 This is the Burlington Development Review Board. We're going to get started. We're hoping to have one or two more members, but we have a quorum, so we'll get going and hope that they will join us soon. Quickly go through the procedures of our hearings, although maybe you have been here before. As we call each item, we'll ask the applicant to come up to the table. The applicant can present the application to the board. Board members will then have a chance to ask questions. After that, we'll open it up to interested parties who can ask questions or make comments on the application. The applicant can then come back and respond to questions and comments if he or she wishes. At that point, we either close the public hearing or continue it for another hearing at a future date. If you are going to speak, we will have you come up to the table and use the microphones. The acoustics in this room are a little tough, so we're just not going to hear you unless you use the microphone and speak up. That is also our official audio record of our hearing. The clipboard on the desk here, that's how we know who was here, what application you're interested in that can have implications for party status, appeal rights, notices, et cetera. At some point before you leave tonight, if you want us to know you are here, make sure you sign the clipboard. And then lastly, we do take testimony under oath, so as we tee up each item, we'll ask everyone, the applicant and anyone else who wants to speak, ask a question, make a comment, to raise their right hand and be sworn in. If you think you might wish to speak, be sworn in. If you later decide you don't need to, that's fine. But you're ready to go, just in case. Looking to our agenda, the first item is a discussion of the agenda itself. I'm not aware of any changes, Ryan. We do have one letter from a racial Maharaj Green regarding, which is this is the George Street application, and we'll accept that into our record unless someone objects there. We will act on those at our next deliberation. Moving on to our public hearing agenda, the first item is 19-0618CU. This is the application of Hanson and Lilly Nguyen, and you can correct my pronunciation, I hope, for a change of use from a single family residence to a duplex at 1403 North Avenue. Is the applicant here? Come on up. Hello. Have a seat. And how do you pronounce your last name so I get it right next time? Nguyen. Nguyen. Nguyen. Nguyen? Yeah. Thank you. So is there anyone other than the applicant who thinks they might wish to speak on this application? So can I get you to raise your right hands? I'll swear you in. You raise your right hand. I'll swear you in. Do you? Can you understand what I'm saying? Yes. You can. Because first time I'm in a public, so I'm a little bit nervous. Okay. All right. So raise your right hand, please. Do you swear to the panel you're about to be given a smear of a bruise underpainted penalty of perjury? Yes. Okay. Staff comments indicated sort of affirmative comments on everything except for the parking plan and the parking waiver. Have you seen staff comments? You have. I think basically if I could paraphrase, there's a request for a one space parking waiver, but the information provided in the application for the waiver was pretty sparse. So we were looking for more information in support of the request for a parking waiver. Are you prepared to speak to that now? You can call in the reserves if you need. So speak in the couple. Yes, sir. Who are you? Yes. Todd Bishop, the contractor. Excuse me? Yes. He does. All right. So can you help us out with the parking issue? Yes. All right. All right. I don't think I swore you in. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give in this manner will be the truth underpain and penalty of perjury? Yes. Okay. Good. All right. We have three board members. They may have questions about other things, and then we have a member of the public who wishes to comment. Okay. She's moving her family in from Vietnam, her brother, sister, and also her mother. Her mother does not drive. You can pull that right up to you. Yeah. She's moving her family in her brother and her sister and also her mother. Her mother does not drive. So we figured that she only needs three parking spaces for her brother and her sister. I think at least my question about the parking and the waiver request was that logistically it was a little tough to determine where, how the two cars are going to park, how the third parking space was in the garage. Right. Is there access to the garage with the other two cars parked there? How is that going to be managed so that people aren't parking on the street, which is what we're trying to avoid here? Right. So her brother and sister will be working for her at her salon. So they'll figure out who's going to work and who's not and who's working night shift and who's working day shift. They'll split the day up who works when. Okay. I'm trying to remember the site plan. And I think there were, so there were two cars can be parked off to the left side of the driveway. Right. One in the garage. And then, all right, in a way that would not block access to the garage for parking. Ryan, do you know, did you have other questions about the parking arrangements? No, I just saw that it doesn't meet the code for the four required spaces. They've got the two tandem that can serve one of the units and the third one to the side that can serve the other unit, but they need a fourth parking space for the other unit. All right. But they've asked for a waiver, right? Correct. So the one, yeah. All right. So the question is just information