 Well, we can get started. Do we have members of the public here too? I can't send an agent, he just appeared as an attendee, so I'll switch him over. Okay, good. So we'll get started. This is the Development and Review Board meeting for Burlington May 18th. And I will say that we take up items in the order they are on the agenda. And as we call each item, Scott, we'll bring on board to the meeting, the applicants and members of the public who wish to participate in that agenda item. And people will be sworn in as needed at that point. And Scott also asked for people's mailing address when they sign in. Okay. We'll go through communications. Nothing new, it's just everything's been posted. Everything's online. Okay, minutes. Allie, I'll have to catch up. No worries. Thanks. And we'll go right into the first item is Consent Agenda 65 Main Street. You skipped over the first item you usually touch on, which is the agenda. Oh, yes, right. So if you want, 57 South Williams has requested deferral again. And there's also an other business item that should be tacked on to the end pertaining to the Oak Ridge Park bike path. Thank you. So if anybody's here for 57 South Williams, we won't be taking it up tonight. Okay, thank you, Scott. So then we'll get onto the Consent Agenda 65 Main Street. Installing three signs and seek alternative compliance for the proposed directory sign is the applicant here. Is that Meg McGovern? Yes, I am here. Hi. This is recommended for consent, which means the staff has looked at it, recommended consent. Have you seen the staff's recommendation on this, Meg? Oh, you've asked me? Have I seen the recommendation? Yes, sorry. And you're okay with that? So they're saying that they recommend that we do this, right? Yeah, approving it, yes. Yes. All right, I wasn't sure if I had to present or do anything, so. Not so far, we'll see what happens. Does anybody on the board object to treating this as consent? Anybody in the public here for this one, Scott? I can't imagine that. I don't think so, if you are, raise your hands. Okay. Well, then can I have a motion from somebody on the board for this item? Sure. I'll move on item 21-086 SN 65 Main Street that we adopted to have findings and approved the application. Is there a second? Second. I see Caitlyn. Any discussion? All in favor? AJ and Brooks, Brooks, are you? We can't hear Brooks. Hmm? I can't hear you, Brooks. I think he's saying he can't hear us either, so. Oh. He might not be voting as a result. So I said there's gonna be one abstention on that one. Okay. Anyways, it's approved, Meg. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Thank you. Take care. Yeah. I'm leaving. Okay, see you later. Okay, so then our next item is public hearing for 41 Pine Street, request a three-bedroom short-term rental and two-bedroom boarding house within the existing duplex. No changes in construction. Is the applicant here for that? Yeah, Sam. Sam Connell. Hi. Can you hear me? Yep, we can hear you. Is there anybody else here, Scott, to speak on 41 Pine Place? If so, raise your hand. I just see the applicant, though. I do have someone joining. You should be here soon, Alex Slater. Oh, there's Alex right there. Okay, so, and you're both part of the applicant, I take it. Sam and Alec. Yes, Alex, my attorney. Okay, so I'm going to ask to swear both of you in. It's a public hearing. And do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty of perjury? I do. I do. Great. So this is existing doting, no changes in construction. Do you have your 15 year determination? Seems a rarity, Scott, is that true? We have to have that go so smoothly. No, well, I mean, it was a pretty cut and dry. I mean, if you read the staff report, the problem there is that it's not very big. Yeah. I just measured it actually before this meeting, just the approved area outside. It's a little bit of an odd shape, but the majority of it is 48 feet wide and the longest part is 48 feet wide or long and the majority fits within 48 by 30 feet. And then there's sort of a triangle also that's out there. Well, at this point, you seem to be grandfathered in and I don't think there's any anticipated changes that we're requesting in that area. Correct. So is there anything else you wish to present on this? Did you just post that, Scott? Yeah, I just displayed that. That's the area that we're talking about. You can see the property boundary there. Most of the parking is actually within the street right away. Hey, one thing real quick, Scott, I just noticed on the article or the application that you sent to everybody, there was an actual mistake on the Article 8, the parking section. You wrote that the property contains room for two parking spaces, one in each garage. Right. That's actually incorrect. When we first started talking about this, I believe you said there's two in each garage and one in front of each garage and tandem. That was part of the original site plan. So I'm not asking for four parking spaces, I'm asking for two additional ones actually. Well, I think I verify that the measurement was too short for the tandem. Yeah, I think you're right, Sam, that that was part of the original conversation it looked like it had for. I think I have the original site plan here. So Sam, when you measured, is that, what did you measure from the garage to your property line? I measured the parking area in front of the house. So basically the width of the gravel from left to right is 48 feet. But you don't have a determination of where the property line isn't heading away from the garage. I did not get a surveyor in there to do that. There is ample space between the front of the garage and the actual right of way, which curves off to the left there. You can see it on the upper left-hand corner, the right of way isn't anywhere near where the parking spaces would be. Well, then the question gets to be between what you're calling the right of way and the property line. Isn't that all city property? I don't think it is. I'm not sure where the city has accepted that right of way. I think it's a right of way, but it's not an accepted road. I'm not sure it's city property. Right, it's not an accepted street. In my correspondence with public works, Laura, we locked specifically. This is one of those odd cases wherein it's a public right of way, but the street was never accepted because it wasn't built the city standard. Yeah, so I'm not sure if the residents or the parcel owners on Pine Place each have a collective interest in this in some way. To kind of get ahead of that, we asked all of the owners of the parcels on Pine Place to provide an easement to the extent that they have any interest and they've each one, you know, consented to that signed an easement and conveyed their consent to this parking scheme. But that still doesn't clarify whether they actually have the ability to do that, right? If it's city property, they don't actually have the ability. No, no, it's undetermined. I'm not on the record, I'm not entirely sure. Yeah, who's owning that little park right there? So if I may, Brad, it seems that we're cutting to the chase here, which is fine. This always revolves around parking. Yeah. And the tax map that you see on display is a close approximation to what the boundaries really are, but it's not a survey. And similarly, the original site plan, that's probably also a close approximation, but it also wasn't a survey. So the original plan shows a little bit more distance. I think it was 15 feet to the front line, which is still too short for parking space. The tax map shows a little bit less. So maybe it's worth the applicant's time to actually get a survey and figure out what that actual distance is. But we're still talking about tandem parking space arrangement, which has limitations. It's acceptable for a single family dwelling in a duplex, but once you start going beyond that, we can't count tandem spaces. Well, I guess I'll just throw out one thing. Isn't there a question as to who really owns what is the right-of-way for pine place that it may be privately owned? We don't really know anything about that. I thought the answer was pretty clear from public work saying that it's publicly owned. It's just the street itself wasn't accepted. So it's publicly owned, but the street was not accepted as a city street, so the city doesn't maintain it. I guess to the first part, presumably asked to the second. Yeah, if you drive down Pine Place, right out of shot there, you could see how the pavement sort of