zoom meeting, turning on your video is optional. For everyone attending, please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking this will reduce background noise. And please note that the zoom chat function should be used only for troubleshooting or logistics questions. If you have a question or comment about a specific item on the agenda one of the specific applications, please raise your hand, either physically if you have your video on, or by using the raise hand button on your zoom toolbar. If you have been called on by the chair, please make sure to provide your full name and address for the record if you're not one of the applicants that we will know who's making the comments. Please note that in the event the public is unable to access today's meeting. It will need to be continued to a time place and certain and I would get notice of that access issue through my email. I'll now hand the meeting back over to the chair. Thank you, Meredith. I'll accept a motion for the agenda approval. Make a motion to approve the agenda. Second. Most of motion by Sharon second by Alex, all those in favor of approving the agenda agenda will start we should probably roll call since it is the zoom platform. Sharon, how do you vote. Yes. Catherine. Yes. Alex. Yes. Yes. Brian. Yes. So, Rob volts. Yes. Did I miss anybody? Nope. That's six. All right. Wonderful. Thank you. The we have an agenda for tonight. Thank you everyone for joining us over our zoom platform. We have two applications for this evening. We have two applications for your patients to in the delay. Obviously it was a warranted due to the flood and whatnot, but here we are. And without further ado, we can move on to our first order of business for the evening, which would be the 11 nine street application related to a fence construction. And who's here to present on the line street application. I'm me and my husband are present. My name's Alyssa and this is Elvin. Okay, so anyone else that would like to speak on this application. This evening. That is not the applicants. Okay. Okay. So we're going to start with you. We're swearing in two people as witnesses. So. All those interested in providing testimony on this application. Would you please raise your right hand to be sworn in as a witness. There we go. Do you solemnly swear or firm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth. The whole truth. Nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. We do. Yes. Do you want to start by just a brief overview? Then we will, we'll turn it over to the applicants and then the DRB will proceed with questions or comments or. We do. We do it. I'm going to just keep this really short. This is an application for a fence that is in a side yard. The request is to have it more than the standard six feet max height because it's acting as a privacy fence. I don't have authority to grant that, but the board does. So the board is here. There's no. There's no specific criteria. It's not like a waiver or variance per se. It's a board exception that they can make. Including for privacy reasons. Screening. So. That's all I got really. Great. So we'll have the applicants, you know, give a little presentation about just let you know that, you know, like Meredith said, this is very brave. You know, I'm sure there's a number of other great things going on with the project. The DRB is, you know, very interested in your, your reasons for specifically of the fence, the extension of height. So, you know, tell us what you're dealing with and welcome to the DRB. Thanks for the welcome. It's nice to meet all of you. Thanks for being here. We are requesting an eighth offense for length of about 35 feet between the back edge of the back of our house 35 feet into the backyard that goes between our home and nine Vine Street, the home. Our selves and our neighbors are in agreement that an eighth offense would provide some privacy since we moved into our home at 11 Vine Street there used to be no access to the backyard at all and since we've moved in we put in a back door and a window which seems very reasonable. However, the proximity to nine Vine Street, the window in the door now basically have eye level access from our living room into their living room so particularly early in the winter and particularly at night but really anytime of day we basically have eye level. So we have an eye sight to one another from our living rooms which like we have an amiable relationship but don't want to hang out when we choose not to. So, we are hoping to put an eighth offense that, you know, about 35 feet from the back of our house that would block that eye level meeting, essentially. Yeah, that's I would say sums up our application for why we are requesting this variation and what the city usually allows. Maybe I'll just throw in there that like we kind of were brainstorming with those guys like what the best way to go about it is and like we all kind of like want there to be vegetation there as well, but like in the meantime sort of to make everything like livable in both living rooms. Like, yeah, just the privacy fence seem like the best option. Yeah. So you're saying the long term plan is to have a vegetation screen between the two but the fences that the immediate immediate fix. Yeah, over the next like two decades. We are, they have already planted some trees and we plan to print some plants and trees, but those take time to grow. And so in the meantime, we would like to have this fence to provide some privacy for both families. Wonderful. Yeah, I found the application you would ask for eight and a half foot high fence and just kept saying eight foot. You're right, which is it eight and a half. Yes, thank you. Yeah, what we did to figure that out was kind of like we stood in our living room and they stood in theirs. And it was like, where are the two tallest people's eyes like not going to meet anymore. And then we had like a stick outside that we had measurements on and we were like, Oh, like eight foot like if we're both standing up we're still seeing each other so maybe like just get that extra. Yeah. So then eight six was kind of like the perfect number for the privacy factor. