 We're starting all came together. I will say this is the Development Review Board for Burlington November 16 We are expanding seeing some technical difficulties With the website link and as people have signed in realize The original link was not operative and a new link has been sent out to people And it's posted now on the website and So just for board members Jeff and Chase I guess those of us here We do have an issue that People who want to participate may not be able to participate and so we're going to proceed with our meeting Understanding that people have a legitimate if people wanted to participate and they could not they have a legitimate gripe For us to have to reopen hearings Does that make sense everybody? That makes sense. Okay so We'll get started what we take up items for those I don't know who's listening to this now, but we take up items that they are on in the agenda And when we take up each item we ask the applicant either on Zoom or in person To participate and to sign in here or to give staff an address if they're on Zoom Well, hopefully this all will work Communications there are some communications that were posted for one 11 cultures to Avenue that were posted a little while ago I think those are the only new communications that we've had Okay Minutes there are no minutes posted right now. Okay, um, I see them I'm gonna get used to that week behind Okay. Yeah Okay, the first item on the agenda is is a consent agenda item 111 cochester Avenue there has been a request to Discuss this by matter member of the public Who is she is present? Okay? so with that we're going to treat 111 cochester Avenue not as a Consent but as a regular hearing is the applicant here Mary. Ah Okay Well, I know excitement you actually get to be And Mary can you Sharon is here Can she participate? Okay, so and if you would introduce yourself short gale Henderson King from Whitenberg representing Medical Center, okay, so we've got two people who are going to participate right now And I'm going to ask the applicant gale and the member of the public Sharon busher to swear that tell the truth The whole truth under pain and penalty of perjury Okay, and Since this was recommended for consent, which I'm sort of assuming you were okay with Then maybe what I like to do is hear what Sharon busher has to say the issue that she's raised. So Sharon. Do you want to go ahead and raise your concern? Thank you, I Haven't had a chance to see any updated communication. I Apologize I was appealing my property tax value and I just got done so I called Mary earlier today and The proposal to make this temporary structure permanent is really not something that I'm opposed to I think it's been there for a long time and has it blends in and it's been landscape. My question to Mary was I Don't know if indeed in the process of going from temporary to permanent There was a requirement to have somebody an engineer or someone look at the structure To determine if indeed it could become permanent temporary buildings potentially have life fans and I spoke about the I worked at the hospital full disclosure. I retired in 2019 and February of that year and Was what to module B frequently? and it was It was definitely you knew you were in a prefab Structure and so my question was for the safety of the employees. I Imagine that in this transition someone would evaluate the structure as far as Determining it now to become permanent and I wasn't once again for the chair and for the rest of the board I wasn't sure if that was germane, but it certainly was an issue that I felt compelled to raise Appreciate that Mary The last Ryan Standard conditions one through 15 isn't one of them that TPW So we might we might clarify that but Sharon, I think that's one of the standard conditions is that the issue that you're raising Which is really more building code issue is not really within our purview But I think I understand that to make sure that that's reviewed is what you're really asking about and I think we can Highlight that and the conditions Yes, and thank you. That was my point to make sure that it when the process Proceeded that someone would evaluate it to make sure that the structure was a stable and able to Be considered permanent. I wasn't sure if we had criteria that that the city had Established for going from one determination to another Thank you Do you have anything you want to ask or add or comment on at this point at this point We submitted this afternoon, which I believe is up on the web right now the latest Department of Public Safety Inspection that was done in February of 2021. Yes, so at this at this point Whatever conditions come with the permit. We're fine with Then we will when we deliberate we will Clarify that Building inspection request as part of the conditions This is any other comments at this point we will close public hearing Does the deliberation happen tonight? It'll happen tonight Hey The next item is 240 242 Pearl Street. Ah This is just like a regular meeting here and Ryan or Mary can you see if there's any members of the public who want to comment on 240 or 242 Pearl Street? Okay, you understand. There's a little bit of a caveat on what we're doing tonight. I do So and if you would introduce yourself your yes, hey Brad. Yes I don't know why I can't come in as a panelist, but I'm here and I'm listening and I'll only unmute myself when it's time to vote because I can't see or be seen We may not I've given the trouble I've had getting in tonight Oh now I can be Okay, I think you're legitimate now AJ there you are I just I think we should be careful about voting on anything tonight Well, you missed the beginning I Didn't