 This will be a test of our technology here to see if I can run this meeting from a remote location. Should be good. Scott will take care of us. Right, Scott? I hear him through the speaker. My best to pay attention whenever you're trying to wave us down. A direct conversation if you're trying to reach out. Who else is in the room with you guys? I can see three of you. I'm here, but Chris is not coming to this meeting. Okay, good. I'm ready, John, wherever you are. Okay. Any members of the audience there yet? Yes. I'm gonna probably need a lot of help organizing and doing the all the normal stuff that staff has been doing. So Jennifer, I'll signal you when you're on, but I guess Scott, if you're ready, we're ready to go. Good evening. This is John Alden, chair of the DRB calling the March 21st, 2024 meeting of the Development Review Board to order. First item on the agenda is any changes to the agenda? Jennifer, are there any changes? There are no changes. However, I do have a note on one of the projects that didn't make it into the staff report that I'll just be verbally adding in whenever we get to talk about it. Okay. Thank you. Second item is public to be heard. This is our chance to hear from any members of the public either in the room or on connected remotely to say something that's not about a topic on the agenda. Is there anybody wishing to speak to the board tonight? Anyone here in public? We're getting people shaking their heads. All right. Good. Next item is review of last meeting's minutes. I did have a couple of comments myself, so I'll just head off this lead off here, I guess. On page two, item B, designer view, Mr. Alden disclosed a conflict of interest with this project. We should add that I recused myself, left the room and came back in. Okay. And then said I would be presenting the project sort of the formal process there. Page three, just before item six, you might make a note that I rejoin the meeting as chair. And I think just at the bottom of page four, the last word I believe should be completed, not conducted. Page four, you said? Page four, last word at the bottom of the page. I'm looking, we're looking for the completion date when the rest of the property attributes will be completed. All right. That's it. Anyone else have questions or comments about the minutes? No. That's good. Can I get a motion to approve as corrected? Motion to approve. Seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Abstained? Motion carries. Thank you. The next item is our public meeting. First item is the conceptual site plan for removal of a building number 14 at five fuller place to construct a 32 unit apartment building with underground parking in the MCU district by Larry and Burke civil associates agents for 222 Franklin, Inc. owner. Anybody who wishes to speak on this item should, I'm going to have Jennifer swear you in and Jennifer before we actually get to that will you read the notice about a hybrid public meeting, please? You had to ask me on the one day that I forgot to bring the note. It'll take me just a minute to find the actual text for that. It's actually in the minutes from essentially what you read is in the minutes from last time. I can read that for you if you want. I happen to have it right here. Jennifer is about to tell you that this is a hybrid meeting and that staff are present at the city offices to ensure public participation while efforts will be made to accommodate remote public participants in person participation is the only legal mandated form of public participation. I think she goes on to say that if something happens to the remote connection that they will entertain written comments or continue at a future date. Is that about right, Jennifer? That and if there are technical difficulties, things may be paused and resumed at a later date or read out to I believe the email that we give out is either Chris's or Regina's. However, I have neither with me at the moment. So, yeah. But that is the essential idea of it. You'll notice under number five of the last meeting minutes is the swearing in oath. Will you please swear in anybody who wishes to speak on this project? Sure. I believe last time we did this all at once or was it per project? Do you remember, John? You can do the whole room if you like. Okay. So, if anyone is preparing to come up here to be at this table to swear in about a project, can you raise your right hand please? And that includes you, Mr. Groff. What's up, Marie? Raise your hand? Oh, yeah. To swear in for getting testimony about the project. All right. Let me see. So, if you'll just agree at the end of this, I hereby swear that the evidence I give in the cause under consideration shall be the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So, help me God, we're under the pains and penalties of her jury. Would you say I do? I do. All right. Good confirmation from both people who are set to present tonight. Awesome. What are friends from earlier in Burke like to present the project? Sure. You have the floor. And please introduce yourself as well. Yep. So, my name is Brian Currier. I'm Larry Burke, Civil Associates. We are last in front of you proposing an expansion to the Riverside and Village Development off Park Street and River Road. I think it was 2022 for 15 Franklin. It's the building that's currently under construction. It's located in the middle of the apartment complex. This proposal tonight is the first redevelopment project on the eastern side of Riverside and the Village. And it's, we're looking to tear down an existing six plaques at five fuller place. And in its place, build a 32-unit, four-story apartment building with underground parking. The building that's currently under