you bring your dinner this time took a book at this plan and it seemed like it contains good information it does not act to replace the other plans because i could certainly turn the layer of the trees to be retained there were there were a lot of symbols for trees to be retained and trees to be removed that's what i see that's what i didn't include i just there are so much information on these plans and are so complicated to read i'm trying to create once fairly simple plan that would look and say ok that's what they're saving on the house lots those are the specific trees that they're saving on the house on the on each lot so the my goal was to make it clear if i if you need the plan that shows them to be removed i can turn that layer on and show those trees as well are the trees to be retained with the little numbers in them yes  k and is there those numbers mean anything yes those numbers are all keyed into warren spinner's tree survey the intent is that you can go out in the field and see the tag on the tree understand a word you are on the face of the earth but more importantly understand that that particular tree has a specific purpose either to be removed or to be retained so it's a it's a way to basically tie the plan into the site confirmation that conformance has been met we did that for  is up to the board whether we need to plan it so the trees to be removed we don't mean that they're being removed zero three looks like a blow up of a portion of l two yeah yeah oh in fact there's several more tha preservation plan that referred to a specific mine that was on the old version of l two i don't believe the new version of l two has that line anymore so that condition the next the next thing in the staff notes doesn't really work with the do i can do it talking about most reasonable to the us here which part would you like any of the clouds that that the only started golf course road just kind of work down a long drive and you blow that up a little bit right into can go up there and see it so this is this is just a change in the trees and that cloud was the cloud on the is coming up in the middle is a utility issue yes moved an evergreen tree it was up on the waterline and same thing with the something subject to mag magnesium something that's in south burlington and so again we change into a hybrid still some kind of a certain yeah and that's what is that what all the rest of the bubbles are around there yes that's what those bubbles are there's one bubble that eliminated the stone wall because that tree number seventeen changers  tolerant is that something that you feel pretty confident about or through what i'm hearing ray ask us is that is at a very minimum weatherby as a condition of approval or something that we provide to the to the board's moving forward is that for pricing purposes and for bonding purposes we want to have the infrastructure in the trees located with the public right of way as part of the street tree planting separate from the other problems of the project other things that we may want to think about moving forward is that we identified those particular trees on the plant list that are to be stricken from the project right now they're highlighted is being changed but it's not clear to the lay person what that really ne so that would be little things that we can do to basically recognise how we're moving from the previously approved plan at the permanent plant level to ultimately where we are today well you know what i honestly don't remember exactly why i did it that way have you heard the theory about trees and planting trees it's when you as you as you plant bigger trees the cost goes up exponentially because of the root ball that you even the roots so that's one thing the second thing that happens is the failure rate goes up with larger  trees is that they are generally the first part i understood and the criticism of the kind of chintzy this was a question of my question ok yeah good question and the second point i'm not familiar with explain that to me if you when you're moving a large tree it's just takes much bigger equipment there is a much greater chance of bumping things and trees when they're young they're just eas they somehow respond better like us like a little wind of a tree is the easiest to do i think it has something to do with the fact that it's rooted  that it's you know it's set in its ways if you will move pick it up and move it it just takes a lot more care well you know maybe i noticed the bones that had one substantial experience with plenty of a lot of trees behind me some years ago and three to three that have it use all the real knowledge yup that's seems to be the max you're going for here and all i'm saying is two to two and a half inch is like a tweak just behind and i would disagree with that i mean a two to two and a half is again let me put it another way at what rate do they  diameter of probably about a half inch a year but again sometimes when you plant a large tree it sits there for a while and it doesn't do much it just takes a couple of years for to just get acclimated before sorts growing where as a small tree takes off a little faster it's it's a judgment call you know a lot a lot of it just curiosity i mean my general feeling about this project is that we should stick our fingers into four because given the location and what's planned for this these are people who can take care of themselves should need a loving family but i'm wondering whether these laws are going to be pre sold are people going to see what they're buying you know i'm asking i don't know i don't know what the status of the lot will be at the time of sale obviously getting the trees planted sooner than later has a