that you're looking for in support of the waiver. I've asked the applicant to provide and address the checklist in article eight that addresses parking waivers. And it was, you know, emailed back and forth. Right. Mr. Beshard. And I didn't hear anything back with an offer to accept additional arguments for why a parking waiver would be necessary. I didn't understand until I talked to her and who's working and how they're going to divide up the space. And that's why I didn't email you back. Okay. Is it, would it be possible to get that now? And do you have the checklist? I can't, the checklist, I don't know if it's 18 questions or three. This long section here. I mean, there's a bunch of things that's typical of a parking management plan, I guess. They can verbalize it to you now or they can submit it in writing in a couple of days time. Okay. All right. I think rather than trying to go through what might be a lengthy checklist right now. You have an application for a one space waiver, but we have to be careful about granting those. And again, as I said earlier, the information is a little sparse. The ordinance is pretty clear on the types of information we need in order to grant a waiver. So I guess my thought would be, we'll sort of figure out how to deal with this, whether we can handle this as a condition or not, but to have you follow up with staff after this hearing tomorrow to get staff that information so that we can make a thoughtful decision on this. Does that sound okay? Yes. All right. So you have the checklist. You just haven't had a chance to pull that together and get it back to Ryan. Exactly. Other board members have questions on this. We should have focused on parking. I kind of thought most of the staff comments were about that. Is there anything to add at this point? Okay. All right. Why don't you take a seat, ma'am? Did you want to ask some questions or make some comments? Oh, come on up. And then you can respond afterwards, if you wish. My name is Barbara Swinton. And I live at 17 Standiford Road, which is the next door to Firehouse number four, which is across the street from the building in question. And parking is my main concern to speak with you about tonight. I don't drive and I take SSTA bus. And I'm concerned if there is a lot of parking in the street, that it's going to be difficult for buses to get in and out of my driveway to pick me up. And so that's really my prime concern is parking. Because I think that person probably could be a problem to get in and out of the neighborhood. Okay. All right. As you heard from the discussion, we share that concern and we have asked for additional information to make sure that all the parking required will be off the street. Yeah. Okay. Anything else? I appreciate that. Now, that was my only concern was really that. Good. All right. Do you want to sign the clipboard as long as you're right there? I did already sign it. Oh, you did? Okay. Is there anyone else on this item? I'm not sure that response since we really talked about the parking issue, but I will give you the opportunity to respond at this time if you wish. You're good. Okay. So let me think. I'm thinking we should close the public hearing at our deliberation if we haven't figured out how to handle the condition for the additional information on parking we could always reopen. That just seems like the best way to handle this without most efficiently. All right. So I don't know if I can do this, but I think I'll conditionally close the public hearing subject to our deliberation on how to handle parking going forward. All right. So thank you all. Next item. It's a 1315 George Street, 19 George Street, 68 Pearl Street, 8090 Pearl Street and 70 Pearl Street. If the applicant could come forward just by way of background, this is a continued public hearing from two weeks ago. My recollection is the purpose of the hearing was to follow up on some of the primarily parking issues raised, including comments from DPW and also allow board members to ask questions having had a chance to absorb some of the information we got at the last public hearing. So. And Austin, I'm still recused from this matter. All right. And Brad and AJ are recused, which is why they're not here, but we have a quorum on this item. So can I get the applicant and everyone who thinks they might wish to raise their right hand, please? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth under pain and penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Go ahead. All right. Glad to be back. John Alden from Scotland partners with Rick Bove and half my team. We think we've got the ones we need tonight, though, and I know we were deep into parking last time and that was a tricky subject and we didn't get too much out. So we've got the whole slideshow here if you want to go through any of it. I added a couple of slides, mostly related to parking, but I will say that we've had a few back and forth with DPW and we think we're headed down the right path and we're on the same page. And we have in our packet the back and forth with DPW staff comments and then revised to reflect that. But again, I give you an opportunity to explain to us how open issues may have been resolved or not. As far as I know, the only open issues remaining, there's one AOT detail on the curb cuts that we're not exactly happy with the staff wording in the recommended notes there. What do you guys have here? The conditions of approval. So we'd like to talk about that one before we go tonight. We are proposing at any point in time where we have to move cars off site and we still don't believe that that will