starts to get crumbly. From there, all the way up to St. Paul Street is completely unmaintained by the city and there are enormous potholes. And I kind of like it because it keeps traffic down, it keeps the street quiet, frankly, but it is very unmaintained basically from that upper left-hand corner of that picture all the way to St. Paul Street. I don't know if it's worth mentioning, but I will anyway. When I spoke with all of my neighbors that own all the property owners, their biggest issue with the street is it's unregulated parking because I think it's not regulated by the city. So there are a lot of people that have found that out and leave cars there for extended periods of time or park there for the farmer's market. This is right across the street from the farmer's market. So when I walked up and down the street and met with everybody and just explained, hey, there's this big gravel lot in front of my house. I own some of it. We don't really know who owns the rest of it. It's public. Basically asking them to continue parking the way that any tenant or owners been parking in the spot since the house was built in 1991. They were all thrilled and said, yes, we would prefer you to keep parking there and not have to park on the street and take a more street parking. Also, I'm gonna just open up to other members of the board see if they have questions for the applicant or if they're turning no questions. I'm sort of thinking it's gonna be hard for us to come to a conclusion about giving you this parking without understanding who the status of that land there but city land, then we can't do it. And if it's private, we need to know more about it but it seems like it's city land. And if that's where the property line is, it seems like there's a lot we can do. Yeah, I guess maybe it's worth also mentioning that there wouldn't be a change in status quo, I suppose. There's areas you can see is already being used and has been being used, which is why we got grandfathered in for the current situation. One might say you're creating a more intense use at this point of going to short term, not those in terms of instead of a long term, which makes the parking more of an issue. I would actually disagree with that just because it's been set up like this now for a year and a half and there's actually fewer people that park there typically. I don't rent out the bedrooms separately. So it's rented as a three bedroom unit. So typically it's a family coming to visit their kids for graduation like this weekend or a small group of six people or something coming up to go skiing or see the town. So typically my side, which is myself and two of my friends that rent from me, we have the three cars between us and then if we have friends come over, we take up a fourth spot or something. But typically the short-term rental side, it's one to two cars every time consistently. I know you can't, that's just an anecdote, but that's my experience for the past year and a half. Yeah. So Scott, I have a question about the determination and I wanna understand something. So the fifth, can you, the two spaces that are marked in what's shown as Unpermitted Yard Parking? I'm trying to just get my head around this exactly here because there's, we need to come up with four spaces. Is that right? We need to, the total is higher than that, AJ. It was. Six on site. Six. Six, yep. And so two are on site. Yep. Unquestionably. Two are unquestionably, one in each garage. Okay. There's some question as to whether this property line is far enough back to have a tandem spot in each driveway. It looks like it's not even close enough. And the Unpermitted Parking Space was recognized as grandfathered for two cars, is that right? No. It was not grandfathered. Not grandfathered. Under the 15 year statute of limitations as parking area. And I use that term loosely because again in the staff report, the dimensions here are too small for a single parking spot. So the determination wasn't for a 15 year determination that it constituted two parking spaces. Correct. Okay. I think it was a 10 by 12 area or 12 by 12, something like that. Yeah, it's 12 by 10 is what you've got. So we may be four spaces short. Yeah. Actually, if I can jump in again real quick. I just shot high because I honestly, this is the first time that I've even heard that my place is only two parking spaces. I was under the impression for the past seven months since I've been talking with Scott that we had the two in each garage and two out front. So this has been sprung upon me a little bit here. So that's kind of new to me. But technically, I think for the zoning that I'm asking for, I only need five total. I need one per bedroom for the short-term rental. So three and then one for every two bedrooms in the long-term rental, which is two because there are three bedrooms. So technically, I think I only need five total. So in my eyes, if we went to the original site plan and there was one in each garage, one in tandem in front of each garage and then one in that unpermitted yard parking area, that would cover it. And then the, yeah. And the fact that there's nothing blocking it, it's not squeezed into an alleyway or blocking anyone else's property or even close to the road. I personally think that it should be permitted, but there's a way. What was that math again, Sam? On your end, you said there is five. So family residence needs two. And then the one per bedroom on the quote-unquote boarding house aspect brings you up to needing one per two bedrooms, right? So between that and the short-term rental, three-bedroom short-term rental, I came up with six. Well, wouldn't the side A, it's just a basically long-term rental. It's me with two long-term roommates. So there are three bedrooms in use in a long-term sense. So I figured that was one per bedroom, or sorry, one per two bedroom, and then short-term rental one per bedroom. So five. You could have boarding house use in there. Where's that come in? That was the terminology that Scott recommended. So basically, side A is my primary residence in my homestead. And then I plan on having one to two long-term roommates on a yearly lease within the same unit as myself. So Scott recommended using the boarding house term. Would that just be an apartment, Scott? No, Sam and I have talked about this. Under the zoning code, it seems pretty out of date, but that's what we're gonna decide. It calls what he's doing, a boarding house. Renting out per bedroom. Yeah. As opposed to having roommates. Yeah. I'm not sure the distinction has much bearing on parking. Either way, it would be the same amount of parking, two spots for that side. Well, however this shakes out, we're still missing parking space. We need a plan that can show us whether it's five or six. Right now, we're stuck at two. What's that object next to the house? Looks like a trailer or something. Right, yeah. So that was prior to me owning the house. The previous owner, David Duret, who had it as a full-time two-by-three unit apartments. When he sold the house, he lived there for about two years as his primary residence, and he had moved out of a large house in Charlotte. So he had a temporary trailer, a 20-foot container there to keep some of this stuff, but that's gone now. That was only temporary for a summer or something while he was moving. This had to have been approved with four spots when it was constructed. It's a duplex with six bedrooms. I don't imagine it would have gotten approved with only two spots for the entire building. This has been approved as four spots originally, and I think what we're trying to do is seek approval for one additional spot. Well, do we have the prior approval? I mean, if it's approved for four spaces, that would seem to change some of our math here. That's the original site plan, AJ. So that's all we have. That's all we've got. And again, this is not a survey. This shows more distance to the frontline than the tax map does. So again, maybe it's worth the applicants' while to get a survey to nail that down to see whether we're really talking about four versus two. That would seem logical to me. Is the site plan the only record of the approval for the original construction? I don't have it. It is the approved plan for the original construction. I think there were elevations going there too. What prevents the applicant from seeking parking waiver here? The applicant could seek a waiver, but that's not going to be worth his time until we get into the 50% threshold. So that another way you can only grant a waiver for up to half the parking spaces. And again, as I mentioned earlier on, there's limitations to the applicability of tandem spaces, right? So we can count a tandem space for a single family home and a duplex, but that's it. What's the lot coverage in the RM zone, Scott? 