 This is the Development Review Board for Burlington for February 1st. And we're doing this hybrid and zoom. Recording in progress. And so we asked to take up items that they are on agenda. And when we take them up, we will have Scott admit people who are on zoom to the meeting and we asked that people give him their mailing address. And that would go for the people in the room as well. We call them we swear people in at that time. So that we have communications I don't believe we have anything new. True. Everything is online Fred minutes we have minutes from the last meeting of the posted now. And then the next item is. Consent agenda. First item is to that 14 King Street. Place an existing 720 square foot building is the applicant here. You see Chris Burke. That's hello. I guess I'm I'm going to. The first question is does anybody object to treatment. I have a couple of questions I'd like to be able to ask. So I think to do that. I don't see any other hands up. So. This question might be more for staff. Then for Chris. Well, maybe I can just ask this at the beginning here. We had an application on this project on this property. In April. Right. And. At that time. It identified a 50 foot. Public right away along the waterfront. Yeah. I didn't see that in this application. Ryan can speak to more detail. But it's my understanding this is an existing encroachment. And it's not being made. More of an encroachment. That's great. That's the application as a, an existing. Storage. I don't know. Accessory structure there at least they're just replacing what's there. Not getting any closer to this. To the shoreline setback. So. So it doesn't create a. It wasn't listed in the findings in the staff report. So it's still relevant even if it's. You know. That there was a. No, that there's a 50 foot requirement for 50 foot buffer there. And they're encroaching and they're just encroaching less. And that's still. Relevant. For the. Review. I thought it was. It's not. I thought it was too. I could be mistaken. I, yeah, you're right, Brad. There is a 50 foot setback. I would imagine I would hope that I, I may have neglected to put that fact in there. Just simply went with they are not increasing in non-conforming. You mentioned that. Yeah. That might have been the oversight. Other than that, since this was recommended for consent. I don't know if Chris Burke has anything he wants to say about this opportunity. I don't know. Nothing other than, I mean, it's, it is not encroaching any further than building is per. Right now. Right. I can see how the drawing is. It closes less. Sure. Anybody on the board have any questions? We'll cover the hearing. And. We will. Both at the end of the week. Right. Thank you. The next item is. 164 North. Willard Street. It's an appeal for the fence. Permit denial and appeal for adverse. Termination. On pre-existing. That is a gravel. There's a request for deferral. Right. Yes. So there's two appeals here. One is really old and the other is not sold. The really old one is for the fence appeal. And that actually requires board action to affirmatively say, yeah, we'll extend this for another three months. The related determination appeal isn't old enough yet to require. Board action to extend it. The punchline is that staff supports deferral of both. There are a settlement discussions going on with the attorney's office, city attorney's office. And the city attorney's office. And the city attorney's office. Hopefully those come to fruition. If not, we'll have ourselves along. Meeting in a month or two. Somebody want to make a motion for. The. And the, the city. Attorney supports it. Says, yeah, we're making progress here. Scott. Yes. Okay. Motion. Sure. I'll move that. The next available meeting is April four. So let's put that as an order limit. Is that when we had, is that within the three? Yeah. So February, March. April four. Yep. Okay. So I move that we extend and defer to April four. 2022. Second. Second. Second. Any discussion. All in favor. Hi. Any opposed. Okay. So it passes. Great. The next item is 570 south prospect street. Two lots of divisions in which AJ is recused as a board member. Is the applicant here for that. I hear in person, Brad. They're in person. Okay. Okay. Okay. And is there anybody else in the public that's here to speak on that? Here in zoom and want to speak. Raise your hand. Right. I see one. With your. Can you bring them into the meeting? Yep. I think it's Sharon butcher. Okay. So we have four people here. I think Sharon AJ and the two people who are here in person. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Can you identify yourselves? I'm Michael coach from civil engineering associates on. On behalf of the land owner. And I'm a Jack Milbank from civil engineering associate. So I got four feet of you. I would raise your right hand and square to tell the truth. And hold to the pain and penalty of perjury. I do. This seems relatively straightforward, but folks want to make a presentation or. I've been comments on this. The applicant. As you said, it is a rather straightforward to live residential subdivision. And also the applicant seeks approval for. The proposed tree removal to facilitate the development of lot two. That's really it in a nutshell, it's quite straightforward. So I know there's two folks here to comment on it. Maybe I'll take AJ you're here representing the country club. Yeah. So thanks just very briefly. I'm not going to get much of your time. Obviously country club doesn't have a real issue with this. The only thing. So this property is brilliant in country club surrounds this. I'm on the board of brilliant in country club. And I'm hearing on their capacity. There's two issues just we wanted to know. First is that. There's a license agreement that BCC holds. Recorded at