miss the beginning. Yes. The link was wrong the link wasn't working so I posted a new link So it's entirely possible that members of the public and applicants may not have been able to get in a new link has been posted But not everybody has gotten to it So we're sort of proceeding with the understanding that If people raise an objection because they did not get a chance to participate that would definitely be grounds to reopen hearings And and take new testimony Point that might be a good one. We might don't want to vote tonight on these matters Yeah We can deliberate but not vote we might want to take that off at our December meeting Well, we're not gonna vote We may want to continue the hearings to allow people if they can't get in to easily show up the next meeting I think that's probably not an unreasonable kind of thing to do Instead of voting but I Agree, I think we vote tonight and then we find out later that we have to Reopen the meeting. We might as well hold off on the vote. Okay well To the first applicant that may revise what I said, so we'll see how it goes So for I guess it's just you who's participate Do you want to raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth on paying a penalty of perjury? I do. Okay, so you are requesting a sign That is I believe the sign the size that it originally was Yes, I would I'm The owner of Pearl Street Pipe and beverage a tenant of Lakeside Pharmacy Holdings July 1st 2020 our building was destroyed by fire. I Had the Continuing bad luck to be the only business that had its sign actually painted on to the storefront So we discovered in April we had to get a permit where all the other All five other signs are back up on the building. They were just cleaned or refaced and put back up our sign Was actually painted on to the front of the storefront. So we had to get a new sign Paint it on new material and put on to the store front Now it's been a long process confusing process and I understand the reason why I'm here now is Because the city is saying the sign is a different size than what was there But I submitted a picture I don't know if you can pull it up over the weekend of the old sign And it measures the same as the new sign that we put up the old sign was there in 1983 when I moved in has been there ever since We took the measurements right off of that Gave it to the sign people to fabricate the new sign So what I'm saying is I don't see if that's the reason it came for the real, you know I'm only going by what was there and I I That's the that's the new sign over the weekend. I posted a picture of the old sign With a tape measure in front of it showing that it's the same size At least I thought I did it. I don't know if you could pull up the picture. I posted I know we had pictures from the last time that you I did but no I did this over the weekend. I added, you know Believe I got it in properly Well, when it wasn't working at juncture my car I was on the phone on the way here Yeah, so if you can't pull it up The only thing I could do is pass my phone around. I'd like to ask a marriage I know I know you're doing six things The issue with the sign is a non-conforming sign that is destroyed It was a thing, you know, the joining break they just talk about if a sign is destroyed Isn't there can it be replaced the same size within a certain amount of time? Or it can't be replaced at the same year one year and So that was the issue when they came in the first time Was that we were as board had deemed that he had applied in a timely manner So if he applied in a timely manner, wouldn't he be allowed to keep the size the same as it was? Well, the first issue was the timeliness and the DRB's decision was to send it remand it back to staff for Continuance of review Replacement of a non-conforming sign requires DRB review right and the two choices are to be brought into substantial substantially greater conformity or To be conforming So staff's obligation was to go back and look to see what was permitted there and the last two Parallel signs for the front of the building were issued in 1980 and I've given in the staff report those dimensions That's three years before we open So that's all that's been permitted So that that's so I don't know what sign or even if those two signs were among those destroyed in the fire That's why no finding is possible The sign that he has proposed Does not equal the same dimensions of the two signs permitted in 1980 What would we have to do if What would he have to do if he wanted us to approve the sign that's currently up It would have You would have to be convinced it's in substantially greater conformity So that's one of the two choices that we have my understanding was this Hold on From what he has indicated to me from testimony here that he has replaced the sign to the same dimensions That was lost in the fire if that's true Then we have never done a permit for a sign of those dimensions Okay, but that I guess my question is different than that If we were to approve what is up now is that essentially saying that Could we do that under one of the two choices that we have Well, two signs have been permitted for the front if one of those If his replacement sign can be found to be Substantially more conforming than one of those signs then you can permit it And and from reading it's right. It's Just get the back down the sign that you're wanting to put up is what's the dimension of that? It's 10 feet by 20 inches Now can I ask a question here because there are right there? There are six signs on that building from the front of that building you keep only talking about two I've been there since 1983 when they overhauled that