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. Wonderful. I mean, I think it's great that you and your neighbor both very much agree with it. That very much, very much narrows our scope of review of this application. So, I guess just one question from Meredith. Like, so there are, there are fence. This is a side yard fence. Is it the front yard that would like we have less leeway on when it comes to height variance is that correct. Yes. Side and rear you have a lot, you have more leeway and it's, it's a lot less well defined about what exceptions are allowed. There's general categories of exceptions versus that front yard fence where it's very, very specific. And, you know, the other other one of the things that I thought made this one a little bit easier is that it's not like it's the entire side property boundary. And so the fence isn't going to be interfering in, you know, lines of sight, anything like that along the road, even pedestrian lines of sight. But yeah, you've got it's the it's the front yard that's much more strict. The other DRB members have any questions. No, no questions from me. None from me either. If they were all this straightforward, we'd have 20 minute meetings. I guess I'd like to make a motion if that's acceptable. The motion to grant those fence exception, and the user to the usual maximum fence site of section 3101 e allowing applicants request for an eight and eight and eight foot six inch. Section 35 foot long fence at 11 Vine Street adjacent to the boundary with nine Vine Street as presented in the application. Number is the two zero two three zero zero seven six and supporting and supplemental materials. Motion by Sharon. All second. Second by Catherine. Motion table for approval of the application as submitted. And do we have any discussion on the motion. Seeing none, we will start with a roll call vote. Since Sharon's top of my screen. Sharon, how do you vote. Yes. Alex. Yes. Catherine. Yes. Brian. You're muted. Yes, sorry. Now you're all right. Michael. Yes. Rob myself votes yes. And is a unanimously approved as yes. Thank you. Thank you. Alyssa Elden, just so you know the. Formal decision isn't until you get the written decision, because there were no conditions. The written decision and the permit will get issued at the same time. We'll probably just. Email or call you when those are ready because mail in Montpelier is still a little tricky. But we'll just get those. And there's technically a 30 day appeal period after that written decision. Anything you do in that window is just going to be at your own risk. Given that nobody has shown up to complain about your fence and you already have an agreement with your neighbors, the risk there is probably pretty low. Awesome. Thank you so much. I appreciate everybody's time and reading the application and so grateful for the approval. Yeah, thanks so much. You're welcome. Have a good night. You too, everyone. Thank you. Hi. Okay. Next order of business is six Parkside Drive. So who is here tonight to represent the outkin on six parts I drive. Good evening, everyone. I'm Bill Jolly and myself and my wife, Jean are here. Jean Jolly's here also. Bill and Jean. All right, welcome. Thank you very much. We'll just hold on one second. Anyone else here on the platform to speak on this application. I wanted to share some thoughts about it as well. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Bill. Great. So we will swear those in wishing to speak on this application. All those interested in providing testimony, this application, would you please raise your right hand to be sworn as witness. I assume then we will need to open the camera. Well, I can if you'd like, but trust you. Oh, no, that's, that's okay. Let's see if it works. There we go. It does work. Thank you very much. We're ready. All right. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. Yes, I do. I hear three yeses. We are good. Great. So I guess we'll start. Meredith, she can give us a brief overview of procedural status around this application. And we'll turn it over to you. Bill for the telling us what, what, what you're doing here. Okay, so this is again a little bit similar, though slightly more complicated than the last one in that normally boundary line adjustments or something that are approved administratively. In this particular instance, there's a little bit of a twist so that as zoning administrator, I really didn't feel like I could approve it and I actually touched base with the city's attorneys about that to make sure. So generally speaking, if a boundary line adjustment creates an unconformity creates a situation where a parcel no longer complies with a dimensional requirement. If a boundary line