volume 649 page 81. To allow use of basically the cart path on the. The city club. East corner of the proposed lot. And I think CEA knows about the license and our only. Comment would be that the license area is reflected on this final site plan. Just just for clarity purposes. I've even mentioned that to Jack before. And then the second part of it is we just want to clarify that it's not only that it has to be over prospect street or from prospect street over the paved driveway. And not via the quote unquote spear street access, which is really only to access one. House. It can't access an additional house based on the original deeds from the fairhold partnership. Kind of not really something the board has to get into, but I just wanted to make these, those two notes. So this is the, this is the. I know this is a. Taryn and BCC have talked about long relationship, but we just wanted to point those out to the board here. I will relationship. I just want to add the comment that this. Site plan that we have. Really doesn't show any connection to prospect street. I mean, I can see the detail plan, It's not obvious from anything that we have submitted to it. Yeah, so there's a paved driveway from Prospect Street that runs downhill, goes between hole one and hole two and 10 and 11, goes uphill past the driving range that was constructed and then veers off to the, so the paved driveway goes to the left and then there's sort of a gravel drive that goes to the right which accesses. I believe that it exists. I'm just saying it doesn't exist on this plan and if we're supposed to be approving this plan, it would be good to see it on the plan. It's fine with me. Should she show it on the plan? Yeah, I'll ask you, I forgot, are you aware of both those things, the cart path and the access to the site? That'd be for Jack or? I missed that question, I apologize. Are you aware of those two issues, the access to the site, to this lot and also the cart path? I am and I'm fully aware of that. The flat will depict that when we get the plan prepared for recording. This was really kind of in a conceptual stage. We didn't show a lot of the details. We don't show a lot of the easements or the servitudes for the lot. Those will be shown on the flat, the water comes and et cetera. And we are familiar with the restriction for the use of the, I'll call it the gravel road that goes to Spear Street. We recognize that that was really for the purpose of serving one house and an accessory for each lot. And I, is that Sharon? Yes. Did you want to speak on this project as well? I did, thank you so much. My name is Sharon Busher and I live on East Avenue in Burlington and the subdivision is really not my issue. My issue has to do with the clearing of the second lot. And I looked at article five, part five, section 5.5.4 which has to do with tree removal. And it's clear that if trees are dead, diseased or infested that you certainly can approve removal of them and the buckthorn certainly according to the submitted paper that they are in decline and I think maybe dead. So that tree meets that criteria. But then the rest of the trees are, they're small trees, they're a sum of size. And one of the conditions for removing more than 10 trees on a lot is that a zoning permit or plan needs to be in place. And there is no plan in place. So for me, I think it's premature to have all those trees cut down. I don't believe it meets the criteria. And in past years, I don't think anybody really looked at trees. They were an inconvenience and a nuisance and it's easier to remove them and plant little small trees because who cares? But the trees are our lungs now with this climate crisis. And I think that everyone really has to be more thoughtful about removal of trees. So I certainly understand that a site plan would come in and could have to remove trees that are currently there. But in the past site plans, the DRB has been thoughtful. Members of the DRB have looked for ways to preserve trees of size for any number of reasons, but now even more so because of the value they provide to not only the site community, but the planet. And so I'm really asking that this condition be re-looked at and not just carte blanche allow them to remove everything because it's easier to develop. I'm asking that the condition be once the permit is submitted that you then approve clearing of trees. And I'm asking the applicant who I'm sure is going to put a beautiful home there to be aware of this issue that I'm bringing forward and try to preserve any tree of size that would benefit the homeowner, but certainly all of us. So that's the rationale for me speaking tonight. And thank you for hearing my comments. Thank you. So I guess I'll go to the applicant who asked them about this conversation about tree clearing, especially if you're cutting trees and leaving stumps at this time or is it anything to cut trees and take the stumps? First of all, we want to make sure that everyone knows that we have engaged a, well, an arborist, a master arborist to be working on the property or the Terrence have engaged the build of us and tree works to be managing there all their property. And he's a very thoughtful guy, he knows. And I walked the site with him, we've mapped some of the significant larger trees, walnuts, and we're only talking about the building envelope. We want to make sure that we're not talking about the whole lot or the whole property. We're really focusing on just the building envelope of the proposed lot too. And the trees that are there are various stages of declining health, but this isn't just a clear cut. It's a real thought that was put into this. Actually kind of built the envelope around two components. One was the trees and number two was the slopes. And so the envelope, the way it is positioned there