building at that time And that's when we put up the sign. I'm talking about That those are the dimensions that have been there since 1983 And like I said all the other signs including the liquor store sign that was my other sign That was permitted just to in in like 2018 They just took them down washed them and we put them back up I'm only trying to put back exactly what was there And we run into a problem that a lot of what goes on the city's not permitted And so then when something like this happens we have to do oh if it wasn't permitted What does that mean we have to do and can we approve it and this seemed like a rather minor kind of thing But it's it's part of a ongoing kind of issue Yes, Jeff Mary if The sign had been there more than 15 years And therefore Qualified for some sort of grant following or could be pursued as a violation under the statute of limitations and blah blah blah and it then was destroyed It seems to me that we would be looking at whether the person could replace the sign that otherwise Was there and allowable? But for the fire does that question make sense I don't understand the claim that the side has been up since 1983 doesn't really fit with Permitting the story we have you don't have a permit for it. It would be grandfathers There would have to be a determination that the sign has been there that length of time and so I guess my question for the applicant that is the sign you're seeing on the screen right now the Bell Street beverage sign Is that the sign that it's been on the building? Since you have been involved 1983 correct It's the size of the sign Right the size and so what is the size of that side? Sign you're looking at right now is 10 feet those panels measured 10 feet the Panel measures 24 inches with a 2-inch molding that went around the outer edge Brings it down to 20 inches So that's why we determined our new sign to be 10 feet 20 inches And the writing on the side the new side is a little different I think now No, actually though the lettering is Exactly the same size we abbreviated street my scene here that that the two that were permitted in 1980 were One six by 12 feet and two feet by 16 feet I've put the dimensions in the staff report And and one of those at least two feet by 16 feet is bigger than what the applicant has proposed In area in area And I think both with and length and so I think one of the options was if That the the new sign is more substantially conforming Right it's smaller it's so it would seem to Bypass these concerns Since what has been already permitted I'm not sure if I understand that correctly, but If you find that his replacement sign is more conforming than what was approved that is an option Can I ask a question you say you have two signs permitted for that building which The when I moved in in 83 we we had two signs So the there's now six signs on that building Four of them have nothing to do with me So those signs wouldn't be put they came along after me they wouldn't be permitted. I Have not included all the signage that it wasn't relative to your business There's pharmacy signage and there's signage on the west side of the building But I did not include those because what you were proposing to replace was a parallel sign on the south side of the building On the front of the building. Yeah Okay So there are there are other sign permits you're correct Permits This is more confusing to me. Do we know that the permits you're referencing are For this sign or they for different signs? I have referenced only permits that were approved for this location on the building Okay Okay, and a reminder that the sign regulations have more recently changed. That's why we're in this position But if one was approved for two feet by 16 feet and we had one of ten inches by 20 feet that would seem to be smaller And that is up to the DRB discretionary review Okay, I think we have While we can go around But I think we have a few facts in here that will help us Okay else you want to add at this point no like I said I'm just trying to and put my business back together here. Yeah, and we may as you raise concerns about Deliberating we may not vote tonight Apologies for that, but we don't vote. I we vote before the next meeting Genesis what we do is try to vote either Before this after the next meeting at two weeks The all set Thank you, we're gonna close the public hearing on this item. Thank you. Thank you Okay Oh, okay for tonight for For tonight for tonight. Yes. Well We can reopen it The next item is 53 front street and And I don't know if you heard the snafu with the Zoom link was incorrect And so we we've reestablished it But we don't really know if everybody who wants to be part of this hearing is able to be part of this hearing so We're reluctant to actually deliberate tonight. Okay, and We also have to leave the door open if somebody a week from now says hey I wasn't able to participate. We have to give them the opportunity So is anybody else we know if anybody else is here there is no one else in the attendee list Okay, so if you would raise your right hand You swear to tell the truth and whole truth on a pain and penalty of perjury. I do okay, so It's modern straightforward on a little lot with requests for a variance on coverage It's DRB discretionary review for additional coverage to establish an ADU. Yes, and can we Ryan's going to bring up some plans. Do you want to walk us through this? Sure What you're looking at there is the proposed new coverage and you can see the dashed lines are an existing garage That is going to be removed The my glasses don't quite reach that far but the existing garage 576 square feet it looks like and that