adjustment creates that, that condition, then you can't do a boundary line adjustment, you have to do a subdivision or in some cases you have to then go to the board to have the approval happen. In this instance, the boundary line adjustment doesn't actually create the what I'm referring to as the non conformity the fact that a one of the parcels doesn't have any frontage that non conformity is already there. It's created in a prior subdivision under a prior set of zoning regulations. What this boundary line adjustment does is it reverses that condition. So instead of, you know, I'm just gonna say parcel a having no frontage now parcel B will have no frontage it's directly reversing it changing the access easement, changing the frontage. I, as a zoning administrator with very, very limited ability to to work in the gray zone can't make that approval. The board has that authority and it, it does not make it a subdivision, no new parcel is being created. So it's still not a subdivision. So we don't have to look at every single subdivision requirement. I've included in the staff report a few of the ones that seem to be applicable or that where neighbors have raised some questions, like about stormwater or about water sewer that generally you don't look at for a boundary line adjustment, but I've thrown those in there in the staff report in response to those, those questions and, and, and thoughts, just to make sure that you had the full picture. But there's, there's nothing being created here, we're just adjusting some of the prior conditions of approval from cameras 2003 or 2005 off the top of my head. So, Mark, I mean, I'm sorry, Mark, Bill and Jolly, we will turn over to you. Bill and Jean. Bill and Jean. Jean. Sorry. That's. Jean. Jean. I just for a graphic while you're going here since we are in the room. I'm going to share my screen and put your survey of your proposal up. And then you can go ahead and sort of talk a little bit about your project project and where he came and where you're going and what the board is reviewing. I'll start by saying that we really have nothing to add. We feel very strongly that Meredith has done an excellent job of stating the facts in this situation and that our motivation really is just to move ownership to the parcel that we live on. That's really it. It's probably something that could have been done years ago, like since 2003 or even 2005. But we felt that maybe we probably should get around to it and all we want to do is change the ownership to the land we live on. And that's really pretty much it. And that's, I think that's all that this does ownership of the right of way or the, the easement and comment that Meredith refers to in her statements. Okay. So, obviously, the lot we live on is one with the house. And, and that's what we're doing is just moving the, the ownership of the right of way and he's been a comment to the lot we live on that the house is on instead of the one that the house is not on that we don't live on. That's really all that's happening. So you're not to there in this time. It's always been confusing to me whether it's lot one or two, but in this map, it has a house on. Yeah. In the drawing, it's pretty small right now, but I see it is a lot too. And then a lot. I think it says a lot too. Okay. Yeah, I usually refer to it as the smaller, a larger one, a lot easier, but yeah, it's a to be, you know, either one, it's from one to two. I think I read something in the application about that. That lot one and there's retained some kind of access easement. Is that correct? I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your question is. I was just, I thought that in the application it referred to an easement so that there's still access to lot one. Is that correct. If I understand your question, Ron, I think United States and center enter documents that originally, the easement belong, and it still does belongs to a lot one. And they convey that a lot too. What we're doing now is having the easement belong to a lot to that will be conveyed to a lot one. So they're both, it's in a sense in common. And I think it states that on the, the site plan that this is an easement in common. From what I understand, and really I'd refer to a land surveyor who did this. But the easement common means it belongs to both properties. They're both allowed to use that easement. Did that answer your question because I'm not sure I really fully understood it. But can you just clarify there for like, I'm thinking what was I saw in the, in the, in the application in the staff report I thought that there was an easement that was. Yeah, so, so, um, here, this this little these arrows here show where the, the current property boundary is. There's a current property line here. So that lot to ends at this point. Okay. And lot to so where we're going to live. Right. They have a access and utility easement over this land this driveway to get to Parkside Drive. And the subdivision in 2003 or 2005 it's in the staff report laid out a, a access easement here that actually was I think less than 50 feet. Now those parcel lines are going to be erased. So, and a new one drawn here, just this little bit here is going to be drawn so that all of this existing gravel driveway all this 50 foot wide and a little bit wider here land will then be transferred to lot to, but proposed 50 foot access and utility easement to lot one there's the, the access and utility easement