40% is the limit. I think Sam's pretty close to it. Yeah, okay, now I just double-checking that, yeah. I guess we're at a point, Sam, where we could deliberate on this and I'm not sure we're gonna come up with a lot of positive ways to look at it, or you could ask us to table this and come back with something that gives you a little bit more assurance about where your property actually is. You there, Sam? Yeah, yeah, I'm still here. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I would prefer to keep working on this. I think there's so much room there. I know it's a zoning, obviously, but. Yeah, maybe you'll find out something about what the city has or some record about where the proper line is or where public right-ways. I just know from speaking with all my neighbors on the street that this question mark about Pine Place has been ongoing since forever, since the 50s and 60s, people haven't really known what's going on on this particular street. Are you guys all familiar with this part of town? I actually never knew. You could drive through Pine Place. I never thought I went through. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I guess it's sort of a question we could deliberate on this tonight or we could table it to another meeting when you wanna come back with more information. Well, I guess I'll probably come back for more information then at this point if you think it's not gonna pass. I suspect it's not, but I could be wrong. Sam, I have one question. Do you have any knowledge of where the zone, the infraction came from? Do you know why the city approached this or was it a neighbor complaint, something like that? Yeah, it started a long time ago with the complaint through the code enforcement folks. So that's internal to the city? We received a complaint, I think it was back in October about the Unpermitted AirBnB. Yeah, so 10 miles to call it up with you, Sam. And we never went as far as the zoning violation because you turned around with the application fairly quickly and then parking turned out to be the thorny issue. Okay, so it's an unpermitted AirBnB that resulted in the parking issue, not the parking being the issue that resulted in the violation for the AirBnB. Correct. Okay, because that's what I was looking at. It's just it doesn't seem like the parking in front of there causes anybody any issues or challenges. That's correct and that's why I've been trying to do this above board as much as possible. I just bought the house, my first house. I've actually lived in this house since I graduated UVM in 2012. I moved in as a renter and then put the bug in my landlord's ear and then bugged him for about eight years and he finally sold it to me. And I decided to go with an AirBnB and I was waiting because I know there are a lot of regulations that are coming up. So I wasn't sure what the proper steps were. And then I went to pay the rental application and I think that's when Scott mentioned that there was some issue. So I've been trying to work with Scott for the past six or seven months now and getting this squared away. I wanna get at everything right. I'm not trying to do anything behind anyone's back. So yeah, and I always just assumed that there was ample parking since I've lived there almost 10 years at this point. It's never been a problem on that property in my eyes. So that's why I never looked into it ahead of time. I can understand that. I ask members of the board, are we comfortable either sort of taking what we have right now and processing it or do we think it's advisable for them to come back with more information on the property? I mean, it sounds like the applicant would benefit from getting a firmer idea of the actual property line. So doing a survey might be advisable just from a practical standpoint. So I'm fine with that. If that's what the applicant would like to do. So Brad, I would only point out this has been percolating for long enough that if you do defer it, you'll need to grant it with a three month extension. Okay. Is somebody raising their hand, Scott? I see. I'll try to see what that is. I don't see a hand being raised. Okay. Do we have a date certain we could postpone it to or do we wanna just leave it open? Well, it may take a while for the applicant to gather the information. Yeah, that's a concern and get a survey and whatnot. Yeah. What's the longest extension that we could give? Three months and then a second and final three month extension to be granted. Yeah, I know we're trying to do a survey here and they're backed up for sure. Well, I mean, we can do the, you know, have a motion for deferral for three months or an extension for three months and ask them to come back with the property survey and if he has trouble getting the survey always come back and explain that. I'll make a motion on this. Okay, good. On 21-0361, do you have 41 in place? I move that we grant an extension and defer to another meeting date to be determined and request that the applicant bring additional evidence on the property line. Just a second on that. Second. Kenan, right? So any of the discussion? Okay, all in favor? Bye. You're unanimous. Okay, great. Well, sorry we're not more definitive here, Sam, but I guess this is the process. Yeah, well, thank you for your time. Again, just would like to get this done right and keep everyone happy and I will work on getting a survey. Great. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So close this public hearing. Okay, my next one is 85 Archibald Street, Champlain Housing Trust. All right, yeah. Brad, this is Jeff, I'm recused from this one so I'm gonna turn off my video. Okay. So Scott, this was recommended for consent. I take it didn't get on in time or something. Yeah, that's correct. Although we have at least a person or two who wants to speak tonight anyhow. Okay, so is it applicant here? Is that Pete Fisher? Yeah, Pete Fisher, yep. And is there other members of the public who wish to speak on this one too? Oh, look at that. We have two Pete Fishers. I'll let them both talk. Yeah, we have Sharon Buescher on the line as well. Okay. So I'm gonna ask Peter and Sharon if you would swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. I do. I do. I'm missing one Peter Fisher, you're muted. Pete Fisher. I'm Pete Fisher. Are the two Pete Fishers here is it just one person? Just one person. Okay, okay, good. And are you the applicant, Peter? I am. Okay, so this was, I don't know if you wanna give us any background on it. This was recommended for approval by staff. You're taking these trees out and replacing them with braided liver trees. Correct. And you're taking them out because? The reason we're taking them out is because they're causing issues with our roofs because they're shadowing the building so much. We've had to replace the roof. And quite honestly, these trees have been limbed up so much over the years. I think it'd be a good idea to take them down and basically start over. I see. Are you getting more on your roof? Is that what it is? Not currently now. We had to, since we've replaced the roof now. No. Well, before we move forward, any questions from the board for the applicant on this one? Did you, do you have any evidence of them being diseased or unhealthy? Have you had an arborist look at them? Anything to that effect? No, I have not. No, I have not. Any of them. And also out of curiosity, so you're replacing them with these very one inch caliper ginkgo trees, is that what it was? Which are very slow growing trees, I understand, right? Yes, that's correct. Did you hear me? Yeah. And what made you select those trees? There's a narrow growth pattern. That's why you selected it? Yes. What does that mean? What do you say? I mean, they're small, they're narrow trees. Hi, this is Joanne from CHT. I'm just jumping in. I'm standing here next to Pete. I'm just gonna, hey Joanne, can I just swear you in for a second since- Oh, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, you swear to tell the truth and hold truth on paying the penalty or perjury. Yes, I do. Take it away. Okay, so what we have there now is Norway maples that are very tall and very wide. And so they're shedding on top of the grooves. They're also