benefit as far as the maturity of the trees if the law does and doesn't sell for three or four or ten years  the other side of the coin is that depending on its location it may be adverse in regards to challenges during construction phase of somebody trying to cite a home right next to a tree that was just barely planted there it would make more sense for it to be offset or or delayed until the house is put into place to achieve ultimately the big picture goal which is density high density forested area so be planted sooner than later earlier in the process and that they're after perhaps each lot as far as the trees proximate location to the building  particular project little thing i do have one question for ray to put him on the spot in regards to the l d r's there is a minimum diameter requirement for street trees in two and a half ago so anything the notes say here that you would like to allow our tree removal for the health of the surround the golf turf is that accurate yeah that is correct we shared some conceptual words or a sentence to be inserted into this particular condition that would help balance the goals of tree retention in this particular area not only in regards to what the condition calls for as far as the health of the forested area but at the same time recognizing that the golf course itself needs to have air movement and access to sun in order for that the turf to be remain healthy so we are always constantly struggling on the edges of for areas and golf courses in regards to how to balance those two things we heard some testimony earlier from neighbors in regards to the fact that there were some trees cut down that was done specifically to improve the air movement and  access into that particular green area of the thirty they call it so that's what we want to make sure that you are aware of in regards to ultimately a condition that would carry with this particular portion of the project think is the issue of fairness to those of us who have to replace our trees every time we take them down so i would be of the opinion that you take down a tree you put up a tree you may put it up in a different spot but you take down the tree you put up a tree that's what the rest of the town has to do i think that's what the should have to interior is i understand it it's interior stuff you're not talking about the good things that affect the public view or the public to any great extent you talk about interior we now are you so the documents that were prepared for this focused on tree retention inside the lot the landscape landscaping plans obviously show a commitment to supplement those areas outside of the lots but the language within the tree preservation plan only focused on the lot so what the applicant and staff have been reviewing is how to make this more inclusive to not only protecting the trees inside lots but also the area immediately outside of the ten lots on the rights of way so that's what we are all working towards and we're close and as long as we can basically recognize that there's a golf course in the immediate vicinity and that there are certain maintenance obligations there or leave it at that that i think there's going to be an appropriate without kind of what i'm getting maybe i'm not understanding i mean isn't that the idea basis you know so for this particular five years i was saying this is the trees and everything else are a market matter to a greater extent than i would normally feel that for this specialized category of people which is how i see it not everybody wants to live on a golf course those who do presumably have some concern about the quality of the upkeep of the golf course or what it's like and they too are balancing that against the desirability of one or more a dozen trees and therefore they should be treated differently than everybody else in the city is what you're saying i'm saying they're in a better position to make a judgment but they're we represent those people and we represent a series of rules that are supposed to be consistent and you're saying but in this case let's change it i disagree with  i think i am guessing that there's at least one person in this in this room is not happy about the fact that the trees have been coming down around their house and and i you know i think i think the fact that there's a golf course doesn't mean that they that the people there don't appreciate having having the trees up so and having that having their view modeled by trees and so i think you're i think you're just guessing frankly and i don't think the fact that they are more wealthy because they couldn't live on a golf course has anything to do with anything i think i think to put put to put it this in a class situation seems totally inappropriate some things we agree on and so i think i think it has to do with being you with me understanding what the project is and yeah i got that so john to go back to your point you are saying specifically in terms of trees to be removed for turf health not for the other i'm saying you remove a tree in a permanent location in this town and it's it's if it's for or against one that it's but here's it's a good if they need to remove it to protect the turf they should do that should they plan other trees in response to that sure yeah so that's all i'm asking i'm not saying i'm not saying kids should be treated and i'm saying you not be real world is if a tree dies or blows down the middle of the woods for two entries don't pop up on day two as i understand it but the rest of the city has to deal with this so i think you know as long as we can figure out an appropriate program for replacement that's ok but i mean at this point time we're not looking to spend thousands of dollars