over this driveway will, it'll be actually be widened under the legal language to 50 feet, which is the, the sort of max that's required in our regulations. So that lot now lot one is the one that has to travel over lot to land. Okay, right. But the easement is for the benefit of lot one. So that's it's tricky about the ownership you're owning the land, and then there's an easement for the benefit of the property that doesn't own the land. Right. So yes that that easement like that easement will be there. And the, the application package, I believe, had language. And they're about the easement. I'm sorry I've done so far. It's been a little bit of a blur over the last month. So that would be recorded. Thanks for clarifying that that's that's what I thought I understood it to say and I just wanted to make sure that that was correct. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Meredith. You're welcome though. I was on the board of any questions or do you all feel confident about the easement and what line is going where and so if I understand what's going on here. Seeing nods. Yes. Well, let's go in and look at some issues here. Or some items highlighted in the, in the staff report. Just overall here it does appear that we're sort of simplifying things for the future and that is the, the goal of this. I'm not seeing this is some loophole attempt to do a subdivision without doing a subdivision. This seems pretty straightforward cleanup effort to me. But so we'll go through the report here and just take a look. I think, you know, some of this is in, you know, in many ways, you know, reviewing this as if it were, you know, a subdivision. And this is, you know, I think Meredith must determine that this was a manual on adjustment I tend to, you know, agree. And so one of the things we, we look at in subdivision is, you know, review is to making sure that it doesn't create any non conformities. I think that Meredith identified any non conformities to exist. And this is actually, you know, you know, it's the word non conformities it's probably that we missed it's probably resolving them. It's making things a little bit more straightforward as if this property were developed in present day, the present present day regs. So I don't see any issue with the the first item here that would be a few following along as page seven of the staff report. And with reference to section 3510 of the regulations. And moving down here. Page, page eight of the staff report we've got, you know, the configuration, the parcel boundaries, like looking at the map here how this is being drawn I don't see if you're there. I didn't staff. I feel like my cursor skip down and I skip a couple pages for some reason. Rob, your audio is a little shaky, maybe stop sharing your screen, your bandwidth may not be quite enough for audio visual and sharing screen. Is that better. Wonderful. I can share screen if we need to again. No, I think we're good. Sorry about computers. Click down to page seven of the staff report. So on page four, which is, you know, the beginning of the staff analysis. We, you know, have some have some comments about the, you know, existing parcels and the minimum frontage. This is sections 30. In 2003 of the, you know, dimensional standards. We don't, you know, see any issues there. This is not. This adjustment is not really changing any of that. And board members. Any comments seeing differently. But a head shaking. Seeing none seeing affirmative head shaking. So, you know, we're going to go down and, you know, there are some comments here raising no issues about stormwater management. You know, once again, not much is changing as far as the development of the parcel. We're just changing the line really to sort of update things to the present use and, you know, configuration here. On page 30 10 on page six parking and loading areas. We have a similar thing where we, you know, don't see any issues. Any changes. And I guess now we're back to where I started on page seven about non informities. And I don't, I don't see much of much of an issue here. Straightforward to me. Mark, want to test to play with something. Yeah, thank you, Sharon. Mark. How would you like to chime in here. Well, I'm, excuse me. Thanks for including me. I'm Mark billion and my wife and Bryn and I live at 37 Bailey were the neighbors that were notified about the application and neighbors with Bill and Jean since they first constructed their house. Many years ago, and they've been terrific neighbors to us, allowing us to access the park through the land behind our home. The house for us and a couple of years ago, Bill and I work together on building an access bridge, so that others in the neighborhood could use it. So, so we're really familiar with the, with the area, the property. Bill and Jean, I don't know if they're told you but I recently went through the same process looking at a boundary line adjustment, because we also had a non conforming property. We had some changes made to our house that ate up the, the lot the setbacks. So we ended up moving our one of our rear pins on our property with the help of Rick Bell, just to bring the property back into a conforming status. We went through all the same process including the state's waste swimwater process, and we had to retain the use help of an engineer to get that approved. So, you know, with all that mind. I completely believe in the boundary line process, brand adjustment