holding moisture against that side of the building so that we have rotting trim and other materials. We can't grow any grass or nice plants under there. They're just plain too big and too close to the building. And as Pete said, we've had to limb them off so much to keep them away from the building that really you have half a tree for each tree. We've basically limb them off to the trunk just to pull them away from the building. They're quite close. So we're gonna replace them with columnar ginkgo trees that are narrower. So they won't be so close to the building with the branches and leaves and all that stuff. I'm curious, is the greenbelt considered too narrow for trees on that street? Yes. As I see, everybody's got the trees in the same location. I have another question. Have you gotten any feedback from the residents in the building about the benefit or problems with the trees? I'm imagining that the shade is keeping those apartments quite cool. So just a moment. So yes, we're working really closely with Selma Maple and the board and getting every little thing we're doing over there approved, we did get a housing trust fund grant also working with Selma Maple and the board to do all this work, the trim replacement. We're replacing a bunch of the smaller roofs and the tree removal. They really wanted to keep the trees on the south side which are not Norwegian maples. They're red oaks I think. And those are fine. We're okay with just trimming those. We're not so close to the building, not so wide. So is this application for all eight trees then or is it for, is it now four? Just for all eight trees? Maybe I misunderstood what you were just saying. I thought you were saying that the south side oaks you were going to keep. Yes, we're keeping all of those on the south side. That's the parking lot side. Is that what you're saying? That's correct. Okay. That's the south side. Yeah. So the eight trees are all on the north side? That is correct. Okay. I think that wasn't clear on the site plan. It was maybe only of one of these addresses. I don't know how that is one property. That's so weird. Yeah, maybe that is the case because it seems there are property lines drawn down the middle of what we thought was one property. So. And I guess I'm just, I understand taking out the trees. I'm just, what, so when you say it's a columnar ginkgo. Yes. How tall does a columnar ginkgo get to be? 20 to 30 feet. Wow. Okay. There's ginkgo trees around the city but they seem not quite so calm there. Okay. Other questions from the board for the applicant here. Yes. I think it's a member of the public who wants to speak, Pete or I'm sorry, the woman's name is, your name is? Joanne. Joanne. Do either of you have anything else you want to add before I take some comments from the public? No. Okay. So is that Sharon there? It is. Am I muted or not? You're speaking. I'm speaking. Okay. Hi, my name is Sharon Busher and I had called earlier to get some information because I wasn't clear about one of your board members asked, I wanted to know if the Arborist, the city Arborist had determined whether these trees were diseased or not. And I was told, no, that had not happened and that was already divulged. The piece that is troubling me is Archibald Street is devoid of trees. And I think, you know, I'm not a fanatic but I am really concerned about the environment and the elimination of eight trees on a street that really has no real foliage is concerning to me. And I was wondering if the applicant had considered phasing this in for chance removing for and putting in the replacement tree but allowing the canopy to provide the shade and deal with the air quality that we all know trees help us with. And then come back after those small little one calibers had grown up for a few years or so, these trees are like 30 years old that they're cutting down. And wondered then they could replace the others. So do four and four. I think it will be, I think that as someone pointed out, they're on the north side, so they're not on the south side. So they're not getting direct sun like the south side. But I do believe that trees provide a lot of relief in the summer and our summers are getting hotter. With the shade they provide, they also provide habitats for birds and other species besides the human species. So I'm disappointed that we continue to pay homage to concrete and not really do a lot for the environment. So I know that they've already made up their mind but I felt obligated to make a statement. I really hope that planning and zoning with all of their arms, with the Planning Commission and the Development Review Board will really give a critical review when something like this comes before them because of the environmental impact. And I think there are ways to phase projects in that would be more suitable, especially for this archibald, which is, as I said, devoid of really any trees or foliage. So thank you very much. So I have a question, I think maybe for staff. So I'm looking at the staff report and it says that the applicant asserts this is just going back to the lack of an arborist report that the trees are unhealthy because of repeated lemming. But other than that, I'm looking at subsequent seats as removal of trees that are of danger to life or property and that says not applicable. So was there, in the report was it, was there any consideration made about the impacts of the trees on the building itself? And maybe this is a question for Peter and Joanne. With the new roofing not having as much impact from the tree shade, is that something that you can do with the siding as well? So as to the staff report, there was nothing in the application. There was nothing in the application that spoke to adverse effects on the building. It was pretty shallow. Substantiation basically pointing to the repeated lemming affecting the tree's health. More significantly for me, I did talk to the city arborist, you pointed out that they're Norway maples, which are classified as an invasive and you can't buy them in Vermont any more because of that. Of course, we're looking at ginkgoes, which aren't exactly native, but at least they're not invasive. So I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. I mean, basically it was part of a landscaping plan in the 90s and they wanna change the species. And as part of that, they're getting rid of an invasive. Sharon makes a good point though, too, why they're relatively mature at this point. That's why we have a board. Yeah, I don't know if anyone else from the board want to go see the site, but I did go yesterday to see. And it is very nice shade to Sharon's point that there is no shade other than histories on that section. So, I have a question for the applicant. I'm looking at, it's really just Google Earth right now, but I'm not seeing eight maple trees on Archibald Street. Am I missing something here? Some of the streets on the other side? It's the two buildings. Buildings. That's where I think the site plan that we had was not completed, only had the larger of the two buildings. You count the number in front of both buildings, it comes to eight. I see. So, this is eight in front of the two buildings. I see, that's the other building there. And there's trees around the corner going into the parking lot. What kind of tree is that? When you drive between the two buildings, you're driving to the parking lot, there's a tree on the left when you drive in. What kind of tree is that? I believe the one on the left is an apple tree and the one on the right as you pull in is another maple. But not a Norwegian maple. It's an apple tree. It is disconcerting that, they're just taking down what seems sort of haphazard every place with something that, first of all, I understand it's a matter of money, but it's a pretty small tree. It's going in. Typically when street trees grow in there, like two or three inch caliper trees. This is our question. They remind me again, what was the tenant reaction you said that you were working with the tenants? Do you have any evidence of what tenant reaction is? Um, it's approved by the board of the co-op, which is, you know, there's what? 16 units there and seven people on the board, something like that. So it's pretty representative. And, you know, they do talk to their neighbors and this has been in the works for a year. That's helpful. Thank you. Oh, and just so it's clear that with the size of these trees, even though the roof is new now, if we leave these trees, they will continue to