on the property is because it felt that that was made the most sense with the least impact. And I can't, unfortunately, Bill can't be here tonight. He was called on an emergency to Long Island for a client down there after the storm. And he's not available to speak. I'm kind of speaking on his behalf, but he did prepare a report. And I think it's thoughtful and it makes sense. Some of the trees that are there, if they are healthy, are very poor live crown ratios, which means they're tall and have little skinny crowns and tops. And they're not ideal. If we left them better, we'd be replanting. And as part of this creation of lot too, when the owners come to actually, they're coming back with their site plan and a design for design review and a landscape plan for replanting. So I think those are great comments from the lady on East Avenue. And I apologize if I forgot your name, but I want you to know that this isn't these people value trees and put some effort into it, hiring an arborist preparation of the plan. Follow up, please. Board, yes. A quick one. Can you tell me what the timeframe is there? It sounds like we'll be seeing another application for the building itself at some point soon. Well, I think the biggest concern was that that we were able to actually create a lot, but also the permission to clear an envelope. And I think that they have some engaged in architect, a local architect and they've been working on some concepts, but this may not, I can't say with any certainty, maybe later this summer. And is there a need to clear the trees that far in advance? Can you just tell me what that specific might be? Well, the reason is it's frozen and it's winter and they really are in not great health. The easy time to chip or get rid of brush while it's frozen does very little damage to the ground. And even if they'd still like to clean the woods anyway, quite honestly. I mean, they're in bad, it's the understories in bad shape. I want to point out that the report says it will be necessary to clear the entire lot of trees. Yes, and that's it. That is a conversation I had with Bill. He read the staff report. That is a major typo. He's got an email that last Friday that would say that he apologized. I can forward that to you. That's totally meant to be building envelope. So it's not, the entire lot is just the building envelope that you're asking to clear the trees. Yes, just the building envelope. And he's happy to correct that. And I'm happy to share the correspondence I had with him Friday. So if we approve the application but modified it to specifically say clearing of the trees just in the building envelope, you'd have no quarrel with that? Not at all, that's the intent. And what you're describing as the building envelope is like the entire construction zone. It looks pretty large. I'm assuming that's not the potential entire dimensions of. That won't be clear about it, no. Yeah, it does look like it's about a half to a third. Maybe a third of the lot seems to be indicated it's a proposed building envelope. So is that what you're asking for permission to clear or is it some subset of that building envelope? I think there's some templates that we were able to clear that and leave significant trees. Clean that all under story. There's locus, the dead disease and the unhealthy trees. I guess it would be helpful for me to actually see the area of proposed clearing with some description of the work that's going to be done there. Maybe as a follow up. Yeah, I would agree with that. Cause I think what we've often seen before is also in a number of trees of the different types and in the caliber, the caliber that's relevant for this ordinance. Cause it seems somewhat general in the description. I think one other thing that I'm looking at the proposed condition site plan that was included in the set. And there's a proposed driveway which comes off the other driveway. And I believe that that's not actually the proposed driveway. Because the proposed driveway is coming off of the road within the country club. I guess I'm wondering how that affects the building envelope. The driveway, the location of the driveway. The location of the driveway serves the, I mean, that's how it's gonna, that's how a lot would be served. That would be served by the driveway that was described as coming off of the country club driveway. Yeah, yeah, it does. Yeah, so the thing to heart, Brad, so if the thing to heart acre marked as existing residents to the west of proposed lot two, that connects, if you look at, you see where lot two is, there's tennis courts, existing tennis courts. And there's a house above it. And you see the Y split just near the, where it says heart acre real estate holdings LLC. If you continue on that curve to the west, that'll take you to the Pave Prospect Street driveway. At that Y to the right is the graveled access to Spear Street that they can't access via D. So the proposed driveway location is the right one that's coming off of the proper road. That's correct. It's just at that Y split junction, the cars there have to travel over to Prospect Street to your west. I'll already say this, only because we get this all the time. We get plans and it's like the middle of something that we don't really know everything else going around on it. So we're implying or inferring where it is and we're working with incomplete information. So we come to erroneous conclusions. Thanks for the clarification. Okay. Any other questions from the board? I guess one other point of clarification on this driveway is am I reading this correctly that it crosses several? It's the property line of the existing, the two laws that we're looking at, but also the neighboring lot. Yeah, but they're all from the same chain of lots and they all have cross easements to them. Anybody else has any other comments to wanna add applicant or board? We'll close public hearing and we will imagine celebrate at the end of the meeting tonight. Thank you. And we have one other item on the agenda which is 273 Girls Street, which is also 1115 and 2100 of the terrace is the applicant here. Brad, I'm back now. Okay, welcome back. And Ben Cry, are you the applicant on this project? Yes, I am. Okay, is anybody else here to speak on this application? This is Bruce Baker. I'm here on the same laptop with Ben. Okay, hi Bruce. Sharon, are you here to speak on this one too? You have her. Can you hear me? I can hear you. I was just asking if you were. Okay, no, no, sorry. I'm listening, but no, I'm not gonna speak, thank you. So is anybody from the public speak on this project? 