be very frequent, you know, maybe much less often than would be suggested by some numbers. We have to park all the cars that we need to park on an average day in our lot all the time. So we're good with that. We have a slide on stack parking, which I think you got in your packet that shows a layout for when we stacked. Did that get to everybody? I don't remember seeing it. Does anyone else? If you could show us the slide, that would be the best way to know if we got it. There were so many. Yes, I'm sorry. Let's see. So it's the same parking scheme that we have and then showing the valet team would have control over moving those cars in and out as necessary. And that minimally impacts any other parking arrangement down there and shows us getting another six cars in which reaches a capacity with just those six stacked of 94 spaces, which happens to be the same number of cars that would be generated by the 18 spaces for Victoria Place, the 20 spaces under the apartment building, and 75% of the 93 rooms, which is a typical calculation. It does not take into account the 60% valet rate on that whole park, which dropped a little bit more. So if you follow that explanation in the footnotes to the parking analysis and the parking plan, you'll note that the 60% comes from another downtown hotel. It's just finding that people that show up at the hotel with a car amount to 60% of the rooms. So we feel very comfortable that that's legitimate real-time data from this exact region location. And it shows that the average parking rate of 0.75 is further softened by a 0.6 factor, which really drops that number down. So even if you don't use that, I'm saying we're fine. And that's the stack range. And I worry of stacking and valet parking, but it is a hotel that offers valet parking. In this situation, I'm less nervous about it than I would be if it was someone who wasn't in the valet parking business offering to do this. So, and I still want to point out that that's covering, you know, a full hotel. That's not at the normal rate. So we don't think we'll be doing this very often. It's just that if the occasion does come up, we want to demonstrate that we have some capacity there. We can probably go farther than what we're going here, but we're trying to stay as flexible as we can for the rest of the people using the garage. Okay. All right. And we'll, I think we'll have the DPW. We'll have a chance to comment on this. We'll have a stack parking at this point for board members. I'm just curious what you're worried about with valet parking. Just having people do what they say they're going to do. I mean, who's going to do this? In this case, it's a hotel that will have valet parkers as part of their regular business. So I'm confident that this is not something that we're being told about that will then be ignored and not implemented. You must be maybe like talking about when we hear like an Airbnb or something like that, something that's really small and residential. Yeah. I'm just thinking downtown will need to probably see more valet parking. So I was just curious what, yeah, like you might have, because I don't worry about it. I used to be in the valet parking business. So it struck me as odd, but now I'm thinking back to maybe you're talking about residential situations. It's just more of a, are they really going to do it? Is this an enforcement issue that we're creating? And in this case, I'm not worried about that. That's all I'm saying. Sure. All right. Any other parking issues you want to raise at this point? Ken, are there any issues that you still, you see as still open between you and DPW based on comments? We're, we need to come to some final agreement on where the cars would go in this, in the case where they went off site. And we feel pretty comfortable that we can reach that agreement with them based on the parking analysis, the time of day that we'd be needing to move cars off site is at night. And at night, most of the public spaces in public garages are open. So we, we know they have other arrangements that allow for that. And we'd be looking to exercise a similar agreement with public spaces. So I think that's going to work. We'll give you 30 of ours during the day. And you guys can find us something during the night. We should be. So anything you want to add on parking before we invite DPW up to comment? Nope. The only, like I said, the only other one was the, it's your condition number five and the language in there. Their comments was a little specific on a particular AOT detail that we think is overkill. And so we just like to talk our way through that before the final wording goes into the conditions of approval. Okay. Well, maybe we'll have a chance to talk about that in a second here. Okay. Okay. All right. Why don't you, why don't you, if you want to take a seat, let's hear from DPW. And then again, we'll have you come back up and maybe board members have questions on other issues. Thank you for coming back. Hi. Susan Molzon, senior public works engineer from DPW. So we did work with the applicant since our last visit here to work out some of the parking analysis management. And we're happy that they committed to valet all of the vehicles that arrive for the hotel. I think that really helped to address a lot of our concerns with managing the parking demand in regards to the condition number five, which addresses the curb cuts for driveway standards. So this is a standard through VTrans, which DPW has adopted. And the intent is really to prevent developments from having very large driveway entrances that would provide pretty long span, which makes it much difficult