process. It's a really great way for us to head off problems that we would probably encounter in a few years. If we decided to sell our home or change the news. So we completely support. Bill and Jean's boundary line adjustment application. And as Bill said, it was a terrific document Meredith thank you for all the work you put into it helped really helped me understand how those items are, you know, impact this. So, you might ask why am I here why am I speaking, and it's because the last time I appeared before the DRB. I wanted to address this property. This was when Bill and Jean were first considering building their house. And at that meeting, the chair, I believe was Phil Zellinger and Phil politely listened to me talk about my concerns about storm water. When I was done, he told me that since I'm not an engineer, nor was I represented by an engineer there really wasn't anything they could do to respond to my concerns. I'm not an engineer and neither are my neighbors and all we can do is as members of the neighborhood as we kind of respond to storm water events like the recent one we had, which resulted in a great deal of damage on our home and then to neighbors. So, you know, that's why we I'm sort of looking to Meredith and the DRB team to act as our advocates, because we, because you both are, you all know what what the regulations are and the best way to protect gene and and bills property and also ours. So, again, I just want to say that we support the application. And I just want, I know there is no application. There's no proposal right now to develop lot one. So there shouldn't be any change in storm water events based upon the boundary line. But should things change in the future, or I guess we're going to look to you, the board just to guide us through how do we navigate this process, just to ensure that Bill and Gina protected and all of ours are protected as well. So that's all I wanted to say. I think the key part of one of the things you said there is that any future development like, then if there were any kind of development out there. You know, they're that's one of store monitor reviewed kick in. There's like a bunch of places and opportunities to do that. Where as I don't, I don't feel like it. I'm unfamiliar with having been storm water being associated with just a simple boundary adjustment. You know that that's not usually when it does kick in. Although it sounds like it might differ you previously and I don't know about that but so. I mean, I think everybody's certainly got storm water in the forefront of their minds at this point, you know, and certainly any future development I think would would cause a review of that. Really. Yeah, I mean I think that the, you know, feasibly there could be a way and a configuration of the adjustment of this line that could make it more difficult to install, you know, storm water systems when it comes to the development of, you know, one of these lots. But, you know, I think that would be the sort of focus of our review here, if any, when it comes to storm water. I think it's, you know, it's important that, you know, your 50 foot easement there for the access road. That's pretty standard that provides plenty of space for, you know, any type of upgrades that might be necessary for development related to storm water. You know along the road accessing the lot one. So, yeah, I think it's great points to ask that question at this at this juncture on, like, you know, be on notice that yes those reviews are very, very detailed when it comes to the time for, you know, development in the next phase of anything. Any more questions, comments from board members in this application I feel satisfied. Oh, go ahead, Alex. I don't have any questions germane to this particular application but I'm totally mystified why the adjustment we're being asked to make wasn't the one that was set up in 2003 or whenever the lots were divided. Why didn't I'll be glad to answer that in 2003, we thought we would build this house. And then build another house on the second lot. Our lives have changed. And so this is our home. Right. So you wanted the easement with where you plan to live. Yes, got it. Yes, we were much younger than we all. I have a question more for Meredith on procedure as we move from the discussion into an action I know we have the recommended action from the staff report. No we discussed the easement, just as we were sort of setting the stage for this, just curious as to whether there would traditionally be any clarification around the easement in in the language on the action. So, I mean it says as presented in the application, I guess you could add in to transfer the land, comma, the 50.1 feet of frontage and the utility and access easement from to the other. And putting in the transfer of the easement is a little bit funkier because the original easement was a different width. So, I mean, you could fit the easement in there somewhere in that sentence. It is included in the application though so that we reference the application we could just we could go with that. Yeah, and that's why I said as presented in the application and supporting materials. I think, I think it's it's clear that that's rolled in if you're transferring the frontage and the land. And would it also be covered by the survey plan. Yes, yeah, I mean it's that's the survey plot that's being approved. Right. So that would be on record for public view. Yeah. Given