273 Girls or 1115, 2100 of the terrace? Yes, this is Jess Gasek from Scott and Partners. And you're with the applicant, I take it. Yes. Okay. So anybody else on this Scott? I don't see any hands up. Okay, so we have three members from the applicant team. If you folks would raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. We do. I do. Yes, we do. Okay. So this is changes to an existing approved plan. So maybe you want to go through the changes that you're just asking for. Right. So this is Bruce. Yeah, so what we're doing is trying to leave things as close to what it was before. So we can obtain some more rentable square footage. We've got a pretty heavily steep, a challenging site, heavily sloped. I think the difference in elevation is about 20 feet between the road and the westerly property line. And I think if Jess could maybe outline the specific changes that'll explain what they are. And then I think it comes down to an interpretation of the bylaw based on the staff recommendations. Sure. So this is Jess Gasek. The major change from the last application is the addition of units within the basement level. So I'm focusing on sheet A five. Yep. So on the left hand, the left hand plan is the basement plan. You can see the yellow, green, and blue apartment units, which are new from the last application and the impact being additional windows on the exterior. And they are slightly below grade. So there are retaining walls to create window wells. So if you go to sheet A seven, we can look at those elevations largely unchanged. Or for the most part, we tried to maintain the overall impression that we submitted before the, let's see, West elevation, the upper left, you can see on the bottom right hand side of that elevation, there are three windows into a basement unit there that have been revised. On the South elevation, just to the right of that, there are two proposed window wells along that facade. The East elevation on the bottom left has two proposed window wells there. And the grade is a little misleading there. We're seeing the grade at the street, it slopes down towards the building. But there are still retaining walls required there for the windows. And then on the North elevation on the bottom right, there are three windows into the unit there. So those are the large changes from the last application. There are some other slight differences, which I can go through them if you'd like. But like I said, the overall impression remains the same. The parking state, the same under the building, is that what it is? Correct. Brad, part of this borders on Pearl Street and in the interim, there was been a change to the parking ordinance, putting that in a no parking, whatever the zone is, multimodal, no parking zone. So we're relying on that, but we don't have to. We have parking that is only a few hundred yards away that we could use, but we chose not to. That's unencumbered parking, not needed for another property that its permit expressly says we don't need any parking. So are there fewer spaces on the lot now than in the previous middle? No, it's the same number. It's the same number. So it increased the number of units, but you don't add parking because it's not required. Right, but all these things are sort of interpretations. I'm not sure, but I think so. The staff report on that aspect. At least I understand more about why the site plan doesn't go all the way through. It was confusing looking at the plan because the building wasn't over the parking in the site plan. And maybe you want to get into this window well issue. I think it's window well in front porch of both issues. Right, and the window well, the front porch issue, if you decided not to have the additional two levels of porches, we'd be fine with that. It doesn't impact what we'd be doing. We don't lose a unit. We don't lose any rentable square footage. The other issue is important because we put the windows in so we could have nice space in the interior. And it's one unit really that would be impacted. And staff points out window well as being a feature in article 13, and you have to go to article 13 to read that window well definition. And from that definition, it's clearly not a feature. It's quoting, the clear space created by a soil retaining structure located immediately below a window whose sill height is lower than the adjacent ground level. Then it goes on and describes what its purpose is for drainage, et cetera. But setbacks regulate structures, not open space. So what we're relying on is 5.2.4, V2 or three, we think they both apply. Because if window wells are just clear space, two says that the following are exceptions to setbacks. Eves, sills, roof overhangs, cornices, steps to first floor entries, walkways, ramps for the disabled, fences, and walls. And, and here's the kicker, similar building and site fit features. So I think it grants the DRB authority to find things that are similar. So I don't know what a structure that retains soil around a window is about a wall or similar