for pedestrians to cross. In case they're actually posing a more narrow driveway. So it's a shorter crossing distance for pedestrians. The Vermont standards referenced here for curb cuts, which is where the driveway basically meets the right of way is from the VTrans guidelines recommend 24 to 40 feet wide for commercial driveways. So the applicant is proposing 18 feet. And like I said, typically we get requests that exceed the 40 feet. So it's a little bit of a different conversation when it's shorter. Obviously that makes it better for pedestrians trying to cross the driveway. So in speaking with the applicant, or the Skatebark, before the meeting, we can work with them and as long as they can still accommodate turning vehicles and can have a wider radius to turn from the street into the driveway. Okay. But what I hear you saying is you prefer narrower driveways and curb cuts to wider. And this is generally narrower than the ones you don't like. Right. Optimistic. Yes. You can work out the final details on turning, et cetera. That's what I'm hearing. Yes. Okay. That is correct. And also on condition of approval number five regarding the continuation of sidewalks across the driveways. We can also work with the applicant. It does not necessarily need to be our standard concrete sidewalk. But the intent is that the pedestrian is continuing to cross the driveway. The priority to pedestrians rather than to vehicles entering and exiting the driveway. So whether that is a colored concrete or pavers or some other material that generally designates that pedestrians have the right away and the access can work through the specifics. Are there, as far as you're concerned, has the applicant met the other issues that were raised in your, the comments we saw last time? Yes. All of our comments and concerns are already conditioned in here. Okay. Satisfied. Great. Questions for Susan? I have a question about, I guess two things, the Cherry Street parking garage and the aspect of that. And wondering if there were any updates on how much I'd be expecting parking. I don't believe that I'm the correct person to speak to that. Okay. Yep. Okay. I had asked about it. I think to CEDO staff and they indicated that all of the parking data was collected before the Cherry Street parking garage came down. So. Right. The study for the existing Bose parking lot, I believe you're referring to. Yeah. So when we talk about expected demand from the public that just, it makes me wonder what that looks like after the garage came down. But I hear you that you're not the right person to ask. And then the other question I had was regarding if the curb cuts are narrower and turning might be more challenging. Someone who got the SSCA coming to pick up in Driveways in the, I think, New North End. Right. So I'm wondering if you're asking for a 50% waiver for this, or if they're asking for 50% waiver for senior parking. Has there been any discussions of SSTA buses going into that garage? Maybe you don't know that. Not with me, but I have encouraged them as we look through the driveway with to run turning templates. We just before the meeting discussed, you know, what kinds of vehicles we didn't specifically say the SSTA, but. And I assume that like as like a DPW engineer, you consider things like ambulance or yeah. So that would be even wider than a SSTA bus. So that's taking care of because you're supposed to be able to at least pull in and out with an ambulance, right? Correct. Yeah. Yeah. And also things like recycling trucks and garbage trucks. Okay. Yeah. Definitely going to need access. Okay. So that's helpful. I'm just putting it into context. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you very much. Welcome. Okay. Does the applicant want to come back and respond just on parking and then I'll open it up to general comments from others. Sorry. You're good. Okay. Do board members have questions for the applicant on issues other than parking? Having had a chance to absorb all this a little bit more. You don't have to, but I just want to give you this opportunity. All right. So seeing none. All right. There were some members of the public who raised their hand earlier. Why you come up. I did get a letter from. Go ahead and sit down. I just can get through this while you're getting ready. We have a letter from Rachel Green who's a neighbor at. 23. George street who is. Writing in support of the project. She asked that we read the letter. I think I'll. Not do that, but I just want to let you know that we do have this and this will go in our file. And if somebody wants to take a look at this, it's available. Just for clarity, that's one of the places that's that. Will be continued to be occupied by this resident correct. She did ask that it be read and put into the minutes. Right. Yeah. But she will be remaining. She won't be moving after this project is done is that is that I just wanted clarity. Thank you. Okay. Right. So. Very much. My name is Sharon Bush. I'm a resident of Burlington. I'm a city councilor that represents ward one. This is not in my ward. But. I've been following this for a while now. And my issue was parking predominantly besides. The other issue of the diner, but that's over. I wasn't actually able to ascertain. Will there be any spaces? This is for the applicant. Will any spaces be lost on George Street and Pearl Street that currently are public spaces? Um, because I just couldn't figure that out. I'm sorry, but I just couldn't figure it out. Um, and so it's relevant for me because I still feel, and this is not the applicant's fault, but the city's fault. We don't have an