to basically put trees back that actually die small trees that can be placed in appropriate locations would be a good  you go out you go and you go and build a development you show a tree on a plant that that tree is on the planet it's one of the trees it can be there from before it can be planted the next day it doesn't really matter if the tree dies the next day or you few chop it putting i think under two and a half inches i don't i don't know if there's a minimum requirement but i don't think anybody plants trees that are really you know i don't think there's a minimum it's just basically caliber per caliber replacement so if you're going to replace with one with as much as anything is that i disagree with this rule for the city but it's a rule the city imposes on everybody else and i don't see why the golf course is not subject to the same rules i what i want to say is that when we propose a tree on a plan it's typically in response to a requirement that we meet certain landscaping requirements and that if we take down that tree then it needs to be replaced with equal value raise always been very consistent with the on any of the projects that we've worked on this is a little bit different in the fact that we basically have not a program starting live in mt meadow and trying to create screening we're basically maintaining and supplementing existing force today so it's a little it's not quite the same and right now the regulations don't talk about you know a specific standard as far as how many trees need to be provided on a subdivision they used twenty years ago we had to put two trees on each lot we've exceeded that on this particular one but just getting to the point that there's intent and there's also tied specifically to all the good in your land element regulations on landscaping minimal and right now this subdivision rules don't talk to that help me out there but it's not quite the same as putting up a commercial building and having to put x thousands of dollars of landscaping out there and that's cut and dry in your regulations it's not quite the same that when the golf course was a review for approval there was no requirement that it pla a certain number of trees different from if you plot a building or you could construct a building to do have to plant a certain number of trees so the trees on the golf course were proposed by the golf designer many many of those trees i think were existing trees or existing clumps of worst areas that were left so it's different than a commercial building that had the minimal landscaping requirement that had to plant x dollars and then one or two of those are some of those trees are removed or die the regulations are very specific that those trees must be replaced i'm not sure on a golf course because they weren't required to be there to begin with and there usually were trees that were existing there before the golf course was there so it is a little different but if the board wanted to impose this condition and meet the may be able to what we're talking about right now isn't a golf course we're talking about a housing development that happens to be on the golf course so i would argue that that this is different this is this is just this is typical development but it's one other wrinkle and i hope good you've got the you've got the trees that are on the laws and now we're talking about trees that are outside the laws that are on the golf course property it's a for instance over of this year you know this wind storm came through and there were no four or five fairly big pine trees that went down what do you do in that case because i think in some i'm guessing if you talk to warren spooner he would say that's a natural event that's going to actually allow other things to you know to spring spring up in a natural area like that so  i guess i've started this whole discussion under sation with the idea that i think the golf course is got a real vested interest in keeping those trees and  they make that they make those golf balls those those porches trees make playing that golf course wonderful and so they've got they've got really a very vested interest in maintaining that keeping that but if i mean if i may there are two to interests here there's the golf course and there's the houses yes and the people in the houses maybe may get used to a view out their rear that has trees in it that and those trees may arbitrarily as far as they're concerned disappear at times because you need more airflow for the for the for the turf is that fair i don't know but i'm telling i'm saying two things are happening here if you're talking about the golf course i will agree with you all day long that there probably are all sorts of good reasons for for thinning out trees and so forth we're not talking about a golf course we're talking about a housing development that's that's where ok so let's find some wording the one thing you need to keep in mind is that the court dictated would set of regulations that this board is to review this development under and it's regulations back in one thousand nine hundred nine two thousand and one so that's the standard that applies to landscaping if you're in the one about ability of the infiltrate water everything else is about utilit conditions review things that have changed since to preliminary approval and then there are some very specific provisions in the old regulations that the court says that that we're sending back to the board for review under ability to clear trees for for for the health of the turks right and that's the only reason we have an opportunity to do anything honestly i think if if we're abiding by those terms  i think the current standard should apply period but that's a