to a wall. That's one. The second, number three, B3 also just says that retaining walls are exceptions. And we could look at the definition of retaining wall if you like too. But I think that's essentially what it is. I think there are clearly exceptions to setbacks within the, within the wording. And it's really premised on that window well definition, which says that window wells just clear space. I admit that I'm a little confused as to what setback is being referred to for the window wells, like I'm looking at 1500 on the north and south side of that. That's a great question. So what, what, there was a building there that we will be taking, there is a building there that we will be taking down. So the setback in this case is, is the existing building footprint to its wet width. Our real problem here is, is properties on, you have to average for front setbacks, the two on either side. And there's one setback about a hundred feet and one, maybe like 30 or 40. So they really, they throw, so you'll notice that the building is shaped sort of, sort of like an L or a T. That's to respect that existing footprint as a setback. We were allowed to build into that existing area and utilize the preexisting condition. And so, so that's, that's why the setback is calculated in sort of a couple of different steps based on the preexisting condition. So I understand that your grandfather for the footprint of the existing building, once you're behind that, you've got that setback line to deal with. Right, right. So those, it's behind that existing building that the setback of those window wells are encroaching up. Right, so essentially, I don't know exactly the square footage, but if that front elevation on, on Hungerford Terrace is 24 feet wide that, or 34, that was the width of the prior building. These window wells do expand that, but our argument is that it's within exception to setback. It isn't within the setback that either as a retaining wall or as a structure that creates a window well. I'm still a little confused by exactly which features. Is it possible to, Scott, to pull back up a five? Just want to make sure I understand. No, it's there, that version. So I think we're talking about unit three, the one that's in yellow. And we're talking about all of the window wells on that unit. Yes. All of those window wells, staff's perspective is that that encroaches into the front yard setback. Where would the setback be absent than the prior building? I guess I'm getting confused by those black, but look to be the joining structures. Sure, if you go to A2, please. We note that the, if you scroll in just between 11 and 15, there's a dimension string that I can't read here, but 54 feet new building setback, minimum 46, can't quite read that, but, so the required setback based on the calculation from the two adjacent would be 46-ish. So just in front of where I'm showing that little bump out there, where our building gets wider. Based on the abutting buildings, the average setback came in at 47 feet, and you're allowed plus or minus, which gave you a variable of 42 to 52 feet. All right, is that the line that's going all the way back? It says 54 feet zero new building setback. Right, that's the distance from our building face to the property line, showing that we're beyond what the required setback would be. And the required setback again, where is the required setback shown? What would be otherwise, is that shown on here? I don't show a line, I just note it in that same dimension string as minimum at the end, minimum, I think 46.2 is what I wrote, but Mary mentioned. How can the required front yard setback be so far back, Mary? Like I'm looking at the two other existing buildings right there. Because there's a building immediately south of 21 Hungerford Terrace that's set more than 100 feet off the road. Yes, it says 113.8 feet is the existing setback on the very right side of this sheet. So the building, I'm not even sure if the building shows up on that. If you zoom out a little bit, you'll see the edge of the building. A little bit more. Oh, there's it. It's like an odd result. Yeah, yes. All right, one question from Mary. I saw when you had a PUD that the internal setbacks changed, that you weren't held to those anymore. Well, this is a periphery setback, Brad. This is a front yard setback. Well, even though you have a PUD that has a certain width of these three properties now, the setback isn't according to the property line of this property anymore. It's by the old property. Well, again, it's periphery setback. So this would be, this front yard setback still applies because it's along the periphery of the collective laws. Although the encroachment is on the north and the south of the building, it's still the window wells and the front porch, the multi-level porch are all encroachments. A window well is identified singularly, not just in definitions, but also as part of a bonus allowance in the RL and RM zoning districts. So it has been isolated for its benefits and utilization. Yes, Mary, can you say that again? I understand, I see this section of the ordinance that the applicant is pointing to and questioning whether this should meet the exceptions to the front yard setback. Certainly. It sounds like they're willing to get rid of the porch. So we're really just talking about the window wells. Well, I'm certain that the applicants are looking for an interpretation of a window well to be one of those allowable encroachments into required setbacks. Walls have been interpreted to be landscaped walls, retaining walls are specifically identified, they have setbacks of their own. Staff has made the distinction that window wells are independently defined in Article 13 under definitions and they are identified as an allowable bonus under the bonus coverage, which