that it's the same order for both lots at this juncture. There's no reason to necessarily include if it was different owners at this point I would think that putting in the condition execution of the easement part of approval would be my move. Yeah, I mean, we can also, I mean we required, you know, recording of the language with the plat for the subdivision. Recently on. Yeah. So that could be another condition. That the easement be recorded at the same time as the plat. It's not a bad point because that way we know it happens. Right versus it just not happening then so that easement is not officially created I mean you have it it says proposed easement on the survey plat it doesn't actually say the easement. And once the easement is recorded it's there it's attached to the land it doesn't matter about the owners. So thank you for catching that miss. That would be my recommendation. So we should add language to the motion and saying to incorporate the, the newly defined easement. Yeah, I think that should be one of the conditions so if you give me just a minute. Oh goodness. Yeah. Let's go back to five seven vine. So we could probably add at the end. So shall record. One final survey plat, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then to, and to the access and utility. Utility easement approved here in. Did you get that Catherine. Oh, I don't know if I got the exact language. I'm like, I don't have in front of me. Hold on one second. I can also. Yeah, so. So in the, the condition of approval. After it says applicant shall record put in a little number one before the final survey plat. And then at the very end, do an and to the access and utility easement approved here in. And that way the language for that easement needs to get recorded when the survey plan is recorded and that's that's within 180 days so within six months belching. So we've got time to get a lawyer to draft up exactly how that easement language looks. Yes, it might be my new show, but run technically necessary approving the easement. You know, maybe we're saying that, you know, we're requiring that execution of the easement as shown on the show on the survey. Proving the adjustment. We're not, we're not adjusting the land, having that get recorded and then the easement not happening to grant the access and the utility. Right of way. This quick question is it possible to use the same wording that was in the subdivision. Just change 25 feet to 50 feet. I would run it by an attorney. I would because I mean that was, that was, you know, 20 years ago. I would run it by an attorney. Okay, I mean you have you have that prior language. So they should be able to that has all the references to the deeds and everything they should be able to take that and tweak it based on the new. Yeah. Configuration pretty quickly. Yep, that's what I was thinking. Okay. Any further comments or questions? I'll accept the motion. I'll second the motion. Oh, let's have somebody make a motion. Yeah. Yeah, I think you're the one for the motion, but Meredith, can you jump in if I didn't catch it quite right? Sure. When we get to the discussion part, I'll flag if anything did get. Okay, great. Yeah, sorry, Mike. There's a reason I usually come in person. My kids are all like screaming in the background right now. So anyway. So motion to approve, I'll make a motion to approve the requested boundary line adjustment to transfer 23,521 square feet of land and 50.1 feet of frontage from partial one to six Parkside Drive as presented in application number Z seven eight and supporting materials subject to the following condition of approval. Within 180 days of permit issuance applicant shall record the final survey plaque in the Montpelier land records office per the procedures detailed in 4405 zoning regs as modified by section 3510 for boundary line assessment assessments, including the locations of all applicable survey rods and markers and to the access and utility easement contained therein. I would second that motion. Alrighty motion Catherine second by Sharon. Right so we have any discussion here to refine it or the folks feel that it hits the nail on the head. And shorter than what I proposed. Quick question for you Meredith. Yeah. With the easement, the property owner having both parcels and then putting an easement across the parcels. Doesn't doesn't the easement distinguish with a merger. Confused how we can have an easement over ownership of two parcels that he owns. Right, but he currently owns them, but they're separate parcels. They are legally distinct parcels since the subdivision in 2003 or 2005. And so, I mean we did this with Vine Street where the easement was created because it's in relation from one one parcel to another. And this allows for the sale of the other parcel. But are we sure that we're not over. If we're going to make him go get an easement now. Are we, are we sure that we're not over complicating this for the attorney that he goes to and potentially increase in his legal expenses. Um, the problem is we've had this so I'm just going to flag this out there. That we've had situations where we've had subdivisions. And then the original easement was never recorded. So that easement never actually happened. Um, and so somebody could have then sold that property without that easement having been in place if it was to someone who is not a, a savvy, yeah, savvy property purchaser. And so I mean, given, given the guns I've