that's a that's the secret supreme court issue those trees within the law it's right now what we're trying to do come to agreement on is how to expand that beyond just the laws right now if you're going to say oh by the way dave if eight inch tree happens to fall down because it gets blown down you have to put another eight inch tree up and that's not going anywhere so what we need to do is recognize that if you want to expand what is already been previously approved as being something that just protects lots but something beyond the laws then i think we need to also recognize that there's some balance in regards to the benefits that are afforded the city or perhaps any of the neighbors by an expanded tree protection plan versus what the exposures are to the applicant in regards to the plan that's approved by the court right now which is just on the lot so if you want to basically expand a little bit further i think you just need to all recognize that it needs to be balanced in regards to the benefits of the city beyond what it has today which is nothing preservation plan is on the retained project property be on the lot because in reading through the existing true preservation handbook it's not very specific as to what has to be done far suggests a consistent condition was intended to make it easier to enforce this condition of court requires us to put on this so that chart so it sounds like if unless i miss heard it that you are required to explain your plan b on the yes i apologize frank yes that is correct ok and therefore it is far as i'm concerned you're required to comply with current standards we talked about this one it says clarification needed on the trees within the tree preservation area that have been cut down looks like staff considers response above addresses protection so they will be part of liberation for good item seven determine whether the applicant is interested in narrowing the roadway to twenty feet to reduce costs and if so provide proposal if the applicant decides to pursue this let me know and i will working through the system so we did provide plans that end identified for that section of long starting a golf course road and proceeding between the two single family laws that the roadway would be reduced from twenty four feet to twenty feet we also brought in brought the sidewalk in closer to the road basically provide a standard eight foot wide green space to basically provide a little bit more buffering to the existing house on the north side of this particular twenty foot with this basically was two feet wider on either side  centerline and that basically extends again from golf course road right up to the horizontal curve here where we use that horizontal curve to blend the road in from twenty feet to twenty back to the previously approved twenty four feet  just to basically doesn't so it doesn't look like an hourglass or the opposite side of the hourglass visually go ahead so one of these  just mr provost is here otherwise everybody else listed here lives out of town now they don't live in south burlington anymore but they are the they're still the owners know that they've sold their property report it says our city legal council was a since the judgment order represents a contract between the interested parties and not have an associated exploration if the interested parties do not agree to the change of the road should not be there then the road should well it's obvious what it means and the bridge the city council saying you need unanimity but truthfully would you go back to city council again and say how about if they've moved hears the low as to what we would do we rather a decision all interested parties have thirty days to appeal it i think i don't know anybody including me who does it who the color commentary that went with that was that means that those interested parties could sue the city at any point once we've taken over the road to why this twenty four feet because it's not what was the approved i agree with you that there's very little risk and i specifically disagree with that i'm not so sure i guess those parties could sue the other parties if it's a contract but as any other thing i would like to add which was subject to the two thousand and ten litigation is that this particular order from the court does have a limitation you require that the applicant come in with a final product cation within twelve months so there to what the city attorney out of respect to said what the public notice processes our attorney says the court was acting as the d r v at the plenary plot level they came out with this particular decision conditions and said go to final play within twelve months just like you would have said perhaps slightly different but as far as the l t our expectations so his feelings are that as long as he was with everything was publicly noticed that people had the opportunity to sound in if they didn't like it this is the process so you you were supposed to go to the final point within twelve months of the decision yes to extend its line in future to basically improve the looping of the redundancy of the system and certainly reduce issues with high demands on flow and what that means as far as pressure losses and subsequent experiences of people within this area other things that can affect the pressure is not only the water booster pump station that services for my national country club but more importantly the water supply that's feeding these pumps because each pump adds a certain amount of energy and if this energy starts out low then the amount of energy taken yet it is older so much so that if til one apartment or if he's got permission he's got permission see to be d then has to provide i agree