construction is the first time with the more recent construction that two bedrooms have been included. And this one will be the same as the one that's under construction now with 24 one bedrooms and eight two bedrooms with, as I mentioned already, the underground parking. In order to have this building fit within a riparian buffer that's associated with the stream to the eastern side of this building, the parking lot in front of it needs to be shifted just a few feet, but needs to be shifted to the west. And you'll notice in the staff reports the town or the, sorry, the city recognizes that a 22-foot two-way aisle parking waiver would be required in order to facilitate two-way parking in that area. Otherwise it would have to be one way. The parking requirements for the project, we have traditionally been doing parking counts over the years. And I believe the most recent one we did show that 1.3, I believe it was, spaces per unit was what the riverside and the village development, their actual use was. Traditionally, we've been getting parking waivers as we come in, given that it's, you know, a lot of parking, a lot of units. So the shared parking component has worked really well out here. Since the regulations have changed under S100 and the Homes Act that, you know, municipalities can't require more than one space per unit in areas served by water and sewer, we still want to propose a project that we're okay managing. We don't want a parking issue on our hands. But under the current regulations, the development is significantly over parked, but we do feel that it's necessary in order to manage the property. So 776 spaces would typically be required. There's 695 and we're proposing 730 in order to park 456 units would be the once the buildings are fully occupied that are under construction now and this one would be the unit count for riverside. The building is being proposed generally in the same manner as the ones on site. Like I mentioned, it is four stories, but there's wing walls with decks, an underground parking component, which has been included in the last two buildings that have been done out here. The architect for the project, Michael Duggan, is in the audience. If you have any questions for the building elevations, but we have found a lot of success with the type of building being built out here. But I'm here to answer any questions or go through the staff report or however you'd like to proceed, John. It's only conceptual. So this is generally our opportunity to tell you what we might like to see improved or, you know, how we think it's going to fit in. Like overall, at least for me, this project is yet another building in the long line of replacement buildings in this development. They're all expected. It's, as far as I know, and I've had people, I've known people that live here. They, it's a very successful apartment complex for a number of reasons. And this is just another addition to something that we're all aware of and know about. So I think you've got some challenges with the riparian piece and the adjacent, you know, wetlands or buffer zone. And there's a lot of stuff that you're working around that will change the site plan a bit. I've seen the building countless times before. I think the staff report's pretty straightforward. Generally don't have any or see any red flags. The one thing that I was not as happy about is the fact that there's, with the entries on each end, you don't really have a street facing entry, which is, I think all is something that benefits the building and the neighborhood. I know one of the entries into the stairway or ramp area comes right off the sidewalk there, but, or comes off the front, but it's, I guess that would be my only comment. And I'm not sure you can accommodate an entry on that side based on the way it's pushed so close to the street, but maybe you could comment on that as you go through it. But that was really the only thing that jumped out at me is being something in off. I said, well, what would you like to see there? I'd love to see a street facing entry, but other than that, I think you're fine. Correct. Yeah. Something we can look into, as you said, rotating the building 90 degrees would be difficult. Likely repairing a buffer in the back. Have you seen the side of the, it was 11 Franklin was the most recent one finished that front Franklin street. There's a nice landscaping wall in front and all the decks are presented on that side. You know, it'd be a pretty similar. I see what you have going there. I think, I think that's the trick is to kind of beef up that street front presence. You know, you've got to lift the building up out of the ground as much as you can. So you can minimize the amount of depth that the parking goes down underneath it. So, I mean, frankly, just having parking under the building is a pretty good challenge for most sites, this one especially. So I see what you're doing there, but you may want to just pay attention to that street edge. You know, is there a sidewalk along that? I can't quite tell. Is it landscaped and where is there a sidewalk there? Landscaped. Landscape. So I'm walking around the block and I get to a walk area along the building where I can't walk anymore. You know, I think the pedestrian sense on that is, hey, you're pushing me out into the street because I felt like walking around anyway. And maybe people walk on the street there. I don't know. Or maybe they have to jump over to the other side or something. But it feels less pedestrian friendly than I hope. Just throwing that out there. I think it would be a matter of trying to push the building back towards the ravine. So push it back towards the ravine by enough to give yourself the