gotten from city council, I honestly don't think that this is, I think this is the way we need to go. If you think requiring that it be recorded in 180 days. The easement being recorded if you think that that too far and think that. I mean, I mean, I think we should drop my preferences to drop the easement language. If he were to sell this parcel or put a home on it, then sell it, he would have to then put an easement on the parcel. I think we're, I think we're over complicating this potential. So can I just flag something, right? So if you go back right to our sub the subdivision regulations. The front, if we do this without the easement being in place, we're in violation of the zoning regulations and the frontage requirement. So in section 3002 street frontage and an existing parcel, which currently lot one, the one on the rear, the one on the front, the one on the back, the one on the front, the one on the front, the one on the rear. So that's something. An existing parcel without the minimum required frontage must have access to the public or private street over an easement or right of way approved by the DRB. So we can say that there's a proposed easement. Yeah, it's also a vacant parcel. I mean, I think I personally think the language that you originally had is good enough and it's clear and concise and to Rob's earlier point, I think we're over complicating this with a mandatory easement language. And my preference would be to just keep it simple. I think we all, I want to prove this. I think we all do. I'm just concerned that we might create more headaches for this landowner than we all want to. Hey, hey. Some of the flaps or maybe all the flaps do distinguish it as easement in common. I'm not sure how that applies to what we're discussing. But I certainly on both parcels. But yeah, I certainly appreciate Michael your, your point of view and and it's very sympathetic to our plight in just wanting to make this as simple and as possible to bring it up to date to turn current living conditions. And that's all we want to do really. And I really respect yours speaking out to this issue. And thank you very much. Thank you very much to considering the financial issues of decisions that are made by the DRB. And not only in present but in future as well so thank you Michael I think obviously we certainly agree with your point and think it could be handled and it might simpler and less costly way and almost penalizing us for the situation so thank you. Michael Michael I see you're coming from the more I look at the more I lead towards I think it's good that we just require and executed right away. I think, you know, for one there's an existing easement that provides access to the existing configuration a lot one. Well, you know, we're adjusting the boundary. So in effect we're adjusting that you know that easement. And that you're acquiring a new one that clearly, you know, voids the old and makes it very clear so that the moment at which lot one sells it's ready to go there are no issues whatsoever and just abundantly clear of what the access is and what the rights are. And I think, you know, Meredith made a good point that if this were a brand new subdivision, that would be our process for, you know, documentation required at the time of recording the, you know, the survey plan. Correct me if I'm wrong. I guess I would also just add that that as the applications presented it's simply changing, you know, it's swapping the frontage from one property to another, swapping the easement from one property to another, and that those are all the pieces that are that are happening and that if we suddenly are not recording an easement or that's just not part of it then that's a much bigger change, you know, overall. So that to me to make it the sort of simple boundary adjustment that it is we need to make sure that it is just swapping over so that the easement is recorded properly for the other property and I don't know I think it's important. I think otherwise it would be a cloud untitled. It could be for sure. If it didn't end up getting recorded at all it would be a cloud untitled because there'd be a question of whether or not their lot one had any rights to get to the road. Exactly. So in a sense we're protecting the jolly's interest in that other parcel as well. And the ability to take. I don't know if we're complicated Meredith I would vote yes on this, this application but in that scenario you could just handle that it flows, you could just create easement at the transaction but either way I I'll defer to Meredith I vote yes, even though I've now muddled this up. Yeah, I just think these things are complex enough and the simpler, the better. I suppose all this is assuming that there will be some kind of transfer of this property to another ownership if there's not. Isn't this all a mute point. Well, we're getting old. I mean material. I mean that's my point. This makes the presumption that there will be some transfer of ownership. And if there's not, this is all a mute point. There's still a separate parcel. You know, I mean, I think that's what Meredith, I was very convincing to me is that it is a separate parcel so the potential for a sale is always there, whether it's with you guys or the guys after you or it works if you could have it tidy. Yeah, I mean no sale. What is no sale due to this argument. So Bill, the problem is we have to we have to prepare for all of the eventualities. If