the new ADU is 548 And that will also include so basically the the the vertical rectangle in the new construction is the ADU and then that little Side piece is a combination of kind of storage and shed and a sauna The Main house is Naturally down lower on the sheet. This is on front street Thank you So that dark area to the to the top of the page is the new ADU Storage and sauna and on the bottom right beside the vehicle is a second parking spot and Then kind of in an L around that parking spot is the proposed stormwater Additional stormwater Catch do you want me to go through the I think the zoning numbers or just to understand the Coverage yeah Well, it's interesting. I think the way I broke it down and the way Mary broke it down and here's a little bit different So I'll probably go through it the way Mary broke it down since that's probably more relevant than mine So the the existing house under the base coverage We've got the existing house 790 the existing parking at 104 and the proposed parking at 128 the new ADU at 548 The sauna storage at 153 and the condenser pad at four and a half feet and then under the bonus coverage We've got the porch the deck and the sidewalk out front so The the total base coverage Was 17 27.5 with the ADU Mary subtracted the area the ADU at 11 79.5 Plus the bonus coverage equals 14 88 or 38 point three six coverage That's without the ADU the entire lot coverage base plus bonus plus the ADU is the 20 36 and a half Which brings us to 52 point 48 percent? And this is our residential mediums. We have 40 plus 10 so 50 so we're 2.4 8% over the total allowable lot coverage And the issue is that we have discretion to give over it for an ADU Up to that very discreet amount and the condition is that the stormwater program approves mitigation measures To address stormwater flow and we receive that yesterday. That's your Retention area. Yeah. Yeah And and the allowable extra coverage is 650 square feet and we are Yeah, 548, but we're not that much over. We're not using out of the 650. I think we're looking at three 309 Additional 388 You don't need the full Additional number of the ADU you don't need any part of that. Exactly. Yeah Yeah Size structure building. Thank you. I want to see if any board members have any questions for the applicant I I think I may have answered it but Mary page page for you have minimum side Is 10% of luck over well you say it's five feet But the plan say 3.8 feet, but now I see the plans also say that it's based on 10% so based on on 10% of the lot width and this is a very tiny lot and It's And the existing setback for the house Yeah, yeah, it is compliant with setbacks. Yeah. Yeah, I see now. Okay 3d have a square feet is the lock size, right? 3880 I believe Okay, any questions from the board for the applicant Thank you. Yes, it's it's I think it'll be nice for them I Did also just as a I was sitting at my computer at five o'clock times. I don't know if you got my ah panic That's what you got back. Oh Well, anyways, I had a nice a nice little Response to all the questions that were here that I managed to print one copy out and bike down here I can leave this with you, but it just addresses some of the questions that came up about lighting Like this part of your condition. Yes, so I did identify lighting I can leave this with you and I can submit a digital copy upload it But essentially what it shows is there was a question about lighting These indicate the existing lights You know the doorways would each have new lights. I don't have the fixtures selected, but they would naturally be downlights And they would be located at each door The trash and recycling was located inside the existing garage and it will be relocated to inside the storage space So that will be outside inside and hidden And then the mailbox currently there's a mailbox on the front porch of the house and they'll put the adu mailbox in the same location beside it So that was I think those were the primary and the storm water I attached the the erosion prevention and sediment control approval So you have that and I think the storm water was also approved By james charard So and I can leave these like I said with you and if you can submit them digitally for I will do yep Yeah Are you keeping the tree that's in that part? We are trying to keep the tree. Yep. We're looking at um Doing helical piles with a slab on top It's a way to preserve that That is it. We will close the public hearing subject to what happens in two weeks when we Looked at delivery, but anybody else has asked for more information Great Great. Thank you. Thank you Should I sign in here that I missed that too? Please. Please. Thank you Thank you enough for coming in. Thank you So we have a Meeting Sketch plan for 253 south union street There's one member of the public. I'm not sure if that's the applicant or not Yeah Oh, perfect Ah, so we have uh somebody here So Because and can you introduce yourself? We just see gba conference This is sketch plan, which is somewhat informal It's it's ready for us to hear something about what you're trying to do And for us to be able to give you some feedback on it. So if you want to Walk through the the plans that would be great In short, and this is this is very preliminary of course if we're keeping a sketch plan but uh, we are looking at Right now this building is a law office. We're used is still in the law office And we are looking to convert it back into residential Uh, it's quite a large you see there is before and she's trying to do zoning tips here So to the let's say to the that's the delineation point between medium density or density residential So we when you see it says 940 