assessment of what the parking, public parking demand is right now with the loss of, of the Cherry Street parking. I just, I'm, I'm concerned about the fact that we don't have current information. And if indeed there is going to be less on street parking, then I think that that will add pressure to this section of the city. Um, I was happy to hear about the valet parking that will happen for all occupants of the hotel. Um, and yet I was concerned about the fact that the fact that, um, in the packet, it talked about, um, an average day and yet this has been slated to be one of the more afford potentially one of the more affordable hotels in Burlington. So I think that it could average day could be capacity if it's really turns out to be an affordable place to stay and convenient. Um, so that the scenarios that we're talking about, which is defined satellite or other parking may be common. Uh, it may be an everyday occurrence. Um, so that was something that I wanted to better understand. The other question I have is because of the public parking spaces being available from eight in the morning to five at night, what happens if for some reason some car from the projects, the surrounding projects, um, um, are still in that space after eight in the morning? What happens there? Also the reverse, what if the public is still in the spaces after five at night? How is it going to be handled? Who's going to, who's going to deal with this and how important are the availability of these spaces to be really available to the public and or be available to the project after five at night? So that's my last part of the parking. Um, thank you. Thank you. Others who have not spoken, who have questions or comments? All right. So can we get the applicant to come back and respond to those questions, please? Um, so, uh, there will be no spaces lost on Pearl or George given the, uh, the way the project is set up. Uh, we're using the existing, um, street access to the right now. So the change there and, uh, the parking on George Street is on the opposite side of the road from the project entry. So there'll be no effect at whatsoever on, uh, on street parking on George Street. Uh, so that number one, uh, I forget number two, it was, uh, related to the hotel use. The other two, what about if the hotel's at full capacity, which is likely because this will be affordable? Um, so the hotel, the hotel. The parking analysis goes through that and it's related to those percentages. So I can look at it, um, either of two ways. One is if you look at the average percentage of, um, hotel guests, uh, that the city uses to calculate what you need for a room that's 0.75. So they're saying, okay, well, 75% of the time, uh, you know, we'll have a certain number of cars and we make it through the parking analysis with the 0.75 factor against the 93 rooms. Um, and we've, I actually, I have the, if I can get this to work now. Um, this is a revised, um, parking analysis and I've shaded in yellow, it was highlighted. Um, remember that we have 88 spaces. So if you solve for 38 minus 30, so 58. So anytime my total demand is below, uh, 58 means I have 30 bases available or more from the hour of eight o'clock in the morning all the way until seven o'clock at night. I'll have 30 spaces available or more for anybody, but certainly for the 30 that we've told the city would be available. Um, and that's on the average day. So the other factor that's interesting is the, um, the valet factor that we got from the other hotel who valets all of their cars and they say that in, you know, their calculations, their numbers, they find that 60% of their people actually show up in cars. The rest of them don't have cars. So if you use the 60% number instead of the 0.75 number, these numbers actually go down. So either way that we look at it, we will have it 30 spaces available from eight o'clock in the morning until seven o'clock in the morning. So that's the parking issue. We don't see that, um, uh, that the hotel, uh, well, first of all, the hotel has said they will valet the car. So what happens at eight o'clock or at what happens at five o'clock, um, the spaces aren't designated in the lot necessarily, uh, the hotel will have a way to keep track of them so they may be, uh, metered in the sense that there'd be some control thing there. There's a coin that you get or a token, uh, so that you could park there. Um, the analysis shows the spaces will be available that doesn't necessarily tell you which ones, but they're there. Uh, so if somebody gets in one of the public spaces and has to not even say which is that big a problem, it's not really that big a problem unless the hotel happens to be super full, but that's going to be the valets, they'll valet the car somewhere. They'll put it down in the lower level. They'll put it in any, you know, that might be the occasion where they have to go put one off site for some period of time until, uh, the public person has left the spot. However, uh, I think there's some penalty for that too. I think the, you know, if you're there after your designated time, you get a ticket just like anybody else would get a ticket at a public meter. So there may be some way to disincentivize the, and again, if I'm remembering correctly, there, there's an agreement between the city and the hotel on this. And if the city feels like it's not, if those 30 spaces are not available during the designated times, I assume the city has enforcement right under their contract or agreement. So we'd rather not get involved in parking space enforcement as long as the spaces are there, at least in my mind. Yeah, no, we've been