you were never ever going to sale, you could emerge it back into one parcel and it would have just been me right. So, because you want to keep them separate and you want to make this transfer. We have to actually check all the boxes and my point of view the board, the board can make its decision how it wants to and I have to follow that and that's the decision I write in the permit I issue because at this point it's the board's permit. My, my personal, the way I do things is check the boxes dot the eyes, and then later on there's no questions, and there aren't. You don't have conflicting documents where you have a, you know, you get a plat reported, but then the rest of the legal stuff doesn't get recorded because something happens, right. There's another big that there's, you have something go on, you know, records get lost. If you had one you didn't get around to the easement. Something happens. Somebody else has the property. They go to try and sell but there's no easement. Right. This just sort of sets it up and make sure it's all set in stone so that it's easier to if you want to transfer deal with it. You know, the board can do can approve what it wants. I try and guide as best as possible to go as close to the regulations as we can. That's a good policy. Any more discussion on the motion. Seeing none. I will do a roll call vote here. Sharon, how do you vote. Yes. Alex. Yes. Brian muted. Michael. Yes. Rob myself votes yes. Brian, can you unmute yourself and vote yes or no. I wonder if we lost him somehow. Okay. But that still was five. Technical difficulties. We have five and one not present. I can say sort of abstained. Not available. Yes. Sure. Perfect. So that is. With five yeses in one. Abstention. And. Thank you. Bill and Jean for, for coming in. Thank you. Mark for your comments. Appreciate it. And. We have a couple owners of business, but that is the end of the. Park. Street. Park side drive application. Thank you both. Thank you very much. Everyone for giving it such thorough thought and review. We appreciated that. Frankly, honestly. Concerned about the future as well and making sure that. We have a couple owners of business. We have a couple owners of business. We have a couple owners of business. We have a couple owners of business. Frankly, honestly. Concerned about the future as well and make sure that everything's in place as you can tell from the 2003 and 2005 set up. That much of this was anticipated. And therefore. We, we understand and recognize the need to do that. So again, thank you very much. And. Michael again. Thank you very much. And with that Meredith, I guess. The next time we speak will be. About the review that we need to put forth the follow up with the conditions. Yep. So there's what, what's going to happen next is. I will work with Rob on a written decision that'll memorialize everything that happened tonight. And so when that's ready, we'll also issue the permit. And I will probably email you just because of mail issues to have you come and come to our new offices to pick those up. And then. Yeah, you'll work with, with Rick and whoever your attorney is to get the final survey plat on mylar to be recorded and the easement and we'll go from there, but we'll, we'll work on those final bits together. Okay. Well, thank you. We thank you. Yes. You know, I know how to find you. I will. Yes, you do. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Good night. Have a nice evening. You too. Hey, thank you on the next. So we have a two sets of meeting minutes to approve this evening. One is from June. And. It appears that we do have a quorum. No, no, you need to have four for a quorum. We do not have a quorum for that one. But you have your new. Didn't we change our rules of procedure? We do. I am. So that you don't have to have a full quorum, right? Yes. Okay. This is two months old. So I. I do think that we should address this. If there's not any objections from three. The three of three of the four that were there. And new members of the board. So. One injection. I would accept a motion for approval these minutes. Unless there's any changes. How many commotion to approve. Okay. Okay. Seconded by Sharon second by Alex. All right, Sharon. How do you vote? Yes. Catherine. Yes. Alex. Yes. Brian. Yes. You're back. And Rob, my self votes. Yes. Like, was that a yes or no? Yes. I wasn't at that particular one. So you can abstain. That's fine. I trust you, Meredith. I'll put a yes next to your name. All right. We have a minutes. Minutes are approved from the. Yes. All righty. Next order. Business will be the minutes from 619. All right. We have a motion. We have a motion for approval of the minutes from June 19. I moved. All right. Motion. Second. Who is there and who is not. I believe that Michael. And Rob. And Sharon. We have for this one at least. So with this one, that's just only vote if you were there. So I'll only call a roll call for the people that were there. We have a motion for approval of the minutes from June 19. Second. Second from Sharon. So Sharon, how do you vote? Yes. Michael. Yes. Alex. Yes. And Rob, myself votes yes. And Catherine and Brian, you okay with this abstention since you're not there? I'm happy to abstain since I wasn't there. Yes. That's fine. Great. Two abstentions and four in the affirmative. Awesome. Great. I think we have succeeded. I might make a motion to adjourn. Great. I'll second that. All those in favor. Thank you.