square feet addition there that would Be similar in size and nature to the existing store building And through the review between those two buildings, but this is the front of the building We see no changes to this we just uh, it's just the deck up of the that storage area Remove that using Having us where the four windows are that is brick But it's only four inches of brick that can match the six human tissues panel, but be more of the ill That is just hold if you go to the next one. Do you want that one? We missing it I think he's looking five of seven Yeah, it's skips it. It skips right past it Huh, what if you we used to air purrs down where it says four of seven Do do you want to screen share Steve? Yeah, so I'm going to promote you to a panelist so you can screen share There you go. Are you there Steve? He's muted. There you go. You're muted Here, I'm unmuted. Okay You can go ahead and screen share now All right, does that work? We see it Great So this portion back here is what I was talking about that is the it was a clamored into a below the existing deck and this deck of the bits a bit It's good sprawling. There's a lot going on in the back of the back of the building here And so we're here hoping to remove this portion under here. Um, and again, this was built in the 80s The original building was built in 1848 and then at some point this L was at It's not part of the it's not part of the original and this is the same dust the L is ignored And so we're hoping to clean them and this is the parking spots on this easement for this driveway access And so we are intending to keep those six parking parking area here Make a little green back here for the easement I don't really have any information Other than this box. It's more just to see We just want to question. Um What are are the access to the units going to be Internal through central hallway or will each one have an access point externally? Oh This unit And then all the other units who would have access from that deck in the back And so there wouldn't be a central hallway back here and an entrance along this edge And so three of the units back here would be uh access via this deck and then the access Through this entryway and then one here. So I guess the answer is there's a mix What about the addition the the 940 square foot addition Yeah, so originally through this So I guess I want to comment a few things on circulation a little bit. Um, Sorry, I understand that the the Piece that's in the rm district is there because that's where the rm district is But it's sort of a disappointing mass Stuck in the middle of a narrow piece of land Where you've got all this land in front. So the whole Project is Disproportional in terms of its use of green space And building proportion and it would be nice if that could be better managed I understand that it's easy to just do it like that. Maybe that's all that you're trying to do right now Um, and I just so then the other one of the other things is the Flow From the building in the back to the sidewalk in front That it seems like it would be good to have a clear path So that people can walk out that door and get to the sidewalk right now. It sounds like You're walking around the building or I'm not really sure how one's supposed to do it It's not going to clear those parking spaces sound like you're going to be entering the You're going to have to go around the building to get into the building from those Four or five parking spaces you have access from the adjacent property Yeah, well, they're really great now this driveway the building is right up against the driveway So really we're hoping to make this an access point through here and then up to the sidewalk So I'll definitely show that here That's a that's a great comment And apart the parking from the neighboring site. Is that accessing your units? And so you'll have to have some sort of pathway for that too Right and that's where this starts to seem like we could have a nice walkway down here to tie all this together Yeah, I think it's the RM district piece that's thrown in there that sort of Makes everything you're doing on the front piece somewhat questionable because that piece seems not to work and You know, so anyways, if you're really going to be doing that in the future, you may want to rethink some of the Landscaping and courtyard sense of the first phase Any of the comments from the board here on on this I will say it's a building walked by a lot and I love it. It's a it's a gorgeous building. Um, It's nice to see it maintained You know and used comments here This is something was worth without eda accessibility In the staff comments Have you have you looked into that at all? About accessibility. Yeah Yeah, so this new the new It's nearly impossible to make the existing building accessible So we are going to have accessible units in the benediction So now to determine where some of your handicap parking spaces go You got it. Yeah And it'll also be locating probably some HVAC units on the ground maybe somewhere. So that'll be Yeah, so we're talking about air source heat pumps and so We want to keep these as minimal as possible and so rather than group them all together And we showed this all to be here on our permit application Like to group those separately so they don't become one big You know in here for equipment, let's look at the ground You think they won't be They wouldn't And Oh, they wouldn't they would be and the buildings are the additions are flat roof buildings Is that what i'm saying? Yes, and this this gallery here is already a flat roof building And uh, and you can on the third floor here Currently there's a sliding door you