pretty careful with this analysis. We feel like it's conservative. We feel that we're, we're calculating 100% occupancy at 60% of them actually showing up with cars for the hotel. We're calculating that all 20 apartment spaces are used by the apartments, even though we have numbers to prove that's probably not the case. And we're also showing that we've run the analysis with all 18 designated spaces for, um, Victoria Place being full as well. So we know that's not the case because we know there's only, and there has been for 20 years, 15, 15 or so cars generated by the apartments of Victoria Place. So, again, I think we're conservative. We won't say that it'll never happen that we have to actually move a car off site. So we are making arrangements with the city to find, you know, what we can do with those cars when that occasion arises. Anything else on parking from the board? I have a question for the applicant. Um, so for the lower level parking area, from my understanding, this is restricted to Victoria Place, the apartment tenants, and also the valet parking. This is correct, yes? Yes. Okay. Are there, are you considering any mechanisms to limit access into the lower level parking spaces? Um, we're proposing a gate. Thanks. I have one other question, not all related to parking, going to the historical issue. This is sort of a minor point given your position that you have taken numerous steps to preserve the architectural value of the boves building, in particular in the boves restaurant in particular. When I think of the building, there are two pieces that I'm hoping are being preserved in some way. And if these haven't been there in 10 years and I just haven't noticed, let me know that too. There was the bove sign. Is that still there and or? That's up at the factory. All right, okay. I thought that was the answer. All right. And then the black marble out front, is that being reused? I know you're repurposing a lot of the materials, that in particular, and you're mimicking it in the new materials, but those marble tiles, are they being incorporated into new building in some manner? Um, so we have a, we like that idea. Can we actually, so I'm going to estimate that maybe 40% of those tile are not original, and they're probably not the fancy tile, but they look like it. So what I'll say is, if we can remove them carefully so that they won't break, because they're kind of probably glued on, right? It's a piece of essentially glass or marble that's glued on, so to get that back off after 75 years or however, it may not survive, but if we can make them, get them off in one piece and use them, we might do something inside the building as a little display, or kind of find a little look, but we're not optimistic. Okay, I understand that. Small point. All right. Any other questions on any other issues before we close the public hearing? Anything you'd like to add? Don't have to. I talk all night, but I'll let you go. Okay, good. All right, so thank you all. We will close the public hearing on this. Under other business, we have 18 des 0713 CA, a report from James Joseph's Charitable Trust on usage of the parking lot at 29 Allen Street. Thank you for returning. No problem. Some of the board members, well, let me, I don't know if this is a public hearing. I don't think we need to swear anybody in, so some of the board members may not have been here. This came in the first time. Is that fair? All right. There was some testimony that with the warming shelter, there was going to be additional activity in the parking lot that might be disruptive of the neighborhood. So we asked the applet to come back after a winter's use, just to see if that was a problem that was real or turned out not to be a problem. So that's what we're doing tonight. Can I make a correction on that statement really quickly? Sure. The concern was not that there would be additional activity causing disruption, is that there is preexisting activity that would impact the youth staying at the shelter. Just a clarifying piece. Okay. Yeah, it was from a neighbor that was worried about the kids being exposed to things. Okay, thank you. All right, so can you tell us who you are and then you're anxious to hear your report? Yeah, yeah. Will Town, I'm the housing manager for Spectrum Youth and Family Services who operated the shelter the past two years. Yeah, and neighbors testimony, obviously we want to be a good neighbor, things that are outside of our control a bit, but we had our staff doing rounds every hour, so throughout the evening there was no activity in the parking lot outside of shelter operations that was concerning. So yeah, pretty straightforward, at least on our end I think. Did you, were there any neighbor complaints about? Not that I've received so any that I've heard or any that you have heard would be news to me. And you didn't happen to reach out to those neighbors just to check to see if they saw anything? I did not have their contact info, but I provided mine after the meeting in the fall, or late summer. And they didn't get in contact with you? And, thanks. Ryan, I know Scott's the project manager for this. Do you know if planning and zoning is aware of any complaints? No, and Scott about that, perhaps we haven't heard anything. Good, all right. In hindsight, I wish we had gotten just some information from PD, just about any activity, but I mean, I feel comfortable with what they're providing totally. Other questions? Anything you'd like to add? No, thank you guys. Appreciate it. Well, thank you for coming back. That was very helpful. Thank you. There being no other business, we are adjourned.