than answer my question but i don't think it really has the ability to well i think well but that's the concern of these folks the reality not the official imprimatur is would be of greater concern do you have any evidence you folks who are concerned to the contrary in other words i think we're probably burdened by the presumption of the allocation that it's quote good enough  and probably the burden would for when you do come up with your own engineer who says you know i've looked at this to get us to move on we don't have any basis except the allocation that exists but you are sweet certainly be free to bring your own witnesses as i recall at the last meeting dave had read something from the city engineer that said you need to have that least two inches and your response was we got eight so so our think that it talks to doesn't solve the engineering issue it isn't actually to bring clarity to the comment from public works or at least a large firm was that for any new water main to be owned by the city has to have an eight inch diameter then it's intended primarily to be able to provide fire flow so normal domestic flows are usually not a pressure issue as far as having people to the system it is when you have a fire flow event that you're pulling a lot of water on the system that you can get extremely high friction losses energy losses and it will affect different parts of the city in different ways if you have small lines just like a small straw and you try to suck through it it's pretty hard the larger straw it's much easier the second part of the comment was that on the private roadway it was the minimum diameter was two inch at which point then it's where our statement said it's you know well we're actually providing age it's part of the global bigger picture issue of how to ultimately complete the looping components within our national the eastern portion of the vermont national country club project so that's at least of the background in the in the character of the responsive and how far away is the highland association from where we are in regards to what the existing infrastructure is in the meantime the city has raised water tank to basically provide higher pressure levels i'm not going to try to describe  describe not going to try to describe to you how the water department manages the water levels in the tanks with regard to the existing pressure issues  that would be obviously a concern for everybody in the association and if this project just want to weigh still be the same issue only because the amount of users on this particular system is such a small percentage an increase or actual demand on the system at that particular location so that the fact that we have a this is obviously sticking without a lot of background is that if we have pressure issue well i don't have enough information to answer the question so i'm just going to leave that there's a couple of pieces of information that the long term long range plan is to extend an eight inch pipe for distribution for a much larger area than this is the start of rap so that's the intent not they remove a tree that's over two inches without approval and that would be a violation of the handbook limits i don't know enough about the handbook details to know about enforcement require them to replace it ours or do something we're not sure yet so the recourse of the neighbors would be to bring what's called a mandamus action against the city to compel compliance with the plan that's the the private recourse available in that circumstance if the city does not act on its own situation i've i think i've given you a pretty good and sucks a response as to what your remedy is there is a private remedy which if you know that it's happening you complain to there's only a min the animal report will be done by a qualified arborist who will notice that the trees are gone and ray as an enforcement action will simply say plant so you took down two years john's example took down twenty trees of ten inches that's two hundred that's two hundred inches there right twenty trees ten inches two hundred inches so you've got to plant one hundred two inch trees on your property the you know one by one his lama harder to handle than eight homeowners as you know we could if we could get an understanding with the developer that they would create an association rather than having eight arborists come out there and come up with eight different reports on eight different lots that makes very little sense right and and you can just see some guy saying oh i'm going to get full arborist who doesn't care th so if i can just jump in i never get a chance answer the question i think it is so she would be approved approach regards to the common infrastructure associated with this particular project so the answer is yes there are no documents before you right now so there are multiple associations within the robot national country club regime a master association sub so this would be a natural inclusion of a sub so she to manage the specific needs of that geographical area of the project so would you agree to do that to create an association of raising a stink on the grounds but i'm just in a perfect world i'd like to see my ability to add an addition to my home not strictly because this subdivision is going this is the first part the second part was i hadn't of of everything you've probably been through just trying to all parties trying to work something out it seems to me to do the work and the staff is serious interest of the people including the existing owners of homes and when i look at the way that number one building footprint is situated it doesn't either serve the interests of preservation of trees because that's that's one