have adverse effects on the building, rotting trim, rotting siding and leaving debris on the roofs that will, you know, it decreases the usable life of the roofs. And, you know, this is low income housing. It did take a substantial grant just to be able to make all the repairs that we want to make. They will have funds left in the reserves, but certainly if we have to plan for early roof replacements, early siding replacements, early trim replacements, in addition to continuously limbing these trees, I'm not sure how well the co-op's going to do. So that's just my two cents in there. You know, we do understand that these are the, you know, the only trees on Archibald. And we're willing to take other suggestions for replacement trees. We're always willing to take grants, but they are the wrong tree in the wrong place. It's nothing against the trees per se. It's just the placement and the size of the trees that is really problematic for us and for the co-op. And the trees that are at the juncture of the parking lot access, one on each side of it, those two trees aren't quite in front of the building. Those trees creating the same problems the other ones do and might they be left and then all the others replaced? I'm sorry, what is your question again? So when you drive into the parking lot, where you said there's that apple tree, there's a tree on the left and the right that aren't really, they're really not quite out in front of the building. They're more just before the edge of the building. So they're not maybe affecting the building quite as much as these other trees. Could they be left, those two trees and take out the other six? That is a possibility, yes. Don't seem to have the same impact. Now I say this saying that I had a huge, it's actually a sugar maker in front of my house which my wife hated. And it was really too big for the front yard. We eventually took it down and I have to say everything is growing much, much better since that tree is gone. So I'm sympathetic to the impact that removing trees can have a positive impact but it's also, it is really an impact on the street too there. Okay. So I'll ask, are there any of the questions from the members of the board on this? And anything else that the applicant wishes to add at this point? I think we're part of delivery tonight. No, I don't have anything else to add, thank you. Okay, great. Well, I appreciate everybody's participation and we will close the public hearing. Thank you. The next item is back, once again, oh, we have a lot of these. Back 90s and Allen Parkway is continuing to review in terms of having the walkway access. So that the applicant is Ralph Danielson. Yep, I'm here. Okay. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak on this one, Scott? If so, raise your hand. Nope, looks like it's just Ralph. And question, if people are sworn in the first time does that continue to get sworn in again? Oh, I'd err on the side of caution, Brad. Oh, okay. Well, we'll do that, Ralph. Just where to tell the truth and hold truth and pain and penalty of perjury. I do. Okay, so we see you came back and you have a path marked out. Yep, on the north side. Okay. And then removing one parking spot also at the end there. Right. And you're fencing around the perimeter of the property. Am I reading that right? I'm not. What's the question about that? Okay. Is that, I'm looking at the walkway it's fairly tight on that side of the property. And is there a fence along that property line? So when you're walking along the walkway I'd be walking along the edge of the fence. Yes, you would be, yeah. Okay. And is there a fence on both sides of that walkway? There would be. I changed, yeah, there would be a picket fence, a lower picket fence on the south side. Do you need that? I'm not curious. Do you need that on the south side of the walkway? I wanted to allow pets and allow dogs. And so the fence just allows, you know, gives the fence a yard for it. And it gives a little bit more privacy too. It also makes the walkway a real shotgun. Right, a long way. Yeah, it's a long way between two fences. Yeah. One change, and I actually did do it, was putting a little area behind the garage and maybe having a seat there because it's just so long of a walkway to take. But that doesn't show up on this. It doesn't. I do have something right now that I just worked on because I was just looking at that myself. And I could certainly send it on to Ryan. And the landscaping all still the same as what you presented the previous time. It is except for what I did do because I did have some plantings that going up against that fence. And I forgot to update that. So I also updated the plantings too and added lighting along that walkway. I can send that right now. If that. I think we can have that submitted for record. I think somebody on the board wants to see that right now. I just have a question just because the concern is about the width. Do you, because it doesn't look like it's marked on here. What is the width of that pathway? The space between the two fences. What would that be? So the right now the space between the fence and the main in the house is eight feet. So, and then I, you know, between unit four, I was going to have it at, I believe, and right there it was smaller. It was more like, you know, four feet, but I could, I mean, there's enough room for a walkway. But it was, yeah, I think it was going to be four feet. I wanted to keep it well within five feet off of, you know, unit four, I didn't want it to have it right on that five foot marker. I wanted to keep it back in. So six to seven feet off of the property line. So it's not maybe as narrow as it looks in this. No, it's, that would, there would be four or five feet for unit four and then with the house eight feet. Eight feet is the width between the fences. Is that what you're saying? No, no, between the fence. The new fence and the main house. There would be eight feet. And then unit four, there's four feet. Well, I'm just saying once you get down to unit four, it's a little closer in and it would be a little closer narrow or walkway. It'd be more like four feet, probably, or five feet. And if I remember right, you're building one, two, three and four house it's this, right? Yes. Okay, it does seem, you know, if you're having a four foot walkway, you'd want at least six feet of space in there. Right. Between the house and the fence. Can you get that at unit four? Yeah, no, certainly could. I thought that, you know, a three foot walkway is sufficient. But understanding you need, you know, a little more space around that walkway. Well, if this is short, you know, people walking there and they're carrying things, three feet is an awfully narrow walkway. And we're talking about the walkway is one thing, but then it's a space between the fence and the building. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, no, I certainly can. Yeah, it could be. Yeah, I mean, there's no reason why unit four couldn't be moved a little bit more towards the, you know, a foot or two towards the north, I mean, the southeast. Okay. Sorry, I think basically with some tweaking, this seems to be what we're asking for. Other questions, comments from the board on this? Anything else you want to add, Raul? No, I can't think that. Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. Thank you. Thank you. And now we have 184, 186 North Winooski Avenue. Again, continue to review. This is, I think, access onto the porch on the side of the building. It's the applicant here for this one. Your phone number there, Scott. And usually the owner's been on the phone. I don't see Missa. I sent them reminders today again, but. Yeah, I saw Missa on the meeting earlier and I don't see her now. All right, I think this is the other phone number. So we'll assume that's the applicant. Hello. We know who that is on the phone. So if you're on the phone and you're not Sharon Busher, you can speak now. You can press star six to unmute. We could go to the next, we have one more item to look at after this. We could do that first if this person stopped speaking. We just had another phone number up here. So let's try that. If you're on the phone and want to speak, press star nine. Raise your hand. There we go. Let's try this again. You can speak, press star six to unmute. Oh, hey, it's Missa. Hi, this is, this is Missa. I'm at a soccer practice. That's why I'm on the phone. Double two being tonight. I guess the right advantage is to zoom, huh? Yes, COVID times. I don't have childcare. So this is how it goes. Okay. So I'm just going to swear you in, Missa. Do you swear to tell the truth and hope truth under pain and penalty of perjury? Yes. Okay. So you submitted a revised site plan. I think that's what we were looking for, which had to do with access off the sidewalk and off the parking area to the port. Remember? Correct. And it looks like you need ADA requirements up both ends. Is that what I'm seeing there? Yes. I did ramp access from the parking lot with ADA parking spot and off of the sidewalk as well. I think that was the main thing we were looking at before. Yeah. And then you also wanted a landscape plan and I provided that with a call out of all the landscaping as well. Yes. You have a plant list. Yep. It looks great. Thank you, Missa. That addresses my question about the accessibility. Yeah. I think that, yeah. Great. Any other questions from the board? How's the soccer game? It's practice. It's great. Listen to a lot of parking while I was watching my daughter play. Okay. Okay. Let's answer all the questions from the board. We will close this public hearing. Thank you, Missa. Great. Thank you. And we have, we'll close that public hearing and we have one more item that was added on, which is Zero Flynn Avenue, the reconstruction of the recreation path and the issue was providing access during construction. Brad, I think we have to deliberate whether we want to reopen. Ah. Okay. So there's a couple of ways to do this. And AJ has mentioned a lot of them. So we have John Adams' colleagues here, as well as Kim Sturdivist Cindy Wright and I assume that's Sophie Salve. So yeah. And you can consider whether you want to consider this. Yes or no? And leave it at that. If you do decide to reconsider it, you can take it up for the merits at a future meeting or you could do it all tonight. And just a reminder, I'm recused from this matter. So I won't participate in this part of the discussion. Any preference from the board? I guess I'll try them and I just, if we can take this up and do it tonight, deal with it. I'm okay to do that. It looks like Brooks, you were trying to speak everywhere here, you know? Yeah, you're muted again, Brooks. No. How do other people feel about taking this up tonight? And I'll hear the applicant tonight. It's fine. We'll debate about whether we want to do anything. Okay. So do we need a motion to, are we reopening the hearing or are we hearing a request to open the hearing? No, I think we need, Brooks, use the chat function. Rhett, it's a good question. Well, because if we're reopening, does this need to be, can we do it tonight? We need to be warned. Yeah, that's what I think, right? If we're reopening, it has to be warned. So, you know, we have attorney's dirt event here tonight, if we need to, it can be dealt with through other business. I would point out that this was duly warned when you heard the application and no one attended but the applicant. So no one has interested party status for this. I think if you choose to reconsider the whole nine yards tonight, you can. So as to the question, so the applicants will say what they want to say and you're right, you guys can decide based on that whether to reconsider it or not. And my question is, do we have to be open to hear that? No. No? There was no hearing to reopen. This was not a conditional use. It was not a public hearing item. It was just a site-plane review. Okay. So, sounds like people are on board to hear what the applicant has to say. And then we're gonna listen to that without making any determination as to whether we're taking action or not. If that's what I think is happening. And Kim, if you wanna weigh in at any point here, I'm happy to have that feedback. Thank you. I will after the applicant goes and certainly if you have any questions, I'm here. But, and I'll let you know if I disagree with anything but so far I think Scott's right on, so. Okay. Thank you. So, I'll leave it to the applicant here, whoever wants to present on it, that we understand that the issue I believe was that we had requested that access to the park on the west side of the reconstruction area be maintained during construction. So, I take it that's the issue. So, who's gonna say something on this? So, Sophie and John, you can both speak. Actually, Cindy, you could speak too if you want. Could we share screen as well? And this is Sophie. Yep. Give me a second. Yep, no worries. Got it. Looks like Brooks rejoined if you wanna come up here as well. Yeah. Yeah. I'm seeing that too. I'll be asking. Brooks. Okay, Sophie. Great. Thanks, Scott. And thanks everybody for. Sorry about that. You said to change computers. Okay, thanks, Brooks. You hear me now? We can hear you. And see you. So, thanks for taking the time to review our request and for hearing us tonight as well. We wanted to present a plan that's marked up in order to better explain how circulation around Oak Ridge will happen during the project and throughout construction. So I'm going to share my screen. Let me know when it's visible, please. We see something. Awesome. So explain this is awesome drive down below if you can see the hand. Flynn Avenue is over here and that's a Flynn intersection. So what we were alluding to last time we were here was that the project would be divided into three different sections. So that the maximum use of the park could be enabled and that has been our intention throughout planning for this project. As we know it's a very popular park and especially after a year of restrictions and outings, et cetera, everybody's going to be very adamant about getting out. So what we're estimating is for the first four weeks the work would start down at Austin Drive to the west or southwest of the upper pavilion and that area would be closed meaning the entrance at Austin would be closed and the southwestern corner of the parking lot would be affected. But circulation from Flynn and the surrounding neighborhood through informal paths not that we would encourage that necessarily but they are available would be accessible to the pavilion as well as Oak Ridge Cove and the tennis courts, Oji courts and Blanchard Beach to the north. During the second section which would be from the pavilion, the lower, sorry the upper pavilion to the west side of the upper pavilion the hillside trails would be closed here because it's right adjacent to the existing bike path and also where the rehabilitation will happen and then a portion of the parking lots would also be closed. However, access to the tennis courts to the Cove Beach could happen from this area and then Blanchard Beach would still be accessible from the Flynn intersection as well as the pavilion and the botched courts and the treehouse. You just have to detour a little bit around it. However, most of the amenities would be open. And then from week 12 to 18 where the brown section here would be under construction that's the accessible beach portion of the project and the revised intersection at Flynn where a lot of the confluence of users arrive both pedestrians and cyclists and it kind of becomes a bit somewhat dangerous in the current condition but our goal is to improve that condition here and then all the way to where the project ended last year and over the culvert. So this as well as keeping in mind that the beach access that's going to be constructed is to improve what's there now to upgraded to universal accessibility so that everybody can enjoy the beach after the conclusion of the project. And for this part of the project while the rest of the park will be reopened for the sections that were previously closed accessing the beach from Flynn intersection the Flynn intersection or from this parking lot and this parking lot will not be possible throughout construction because here on this side you have a steep cliffs and forested area and here we have a wetland. So we cannot encourage people to go on either side of that area while this section is under construction and that includes the part of the bike path here. However, as we mentioned previously access will be possible from Proctor Place on the northern side of Oak Ridge so that people can still enjoy the beach. But it would be a detour through the lakeside neighborhood. From that I'll pass it on to John who could elaborate on more of the details of the construction piece of this particular area. So just to understand one thing so these projects are completed before the next one starts is that what you're saying here? That is the