sidewalk. But I don't know if you can. So just something to keep on mind if you'd have an opportunity to do that or at least dress it up so it looks nice. You know, that's probably the only thing you could do. Yep. Thank you, John. Other board members? Yes, this may not be a question for you, but because what will happen to the current tenants while the construction is going on? This building likely would not be started until the one currently under construction at 15 Franklin, which is 32 would be open rooms. Our preference would be to move them there or another vacancy. There's 450 units within the apartment. So, you know, there's vacancies coming and going. That's 400 feet for the whole complex. That's correct. I don't want to point anything else. To me, an improvement, continual progress and improvement of the... Yeah. Yeah. It's been, you know, we started with some of the old, if you remember John, the old necky buildings that were out there. We've been replacing some of the smaller six plexes, four plexes that were more recent construction. But, yeah, it's been... I didn't know that history. That's really, yeah. Yep. Yeah. All right. John, staff comments. I only have one comment, and it's a minor thing. I've already kind of talked to Noah about this back and forth just with the parking situation. Everything's good. Like I said, you have over parked a bit just because regulations requiring more parking than what we currently have. I think he said that you expected the parking requirement to be around 700 for the entire apartment. Yeah. I think it was 776, but that was off of the old 1.5 units and one for every 10. So today it'd be, yeah, the 456. Oh, yeah. 456 units would actually amount to 523 parking spaces. Just due to the one area, I think that there's some commercial and including guest spaces and all that stuff adding up. So I just wanted to let you know that that was the number. Okay. So, yeah, you're fine on that. Yeah, that was my only comment just to provide more context to that. Anything else, John? Yeah, it's a little hard to hear some of you all, but yeah, I think the only other item that was in here, there was one item about RVs versus CBs. I think you're going to beat CBs. Jennifer's noted in there that there is an effective date currently of July 1st for 2024 for the next version of CBs to take effect. There's some rumbling in the legislative body about maybe pushing that back a little bit, but nothing's really happened yet. So nothing else happens. July 1st, 2024. The 2020 version of, actually the next for 2024 version of CBs become the effective and that may impact this building if it's not, I think it's permitted by that date. So you may want to pay attention to that. Chief, if you can move things along, get in before that changes. There was one request for a waiver. I'm not really worried about the parking out. I think this development has consistently been shown to manage their parking spaces and are probably still over parked by quite a bit overall. So I don't see that as an issue. But there was one request for a 22 foot wide travel aisle. And is that, is that out where the, on the street side, where the, where we get to go to one bay parking or is that inside the building? It's outside. The building's 65 foot wide. It's where we have to shift the building towards the roadway in order to facilitate a buffer in the back. So, and you're saying that's one way. So that's probably not a substantial issue. Well, if it's, we're asking for 22 foot, two way. Oh, two way. Okay. And where was that one parking on one side for most of that? Most of it. Yeah. Right. And then two ADA spaces and hatching through the parking. Right. Yes. Just the surfing, the surface area, right? Just that one stretch. And then this one will be 24 feet at least. Within the building. Yeah. All right. Then you can see we're, we're adding a few 90 degree spaces to the north through just some infill parking spaces. Yeah. And the staff reported said that the city was fine with this. Has this gone through an engineering review at all? Or is it just the admin staff so far? Believe. Yeah. This one has only been reviewed by admin, not engineering yet. Although we did discuss erosion plans and things that are relevant towards this, this plan, just because it's so close to a waterway. As the safety crowd looked at it, the fire chief and the police chief? Yeah. Well, fire has at least fire. Yeah. All right. Well, I, again, I don't, I don't have a issue. I think that waiver is going to be fine. So, anybody else on the board? What's the comment at this time? Can I open the comment session up to the public? And Robert, you may have to help call people out. I don't know. Let's get to see who's on camera or who has a hand rate. So if you want to help, help me put eyes on the room and eyes on the, yeah, that'd be great. I don't see any hands. No hands. Anybody going once on the, in the audience online wish to comment? No one else has a comment. I'll close the, do I close a public hearing there? We are a public team. I'm fine closing it. I don't have any problem basically saying that I can make a motion that we would, I'm always uncomfortable that we approve conceptual plans, but I think we do. I think we approve, we're making a motion to approve the conceptual plan as submitted with the proposed conditions moving forward and a positive, a positive waiver of the 22 foot parking travel aisle as requested. Anyone want to second that? Seconded. Any further discussion from the board? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Michael. Thank you. Thank you. We missed your last time Robert. Likely story. Second items of public hearing final site plan to convert an existing duplex into a triplex with two additional parking spaces at four church street in the MF three district by John Drew owner. Are the applicants here tonight and ready to go? Yes. And Jennifer, if they didn't swear in before, would you please swear them in now? He did swear in before. He did. Okay. Perfect. I might, the way this camera set up, I can only see half the room. So, and I can't make my screen wider or something, whatever I'm supposed to do. It doesn't, it doesn't happen unless Scott makes it happen. So, forgive me if I don't always see who's there. All right. So I'm ready to go on this. John, sitting at the table. Am I right? Yes. John. Yeah. Yeah, good. We saw the conceptual plan at our last meeting and this is the final. We had made some comments on that. And I think that asked Jennifer to go chase down a couple of details like parking surface and so forth. I think most of that has happened. You made some minor changes. Do you want to just tell us a little bit about it? And I'm not sure we get to tell you what happens inside the building. This is mostly a review about what happens outside. But why don't you give us a quick update? Okay. I didn't make any changes on the outside, you know, but what's on there. But I did make some on the inside, you know, where I'm removing the hot air system and the ductwork. And so that way it gives you more room and height because ductwork, you know, sticks down. So that'll be all, all removed. So it's a lot nicer. And where the stairs go down from the first floor to the basement, I'm removing those stairs. And putting a closet there. So that's basically if you're taking out the ductwork, what are you putting back in for heating system? Renize on both floors. And are these, do they have an outdoor component that sits on the ground somewhere? Or is it just an inside line? They're just inside. Just inside. So it's not one of these many splits or heat pumps or something. No, no, no. Okay. It's probably direct. Yeah, it's, it's okay. Yeah, they really are really very economical. It's, you know, they operate off natural gas. And so, yeah, intake and exhausts on it. Yeah. So it's direct venting. They go right to the outside with that. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. There were some questions about the parking lots. And I didn't see a updated plan come through in the, in the packet. And Jennifer, it feels like, you know, one of the things that I'm interested in is kind of, you know, nailing down the site plan, you know, it seems like it wants to have a actual plan that gets submitted so we know where the parking spaces they're supposed to be. So that when a hundred friends come over, they don't, you know, park anywhere they want. Kind of thing that just, it feels like we should have that documented as part of the application or at least the approval that there's an actual site plan that goes with this. Right. I think we have one as part of the first part of the application. I'll try to pull that up. Yeah. And then, you know, I think it should be drawn well enough that the neighbors and anybody else who wants to see where the five parking spaces are and how big they are and how they're demarcated and surfaced is part of that plan. I'll share a screen. Here is what we have on the site plan. It doesn't have the individual spaces demarcated. It does show the new proposed parking over here and then the existing parking here. So if the existing parking was to remain, which it is, give some two spaces there, those are tandem spots. But, you know, I got to say, this is the, you know, we got to have something with some dimensions on it, you know, of the parking areas. I got no idea if that's, you know, 10 by 20 or five by 10. We've got to have something for the record. So that'll just be a condition I have. I'm not, I know they're there. I just don't think that's good enough to file on my records. Understandable. I'll add it to the conditions. And we did take comment last time about, I think, from a neighbor with concerns about. Yes. Well, the concern from the neighbor in the previous meeting was regarding noise and noise complaints, which I followed up on, and that actually does not have, does not present any impediment for zoning applications or development, things like that. That's a civil thing that's filed under the police doesn't have any bearing on zoning applications. Yeah. Else on the board have questions or comments about this final application? I think we have, we did have some questions about maybe what the surface material was for the parking, whether it be gravel or pavement. Let me stop sharing screen so that I can put back to that section of the LDC. If I did look this up. So under section 909 of the land development code, general standards a and then to under that, walkways may be surfacing concrete bitchumous pavement or gravel as determined by use. That one has to do with walkways. Had this for pedestrian and bikeway standards. It's going to take me a minute to find the one for parking standards. I do remember looking this up that gravel wasn't acceptable material and that is the material that the applicant has proposed for those. I was going to say, you have it in the proposal. Yeah, yeah. Too many papers. You did do it. Thank you. It's in there. Yeah. Art service or gravel? Yes. What you're proposing. Yeah, gravel. Yeah. Yeah. And I can explain like, you know, the, you know, on the picture, you know, where the, you know, but I think we just getting the dimension. Okay. I have to believe that the, that the city has standards for plan preparation and then what's supposed to be on it and what kind of drawing it's supposed to be. I'm just asking for this to meet those standards. I think, you