of the most wooded sections of that entire area and i can reference it's a lot higher than my house so if you're to the ground level of my house which have a back door there if you're looking out towards that imagine that you're going to have about eighteen inches to two feet of lake basement so right about where it says for hans that's that's where that house that's where the you built with that with that plan says to me is that you've chosen to situate howell's in a highly densely wooded area where you're trying to protect trees on the highest point of the land recently the houses that have gone on golf course through recently have been very much sort of like frontage were rented right as opposed to set back into the loft and no buffer between and i asked him that today i said you  land and plant some trees there because i thought the whole idea of this like a tree preservation day was to preserve trees and preserves and buffer whatever and you know i don't i don't i'm not going to quibble with them but his response was well no you can't plant trees on land that's not yours i'm like well it's not really what i'm asking what i'm asking is would you would you prove to be planting some trees and so i don't know it doesn't i mean if i were here and i  just doesn't make a lot of sense to me it doesn't seem like it was well thought out and considering and normally that would be much to quibble about but considering we went all the way to the supreme court i'd like to think that some stuff will be well thought out as  on certain envelopes as opposed to and billows that have square footage with a syrian law think i can really explain why the court didn't want to do this is the plan that they have because proposed in court the judge said ok that's the plan that they improved and now the sport is having to live with that plan number from twenty four to twenty feet if there's a mutual agreement i'm revised plan to be cemented that showed this house a little bit farther from the point of land looking at this plant right now it's not quite on the one of the land that's a little bit down but i do see your point about it being elevated from your house if the applicant wanted to move it closer to the road so that it's a little bit lower they could do that and would be pretty straightforward for the board to say yes that seems fine and approach that change i mean if you're not exactly butting up against your side if you got a lot of got a lot of space there is is there any reason that a buffer either it cooperation with the developer group maybe if you go along with it or you if it bothers you it's there's a rock wall it's like it's it's elevated right but i'm not sure for example i'm not sure exactly where that property line goes if you go back to the previous thing is is that he all right well that's that's news to me because i was in an impression that the property line is based on the way that i did jim's team or whatever he has has has tapered off you know so there's there's there's pain taking markers from time to time and they're there they've been put on the wall there and i think you've seen those rain like it's sort of like i think they're on the wall so according to that it's actually about looks like about ten feet deeper in them than the wall itself which means that i own some property on an elevation world where i can plant so what i was asking jen to day and i clients and some trees up there it looks from this survey that that is actually my land so that would help for sure but i think it makes sense for and if what you're saying is it's open is the same issue is is what is it as the way that the road is that that's very right so so i would imagine that the higher you have more the more pushed up that footprint is going to be even more likely is that there's going to be bison obviously again it's not a i don't have an objection zone building on land that he owns but obviously have a preference for not taking on trees that don't need to be taken out and not building where you need to be last and i don't know if it's in the things that it would do or sample anyway but i think it's pretty pretty basic that whole thing is just silly oh that i limited to i believe from seven am to ten pm seven days a week may have to start construction within twelve months or they have to know this is a subdivision the subdivision approval does not expire ok so it's not a p u g so there's no requirement that they have to build the first house within six months which is would be the significantly i think you can see from the plan that there is a significant grade on my driveway and so my concern is that this road is going to render it necessary for me to recreate my driveway all the way to the garage to work as we've about that same issue the fact that the applicant is committed to making sure that we can make those driveways as functional as possible with their permission and work on their land to do that we don't care that that like an accuracy in that plan because that's not why that plan as long as the tree preservation handbooks accurately reflect the current conditions so nobody is responsible for maintaining a tree that a couple of pieces of information which we typically obtain in a subdivision such as this is the budget for these three trees so that we can require as a condition that the landscaping bond for that amount be provided prior to the issuance of the permit to build the street the other piece of information is the estimated cost to construct the street and you and have that number reviewed and approved by the public works director and that number included in the decision so i don't know if we have the authority to require that information the court simply did