hope and I'm sorry I apologize I forgot to go to the last couple of weeks of construction which would be in mid fall mid to late fall given the timeline we're already on. The idea would be to close the bike path and do the top coat of asphalt as one it avoids a lot of edges in between the different top coats if you were to complete each section to the full degree. So at that point we'd have to close the facilities on the west side of the path. But again, there are ways to access that side from Austin Drive and then completing seating and mulching and just the final touch ups to the landscaping of the project. But again, it would be in late fall if the project is anticipated to take about 20 weeks and we don't have someone under contract as of yet but that's coming soon. So this is helpful. The question I have is by doing the phase three part towards the end what if there's a delay? I mean, is that gonna remain closed throughout the winter or will there be a winter access plan not just from the beach but to keep that bike path open? Construction season wraps up. Generally much sooner before bike path usage wraps up. So if there's a delay, what happens throughout the entire winter until you pick this back up again in April or May? Well, the goal is since we're doing this really in sections is that those sections would only be opened when we deem it feasible to start and complete them. So okay, I wanna understand that about phase three because I think phase one and two are pretty reasonable. What a phase three. Am I understanding that you would only start that if you could complete it before the end of this 2020 construction season otherwise it would be next year? Yes, that would be the objective. And let me just ask a question following up on AJ's. What would next year mean? Would it, would Blanchard Beach be closed when people wanna access it? If the weather is warm, late summer? If we had to go to the third section into next year the goal would be to get it started as soon as viable in terms of construction season. So if we were thinking about this year it would have been completed, I imagine it would have been completed by now because we'll already have someone under contract. So we'll, we'd be waiting for us the ground to thaw and then hit the ground running in the spring, in early spring. I only, and I only have one more follow up question. At the time you're encouraging people to come from Proctor Place there's a fairly large seawall on the Proctor Place end by Oak Ledge. How are they gonna navigate that to get down to the beach water? Well, I would pause it that they get down there now in that same manner and that that's why we're making these improvements at Flynn Avenue. So everybody can gradually get down to the beach through the ramp access that we're proposing to construct. No, but when the ramp access is gone and people have to access it via Proctor Place how are they gonna get down off that six foot seawall without being able to get to the one spot where it tapers at the ramp? It's gonna be some temporary stairs or something put in? Well, currently there isn't a ramp there's just very rickety stairs but we could certainly look into providing some kind of more accessible temporary entry to the beach on that side but it will be challenging since as you have mentioned it's a six foot or however many feet seawall there. Based on the current timeline what's the approximate date for week 12 to 18? Well, if we're working back from December 1st which is the deadline we gave them to complete the project then we are looking at October, September, October essentially. But we need it to start in the early parts of September because it is a concrete pour that needs to happen there so for the temperatures to be better than not but there are additives of course we can add to the concrete to cure it faster. But. And what stage of the hiring process for the contractor are you currently in? The bids are due this coming Friday so we're very close to it. Is a part of that bid the requirement to keep access open from the south? That's correct. We provided the same drawing that we marked up for the request to reconsider to the bidders last week just so that they were on the same page as us and we also requiring it to be a 20 week project. And have you received any bids at this point or is there nothing turned in yet? No, we tend not to get any till the very last minute honestly. Okay, because I mean I would like to see whether or not the contractors can have a solution for making it happen the way we conditioned it. Well, I will say I think this is what we were looking for is some reasonable way to have access during construction. I got this sort of an optimistic edge to it that everything will go as planned but it looks like there's at least the intention of having this happen. So appreciate it. So Brad if I may. That's John wants to pipe in but it sounds like perhaps not. Staff supports the requested reconsideration here. Again, this is a municipal project with limited purview. It is just site plan. AJ had pointed to traffic which is something we can consider under the statutory limitation. However, in our zoning code the traffic criteria pertain to conditional use of major impact projects. And this is not a one but it seems like Parks has managed to address the bulk of your concern with this anyhow. It seems the case. So, I mean to some of this does seem to meet the goals of what we put out. It's my impression. Yeah, I mean, I agree with that. I think that the core of the DRB was concerns maintaining public access to a public resource during this project. So do we need to reopen the hearing in order to actually act on this? No, there's no hearing to reopen. You would make separate action on this reconsideration and if you were to grant it, that would simply modify the decision that's in its appeal period anyhow. Okay. So just grasping here with the app to do that to just need a motion to do that. I think so. Yes. Yeah. I'll make it. Go ahead. In regards to the right number, zero Flynn Avenue, 21-0874CA, I move that we approve the request for reconsideration and modify our findings and conclusions so as to incorporate the proposed, Scott, you wanna pull that back up again? Oh, sorry. Sophie, that was you sharing. I took it away from you. So sorry. Oh, no, that's okay. So just the screen I was sharing back there. Okay. The proposed phasing schedule and access schedule entitled Burlington Greenway Phase 3B, South proposed construction sequencing. There a second on that motion? I'll second. Brooks, loud and clear. Okay. Any other discussion? It's hard to see everybody at this point. So I can stop sharing if the house. Yeah, please. Yeah. Great. Okay. And we have a motion all in favor, opposed none. Great, that's passed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks very much. Have a good night. And that is the end of our agenda. And so we will close the public hearing. And I believe we're gonna stay and deliberate on a couple of items, right? So welcome back, Jeff. Thank you. Do you all mind deliberating on the items I'm not recused on first? Yeah, which one is that? I think the one I'm recused on is Archibald. Yeah. So we can do 41 Pine Street. Well, 41 Pine Street is deferred. It's deferred. Yeah. So we've got one to 85 Archibald, 90 Ethan Island Parkway. 184, 186. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, so do we wanna take 90 Ethan Island Parkway first? It seems pretty straightforward what was provided tonight that that completes the application. So we can get a motion on this one. I can do a motion. Great. So on 21-0667CA 90 Ethan Island Parkway, I move that we approve the application and adopt staff findings. Is there anything else that we need to include from our hearing last? My question, because Brad, you were, there seemed to be some discussion of moving four over a few feet to widen the path. Is that something? Yeah, I guess. Well, let's see. Keenan just made a motion. Do we have a second on the motion? Just to spring your seconds. So yes, I would like to see there be at least six feet between the fences where he's putting his path between either the house in the fence or the fence in the fence. It just seemed, otherwise it's gonna be awkward to even walk down there. Okay, that works for me. And Caitlin, did you, no, Chris Springer second that. Is that okay with you, Springer? I'm comfortable with the way that it is personally. Without any dimension? Yeah, I mean, he talked about being three feet. Well, it didn't sound like he had the clearest answer. No, no, that's why I'd like to just give him some criteria. And if we say it's six feet, then he can get a four foot walk in there and it would be okay. Seemed like he felt he could do that. But we can't go ahead unless you're okay with that, Springer. Or if we have a different second for the motion, the revised motion, I don't know if that's appropriate in Robert's rules or if we need a new motion, but I would second that revised motion. I'm comfortable with that, and that's fine. Okay, okay, so we got a motion and that's amended to include six feet between the fences or the house in the fence. Any other discussion on this? Okay, all in favor? Okay, we got an opposed, Keenan and Springer. So we have two, four, five. Hold on, Keenan, I think Keenan's video was delayed because it wasn't a Keenan's motion. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm sorry. I froze up, I didn't stop voting. Okay, okay, so sorry about that, three, six to one. I feel like I've been put in wait. If I seconded a motion, the mover voted against. Okay. I'm excited about that, good. Then we have North Winooski. Yeah, and I can make a motion on that one. So on 184 through 186 North Winooski Ave, which is application 21-0677CA, I move that we approve the application to adopt staff's findings and recommendations with the revised plans. Caitlin seconds. Any discussion? I just think this is a reminder of why we shouldn't design for them because this is different than what was discussed and it's much better. Yeah, yeah. All in favor? Opposed? So it's unanimous. Great. All right, thank you all for the accommodation. Good luck. Ready to go. Thank you. So we have one other item, which is the 85 Archibald Street, the tree destruction. I will say, I believe that there's a legitimate reason behind their approach to this, that it can't have impact on their building. But they have to take them all down. My question. Kind of like Sharon's suggestion of four and four, quite honestly. Well, and they wouldn't even need the permit if they waited five years in between, right? That's just, yeah. The, I mean, to me, if we move forward with this, I think we need to just make sure that the staff comments are adjusted, that it's not due to disease, it's danger to life or property. But I guess, like, what is the standard for danger to property? Like, is rot sufficient? Most dangerous property, I mean, it's, no. It's damaged the same thing as, like to what degree does the damage need to be danger? I mean, when I went to look at the property, I was looking at it with the eye of disease, not like these trees are not diseased, but information is different from what we heard. The process was not a particularly enlightened process. I guess I would put it that way. You know, they see a problem with the trees, let's cut them trees down and put up a little things. That's basically the process. And I can't, like you said, I can't fault them for the intention of what they're doing. Oh. The fact that the, you know, the building, the co-op board voted in favor of it holds a lot of weight for me. Yeah. You know, they're the ones that are living there. You know, if we had a bunch of people that said that they were against this, that the shade is important, the trees are important, other factors like that, but, you know, a unanimous or near unanimous approval of the replacement gains my support. I think my one, I don't know if we can put this sort of condition in there, would be working a requirement to get recommendations on the species from Arborist, because it did seem somewhat arbitrary, their selection. Well, we don't know what their process was. Like you said, I know this Ginkgo trees are street trees used in the city of Burlington. I didn't think they were columnar, but it was. Yeah. That wasn't clear to me, but not what I experienced with Ginkgo trees, but maybe there's a specific. Right. There is another kind that you're not saying. So it seems we have a couple of choices in front of us. We can approve it as it is. We could ask for a couple of trees or some trees to be saved, or we could ask them to reconsider what the trees are that they're putting in. So a little over the board. I like the idea of reducing the total number of trees that they're cutting down and getting some advice on what kind of replacement trees they should put in there. I mean, it may be that the Arborist recommends those Ginkgo trees that just think it'd be, it seems that there really wasn't a lot of Arborist support in this. And so I would like to see somebody involved with that kind of background and just have eyes on it. I mean, the thing that I would add there is, if they wanted to, they could go down and cut six down and wouldn't even come to us and leave two and the effect on the street would still be the same. Well, it wouldn't be the same. The limit is, they could do five, they couldn't do six, right? The five, not six. It still would be significant. Yeah, it would be significant, but it's still not total. I mean, it's, well, I'm gonna make a motion. I'll make a motion on 21-0788 C885 Archival Street that we approve the application. That staffs findings with the clarification that it is not the disease trees that are really at issue as much as damage to the buildings. And I also would change the approval to leave the two trees, one on either side of the parking access between the two buildings. I'm saying those two, because I think those have the least impact on the buildings, because they're not directly in front of the buildings. So you take down six, believe two. So, is there a second for that? I'll second that. No, is that, and then the other thing, which I didn't put in there, which I'd be willing to, is they wanna have an arborist way in on the tree selection. We wanna have that or not, I didn't put that in. I mean, I would like the arborist thing included there. I feel like it's a little bit arbitrary for us to say leave two trees. Well, I think it's, my view on that was that those are the trees that are not impacting the buildings as severely as the other ones. So to me, that wasn't arbitrary to just say. Well, I guess like having looked at it, it doesn't, they all kind of look like the same distance from the building in person. Maybe the aerial shot is different. So they might just continue to have issues with the two trees, and they are just trying to address it all at once. The challenge I have here is that I think that there's a motion around trees being removed. When I look at Scott's comments about, this was the original site plan. It's a landscaping plan that's being modified. Same number of trees in the same places. When we see new construction, we're not going to reach individual selection of trees in this manner. So I see that it's being treated differently because of the removal. I wouldn't say that, Springer. I always look at the tree species and put in there, I look at the caliber of the trees. If somebody came in with these trees being one inch caliper on this project, I would say that really seems inappropriate. New construction or on renovation. Like I said, the one we just got for, whatever it was, I just knew it was the trees they had were three inch caliber trees, I was putting it. Anyways, would that, I mean, would the requirement to have larger trees rather than the discussion of the species of trees? I don't know enough about the ginkgo trees to know what the appropriate caliber is for that tree. So it's hard for me to comment on that. Seems small, but I could say that we could vote on this motion and if it's voted down, we could come up with something different. Well, I would like to see the arborist involved in this. So I think if we can amend it to include some arborist and review of the kinds of trees that are getting put in just to ensure that it's appropriate for that street and that it's, that it will be appropriate for the building as well, I think would be important. I'm okay, are you okay with that Brooks? I'm fine with that. Okay, so we have a motion, I'm leaving two trees. Now you can vote that down and we can then have a motion to take out all the trees. So let's vote on this one, two trees and an arborist. All in favor? One, two, three, four. All opposed? One, two. So it passes, four, two. All right. The compromise that satisfies no one, huh? Okay. I think we're done. Yeah, come next time. All right, see you later. Nice to see everybody and to the spring. Yep. Take care, everyone.