know, measurements and a lot dimensions and setbacks and all that kind of stuff are supposed to be on there. You know, I don't know if this, I just, I don't know why we would accept something that doesn't meet the standards. So if I'm wrong, that's fine. If I'm right, I'm going to make that a condition of the approval. Yes. The standards do require a site plan to dimension the setbacks. So I'll, I'll add that to the conditions here. I'm not, this is, this was in the conceptual one, but he wants more. Yes. To specifically show, well, the, it should define the dimensions to, to, from the house to the setbacks or just the dimensions of all the surrounding setbacks and he wants specifically dimensions for the proposed parking. Yeah. And that's understandable. We'll make those changes in the future. What else on the board? In the audience? For the basement. What's that? For the basement, it was going to be, it has the steps inside and then the windows. Yeah. The removing the one stairs doesn't, the right, does that make sense? The internal staircase you're getting rid of wasn't one of the like ways to exit. No, no, that was just, I was blocking that off. Yeah. That wasn't going to be used either way. I thought so, but I just wanted to confirm. So my other comment on that, on that regard was that in the staff report, after we indicate the residential building energy standards, RBs applies to this, I would like to indicate an item that the Vermont fire and building safety code be consulted to make sure that that this building is or is not subject to those regulations. I think as, as a three plex, it might be. And that's something that the applicant should work out with the state fire division of fire safety. Just make sure you don't need a permit there because, you know, there are some regulations that impact. I think it's anything over a one and two family dwelling, but, but there are interpretations that I'm not always sure of. I'm mostly a commercial architect and not a residential one. So I know there's a fine line in there somewhere about when the fire and building safety code applies to these smaller residential projects. It's just worth confirming whether it does or it doesn't. It's nothing that the city actually has any authority over. That's just a, you know, you might get kicked up to the state level for that. We just thought we'd point it out case it applies. So you save yourself a lot of trouble getting a jump on that early. So no one in the audience. So it was here to speak on this project. No, it seems like the other people who were present were here for the first project. And one person who came with John earlier, if you have any comments. All right. Many further staff or board comments. I have some. Yeah. So in the conceptual, we had talked about any possible requirements for dumpsters or trash receptacles of specific kind. I went back and that does not apply for triplexes. That's for developments of I think four units or greater. Either way, it doesn't, it does not apply to this project. The note that I received, I got some mixed comments here. So let me share a screen with the other document that I have up. Long button. So a member of the tree advisory committee reached out to me to point out that under section 719 residences that are not a single family or a duplex. So triplex and up are required to have street trees or shade trees along the street frontage. And would like to make us aware of this and that it's a possible requirement that would apply to this development. They'd be required to have a tree somewhere along this frontage. However, when we brought this to the attention of the technical review committee, there were concerns with just kind of the size of the lot, the presence of other utilities along the frontage. So this is, I believe, sewer plan. So we've got sewage on here on the left. I don't know if my mouth, very slowly, but it is there. And so with that and then the existing rubs or hedges, I hear it says shrubs in the front. It only has it on the left side by Duna. The current one has it on both sides. Is that correct? Some shrubs on or well, actually, Google. No, there's no shrubs on the on the right side on the right side. Okay. So it's just on the because that's driveway right there. Oh, you're right. That's the driveway and parking right here. I would say that if you're trying to get this to apply somewhere, it applies to church street. So I would add a condition to the proposed conditions that require the applicant to satisfy the landscaping requirement and work with the tree committee and staff to find a reasonable solution to all the utilities that are apparently in the way. Yeah. I think the the suggestion with the the technical review committee was just kind of concerned. Didn't know if it was feasible. So yeah, that's understandable. No, it's good. I was just trying to make sure I have all my paperwork together here. Okay. Other conditions? I have three additional conditions to what's on there at the moment. Well, I guess we need to close the public portion of the meeting because we're I think we're out of public comments. So well in favor of closing the public meeting. Hi. Hi. Any opposed? Motion carries. So for deliberation, we've got the three proposed conditions. I have four, five and six. Four is final, the applicant shall submit a final plan meeting city requirements, including setbacks and other dimension improvements. Five is the applicant shall confirm applicability of Vermont fire and building safety code and compliance required. Maybe nothing but I have a feeling it applies. Number six is the applicant shall meet the landscaping requirement including street trees. The applicant shall work with staff and