not include that as a list of we submitted a letter and we are asking for a request for the consideration of condition number twenty five of the most recent approval and to change a shout to a then comment and it's regarding affordable housing and we had agreed the staff to end it then and when the final decision was made the text is different and so we are requesting the language we changed to say if the applicant builds more than two hundred sixty nine units then there shall be at least six affordable housing units and phase three b with no more than four units in the buildings with greater than three units this condition does not alleviate the overall responsibility of the applicant to meet the affordability mix of section eight team point zero two of the land development regulations either within  three b or within south village p u g as a whole thank you very much and so in opening it up to the board for comments let me open by saying that i don't see how we can do other than what the applicant is requesting because to do to say that we require affordable housing units before they reach the number of units that push them into requiring that doesn't seem to be legal so we have a lawyer on the board board for comments i think is problematic for this reason it seems to me the developer and i don't think it's clear cut it seems to me the developer wants to have it both ways they don't want to be constrained to build affordable housing in the in the diverse locations that we're concerned about here but they don't want to give up the right to take advantage of the bonus now i don't see how to separate the two frankly if you want to give up the but if the motive for consideration was to withdraw their request for a density bonus then i'm fine well as long as when they want to preserve that option i'm against changing the condition and if they want to appeal it we can talk in the supreme court about the the symbiotic relationship between our condition and their reserved option to  density but why would other words why would you object to this condition unless you plan and to fuck current the i believe the way that's currently written is that we're saying that there shall be six affordable housing units in three b is that correct and they don't have but they've never had to do that unless they exceed two hundred fifty not they have no we have no right to force them unless they exceed to sixty nine they have not exceeded to sixty nine and our ability to force them to build six let's say before two sixteen is nonexistent i understand why ok and so adding the language that if what i just love there i understand the argument  whether we have the  robin has been here a lot and we you know you you've talked about situations where where the order should be punitive i would happen to agree with you with that if that occurred if they got to us and came and raised came to us and said we're at to seventy have all six you know well let me as i think they could they could build them at that point they've got to build them backwards to which is kind of interesting that you have to get right don't don't don't have to be spread throughout the well that's that's the whole point so how do you so i guess i would simply say you know this is this is theirs to do they have to make it happen they have to make it happen essentially retroactively into the into the other progs pieces of the project there and if they want to if they s built or that that huge has met the following playing for diverse distribution of affordable units with the developer go along with something like that i would say that the existing condition already warrants that i'm sorry on the existing condition already borns that we may not poll more than two hundred sixty nine units worth of building permits without without work all over that without doing the one for one it's a there's a preexisting condition we can't get a two hundred seventy a building permit without i think she's a plan the first clause so after the comma it's exactly the same which which i think is robin's right for and if you read it if you simply read it after the comment it says there shall be six affordable housing units in i thought three be accomplished the spreading out in other words by limiting his the city idea was to limit their scope so three b to six wasn't that it because otherwise that was the place where look like they're all going to be condensed wasn't there any issue yes you're right if you were if you kept going it was the concern was that that was the concern that they were that everything would be crowded into three be right most of the conditions at least six but not the condition i thought the that there was one section of the plane where we were concerned everything was going to be all the affordable units would be crowded today or if we didn't do something about requiring dispersal the board wanted hazy unfortunately i need to see the point again to remember what we did with it so i think the bottom line is do you want to reopen or not and i think that's the start of getting your kind of getting into the the merits of the thing we're now we're just we're just being asked to open it or not opening so to we consider for later on we make it we can make a motion i would make a motion that we reopen consideration of that's the seventeen eighteen waivers that have been granted for phase one in place to be applied to face three and there's quite a shopping list of them and somehow one of them got left out and that is a site card set back to five feet for single family duplex  uses in the south section of the building such tat eleven thousand four hundred square feet are medical offices here should be that yes thank you thank you