isn't applicable here, but only for the purposes of saying window wells are singularly identified as a component that may be utilized in certain parts of the ordinance. Underlining the fact that window wells are not an identified exception to a yard setback. And that window well definition is, there's some internal confusion here, I guess. It says the clear space created by a soil retaining structure located immediately below the window. So are we saying that- Well, and the retaining wall are two separate elements, you're saying, Jeff? That's what I'm trying to understand. Is the window well a separate thing from the retaining structure? And I guess, do we agree the retaining structure itself is not within the set, not is an exception to the setback per that language in Article 5, but the window well space is not, I'm just trying to understand. Well, yeah, Jeff, I also have another follow-on question of that, which is that if you look at the definition of setback, it's between the furthest projection of a building and the adjacent property line. And so are window wells and the associated retaining wall part of the building? That's a little unclear to me as well. And one thing I'll also add is structures are also defined and retaining wall, and you see the weird structure that shows up in window well. So, and a structure is basically something built by someone who were assembled. So I don't know how you can define a window well as clear space, then look at the definition of setback, which is defined as the open, unobstructed area required to be provided between the furthermore most projection of a building and the adjacent property line and determine that clear space breaches the setback because a window well is clear space under this definition. And that would also explain by the way, why at sub two, they don't list it because it's not a feature, it's not a main structure. Person needs structure. And it doesn't have to be listed there because you're granted authority to say this is a similar building and site feature. So I think a determination would have to be made that this is not a similar building and site feature to a wall or a fence or other types of structures. Are any of the retaining walls around the window well creating the window well greater than five feet in height? No. Yes, can you confirm that? Can you repeat the question? I'm sorry. Are any of the retaining walls creating the window well greater than five feet in height? I also suspect just that that's five feet above grade and not five foot of height. Right, because to the sill of the window, to the depth of the soil they're retaining, there may be one or two that are deeper than five feet. I'm not sure, but they do not project above grade more than five feet. Unfortunately, the definition of retaining wall doesn't say anything about grade. The answer would be if that were a determining factor, they don't have to be. They can be adjusted to be less than five feet if we do count below grade height. I had hoped I'd been able to adequately explain the challenge here. It's the issue of non-conformity, although that the abutting building south of 21 Hungerford is an outlier, it does contribute to that average for front yard setbacks and the footprint of the new 15 Hungerford is capturing, recapturing that existing non-conformity and that is what the ordinance allows. How much stuff you're putting into a setback, you can duplicate that same non-conformity. The issue here that the staff report brings up is, now there's more stuff in that required setback, which is increasing the level of non-conformity. If they were building a retaining wall in that area, there wouldn't be any issue. That wouldn't count in that. The retaining wall could encroach, Brad, although I think, let me just confirm it's not just side and rear, I think it's any setback. Into a required setback, but they have to be setback a minimum of two feet from any property boundary. All right. I just wanted to confirm that it pertain to front as well as side rear and it does. Comes down to whether this retaining wall which is created in the window well is changed from a retaining wall to a window well feature that's become a different element that's considered different. The feature protecting it. We have more to discuss on this in deliberative. We have more to discuss on this right now that the board has questions that they want and we can be applicant on this. This seems to be the crux of the issue here. Got three, it's a three new units. Correct, yep. And two of them, this is not an issue on one of them, it is an issue on. Correct. That's the only thing I would add is if the board decides that the window wells do encroach that they are, or that the structure around the window wells do encroach that we would delete them and delete the unit and make it storage in that area. I think it would be unfortunate, but you would do that. Other questions from the board for the applicant on this? Anything that the applicant wants to add at this point? Great, good, thank you. Nothing from us. Okay, so we will probably deliberate shortly on this. I will close with public hearing. Thank you. I don't believe they have any other business. Yeah, but we do, Brad. We do. We do, we have a nomination and hopefully election of an ordinance committee member, a second one in the form of Leo, Rivid Leo, go. Leo's hiding now. Leo, so you bring near a big moment. Did we lose our ordinance committee members? No, I'm here. I take it all back, Brad. God, how embarrassing. I was just looking at the agenda ahead of this one. I was thinking we were doing this this week. Sorry, Leo, just seeing if you were paying attention. Okay, so we have no other business. Yes, sorry. Okay, so we are adjourned. So we have three things to... Recording stopped.