including the tree committee to find an acceptable method of compliance. Anybody have other comments? And you mentioned seeing the final dimensions of the parking. Yes. Part of. That was four. So it's my understanding there's no new lighting outside. There's no other exterior improvements other than the parking spaces. So we don't have a lot to work with there. Other comments on the board? And I got a motion to approve this application with the amended proposed conditions. I moved to approve the application with the amended proposed conditions. Second. Further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Awesome. All right. We're on to item six. Two ones a two and no three but I think just still makes this one six. Thank you. Another development review board items. Do we have any anything that you guys want to talk about? I actually had a question. The project on Pearl Street, which was my lot, I want to say, and now it's handy because they switched with the old Domino project. Yes. So how does that work for us? Because we approved or at least we saw that project under that one person and now it's a handy project. Does he have to come back to us or does he have to follow through on that? I see we didn't know. I didn't know this. I was like, should I do this? So the project that we saw on Park Street, correct me if I'm wrong, Jen, isn't that correct? Yes. This one, it's my lot, right? Well, I don't know the name. Was there anything? I just know that that one was 17 Park Street and I believe the other one that you're talking about is 235 or 226. 226, I believe. They traded. They swapped. So does that mean that handy or like the exchange? So that was handy, but then he came to us, remember with the project that was going to go next to the box car, 17 Park. Yeah. So that was owned by handy. Yes. But now it's this other guy. My lot, I think. And now the one out there that we did approve. So I do have some updates on that. Ownership changing would not mean that it would need to come back through review. If they were planning to move forward with the development exactly as approved, nothing would change. It wouldn't come back to us. They would just go through with the approved version. However, they did want to make some changes. And they wanted to present as, okay, this is a minor site plan amendment in which case it would come back to us for review. However, the changes that they suggested were quite significant, in which case we said, okay, if you wish to proceed with this design as you presented, it will need to go through conceptual review and then into final review again, like the whole process. So they're going to come back to us with what they're doing. It seems like it because they've already taken down the buildings. Yes. Okay. They came in for the demolition permit. Okay. So we have the design for that one. We're working on the staff report. We're trying to get it on the agenda for next month. Okay. So you'll see the updated design. A lot of things have stayed the same. A few significant things have changed. I believe the unit count has also changed very slightly. I'll have to check on that one. But yeah, it's like the building's location on the site got moved around. So in that case, it should be and will be coming back through conceptual review very soon. Okay. Probably next month. Okay. Yeah. They already tore down that building? The dominoes? No, not that one. Okay. I was like, I picked my kid up from preschool like two hours ago. But that yeah, so just that the ownership change and I just wanted to not understand like, how does that work with our committee? Like, do they have to follow through on the plan that we approved? Yes. How did you know this? I don't know. Somebody told me maybe it was Chris. I was in another meeting that I put the last meeting when they when they submitted the meeting. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. They told us. Yeah. No, maybe it was the last meeting. Two meetings on whenever, whenever the Park Street building came in, I think, I think they told us that that wasn't originally owned by handy. I don't know if we got because I felt like I heard that later on. Yeah, I don't know exactly what the arrangement was, but seems like they came to some kind of agreement of, you know, we'll switch out. I want this one, you can have this one. Yeah. And it worked out. Let's be nice. I was about to say. Yeah. I mean, I thought that was important for our group to know because I really liked the plan that was proposed from that group on Pearl Street. I keep looking over here. I thought it was very new and innovative and like all electric and it was just so I was although we two have so I'm I'll be sad if it's not as nice. It might be changing. Yeah. Although the number I might be wrong because it's is it 227 Pearl? I think it's two. Yeah, two. Sounds about right. We're going to keep like climbing and climbing and climbing and climbing though, and then like just drop off with a sidewalk. No, no, not that one. No, further down. I don't think it's that. The park one. It's right near Monarch. Monarch apartments there. Yeah. This is when you drive by it. It's got the big dirt. It's got the big empty dirt. Did we have anything else to discuss? Do we have other things that we need to discuss? Where's John? Where else is that? He's in his office somewhere else. Where else is that, John? Where else is that? I'm in my home office in Central New York, my other home office. Anyway, thanks for coming everyone tonight. I'll be hopefully in the room with you next time and I will take a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Seconded. All in favor? All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you.