can walk out under this room But this building will match that it'll be the same height as the existing Existing and as you well know it doesn't really need to Be the same material it could be You have a little more freedom I'm gonna look at Some cement board panels. Maybe it's a more interesting Sort of arrangement of materials, but it definitely don't want it to try to overshadow the beauty of the front piece Well, it's sort of going to be hidden from the front piece Yeah Yeah, I mean you'll you'll see it when you're walking south on the sidewalk. Yeah But I mean you have to look you have to look yeah Most people aren't going to get past the beautiful person Well, I've always wondered about those extra posts on the porch It looks like it's really odd. Yeah I think they must I don't something must have been failing to decide that they haven't had to add more posts. I don't know Yeah, these these guys. Yeah, those two Yeah I'd like to look at Getting rid of them Getting it back to what it was Definitely a nice facade. Any any other questions on the board here? No Well, it looks like a nice project And it needs a lot of development. This is really just We're gonna make sure we learn heading down the wrong path, that's all Yeah, good I think that's it. We'll look forward to seeing it another time Great. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it Nice We have one other item on our agenda, which is the meeting schedule How come there aren't any Wednesday meetings? Is that just the quirk of the year? If there were any alterations Celeste has Changed the meetings and I don't think we found any did we? Um, g re let me open it. Um I think there was One Celeste has created the schedule There was just the shift in the week. Do you like Wednesday meeting time meeting for dr B was just the town meeting always switch from the first to the eighth. Yeah, that was the only adjustment for dr B Next year just on tuesdays Because it's a five week month exciting By the way, this is a five week month So Our next hearing is not until december 7th. It will not be in two weeks. It'll be in three weeks. Thank you for the On top of the calendar to mary good Okay, so we have to approve this Can I have a motion to uh approve the review board meeting schedule? Jeff second second Brooks any discussion All in favor All right. Hi unanimous all right Okay, and um We're gonna close the public hearing So we come with our public hearing and we at least discuss the deliberative process On december 7th Well, that's what I wanted. Yeah, when are we going to deliver? Is there any implication of needing to Reworn if there were issues with the meeting? No notice was appropriate We don't need to re-worn it if we just Decide not to deliberate and Wait Right, we're essentially running the risk that somebody's going to come forward and say they wanted to be heard Right weren't able to Which is probably Not a very big risk, but a risk nonetheless. Don't we I think we need to make some sort of Motion on the mod be on colchester app because that expires at the end of november. No Wasn't it in november? They have come before you in adequate time So they've been they've been brought it has been brought for proper review So we don't need to take action on that by the end of november and our 45 day starts from tonight You have 45 days The last before I done Um, I didn't recognize voices. Could you tell me who motioned in second the calendar a j Motioned and Brooks second. Thank you. Jeff Jeff. Oh, okay. Jeff mention. There we go. Yeah I mean the issues tonight weren't very controversial. No, I mean I mean of all the meetings I would feel comfortable running the risk. This would probably be the one But I hate to think that there may be somebody out there that Has an issue What's the consensus here from the board in terms of Celebrating or waiting for december zone I It doesn't feel like there's any time constraints on any of these like the sign Is already up We're just deciding if that's okay Uh, I don't know nothing felt Super time constrained. That would be the only thing that would make me want to Try to make some decisions. So yeah, I I'm in favor of waiting And then the next Question would be if we're waiting our next meeting is december 7th December 7th We could yeah, I just wait until that. I mean there's only two items and I just wait So the question is do we deliberate these items at the end of that meeting is that AJ you weren't here. You weren't here at the beginning the consent agenda item came off and as a public was a public meeting I saw that I saw that I was there for that So we have three items, yeah I say we just wait to deliver it at the end. Yes, okay Then we will do that. We're going to celebrate the end of the december 7th We don't need to make a motion to do that, right? You can set your deliberative agenda Sorry, I didn't realize that we decided I think that you know, we're in agreement We're probably not going to get somebody coming forward if we deliberate now. It's all fresh in our minds Of course, you know, I think we just don't vote and then it would make the voting easier next time maybe or Maybe you're not gonna like expression your mind isn't really we've had we've had Meetings in the past where we've waited to deliver it. It hasn't been a problem. Most everybody knows What we're going to do? Yeah, and if anyone were to submit anything else Okay, we have to reopen here to accept it and then Okay, it's good. Sorry Sorry about that All right, okay. Are you adjourned? We are we're adjourned We're adjourned Recording stopped Thank you everyone Okay, you guys thank you for making an exciting merry uh meeting there guys